Bibliography
Download 0,55 Mb.
|
|
Currently we do not have computer services available specifically for disabled students. Many of the computers we have available are for learning disabled as well as other students. Currently our computer services staff are excellent in providing services to all students enrolled at the college - Visually impaired students have graduated with an AA degree in Computer Science because of accommodations being made on an individual basis. I am unaware of special learning disabled packages - Would you please give me the name/address of where these may be purchased? I don't believe the answer lies in the equipment needs - our students with disabilities have been successful because of caring persons in services and programs. Did not consider people with hearing impairments (use of real time captioning or TDD modems). Disabled students have access to the same computer use as all students we are working toward adaptive equipment for vision impaired & learning disabled students. Disabled students should be encouraged to mainstream. Special disabled lab should only be used if student is too self-conscious or humiliated by others. Due to individual differences, any adaptive equipment is reviewed on an as-needed basis. We have not yet been presented with needing to purchase extensive equipment...made it extremely difficult to answer these questions! Electronic resources are an enormous help in enabling students who are impaired in some way. Employee trained with State of * Chancellor's Office High Tech Training Unit Funding, avoiding over-support at the expense of non-disabled students, and making appropriate facilities available which can be accessed when the student has successfully graduated. Given the proper environment as well as adaptive technology, disabled students can succeed in any academic as well as work environment. Good questions, but what about acquired brain injuries? Also, cost & space issues are problematic as well as replacement & updating costs of hardware & software. Has not been an issue until this year - 2 legally blind students - we got a V-Tech & software program print enlarger - Things seem ok thus far. Have you see the second edition of Computers and Students with Disabilities: New Challenges for Higher Education from EDUCOM (202-872-4200)? Many of our students (with and without disabilities) provide their own equipment in addition to campus facilities. We have no requests to date for specific disabilities. We are preparing and circulating information and trying to gain insight. Limited funds are available but so far not positioned. Historically, this campus has not viewed the adaptive needs of students with disabilities as a campus community responsibility, but rather a Federal and State funding obligation. How & where to provide them - knowing what is available. How do you balance the rights of a student quad. - who takes 3-4 hours to do math tests - with rights of other students to use computer computer lab open limited # of hours?. Quad. has own equipment at home - could work there - but needs social interaction in computer lab? Also, test security issue? I am very interested in developing a program for the disabled. Please forward any information at your disposal. I am not sure about the use of computers with handicapped students. I know they can assist students learn but I don't know about the personal needs that may be abandoned if we introduced computerized instruction. I am a mobility impaired individual employed as the University's Microcomputer Consultant for Apple & Macintosh. I am new as director of HS at * and the mood I get from students is about 1/2 want computers available & 1/2 could care less if they are made available in either special or integrated settings. I am the Coordinator of Disabled Student Services for our college. Although my computer skills are very weak, we have four specialists (learning disabled, Speech-Language specialists, Physical disabilities) as well as a coordinator of Adapted Computer Studies whose skill levels are very high. I believe the computing services for the disabled student are needed. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of these responses. We rely on government agencies to assist students in acquiring special equipment, therefore it is not know exactly what is available especially if we have not had students with particular needs. I cannot adequately address the questions because data are not kept on students with disabilities. I consider this area vital for the success of disabled students. Overcoming fear of the computer and emphasis on practical use are important issues. I did not complete this survey because we are a new institution and as yet we have not needed to provide computer services for disabled students. I don't believe in using separate facilities for disabled. I believe they feel better when they are in the mainstream. Our Student Services is what we have on campus, not a specific disabled office. I only coordinate the services for the learning disabled college students. I provide a special Macintosh lab for learning disabled students to include training and selection of software/equipment for some. I recently took a graduate level research class & I think this survey should be much shorter. Do you really need all this information to support your hypothesis? GOOD LUCK. I stopped completing the survey - there should be a question to indicate - is the overall question of services for disabled students being addressed - it is not being addressed here. I'm sure that at some point we will have to provide this equipment for students. Our size is a big factor in it not yet becoming a big issue. I'm the Coordinator for the entire program. We have a High Tech Center Specialist. We have an extremely viable HTC. We put it as a high priority among all our services and our is goal is to have all our students with disabilities feel comfortable in using the assistive devices needed for their particular disability. If our office didn't provide so much reading and typing assistance to students, they would probably become more skilled and independent on computers. For example, we have a voice recognition program that few students want to take time to learn. If you didn't receive the first one, please accept my apology. I've been in your shoes...Good Luck! In small, private schools where much success of all students depends on interpersonal contacts and relationships, technical accommodations are not the high priority. In the past, we had a SS restricted to a wheelchair. Table heights were adjusted to allow access. We do not currently have students who need special adaptive equipment - thus, none has been purchased. Individual students are provided equipment directly by DVR (state division) Information not fully available at this time. Is is critical to understand that there is no correct "formula" to providing computer access to disabled students. It is the wave of the future (or the present for that matter). The disabled students will have to self-advocate a whole lot more than they have thus far to make strides in this area. Learning disabled must have additional instruction besides computer, i.e. English/Math. Many of the students who are learning disabled or visually impaired have their own computers in their residences. Most of our students are learning disabled and we have not considered getting computers to meet their needs. Our visually-impaired students do well with what we have and so do the mobility-impaired. More software for learning disabled students would be helpful. Needs vast improvement NONE APPLY No opinion None of these apply. Not left at school. Note: we have a lot of equipment on campus - now it's a matter of getting it set up. Our apologies in returning this form so late. Our experiences have been primarily with wheelchair students. Tables are elevated to allow access. Our university does not have an Office for Disabled Student Services -special needs are reported to the Affirmative Action Office. Our Learning Assistance Center (which includes 504 services) is wholly committed to providing these services and to building the best service possible for our campus. Our institution is VERY concerned about making all our facilities available to the wheelchair student, other disabilities have not been an issue at this time. Our University is in the process of looking at basic services for disabled students on campus. We do not, at this time, have an office for disabled student services, nor do we have special computing services for them. Our institution works very hard to ensure we meet the needs of all students. Our computer services for disabled students are very limited, however, I expect some improvement in the future. Our campus has no systematic services for adaptive computers for use by disabled students. Needs are met on a case-by-case basis. Some help is available through student support services, a Title IV grant from the federal government. Our disability specialist and library media specialist work with a consultant to get information for equipment ordering, along with student input. Our campus has a Technology Access for Life Needs (TALN) Office. Personally, I believe that computer access should be a mandatory support service available on all college campuses. Poorly designed survey - biased toward large institutions & designed to give data that's influenced by social & legislative expectations. Post-secondary education should stress the importance of "Central Computing Services" providing "students" with access to computers, not special service offices (i.e., Disability Services). Presently disabled students utilize computers located in the Office for the Department of Handicapped Services. In general, Mac Lab software to enlarge characters is hardly used, if at all. Presently, most equipment & software is accessible to students. We are in need of a large print monitor software program which we are exploring. Print was too difficult to read - too small. Questions answered refer only to students with learning disabilities. Other disabilities (mobility, etc.) adhere to federal guidelines. Services either minimal OR I am too 'new' to know where they are. Since we are primarily an engineering and science - ordered university with selective admissions, disabled students are very skilled in using computers, with rare exceptions. Our most interesting and difficult problem involves the introduction of RISC - based workstations on our campus, operating under UNIX. There appears to be little adaptive hardware and software currently available for this new generation of equipment. Sorry I have no knowledge of this; do not work with disabled students directly. Space considerations add to barriers. All these services are new and should expand dramatically in the next year. College commitment beyond April or June of 1993 is unknown. Special courses offered instructing disabled students in using their particular adaptive tech. Students are reluctant to put in the extra time to learn adaptive computing since many work and/or have families. Students don't seem to want to use our Enhanced Computer Lab to its fullest. We need to do more group work & support, but we're also dealing with a larger issue of student apathy. Student, Vocational Rehabilitation or business has provided individual student needs thus far. No available, permanent computer access, open lab at this time. Students need to arrive with computing skills; the University should NOT be the first place they're exposed, but very often it is. They're too busy with classes to really have time to develop any expertise. Technologically, we are behind the times in providing these services to students. Tech is so specialized & changing - NOT sure of what will meet the students' needs. DVR assists majority of students. & tech is provided for "employment" The majority of our disabled students require special access; Computer Lab is easily accessible to all students. The special needs program has had a computer tutor. However, funding problems have eliminated that for now. The university needs but does not have a Disabled Students Services Program. We provide accommodations to students through our Student Support Services office. There is a great amount of misinformation or lack of awareness regarding computing support for disabled at the present. The College makes every attempt to accommodate any and all individuals that might have special needs. The faculty with disabled students make a conscious effort so that their disabled students will not be at a disadvantage. The faculty make sure that the proper staff are notified. The individual responsible for stocking, scheduling, and supervising instructional computer labs should be held responsible for access. They need to know what adaptive equipment and software is available and compatible with the existing labs. Note #7 and 8 Special Services purchases what the lab coordinator says we need, but the "computer people" (staff) avoid the responsibility of learning to use, let alone training students to use the adaptive hard/software. I am interested in knowing what kind of approaches are being used elsewhere. My card is enclosed. There are no adaptive computer services for students with disabilities. The campus has established this program as a permanent program. With funding external to computing services, it doesn't have to compete for resources within its own department Additionally, the program supports faculty and staff with disabilities. The greatest problem has been trying to get students involved - they refuse to even try the machines we have bought so no purchases have been made for about two years. Efforts to involve them have also failed. They are stuck on complaining but will not help solve problems. The only disabled are learning disabled These responses are guesses. The reason I haven't answered before is that the questionnaire is not applicable for our school. We have students with learning disabilities but no students at this time that need adaptive computer equipment. This is a very frustrating questionnaire - since we've so far had no experience with this. This survey has made me more aware of possibilities. The problem has been time. If the college had a full or even PT person, there would be perhaps time to become more involved in computer assisted tech. I'm a volunteer who supports students with disabilities in addition to my reg. job - reading instructor... This was a hard questionnaire to answer since we simply take each student situation as unique and solve it. Your suggestions seemed more designed for an institution with a "program" rather than ad hoc as we are. This is something we don't do much of as an institution - students generally use their own equipment, or that in place for any students in the college...we occasionally buy special software on a very individualized basis - You've given me some ideas. This survey is too difficult. This survey is hard to follow. I do not have the patience to fill out a form that I cannot read. To date, our handicapped students have been students with wheelchairs - they can use computers as they are. University does not have a DDS office. Limited assistance available thru a federally funded TRIO grant - Student Support Services. Varied needs, changing tech. & space for use are involved factors. We do not have a specific computer service for disabled students. Some also make use of computers in our Skills Center & Computer Center. We have an innovative program here as *. I am enclosing my card if you would like to discuss our programs. My dissertation topic was based on the program I designed and implemented here. I have data related specifically to the first two years of operation. I'm sorry that this material was delayed. We are a small institution. We have purchased some equipment to assist hearing/visually, physically, & learning disabled (handicapped) students. Our Learning Disabled students currently us an a VT system. We have purchased 4 interactive video machine and software but additional purchases have been slowed down due to the fast changing technology & prices and in incapability of some software with the rapidly changing hardware. We have a Kurzweil reader, but individual computers are supplied by OVR if needed. We do not advertise services to learning disabled students - tutoring assistance & test taking alternatives only. We represent Student Support Services, a federal TRIO program. Monies (some) are allotted to purchase of software and equipment. The * Department for the Visually Handicapped has supported our computer needs (software & equipment). We have adaptive computer equipment in our office as well as in the library. Students with disabilities receive our assistance without question. We have tried to provide on our campus what students have needed - our experience with pro-active efforts has been lack of use by students when the equipment, etc. was not requested. We have a large group of students, but rarely educate students with other exceptionalities. We have computers for students, but have no special program software or adaptations. We are not making available computers - just moving into computerization. We have labs with easy access (no steps) & adjustable height workstations. We have had no requests for specialized equipment although I know where to obtain it, if necessary. We have a brand new ODS with a brand new coordinator (me). I hope to develop a computer system on this campus for students with disabilities. We provide minimal services to any student, so the virtual lack of disabled students isn't particular to them. We are at beginning stages for providing computer services for the visually impaired, starting with the coordinator of disabled student services who is visually impaired. We follow our academic model, meaning our courses are held to some academic standard or all other classes at *. We do not currently have any disabled students using computing services We have no Office of Disabled Students We don't have any I could determine. We have 2000 students and a "mere" handful have disabilities. The effort we would have to go through to accurately complete the survey would far exceed the value of "one more response" to you. We're a community college + provide whatever adaptive equipment we can for our students. We work with Vocational Rehabilitation, Division for Fund, Interpreters, etc. We're developing this component. We'll train in the OSD but then have most equipment in regular lab eventually except high cost items (voice synthesis,.Braille printer, ..) that would be costly to duplicate. We're using the Kurzweil PCKPR's & have modified the software for a more satisfactory response. We've come a long way - but there's a long way to go!! We assume most students know how to use the computer adaptive stations, therefore give limited training. Students themselves are fairly apathetic. What kind of computing services are you speaking of? Do you mean "computing" or "computer" services? We offer support services for students with disabilities; however, we do not have anything titled "computing services". Please explain. (enclosed, please find brochure) While we have adaptive equipment available & someone who can train the students - I feel that many of our students with disabilities. aren't making use of the technology because of the time involved in learning the equipment. Will increase services as disabled persons become aware of their rights. With changes in the law, you should more precisely define "disabilities". This survey does not take into account "wishful thinking" & "desire for positive appearance" on the part of respondents. Someone with a disability might provide a different perspective. Word processing helps any student especially learning disabled students to cope with college term papers. Colored plastic sheets over screens help learning disabled students to clarify text.
Table 58. Multivariate Analysis of Variance - Level of Involvement of Organizational Units in the Selection of Computing Services Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample
V15 Selection: Office of Disabled Student Services 3.541 1.635 732 V16 Selection: Central Computing Services 2.549 1.475 732 V17 Selection: Departmental Computing Services 2.145 1.296 732 V18 Selection: Faculty 2.210 1.263 732 V19 Selection: Library Services 1.989 1.177 732 V20 Selection: Government Agencies 2.000 1.361 732 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V14 1.433 V15 .557 1.635 V16 .206 .255 1.475 V17 .245 .207 .423 1.296 V18 .287 .207 .268 .535 1.263 V19 .173 .187 .289 .324 .353 1.177 V20 .342 .280 .122 .225 .257 .255 1.361 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated) Log(Determinant) = -1.44503 Bartlett test of sphericity = 1051.73999 with 21 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .89472 880.20900 7 725 .000 Table 59. Multivariate Analysis of Variance - Level of Involvement of Organizational Units in Funding Computing Services Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V29 Funding: Disabled Students 1.290 764.000 727 V30 Funding: Office of Disabled Student Services 2.443 1.552 727 V31 Funding: Central Computing 1.747 1.222 727 V32 Funding: Government Agencies 1.992 1.376 727 V33 Funding: Private Donors 1.371 .776 727 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V29 .764 V30 -.014 1.552 V31 .040 -.093 1.222 V32 .131 .146 .018 1.376 V33 .159 .163 .157 .176 .776 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated) Log(Determinant) = -.15315 Bartlett test of sphericity = 110.80460 with 10 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .90451 1367.74754 5 722 .000 Table 60. Multivariate Analysis of Variance - Level of Involvement of Organizational Units in the Management of Computing Services Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V22 Management: Disabled Students 2.349 1.432 762 V23 Management: Office of Disabled Student Services 3.039 1.685 762 V24 Management: Central Computing Services 2.320 1.470 762 V25 Management: Departmental Computing Services 2.009 1.295 762 V26 Management: Library Services 1.762 1.115 762 V27 Management: Government Agencies 1.419 .915 762 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal
V23 .506 1.685 V24 .161 .123 1.470 V25 .219 .139 .396 1.295 V26 .129 .132 .292 .309 1.115 V27 .269 .174 .108 .183 .266 .915 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated)
Bartlett test of sphericity = 615.65463 with 15 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F 8238.00000 945.27252 6 756 .000 Table 61. Three-Way Analysis of Variance - Level of Involvement of Organizational Units in the Selection of Computing Services Subtable 61a: Selection: Disabled Students by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 2.89
(994) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 3.01 2.78 (496) (498)
2.97 2.64 (759) (235)
2.66 3.02 3.17 3.35 3.20 (510) (204) (108) (69) (103)
Institution Type 10.753 1 10.753 5.379 .021 Funding Source .002 1 .002 .001 .978 Total Enrollment 56.168 4 14.042 7.025 .000 2-Way Interactions 37.041 9 4.116 2.059 .031 IT FS 1.780 1 1.780 .890 .346 IT TE 24.923 4 6.231 3.117 .015 FS TE 20.350 4 5.087 2.545 .038 3-Way Interactions 1.827 2 .913 .457 .633 IT FS TE 1.827 2 .913 .457 .633 Explained 116.960 17 6.880 3.442 .000 Residual 1950.949 976 1.999 Total 2067.908 993 2.082
Two-Year 2.78 3.32 3.14 3.17 3.31 (259) (111) (57) (30) (39) Four-Year 2.54 2.68 3.20 3.49 3.14 (251) (93) (51) (39) (64)
Public 2.69 3.03 3.27 3.41 3.21 (321) (180) (98) (64) (96)
(189) (24) (10) (5) (7) Subtable 61b. Selection: Office of Disabled Student Services by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment
3.63
(940) Institution Type Two-Year Four-year 4.00 3.24 (478) (462)
3.89 2.63 (741) (199)
3.10 3.85 4.22 4.21 4.50 (455) (203) (111) (70) (101)
Institution Type 64.472 1 64.472 32.250 .000 Funding Source 35.370 1 35.370 17.693 .000 Total Enrollment 196.552 4 49.138 24.579 .00 2-Way Interactions 23.453 9 2.606 1.304 .231 IT FS .716 1 .716 .358 .550 IT TE 2.068 4 .517 .259 .904 FS TE 21.237 4 5.309 2.656 .032 3-Way Interactions 2.025 2 1.013 .507 .603 IT FS TE 2.025 2 1.013 .507 .603 Explained 496.952 17 29.232 14.622 .00 Residual 1843.235 922 1.999 Total 2340.187 939 2.492 Significant Two-Way Interaction Total Enrollment 1001- 5001- 10,001- 15,001- 20,000- Funding Source Public 3.44 3.92 4.37 4.34 4.47 (300) (181) (101) (65) (94)
(155) (22) (10) (5) (7) Subtable 61c. Selection: Central Computing Services by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 2.73
(931) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.59 2.86 (457) (474)
2.68 2.91 (706) (225)
2.68 2.62 3.02 2.86 2.79 (467) (196) (105) (66) (97)
Institution Type 5.842 1 5.842 2.636 .105 Funding Source 3.669 1 3.669 1.656 .199 Total Enrollment 15.513 4 3.878 1.750 .137 2-Way Interactions 28.455 9 3.162 1.427 .172 IT FS 1.544 1 1.544 .697 .404 IT TE 3.790 4 .948 .428 .789 FS TE 19.913 4 4.978 2.246 .062 3-Way Interactions 7.054 2 3.527 1.591 .204 IT FS TE 7.054 2 3.527 1.591 .204 Explained 69.473 17 4.087 1.844 .020 Residual 2023.394 913 2.216 Total 2092.868 930 2.250
2.29
(850) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.50 2.07 (421) (429)
2.34 2.10 (654) (196)
2.29 2.21 2.43 2.48 2.16 (420) (186) (94) (56) (94)
Institution Type 101.651 1 101.651 63.113 .000 Funding Source 5.173 1 5.173 3.212 .073 Total Enrollment 5.804 4 1.451 .901 .463 2-Way Interactions 20.306 9 2.256 1.401 .183 IT FS 7.152 1 7.152 4.441 .035 IT TE 6.441 4 1.610 1.000 .407 FS TE 5.803 4 1.451 .901 .463 3-Way Interactions 1.882 2 .941 .584 .558 IT FS TE 1.882 2 .941 .584 .558 Explained 145.654 17 8.568 5.320 .000 Residual 1456.000 904 1.611 Total 1601.654 921 1.739
2.14
(917) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.07 2.21 (457) (460)
2.15 2.13 (704) (213)
2.11 2.13 1.90 2.32 2.46 (468) (189) (101) (66) (93)
Institution Type 3.940 1 3.940 2.518 .113 Funding Source .967 1 .967 .618 .432 Total Enrollment 15.008 4 3.752 2.398 .049 2-Way Interactions 16.644 9 1.849 1.182 .303 IT FS 4.568 1 4.568 2.919 .088 IT TE 5.984 4 1.496 .956 .431 FS TE 6.565 4 1.641 1.049 .381 3-Way Interactions 1.747 2 .873 .558 .572 IT FS TE 1.747 2 .873 .558 .572 Explained 40.203 17 2.365 1.511 .083 Residual 1406.795 899 1.565 Total 1446.999 916 1.580
Cell Means (N) Total Population 2.09
(852) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.42 1.76 (432) (420)
2.23 1.63 (656) (196)
2.05 2.25 2.14 2.24 1.84 (432) (177) ( 96) ( 59) ( 88)
Institution Type 41.127 1 41.127 22.122 .000 Funding Source 7.799 1 7.799 4.195 .041 Total Enrollment 6.649 4 1.662 .894 .467 2-Way Interactions 8.666 9 .963 .518 .862 IT FS 1.928 1 1.928 1.037 .309 IT TE 3.056 4 .764 .411 .801 FS TE 2.882 4 .721 .388 .818 3-Way Interactions 3.458 1 3.458 1.860 .173 IT FS TE 3.458 1 3.458 1.860 .173 Explained 120.113 16 7.507 4.038 .000 Residual 1552.375 835 1.859 Total 1672.488 851 1.965
2.09
(852) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.42 1.76 (432) (420)
2.23 1.63 (656) (196)
2.05 2.25 2.14 2.24 1.84 (432) (177) ( 96) ( 59) ( 88)
Institution Type 41.127 1 41.127 22.122 .000 Funding Source 7.799 1 7.799 4.195 .041 Total Enrollment 6.649 4 1.662 .894 .467 2-Way Interactions 8.666 9 .963 .518 .862 IT FS 1.928 1 1.928 1.037 .309 IT TE 3.056 4 .764 .411 .801 FS TE 2.882 4 .721 .388 .818 3-Way Interactions 3.458 1 3.458 1.860 .173 IT FS TE 3.458 1 3.458 1.860 .173 Explained 120.113 16 7.507 4.038 .000 Residual 1552.375 835 1.859 Total 1672.488 851 1.965
2.39
(992) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.73 2.04 (466) (456)
2.44 2.24 (710) (212)
2.48 2.30 2.28 2.46 2.23 (469) (195) (103) (63) (92)
Institution Type 101.651 1 101.651 63.113 .000 Funding Source 5.173 1 5.173 3.212 .073 Total Enrollment 5.804 4 1.451 .901 .463 2-Way Interactions 20.306 9 2.256 1.401 .183 IT FS 7.152 1 7.152 4.441 .035 IT TE 6.441 4 1.610 1.000 .407 FS TE 5.803 4 1.451 .901 .463 3-Way Interactions 1.882 2 .941 .584 .558 IT FS TE 1.882 2 .941 .584 .558 Explained 145.654 17 8.568 5.320 .000 Residual 1456.000 904 1.611 Total 1601.654 921 1.739 Significant Two-way Interaction Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 2.70 3.69 (453) (13)
(257) (199) Subtable 62b. Funding: Office of Disabled Student Services by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 2.57
(889) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 3.01 2.14 (443) (446)
2.79 1.79 (695) (194)
2.13 2.78 3.00 3.24 3.19 (432) (189) (106) (66) (96)
Institution Type 114.656 1 114.656 57.428 .000 Funding Source 3.627 1 3.627 1.817 .178 Total Enrollment 148.220 4 37.055 18.560 .000 2-Way Interactions 33.257 9 3.695 1.851 .056 IT FS 7.307 1 7.307 3.660 .056 IT TE 3.827 4 .957 .479 .751 FS TE 22.288 4 5.572 2.791 .025 3-Way Interactions 5.364 2 2.682 1.343 .262 IT FS TE 5.364 2 2.682 1.343 .262 Explained 402.745 17 23.691 11.866 .000 Residual 1738.969 871 1.997 Total 2141.714 888 2.412 Significant Two-way Interaction Total Enrollment 1001- 5001- 10,001- 15,001- 20,000- Funding Source Public 2.43 2.83 3.10 3.31 3.11 (279) (168) (98) (61) (89)
(153) (21) (8) (5) (7) Subtable 62c. Funding: Central Computing by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 1.88
(840) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 1.69 2.07 (407) (433)
1.83 2.06 (636) (204)
1.83 1.79 2.02 2.05 2.10 (420) (178) (95) (61) (86)
Institution Type 15.625 1 15.625 9.419 .002 Funding Source 1.109 1 1.109 .669 .414 Total Enrollment 9.913 4 2.478 1.494 .202 2-Way Interactions 18.498 9 2.055 1.239 .267 IT FS .859 1 .859 .518 .472 IT TE 4.066 4 1.016 .613 .654 FS TE 14.003 4 3.501 2.110 .078 3-Way Interactions 5.217 2 2.608 1.572 .208 IT FS TE 5.217 2 2.608 1.572 .208 Explained 64.149 17 3.773 2.275 .002 Residual 1363.649 822 1.659 Total 1427.799 839 1.702
2.18
(868) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.59 1.78 (433) (435)
2.37 1.55 (668) (200)
2.15 2.37 2.33 2.11 1.81 (446) (186) ( 96) (56) (84)
Institution Type 48.764 1 48.764 25.957 .000 Funding Source 28.686 1 28.686 15.269 .000 Total Enrollment 13.438 4 3.359 1.788 .129 2-Way Interactions 11.116 9 1.235 .657 .748 IT FS 4.183 1 4.183 2.226 .136 IT TE 1.933 4 .483 .257 .905 FS TE 3.167 4 .792 .421 .793 3-Way Interactions 7.470 2 3.735 1.988 .138 IT FS TE 7.470 2 3.735 1.988 .138 Explained 201.007 17 11.824 6.294 .000 Residual 1596.868 850 1.879 Total 1797.874 867 2.074
1.44
(816) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 1.47 1.41 (394) (422)
1.44 1.43 (620) (196)
1.34 1.44 1.56 1.61 1.70 (413) (171) ( 89) (59) (84)
Institution Type 3.558 1 3.558 5.270 .022 Funding Source 3.665 1 3.665 5.429 .020 Total Enrollment 17.143 4 4.286 6.348 .000 2-Way Interactions 8.999 9 1.000 1.481 .150 IT FS .630 1 .630 .933 .334 IT TE 2.229 4 .557 .825 .509 FS TE 5.352 4 1.338 1.982 .095 3-Way Interactions 1.356 2 .678 1.004 .367 IT FS TE 1.356 2 .678 1.004 .367 Explained 28.289 17 1.664 2.465 .001 Residual 538.768 798 .675 Total 567.058 815 .696
2.49
(936) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.67 2.30 (472) (464)
2.57 2.21 (722) (214)
2.36 2.51 2.63 2.82 2.65 (473) (195) (103) (65) (100)
Institution Type 21.999 1 21.999 10.396 .001 Funding Source .250 1 .250 .118 .731 Total Enrollment 17.554 4 4.388 2.074 .082 2-Way Interactions 18.814 9 2.090 .988 .448 IT FS 1.761 1 1.761 .832 .362 IT TE 13.803 4 3.451 1.631 .164 FS TE 5.340 4 1.335 .631 .641 3-Way Interactions .982 2 .491 .232 .793 IT FS TE .982 2 .491 .232 .793 Explained 73.197 17 4.306 2.035 .008 Residual 1942.623 918 2.116 Total 2015.819 935 2.156
3.13
(913) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 3.57 2.68 (461) (452)
3.40 2.10 (719) (194)
2.63 3.28 3.71 3.78 3.90 (436) (201) (108) (67) (101)
IT 90.674 1 90.674 40.431 .000 Funding Source 32.281 1 32.281 14.394 .000 Total Enrollment 169.646 4 42.411 18.911 .000 2-Way Interactions 26.238 9 2.915 1.300 .233 IT FS 4.123 1 4.123 1.838 .175 IT TE 5.639 4 1.410 .629 .642 FS TE 16.823 4 4.206 1.875 .113 3-Way Interactions 1.159 2 .579 .258 .772 IT FS TE 1.159 2 .579 .258 .772 Explained 502.055 17 29.533 13.168 .000 Residual 2007.207 895 2.243 Total 2509.262 912 2.751
2.45
(902) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.29 2.61 (441) (461)
2.40 2.62 (686) (216)
2.41 2.31 2.60 2.63 2.70 (452) (189) (99) (65) (97)
Institution Type 10.241 1 10.241 4.629 .032 Funding Source 1.534 1 1.534 .693 .405 Total Enrollment 14.186 4 3.546 1.603 .171 2-Way Interactions 25.730 9 2.859 1.292 .237 IT FS .126 1 .126 .057 .812 IT TE 7.688 4 1.922 .869 .482 FS TE 15.863 4 3.966 1.792 .128 3-Way Interactions 2.252 1 2.252 1.018 .313 IT FS TE 2.252 1 2.252 1.018 .313 Explained 65.575 16 4.098 1.852 .021 Residual 1958.061 885 2.212 Total 2023.636 901 2.246
2.12
(860) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.37 1.86 (429) (431)
2.18 1.88 (666) (194)
2.10 2.11 2.16 2.20 2.07 (426) (183) (97) (60) (94)
Institution Type 40.601 1 40.601 23.053 .000 Funding Source .030 1 .030 .017 .896 Total Enrollment .944 4 .236 .134 .970 2-Way Interactions 13.960 9 1.551 .881 .542 IT FS .885 1 .885 .502 .479 IT TE 6.862 4 1.715 .974 .421 FS TE 5.692 4 1.423 .808 .520 3-Way Interactions 1.136 1 1.136 .645 .422 IT FS TE 1.136 1 1.136 .645 .422 Explained 70.913 16 4.432 2.517 .001 Residual 1484.690 843 1.761 Total 1555.603 859 1.811
1.89
(886) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 1.76 2.02 (436) (450)
1.90 1.86 (681) (205)
1.81 1.90 1.79 2.06 2.24 (446) (184) (97) (65) (94)
Institution Type 14.253 1 14.253 9.953 .002 Funding Source 2.802 1 2.802 1.956 .162 Total Enrollment 10.141 4 2.535 1.770 .133 2-Way Interactions 12.267 9 1.363 .952 .479 IT FS 1.073 1 1.073 .749 .387 IT TE 6.960 4 1.740 1.215 .303 FS TE 5.897 4 1.474 1.029 .391 3-Way Interactions .199 1 .199 .139 .710 IT FS TE .199 1 .199 .139 .710 Explained 44.289 16 2.768 1.933 .015 Residual 1244.525 869 1.432 Total 1288.814 885 1.456
1.47
(836) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 1.62 1.32 (420) (416)
1.52 1.30 (645) (191)
1.56 1.42 1.39 1.46 1.25 (420) (170) ( 96) (61) (89)
Institution Type 6.530 1 6.530 6.891 .009 Funding Source 3.318 1 3.318 3.501 .062 Total Enrollment 11.255 4 2.814 2.969 .019 2-Way Interactions 5.604 9 .623 .657 .748 IT FS 2.300 1 2.300 2.427 .120 IT TE 1.734 4 .434 .457 .767 FS TE .947 4 .237 .250 .910 3-Way Interactions .633 1 .633 .668 .414 IT FS TE .633 1 .633 .668 .414 Explained 36.282 16 2.268 2.393 .002 Residual 776.139 819 .948 Total 812.421 835 .973
3.96
(667) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 5.09 3.02 (303) (364)
4.95 1.87 (453) (214)
2.43 4.60 6.48 6.62 8.67 (390) (121) ( 69) (32) (55)
Institution Type 202.743 1 202.743 17.550 .000 Funding Source 65.113 1 65.113 5.636 .018 Total Enrollment 2054.591 4 513.648 44.463 .000 2-Way Interactions 139.398 9 15.489 1.341 .212 IT FS .836 1 .836 .072 .788 IT TE 50.415 4 12.604 1.091 .360 FS TE 58.868 4 14.717 1.274 .279 3-Way Interactions 5.855 1 5.855 .507 .477 IT FS TE 5.855 1 5.855 .507 .477 Explained 3616.052 16 226.003 19.564 .000 Residual 7508.935 650 11.552 Total 11124.987 666 16.704
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V61 desirable: residence use 3.250 1.400 919 V62 desirable: special facility 2.908 1.460 919 V63 desirable: facilities with others 4.518 .857 919 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal V61 V62 V63 V61 1.400 V62 .039 1.460 V63 -.026 -.242 .857 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated) Log(Determinant) = -.06225 Bartlett test of sphericity = 57.02730 with 3 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .97814 13660.5369 3 916 .000 Table 66. Three-Way Analysis of Variance - Desirability of Various Locations for Placing Adaptive Technology Subtable 66a. Desirable: Residence Use by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 3.25
(952) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 3.23 3.27 (468) (484)
3.17 3.50 (718) (234)
3.43 3.20 2.86 3.12 2.92 (490) (198) ( 99) (67) (98)
Institution Type .501 1 .501 .257 .612 Funding Source 6.563 1 6.563 3.371 .067 Total Enrollment 27.593 4 6.898 3.543 .007 2-Way Interactions 23.422 9 2.602 1.336 .214 IT FS .331 1 .331 .170 .680 IT TE 14.181 4 3.545 1.821 .123 FS TE 6.481 4 1.620 .832 .505 3-Way Interactions 1.347 2 .673 .346 .708 IT FS TE 1.347 2 .673 .346 .708 Explained 75.796 17 4.459 2.290 .002 Residual 1818.704 934 1.947 Total 1894.500 951 1.992
2.94
(954) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.98 2.90 (467) (487)
3.01 2.71 (726) (228)
2.67 3.13 3.20 3.17 3.43 (485) (199) (107) (63) (100)
Institution Type 1.180 1 1.180 .569 .451 Funding Source .117 1 .117 .057 .812 Total Enrollment 63.058 4 15.764 7.600 .000 2-Way Interactions 15.152 9 1.684 .812 .606 IT FS .055 1 .055 .026 .871 IT TE 6.385 4 1.596 .770 .545 FS TE 7.002 4 1.750 .844 .497 3-Way Interactions 4.612 2 2.306 1.112 .329 IT FS TE 4.612 2 2.306 1.112 .329 Explained 98.787 17 5.811 2.802 .000 Residual 1941.440 936 2.074 Total 2040.226 953 2.141
4.53
(997) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.62 4.45 (494) (503)
4.59 4.36 (758) (239)
4.46 4.55 4.71 4.67 4.60 (512) (206) (112) (67) (100)
Institution Type 2.774 1 2.774 4.039 .045 Funding Source 1.446 1 1.446 2.105 .147 Total Enrollment 5.787 4 1.447 2.106 .078 2-Way Interactions 6.340 9 .704 1.026 .417 IT FS 3.547 1 3.547 5.164 .023 IT TE .736 4 .184 .268 .899 FS TE 2.155 4 .539 .784 .535 3-Way Interactions .118 2 .059 .086 .917 IT FS TE .118 2 .059 .086 .917 Explained 23.719 17 1.395 2.031 .008 Residual 672.405 979 .687 Total 696.124 996 .699
Significant Two-Way Interaction Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 4.61 4.93 (480) (14)
(278) (225) Table 67. Multivariate Analysis of Variance - Perceived Level of Significance of Barriers to Providing Computing Services to Disabled Students Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V64 Barrier: Funding 4.280 1.055 917 V65 Barrier: Coordination between Units 2.543 1.299 917 V66 Barrier: Admin Commitment 2.626 1.329 917 V67 Barrier: Committee 2.723 1.391 917 V68 Barrier: Interest Disabled Students 2.396 1.301 917 V69 Barrier: Expertise 2.779 1.387 917 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal
V65 .184 1.299 V66 .231 .472 1.329 V67 .188 .444 .524 1.391 V68 .087 .203 .252 .272 1.301 V69 .143 .321 .301 .420 .347 1.387 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated)
Bartlett test of sphericity = 1005.09511 with 15 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .95320 3092.63631 6 911 .000 Table 68. Three-way Analysis of Variance - Perceived Level of Significance of Barriers to Providing Computing Services to Disabled Students Subtable 68a. Barrier: Funding by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 4.29
(1060) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.32 4.27 (511) (549)
4.34 4.16 (786) (274)
4.27 4.32 4.45 4.24 4.20 (556) (222) (112) (67) (103)
Institution Type .687 1 .687 .622 .430 Funding Source 6.756 1 6.756 6.123 .014 Total Enrollment 4.270 4 1.067 .967 .424 2-Way Interactions 13.270 9 1.474 1.336 .213 IT FS .391 1 .391 .354 .552 IT TE 4.122 4 1.030 .934 .443 FS TE 8.157 4 2.039 1.848 .117 3-Way Interactions .598 2 .299 .271 .763 IT FS TE .598 2 .299 .271 .763 Explained 25.172 17 1.481 1.342 .158 Residual 1149.752 1042 1.103 Total 1174.924 1059 1.109
2.54
(1000) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.57 2.51 (488) (512)
2.64 2.25 (750) (250)
2.38 2.64 2.66 2.79 2.88 (516) (210) (110) (67) (97)
Institution Type .750 1 .750 .460 .498 Funding Source 12.576 1 12.576 7.704 .006 Total Enrollment 15.092 4 3.773 2.311 .056 2-Way Interactions 23.371 9 2.597 1.591 .113 V2 FS .294 1 .294 .180 .671 V2 TE 15.007 4 3.752 2.298 .057 FS TE 8.695 4 2.174 1.332 .256 3-Way Interactions 1.276 2 .638 .391 .677 IT FS TE 1.276 2 .638 .391 .677 Explained 71.551 17 4.209 2.578 .000 Residual 1602.928 982 1.632 Total 1674.479 999 1.676
2.63
(1013) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.61 2.65 (495) (518)
2.68 2.49 (757) (256)
2.52 2.73 2.71 2.82 2.78 (527) (209) (112) (66) (99)
Institution Type 2.411 1 2.411 1.366 .243 Funding Source 4.039 1 4.039 2.289 .131 TE 6.355 4 1.589 .901 .463 2-Way Interactions 16.397 9 1.822 1.033 .411 IT FS .232 1 .232 .131 .717 IT TE 15.369 4 3.842 2.178 .070 FS TE 6.002 4 1.500 .850 .493 3-Way Interactions 1.088 2 .544 .308 .735 IT FS TE 1.088 2 .544 .308 .735 Explained 35.105 17 2.065 1.171 .282 Residual 1755.333 995 1.764 Total 1790.438 1012 1.769
2.77
(1011) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.73 2.81 (491) (520)
2.75 2.83 (755) (256)
2.83 2.79 2.76 2.70 2.45 (524) (209) (112) (66) (100)
Institution Type 2.795 1 2.795 1.440 .230 Funding Source .346 1 .346 .178 .673 Total Enrollment 13.487 4 3.372 1.737 .140 2-Way Interactions 11.249 9 1.250 .644 .760 IT FS .552 1 .552 .284 .594 IT TE 3.942 4 .985 .508 .730 FS TE 5.991 4 1.498 .772 .544 3-Way Interactions 3.650 2 1.825 .940 .391 IT FS TE 3.650 2 1.825 .940 .391 Explained 30.533 17 1.796 .925 .543 Residual 1927.307 993 1.941 Total 1957.840 1010 1.938
Cell Means (N) Total Population 2.45
(1013) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.32 2.56 (491) (522)
2.40 2.59 (756) (257)
2.57 2.37 2.26 2.30 2.26 (525) (210) (110) (67) (101)
Institution Type 14.547 1 14.547 8.282 .004 Funding Source .859 1 .859 .489 .485 Total Enrollment 19.026 4 4.757 2.708 .029 2-Way Interactions 5.111 9 .568 .323 .968 IT FS .729 1 .729 .415 .519 IT TE 3.656 4 .914 .520 .721 FS TE 1.308 4 .327 .186 .946 3-Way Interactions .858 2 .429 .244 .783 IT FS TE .858 2 .429 .244 .783 Explained 40.562 17 2.386 1.358 .149 Residual 1747.756 995 1.757 Total 1788.318 1012 1.767
2.82
(983) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 2.84 2.81 (479) (504)
2.77 2.97 (737) (246)
3.00 2.96 2.50 2.46 2.23 (505) (204) (110) (65) (99)
Institution Type .012 1 .012 .006 .936 Funding Source .248 1 .248 .132 .717 Total Enrollment 63.717 4 15.929 8.455 .000 2-Way Interactions 3.222 9 .358 .190 .995 IT FS .182 1 .182 .097 .756 IT TE .927 4 .232 .123 .974 FS TE 1.765 4 .441 .234 .919 3-Way Interactions 14.484 2 7.242 3.844 .022 IT FS TE 14.484 2 7.242 3.844 .022 Explained 92.549 17 5.444 2.890 .000 Residual 1818.005 965 1.884 Total 1910.553 982 1.946
Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 3.02 2.40 (239) (10)
(68) (188) Total Enrollment = 5,001-10,000 Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 2.92 4.00 (106) (3)
(72) (23) Total Enrollment = 10,001-15,000 Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 2.55 0.00 (55) (0)
(44) (11) Total Enrollment = 15,001-20,000 Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 2.24 5.00 (29) (1)
(32) (3)
Funding Source Public Private Institution Type Two-Year 2.28 0.00 (36) (0)
(56) (7)
Table 69. Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Perceived Abilities of Students with Disabilities to Make Productive Use of Computers if Adaptive Equipment is Provided Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V71 Ability: Low Vision 4.262 .973 641 V72 Ability: Blind 4.087 1.148 641 V73 Ability: Mobility/Orthopedic 4.108 1.026 641 V74 Ability: Learning Disabled 4.009 1.082 641 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal V71 V72 V73 V74 V71 .973 V72 .711 1.148 V73 .571 .492 1.026 V74 .518 .406 .580 1.082 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated)
Bartlett test of sphericity = 1029.43132 with 6 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .95960 3782.35290 4 637 .000 Table 70. Three-way Analysis of Variance: Perceived Abilities of Students with Disabilities to Make Productive Use of Computers if Adaptive Equipment is Provided Subtable 70a. Ability: Low Vision by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 4.26
(792) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.29 4.24 (410) (382)
4.29 4.16 (643) (149)
4.18 4.22 4.43 4.40 4.38 (346) (185) (99) (65) (97)
Institution Type .418 1 .418 .480 .489 Funding Source .161 1 .161 .184 .668 Total Enrollment 7.284 4 1.821 2.092 .080 2-Way Interactions 16.524 9 1.836 2.109 .027 IT FS 1.027 1 1.027 1.180 .278 IT TE 5.720 4 1.430 1.643 .162 FS TE 6.405 4 1.601 1.839 .119 3-Way Interactions 2.249 2 1.124 1.292 .275 IT FS TE 2.249 2 1.124 1.292 .275 Explained 28.007 17 1.647 1.892 .016 Residual 673.840 774 .871 Total 701.847 791 .887
4.10
(745) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.08 4.12 (379) (366)
4.12 4.01 (604) (141)
3.95 4.12 4.30 4.32 4.23 (320) (170) (97) (63) (95)
Institution Type .102 1 .102 .081 .775 Funding Source .015 1 .015 .012 .912 Total Enrollment 13.556 4 3.389 2.715 .029 2-Way Interactions 4.506 9 .501 .401 .935 IT FS .004 1 .004 .003 .954 IT TE 1.965 4 .491 .394 .813 FS TE 1.791 4 .448 .359 .838 3-Way Interactions 2.446 2 1.223 .980 .376 IT FS TE 2.446 2 1.223 .980 .376 Explained 23.074 17 1.357 1.087 .362 Residual 907.576 727 1.248 Total 930.650 744 1.251
4.13
(779) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.17 4.08 (411) (368)
4.13 4.13 (634) (145)
4.18 4.15 4.11 4.05 3.96 (354) (174) (97) (61) (93)
Institution Type 1.001 1 1.001 .988 .320 Funding Source .027 1 .027 .027 .870 Total Enrollment 3.114 4 .779 .768 .546 2-Way Interactions 12.713 9 1.413 1.394 .186 IT FS .000 1 .000 .000 .987 IT TE 4.700 4 1.175 1.160 .327 FS TE 5.596 4 1.399 1.381 .239 3-Way Interactions 3.474 2 1.737 1.714 .181 IT FS TE 3.474 2 1.737 1.714 .181 Explained 21.409 17 1.259 1.243 .224 Residual 771.009 761 1.013 Total 792.418 778 1.019
4.04
(813) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.10 3.97 (419) (394
4.05 4.01 (643) (170)
4.03 4.07 4.05 4.19 3.89 (384) (182) (98) (64) (85)
Institution Type 3.189 1 3.189 2.940 .087 Funding Source .238 1 .238 .219 .640 Total Enrollment 3.225 4 .806 .743 .563 2-Way Interactions 15.958 9 1.773 1.635 .101 V2 FS .003 1 .003 .003 .955 V2 TE 9.494 4 2.373 2.188 .069 FS TE 6.576 4 1.644 1.516 .196 3-Way Interactions 1.636 2 .818 .754 .471 V2 FS TE 1.636 2 .818 .754 .471 Explained 24.443 17 1.438 1.326 .169 Residual 862.297 795 1.085 Total 886.740 812 1.092
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample Mean Std. Dev. N V75 Success: Low Vision 4.677 .619 843 V76 Success: Blind 4.669 .690 843 V77 Success: Mobility/Orthopedic 4.626 .648 843 V78 Success: Learning Disability 4.628 .671 843 WITHIN CELLS Correlations with Standard Deviations on Diagonal V75 V76 V77 V78 V75 .619
V76 .832 .690 V77 .653 .563 .648 V78 .603 .560 .608 .671 Statistics for WITHIN CELLS Correlations (to test null hypothesis that dependent variables are not correlated) Log(Determinant) = -2.33891 Bartlett test of sphericity = 1964.29296 with 6 Degrees of Freedom Significance = .000 Pillai's Trace Test of Multivariate Differences Value Exact F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F .98593 14697.4949 4 839 .000 Table 72. Three-Way Analysis of Variance - Perceived Contribution of Computers to the Academic Success of Students with Disabilities Subtable 72a. Success: Low Vision by Institution Type, Funding Source, and Total Enrollment Cell Means (N) Total Population 4.66
(943) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.67 4.65 (463) (480)
4.68 4.59 (727) (216)
4.58 4.62 4.83 4.77 4.83 (465) (205) (109) (65) (99)
Institution Type .075 1 .075 .194 .660 Funding Source .032 1 .032 .082 .775 Total Enrollment 8.294 4 2.074 5.333 .000 2-Way Interactions 3.207 9 .356 .916 .510 IT FS .601 1 .601 1.547 .214 IT TE 1.335 4 .334 .858 .489 FS TE 1.587 4 .397 1.020 .396 3-Way Interactions 1.170 2 .585 1.505 .223 IT FS TE 1.170 2 .585 1.505 .223 Explained 14.039 17 .826 2.124 .005 Residual 359.692 925 .389 Total 373.731 942 .397
4.67
(894) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.68 4.66 (430) (464)
4.69 4.58 (691) (203)
4.55 4.69 4.86 4.81 4.82 (429) (194) (107) (64) (100)
Institution Type .100 1 .100 .215 .643 Funding Source .011 1 .011 .023 .880 Total Enrollment 11.820 4 2.955 6.318 .000 2-Way Interactions 2.428 9 .270 .577 .817 IT FS .184 1 .184 .393 .531 IT TE .596 4 .149 .319 .866 FS TE 1.345 4 .336 .719 .579 3-Way Interactions 2.762 2 1.381 2.952 .053 IT FS TE 2.762 2 1.381 2.952 .053 Explained 19.260 17 1.133 2.422 .001 Residual 409.739 876 .468 Total 428.999 893 .480
4.61
(934) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.64 4.58 (463) (471)
4.62 4.58 (725) (209)
4.58 4.60 4.69 4.64 4.69 (454) (205) (109) (66) (100)
Institution Type 1.195 1 1.195 2.859 .091 Funding Source .194 1 .194 .465 .495 Total Enrollment 2.238 4 .559 1.339 .254 2-Way Interactions 5.958 9 .662 1.584 .115 IT FS .002 1 .002 .004 .950 IT TE 2.918 4 .730 1.746 .138 FS TE 3.944 4 .986 2.360 .052 3-Way Interactions .192 2 .096 .230 .795 IT FS TE .192 2 .096 .230 .795 Explained 9.221 17 .542 1.298 .185 Residual 382.698 916 .418 Total 391.920 933 .420
4.61
(959) Institution Type Two-Year Four-Year 4.65 4.58 (474) (485)
4.65 4.50 (733) (226)
4.55 4.62 4.77 4.70 4.67 (480) (207) (108) ( 66) ( 98)
Institution Type .249 1 .249 .546 .460 Funding Source 1.048 1 1.048 2.301 .130 Total Enrollment 3.576 4 .894 1.962 .098 2-Way Interactions 5.943 9 .660 1.449 .163 IT FS .048 1 .048 .106 .745 IT TE 2.510 4 .627 1.377 .240 FS TE 2.992 4 .748 1.641 .162 3-Way Interactions 1.003 2 .502 1.101 .333 IT FS TE 1.003 2 .502 1.101 .333 Explained 14.643 17 .861 1.890 .016 Residual 428.832 941 .456 Total 443.474 958 .463
Assistant Director, Information Systems Computing & Communications University of Washington, JE-41 Seattle WA, 98195 (206) 543-0622 Education PhD in Policy, Governance and Administration of Higher Education , 1988-present (expected completion: 12/92), University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dissertation: Computing Services for Disabled Students in Institutions of Higher Education) Master of Arts, Mathematics, 1975, University of Washington, 4.0 gpa Bachelors of Arts, Mathematics, 1970, University of Washington, 4.0 gpa Administrative Experiences Assistant Director, Information Systems, Computing & Communications, University of Washington, 1991-present. Responsibilities include coordinating activities to support K-12 connections to the Internet; managing computer labs; directing adaptive technology lab and services for students, faculty and staff with disabilities; directing the UW Computer Fair, computer conferences, user groups and other special computing events; directing the computer training program; writing grant proposals. Manager, Desktop Computing Services, Computing & Communications, University of Washington, 1988-91. Responsibilities of previous position expanded to include high-level workstation support, campus-wide software licenses for all computer platforms, management of all general access labs, and direction of the Micro/Workstation Acquisition Program. Manager, Micro Support Group, University of Washington, 1984-88. Created the Micro Support Group which provided technical assistance to microcomputer current and potential computer users. Developed the Micro Showroom and the HUB Micro Lab facilities; through collaborative efforts with computer companies, obtained vendor contributions of hardware, software, and support materials valued at more than $800,000. Supervised computer consultants. Provided public domain software, an electronic bulletin board, computer classes and microcomputer publications to campus. Wrote grants, program plans, computing documents, personal computer standards, and policy proposals regarding microcomputer use. Directed annual UW Computer Fair. Director, Computer Inservice, Saint Martin's College, Lacey, WA, 1982-84. Developed and implemented the most extensive computer inservice program for teachers in the state of Washington. Coordinated courses, recruited and supervised more than 50 adjunct faculty, publicized program and selected and modified computer hardware and software to support the program. Associate Director, Microcomputer Resource Center, Saint Martin's College, 1981-84. Wrote a grant, received funding from the Murdock Foundation and developed the most comprehensive microcomputer resource center for teachers in the United States (Electronic Learning, January, 1984). It included a hardware collection of 35 computers representing 18 different models and a software depository of over 6,000 educational programs. Cooperative efforts with computer hardware and software corporations resulted in substantial contributions. Project Director, Computers and the Physically Disabled, Saint Martin's College, 1982-84. Collected software and hardware to provide access to computers for individuals with visual, hearing, and motor impairments. Coordinated training for therapists, parents, and special education teachers; instructed physically disabled students. Cooperative agreements were set up with corporations to provide all of the software and hardware included in the collection. Chairman, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Saint Martin's College, 1980-84. Supervised faculty members, set teaching schedules, revised curriculum, conducted departmental meetings and prepared faculty/department evaluations. Helped develop academic majors in computer science and computers in education. Director, Summer Session Download 0,55 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
|
Bosh sahifa
юртда тантана
Боғда битган
Бугун юртда
Эшитганлар жилманглар
Эшитмадим деманглар
битган бодомлар
Yangiariq tumani
qitish marakazi
Raqamli texnologiyalar
ilishida muhokamadan
tasdiqqa tavsiya
tavsiya etilgan
iqtisodiyot kafedrasi
steiermarkischen landesregierung
asarlaringizni yuboring
o'zingizning asarlaringizni
Iltimos faqat
faqat o'zingizning
steierm rkischen
landesregierung fachabteilung
rkischen landesregierung
hamshira loyihasi
loyihasi mavsum
faolyatining oqibatlari
asosiy adabiyotlar
fakulteti ahborot
ahborot havfsizligi
havfsizligi kafedrasi
fanidan bo’yicha
fakulteti iqtisodiyot
boshqaruv fakulteti
chiqarishda boshqaruv
ishlab chiqarishda
iqtisodiyot fakultet
multiservis tarmoqlari
fanidan asosiy
Uzbek fanidan
mavzulari potok
asosidagi multiservis
'aliyyil a'ziym
billahil 'aliyyil
illaa billahil
quvvata illaa
falah' deganida
Kompyuter savodxonligi
bo’yicha mustaqil
'alal falah'
Hayya 'alal
'alas soloh
Hayya 'alas
mavsum boyicha
yuklab olish