Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of taking a disability studies course on college students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities, with the expectation that, after exposure to content and activities that focus on people with disabilities, the students’ attitudes would become more positive. Two groups of students completed a survey, the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward Persons with Disabilities at the beginning and again at the end of the semester. One group received instruction in a comprehensive disability studies course, while the other group did not. The scale has three subscales measuring affect (emotions such as nervousness and fear), cognitions (such as “We may get along well”), and behaviors (such as “Move away”) with respect to individuals with disabilities. There were no differences in changes in these scores between the two groups of students. Researchers discussed reasons for the failure to find differences.

Keywords

attitudes disability studies

Introduction

The study of attitudes toward individuals with disabilities has grown in importance during the past 40 years because of legislation that required the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in all aspects of community life. Schools, public buildings, transportation, and the workplace must provide equal access to persons with disabilities. The philosophy behind inclusion is humanitarian and reasonable, but it is not always positive for individuals with disabilities. People without disabilities may tolerate, but not fully accept, those with disabilities as participants in the community (Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2010).

Recently, colleges have seen growing numbers of students with disabilities on their campuses. Brownlee and Carrington (2000) noted that positive attitudes toward students with disabilities are increasing, but many individuals without disabilities continue to show prejudice toward those with disabilities. The present study sought to evaluate a program designed to improve the attitudes of college students without disabilities toward those with disabilities, as they participated in a structured instructional program to inform and educate them about disabilities. Researchers expected that by educating college students in such a course, their attitudes would improve and would result in greater acceptance of those with disabilities (Fox, 2010).

Past research has focused primarily on the attitudes of schoolchildren toward peers with disabilities. Campbell (2007) presented information about disabilities to middle-school students and found that when teachers presented details about disabilities, along with introducing them to those with disabilities, positive attitudes toward those with disabilities increased. The present research studied postsecondary students’ attitudes for several reasons. First, there are differences in the identification process of students with disabilities at the college level. College students with disabilities are no longer covered under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) but rather are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, unless college students disclose a disability, they are not guaranteed the accommodations they received in grade school and high school (Loewen & Pollard, 2010). The transition from high school to college is difficult and, without support, students with disabilities face challenges they did not previously face. More students with disabilities are attending college, but they are given fewer opportunities for employment and are considered the most economically disadvantaged minority in the United States (Strauss & Sales, 2010). Finally, many teachers at the postsecondary level have not received training in making appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities to the same extent as teachers in elementary and high school.

Brownlee and Carrington (2000) noted that colleges often neglect to include information necessary for faculty to work effectively in inclusive settings. They found that college instructors without specific training fail to distinguish between the medical model of disabilities and the educational model, which is based on the students’ aptitudes and strengths. The medical model infers mental and physical limitations, lower expectations, feelings of pity, and the need for assistance in all environments (Loewen & Pollard, 2010). Without training, instructors do not establish high expectations, which contribute to low motivation, low self-confidence, and low self-esteem in students with disabilities (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011). Communicating with parents and learning about family-centered services would prepare instructors to recognize their role as the liaison between the home and the school (Murray & Curran, 2008).

Studies conducted using social distance surveys with college students found that attitudes toward persons with disabilities (ATDP) are more positive when social distance increases. Hergenrather and Rhodes (2007) reported that attitudes were more positive in the workplace, where there is less intimacy and more negativity in dating or marriage situations. Rojahn and Komelasky (2008) studied the social acceptance of individuals with disabilities and found that, even though college students responded that they found individuals with and without disabilities equally attractive, variables such as more education and exposure to individuals with disabilities resulted in more positive attitudes. Rojahn and Komelasky reported that positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities are viewed as socially desirable, while Hindes and Mather (2007) reported that, although overall attitudes were positive, college students found disabilities such as learning, physical, and mild disabilities to be more acceptable, but were less accepting of mental health, intellectual, emotional, and severe disabilities. The more accommodations the individual required, the less positive the attitudes (Hampton & Xiao, 2009). College students typically recognized that their negative attitudes guided their behavior toward peers with disabilities, and so some sought more interactions with individuals who had disabilities and focused on their positive attributes (Parasuram, 2006).

Positive attitudes were also present if the student had a family member with a disability or had previous experiences with individuals with disabilities in schools or in the community (Gannon & McGilloway, 2009; Rojahn & Komelasky, 2008). Pashkevich (2011) noted that positive attitudes are fostered in students whose parents and teachers emphasize that all people deserve a good life and that society needs to eliminate poverty and prejudice. A humanistic culture must include positive attitudes toward diversity and a sense of responsibility for providing assistance for those in need.

Disability Studies

In the college setting, when students with disabilities are educated in an inclusive setting, both groups develop more social confidence and more positive attitudes toward each other. General information about disabilities, opportunities to solve problems together, and open communication concerning issues of social perceptions and stereotypes create a culture of inclusion (Carroll, Petroff, & Blumberg, 2009). Causton-Theoharis, Ashby, and DeClouette (2009) reported that college-level inclusion classrooms benefited all students. The results from their study indicated that students without disabilities better understood differences between each other, not only through the course content, but also through interacting with one another as individuals. Students commented that the knowledge about disabilities helped them interact more positively toward fellow students with disabilities even though societal attitudes presented obstacles to full acceptance (Loewen & Pollard, 2010).

Griffin, Summer, McMillan, Day, and Hodapp (2012) found that college students have positive attitudes toward peers with disabilities and are comfortable attending classes where students with disabilities were included. May (2012) studied the effects of instructional strategies in a college level course that enrolled both students with and without disabilities. Instructors designed group activities whereby students with disabilities had equal access to instructional content. As a result of the interventions, May found that college students’ attitudes became more positive toward classmates. Students without disabilities should be exposed to systematic disability studies instruction as well as direct experiences to those with disabilities. Cory, White, and Stuckey (2010) noted that effective disabilities instruction should move from the medical model, characterized by an illness or physical condition, and focus instead on the person’s strengths and aptitudes. Instruction should include teacher directed delivery of specific disabilities information, videos about people with disabilities in different community contexts, guest speakers with first-hand knowledge, and listening to individuals with disabilities talk about themselves. Course content must contain information about the categories of disabilities and the social and political implications of having a disability. Instruction provides students with the understanding of disability across cultures and social contexts, and emphasizes society’s obligation to embrace individuals with disabilities in the community (Strauss & Sales, 2010). Rembis (2010) suggested that disability studies courses should cover legislative changes over the past 30 yr., as well as information on specific disabilities and the societal and cultural implications of having a disability on the individual’s inclusion in the community. Focusing on the history and evolution of perspectives of disabilities helps make sense of how the disability affects the individual’s educational and economic opportunities, while emphasizing equal rights protection (Cory et al., 2010; Fox, 2010).

A study by Campbell (2007) explored attitude change when students with disabilities presented information about their specific disability to their peers directly. Campbell concluded that, when students talked about their disabilities, the audience recognized similarities between those with disabilities and themselves, as well as learning about the causes of the disability. Teaching about disabilities is further enhanced by adding videos and textbook sources of information to the personal component.

Cognition

It is not surprising that attitudes toward individuals with disabilities continue to be negative even though society is more multiethnic and multilinguistic than ever before (Kuntz, Burge, Brown, & Arsenault, 2010). Attitudes can be categorized as cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Looking through the cognitive lens, Findler, Vilchinsky, and Werner (2007) noted that people view disabilities as upsetting the normal flow of processes and procedures, which thereby reduces their own quality of life. In studies of attitudes of classroom teachers on their acceptance of students with disabilities in their classes, many believed pressure from parents to include their children caused disruption to the running of the class environment and threaten the resources needed for others (Gavish & Shimoni, 2011). These researchers did report, however, that such attitudes were associated with a lack of knowledge and experience, whereby decreasing the acceptance of students in the inclusive educational setting. Furthermore, educators and students are not provided with enough information about the less visible disabilities, such as learning disabilities and behavioral disorders that are often the most difficult to understand (Litvack, Ritchie, & Shore, 2011). Campbell (2008) found that when asking children with no disabilities about classmates with disabilities, responses included, “Children with autism are sad,” but also “Children with disabilities are good at reading and I would sit next to them at lunch.” When teachers presented information about disabilities to students, cognitive attitudes improved, but there was no effect on the affective area of students’ attitudes (Campbell, 2007).

Affect and Behavior

Negative emotions toward those with disabilities include a lack of sympathy, repulsion, contempt, and sometimes anger (and aggression). Students see themselves as superior to students with disabilities. Behavior manifests itself in avoidance, leaving the room, or talking about the person in front of him (Brandes & Crowson, 2009; Findler et al., 2007). If students were to interact socially with their peers with disabilities, the greater familiarity with them should result in more acceptance and a willingness to include them in academic and recreational activities (Antia, Jones, Luchner, Kreimeyer, & Reed, 2011).

Postsecondary students’ attitudes do not differ from the population at large and are directly related to their knowledge of and exposure to those with disabilities (Pivik, McComas, & Laflamme, 2002). Views about disabilities are influenced by the contexts in which they occur. For example, when students with disabilities are placed in a college-level classroom where the teacher feels ill prepared and without necessary resources, negative attitudes prevail and pervade the classroom environment. The students without disabilities recognize the negativity of their teachers (Brownlee & Carrington, 2000; Leyser & Greenberger, 2008; Rillotta & Nettelbeck, 2007).

This study examined the effect of offering disability studies courses that might positively influence college students’ attitudes toward their fellow students with disabilities. Based on past research, it was hypothesized that providing information to college students about disabilities would improve attitudes toward fellow students with disabilities. Two groups of students completed the Multidimensional Attitude Scale toward Persons with Disabilities (MAS). Students in both groups were undergraduate students in a small, public university, who declared mixed majors of study. One group of students was enrolled in courses focusing on disability studies, while the second group was not. The instructors administered the attitude scale at the beginning and again at the end of the semester. The MAS assesses three components of attitudes: (a) cognition examined how people think about those with disabilities; (b) affect assessed the emotions experienced, such as empathy, pity, and helplessness; and (c) behavior asked about actions such as willingness to socialize, interact, or avoid encounters with persons with disabilities.

Hypothesis. Students who took the course in disability studies would have more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities after taking the class, and compared to a group not taking the class.

Method

Participants and Setting

There were 117 participants in the study, 31 men and 86 women, whose ages ranged from eighteen to twenty-three years (mode = 18–20). All students attend a small, public, liberal arts university in New Jersey. There were 71 students in the group enrolled in disability studies courses (experimental group) and 46 students who took courses that did not include a disabilities studies component (control group). None of the 117 participants had a disclosed disability. All 117 students completed the MAS (Findler et al., 2007), which has three subscales measuring emotions (such as nervousness and fear), cognitions (such as “We may get along well”), and behaviors (such as “Move away”) with respect to persons with disabilities. The scores for each were transformed to score per item. As the score for each item ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), a score of 2.5 represents a neutral attitude. The students were asked to provide a code on the questionnaire (mother’s maiden name), and they were then readministered the MAS at the end of the semester so that the post minus pretest scores could be calculated. There was some attrition as some students who took the pretest were either not present or did not use a code name for the posttest.

Participants also completed questions on the survey that asked the following: “In high school, I was in class with students who had disabilities”; “There are members of my family who have disabilities”; “I have worked with people with disabilities”; and “I have taken courses or have had informal training on aspects of types of disabilities.” The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

The Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward Persons with Disabilities

The MAS (Findler et al., 2007) has a multidimensional orientation that measures respondents’ attitudes toward people with disabilities. The participants read a scenario of an interaction between an individual with disabilities and a person who did not have disabilities. Next, the participants were asked to imagine themselves to be the person without disabilities and complete a series of items using a 5-point Likert-type scale rating the degree of likelihood with anchors 1 (very much) and 5 (not at all) for emotions, cognition, and behavior. The affect category included emotions that may result from such an interaction such as depression, calmness, fear, tension, stress, helplessness, guilt, pity, and disgust. Examples of cognitive statements or thoughts were, “He seems interesting,” “We may get along well,” “He looks friendly,” “I enjoy meeting new people,” and “Why not get to know him better?” Examples of behaviors that one may demonstrate after an encounter with a person with disabilities were to move away, get up and leave, read a newspaper, start a conversation, or talk on a cell phone.

The concurrent validity of the MAS was examined by comparing scores with those on the ATDP questionnaire (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) which has documented validity. Scores on the MAS were correlated with scores on the ADTP. Higher scores in each area (behavior, cognition, and affect) indicated more negative attitudes toward those with disabilities.

The mean scores, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s α reliabilities for the present sample are shown in Table 1. High scores on the emotion subscale indicate negative emotions, high scores on the cognition subscale indicates positive thoughts, and high scores on the behavior subscale indicate distancing oneself from the disabled person.

Table 1.

Psychometric Properties of the Three Subscales of the MAS.

	Affect	Cognition	Behavior
No. of items	16	10	8
M	3.00	3.30	2.61
SD	0.53	0.71	0.68
Range	1.63–4.25	1.70–5.00	1.50–4.13
Cronbach’s α	.76	.90	.73

MAS = Multidimensional Attitude Scale toward Persons with Disabilities.

Description of the Course on Disabilities Studies

The students in Group 1 (Experimental) participated in a full semester of systematic instructional strategies and tasks that exposed them to information about specific disability categories, historical perspectives, diversity activities and a community-service learning component in which students interacted with individuals with disabilities both in public schools and in adult community and vocational settings. Course requirements and activities infused cognition, affect, and behavioral realms in the courses’ outcome goals. As articulated in the college course bulletin, Disabilities and Dignity explores the lives of people living with disabilities. During the course, students studied the history and circumstances of federal legislation that led to educational and employment opportunities and the weaknesses in these laws. Course content also provided exposure to and an awareness of different categories of disability.

Students read about the lives of those with disabilities and reflected on the social, political, and economic forces, as well as cultural influences, that were critical for understanding society’s responsibilities to include individuals with disabilities into the community. Individuals with physical and learning disabilities visited the class and offered insight to the challenges they faced before college and the barriers they continue to face in college. Through readings, films, reflective writings, debates, discussions and hands-on service learning, where students worked directly with individuals with disabilities in schools and in community settings, students explored their own values and those of others.

Diversity exercises were included in the course content. When presented with civil rights or disabilities issues, students reflected on their initial perspectives while integrating new information into existing frames of reference. They had opportunities to engage with other students in problem solving and choice making. One exercise was entitled, “When did we first recognize differences?” The teacher facilitated a discussion with simple questions about when did students first notice differences in sex, race, sexual orientation, social class, and individuals with disabilities. All respondents talked about their own experiences and then revealed how the experiences made them think or feel. Further discussion consisted of disclosing how listening to the experiences of others made them think or feel. Students were given options as to either share or remain silent, but all students chose to participate.

Service learning opportunities were part of the course. Students visited community agencies and worked hand-in-hand with individuals with disabilities in recreational activities. Other students joined campus clubs whose mission was to work directly with college peers who had disabilities. Through direct involvement with persons with disabilities as well as content delivered through a disability studies course, students in the experimental group recognized the many challenges encountered by those with disabilities, many of which are generated by societal constructs. At the conclusion of the course, students were expected to identify and explain the historical roots of individuals with disabilities in the United States and throughout the world. They participated in activities that required investigation and interpretation of current issues affecting individuals with disabilities. Students examined and predicted how societal assumptions and perceptions of those without disabilities might negatively affect individuals with disabilities. They also considered the importance of their own commitment to citizenship by acknowledging individuals with disabilities have rights as members of the community at large.

Results

The students were given the MAS at the beginning of the semester, and their scores are shown in Table 2. At the baseline, the two groups did not differ on any of the three subscales of the MAS (see Table 2). The changes in the scores of the two groups of students (the score at the end of the semester minus the score at the beginning of the semester) are also shown in Table 2, where it can be seen that the two groups did not differ in the changes in scores. The data indicate, therefore, that the experimental and comparison groups did not differ in their attitudes toward persons with disabilities. The disabilities studies course did not affect the experimental group’s scores on the MAS.

Table 2.

MAS Scores at the Beginning and End of the Semester.

Variable	Experimental Group		Control Group		t	p (two tailed)
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	t	p (two tailed)
Baseline scores
Negative affect	2.99	0.53	3.03	0.52	0.43	.67
Positive cognitions	3.26	0.72	3.37	0.70	0.79	.43
Avoidance behavior	2.61	0.65	2.59	0.73	0.16	.88
Post-test minus pre-test scores
Negative affect	−0.03	0.53	0.08	0.48	1.05	.30
Positive cognitions	0.04	0.66	−0.03	0.59	0.59	.56
Avoidance behavior	−0.04	0.70	−0.04	0.66	0.05	.96

MAS = Multidimensional Attitude Scale toward Persons with Disabilities.

The data were also analyzed using a general linear model, with the postcourse scores as the dependent variable, the precourse scores as a covariate, and the group as the factor. The two groups did not differ significantly on the measures of affect, cognition, or behavior, F(1,11)s = 2.144, 0.114 and 0.004, respectively, p > .14.

Although data did not show differences in attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, students had opportunities to interact with individuals through service learning experiences. At the end of the service learning experience, students reflected on their own perspectives and personal growth. Typical comments from students were, “My personal growth has been a journey. At first, I was skeptical about working with people who had disabilities but when I actually spent time with them, I realized they were just like me”; “The experience influenced me and my interests. It helped me see that all people are equal no matter what they look like or how different they do things”; and “I was able to see things from others’ points of view. It made me realize how difficult it could be for someone with a disability or impairment, but I learned that even though some things may be more difficult for him or her than for others, it is okay. They accept themselves and I know they are capable of doing what they want to do.”

Discussion

This study investigated college students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities and the effects of taking a disability studies course on influencing their attitudes. Two groups of college students completed a scale to measure attitudes toward people with disabilities at the beginning and at the end of the semester. One of the groups was enrolled in a comprehensive disability studies course. The second group was enrolled in regular psychology courses. Gavish and Shimoni (2011) and Campbell (2007) argued that when information is presented, such as the disabilities curriculum used in this study, knowledge about disabilities would improve students’ attitudes. However, surprisingly, no such improvement was found in the present study. In fact, based on the baseline survey, neither group’s attitudes were negative toward individuals with disabilities in the first place.

Many students indicated they had been in classes in high school with peers who had disabilities, had family members with disabilities, or had worked with people with disabilities. Some reported that they had taken courses that covered disabilities. Of the students in the experimental group, 73% had been in high-school classes with students with disabilities, had a family member with a disability, worked with someone with a disability, or had taken a course about disabilities, compared with 80% of the students in the control group. Thus, this exposure may have contributed to the acceptance of those with disabilities in community contexts.

There are limitations to the study. The researchers used a small sample of college students, and a high percentage of them had previous exposure to individuals with disabilities before coming to college. This may have contributed to their positive attitudes at the beginning of the study. In addition, the students in the experimental group chose the course entitled Disabilities and Dignity and so had an interest in disability studies, and students in the control group enrolled in basic psychology courses, so most likely had interests in the social sciences.

The study suggests caution for educators who deliver disability studies in order to support and promote inclusion rather than exclusion of people with disabilities. As inclusion is brought to the forefront of society’s commitment to its citizens with disabilities, providing technical information in the cognitive realm is not enough but must also include aspects of affect and behavior when offering a comprehensive program of disabilities instruction. Educators who provide the instruction must include content with a holistic view of the person and not focus entirely on the disability. Michael Rembis (2010), who himself has a disability, urged that, when teachers design and implement the disability studies curriculum, they include the roles that cultural, social, economic, and political differences play in the inclusion of all people. Although the present study did not show an increase in positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, institutions of higher education should continue to offer courses on disability studies for all students. It is a difficult task to change people’s beliefs but, if all educational settings, from elementary through higher education, emphasize the inclusive perspective for everyone, acceptance will become the norm (Brownlee & Carrington, 2000).

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.

Author Biographies

Shelly Meyers is Associate Professor of Special Education at Stockton University, USA.

David Lester is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Stockton University, USA.

References

Antia

Jones

Luckner

Reed

(2011) Social outcomes of students who are deaf and hard of hearing in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children 77(4): 489–504.

Brandes

J. A.

Crowson

H. M.

(2009) Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities: The role of the conservative ideology and discomfort with disability. Social Psychological Education 12: 271–289. doi:10.1007/s11218-008-9077-8.

Brownlee

Carrington

(2000) Opportunities for authentic experience and reflection: A teaching program designed to change attitudes towards disability for pre-service teachers. Support for Learning 15(3): 99–105.

Bruder

Mogro-Wilson

(2010) Student and faculty awareness and attitudes about students with disabilities. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 6(2): 2–14.

Campbell

(2007) Middle school students’ response to the self-introduction of a student with autism. Remedial and Special Education 28(1): 163–173.

Campbell

(2008) Brief report: Reliability and validity of shared activities questionnaire as a measure of middle school students’ attitudes toward autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38: 1598–1604. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0534-6.

Carroll

S. Z.

Petroff

J. G.

Blumberg

(2009) The impact of a college course where pre-service teachers and peers with intellectual disabilities study together. Teacher Education and Special Education 32(4): 351–364.

Causton-Theoharis

Ashby

DeClouette

(2009) Relentless optimism: Inclusive postsecondary opportunities for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 22(2): 53–58.

Cory

R. C.

White

J. M.

Stucky

(2010) Using disabilities studies theory to change disability services: A case study in student activism. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 23(1): 29–37.

10.

Findler

Vilchinsky

Werner

(2007) The Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward Persons with Disabilities (MAS): Construction and validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50(3): 166–176.

11.

Forlin

Earle

Loreman

Sharma

(2011) The sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education: Revised scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International 21(3): 50–56.

12.

Fox

A. M.

(2010) How to crip the undergraduate classroom: Lessons from performance, pedagogy and possibility. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 23(1): 39–48.

13.

Gannon

McGilloway

(2009) Children’s attitudes toward their peers with Down syndrome in schools in rural Ireland: An exploratory study. European Journal of Special Needs Education 24(3): 455–463.

14.

Gavish

Shimoni

(2011) Elementary school teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the inclusion of children with special needs in their classrooms. Journal of International Special Needs Education 14: 49–59.

15.

Griffin

M. M.

Summer

A. H.

McMillan

E. D.

Day

T. L.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2012) Attitudes toward including students with intellectual disabilities at college. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 9(4): 234–239.

16.

Hampton

N. Z.

Xiao

(2009) Traditional Chinese values and attitudes of Chinese university students toward people with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 56(3): 247–261.

17.

Hergenrather

Rhodes

(2007) Exploring undergraduate student attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Application of the disability social relationship scale. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50(2): 66–75.

18.

Hindes

Mather

(2007) Inclusive education at the post-secondary level: Attitudes of students and professors. Exceptional Education Canada 17(1): 107–128.

19.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). 2004 Pub.L.108-446, 108th Congress.

20.

Kuntz

Burge

Brown

Arsenault

(2010) Public attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 28: 132–142.

21.

Leyser

Greenberger

(2008) College students with disabilities in teacher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23(1): 237–251.

22.

Litvack

Ritchie

Shore

(2011) High and average achieving students’ perceptions of disabilities and of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children 77(4): 474–487.

23.

Loewen

Pollard

(2010) The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability: Special Issue: Disabilities Studies 23(1): 5–18.

24.

May

(2012) An investigation of attitude change in inclusive college classes including young adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practices in Intellectual Disabilities 9(4): 240–246.

25.

Murray

M. M.

Curran

E. M.

(2008) Learning together with parents of children with disabilities: Bringing parent-professional partnership education to a new level. Teacher Education and Special Education 31(1): 59–63.

26.

Parasuram

(2006) Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability and Society 21(3): 231–242.

27.

Pashkevich

(2011) Upper grade students’ attitudes toward social problems. Russian Education and Society 53(1): 79–87.

28.

Pivik

McComas

Laflamme

(2002) Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children 69(1): 97–107.

29.

Rembis

(2010) Yes we can change: Disabilities studies–Enabling equality. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 23(1): 20–27.

30.

Rillotta

Nettelbeck

(2007) Effects of an awareness program on attitudes of students without an intellectual disability towards persons with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 32(1): 19–27.

31.

Rojahn

Komelasky

(2008) Implicit attitudes and explicit ratings of romantic attraction of college students toward opposite sex peers with physical disabilities. Journal of Development and Physical Disabilities 20: 389–397.

32.

Strauss

A. L.

Sales

(2010) Bridging the gap between disability studies and disability services in higher education: A model center on disability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 23(1): 81–86.

33.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. (Human Resources Study No. 7) Alberton, NY: Human Resources Center.

An Attempt to Change College Students’ Attitudes Toward Individuals With Disabilities