Alice Havel

What happens after graduation? Outcomes, employment, and recommendations of recent junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities

Purpose: The objective was to compare employment status of junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities. Methods: We compared post-graduation outcomes of 182 graduates with and 1304 without disabilities from career/technical and pre-university programs from three junior/community colleges. Findings for graduates who had registered for disability related services from their school and those who had not were examined separately. Reported academic obstacles and facilitators were also compared. Results: Few employment differences between graduates with and without disabilities were found. Two-thirds of career/technical graduates from both groups were employed, approximately 30% were studying, and less than 3% were either looking for work or “unavailable for work.” Over 80% of pre-university graduates in both groups were continuing their studies; here, too, numbers of employed graduates (14% with and 13% without disabilities) were similar and very few in both groups (<2%) were either looking for work or “unavailable for work.” Full versus part-time employment of these two groups was very similar and the same proportion of graduates with and without disabilities were working in jobs related to their studies. Only in “closely related” work did graduates without disabilities have the advantage. Conclusions: Employment prospects for junior/community college graduates with disabilities seem to be quite positive. Implications for Rehabilitation Postsecondary education results in a favorable employment picture for college graduates with disabilities. College graduates who had registered for campus disability related access services reported that this was a key facilitator of their academic success.

Rehabilitation in the real-life environment of a shopping mall

Abstract Aim: The aim of this study was to explore how shopping malls could be used during rehabilitation and to identify the facilitators and barriers to their use. Method: Two focus groups, conducted with 15 rehabilitation professionals from various disciplines and working with people with disabilities of all ages were structured around two topics: (i) The usage of malls for rehabilitation and (ii) Factors that facilitate or limit rehabilitation professionals’ use of the mall as an environment for clinical assessment and/or intervention. Results: The thematic analysis revealed that shopping malls were used to achieve several rehabilitation goals targeting physical and cognitive skills, psychological health and socialization. This real-life environment is motivating and helps foster independence and normalization. Factors affecting mall use during rehabilitation included personal factors (e.g. clients’ personality and level of readiness) and environmental factors (e.g. clinical context, accessibility of the mall and social attitudes of store owners). Conclusion: Shopping malls may be a relevant rehabilitation assessment and treatment environment that could contribute to optimizing community integration of people with disabilities. Implications for rehabilitation To ensure successful community reintegration, clients could be trained at some point during their rehabilitation, to perform activities in real-life settings, such as a shopping mall. Shopping malls appear to enable the attainment of rehabilitation goals targeting a variety of skills. This real-life environment appears to be motivating and helps foster independence and normalization. Factors felt to affect mall use during rehabilitation include personal factors (e.g. clients’ personality and level of readiness) and environmental factors (e.g. clinical context, accessibility of the mall and social attitudes of store owners). The shopping mall may be an untapped resource as it appears to be a relevant rehabilitation assessment and treatment environment that could contribute to optimizing community integration of people with disabilities.

“Simply the best”: Professors nominated by students for their exemplary technology practices in teaching

Our goal was to explore the technology related pedagogical practices of college professors deemed by their students to be excellent in using technology in their teaching. We explored the views of 114 community/junior college professors who were nominated by their students as excellent in using technology in their teaching using both questionnaires and interview methods. Results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results show no gender or years teaching in college differences in professors’ self rated proficiency or comfort with technologies. Results also show that most professors taught themselves how to use technologies with the help of online resources, through trial and error, and with help from colleagues and support staff. Challenges using technology were related primarily to technical problems, such as technologies not working and the institution’s computers and networks being slow. However, professors in our sample usually had a back-up plan and found ways to carry on even if the technology failed. Our findings report on the most and least frequently used technologies in face-to-face teaching, on how professors typically used the course management system, on how professors communicate with students, including the very small number who used social media to do this, and the likelihood of allowing students to use their personal mobile technology in class. Our findings also show that the professors showed their students how to use technologies required for the course. We discuss the practical significance of our findings and their implications for faculty, students, and the institution itself. In particular, we make recommendations about the need for ongoing collaboration between the institution, the professors, and the students and about technology related professional development professors would like to see their college provide.