The ball is in your court: a phenomenological study examining college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD on college campuses.

University of Louisville University of Louisville

ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

12-2020

The ball is in your court: a phenomenological study examining The ball is in your court: a phenomenological study examining

college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD on college college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD on college

campuses. campuses.

Stephanie Thea O'Donnell

University of Louisville

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd

Part of the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

O'Donnell, Stephanie Thea, "The ball is in your court: a phenomenological study examining college

athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD on college campuses." (2020).

Electronic Theses and

Dissertations.

Paper 3551.

https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/3551

This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's

Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized

administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of

the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING

COLLEGE ATHLETES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES AND/OR ADHD ON

COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Stephanie Thea O’Donnell

B.A. & B.S., Keene State College, 2013

M.A., The University of Alabama, 2016 & 2017

A Dissertation

Submitted to the faculty of the College of Education and Human Development of the

University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Counseling and Personnel Services

Department of Counseling and Personnel Services

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

December 2020

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING

COLLEGE ATHLETES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES AND/OR ADHD ON

COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Stephanie Thea O’Donnell

B.A. & B.S., Keene State College, 2013

M.A., The University of Alabama, 2016 & 2017

A Dissertation Approved on

November 16, 2020

By the following Dissertation Committee

___________________________

Dr. Amy Hirschy

___________________________

Dr. Meera Alagaraja

___________________________

Dr. Meg Hancock

___________________________

Dr. Eddie Comeaux

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout my educational journey from the age of three to the age of 30, there

have been several influential educators and coaches throughout each monumental

milestone. Everyone I have had the pleasure of interacting with has left an impact on the

student and professional I am today. The dissertation process is no different. The process

of dissertating is unlike any other educational experience and a sense of academic,

professional, and personal community was what got me through this journey.

First, this research would not have been possible without the resilient and gifted

students who participated. These students not only shared their narratives and vulnerable

personal experiences but also committed their time and perspective throughout several

aspects of the research process. I hope I did justice conveying each of your individual and

collective experiences.

Without the consistent guidance and commitment of my committee members, I

would not be the same learner, writer, or researcher I am at the end of this process. Dr.

Amy Hirschy, thank you for your consistent support and time commitment, ensuring

every items on my “to do” list was always discussed and thoroughly answering all of the

questions I had throughout my doctoral program. I could not have asked for a better

faculty member to engage with and collaborate in this process. I appreciate your

perspective and engaging in intellectual brainstorming and investing in my research and

personal growth. You advocated for me along this journey in numerous ways and I am

thankful for your mentorship and expertise.

To my methodologist, Dr. Meera Alagaraja, you have taught me everything I

know about qualitative research, from the different approaches, to the process of coding

and data analysis. Thank you for being a critical aspect in my development of skills and

confidence. You took several hours of your time to mentor me as an emergent qualitative

researcher and elevating my research. To Dr. Meg Hancock, from the moment I enrolled

in your athletic academic support services graduate course, I knew your knowledge and

dedication to student athlete development and support services aligned with this study. I

appreciate you taking the time to serve and provide you input throughout the process.

Dr. Eddie Comeaux, thank you for challenging my intellectual growth and

development, to view social justice within athletics from a different perspective than the

“norm”. I reached out to you via email when in the process of writing my proposal and

wanted your high regarded perspective on collegiate athletics and disabilities. I am

honored to have you serve on my committee and push this research to the next level.

Thank you for engaging in deep conversations around athletics and social justice.

Finally, this process would not have been possible without my colleagues,

mentors’, dearest friends, and family members. To everyone who listened to me

anxiously ramble about my research, provided words of encouragement, proof read this

manuscript, or helped by properly formatting the final product, I could not have done this

without your continuous support, love, expertise, and feedback. Thank you all for

playing an integral role towards my success. I am walking away from this experience

with lifelong friends, professional mentors, and a new perspective on education.

ABSTRACT

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING

COLLEGE ATHLETES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES AND/OR ADHD ON

COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Stephanie Thea O’Donnell

November 16, 2020

Approximately only 1% of scholarly top-tier higher education published research focuses

on the experiences of students with disabilities since the passing of the ADA in 1990

(Pena, 2014). Even fewer studies have explored the learning-disabled collegiate athlete

experience. The purpose of this emerging phenomenological study is to understand the

lived experiences of college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD at NCAA

Division 1 FBS institutions, giving voice to the untold stories, and commonalities

amongst this population. This study provides findings grounded in student perspective by

examining their experiences related to disability disclosure, self-advocacy, and academic

support within the college environment. Five college athletes with ADHD and/or a

learning disability participated in 90-minutes interviews. Three major themes emerged

throughout the data including reactions and perceptions of others, being vocal and

persistent, and building rapport and relationships. The results of this study help inform

practitioners on best practices individually and systemically.

Keywords: Academic Support Services, ADHD, College Athletes, Learning Disabilities,

NCAA, Self-Advocacy, Self-Disclosure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 29

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 74

FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 105

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 146

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 182

APPENDICIES .............................................................................................................. 209

CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................ 215

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The word disability can hold a lot of meaning and can vary based on “…social,

geographical, theoretical, or historical context…” (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke,

2017, p. 4). In addition to context, every disabled person has their own unique

perspective and preference when it comes to language choice. The term disability differs

on who is defining the word and which disability model approach they choose to

subscribe to. Disability can be viewed from a social justice framework as “the way in

which people’s activities are restricted by their environments (and thus, as a synonym for

handicap), and disability as the noun form of disabled” (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke,

2017, p. 5). As far as naming the specific condition, Evans, Broido, Brown and Wilke

(2017) suggest using the word impairment which means, “the ways in which people’s

bodies or minds differ from what society deems ‘normal’ or ‘typical’. Impairment

therefore refers to specific physical, psychological, sensory, cognitive or health

conditions whether present at birth or acquired later” (pp. 4-5).

Many things within the disability community vary on the individual, from the

type of impairment, to the ways in which an individual views their environment and

circumstances. Similarly, each disabled person will have a different perspective and view

on how they prefer to be addressed. Some individuals may promote person-first language

whereas others subscribe to disability-first language, which is a contemporary perspective

within American society (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). There is power in

using disability first-language. For example, Collier (2012) stated “sticking a word in the

shadow of a noun can create the impression that there is something inherently wrong with

it, that it should be hidden” (p. E939). The United Kingdom has been using disability

first-language as the norm since the beginning of the disability rights movement (Evans,

Broido, Brown & Wilke, 2017). For the purposes of this paper, both usages of the

language (person-first and disability-first language) will be utilized to speak to numerous

audiences.

The research presented throughout this manuscript aims to provide a glimpse into

the learning disabled college athletes’ experience, beyond athletic expectations,

examining academic support and the development of self-advocacy skills. The voice of

college athletes with learning disabilities and ADHD is almost non-existent within the

literature. It is important to develop research grounded in lived experiences. In addition,

this research provides an innovative social justice lens to understanding disability

perspective, which is a large undertaking for a research project, as very few designs have

taken a similar approach (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). This

phenomenological study seeks to describe the lived experiences of learning or ADHD

disabled students who participate in intercollegiate athletics within National Collegiate

Athletic Association (NCAA), Division I (D1) athletic programs. Student perspective will

inform practitioners on how to support this population through academic support,

disclosure decisions, and self-advocacy strategies. Furthermore, the interactionist model

of disability helps guide the research, understanding that an individual’s experience of a

disability is a combination of the environment, the person’s choices, and the person’s

impairment.

Defining Learning Disability and/or ADHD

Since the passing of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, learning

impairments have raised significantly to the topmost reported disability on college

campuses (Burroughs, 1997; Walker, 2004; Wolverton, 2016). The first definition of a

learning disability was published in 1962; prior to this date, lack of achievement in the

classroom was attributed to cognitive limitations or lack of motivation (Gordon & Keiser,

2000; Walker, 2004). The passing of the ADA allowed for more individuals on college

campuses to qualify for educational accommodations.

A widely accepted definition of learning disabilities stems from the National Joint

Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). The NJCLD states,

Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of

disorders manifested by significant disorders in the acquisition and use of

listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical skills (National

Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities, 1990, p. 3).

This definition is still used present day within educational settings (Fletcher, Lyon, &

Fuchs, 2006). However, it is not backed by medical professionals as a definition for

diagnosis or by the federal government.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)

learning impairments and ADHD are classified as neurodevelopmental disorders. The

DSM-V is used by professional doctors and healthcare providers to diagnose some

nationally recognized non-apparent disabilities such as ADHD and other psychological

conditions. The DSM-V defines specific learning disorders as “difficulties learning and

using academic skills” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 66). These difficulties

must be considered long-term and cannot be resolved through interventions. The criteria

listed to qualify for a specific learning disorder can be related to reading or mathematical

comprehension, phonics, written communication, and spelling. Furthermore, the

diagnosis can be categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. The most common learning

disorders are linked to learning challenges in reading, math, and written communication

(Cortilla & Horowitz, 2014).

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is classified in the DSM-V

under neurodevelopmental disorders and has three categories. Group one is

predominantly inattentive, group two is predominantly hyperactive-impulsive, and group

three is combined (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Hyperactivity symptoms

widely vary when diagnosing a child compared to an adult. Adults with hyperactivity

may experience symptoms of “extreme restlessness or wearing others out with their

activity” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 61). Whereas inattentive behaviors

may include the inability to process behaviors beforehand, lack of social awareness, and

not considering long-term consequences for one's own actions (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013). Symptoms in adults with ADHD may include difficulties with

focusing, following through on tasks, organization, personal relationships, regulation of

emotions, and impulsivity (Maher, 2014).

Learning impairments and ADHD are often considered hidden or invisible

disabilities, not easily detected by physical appearance. ADHD and other learning

impairments are typically diagnosed using psychoeducational evaluations, because they

are cognitive in nature. Research focused on self-disclosure or stereotypes may be best

examined by grouping students with visible and non-apparent disabilities (Vaccara,

Kimball, & Wells, 2015). This is due to the different experiences that may vary based on

impairments. Disabled students may grapple with the positives and negatives to

disclosing their condition and may encounter resistance to sharing this aspect of their

identity, especially if the student has not come to terms with their own impairment.

The College Experience for Students with a Learning Disability and/or ADHD

Approximately 11% of undergraduate students enrolled in higher education in the

United States have a disability (U.S. Department of Education. National Center for

Education Statistics, 2013, 2014; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009).

Furthermore, approximately 64% of disabled students enrolled in undergraduate

coursework have an invisible impairment. Hidden impairments are often classified as

learning disabilities, ADHD, and mental illness or psychological concerns (Lux, 2016).

Additionally, about 33% of disabled students on college campuses report having a

learning disability and 18% report having ADHD (Raue & Lewis, 2011). It is suggested

that between 25% and 50 % of individuals who are diagnosed with a learning disability

also have ADHD (Goldstein, 2007; Silver, 2006)

Transitioning from secondary education to higher education can be difficult for

many learning disabled student as the academic rigor and curriculum shift drastically.

Students with disabilities are more likely to encounter obstacles and barriers to their

academic and educational success compared to students without disabilities. Furthermore,

a radical transition occurs between high school and higher education where the

responsibility to advocate and self-disclose an individual’s disability shifts from

educators and parents, to the students (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; Vaccara,

Kimball, & Wells, 2015). This also implies that published literature and data on disabled

students prior to entering higher education may not be truly accurate on depicting the full

experiences of a college student. Therefore, the majority of research throughout this study

focuses on literature geared towards students in postsecondary learning environments.

Students in K-12 education are protected under different federal laws, requiring

different expectations. In the K-12 sector, students with disabilities are protected under

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 (Hadley,

2011). When students enter postsecondary education, students are protected by Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of

1990 (Hadley, 2011). Not only do the laws change from secondary education to higher

education, but the responsibility shifts to the student navigating the accommodation and

advocacy process. Students are expected to take initiative and self-disclose their

disability, contact the office of disability services, provide official paperwork about their

qualifying disability, and self-advocate to their faculty and others who will support their

academic endeavors (Hadley, 2011).

When students enter college, it is a preconceived notion that students should have

developed academic skills and strategies throughout their primary and secondary

education–-. These skills include the ability to interpret lectures, take notes, read, write,

and have fine-tuned study skills (Mason & Mason, 2005). However, students with

learning disabilities often find these academic tasks challenging, having difficulties in

one or more areas which include reading, mathematics, written language, memory, and

metacognition (Mason & Mason, 2005). It is important to note that learning disabilities,

just like all disabilities, are unique to each individual, however, educators typically lump

all students with learning disabilities into one category attempting to prescribe a socially

constructed concept (Mason & Mason, 2005).

In relation to learning about an individual's learning disability, parents are often

the first to share information with children or adolescents (Mason & Mason, 2005). As a

child, parents are typically responsible for advocacy. However, when a child continues

onto college, parents who do not transition advocacy into the child's ownership may find

their child to struggle. The student may view themselves as being underprepared and lack

the ability to articulate their own needs (Mason & Mason, 2005). Raskind, Goldberg,

Higgins, and Herman (1999) believe the best strategies to be used by successful people

specifically with learning disabilities are the ability to be self-aware, proactive, persevere,

set goals, use support systems, and develop coping skills.

As the enrollment of students with disabilities increases on college campuses, the

graduation rate of this population demonstrates a lack of successful completion (Quick,

Lehmann, & Deniston, 2003). There is a lack of literature surrounding the lived

experiences of disabled students on college campuses (Lux, 2016). In order to better

support this population of students, that is steadily increasing, more research must be

conducted to understand the holistic experience. By understanding and seeking student

voice, educators can create collegiate level support services that emphasize the needs of

this group of students. A deeper dive into the literature will point to an understudied

perspective, the college athlete with a learning disability or ADHD.

Defining College Athlete

The term student-athlete comes with a great deal of historical context. At first

glance the term student-athlete would appear to sound student centered however, it is

quite the opposite. Several authors claim the word student-athlete was first coined in

1964 by Walter Byers in a courtroom to protect the NCAA from paying workers

compensation. A football player by the name of Kent Waldrop at Texas Christian

University was paralyzed during a game against the University of Alabama and sued for

workers compensation benefits (Byers, & Hammer 1997; Shropshire & Williams, 2017).

By using the phrase student-athlete, the NCAA was placing emphasis on the concept that

the individual was a student, not an employee (Byers, & Hammer 1997; Shropshire &

Williams, 2017). This promotes the idea that academics come prior to athletic

commitment. However, Staurowsky and Sack (2005) argue that the term traces back even

further, to the formation of the NCAA in 1906. Academic scholarships were a political

topic and using the term student in front of athlete painted a picture for the general public

that student-athletes were solely enrolled in higher education institutions to earn a degree

(Staurowsky & Sack, 2005).

One common issue within higher education is the misrepresentation that college

athletes are not typical students. For example, Zimbalist (2001) eloquently stated,

The term college athlete itself tells you they are not normal students…If student-

athletes were normal students, then either the term would not be necessary, or it

would be joined by other terms like student-musician, student-artist, or student-

engineer (p. 37).

Everyone enrolled in higher education is a student, therefore it is argued that this term

student-athlete is unnecessary and college athlete is a more appropriate term (Shulman &

Bowen, 2001; Staurowsky & Sack, 2005; Zimbalist, 1999). To this day, the word student-

athlete has been used in scholarly literature, streamed through the media, written into

policies, and spoken across college campuses, yet the term is not defined within the

dictionary (Staurowsky & Sack, 2005).

For the purpose of this research, the term college athlete will be used to represent

a college student who participates in an intercollegiate sport officially recognized by the

NCAA. By neglecting to use the term student-athlete, which is fueled by propaganda and

a misleading historical origin, this paper serves to take a new direction grounded in social

justice, equity, and advocacy defined in multiple contexts beyond disability. Additionally,

this paper will focus on the experiences and prior research grounded in NCAA D1

student experiences from Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences unless otherwise

noted. It is essential to remember college athletes encounter the same transition and

adjustment concerns as students who are not athletes, but a college athlete requires

different support services and necessities for their overall success compared to a non-

college athlete.

The College Athletic Experience

One of the most well-known organizations in collegiate athletics is the NCAA

known for setting standards and regulations for college athletes and higher education

institutions to abide. A little less than half a million college students participate in

collegiate athletics in 24 different NCAA recognized sports each year (NCAA, 2019d).

The NCAA is composed of three specific divisions with varying regulations and bylaws.

DI institutions form the largest division which include institutions who offer seven or

more sports for both men and women college athletes (Bailey, 2017).

The five most powerful conferences that dominate athletics due to their societal

popularity are the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and

Southeastern Conference (SEC) (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015; Siegfried & Burba, 2004).

Most revenue producing athletic programs come from these NCAA D1, Power 5

conferences. The Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) is comprised of the Power 5 and five

additional athletic conferences, which consist of 130 of the largest, competitive colleges

in the United States. There are several requirements an athletic program must meet to

maintain eligibility under FBS guidelines, but the most common is a school must offer a

minimum of 16 varsity sports, which must include football (NCAA, 2014). A revenue

producing sport is a high-profile athletic program and are typically associated with

football or basketball (Treme & Burrus, 2006; Menke, 2016). Black men who participate

in revenue producing sports account for more than half of the football roster at most of

the Power 5 conference institutions, and this number is higher when analyzing men’s

basketball team rosters (Harper, 2016).

Once a college athlete has graduated high school, been recruited by an institution,

and been approved as NCAA eligible, the student begins their collegiate experience.

Some college athletes specifically within revenue producing sports enter college with the

goal to become a professional athlete (Beamon, 2012; Rishe, 2003; Snyder, 1996). Others

typically in Olympic competing sports use the opportunity to gain an education to propel

them into a career of their choice. First year college athletes typically struggle

academically due to their athletic obligations (Lally & Kerr, 2005). Balancing

schoolwork and outside extracurricular activities are difficult for any first-year student,

but the structured and rigorous nature of athletics adds an additional challenge to the

college transition.

The three largest concerns college athletes at the collegiate level grapple with

include new academic expectations, transitioning from a secondary to post-secondary

environment, and time management (Hodes, James, Martin, & Milliner, 2015). These are

similar challenges all students at the collegiate level experience, but college athletes

require more assistance due to their athletic obligations (Hodes, James, Martin, &

Milliner, 2015). Where the non-college athlete has the ability to independently socialize

and autonomy to create their own schedules, college athletes often find their time

consumed by mandatory obligations such as academic tutoring or study hall, team

practices, and appearances at a variety of campus or NCAA sponsored events (Hodes,

James, Martin, & Milliner, 2015). College athletes are also placed under unique

expectations as they not only represent themselves and their team, but also symbolize

their entire institutional reputation (Hill, 2001).

College athletes have two competing identities; they are in school for educational

purposes, but they are also asked to meet high physical demands in their athletic

performance (Watt & Moore, 2001). College athletes face the same challenges as non-

college athletes, such as major and career exploration, social adjustments, continuous

holistic development, and the pressure of academic demands (Carodin, Almond, & Ratto,

2001; Watt & Moore, 2001). In addition to the student academic role, college athletes are

placed under athletic constraints such as team trainings or conditioning, practice,

competition, and traveling to away games (Watt & Moore, 2001; Carodin, Almond, &

Ratto, 2001).

Participating as a NCAA D1 athlete, comes with additional pressure to perform

athletically and maintain NCAA academic eligibility (Watt & Moore, 2001; Jolly, 2008;

Ferris, Finster, & McDonald, 2004). College athletes encounter high standards from

media and consumers which is unique to the NCAA D1 college athlete experience

(Howard-Hamilton, & Sina, 2001; Rishe, 2003; Watt & Moore, 2001). In addition,

college athletes not only answer to faculty but are consistently facing pressures to achieve

high expectations set forth by athletic coaches, administrators, and academic support staff

(Huml, Hancock, & Bergman, 2014). As pressures to win athletically on the field drive

increases in revenue, the expectation to maintain student-athletic eligibility is heightened

specifically around academics. This can lead to academic misconduct and lack of

judgement in upholding integrity, as seen in recent NCAA investigations at the

University of Mississippi and University of Missouri (NCAA, 2017c; NCAA, 2019c).

There is a common debate on the positive and negative implications of

participating in intercollegiate athletics, especially at the NCAA D1 competition level.

One argument is the positive influence and societal values that are instilled through

athletic participation (Menke, 2016; Melendez, 2006; Wolniak, Pierson, & Pascarella,

2001). Other critics emphasize the negative perspectives to athletic participation which

includes lack of education endeavors and exploitation of the college athlete (Menke,

2016; Comeaux, 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Simons, Bosworth, & Fujita, 2007).

Additional consequences specifically within revenue producing sports include lower

graduation rates, negative stereotypes, and beliefs about athletes on college campuses,

and slower cognitive development of college athletes (Menke, 2016).

The NCAA only allows athletes to practice 20 hours a week, to help create

boundaries between athletics and education. However, college athletes and coaches are

known to push this limit (Benford, 2007; Huml, Hancock, & Bergman, 2014). The

general student body on college campuses have the freedom and control to arrange their

time commitments surrounding academics and social engagements independently (Jolly,

2008). However, college athletes specifically competing at the NCAA D1 level have

prescribed schedules involving their academic obligations, to athletic priorities and

demands (Jordan & Denson, 1990; Watt & Moore, 2001; Jolly, 2008).When surveyed, a

half of NCAA D1 collegiate athlete participants admitted that they were unable to spend

as much time on their academics as they would prefer and 80% of participants correlated

the reasoning back to participation in athletics (Potuto & O’Hanlon, 2007). Juggling these

two competing identities of student and athlete is difficult. However, college athletes who

have learning challenges may experience further struggles within their academic pursuits.

The Learning Disabled College Athletic Experience

The NCAA coined the term “education-impacting disabilities” (EID) to define

college athletes who have a “current impairment that has a substantial educational impact

on a student’s academic performance and requires accommodations” in 2008 (NCAA,

2019b). According to the NCAA, some of the most commonly reported EIDs are learning

disabilities, ADHD, mental health disorders, and medical conditions (NCAA, 2019b).

Students who qualify under the NCAA EID legislation are accommodated with

exceptions for eligibility standards on core courses, meeting the student’s unique

educational needs, and these rules differ between Division I, Division II and Division III

institutions (NCAA, 2019b). There is a lack of information on EID beyond what is

provided on the NCAA website.

It was reported over two decades ago that learning disabled college athletes made

up 2.7% of the college athlete population (N4A, 1998). This number was expected to

increase when the NCAA implemented lower admission requirements in 2001 (Clark &

Parette, 2002). Although there has been no scholarly statistics published since 1998,

Stowkowski and Huffman (2014) found that out of 477 NCAA D1 college athlete survey

responses, 4% of the sample reported having a learning disability. It is also argued that

this number is much higher upwards of 25%, reported through media outlets (“College

Teams Exploit”, 2009). Although there are no population specific statistics available,

some sample sizes suggest the number is much higher than 2.7%. For example, at the

University of Louisiana it was published in 2016 that approximately 40% of the football

team qualified for academic accommodations for a learning disability (Wolverton, 2016).

The Ohio State University has one in every five football players on scholarship receiving

academic services for a learning impairment (Wolverton, 2016). These numbers appear to

be similar across Power 5 conferences and revenue producing athletic programs.

Evident from the lack of clarity on the exact number of college athletes with

learning impairments or ADHD, research and literature on this population is scarce. The

majority of available literature in the early 2000’s derives from law journals on the

discrimination of college athletes with learning disabilities surrounding NCAA academic

eligibility requirements (Weston, 1998; Denbo, 2003; Walker, 2005; Weston, 2005). The

NCAA has since changed their requirements to align with federal ADA guidelines

allowing remedial courses to satisfy academic course requirements for students with a

qualifying education-impacting disability in 2008 (NCAA, 2019b).

Another growing body of literature examining college athletes with ADHD stems

from recent research on concussion testing (Kelly, Ketcham, Patel, & Hall, 2018;

Iaccarino, Fitzgerald, Pulli, Woodworth, Spencer, Zafonte, & Biederman, 2018;

Manderino, Zachman, & Gunstad, 2018). This literature does not address or focus on the

academic demands, identity development or strategies and best practices to support

college athletes with learning disabilities and ADHD on college campuses or in the

classroom. Although concussion testing is important within athletic training and the

healthcare profession, it does not provide any tangible strategies for the classroom or

academic context. A dissertation completed twenty years ago examined college athletes

with learning disabilities from one NCAA D1 institution and the transitional support

services available. This study briefly analyzed the participant’s beliefs of self-advocacy

(Graham, 1999). Words such as “assertive”, “intimidating”, and “unaccustomed” were

provided throughout the participants narratives. This outdated information focuses on

Schlossberg’s transition theory and further research must examine the experiences of

college athletes with a theoretical lens grounded in self-advocacy and the interactionist

model of disability.

One prevalent dissertation focusing on college athletes with learning disabilities

and ADHD surrounding academics and higher education examines NCAA D1 football

players and their perceptions on learning (Stokowski, 2013). This study found that five

out of the nine participants interviewed were unaware of their specific learning

impairment. Additionally, each of these interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and

were conducted at one institution. During their dissertation, Stokowski (2013) found that

all students used academic support services provided to them such as tutoring and the

learning specialists, but only a few students used classroom accommodations.

Furthermore, the research showed that most learning disabled college athletes did not

take advantage of their classroom accommodations which could be contributed to the fact

the majority of students were unaware of their specific disability diagnosis. In addition,

the disabling environment filled with negative stereotypes and unaccommodating

institutional processes could have played a role.

A study conducted in 2017 at a NCAA D1 institution focused on learning

disabled college athletes (Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017). This qualitative study

found that college athletes with non-apparent disabilities used athletics as a coping

strategy as athletics provided “support and structure” (p.58). Athletics helped this group

of students understand their world and time commitment to their athletic obligations

serving as both a positive and negative experience (Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball,

2017). One recommendation that derived from this research was embedded in rethinking

the term disability, as the term stems beyond physical capabilities. It is suggested that

institutional services that serve students with disabilities, and more specifically college

athletes, consider using physical activity to teach different strategies related to time

management (Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017).

In 2020, Stokowski and colleagues continue to research and publish articles on

college athletes with education-impacting disabilities. These studies include examining

the effect football has on students with EIDs and the stereotypes Black football students

with EIDs experience (Stokowski, Goldsmith, Croft, Hutchens, & Fridley, 2020;

Stokowski & Ferguson, 2020). Other than these studies indicated above, the college

athlete perspective surrounding the lived experiences of navigating campus culture and

academic experience with a learning impairment or ADHD are almost non-existent. With

a lack of literature on this population of students in higher education, this emergent

design will aim to focus on the academic support provided to college athletes with

learning challenges. In addition, disability disclosure and self-advocacy skill

development will be used to direct the research. In order to enhance a deeper

understanding and implementation into the higher education context, research must begin

with a basic understanding of these experiences.

Problem Statement

Since the 1970’s, a growing number of athletic academic support centers have

formed and multiplied their efforts toward supporting athletic academic success on

college campuses (Benson, 1994; Rishe, 2003). Evidently, since the passing of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), learning disabilities have become the most

reported disability on college campuses (Burroughs, 1997; Walker, 2004). The

combination of expanding support services and increased reports of learning disabilities

on college campuses has produced the emerging trend and crucial need for learning

specialists (Steinberg, Walther, Herbst, West, Zamagias, & Smith, 2018). Learning

specialists utilize strategies and techniques to best support college athletes with learning

challenges in their academic success and goals (Weiss, 2011).

As college administrators begin hiring more learning specialists to support college

athletes with learning disabilities and other learning concerns, it is critical for their

interactions to be grounded in research. Limited pedagogical or practical strategy

implementations within higher education can lead to consequences.

A lack of critical inquiry about students with disabilities in all realms of higher

education leads practitioners to create policies and services that do not consider

the needs of this growing group of students. Such exclusions have not only ethical

but also potentially legal ramifications for higher education institutions (Vaccara,

Kimball, & Wells, 2015, p. 36).

This research has the ability to not only emphasize the importance of understanding this

ignored population of students on college campuses, but can create lasting informed

decision-making policies, and processes that are backed by student perspectives.

In regard to policies and regulations involving the NCAA bylaws and ADA

federal law, history has shown that the NCAA failed to address or incorporate equitable

standards for students requiring accommodations based on an individuals’ impairment for

over 15 years (Weston, 1998; Denbo, 2003; Walker, 2005; Weston, 2005). As the NCAA

has recently shifted towards supporting and researching the needs of mental health

concerns within intercollegiate athletics, one thing remains untouched and

underdeveloped, the importance of supporting college athletes with learning disabilities

and/or ADHD.

One of the best ways to understand the difference between equality and equity is

through an example based in athletics. Shropshire and Williams (2017) demonstrate that

equality is providing an entire athletic team with the same size sneaker. Equality is the

idea that everyone got the same, but equity takes this idea a step further. Equity is where

everyone not only receives a pair of sneakers, but they are adjusted to meet the specific

shoe size of each individual’s feet. This allows each athlete to play to the best of their

ability. By ignoring disabled college athletes and their experience, the NCAA, other

athletic conferences, and institutions of higher education are perpetuating the idea that

disability should be hidden (Collier, 2012). Disabled students who compete in

intercollegiate athletics are not provided an equitable experience that meets their

individualized needs.

Although the NCAA (2017a) published a resource on best practices in regards to

mental health which incorporated a section on disability support services, this document

does not allow athletic programs to take ownership of becoming more aware of invisible

disability and putting best practices into action. Learning disabilities and ADHD are both

listed in the DSM V, however, most people would not categorize these impairments as

mental illness but rather invisible, or cognitive impairments, as the NCAA has also

ignored specific best practices relating to academics and athletics in regards to learning

disabilities and ADHD. The resource guide suggests best practices consisting of crisis

management surrounding mental health concerns, and health-promoting environments

that support well-being and resilience, but it neglects to address how athletic departments

should better meet the needs of their students who have learning disabilities or ADHD

(NCAA, 2017a). The NCAA has taken a stance on destigmatizing and incorporating a

specific stance on informing and educating coaches, athletic staff, and departments,

however, disability is still hidden, invisible, and ignored. It should be the institutional

leaders main goal and objective to educate all students, and a shared responsibility of all

personnel on campus to understand differentiated learning techniques, incorporate

universal design, and pursue opportunities to gain knowledge and learn how to better

support all students and their individualized needs on their educational journey.

Disabled students on college campuses tend to have minimal focus in research

and practice when compared to other minoritized groups (Herbert, Welsh, Hong, Soo-

Yong, Byun, Atkinson, & Kurz, 2014; Pena, 2014). Only 1% of all scholarly work

published in top-tier higher education journals since the passing of the ADA in 1990

center around topics relating to disability (Pena, 2014). Furthermore, when examining the

motivation of students with disabilities and the disclosing process, limited research has

explored the experience of student’s decision-making, and choice to seeking disability

services on college campuses (O’Shea & Meyer, 2016). In addition, the research that is

relatively available lacks in providing student voice and absence of best practices for

learning or ADHD disabled students surrounding the effectiveness of accommodations

(Lux, 2016).

Students with learning disabilities are more likely to encounter obstacles and

barriers to their academic and educational success compared to non-disabled students

(Cawthon & Cole, 2010). The lack of education focused on teaching students how to

advocate for their needs and guiding students through transitions into post-secondary

education is contributing to the obstacles and barriers faced by disabled students in higher

education (Cawthon & Cole, 2010). Empirical research grounded in student experiences

would provide professionals opportunities to foster development and support the

navigation of academic independent agency among college athletes with learning

disabilities.

In addition to the lack of scholarly research focused on disabled students within

higher education, it has been argued that more emphasis needs to be placed on the

challenge’s intercollegiate college students experience (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).

When combining these two identities, there is an absence of awareness and focus on this

specific population of college athlete with learning disabilities and/or ADHD (Hishinuma

& Fremstad, 1997; Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017). It is essential that further

research focuses on this population of students to not only provide deepened perspective,

but it enhances the support and needs of the student from an institutional standpoint

(Monda, 2011; Stokowski, Blunt-Vinti, Hardin, Goss, & Turk, 2017).

Significance of Study

This study has four main goals. By adding student voice and perspective to a

minority group on college campuses, this study aims to bring awareness to the lived

experiences of learning and disabled college athletes. Additionally, this study seeks to

bridge gaps in an unexplored population within the literature. A greater understanding of

college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD surrounding disability disclosure,

self-advocacy and academic support are essential.

Failure to fully understand the distinct experiences of college athletes can have a

significant impact on the extent to which we understand the need for specific

forms of campus assistance and can affect questions of policy in higher education

(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011, p. 235).

This concept can also be applied to disability and the combination of both identity facets.

Comprehending the experiences of learning or ADHD disabled college athletes can

provide awareness to college student personnel who have direct contact with this

population in the classroom, through athletic academic support centers, and program

development across student support offices.

The second goal is to provide professionals, staff, and faculty, informed best

practices and recommendations on how to best support college athletes with learning

disabilities or ADHD. With limited research to help guide this profession, further

research is crucial. Focusing on academic support, disability disclosure, and self-

advocacy can help learning specialists understand the population of students they serve.

Faculty and staff can navigate interactions and implement support geared toward the

specific needs of college athletes who choose to disclose their specific impairment(s).

Emerging from student perspectives, this research can assist several diverse stakeholders

on college campuses to create support for this growing yet overlooked population of

students.

The third goal is to contribute research and bring more awareness to this group of

students on college campuses. Gaston-Gayles (2009) stated, “In order for colleges and

universities to make sound decisions concerning the welfare of college athletes,

longitudinal data sources are needed” (p. 36). This is in response to the lack of studies

that focus on the college athlete experience at multiple institutions, as many studies only

focus on one or two higher education establishments to conduct research (Gaston-Gayles,

2009). This research aims to collect data from students at multiple institutions. When

conducting research on the larger population (college athletes or disabled students), the

literature suggests a quantitative approach, but when examining a subgroup within the

larger population (college athletes with learning disabilities) the majority of research has

applied a qualitative approach.

The final contribution that will be significant to this study is the application of the

social justice and interactionist models of disability. Most of the research conducted on

disabled students is written in person-first language and typically perpetuates and

endorses a medical model approach to disability. The medical model approach views

disability as an individualistic problem, whereas the social justice model places the

problem within a societal context. This means that if society made all environments

accessible to all impairments, there would be no “disability”, as the environment is the

disabling context. This research prescribes to the interactionist model of disability which

incorporates three main factors into disability interactions which include the person’s

impairment, person’s choices, and the environment. This eclectic approach allows for

disability to be viewed from several different perspectives and also allows for participants

to share which philosophy they subscribe to within the disability community, if they

choose to identify as disabled at all.

Conceptual Framework

With a lack of theoretical frameworks and conceptual models within higher

education surrounding disability, it is suggested that scholars examine other disciplinary

models and theories that are relevant to the research (Vaccaro, Kimball, & Wells, 2015).

One conceptual model used throughout this research derives from special education

scholars. This conceptual model presented by Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, and Eddy

(2005) provides a framework for self-advocacy for individuals with disabilities. The

second conceptual model is known as the Interactionist Model of Disability, related to the

experience of disabled students. This model derives from Evans and Broido (2011),

within the field of higher education. These frameworks which will be explored further in-

depth in the literature review, inform the research questions, and are designed to be used

when analyzing the data and synthesizing the findings

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand the lived

experiences of college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD at NCAA D1

institutions within Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences. A closer lens will

examine disability disclosure, self-advocacy, and academic support within the college

environment.

Central Question: What are the lived experiences of college athletes with learning

disabilities and/or ADHD surrounding disability disclosure advocacy and

academic support at NCAA D1 institutions?

RQ1: What does the process of disability disclosure look like for college

athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD?

RQ2: How do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD

advocate for their academic success?

RQ3: In what ways do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD describe academic support within their campus

community?

Working towards answering these questions will help promote a voice that is lacking in

current higher education research. In order to best inform practices occurring in higher

education, a student perspective is required to set forth recommendations and strategies

on how to best support college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD. Every

individual on a college campus plays a significant role in the formation of campus

climate. The purpose of this research is to provide direction and recommendations for

athletic administrators, faculty, and student affairs staff, synthesizing findings, and

application of these strategies into practice.

Definitions

The following is a list of words or terms used throughout this manuscript that sets clear

definitions and descriptions.

Academic Support Services: Various programs and facilities that are available at

individual institution to help students academically succeed and foster development

through a variety of activities and interactions with administrators, staff, and peers.

Academic support services refer to specific programs that are geared towards supporting

students academically outside of the classroom towards retention and graduation

(Gansemer-Topf & Schuh, 2006). For the purposes of this study, academic support

services include but are not limited to disability support services and athletic academic

support services.

Accommodation: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires all higher

education institutions receiving federal funding to provide students with disabilities

reasonable accommodations (Americas with Disabilities Act, 1990). Accommodations in

an academic environment are known as removing barriers and making modifications for

individuals to fully participate in their education.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): One of several disorders classified

under neurodevelopment within the DSM-V. ADHD can be diagnosed in early

childhood, adolescence, or adulthood (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The

disorder can be diagnosed under one of three categories which include inattentive,

hyperactive, or a combination. ADHD is “characterized by developmental deficits that

produce impairments of personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning”

(American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 31).

College Athlete: A college student who participate in an intercollegiate sport officially

recognized by the NCAA. Irick (2011) defines college athlete by providing the following

requirements. “For the purposes of this report, a participant at an NCAA member

institution is defined as a student who, as of the day of the varsity team’s first scheduled

contest: (a) is listed as a team member; (b) practices with the varsity team and receives

coaching from one or more varsity coaches; or (c) received athletically-related student

aid. Any student who satisfies one or more of the above criteria is a participant, including

a student on a team the institution designates or defines as junior varsity, freshman, or

novice, or a student who does not play in a scheduled contest, whether for medical

reasons or to preserve eligibility (i.e., a redshirt)” (p. 7).

Disability: According to the ADA of 1990, a disability is defined as “a physical or

mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such

individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an

impairment” (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, sec. 12102). Federal law requires

postsecondary educational institutions “to provide both access and accommodations for

students whose disabilities meet the laws’ definitions” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 1042).

However, this research seeks to change the perspective of disability from a legal medical

model point of view to a social justice, interactionist model perspective. Therefore,

disability is defined as “the way in which people’s activities are restricted by their

environments (and thus, as a synonym for handicap), and disability as the noun form of

disabled” (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017, p. 5).

Impairment: Evans, Broido, Brown, and Wilke (2017), define impairment as, “the ways

in which people’s bodies or minds differ from what society deems ‘normal’ or ‘typical’.

Impairment therefore refers to specific physical, psychological, sensory, cognitive or

health conditions whether present at birth or acquired later” (pp. 4-5). Taking this

approach means that the impairment would be ADHD or learning difficulties or

challenges rather than the disability.

Learning Disabilities: This study takes an inclusive approach by defining a learning

disability as “a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested

by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading,

writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities” (National Joint Commission on Learning

Disabilities, 1990, p. 3).

Learning Specialist: A growing profession within athletic academic support services.

This student support personnel is intended to support college athlete who are

academically “at-risk”, demonstrate learning challenges or difficulties, or have an

impairment that affects their academic potential or success (Steinberg, Walther, Herbst,

West, Zamagias & Smith, 2018).

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): The NCAA is the largest governing

body in the United States associated with intercollegiate athletics. “Nearly half a million

college athletes make up the 19,750 team that send more than 52,500 participants to

compete each year in the NCAA’s 90 championships in 24 sports across the 3 division”

(NCAA, 2019e). This study focuses on NCAA Division 1 college athletes. The NCAA is

categorized into three collegiate sport divisions with different regulations which outline

the extent of the athletic program, level of competition, and financial aid. NCAA D1

programs are the highest level of intercollegiate athletics authorized by the NCAA.

Self-Advocacy: For the purposes of this study, self-advocacy is defined as “an

individual’s ability to effectively communicate, convey, negotiate, or assert his or her

own interests, desires, needs, and rights. It involves making informed decisions and

taking responsibility for these decisions (VanReusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deschler,

1994)” (Clark & Parette, 2002, p. 54).

Self-Disclosure: Refers to a disabled student choosing to reveal or communicate

information about their impairment to a faculty member, staff, or administrator for the

purpose of requesting accommodations to support their disability through academics,

educational attainment, or campus events and activities.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

To understand the necessity of this research, it is essential to review what is

considered noteworthy in prior literature. In the literature, a learning or ADHD impaired

college athletes is a population lacking attention and voice. Due to the lack of literature

and focus on this salient population of students, a wider range in approach is applicable.

This section will emphasize the college experience of learning disabled students and

literature around disability disclosure and stigmatization. The second section focuses on

self-advocacy skills which will be included as these are facets that arise within the

disability community. In addition, exploration of academic support services available to

college athletes through athletic academic support centers and disability support services

will be provided. The final section of this review will explain in-depth the conceptual

models that will be applied throughout the research and data analysis.

Disability Self-Disclosure

As previously established, to receive accommodations at the post-secondary level,

students must self-disclose their disability. The process of discussing or choosing to

disclose a disability looks different depending on the type of impairment. For example,

students with nonvisible or “hidden” impairments have the ability to voluntarily withhold

sharing information about their disability compared to an individual with a physical or

visible impairment, who may find hiding their disability impossible

(Barnard Brak, Lechtenberger, & Lan, 2010; Forman, Baker, Pater, & Smith, 2011;

Olney & Kim, 2001). Self-disclosure of a disability is defined as the moment in which a

student communicates with another individual that they have a disability (Lynch &

Gussel, 1996; De Cesarei, 2014). This can look different based on the individual and

situation. When contemplating self-disclosure, individuals may consider the benefits and

challenges associated with this vulnerable decision (Corrigan & Matthews, 2003; Smart,

2001; Barnard-Brak, Lechtenberger, & Lan 2010). Sharing extremely personal and

private information about oneself is an ongoing process in which an individual must

consider and learn to navigate the relationship and context (Petronio, 2002).

Deciding to self-disclose is considered a “complex, multilayered, and highly

correlated to the climate and disability environment on campus” (Trammell & Hathaway,

2007, p. 6). Self-disclosing a disability at any stage in the higher education process

(application, enrollment, or first year of college and beyond) comes with both benefits

and disadvantages (Gerber & Price, 2003; Hughs & Graham, 1994). Asking a student to

share extremely privileged and personal information to staff and instructors can cause

hesitation for some students. In many cases handing an instructor an accommodation

letter can lead to the student being asked several questions about their disability.

Questions can include “highly personal (e.g., asking specific questions about a person's

disability) to the impersonal relating only to satisfying a request for accommodations

(e.g., asking questions only in order to satisfy a request for accommodations)” (Marshak,

Van Wieren, Farrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010, p. 413). From either perspective there can be

some level of discomfort felt by both participants in this exchange.

There are three essential questions that students with disabilities contemplate

before deciding to self-disclose their disability.

• Who do I tell?

• How much do I tell?

• When do I tell?

Students who can internalize and think through these questions are typically more

capable of managing their ability to disclose information and find a process that works

for their needs and comfort level (Trammel, 2009). There are four main factors that

influence the self-disclosure process for disabled students (Petronio, Martin, &

Littlefield, 1984). First, is the relationship with the individual in which they are

contemplating self-disclosure. Second, is the context of the situation and environment.

The third factor is the individual's response to the student with a disabilities self-

disclosure. The final influencing factor is the individuals own beliefs, thoughts, and

feelings about their own disability.

Identity development and exploration are essential dynamics during the college

experience (Riddell & Weedon, 2014). Identity issues that cause barriers to disclosing a

disability on college campuses include a need to feel independent, the need to remove the

stigmatized identity that is present from secondary education, and the hesitation in

disclosing their identity as a disabled individual in their collegiate identity (Marshak,

Wiernen, Ferrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010). A second barrier is the need to remove

negative social barriers such as being isolated. Additionally, insufficient knowledge or

understanding on the student’s own impairment or explanation of their accommodations

can cause fear and feelings of worry (Marshak, Wiernen, Ferrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010).

Furthermore, negative interactions with professors lead to resisting disclosure of a

disability. There appears to be several barriers that influence a student’s decision to self-

disclose their impairment to receive disability related accommodations.

Choosing to self-disclose comes with both some benefits and several perceived

negatives which can include discrimination and stereotyping (Crawford, 2002; Hartmann,

2003; Trammel, 2009). The term disability in itself can be a set-back for some students

who need accommodations, since students have to visit the universities disability support

services, which forces labels onto a student before the student even begins the process of

seeking accommodations (Trammel, 2009). Stigma around the word disability can cause

students to avoid self-identification on college campuses (Clark & Parette, 2002;

Walling, 1996). When a student chooses not to disclose their impairment, they are

choosing not to be stigmatized but also not to benefit from the accommodations that

could provide academic support (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001). If requesting

accommodations will benefit a student’s academic abilities and success, but hinder their

identity or public image, students will choose to opt into social identity rather than self-

seeking behaviors (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001; Madaus, 2008).

Identity Stereotypes Affecting Self-Disclosure

Defining the word stereotype through prior literature is difficult as the definition

appears several times since the early 1920’s but the literature cannot seem to agree on a

working definition (Judd & Park, 1993; Kanahara, 2006). Judd and Park (1993) conclude

that “a stereotype is an individual’s set of beliefs about the characteristics or attributes of

a group” (p. 110). Similarly, Brauer, Judd, and Jacquelin (2001) define the term as “…a

stereotype consists of an individual’s beliefs about a group of people (p. 453). The two

common words used throughout both definitions are belief and group (Kanahara, 2006).

College athletes are typically generalized as a group and held to specific beliefs amongst

faculty, peers, administrators, and sports fans.

Stereotyping has proven to negatively influence college athletes’ academic

success. The negative influence on academic performance is associated with stereotype

threats, which is defined as “the anxiety people experience when they risk confirming a

negative stereotype of their group” (Yopyk & Prentice, 2005, p. 329). According to

Steele (1997), college athletes are negatively stereotyped as being less academically

engaged and competent than their peers. This could explain the lower academic scores on

tests and exams. The most well-known stereotyping of college athletes is the “dumb

jock” stereotype. Students are not held to high standards in the classroom, as professors

buy into the stereotype that college athletes are incapable of academic abilities and

therefore are not challenged to excel (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991; Shropshire &

Williams, 2017). Stereotypes on a college campus bleed into the self-esteem and mental

image of college athletes and their identity formation.

When it comes to interacting with faculty members, athletic stigma on college

campuses is actively present, shown through remarks from professors about missed class

due to athletic traveling or about college athlete’s academic habits (Parsons, 2013).

Engstrom, Sedlacek, and McEwen (1995) reported that faculty members hold specific

stereotyping against two specific groups of college athletes. The first group are those who

receive full athletic scholarships, the second group applying to those who are admitted

with low standardized test scores. Having low standardized test scores resulted in the

belief that students are underqualified or not deserving of admissions to the institution.

Black college athletes face even further stereotyping. There has been an

abundance of literature on the Black male college athlete experience in different college

environments and experiences (Bennett III, Hodge, Graham, & Moore III, 2015; Cooper

& Hawkins, 2014; Comeaux, 2008; Comeaux & Harrison, 2007; Harrison, Comeaux, &

Plecha, 2006). There is a large amount of literature focusing on racism and the

exploitation of men of color at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) (Beamon, 2014;

Cooper, 2012; Harper, 2009; Hawkins, 2010; Murty & Roebuck, 2015; Simiyu, 2012;

Singer, 2005). This research is warranted and necessary to understanding a larger

complex issue. Many students in revenue producing sports (football and basketball) are

Black men who are considered academically “at-risk” (Harmon, 2010). There are many

barriers college athletes of color can experience attending a PWI, where their coaches,

support staff, and student body lack the ability to comprehend the Black experience

(Harmon, 2010). Furthermore, isolation from the rest of the student body due to high

demands to their athletic commitment hinders racial and other identity development

(Ferrante, Etzel, & Lantz, 2002; Harmon, 2010).

There are perpetuated academic stereotypes of Black college athletes held by

faculty (Simiya, 2012). Black college athletes report feelings of being treated differently

from a non-college athlete and White students (Njororai, 2012). Black male college

athlete enrolled in Power 5 institutions express feelings associated with proving their

worth of being enrolled at an academic institution based on merit beyond their athletic

and physical abilities (Martin, Harrison, Stone, & Lawrence, 2010). Furthermore,

students experience being a perceived threat to society, which is further perpetuated

through challenges surrounding stereotypes in the academic environment (Martin,

Harrison, Stone, & Lawrence, 2010). Black male college athlete may utilize faculty less

as a support system due to stereotyping or previous negative experiences in faculty

interaction.

Engaging with disabled students provides further stereotypes that interfere with a

student’s academic success. Faculty members perceive themselves to be advocates

throughout the accommodation process for students with disabilities, especially within

their courses, but learning disabled students report the opposite (Cawthon & Cole, 2010;

Debrand & Salzberg, 2005; Murray, Flannery, & Wren, 2008). Additionally, faculty want

to be more informed on learning disabilities and the support procedures, referrals process,

and accommodations that can be provided to students (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, &

Arrington, 1992).

Despite faculty members’ perceptions of positive interactions with learning

disabled students, students believe the opposite and struggle to find a sense of belonging

within the classroom environment (Kurth & Mellard, 2002; Hadley, 2011). Students with

learning disabilities felt as though they were perceived as incompetent, or the student

should not be enrolled in the course at all (Cawthon & Cole, 2010). There are

incongruences between the way faculty perceive their attitudes towards learning disabled

students within the classroom and the lived experiences of student with learning

disabilities in college learning environments. It is important for student affairs

practitioners and faculty to remember that interactions between faculty and the campus

community help increase academic commitment and involvement (Hadley, 2011).

Students on college campuses are faced with a two-way dilemma; if a student is to

disclose their impairment in order to receive accommodations, the student risks

discrimination and stigmatization (Crawford, 2002; Hartmann, 2003; Trammell, 2009).

Literature on learning disabilities reveal two specific types of attitudes, which are

stereotyping and segregation (May & Stone, 2010). Stereotyping threats include students

with learning disabilities being perceived as “too lazy” (May & Stone, 2010). This is a

harmful stereotype, as students with learning disabilities already encounter deficits in

specific areas of learning, to add the label of lazy impedes on the students overall

academic success.

There are two types of stigmas that prevent disabled students from self-disclosing

their identity which include public and self. Public stigma is societal decimation, whereas

self-stigma is the individual’s behaviors and responses (Corrigan & Kleinlein, 2005;

Kranke, Jackson, Taylor, Anderson-Fye, & Floersch, 2013). According to disability

support staff, stigmatization and fear of disclosure are considered the largest barrier to

seeking disability support services (Collins & Mowbray, 2005). Disabled students can

also appear embarrassed and stigmatized when informing faculty members of non-

apparent impairments (Salzer, Wick, & Rogers, 2008). When interacting with peers,

disabled students often find others who are non-disabled have little experience or hold

stereotypes and stigmas about disabled people (Olney & Kim, 2001). One of the many

misconceptions held by students without a disability is that academic accommodations

for disabled students are perceived as an “unfair advantage” (Olney & Kim, 2001).

Learning disabled college athletes may face even further stereotyping threats

within academic environments. The term college athlete is tainted with negative

stereotypes often perpetuated by individuals who do not comprehend the relationship or

experience of college athletes academically and athletically (Satterfield, Croft, &

Godfrey, 2010). Some inaccurate preconceived notions about college athletes consists of

privileged, lazy, coddled, preferential treatment, and lack of intellectual ability or

motivation to succeed academically (Ferrante, Etzel, & Lantz, 1991; Watson, 2006).

These stereotypes can be perpetuated by faculty and students who interact with college

athletes in academic settings. Stigmatization and stereotyping are issues that hinders

campus climate and environment in which learning disabled college athletes are

exploring and navigating throughout their collegiate experience.

The distance and separation of athletic physical spaces and buildings on campus

can contribute to the feeling of isolation for college athletes from the general study body

population (Huml, Hancock, Bergman, 2014, Simons, Van Rheenen, & Covington,

1999). Crosnoe, Cavanagh and Elder (2003), found that peer interaction with non-

college-athletes is beneficial from both perspectives. College athlete benefit from

interactions outside of athletic spaces that foster social engagement and academics, and

non-college-athletes are challenged to reconsider their perceptions of college athletes by

understanding their demands and differentiating experiences. Despite research

emphasizing the importance of athlete and non-athlete social connections to help with

academic motivation, the isolation college athletes create an environment that hinders the

potential for any relationships to foster over the collegiate experience (Bell, 2009).

The NCAA published research in 2014 and 2017 on social environments of

college athletes. This research examines interactions and perceptions of college athletes

within their campus community across all three athletic divisions. The number of college

athletes who feel their peers perceive them as unsuccessful academically is alarming and

differs based on sex. Although research and the literature focus heavily on faculty

perceptions, these numbers appear lower than peer perceptions of academic ability. For

example, 23 % of NCAA D1 male athletes perceive their professors to assume they are

not a good student because of their athletic identity or participation, compared to 11% for

NCAA D1 females (NCAA, 2017b). With reference to perceptions of their peers, NCAA

D1 male athletes reported 44% compared to 29% of NCAA D1 females (NCAA, 2017b).

The perceptions college athletes believe their peers hold about their athletic

identity on their college campus can be examined by asking non-athletes their held

beliefs. Lawrence, Harrison and Stone (2009) found that 41% of college students held

negative stereotypes and perceived male college athletes as dumb, lazy and assumed

students frequently engaged in partying behaviors and neglected academic studying. The

general student body also believes college athletes are granted special privileges towards

their academics (Lawrence, Harrison, & Stone, 2009).

Advocacy Skills

Self-advocacy is a critical skill necessary for disabled students to utilize when

speaking about their impairment and seeking accommodations. One definition of self-

advocacy pertaining to disability is provided by Hartman (1993).

Self-advocacy means that the student understands his or her disability, is aware of

the strengths of the weaknesses resulting from the functional limitations imposed

by the disability, and is able to articulate reasonable need for academic or physical

accommodations (p. 40).

Another definition of self-advocacy is provided by Clark and Parette (2002) which is

adapted from VanReusen, Bos, Schumaker, and Deschler (1994).

Self-advocacy is defined as an individual’s ability to effectively communicate,

convey, negotiate, or assert his or her own interests, desires, needs, and rights. It

involves making informed decisions and taking responsibility for these decisions

(p. 54).

In essence, self-advocacy requires a student to have a working knowledge of their own

impairment, make informed decisions about their abilities based on their rights, and

communicate their needs with others in order to be successful in a variety of contexts and

settings (Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, & Eddy, 2005; Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman,

2015). Self-advocacy allows for individuals to make informed decisions grounded in an

individual's knowledge of their strengths and challenges (Dybwad & Bersani, 1996).

Students with learning disabilities or nonvisible disabilities may be unable to

communicate the extent to which their impairment affects their daily life or academic

success (Barnard-Brak, Sulak, Tate, & Lechtenberger, 2010; Smart, 2001). In order to

actively self-advocate students’ needs to process and comprehend their learning

impairment and find strategies or techniques that work best for their unique needs

(Hadley, 2011). The lack of education going towards teaching students how to advocate

and communicate their needs and guiding students through transitions into post-

secondary education are important concepts that are adding to the obstacles and barriers

faced by learning disabled students in higher education (Cawthon & Cole, 2010).

There is a lack of literature on how self-advocacy skills are formed, but what is

known is the influence in which families, peers, and educators have on the development

(Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman, 2015). Family support can have both positive and

consequently negative outcomes. Families can encourage students with disabilities to

advocate by modeling the behavior and having conversations with their children about

their disability. However, families can also become overprotective and share doubt or

disbelief in their child's ability to succeed (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005;

Janiga & Costenbader, 2002). Educators can help in the development by teaching

students in high school the importance of practicing self-advocacy (Janiga &

Costenbader, 2002; Trainor, 2005). Although little is known about the way in which

peers help develop self-advocacy skills, disabled peers can help support by providing

information on university disability services and role modeling advocacy development

(Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005)

A study conducted by Foley, Minick, and Kee (2002) examined how nurses

learned to advocate for their patients’ needs. The study found that individuals identified

three key factors that helped them develop advocacy skills. Some participants stated its

“who I am”, another group of participants believed advocacy skills developed through

observing other nurses’ interactions with patients, and the final consideration was

confidence building. In this study, confidence was gained by working with mentors who

provided an environment for learning, growth, and support (Foley, Minick, & Kee, 2002).

This research helped provide literature on advocacy development and the importance of

the advocacy skills being modeled and providing opportunities for individuals to put their

skills into practice. It is important to note that some individuals did believe advocacy was

just a part of “who I am”, meaning they already had developed these skills. However, it is

argued that specific skills in the nursing field such as caregiving practices do not come

naturally, but are acquired through childhood from families and communities and are

later reinforced in schools and environments of work (Benner, 1984).

Self-advocacy skills are directly correlated to the transition and retention of

college students with disabilities and academic success (Adams & Proctor, 2010; Getzel

& Thoma, 2008, Hadley, 2006; Murray, Lombardi, & Kosty, 2014; Thoma & Wehmeyer,

2005). Studies show that there are three major skills that promote success within higher

education. This includes utilization of disability and tutoring services, finding a social

support system on campus, and building connections with instructors (Adams & Proctor,

2010; Getzel & Thoma, 2008; Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman, 2015). Administrators

and professionals in the field of higher education can help students with disabilities by

fostering further development in the areas of independence, self-determination, and self-

advocacy (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; Hadley 2011).

It is important to note that some disabled students may have knowledge and

language to communicate their academic needs in an academic environment but may

struggle on experiences outside of the academic such as work (Madaus, 2008). The

purpose of higher education is to help students develop and grow, to utilize learned skills

and behaviors within society and environments outside of educational contexts. It is

critical for all practitioners and administrators to begin learning how to support students

with disabilities on college campuses and foster developmental skills necessary for

success in the workplace, such as advocacy skills. This starts with identity development

and self-awareness. It has been argued that the most common barrier disabled students

encounter on college campuses are the lack of knowledge and collaboration amongst

faculty and personnel (Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995; Lehman, Davies, & Laurin,

2000; Wilson, Getzel, & Brown, 2000). Therefore, there is a need for faculty and staff to

be better trained and provided resources on how to support students within their

classrooms and the overall campus community (Rao, 2004).

Another way to explore self-advocacy behaviors or human agency is through

resistance theory which “demonstrates how individuals negotiate and struggle with

structures and create meanings of their own from these interactions” (Solorzzano &

Delgado Bernal, 2001, p. 315). Solorzano and Delgado Bernal (2001) suggest four

different resistant behaviors which include reactionary, self-defeating, conformist, and

transformation. Reactionary behaviors are viewed as lacking a critique of social

oppression, and a lack of motivation by social justice (Solorzano & Delgado Bernal,

2001). Self-defeating resistance is when a student has some oppressive social conditions

but lacks the social justice motives. Conformist resistance is the desire to engage in social

justice but relies on “Band-Aids” to fix symptoms to problems rather than recognizing

the societal and structural systems of oppression related to the problem (Solorzano &

Delgado Bernal, 2001). The final behavior is known as transformational resistance. The

can also be seen through the needs to “prove others wrong” which can be done through

“(a) confront the negative portrayals and ideas about… (oppressed identity group) (b) are

motivated by these negative images and ideas, and (c) are driven to navigate through the

educational system for themselves and others” (Yosso, 2000, p. 109). By examining a

students’ response to the way in which they behave in situations that arise due to the

education system and their disabled identity, transformational resistance can be an unique

way and different perspective to consider when analyzing participant responses and the

overall data.

Although there is no literature on college athletes and self-advocacy skill

development, there is limited research on the college athlete experience regarding help

seeking behaviors. College athletes are typically hesitant to seek help due to the stigmas

or stereotypes that may be perpetuated by coaches, peers, and fans (Brewer, Van Raalte,

Petipas, Bachman, & Weinhold, 1998; Wrisberg & Martin, 1994). Help-seeking behavior

is defined as “an adaptive mode of coping with personal concerns or problems (Gulas,

1974)” (Watson, 2005, p. 442). There are also large gender differences among help-

seeking behaviors as men are less likely to seek help due to stigmatization (Addis &

Mahalik, 2003; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2003; Steinfeldt, Steinfeldt, England,

& Speight, 2009). Lund (2019) concluded that college athletes with ADHD were less

likely to seek mental health support or help for a mental health concern, in comparison to

their ADHD non-athlete peers. Reardon and Factor (2010) found similar results stating

that college athletes experience barriers and stigma related to addressing mental health

concerns. Teaching self-advocacy skills begins with changing the narrative and

perception held by both society, collegiate communities and even those with disabilities.

Ridpath (2014) explains that athletic departments play an active role in

encouraging college athletes to seek support and services related to their disability on

their college campus. It is believed that college athletes with education impacting

disabilities need education and guided opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills

to explain their disability and navigate the process to implemented academic

accommodations (Ridpath, 2014). Athletic trainers, coaches, and academic support staff

all play active roles in help students learn about their intersecting identities and learn how

to advocate for their needs.

Academic Support Services

Academic support programs provide services that help enhance learning and

development outside of the classroom (Triano, Liefeld, & Trachtenberg, 2010). These

services are often targeted at undergraduate students (Kuo, Hagie, & Miller, 2004). The

number of programs and services provided to undergraduate students vary institution to

institution due to organizational structures, resources, financial revenue, and mission and

goals. For the purposes of this research, the two specific student support services being

analyzed are athletic academic support services, and disability support services.

Athletic Academic Support Services

Participation in college athletics creates complex barriers to academic success,

which require different support services compared to the rest of the student body. College

athletes are often held to strict schedules and are expected to perform on and off the field

or court (Simons, Van Rheenen, & Covington, 1999; Rishe, 2003). Athletic academic

support services are intended to assist college athletes through specific academic, social-

emotional, and career services which promote academic success towards graduation

(Thompson, Petronio, & Braithwaite, 2012). There are two main purposes of college

athlete support services which include engaging students in opportunities to further their

development, and helping college athletes overcome barriers that are caused by their

participation in athletics (Hollis, 2001; Mithaug, 1996). These barriers include legislation

put in place by the NCAA that higher education athletic programs, personnel, and college

athletes by which they must abide.

Part of the NCAA’s mission is to ensure college athletes are obtaining well-

rounded educational experiences and are working towards degree completion while

engaging in athletic competitions, which in some athletic programs generates revenue

(Satterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010). The NCAA began crafting academic regulations

and measures in 1965 (Grandy, Lough, & Miller, 2016). The first major academic

initiative is known as Proposition 48, applied in 1983. Proposition 48 was introduced into

the world of collegiate athletics due to low graduation rates amongst revenue producing

sports such as football and men’s basketball (Satterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010). The

NCAA enforced eligibility requirements and placed emphasis on college athlete retention

and graduation rates (Davis, 2006). The next major milestone for the NCAA relating to

academic reform was introduced in 2004. The NCAA initiated academic progress reports

known as APR which continued to aid in improving retention towards graduation

(Satterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010). College athletes on athletic scholarship can earn a

total of four points each academic year. The points are earned each semester by

maintaining academic eligibility related to GPA and degree completion percentages

(40/60/80 rule), as well as remaining enrolled at the institution or graduating

(Scatterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010). APR is ultimately tied to an institutions athletic

program, and each athletic coach, so if a student opts into the transfer portal throughout

their academic career, they must meet a specific GPA requirement for an institution to

maintain APR points. Failure to meet the required team score of 925, can lead to

repercussions in decreased scholarship awards.

NCAA D1 institutions have enhanced their academic outreach and support

services for college athletes to ensure that institutions and individual athletes are abiding

by eligibility standards set forth by the NCAA (Ridpath, 2010). Many well-known

athletic programs and institutions were criticized in the early 1980s for their lack of

academic support, preparation, and graduate retention amongst college athletes (Benson,

1994). Furthermore, several athletic academic scandals were investigated and brought to

the public's attention in the early 1980’s which called for a pivotal shift in designing

academic support services on college campuses (Hollis, 2001). These athletic support

services were intended to improve the college athlete experience, helping college athletes

persist towards graduation, and ethically maintain academic NCAA eligibility.

The NCAA established bylaw 16.3.1.1 in 1991, which was revised in 2002, 2006,

2013, and 2014. This regulation states that institutions who are members of the NCAA

must provide “general academic counseling and tutoring services to all student-athletes”

(NCAA, 2019c, p. 237). The bylaw continues by stating that services can be provided by

either the athletic department or an institutions nonathletic support service. In addition,

this bylaw endorses other support services relating to academics, career counseling, and

personal development. Providing services to help support college athletes has allowed for

increases in the number of students who graduate with a degree. Today eight out of 10

college athletes will complete a bachelor’s degree program earning a degree, and 35% of

those students will further their education earning a postgraduate degree (NCAA, 2019a).

Trained professionals are essential to ensure college athletes’ academic schedules

and career planning process, eliminate athletic conflicts and abide by NCAA bylaws

related to academic eligibility (Hollis, 2001). Additionally, graduation rates have been a

hot topic in the literature in the past two decades. Gunn and Eddy (1989) stated that

universities need to implement effective academic support services in order to help

increase college athlete persistence and graduation rates due to the “role conflict”

between athletic and academic demands (Hollis, 2001). In 1991, the NCAA mandated

academic advising services to be implemented into collegiate institutions which included

tutoring and life skills services (Abell, 2000; Carodin, Almond, & Ratto, 2001; Meyer,

2005).

In 1975, the National Association of Academic and Student-Athlete Development

Professionals (N4A), formally known as the National Association of Academic Advisors

was formed. The purpose of this organization was to address the unique needs of college

athletes’ academic demands, but also personal concerns that had not been addressed in

support services prior to 1975 (Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003). NCAA D1 academic

support services have gone from tutoring, class scheduling and time management, to

offering life-skills development, academic counseling and career assistance, which aids in

helping college athletes plan for life beyond professional athletics (Shriberg &

Brodzinski, 1984; Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003). Today, college athletic support

services consist of programs related to orientation, leadership and life skills development,

career planning, academic advising, and academic support services (Scatterfield, Croft, &

Godfrey, 2010).

The NCAA requires athletic programs to review and teach college athletes

specific rules and regulations which typically occurs during orientation. Other institutions

have developed academic courses for credit to review required NCAA bylaws and

specific issues concerning the college athlete experience (Scatterfield, Croft, & Godfrey,

2010). Topics in these seminar courses include, “Title IX, gender equity, alcohol abuse,

drug testing, tobacco use, role models, scholarship information, and other similar topics”

(Satterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010, “Student Athlete Services”, para 4).

Academic support staff assist students through academic, social, and personal

concerns by offering advice in a plethora of ways (Kuhn, 2008). Athletic academic

advisors also offer a unique perspective as personnel often have trained expertise in

NCAA regulations and an understanding of the demands and challenges faced by college

athletes (Broughton & Neyer, 2001; Huml, Hancock, & Bergman, 2014). Athletic

academic counselors help ensure college athletes are meeting NCAA eligibility which

includes ensuring college athletes maintain full-time status, which is considered 12 credit

hours per semester (Scatterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010). According to NCAA

regulations, students who participate in collegiate athletics must be enrolled as a full-time

student and if a course is dropped, placing the student under full-time status, the student

loses their eligibility to participate in athletics (Meyer, 2005; Jolly, 2008). Therefore,

students must meet with their college advisor and athletic counselor each semester before

registering for courses to ensure college athletes are meeting the NCAA requirements

(Carodine, Almond, & Gratto, 2001).

College athletic academic support services are unique to each institution. Athletic

academic support services can vary in organizational structure, funding, programs, or

services offered, and personnel (Hollis, 2001). Athletic academic support personnel

originally began utilizing unoccupied space wherever availability allowed on college

campuses (Rubin & Moses, 2017). However, a shift has occurred in which athletic

academic centers are being built as standalone facilities to provide support to aid in

college athletes’ eligibility and compete with other rival institutions on amenities

(Wolverton, 2008). It is important to note that some athletic academic support centers

have been built into football stadiums, are located within the campus library, or exist

within other campus structures (N4A, 2013). Support centers are defined as “any location

where the college athletes are assigned to complete study hall/tutorial assignments”

(N4A, 2013, p. 2)

A growing number of findings also indicate criticism of athletic academic support

services. It is suggested that personnel are under too much pressure to maintain college

athlete eligibility rather than having an educational attainment focus like the rest of the

student body (Ridpath, 2010). One study concluded that college athletes perceive athletic

advisors to be more concerned with eligibility requirements than with their overall

academic success (Ridpath, 2010). In addition, the results of Huml, Hancock, and

Bergman’s (2014) survey further emphasized that college athletes perceived faculty and

academic advisors to care more about their academic success compared to their athletic

academic counselors. Criticism surrounding athletic academic support services includes

isolation of college athletes from the general student body, low academic performance,

and grouped major or career pathways, implying students are not truly provided the

opportunity to academically succeed or explore their professional passions outside of

athletics (Bowen & Levin, 2003; Gayles, 2009; Schulman & Bowen, 2001). Athletic

academic support services bring about positive support to aid in persistence for a unique

subpopulation on college campuses, yet some research indicates that the system is

flawed.

Learning Specialists

In revenue-producing sports, many college athletes arrive in college

underperforming academically and an increase in diagnosed learning disabilities has been

reported (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005; Ferris, Finster, & McDonald, 2004; Levine, Etchison, &

Oppenheimer, 2014; Nwadike, Baker, Brackebusch, & Hawkins, 2015). Students who are

admitted to post-secondary institutions mainly for their athletic abilities are academically

underprepared for collegiate academic expectations and will most likely struggle through

the balancing act of athletics and academic demands (Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003).

To support college athletes with diverse learning needs, athletic academic support

services began implementing learning specialist positions to serve at-risk student

populations within college athletics (Steinberg, Walther, Herbst, West, Zamagias, &

Smith, 2018). The term “at-risk” is used frequently in athletics to identify individuals

who are on academic probation or in jeopardy of failing to meet NCAA requirements or

academic expectations set forth by the university (Satterfield, Croft, & Godfrey, 2010).

A newer term has recently surfaced within the literature which promotes a less

stigmatized identity as the term “at risk”, which is associated with a negative connotation

or framework to viewing the potential of student failure. At-risk is a commonly used

phrase within higher education and is associated with race, socioeconomic status,

underperforming academic achievement, and triumphantly overcoming barriers, instead

of considering student potential. The newer terminology being placed into practice is “at-

promise” which is a paradigm shift that is more inclusive and has undertones of

empowerment. Swadener (2010) explains the paradigm shift further.

In calling for an “at promise” view of all children and families… we would

encourage everyone working with children and families to look for and build upon the

promise in all children and to concentrate valuable energies and resources on building on

these strengths while addressing the many structural and environmental factors that have

been argued to place many children “at-risk” (p. 10). This terminology shift allows for

personnel to have a shared philosophy in student promise, changing the discourse “from a

discussion of ‘them’ or ‘the other’ to a discussion of ‘us’” (Swadener & Lubeck, 1995;

Swadener & Niles, 1991; Polakow, 1993). Professionals should adopt more inclusive

language when discussing ways to support “at-promise” inclusive language.

Tutoring services can help students grasp academic content material. Building

critical thinking and independent decision-making is crucial to help students learn and

grow (Steinberg, et al., 2018). Although tutoring is helpful for all students, for those who

are academically behind considered at-promise, conditionally admitted, or have a

disability, further support is needed beyond content specific material (Gaston-Gayles,

2004; Steinberg, et al., 2018). Study skills and learning strategies can help strengthen a

student’s academic disadvantages in the classroom. The goal is to create an environment

where students learn skills to feel self-confident to achieve their academic potential and

decrease the potential risk of academic dishonesty or plagiarism (Steinberg, et al., 2018).

The increased need for learning specialists has substantially increased over the

past two decades, as the enrollment of students with academic challenges continues to

grow. For example, the number of learning specialists involved in the N4A grew

approximately 70% between 2012 and 2015 (Wolverton, 2016). Power 5 conferences

employee the greatest number of learning specialists on staff, while other institutions

outside of the Power 5 conferences lean towards dual-role positions, implying

professionals act as academic counselors or career development specialists on top of the

learning specialist’s role, for budgetary purposes (Steinberg, et al., 2018).

The learning specialist position did not derive from athletic academic support

services, although the origins of the position are untraceable (Bethel, Biffle, & Scragg,

2012). College campuses have been implementing learning specialists in a variety of

departments in higher education to support underprepared students before the profession

bloomed in athletic support services (Bethel, Biffle, & Scragg, 2012). However, with the

rise of college athletes entering post-secondary education with educational gaps and

learning challenges, the profession has rapidly grown since the late 2000’s. It is important

to note that learning specialists do not have a specific job description across the

profession, yet the position is driven by a common goal of helping students achieve

independence (Steinberg, Walther, Herbst, West, Zamagias, & Smith, 2018; Weiss, 2011;

Wolverton, 2016). A nationwide survey collected 53 responses from athletic academic

learning specialists in 2012. Results concluded that more than half the participants were

uncertain on the evaluation criteria of their professional position, and 60% responded that

some part of their job performance was directly linked to their student’s grades (Bethel,

Biffle, & Scragg, 2012). Furthermore, Bethel, Biffle, and Scragg (2012), proposed nine

professional standards that could be used directly in the evaluation of learning specialists

in athletic academic support services. These standards include assessment, intervention,

student evaluation, service coordination, organization, communication, student

engagement, program evaluation, and professional development.

Weiss (2011) describes learning specialists as professionals who utilize

techniques or strategies and understand how to best support college athletes with learning

disabilities towards their academic success. Learning specialists also provide guidance

for additional transition support and act as a liaison between the athletic department and

disability services. Learning specialist personnel come from a variety of educational

backgrounds. The positions main focus contributes to teaching and learning strategies,

time management, and organization skills (Steinberg, Walther, Herbst, West, Zamagias,

& Smith, 2018; Weiss, 2011). Weiss (2011) recommends that learning specialists also

provide individualized plans to help students with learning disabilities through transition

from secondary to post-secondary education.

The NCAA published the Inter-Association Consensus Document: Mental Health

Best Practices in January 2016 and was revised in May 2017. This document outlines

recommendations for supporting mental health concerns and issues within intercollegiate

athletics. In this document, the task force recommended collaboration amongst the

athletic department and disability services (NCAA, 2016). Other considerations include

utilizing disability support personnel to determine reasonable accommodations for

students and consistent consultation to increase practices that are inclusive to all college

athletes. These recommendations are guidelines in which learning specialist and

academic support personnel should be incorporating into daily practice. Many learning

specialists have the responsibility of creating partnerships with the department of

disability services on their college campus, however it is the responsible of all athletic

personnel to be informed and implement inclusive practices.

Coaching and Athletic Staff

Participating in sports can be both positive and negative (DeSensi, 2014).

Coaches play a vital role in the development of college athletes, athletically,

academically, and holistically. Higher education institutions pay coaching staff six figure

salaries, and place large amounts of funding into athletic programs which help develop

college athletes’ athletic abilities and instill values of competitiveness (Naylor, 2007). As

students age, coaches’ expectations surrounding competitiveness moves from

development to the exception to win (Naylor, 2007).

Goulda (2016) suggest that there are five main attributes that make for a well-

rounded coach. These effective qualities include coaching philosophies, openly share the

process of decision-making process, build strong relationships with athletes, are effective,

knowledgeable educators and foster development. Coaches should strive to build

relationships that are grounded in support and care for athlete’s emotional well-being

(Fry, 2010). Supportive relationships between coach and athlete include taking the time

to learn about an athlete as an individual, creating an environment where athletes feel

welcomed and acknowledged, and creating a safe place and notion that bullying, or other

negative actions that put down others are unacceptable and will not be tolerated (Fry,

2010).

Coaches have a commitment to more than just winning games, effective coaches

should also care about the physical, mental, and social development of their athletes.

Coaches have a large influence on the way they not only help develop their athletes on

and off the field or court, but also the way they choose to engage in athletes lives outside

of athletics, surrounding academics and personal well-being and overall moral and

emotional development. Collegiate coaches at NCAA D1 institutions get paid large sums

of money but are offered bonuses for athletic wins, and academic standards (i.e., meeting

APR, GPA, or other academic goals) (Wilson, 2017). Coaches play an active role in the

message’s students receive on the importance of academics (Bell, 2009). With such a

critical responsibility to help develop college athletes, it is essential for coaches to

understand the responsibility they have and how their interactions are perceived by their

athletes.

Division 1 athletes spend more than 20 hours a week engaging in athletic related

activities, which includes spending a significant amount of time with athletic staff and

coaches (Benford, 2007). Coaching staff and athletic personnel may be the first and only

interactions a student has with a university throughout the recruitment and admissions

process (Kamusoko & Pemberton, 2013). The relationship between coach and athlete

should be built on trust, respect, communication, understanding, cooperation,

commitment, and a sense of care (Lafreniere, Vallerand, & Carbonneau, 2011). The

perception of a relationship between an athlete and their coach can lead to both positive

and negative experiences (Barnhill, Czekanski, & Turner, 2013; Pate, Stokowski, &

Hardin, 2011). A relationship a coach builds with their athletes can lead to either the

construction or demolish in trust, respect, and perceptions of care when applied to an

individual’s holistic well-being. This same relationship is extended to other members of

the athletic department personnel such as trainers and team physicians.

Disability Services

As previously mentioned, there are several differences between secondary and

higher education for all enrolled students. One example is the amount of time spent

receiving instruction. College instruction is typically 12 to 15 hours per week, whereas

high school instruction is provided within 25 to 30 hours a week (McGuire, 1988). This

requires students in transition to learn new skills, adjusting to a student-centered learning

approach through reading and study time spent outside the classroom (Brinckerhoff,

Shaw, & McGuire, 1992). Higher education is geared towards students employing

autonomous learning and effective study strategies, which are often not taught in the

transition from high school to college (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992).

Students with disabilities experience further transitional concerns. If not

addressed appropriately, some aspects can have lasting implications for the student. In K-

12 education, school districts are mandated to seek and support disabled students,

however, this action of identifying students at the postsecondary level is not mandated

and does not occur at most institutions (Barner-Brak, Lectenberger, & Lan, 2010).

Additionally, in secondary education responsibility of self-advocacy is the school

districts and guardians, whereas almost all responsibility in higher education for issues

surrounding disability accommodations and advocacy are placed onto the student in

higher education (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992). There are also differences in

laws as previously mentioned, the transition from IDEA utilized in K-12 to ADA

implemented in higher education.

For students with disabilities, there is a lack of communication between secondary

and post-secondary institutions throughout the transition even though there are vast

differences between the environments and structural supports. For example, disability

service support personnel conveyed a disappointment in the way in which high schools

provided resources and information about the college experience and expectations (Janiga

& Costenbader, 2002).

During the high school years, as students with disabilities begin their transition

plans, the IDEA federal law requires that students be an active participant in Individual

Education Plan (IEP) meetings. However, approximately half of all students receiving

special education services under IDEA attend their own IEP meetings (Mason, Field, &

Sawilowsky, 2004). When students are invited to attend their own IEP meetings, students

only contribute vocally about 3% of the meeting (Martin, Van Dycke, Greene, Gardner,

Christensen, & Woods, 2006). Furthermore, students rarely have the ability to help create

their IEPs (Reusen & Bos, 1994; Cawthon, & Cole, 2010).

Institutional administrators and disability service practitioners may underestimate

the depth of a student’s understanding throughout the high school to college transition

(Cawthon & Cole, 2010). To list just a few areas in which faculty and administrators feel

disabled students are lacking within their educational transition include self-advocacy,

knowledge of institutional differences such as class sizes, and examination methods, a

student’s strengths and weaknesses, independence, and lack of documentation (Cawthon

& Cole, 2010; Janiga & Costenbader, 2002). Students with disabilities do not take full

advantage of the services they should be receiving because they are unaware or choose

not to seek out services or they seek services when it is too late (Barner-Brak,

Lectenberger, & Lan, 2010). There are several differences between the two educational

experiences within K-12 and higher education, however, there is a lack of communication

and adjustment support from both aspects of the transition.

Surprisingly, 40% of students who receive special education services in secondary

education choose to self-identify in college (Newman, 2005). Students who struggle with

their identity as an individual with a disability are found to be less likely to seek out

disability support services compared to those who have accepted their identity (DaDeppo,

2009). Learning disabled students are ill prepared for life beyond high school, as copious

amounts of students with disabilities are unable to self-advocate, and lack a basic

understanding and ability to communicate their strengths and challenges (Cummings,

Maddux, & Casey, 2000). Having a working knowledge about an individual's disability

and understanding of their academic needs is critical to ensure a successful transition

(Cathone & Cole, 2010). Being educated on the differences between accommodations

and self-advocacy are critical conversations that are not occurring in many cases where

disabled students choose to pursue a higher education degree (Milson & Hartley, 2005).

The two federal laws that influence students with disabilities in higher education

are ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Denbo, 2003). The ADA defines disability

as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life

activities of such individual” who are disabled (ADA, 1990). Both laws mandate

disability services provide “students with an equal opportunity to learn, it does not

require that schools provide accommodations that would provide equal results with non-

disabled peers (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992)” (Cawthon & Cole, 2010, p.

115). Under these federal laws, institutions are required to provide appropriate

accommodations to assist students with learning disabilities and ADHD towards their

academic pursuits (Denbo, 2003).

Disability support services are intended to ensure institutions are following

federal laws. First, is the protection from discrimination and the second is ensuring

“reasonable accommodations” are being offered (Cory, 2011). Beyond determining

student’s eligibility for accommodations, another expectation of disability support

services is to ensure faculty and staff are committed to providing these required

accommodations within the campus community (Salzberg et al., 2002; Shaw & Dukes,

2001). In addition, accommodations must be made unless it changes the program of study

or is not financially feasible, causing financial hardship (Cawthon & Cole, 2010). If an

accommodation is deemed unreasonable, the institution is only required to provide the

most basic accommodation to meet the student’s needs (Brickhoff, Shaw, & McGuire,

1992; Cawthon & Cole, 2010).

Similar to athletic academic support services, support services and programs

aimed at aiding disabled students vary from one institution to another (Mull, Sitlington,

& Alper, 2001; Getzel, McManus, & Briel, 2005). The application process can vary, as

there is no streamline process (Vickers, 2010). Some institutions choose to have one or

multiple individuals in the disability service office who approves and denies

documentation, whereas other higher education institutions choose to utilize multiple

personnel through committees (Vickers, 2010). Disability service practitioners should

work towards ensuring the accommodation process is not overwhelming or challenging

to navigate for the student. It is suggested, “It is the role of the disability services

personnel to seek, nurture, and preserve institutional commitment and support for

ensuring that students with disabilities have equal access to educational opportunities

available to all other students (Duffy & Gugerty, 2005, pp. 89-90)

A study conducted at one university surveyed a group of students with learning

disabilities. Out of 110 collected responses, 42% of students disclosed their learning

impairment to the disability office, and 32% of students interacted with faculty members

about their disability (Cawthorn & Cole, 2010). These interactions are typically formal,

where a student is providing their faculty member the accommodation request form,

provided by the disability office. When it came to interacting with peers about their

learning disability, similarly 32% choose to disclose. In addition, 21% of students

indicated that they experienced some form of a barrier, challenge, or obstacle to obtaining

their accommodations or services related to their learning impairment (Cawthorn & Cole,

2010). A little less than half the participants in the survey also reported receiving no

formalized assistance or information on who to contact in the office of disability services

or how to apply for accommodations (Cawthorn & Cole, 2010).

To receive accommodations, students must disclose their disability to an

institutions disability service office by supplying appropriate documentation required by

the institution (Shaw, Keenan, Madaus, & Banerjee, 2010; Hadley, 2011). This process

takes self-initiative to self-identify and self-advocate for individual success. This

transition causes, “more passive dependent behavior to a more active and responsible

role” (Hadley, 2011, p. 78) in connection with self-advocacy at the higher education

level. Some students may resist the self-identifying process due to their prior experiences

in primary and secondary education (Getzel, 2008). Research shows that some students

may feel as though requiring accommodations may be considered as cheating (Denhart,

2008) or students dread the stigmatization associated with specific disabilities (Smart,

2001). The literature has outlined four major themes or potential barriers for requesting

accommodations, which encompass the concepts of academic integrity, disability

disclosure, disability acceptance, and the accommodations process (Barnard & Lan,

2007; Barnard-Brak, Lectenberger, & Lan, 2010).

Unfortunately, with an inability to communicate one’s own strengths and

weaknesses, many colleges have provided accommodations that are based on a specific

impairment rather than an individualized plan that would be more effective and

appropriate (Kurth & Mellard, 2006). Disability support services have been criticized as

they are more concerned with providing accommodations and meeting the immediate

needs of the student rather than investing in long-term development (Mellard, Hall, &

Parker, 1999). Disability support services should spend more time empowering students

with disabilities and educating others about disabilities (Kurth & Mellard, 2006).

Disability centers are offering “a menu of options based on their disability” (Cawthorn &

Cole, 2010, p. 122) rather than providing individualized accommodations similar to those

required under IDEA (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992). The problem with

accommodations is that they cater to specific disability rather than a students’ “contextual

and functional needs” (Kurth & Mellard, 2006, p. 81). Accommodations should be

adapted and formed around the individual student’s unique educational, personal, and

employment goals (Kurth & Mellard, 2006).

Even if the most appropriate accommodations are crafted to meet students'

individual needs, if implemented into a classroom inappropriately, students can find the

execution to have negative impact (Kurth & Mellard, 2006). For example, students

shared that some accommodations, such as leaving the classroom to take their tests or

exams in a separate location caused feelings of isolation (Kurth & Mellard, 2006).

Additionally, faculty members on college campuses also struggle with inadequate

knowledge of disability law, comprehension of specific learning disabilities which

hinders the ability to appropriately accommodate the students’ academic needs, and have

not established a collaborative partnership with the disability services at their institution

(Murray, Flannery, & Wren, 2008). It is important to note that faculty can provide

accommodations for disabled students without an official academic accommodation letter

from disability services, however it is not required by law (Barner-Brak, Lectenberger, &

Lan 2010).

It is argued that supporting students with disabilities is the responsibility of all

staff, administrators, and faculty, rather than just one department on campus (Jones,

1996). Creating inclusive and accessible campus environments is the responsibility of all

personnel employed by institutions (Huger, 2011). Students must work with several

cross-campus resources and departments throughout their collegiate experience;

therefore, all professionals should work towards creating a campus climate that is

inclusive and collaborative.

Universal Design

As higher education has focused on providing accommodations to students with

disabilities since the formation of the ADA, the topic of disability has been ignored or

briefly glimpsed over within the curriculum (Davis 2011). It is suggested that disability

becomes a part of the academic curriculum in all disciplines when appropriate (Evans,

Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). In addition, student affairs and higher education

programs should focus more on preparing their graduate students on disability by offering

courses to support this population and explore best practices (Evans, Broido, Brown, &

Wilke, 2017). Some graduate programs only spend one class discussing disability if they

learn about the topic at all (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). More research needs

to be generated focusing on best practices and understanding the disabled student

experience on college campuses (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

When it comes to knowledge about disability, research indicates that faculty

believe they understand the concept of disability but stated they did not have a great

wealth of knowledge on regulations and best practices (Baker, Boland & Nowik, 2012).

Pertaining to learning disabilities, faculty also believe that they have a basic

understanding of the impairment but report having limited knowledge on how to provide

support through accommodations related to exams and teaching (Murray, Wren, & Keys,

2008) In order to support faculty members, workshops and courses prove to be effective

strategies as well as interpedently or group reading books and articles which yield

positive result (Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008). Another recommendation is to implement

small group training programs, where individuals learn information and return to their

department to facilitate trainings for all professionals (Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008).

It is also important to challenge both faculty, staff, administrators and non-

disabled peers’ attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions surrounding disability (Evans, Broido,

Brown, & Wilke, 2017). Many schools have incorporated disability simulations to bring

awareness and change student or peers’ attitudes about disability. However, students who

participate in simulations typically report feeling powerlessness, fear, and panic that most

students with disabilities are resilient too (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). Some

better ways to address shifting non-disabled students’ attitudes and beliefs would be

student panels or watching a video about the lives of disabled people (Ostiguy, Peters, &

Shlasko, 2016).

Student affairs departments can collaborate with disability services on their

campus to provide programs and services that are accessible, ensure professionals are

educated and aware of the needs of the disabled student population, and feel comfortable

using appropriate terminology (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). It is

recommended that departments utilize visual representations of people with disabilities in

advertising and on published material, as well as practice inclusive hiring (Hugher,

2011). Disability centers also need to be staffed with well trained and equipped

professionals and provided larger budgets (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

Faculty play a large role in the implementation of accessibility on college

campuses within the classroom and learning environment. Universal design, “helps to

ensure the provision of inclusive, flexible, and supportive learning environments for

students with disabilities, as well as students from other diverse populations (Thompson,

2012)” (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017, p. 275). Universal design requires the

environment to shift rather than placing the burden on an individual (Evans, Broido,

Brown, & Wilke, 2017). The positive aspect about universal design is that the

modifications do not only benefit those with disabilities but all students on campus can

benefit from the experience (Burgstahler, 2008).

Universal design can also apply to other areas outside of the curriculum design

such as tutoring and learning centers, museum exhibits, and computer labs (Burgstahler,

2007). Universal design should be applied in four settings which include “services,

information technology, physical spaces, and instruction” (Evans, Broido, Brown &

Wilke, 2017, p. 282; Burgstahler, 2007). For example, the athletic tutoring program can

train tutors on how to create more inclusive “universal design” strategies when tutoring

individuals or small groups. Learning specialists can also create more universal design

strategies in their techniques when working with learning disabled students. This can be

anything from providing accessible instructions to the physical set-up of the room.

In the classroom the Center for Applied Special Technology (2012a; 2012b),

suggest using three main learning guideless which include providing multiple means

engagement, representation, and action/expression. Universal design allows students to

have autonomy within their own learning and provides unique experiences for all learners

(Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). One example of universal design would be

offering videotaped recordings of class lectures for students to review after class at their

own leisure, as well as posting class notes and having peers share their notes or promote

small groups for collaborative learning experiences (Shaw, 2011). These small

adjustments to the curriculum not only support students with disabilities but can add

benefits to the overall learning environment for all students. It is important to note that

universal design helps elevate some of the most common accommodation requests,

however it does not fix or support all potential modifications or accommodations that

may be required for some students, depending on their specific impairment (Evans,

Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

Forming self-advocacy skills allows for student-athletes with learning disabilities

to be change agents and speak up within their community (Council III & Gardner III,

2018). In addition, it is suggested that disabled students be encouraged to take active

leadership roles on their college campus (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

Institutional leaders can also invite students with varying impairments into conversations

and committee work surrounding construction projects effecting physical buildings,

policies and procedures, as well as other organizational issues that may create disabling

environment (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

Conceptual Framework of Self-Advocacy

The Conceptual Framework of Self-Advocacy was created by David Test,

Catherine Fowler, Wendy Wood, Densie Brewer and Steven Eddy in 2005. All

researchers worked at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and ranged from

doctoral students, to faculty members in the Special Education department. The

conceptual model was formed by conducting a thorough review of the literature from

1972 to 2003 on advocacy and input from 30 individuals invested in the topic ranging

from teachers, parents, adults with disabilities, and researchers. The terms used during the

literature review consisted of “advocacy, assertiveness, self-awareness, empowerment,

disabilities, interventions, and teaching” (Test, et al., 2005, p. 44). The criteria for

reviewing literature consisted of the publishing year (between 1972 and 2003),

participants had a disability, and the data was intended to promote self-advocacy. The

purpose of the literature review was to find research on self-advocacy through

interventions.

The conceptual framework has four major categories which include knowledge of

self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership (Test, et al., 2005). The

foundation of the model begins with knowledge of self and knowledge of rights. Before

an individual can communicate their needs with others, they must have an understanding

and working knowledge of their own needs, strengths, challenges, and disability. The

next layer of this model is considered the communication aspect. Individuals needs to

have the skills and ability to talk with others through “negotiation, assertiveness, and

problem solving” (Test, et al., 2005, p. 45). The fourth aspect to the conceptual model is

leadership. This is where an individual can advocate beyond on their own personal needs

and communicate for a collective group (Williams & Shoultz, 1982). This form of

advocacy can be done through organizations, gatherings, and political arenas (Test et al.,

2005).

Knowledge of self requires an individual to learn about oneself and their

“interests, preferences, strengths, needs, learning styles, and attributes of one’s disability”

(Test, et al., 2005, p. 50). Having self-awareness or allowing for self-exploration is an

essential step towards developing self-advocacy skills. Beyond students with disabilities,

college athletes with learning disabilities are navigating multiple identities which can be

difficult to conceptualize. College athletes who have been participating in athletics since

an early age have been praised for their physical abilities (Council III & Gardner III,

2018). However, their cognitive and intellectual abilities are often ignored. From this

conditioning, college athletes typically have a well-rounded perspective and working

knowledge of their physical abilities related to their sport and athletic achievements but

lack self-knowledge in other areas (Council III & Gardner III, 2018).

Self-advocacy begins with being critically aware, which is tied to the second

component which is knowledge of rights. This knowledge entails rights “as a citizen, as

an individual with a disability, and as a student receiving services under federal law”

(Test, et al., 2005, p. 50). For individuals with disabilities, legal knowledge may be

associated with, but not limited to the ADA, IDEA, or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act. Learning about an individual's legal rights is critical in ensuring conscious decision-

making. College athletes with learning disabilities may choose not to self-disclose their

disability due to fear of losing their scholarship or negative impacts to their athletic

commitment, such as loss of playing time (Council III & Gardner III, 2018).

Furthermore, college athletes may also perceive their athletic academic support staff to be

their advocates which creates a passive attitude (Council III & Gardner III, 2018).

Communication is applying the foundational components of knowledge of self,

and knowledge of rights, into communication which allows for an individual to promote

self-advocacy by placing their learned knowledge into action (Test, et al., 2005).

Communication is defined as “effective and appropriate communication of feelings,

needs, desires, and an ability to say no” (Test, et al., 2005, p. 50). Subcomponents include

negotiation, persuasion, and compromise (Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995) as well as

assertiveness, body language and listening skills (Nezu, Nezu & Arean, 1991; Van

Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994). Beyond needing to communicate to faculty

and the disability service office on campus, student- athletes are connected or involved

with several other individual such as their coach, teammates, tutors, and academic

support staff in which they navigate consistently (Council III & Gardner III, 2018). For

example, college athletes need to be able to communicate their academic needs to their

coaches in order to receive an accommodation related to their athletic schedule, but many

college athletes are unable to articulate or express their needs to others (Council III &

Gardner III, 2018).

Once an individual with a disability can communicate for themselves, they are

able to not only model the behavior for others but take on leadership roles. Leadership in

the self-advocacy framework is defined as “learning the roles and dynamics of a group

and the skill to function in a group” (Test, et al., 2005, p.50). Forming self-advocacy

skills allows for college athletes with learning disabilities to be change agents and speak

up within their community (Council III & Gardner III, 2018). One example may be

college athletes with learning disabilities becoming accessible and mentoring other

college athletes with similar needs (Council III & Gardner III, 2018). Leadership roles

within the self-advocacy framework and peer to peer interactions can allow for

continuous cycles of self-advocacy among college athletes with disabilities (Council III

& Gardner III, 2018), which helps build a community and space in which speaking about

advocacy and disability is acceptable.

Applying the conceptual framework for self-advocacy allows multiple ways in

which the data can be conceptualized. Additionally, recommendations for practitioners

are grounded through this model. Although the model is intended for individuals with

disabilities, it can be used for the general college athlete population and college students

as a collective. Learning how to self-advocate is a critical, often underdeveloped skill

many college athletes with learning disabilities are unable to execute properly. With

better education and focus on the development of self-advocacy students will learn to

become more independent and can manage their own disability.

Interactionist Model of Disability

Disability is historically rooted in negative and stigmatized perspectives (Smart,

2009). In the 1960’s and 1970’s people in society began advocating and created the

Disability Rights Movement, where individuals with disabilities became empowered and

positive definitions of disability originated (Darling, 2013). Prior to this movement

people with disabilities were isolated in different aspects, because of physical barriers

and access to buildings, or lack of inclusion within schools (Darlings, 2013). Disability

research lags far behind other minoritized groups in terms of other identity development

theories (Mpofu & Harley, 2006).

A disability can be deemed congenital, meaning an onset since birth, or acquired

over an individual’s lifespan. When examining research on identity development, some

researchers have taken a grieving approach to disability which may not speak to the same

experiences as someone whose disability was congenital instead of acquired (Lux, 2016).

Individuals who were born with their disability also have no other experience to compare

their circumstances. There is little research or literature focusing on identity development

theories and disability (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). However, there are

several models in which are used as a lens to view disability within society. Each model

also speaks to society and cultural norms and agenda surrounding disability when they

were conceived (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

There are several well-known models of disability. Some of these models include

the moral, medical, functional limitations, social, minority group, and the social justice

model (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). Furthermore, there are two critical

theories which include circuital disability and critical realism (Evans, Broido, Brown, &

Wilke, 2017). One emerging model within disability studies, based in the field of higher

education is known as the interactionist model of disability. This model was developed

by Evans and Broido in 2011, grounded in two phenomenological studies conducted in

higher education. The model is rooted in Lewin’s (1936) interactionist model and

concludes that, “…students’ ability to function in an environment is an interaction of the

environment, the person, and the person’s impairment (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke,

2017, p. 77). The three elements (environment, person, and impairment) can affect the

overall experience for a student or individual. The idea is that students can alter their

experience by changing one of the three elements.

For student affairs professionals it is suggested that when taking an interactionist

model approach, individuals must think through “…examine(ing) the degree to which

specific aspects of the campus environment (are) disabling, the effectiveness of the

individual student’s choices, and the type of severity of the student’s impairment, as well

as, how these factors all intersect and contribute to the specific situation the student (is)

experiencing” (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017, p. 78). The interactionist approach

subscribes to the idea that disability is multifaceted. Where the medical model is rooted

in the idea that the an individual has a disability, and the social justice model is

developed on the belief that only the environment can be disabling, the interactionist

model views disability as a combination of factors influencing an individual’s overall

experience within the world (Evans, Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017).

This model examines the interaction or the “student’s ability to function in an

environment” which is contingent upon the environment, impairment, and person (Evans,

Broido, Brown, & Wilke, 2017). The environment can range on a spectrum from

“disabling to enabling” (p. 78), person ranges from an individual’s “ineffective to

effective” choices, and impairment ranges from “significant to minimal” (Evans, Broido,

Brown, & Wilke, 2017, p. 78). Each of these factors can vary based on the situation and

experience at any given moment in time. What is unique about this approach to viewing

disability is the understanding that disability is more than just a person, environment, or

impairment, but encompasses all three factors into problem solving approaches. This

indicates when trying to solve a disabling or problematic concern, practitioners can help

address the issues and concerns from three different approaches and can role model this

same perspective in problem-solving strategies for the students they work with.

Literature Review Conclusion

For a student to receive academic or physical accommodations in higher

education a student must self-disclose and self-advocate for their needs. This process

begins with developing self-knowledge and knowledge of an individual’s rights. Figure 1

and Figure 2 below demonstrate how self-exploration, self-disclosure, self-advocacy, and

academic support services are closely tied together as evident through the literature and

conceptual model presented throughout this chapter.

Interaction

Environment

Interaction

Person

Ineffective

choices



Effective

Choices

Environment

Person

Impairment

A student’s

ability to

function in an

environment

Disabling



Enabling

Significant



Minimal

Figure 1

Adapted from Evans & Broido (2011). Interactionist Model of Disability

Knowledge of Self

Self-

Advocacy

Communication

Leadership

Decision Making to

Self-Disclose

Who do

I tell?

How much do I tell?

When do I tell?

Academic

Support

Services

Athletic Academic Support

Disability Support Services

Learning

Specialist

Knowledge of

Rights

Figure 2

Adapted from Test et al., (2005). Conceptual framework of self

-advocacy

Step 1:

Learn and

develop knowledge

about an individual

identity

(self-exploration)

Step 2:

Contemplate

self-disclosure by

analyzing the

following questions

(self-disclosure)

Step 3:

Communicate

to convey needs

(self-advocacy)

Step 4:

Role model

and join collective

group (leadership)

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

When looking at the term advocacy, one might find similar words such as

approval, recommendation, supporting, promoting, and acceptance. Growing up I

observed my mother take every action to ensure I was accepted in a sighted world,

ensuring; I had the ability to succeed, working with advocacy organizations, educators,

and health care providers. As I grew up as a disabled individual in this environment, the

value of advocating was instilled quickly into my core, and was swiftly transitioned from

parental, to student-focused action, when my mother would repeatedly state, “You need

to speak up and say something, if you don’t ask for it, people will assume you don’t need

it”. This message is still prominent today, as an adult I have learned to navigate self-

advocacy skills because I observed my mother flawlessly advocate as a fully sighted

person, for a perspective she would never fully understand.

As an educator, I have experience in elementary education, school counseling and

higher education settings. My professional statement visibly details my core values,

which includes advocacy and inclusion for all students. As a professional I aim to live out

my passion for helping others every day, and that includes helping students learn how to

advocate. This is a necessary skill that I was fortunate enough to learn how to develop

throughout my childhood, but not everyone is so fortunate. In some cultures, advocating

is viewed as a weakness, or brings fear and shame. In high school I was privileged

enough to work with a teacher of the vision impaired who guided me through research on

my disability so I not only understood my diagnosed condition but could convey to other

my needs. We also spent a semester learning about the difference between high school

and college disability services. This educational experience, as well as TRIO support

services offered to me throughout my undergraduate education equipped me to succeed

within higher education as a first-generation student with a disability.

In between my undergraduate and graduate educational experience, I engaged in a

year of service with City Year Boston. During this time, I worked with a group of 10th

grade students receiving various special education services. I had the opportunity to work

with students on improving their attendance, behavior, and coursework guiding this small

cohort of students to advocate for their needs to get to the goal of graduating high school.

As a society, we do not teach effective advocacy skills, or educate students on their own

disability, and this is a crisis. Additionally, advocacy stems beyond those with

disabilities, as a generation and society at large, we need to learn to advocate and speak

up not only for what we need to succeed, but on behalf of others, in places where we are

fortunate to have privilege. As an educated, white, woman, in her late 20’s, I

acknowledge I stand in privilege and I aim to dedicate my research towards creating

perspective grounded in supporting minoritized groups.

As the literature explained, college athletes with learning disabilities may feel

unsuccessful in academic environments. As someone who is blind, there have been times

in my life that I felt inadequate or failed athletically. In middle school I vividly remember

being removed from physical education to spend time volunteering in a self-contained K-

2 classroom. In high school when I tried out for our national state-champion cheerleading

team, I was rejected because I could not perform as well as other students. However, I

never gave up. The following season I went back to try-outs. This time I was asked to

serve as a manager on the team. With my foot in the door, I still had a lot to prove. By the

end of the season I was handed a uniform and was asked to fully participate.

When I got to college, I participated on the cheerleading team for all four years

and made the 2012-2013 All-Academic Team. Although I have not directly participated

in cheerleading, from a professional lens, I have incorporated my excitement for

cheerleading with my passion for education. As I pursue a career in athletic academic

support services, I hope to assist college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD

teaching advocacy development and persistence. I hope the research I conduct will

inform my own practices as a practitioner and potentially others within higher education.

During my athletic leadership certification graduate program at Clemson

University, I took a course called Psychology of Sports and Athletics. This course not

only allowed me to apply my educational knowledge of students in different context but

provided me opportunities to engage in the learning process through a diverse

perspective, athletics. One of the first assignments was to choose a mental health disorder

defined in the DSM-V and find articles related to an athletic perspective. As I began

looking for scholarly articles on the topic, I realized there was a shortage of published

knowledge on college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD and their

educational experiences and identity formation. This sparked my drive to learn know

more and research more about the topic.

As I started the research process and found Stokowski’s (2017) published article

on college athletes with learning disabilities, I noticed something that sparked my passion

even further. As previously mentioned, in Stokowski’s (2017) study, she found that five

out of nine participants on the football team did not have words to describe their

disability. My immediate thought was that this is a crisis and wanted to understand the

reasoning behind it. In addition, out of the nine participants seven who self-identify as

African American, Black American, or Black either did not know their disability or had

vague terms such as “learning disability” to define their disability (Stokowski, 2017).

I am left wondering how any person can self-advocate for their needs without

having a basic understanding of their disability and how it impacts their life. No one

seems to want to take responsibility for this crucial component to a student’s

development, and educational experience, yet it is an essential skill to form and critical

for students to understand their own disability to navigate the world and communicate

their needs with others. Therefore, I am not only interested in this topic but want to bring

awareness to this silenced issue.

Qualitative Research & Approach

Qualitative research is historically grounded in the social science discipline

(Marshall, & Rossman, 2006; Creswell & Poth, 2017). Qualitative research allows for a

problem to be explored from a group or individual perspective, which provides an in-

depth exploration of a complex question (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Research conducted

through qualitative measures requires dedication to collecting data, writing extensive

detailed explanations, and time commitment to the process (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

There are three specific genres within qualitative methods which include individual lived

experiences, society or cultural phenomenon, and language or communication (Marshall,

& Rossmann, 2006). This study will emphasize a focus towards individual lived

experiences.

The purpose of qualitative inquiry is to provide an explanation and understanding

of a specific experience (Stake, 1995). In addition, qualitative research encompasses a

personal perspective and focuses on “knowledge construction” (p. 37, Stake, 1995).

Qualitative research can be used to target specific populations in which statistical

measures do not depict an accurate understanding or provide in-depth perspective of

minoritized groups on college campuses (Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017).

Furthermore, Taleb (2007) emphasizes that the quantitative normal curve neglects

uncertainties and minoritized groups. Taking a qualitative approach to this research

allows for a silenced student perspective to be incorporated into enhancing best practices

grounded in research.

Research Questions and Purpose

The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand the lived

experiences of college athletes who identify as having a learning disability or ADHD at

NCAA D1 institutions within the ACC, SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, and PAC-12. This

phenomenological inquiry will examine academic support, disability disclosure, and self-

advocacy within the college environment. In-depth interviewing will be used to collect

data to answer the following research questions. The central question and three research

questions are outlined below.

Central Question: What are the lived experiences of college athletes with learning

disabilities and/or ADHD surrounding academic support, disability disclosure,

and advocacy at NCAA D1 institutions?

RQ1: What does the process of disability disclosure look like for college

athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD?

RQ2: How do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD

advocate for their academic success?

RQ3: In what ways do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD describe academic support within their campus

community?

This chapter outlines the research procedure and holistic design. This chapter

seeks to connect scholarly literature on qualitative research and phenomenological

inquiry with the purpose of this study. This chapter outlines philosophical assumptions

and the interpretive frameworks, followed by an in-depth explanation of the research

design. Research about semi-structured interviews is provided with the research

procedure, participant eligibility and sample recruitment strategies. Data analysis will

explore the coding cycle, specifically InVivo and emotions and values coding

mechanisms. The final section explains literature and connection to evaluation and

validation of qualitative research and concludes with a statement about generalizability.

Qualitative Approaches and Designs

There are five well known qualitative approaches or designs within the social-

behavioral sciences. These inquiries include narrative, phenomenology, ethnographic,

grounded theory, and case study (Creswell & Poth, 2017). This emergent research is

designed to examine the central phenomenon of college athletes with learning disabilities

and/or ADHD within public doctoral granting NCAA D1 institutions. Phenomenology

stems from philosophy, psychology, and educational disciplines. Creswell and Poth

(2017) explain a “Phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several

individuals of their lived experiences of a concept for a phenomenon” (p. 75). The

purpose of phenomenology is to look for commonalities between the participants

experiences. Since there is limited literature on this specific population, it is essential to

examine the lived experiences relating back to the integration of academic support,

disability disclosure, and self-advocacy skills on college campuses.

It is suggested that phenomenology be used to understand common experiences as

it lends itself to aiding in the creation of best practices and policies which is the intention

of this research. (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Many phenomenological designs utilize

interviews to gather information and firsthand accounts of the central phenomenon from

participants who have experienced the phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Once

interviews are complete, themes are generated and displayed through data analysis.

Analysis includes descriptive and interpretive information (Creswell & Poth, 2017). A

written statement known as the “essential invariant structure” or “essence” is composed

(Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 80). This is a description of common experiences shared

amongst the participants which is followed by an interpretation of the description. An

important criterion of qualitative inquiry is examining the researcher’s beliefs and

potential bias.

Interpretive Framework & Philosophical Assumptions

An essential aspect to qualitative research is examining a researcher’s

philosophical assumptions and interpretive framework. Philosophical assumptions are the

beliefs a researcher brings into their research study (Creswell & Poth, 2017). A

researcher’s philosophical assumptions guide the interpretive framework, or theories that

a researcher chooses to focus on throughout the study. Setting philosophical assumptions

can help provide direction for the purpose or outcomes and provides a deeper

understanding of the researcher’s decision-making process (Huff, 2009). The four

philosophical assumptions are known as ontological, epistemological, axiological, and

methodological (Creswell & Poth, 2017). These philosophical assumptions are addressed

through interpretive frameworks.

There are two specific interpretive frameworks used throughout this research,

social constructivism, and critical theory paradigms, more specifically critical disability,

and critical race theory. Social constructivism focuses on seeking understanding of

interactions from the contexts of an individual's life or work (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

When focusing on social constructivism, the nature of reality implies that multiple

realities are constructed through experiences and interactions (Creswell & Poth, 2017). I

personally believe our opinions and world views vary based on our experiences which

differ from one person to another as we have not lived through life with the same lens or

perspective. My epistemological belief is that research is created and shaped by the

participant’s experiences. Axiological beliefs stem from individual values which should

be honored throughout the research process (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Finally, the best

way to process and present the research when examining data through a social

constructivism interpretive framework includes analyzing interviews and text analysis.

It is important to also acknowledge an intertwining worldview of critical

disability and race theory. Critical theories focus on providing individuals the support to

surpass the limits placed on them by specific oppressed identities such as race and/or

disability (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Critical theory is defined as “an attempt to understand

the oppressive aspects of society in order to generate societal and individual

transformation” (Tierney, 1993, p. 4). Disability theory attempts to bring attention to the

issues around inclusion (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Critical race theory is based on

“studying and transforming the relationship between race, racism, and power” (Delgado

& Stefancic, 2012, p.3). Critical race and disability theories offer philosophical

assumptions that must be considered.

Disability studies began growing attention in the 1970’s (Meekosha &

Shuttleworth, 2009). The focus of disability studies in academia are examining “meaning,

knowledge, and consequence of disabilities as a social construction” (Pena, Stapleton, &

Schaffer, 2016, p. 88). Disability critical theory strives to eliminate oppression and works

towards emancipating and empowering individuals with disables (Pena, Stapleton, &

Schaffer, 2016). However, a critique of critical disability theory is the one-sided

perspective and ignores intersectionality or intersection of social identities. Disability is

often neglected compared to other identities within research (Henry, Fuerth, & Figliozzi,

2010; Thompson, 2013). As Pena, Stapleton, and Schaffer (2016) suggest, “when it

comes to disability, there is a tendency to isolate the identity and oppression, and not

fully problematize or understand the complexities of an intersectional lived experience”

(p. 90).

Professionals and researchers who are grounded in social justice must adopt a

culturally sensitive perspective to communicate with students, connect them with

resources, or advocate on their behalf (Pena, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). It is argued

that students are entering collegiate environments with “factors influencing

overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students (in special education

classes) are socially constructed at the complex intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, and

socioeconomic status” (Banks & Hughs, 2013, p. 369).Yet little research has taken a

stance to incorporate an approach to understand intersectionality. However, disability is

unique as there are several dynamic variables.

The single most demanding aspect of disability as a variable (when looking at

intersectionality) is that disability is qualitatively more complex than race, class,

gender, and sexual orientation… the intracategorical variations of disability offers

even more difficulty in accounting for the interaction effects with other variables

within the matrix of oppression (Sommo & Chaskes, pp. 52-53).

The complexity of disability adds an additional layer understand the impact of

intersectionality. It is recommended that practitioners reflect and consider their own

identity before attempting to understand the complexity of another individuals (Howard-

Hamilton, Cuyjet, & Cooper, 2011). All forms of oppression work to reinforce each other

(Pearson, 2010). In order to move towards intersectionality, we must adopt a social

justice perspective and place it into practice, act on inequity, and work towards ensuring

students with disabilities are understood and respected (Pena, Stapleton, & Schaffer,

2016).

Therefore, ignoring race and other socially constructed identities would do a

disservice to the participants and social justice perspective. This is where critical race

theory is introduced. As previously mentioned, the majority of NCAA D1 football and

men’s basketball rosters are Black men (Harper, 2016). As Wolverton (2016) estimated

that 1 in 5 or even 40% of the football team on scholarship at some NCAA D1

institutions have diagnosed learning disabilities, to ignore critical race theory would

continue to perpetuate critical disability theory as separate ignoring the effects of

intersectionality.

There are five main tenants of critical race theory, but for the purposes of this

research there are two specific tenants that will be explored further. The first tenant is the

challenge to dominant ideology. This tenant challenges deficit frameworks used to

perpetuate educational inequalities. Deficit language are used to “camouflage for the self-

interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in U.S. society (Calmore, 1992)”

(Solorzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001, p. 313). The second tenant is the commitment to

social justice. This research can empower individuals and will advocate for institutional

change. Higher education institutions “operate in contradictory ways with their potential

to oppress and marginalize coexisting with their potential to emancipate and empower

(Solorzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001, p. 313). When appropriate, both tenants will be

applied through the analysis and reflected in the findings.

From a critical theories’ perspective, ontology is based on social, political, and

culture realities. This is grounded in the understanding some identities have power and

privilege based in their identities, whereas others are oppressed based on their race,

ethnicity, class, or ability (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Epistemological beliefs are known

through the study and understanding of social, political, and cultural structures.

Axiological beliefs are rooted in diversity of values within various identity communities

(Creswell & Poth, 2017). Methodological approach finds assumptions through

documenting power and identity struggles while calling action for change (Creswell &

Poth, 2017). In order to change policies and procedures that benefit minoritized groups, it

is critical that research challenges current structures set in place that benefit the majority.

In addition, research should help provide a deeper understanding on how to better support

individuals or groups who do not hold privileged identities.

Throughout this research both social constructivism and critical race and

disability theories will be used to help make connections. Social constructivism is used as

a framework to interpret the world in which the participants live with an understanding

that our realities and perspectives are based on our lived experiences. Each person has a

different perspective on their own experiences and reality. Critical race addresses

inequalities while critical disability theories focus on addressing inclusion (Creswell &

Poth, 2017). Disability will play a large role in this research study as the central

population is college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD. Although race is

not a criterion within the recruitment sample, I expect it to have a significant impact in

the way the data are analyzed by interpreting data with a social justice and challenge of

dominate ideology. Based on previous research, although race was not mentioned, the

demographic data presented revealed the majority of racially minorized football college

athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD at an NCAA D1 institution did not know

their diagnosed disability (Stokowski, 2017). If similar findings are to be analyzed within

this study, it is imperative that it be acknowledged and examined through a critical race

interpretive framework.

Research Design

This research design can best be described as advocational phenomenology. This

can be explained further as the traditional phenomenological approach was underlined

and driven with a passion for advocacy throughout the research process. This approach is

evident in the way in which the philosophical framework and interpretive assumptions on

disability helped inform adjustments made throughout the research process. An example

of this would be centering participants’ voices when designing the research study. Each

individual’s personal voice must be highlighted and honored to create a deeper

understanding and provide personal perspective of the importance of advocacy within

disability studies and research. Therefore, this study continuously used a qualitative

phenomenological approach with additional components introduced to emphasize and

consider an advocational perspective.

Since phenomenological studies examine a shared phenomenon, typically

interviews are used as a central aspect for data collection, however other forms of data

can be gathered (Creswell & Poth, 2017). This study analyzed data through 90-minute

one-on-one semi-structured interviews. In addition, a demographic data sheet asking

students questions surrounding their personal identities and beliefs surrounding advocacy

skills. This demographic sheet along with the preamble was emailed prior to the 90-

minute interview to allow participants time to review the materials without feeling

pressure constraints. The researcher conducted interviews through video calls using

FaceTime, but other accommodations were offered based on the participant’s access to

technology. With the participants’ consent, interviews were audio recorded and

transcribed using otter.ai and a second examination of the transcripts was conducted by

the researcher.

Interviews are viewed as one of the most powerful data collection strategies to

provide a greater understanding to the lived experiences of individuals (Fontana & Frey,

2000). Interviews can vary in length and formality. For example, some interviews are

structured, and controlled others are considered unstructured and fluid (Russell, Gregory,

Ploeg, DiCenso, & Guyatt, 2005). Interviews lend themselves to allowing participants to

share more intimate and detailed accounts and discuss sensitive topics with researchers,

compared to the use of focus groups (DeJong & Schellens, 1998; Kaplowitz, 2000;

Kaplowitz, 2001).

Semi-structured interviews are defined as, “a dynamic exchange of ideas based on

researchers’ open ended-questions or areas of interest with probes that are designed to

elicit details and explanations” (Trainor & Graumann, 2012, p. 126; Roulston, 2010). In

addition, questions may be rearranged or may change based on the response each

participant provides, varying each interview (Kvale, 1996). When deciding an instrument

for data collection it is important to think about the purpose of the study and if the data

collection design can be justified (Trainor & Graumann, 2012). In addition, to protect the

integrity of qualitative research it is important to choose participants to engage in

interviews who have a connection to the experienced phenomenon (Richards, & Morse,

2013b).

Semi-structured interviews are beneficial as they provide the opportunity to probe

for further information and follow-up individuals’ responses (Adams, 2015). Guiding

questions are referred to as an interview guide or interview protocol like an agenda

outline. Questions should be tiered from most important to least important. Keeping track

of time is essential when implementing a semi-structured interview approach to ensure all

important questions are answered within the timeframe provided (Adams, 2015).

Active listening is an imperative skill to activate when performing semi-structured

interviews. One specific technique that can be demonstrated to emphasize active listening

is repeating back to the participant a one or two sentence summary using their own

words. This tactic has two outcomes. First it helps builds rapport and a comfortable

exchange by showing the participant that the researcher is truly interested in hearing

about the participants’ experience. The second benefit of this tactic ensures the researcher

is interpreting the information provided by the participant accurately (Adams, 2015).

Creation of a semi-structured interview protocol is established in five phases

(Kallio, Pietila, Johnson, & Kangasniemi, 2016. The first phase is identifying the

reasoning behind implementing the instrument. The second is reflecting on previous

knowledge. The third phase is constructing the interview protocol. The fourth phase

includes a pilot interview, which tests the interview protocol for flow and ease. The final

phase is finalizing the interview protocol. The interview protocol that was used for this

research study can be found in Appendix A.

It is important to address that “deficit paradigms prohibit us from seeing students

with disabilities as fully equal” (Vaccaro, Kimball, & Wells, 2015, p. 27). It is

recommended that researchers examine relevant questions that focus on the entirety of

campus operations (Vaccaro, Kimball, & Wells, 2015). When crafting the individual

questions listed on the interview protocol, I wanted to ensure that questions were not

leading, and offered students the ability to direct the conversation in whichever direction

they saw fit.

In this study, the 90-minute interviews were spent in the following manner. First,

the preamble was reviewed verbally via video chat, questions were answered, if any arose

during this time, before the participants provided verbal consent. Before delving into the

interview protocol, I provided each participant a brief history on why I am interested in

this topic and share some of my own experiences of having a disability and participating

in intercollegiate athletics. This method helped build rapport and comfort throughout the

interview. Rapport continued to be established by asking relevant but non-sensitive

questions relating back to the demographic sheet (Adams, 2015). Recommendations

suggest asking questions about the positive before approaching the negative aspects when

collecting data in semi-structured interviews (Adams, 2015). To end the interview, I

asked if the participant had any final thoughts or would like to share anything related to

the topics discussed throughout the interview that they may have not had the opportunity

to share. Interviews appeared natural and professional.

Procedure

Since March 2019 contact had been made with several learning specialists within

NCAA D1 institutions to gather further information on recruitment strategies and

networking opportunities to conduct this study. To determine which learning specialists

were contacted, a list of all NCAA D1 Power 5 conference schools was collected. All

private school institutions were originally removed, as I wanted to focus on four-year,

public, doctoral granting institutions. From that list, two or three institutions were chosen

based on location of the institution and emails were sent directly to learning specialists at

each of the selected institutions asking questions about recruitment strategies.

Throughout this process I documented which schools were willing to assist with

recruitment efforts and which were non-responsive. In addition, I attended the National

Association of Academic and Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A)

convention June 6 through June 8, 2019 in Orlando, Florida where I had the opportunity

to network with professionals invested in enhancing research in the field and working

with college athletes who have specific learning concerns. From these several

engagements in person and electronically a list of 12 learning specialists from 12

different NCAA D1 institutions were selected to receive initial contact for recruitment

purposes.

Therefore, purposeful sampling was utilized through initial contact of learning

specialists at 12 identified NCAA D1 institutions to obtain and recruit participants within

Power 5 institutions (ACC, SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12 and PAC-12). Purposeful sampling is

used to recruit participants with specific criteria from characteristics or experience with

the central phenomenon (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). The researcher has a lot of

control over this process, “...the researcher decides what needs to be known and sets out

to find people who can and are willing to provide the information by virtue of knowledge

and experience” (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016, p. 2; Bernard, 2002). Since the

specific population in this study is difficult to recruit, as many athletic departments are

protective of their college athletes, purposeful sampling is the best strategic recruitment

method.

In November 2019, with the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at

the University of Louisville, recruitment emails and flyers were sent to the 12 identified

learning specialists to disseminate to college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD. Since it is against The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974

(FERPA) to disclose which specific college athletes have a disability, the learning

specialist aids as a buffer or gatekeeper of this information having direct access to

specific college athletes who meet the qualifications of the study, but not disclosing this

information specifically to the researcher. Once emails and flyers were sent to the

learning specialist, it is on the learning specialist to post the information and the college

athlete to opt into the study voluntarily, by emailing the researcher expressing their

interest in the study. Students who volunteered to participate were provided the option to

receive a one-time $20.00 incentive for their time, which falls in compliance with the

NCAA D1 Bylaw 16.11.1.6.2.

Recruitment Timeline

The recruitment process was a strenuous aspect to this research study. After the

first wave of emails were sent to the 12 originally identified support personnel, some of

the professional athletic academic support staff did not respond to the recruitment email,

and others stated they needed further approval from their institutions IRB, compliance, or

director, but never provided additional information on the request. A select few

professionals stated they would be willing to post the recruitment flier in their office

space, but no participants came forward from those specific institutions. One institution

in the ACC was willing to assist by placing the flier around their department and within

their office space. Learning specialists took the time to encourage and recommend the

study to specific students who showed more interest in discussing their disability while in

college. Two students came forward, but one withdrew their interest. The other interview

took place during the first week of January 2020.

In the middle of January, a follow up email was forwarded to the 12 professionals

originally contacted asking for their assistance now that a new semester was underway.

Some personnel stated they would be willing to assist and others were still unresponsive,

but no participants came forward from this method. Throughout February, individual

learning specialists from the SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12 and PAC 12 were contacted via email

with recruitment materials and information about the research with little to no

engagement. With a lack of response, the decision was made to widen the scope of the

research to include all NCAA Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences

(SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, AAC, MW, C-USA, Sun Belt, and MAC). In the

middle of March 2020, a recruitment email was sent through the N4A professional

organization listserv where two students were informed of the research study and reached

out for further information. One student opted into participate, and another student never

responded to three follow up emails. In addition, two students showed interest and were

recruited through the researchers’ professional relationship and connections within the

college athlete population. One interview took place in December 2019 and another in

May 2020.

In May of 2020 about 20 different disability support centers on college campuses

were contacted asking for recruitment assistance. Again, very few departments

responded. One director stated the study needed to be approved through their institutions

IRB. One institution in the SEC was willing to send emails to 31 of their registered

athletes with disability services, but no participants came forward or showed interest. In

June 2020, all disability support centers whose institution were registered as an NCAA

DI FBS school received a recruitment email. Two schools responded and were eager to

assist by sending emails to students through their department’s listserv. One department

sent 13 emails to registered college athletes with disabilities and one student opted into

participating, the interview took place at the beginning of June 2020. In addition, all five

participants were contacted to ask for their assistance through snowballing recruitment,

however this approach did not create any new interest. At the end of July, one student had

emailed the researcher with interest in participating, but never responded for follow-up

after two emails and a text message were sent. At that point in time, it was decided to end

the recruitment at five students and continue onto the process of data analysis.

Participants Process

To determine eligibility for this study, the student had to be a current collegiate

athlete. To be considered a current college athlete, the student must be listed on the

current academic year team roster or be receiving services from their institutions athletic

academic support center. As far as inclusivity relating to disability, the medical model of

disability would require students to submit documentation proving they have a

documented impairment. Since this research is invested in taking a social justice

perspective, students will need to self-identify themselves as an individual with a

disability. Within our society, if someone walked into a room with a visible impairment

which could be seen by an assistive device or physical appearance, the legitimacy of the

disability would not be questioned. However, invisible disabilities are often questioned

and forced to be proven by documentation the student must provide to administration at

the collegiate level. Subscribing to the social justice approach, I believe students who

opt-in to participate in this study should not have to justify their identity through physical

proof or documentation, therefore no documentation was collected.

When determining how many participants should be included in a

phenomenological study, there are mixed perspectives. One scholar suggests

phenomenological studies can range widely from 3 to 4 participants, to 10 to 15

(Creswell & Poth, 2017). However, Polkinghorne (1989) suggests between 5 and 25

participants. This study originally aimed to recruit six to eight participants, but ultimately

ended at five. The objective was to recruit at least one student from each of the NCAA

D1 Power 5 conferences, this approach was also limiting, and to allow more student

voices to be heard, the researcher decided to reconsider the restrictive measures.

Providing college athlete perspectives from different institutions and different athletic

programs helps provide a broader representation of the phenomenon. It also helps in

identification of student information, as I can classify the college athlete by athletic

conference rather than institution affiliation.

Data Analysis

After all audio-recorded interview were complete, the audio files were

immediately sent to a transcription service (otter.ai) to be transcribed. I double checked

all transcripts to the original audio file to ensure accuracy and no computer or human

errors were made on behalf of the transcription service. Since the interview process is

spread over four to five months of data collection, I waiting to code each interview

transcript and placed the data into a matrix to help make sense of the data analysis.

The word code is used often in qualitative research; however, the word can have

diverse meaning depending on the researcher and context (Richards, & Morse, 2013a).

For this purpose of this research, a code is defined as “getting from unstructured and

messy data to ideas about what is going on in the data” (Richards & Morse, 2013a, p.

149). When deciding what gets coded, Richards and Morse (2013a) suggest, “If it moves,

code it” (p. 162). To determine what coding techniques to use in application, will depend

on the qualitative approach, design, and methods of data collection (Saldaña, 2015).

To analyze qualitative research, it is essential that the data is processed through a

coding cycle. A coding cycle is made of several different stages but for the purposes of

this study, analysis will be examined through multiple first cycle methods which is

considered “direct” (p. 69) and second cycle method is considered “challenging” (p. 69)

as it entails more complex conceptualization (Saldaña, 2015). To ensure a central

phenomenon is being depicted accurately it is suggested that two or more first cycle

codes be applied to the data to capture the essence (Saldaña, 2015). First cycle coding

utilized in vivo coding along with emotions or values coding. As suggested by Saldaña

(2015), the research question(s) and epistemology help guide the researcher to determine

which codes are more appropriate. Coding cycle one will apply in vivo coding, values

and emotions coding which will then be placed into a matrix display. After round one

cycling, cycle two used pattern coding which is described further in the text below.

In vivo coding was the first type of coding method used as soon as the interview

transcripts were ready for analysis. In vivo coding falls under the category of elemental

methods, which is focused on laying the foundation for future code cycling (Saldaña,

2015). In vivo coding uses the direct “terms used by {participants} themselves” (Strauss,

1987, p. 33). It is critical to allow my participants voices to lead the research and

language used since my participants as explained previous, are considered an institutional

minoritized group (Friedensen, McCrae, & Kimball, 2017; Saldaña, 2015). In addition, in

vivo coding provides a guarded approach for beginner researchers, but restriction can be

harmful as it may prevent further analysis through conceptualization (Saldaña, 2015).

After in vivo coding was completed, emotions and values coding were applied to

each individual interview transcript. The use of affective coding methods allows for the

researcher to examine specific experiences (Saldaña, 2015). Since this study is examining

human interactions, beliefs, and perspective, employing an effective coding method

allowed for deeper depth and breadth of the experience. Emotions coding allowed the

researcher to code using the emotions or feelings charred throughout the interview

(Saldaña, 2015). Whereas values coding examines the data for an individual, “integrated

value, attitude, and belief system” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 124).

It is argued that emotions coding is most appropriate when examining “explore(d)

intrapersonal and interpersonal participant’s experiences and actions, especially in

matters of social relationships, reasoning, decision-making, judgement, and risk-taking”

(Saldaña, 2015, p. 125). Since this study is examining the participants experiences

surrounding decision-making of disability disclosure and self-advocacy which implies

risk-taking, emotions coding was considered an additional benefit to the coding process.

Values coding also provides a deeper understanding of each participant’s worldview,

beliefs, and values as it relates to their experience (Saldaña, 2015).

Upon completion of first cycling coding of each transcript, the data was entered

into a matrix. A matrix can be used after first cycle coding, and before the second coding

cycle begins (Saldaña, 2015; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). This is where I took

all three coding strategies and applied it into one large document where a matrix was

utilized to organize the data. Once the data had been inputted into the matrix and codes

had been determined second cycle coding methods were applied.

To meet the needs of the research question and data being collected, pattern

coding was used as a second level coding method. Pattern coding allows for codes from

the first cycle of coding to be combined into more meaningful units of analysis (Saldaña,

2015). Upon completion of patterns coding, themes began to emerge creating meaning of

the central phenomenon of the participants. Themes are larger than a “topic or category”

(Saldaña, 2015, p. 160). Themes are considered to “run right through data and is not

necessarily confided to specific segments of text” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 160). Throughout

the data analysis process, categories and themes emerged, allowing for analysis of the

central shared experience of participants and recommendations to be provided. Figure 3

below depicts the coding cycle process.

Figure 3

Coding Cycle Process

Data saturation is defined as, “an indication that a concept has been thoroughly

examined such that no new themes or point in need of further exploration emerge from

the recursive process of data collection and analysis” (Trainor & Graumann, 2012, p.

127; Corbin & Stauss, 2008). It is argued that data saturation should not focus on sample

size but rather on how rich and thick or rather the quality and quantity of the data or in

this case interviews (Burmeister & Aitken, 2012; Fusch & Ness, 2015). Meanwhile some

researchers believe that data saturation is inapplicable to phenomenology (Cohen, 2000;

van Manen, 2014). This is important to note as stopping before saturation has occurred is

typically discouraged in other qualitative research designs (Gentles, Charles, Ploeg, &

McKibbon, 2015).

Research Quality & Rigor

When assessing the quality and rigor of qualitative research it is important to

examine the transferability, credibility, and dependability within qualitative research.

Categorize

Codes to

Generate

Themes

Emotions

& Values

Coding

In Vivo

Coding

Patterns

Coding

This can also be viewed in three various perspectives which include the researcher’s,

participant’s, and reviewer’s lens (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Creswell and Poth (2017)

recommend that at least two validation strategies be used in qualitative studies. One of

these strategies is known as confronting potential bias or resistance. Through this

approach, the researcher discloses their experiences, values and biases that are present

throughout the research (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Merriam, & Tisdell, 2015).

Since qualitative research heavily relies on the researcher’s lens or perspective

throughout the study, the potential for human bias is present. This explains why

confronting and examining one’s own perspective is likely to shape the research design

(Creswell & Poth, 2017). This approach also allows for trustworthiness to be present

throughout the study by allowing the research to consistently engage in personal and

reflexivity in practice.

Trustworthiness and rigor have been studied since the 1980s by Lincoln and Guba

(Cypress, 2017). Trustworthiness is known as “quality, authenticity, and truthfulness of

findings” (Cypress, 2017, p. 254). Furthermore, trustworthiness addresses the trust or

belief a reader has in the results of a study (Cypress, 2017). By addressing the

interpretive frameworks and personal positionality statement, I can provide the reader or

reviewer a deeper understanding of the data analysis and findings. It is also my intention

to be ethical throughout this research from formation to conclusion and analyze the data

in an ethical and truthful manner.

Triangulation is the use of specific strategies to help create a well-rounded

understanding or testing the credibility, dependability and confirmability for the

phenomenon being studied (Patton, 1999). There are four different types of triangulation

which include method, investigator, theory, and data source (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius,

DiCenso, Blythe, & Nevill, 2014). It is suggested that researchers have a handful of ways

to ensure “data dependability, and credibility such as debriefing, member checking,

triangulation, or use of a reflexive journal” (Carter et al., 2014, p. 546). For this study,

data triangulation will be defined for a context of including more than one participant in

the data collection process. Furthermore, each participant was from a different higher

education institution and occurred at different times throughout the semester (Denzin,

1978). Examining the data from a variety of different conditions can help understand the

central phenomenon better (Mathison, 1988).

From a credibility standpoint, the idea of member checking or seeking participant

perspective and feedback is important to ensure their voices are heard and are being

reflected accurately within the analysis and findings. This technique involves

participant’s feedback to ensure credibility in the analysis or interpretation of the data

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Creswell & Poth, 2017). Member checking for the purpose of

this study included sending all written data analysis back to the participant to ensure the

written section of the data analysis depicts their story and phenomenon accurately.

Students will have two weeks to respond with any concerns or clarifying information.

Another strategy to ensure credibility and good qualitative practice is the concept

of a pilot study or opportunities for participants to collaborate in the data instrument

creation (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Specifically, when researching students with

disabilities on college campuses, best practice is to allow for assistance from the student

population when developing questions and seeking pilot studies (Vaccaro, Kimball,

Wells, & Ostiguy, 2015). Therefore, the interview protocol had been piloted once with a

100

student who has a learning disability to ensure the questions flow appropriately and the

participant or researcher feels specific information is not left unanswered. This process

allowed for further analysis and reflection to occur by adding additional questions into

the protocol and reflecting on the flow of questions and responses.

The final perspective to credibility is known as peer debriefing which focuses on

the lens of the reader or reviewer. Since this is a dissertation, there are multiple reviewers

and committee members ensuring accuracy, and truthfulness (Creswell & Poth, 2017). In

addition, throughout the data analysis, crafting rich and thick descriptors throughout the

findings is needed to allow the reader the ability to determine in which contexts the

findings may be transferred which is known as transferability (Erlandson, Hartis, Skipper,

& Allen, 1993). This can be done by writing in-depth descriptions of the data being

analyzed (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The guidance of my dissertation committee can also

ensure the analysis and findings that are generated are rick and thick when assessing the

quality and rigor of the research.

In summary, credibility will be assessed using member checking, and

triangulation. Transferability will assess the quality and rigor or the research through both

purposeful sampling techniques, and by providing thick descriptions of the data

throughout the analysis. Dependability will be placed into practice through code and

recoding cycle strategies, and peer examination. Finally, confirmability will be presented

through triangulation and displays of personal reflections and consistent practice

reflexivity.

101

Research with Special Populations

When starting to craft a research design dealing with disability as a topic, there

are three main questions that should be consider. It is essential to reflect and answer who

the research and work is intended for, what rights do we have to conduct the research and

undertake answering the question, and what responsibilities come with that specific

research. French and Swain (1997) argue that other questions should be addressed during

the research design recommending analysis of the following questions (p. 31). First, does

the research promote disabled people’s control over the decisions-making processes

which shape their lives? Second, does the research address the concerns of disabled

people themselves? Finally, does the research support disabled people in their struggle

against oppression and the removal of barriers to equal opportunity and a full

participatory democracy for all? As researchers we must focus our efforts on

empowerment.

Once argument surrounding disability research is the lack of preparation in which

is provided to researchers within higher education. Berger and Lorenz (2015) explain that

little to no information or methodological courses provide guidance or information on

how to best conduct qualitative research with disability-methods. The IRB professional

staff may also lack knowledge about varying disabilities as some impairments are

considered a protective population under federal law. Therefore, the IRB application was

written with extremely specific language surrounding the term “learning disability”.

Professional staff members who work in IRB are only trying to ensure the research

protocol follows federal guidelines however, some education surrounding disability

within research may be beneficial.

102

There are also several complexities that can cause challenges to conducting

research with individuals who have disabilities such as the variability amongst each

participant (Odom, Brantlinger, Gersten, Horner, Thompson, & Harris, 2005).

Educational contexts or varying environments within special education can cause further

complexities within the research design. It is emphasized that, “researchers cannot just

address a simple question about whether a practice in special education is effective; they

must specify clearly for whom the practice is effective and in what context” (Odom,

Brantlinger, Gersten, Horner, Thompson, & Harris, 2005, p. 139; Guralnick, 1999).

According to Odom and colleagues (2005), there are currently no guidelines for specific

types and levels of evidence that are provided within the special education discipline that

offer how to determine and identify effective practices.

Pertaining to including disabled people, specifically those with learning

challenges into research, there is much debate surrounding ethical concerns specifically

around sensitive topics which include methods of gathering information, consent, and

potential harm (Tuffrey-Wijne, Bernal, & Hollin, 2008). These ethical concerns should

be addressed if the content of the research is related to sensitive matters. Seeking

informed consent from participants must occur ethically, ensuring an individual is fully

aware to what they are agreeing to without feeling pressured or coerced to participate

(Ninds, 2009). Protecting confidentiality is essential and explaining the purpose of the

informed consent in lay terminology is critical to ensuring the participant understands

how the information they share will be used throughout the process (Ninds, 2009).

Participatory research has picked up some rapid momentum in the past few

decades related to conducting research with disabled people (French & Swain, 1997).

103

This type of research suggests that disabled people should be involved in the entire

research process from design to evaluation (French & Swain, 1997). Another large debate

is the idea of conducting research “with” or “on” disabled people (Ninds, 2009). The

participatory research approach would suggest that research should be “with” people

(French & Swain, 1997). Additionally, participatory research allows for disabled

individuals to participate in the creation of knowledge about themselves (French &

Swain, 1997).

Gaining access to participants can be a difficult journey to navigate as many

individuals with disabilities have gatekeepers or individuals who want to protect them at

all cost (Lewis & Porter, 2004; Ninds, 2009). To conduct research, seeking access to

participants may create communication through several layers of management or in this

specific research design, administration. In addition, all information about the study may

have to be filtered from the facilitator or gatekeeper to the participants to seek for

volunteers (Ninds, 2009). This is a potential barrier to the recruiting process, which can

make research with this specific population difficult to conduct. To get gatekeepers to

assist, it is critical to explain the benefit of the research and how it will directly influence

the participants (Ninds, 2009). It is also vital for researchers to consider how they

conduct their research to ensure all aspects are in an accessible format (Ninds, 2009). It is

suggested that questionnaires be provided in a visual or tangible format when working

with individuals who have a learning or communication disability (Ninds, 2009).

Universal design should be considered when crafting a research design and instrument,

specifically for special populations. There may be times where sending research

questions in advance could be beneficial for example, those with auditory processing

104

impairments may prefer to see the questions, to follow along visually while conducting

the interview.

This is not an exhaustive list but rather a surface level consideration of things that

should be considered when conducting research and thinking through ethical concerns

and issues related to the specific population. However, there are several ways to preplan

for pitfalls or issues within the research design prior to conducting the research and there

are also things that will be learned along the process. This is where the action of

memoing or journaling the research process and consulting with other experts, and

individuals within the disability community is encouraged.

105

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to examine the lived experience of college

athletes participating in NCAA Division 1 athletics who have a learning disability and/or

ADHD. Five students from different educational institutions within the NCAA D1

Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences opted into participating by expressing

interest in the study, returning a demographic form, and taking part in a 90-minute

interview. Recruitment took place between November 2019 through July 2020, through

various methods. The researcher was able to recruit two members through personal direct

contact, two students were informed of the research directly by an athletic academic staff

member (academic counselor/advisor or learning specialist) and one student was

informed of the research directly through their disability support services on their college

campus. The interviews were held in various months throughout the recruitment timeline,

one occurring in person in a secluded space on campus and four were conducted via

video, where both the participant and researcher were in the comfort of their own homes.

Before each interview, students were sent an email pertaining the preamble and

demographic form. Upon return of the demographic form, interviews were scheduled and

at the beginning of each interview, the preamble was reviewed and acknowledged. Each

participant provided verbal consent for audio recording of the interview.

106

Although phenomenology focuses on the central themes and reoccurrences

throughout the data and overall shared experiences amongst the participants, one of the

main goals of this study is to provide voice to a population that is often ignored within

society and within literature. Therefore, this chapter aims to serve two purposes. First,

this chapter will provide individual demographic information and brief a personal

synopsis of each individual’s narrative provided throughout their interview. The second

section focuses heavily on the themes and phenomenon that was shared amongst each

participant throughout the data analysis.

It is imperative to continuously be reminded that this research is exploratory in

nature, and is not a comprehensive analysis, as there is little research conducted on

disabled college students since 1990 (Pina, 2014), and insignificant amounts of literature

on college athletes with learning challenges. As evident throughout the findings, students

have unique experiences that apply to their institution, impairment, and personal

academic journey. There are multiple variables and perspectives to consider, and each

student’s voice is just as important as the collective voice. The following findings seek to

honor both perspectives.

Demographics

In order to protect the identities of each student, participants were asked to

provide a pseudonym, or one would be assigned by the researcher. In addition,

institutional information is not provided to protect each student’s identity, however the

conference in which the student’s institution athletically competes and the sport in which

each student participants in is provided. Two students are enrolled at institutions within

the ACC, one student from the BIG 10, one from the AAC, and one from the MAC.

107

Three of the participants were first year students. One interview took place in the final

month of the student’s first semester in college, while the other two were completed at

the competition of their first year in college. The remaining two participants classified

themselves as fifth year seniors. Students were asked to provide their gender and

race/ethnicity. Two participants were male, and three were female, while four self-

identified as White and one as Black. The ages of participants ranged between 18 and 22.

A wide variety of sports are included in this study, including baseball, rowing, swimming

and diving, football, and volleyball (see Table 1).

When it comes to accommodation two students received special education

services in high school and three did not. While in college, three students were registered

with the disability support services on their college campus and actively use

accommodations while two were not registered with their disability support center at the

time of their interview. Three students in this study self-identified as having ADHD, one

student self-reported dyslexia and one student has a combination of ADHD and a

learning disability. Three students have been diagnosed with their disability by a

professional while in grade school, one student was diagnosed a few months prior to

entering higher education and one has never been professionally diagnosed.

108

Table 1

Participants Demographic Information

(*) indicates pseudonym for individuals’ name

Name*

Conference

College

Year

Gender

Race/

Ethnicity

Age

Sport

Disability

Don

ACC

First

Semester

Freshman

Male

White

Baseball

ADHD

Alex

ACC

Year

Senior

Female

White

Rowing

ADHD &

Emily

BIG 10

Entering

Sophomore

Female

White

Swimming

& Diving

Dyslexia

Earl

AAC

Year

Senior

Male

Black

Football

ADHD

Jamie

MAC

Entering

Sophomore

Female

White

Volleyball

ADHD

Don

Don is a 19-year-old, White male. He participates in baseball at an institution

which is associated with the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Don had just completed

his first full-time semester as a first-year student at his institution when the interview was

conducted. Don was diagnosed with ADHD in the summer between his high school and

college experience, just eight months prior at the time of his interview. Don stated he

never used accommodations in high school and qualified for two academic

accommodations which included extended time and reduced distraction on tests once he

completed a psychoeducational evaluation and submitted the results to his institution.

Although Don does not elect to utilize his approved accommodations through his

institution’s disability support services, he does take ADHD medication. Don disclosed

that he tries to only take his medication on a need to use basis rather than a scheduled

time each day. He finds that the medication helps him focus and tries to only take it when

he needs to sit still or concentrate academically. Pertaining to his diagnosis, Don stated

109

that his physical therapist, and athletic academic counselor are aware of his ADHD. His

personal relationship with his head coach was described as distant.

Don said he is very comfortable disclosing his disability to anyone willing to

listen. Don stated several times throughout his interview that he feels “grouped” or

viewed as “a number” rather than being treated as “an individual” by most people within

his collegiate experience. He stated that “…it’s a lot more listening not hearing”. He feels

frustrated that he will speak up and advocate for what he personally needs to succeed but

expressed that people do not genuinely care which is evident through their lack of action.

One of Don’s largest complaints is that he does not have full control over his

academic choices and overall success. Don stated he has no control over when he takes

his classes, as his athletic academic counselor dictates many of these decisions. Don

began working with a learning specialist and continued to explain his frustrations. He

stated that he felt as though the learning specialist did not take the time to get to know

him personally. Furthermore, he felt as though the learning specialist was only teaching

strategic academic techniques that applied to the label of ADHD rather than taking an

individualized approach to assist Don in his academic struggles.

As far as interacting with peers and teammates, he mentioned that people view

him as “weird” because he speaks freely and says whatever is on his mind. Other

people’s perceptions do not bother Don, and he said he is unapologetic for who he is and

stands firmly in sticking with his beliefs. Don said he felt extremely comfortable

advocating and speaking up for his needs which stems from his upbringing and parental

figures, such as athletic coaches that were influential in his childhood.

110

Alex

At the time of the interview, Alex was 22 years old and a fifth-year senior. She

identifies as a White female. Alex is on the women’s rowing team at an institution which

competes within the ACC. Alex was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury due to an

accident that occurred at the age of 10. The onset of her hearing loss, ADHD, and

learning disability were caused due to the traumatic accident she experienced in her pre-

adolescent years. Alex currently takes ADHD medication for her disability. Alex did

utilize multiple accommodations in high school and continues to utilize them throughout

her collegiate experience. She stated she had to complete another psychoeducational

evaluation when she entered college because the assessment results were only valid for so

many years. In addition, Alex stated that the process to retest, and receive

accommodations through her school took three months. Disability support services

required a lot of paperwork and the evaluation to diagnosis is expensive.

The process to receive accommodations was simple, she sat down with a

specialist in disability support services and was told what could be offered to her based

on her disability. Alex utilizes several accommodations due to her various impairments,

but the ones that were brought up with additional context during the interview were

testing with extended time and reduced distraction. She stated that the space the disability

support center provides is not always the most accessible, as the lighting is poor quality,

or the environment can be too loud at times, which defeats the purposes of her

accommodation.

Alex expressed that sometimes she does not understand why she does not qualify

for specific accommodations that can help her in the classroom. “.. the service can help

111

me, but I don’t qualify, but I don’t understand why… like taking my laptop to class”.

Alex found herself advocating to the ADA coordinator who questioned her on why she

needed the accommodation, and she did not feel the response from the ADA coordinator

was reassuring. Alex stated she ended up discussing it with her professor who was more

than willing to accommodate her request. Furthermore, she was offered an

accommodation to use a scribe pen but was not provided any workshops or education on

how the technology operates. Her accessibility coordinator provided instructions on how

to download the software but did not offer a tutorial on how to navigate the assistive

technology.

To ensure her needs are met, Alex stated she will speak up and disclose her

disability when necessary. She stated that she felt “it’s not valid if I don’t disclose it” she

explained that sometimes she feels pressure to tell faculty members, specifically in her

declared major. She learned how to advocate from struggling on an academic exam and

feeling overwhelmed. Her struggle helped her gain the confidence to realize she needed

academic accommodations to perform her academic work on the same level as her peers.

Alex stated that her college life feels like a “balancing act” between her athletic

obligations, academic demands, and potential social engagements she may be missing out

on with other peers. Academically she felt support from her athletic academic counselor,

especially her first year in college. She openly discloses her impairment to tutors and she

has created a close relationship with her universities learning specialist, even though she

does not utilize the services on a consistent basis. She stated the learning specialist offer a

quiet space and assist with organization skills when needed. Regarding her athletic

involvement, Alex feels comfortable speaking up for her needs with her coaching staff

112

and has asked for accommodations to help improve her athletic participation. There are

times when her team is on the road and mandatory study hall is implemented in spaces

that are not conducive to environments of reduced distractions. She stated that her

coaches are supportive and have offered other alternatives, willing to accommodate, if

she speaks up and explain her needs first.

Emily

Emily is on the swimming and diving team at an institution who participants in

athletic competitions within the BIG 10 conference. Emily identifies as White and was 18

years old, and a rising sophomore at the time of her interview. When Emily was in the

fourth grade, she attended a school that specialized in reading techniques and strategies

for individuals with dyslexia. After two years in the program, Emily was enrolled in a

mainstream middle school without accommodations as her parents and teachers felt as

though she had developed the skills to be viewed equivalent to her peers academically.

During her first semester in college, Emily found herself struggling and went to

her athletic academic counselor for assistance. She was set up with accommodations

through her institution’s disability support services. She mentioned using a few

accommodations such as spelling forgiveness and extended time on exams or

assignments. Screen readers are considered a new area of exploration for Emily which

helps with reading large texts and passages that are assigned in her coursework.

When disclosing her disability to faculty, Emily stated she has not had to

experience this interaction as her accommodations were approved weeks prior to

COVID-19 and her institution decided to move to remote learning in March of 2020. Due

to the pandemic all accommodation letters were provided to faculty via email. Although

113

Emily has not had the opportunity to experience a face-to-face conversation with faculty,

she stated she would not feel comfortable disclosing too much in-depth information.

Additionally, Emily thinks through the level of the course before she opts into

accommodations for a course stating, “if I was going to take like a level 100 class… I

don’t think I would do it”. Emily spends time thinking through each of her courses and if

she can handle the course load without accommodations before opting into disclosing her

disability through accommodations letters.

Throughout the interview Emily expressed several times her lack of self-

confidence and wanting to be viewed as smart by her peers, faculty, and others she

interacts with, in her college experience. Despite others telling Emily “I’ve been told I’m

very vocal about things” on a scale from one to ten, Emily rated herself at a 6 for both her

confidence and comfort in reaching out to self-advocate. She explained that asking for

help related to her disability feels “counterintuitive to being smart”. She struggles with

her confidence because “how can you balance being smart… with having a reading

disability”.

In relation to disclosing her disability to her peers, she stated that the process has

been an opportunity for self-growth for both her and others involved. She mentioned how

she attended high school in an environment where people were accepting and exposed to

diversity and individuals with different identities. Emily stated that many of her peers at

her current institution have not been exposed to as many diverse individuals, so sharing

her disability with her teammates lead to shock and surprise, but left Emily feeling a

sense of discomfort. At this point in time, Emily has not disclosed her disability to her

coach or athletic staff as it is not pertinent for them to know.

114

Earl

Earl self-identified as a Black, 22-year-old male. He is enrolled as a fifth-year

senior and plays football at an institution who competes within the American Atlantic

Conference (AAC). Earl has never been evaluated or diagnosed with ADHD, but teachers

and other professionals throughout his upbringing have alluded to his behaviors aligning

with symptoms of ADHD. Earl stated he did not want to get diagnosed for two specific

reasons. First, he expressed that he was against medication because he does not want to

alter his personality and “dull” who he is stating, “I’m perfectly fine in my skin”.

Additionally, Earl mentioned that the way his family views disability may impact his

choices on not seeking further medical documentation or evaluation.

Earl views his disability as a challenge to be overcome. From the way Earl

struggles to concentrate during tests and exams, to his athletic academic counselor

excusing him from tutoring sessions if he completes his work early in the week.

Additionally, Earl said he performs better academically when in season and when he

procrastinates and waits until last minute to complete assignments because there is no

time to get distracted. Being an athlete provides Earl with a sense of “privilege” as he

stated, all the academic support he needs to access is located in one building, and the

support is flexible on his time, meaning he does not have to make appointments with

these resources.

When examining how Earl views his disability, he stated that it makes him “fun

and witty”, and it’s a part of his personality. In high school, Earl was reminded of times

when his peer would call him “weird”, but he embraced those comments and views

himself as unique. Earl also stated that he views every conversation when he discloses as

115

an opportunity to change an individual’s perspective on how they view people with

ADHD, as more “creative and outgoing”. He often feels the need to disclose to tutors

when he is distracted or getting off topic, because he does not want their perceptions to

change, or think Earl is doing it on purpose or as disrespect.

Since Earl attends an institution that is outside of the Power 5 conferences, he

stated that there are financial restraints that influence his college experience. He

mentioned that his teammates have friends and family members who attend colleges in

the Power 5, and they talk. Earl said he was aware that his institutions athletic facilities

are not the greatest, nutrition is sub-par at times, tutor or athletic academic counselor to

student ratio is higher than an institution with more income and the additional resources

are not provided like they would be at an institution that had a higher athletic revenue.

That being said, Earl stated he often feels that his team has to try 10 times harder

athletically and academically to compete with other football teams that derive from

Power 5 conferences, even if his team has better skills on and off the field.

Earl said he learned to advocate and speak up for his needs by being stubborn and

finding his voice when his peers were looking at him different. He has experienced peers

in his academic courses assuming specific beliefs and capabilities relating to his identities

as a Black, collegiate athlete, with ADHD. Athletically Earl has not disclosed to his

coaching staff but he believes his coaches would bring it up as a joke in conversation, but

that is only because of the relationship he has with his coaching staff, and Earl alluded to

the normalcy of this behavior.

116

Jamie

Jamie is a 19-year-old, White female with ADHD. She participants in volleyball

at an institution who athletically competes in the Mid-American Conference (MAC). At

the time of the interview Jamie was a rising sophomore. Jamie was diagnosed with

ADHD in the eighth grade. She is currently not taking medication for her ADHD, as it

altered her personality and made her “a different person” when in social environments

and she wanted to avoid the complication of the NCAA and prescribed medication.

In high school Jamie received accommodations but she described the teachers

being lenient, whereas in college she had to go through the process of requesting

accommodations which involved disclosing her disability to a lot of people and

completing or providing an overwhelming amount of paperwork. Her athletic academic

counselor recommended her to the disability support services on their campus to see what

accommodations she could get with her ADHD diagnosis. She was offered time and half

and reduced distraction on tests and exams. In addition, some of the current processes the

disability support services subscribed too are inaccessible or place more burden onto the

student.

One struggle Jamie had with her institutions disability support services is the

process to sign up for accommodation letter for faculty, and/or request academic

accommodations for an exam. Jamie shared her frustration that everything is done on

paper and in person, instead of online. Due to COVID-19 and her universities

administrator’s decision to move all courses remote in March of 2020, forced a shift to

occur in the process that was more accessible. In addition, Jamie explained her

frustrations with the location of the nearest parking lot to the disability support services

117

location, and the amount of time and advance planning it takes to utilize her approved

accommodations when test taking, but she said “it’s hard to complain because it is worth

it”.

When choosing to disclose to professors, Jamie thinks through which courses she

may need her approved accommodation in, before opting into providing paperwork to

faculty. She stated that from her experience faculty interact with so many students that

her conversations are typically kept brief and it feels like “oh thank you for that, like

move along”. Additionally, Jamie mentioned a time where her Teacher Assistant (TA) for

a course struggled to understand English, as it was not their first language. Jamie tried

explaining the process to get accommodations for her upcoming test, but the TA did not

understand. In the moment, Jamie made the decision to take the test in the class as she

weighed her options and did not want to continue to overwhelm and stress the TA in the

moment.

When discussing academic support, Jamie explained that she feels she “can get

down” on herself sometimes. She has no problem vocalizing her needs in terms of

understanding content material, but she struggles in other areas related to personal growth

and reaching out for help. Jamie stated, “I feel like I can figure it out mentally on my

own”. On a scale from one to ten, Jamie ranked herself at six on her comfort in reaching

out for help when in need. Jamie did mention her coaches are aware of her disability and

are super understanding. She felt supported by most of the people she has interacted with

from a professional lens throughout her collegiate experience thus far in regard to

disclosing her disability and getting the academic support she needs to succeed.

118

Themes

The first major theme is reactions and perceptions of others regarding self-

disclosure of a disability. In addition, interactions with peers and interactions with

athletic staff were two sub-themes that were presented throughout the data. The second

major theme that emerged throughout the analysis was being vocal and persistent when it

comes to self-advocacy. The two subthemes in this category include knowledge and

education as well as the influence of personality and upbringing on confidence. The final

overarching theme that appeared from the data consists of, building rapport and

relationships influence perceptions of support. The first subtheme in this category

includes academic support staff such as athletic academic advisors/counselors and tutors.

The second subtheme in this category include targeted support services or programs (see

Table 2).

Table 2

The Research Questions & Emerging Themes

Central Question: What are the lived experiences of college athletes with learning disabilities

and/or ADHD surrounding disability disclosure, advocacy, and academic support at NCAA

FBS D1 institutions?

Research Question

Theme

Subtheme A

Subtheme B

What does this process of self-

disclosure look like for college

athletes with learning

disabilities and/or ADHD?

Reactions and

perceptions of

others

Interaction

with peers

Interactions

with athletic

staff

How do college athletes with

learning disabilities and/or

ADHD advocate for their

academic success?

Being vocal and

persistent

Knowledge

and education

Influence of

personality and

upbringing on

confidence

In what ways do college athletes

with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD describe academic

support within their campus

community?

Building rapport

and relationships

influence

perceptions of

support

Athletic

academic

support staff

Targeted

support services

and programs

119

Theme 1: Reactions and Perceptions of Others

Pertaining to how students feel about making their own decisions within their

college life, all participants stated they felt comfortable. Don mentioned that it was “the

goal of college” and Earl stated he could reach out to someone if he needed assistance.

However, Alex mentioned that sometimes being an athlete adds pressure to not only do

things right but get everyone’s opinion about the decision.

They encourage us to use so many different resources, it’s almost as if you make a

decision on your own, then you didn’t do it right… let’s make sure you know

everything, know all information, and get everyone’s opinion before you do this

Students feel comfortable enough to make their own decisions but can also feel

overpowered by professional opinions which may stem from the need to do everything

right in collegiate athletics to avoid or interfere with NCAA eligibility and policies.

Even though students feel comfortable making their own decision, they do not

always feel comfortable disclosing their disability to professionals, peers, and athletic

staff. Participants explained that before they make the decision to self-disclose, they think

through how the individual will react to the information. In addition to their reaction,

participants think about how the individual will perceive the student with a disability

after the information has been disclosed. Students stated they did not want to be seen as

less than or incapable.

Jamie mentioned that the most important thing she considers is how the other

individual is going to treat her after she discloses the information about her disability.

She shared that she does not want to be treated differently and does not want others to

“dumb things down” or feel as though she is not self-sufficient now that they know she

has ADHD. Emily provided similar thoughts.

120

…when I feel like it will make me like less than everyone else, I don’t usually

disclose it. I want to prove to everyone that I deserve to be there just as much as

everyone else instead of being someone who got their based on a disability.

Emily also shared that she often thinks through how self-disclosing her disability will be

received, if it is “poignant for others to know”, and if others will have a negative

perception of her ability.

Alex considers how an individual has reacted to other information in the past, or

comments people have made regarding personal information. She stated if an individual

found the information to be overwhelming, or, made insensitive comments, she would be

less inclined to disclose information about her ADHD or other impairments. She also

considers if the information will be kept confidential or shared with someone else.

Earl mentioned how the perceptions of others is important in his decision-making

process. He states that sometimes he is not able to focus during tutoring sessions and that

he does not want the tutor to think he is being disrespectful or rude. He wants the

individual to know he is not trying to be rude or disrespectful, or wasting their time but

rather he cannot help getting off topic or distracted due to his ADHD. Don mentioned

that he considers the situation and genuinely analyzes the person that he his speaking to

before he decides to self-disclose information about his ADHD. He said when he shares

his disability

…if it doesn’t pertain to them, it doesn’t matter … So, it’s very frustrating when I

tell someone (and their reactions is) okay yeah, I understand that, and they

immediately turn away. It’s like to you, it could be a big deal, to them it’s not and

you hear that a lot, but that’s just the truth, that’s really the way it is

Don also stated numerous times throughout the interview that he felt more like a number

or often grouped into a category rather than being viewed as an individual.

121

Ultimately student athletes with learning disabilities or ADHD want to ensure

they are disclosing to someone who will be understanding and non-judgmental. When

considering the process of self-disclosure students base their choices off the individual’s

potential reaction and perception. There were two specific groups of individuals that

appeared frequently discussed throughout the data on disclosing information which

include interactions with peers and coaching or athletic staff interactions.

Subtheme 1A: Interactions with Peers

When discussing the reactions and perceptions of others, students appeared to

have either negative interactions or hesitated to discuss their disability with peers.

Students shared experiences of feeling stereotypes as “dumb” or incapable. Students

speak about peer interactions in terms of other students in their classes and other peers on

their athletic team.

Jamie speaks about how her peers perceive her to only have accomplished

admissions into college because of her association with sports rather than academic

accomplishments even though she has received scholarships for her academic

performance. Jamie stated these reactions are evident through rude comments. Jamie said

her teammates, especially the upperclassman on the team are academically smart and

have more years of experience in college, so she feels comfortable to ask them for

assistance in her own work.

Like Jamie, Alex also chooses to withhold information about her disability while

participating in group assignments, especially if the topic is about disabilities, as she does

not want the project to be solely focused on her experiences. Alex also has experienced

similar comments from her peers about attending the best parties, not getting good

122

grades, and the misconception of getting admitted into college based solely on athletic

ability. There are also times where Alex thinks about her environment and explained how

athletic academic workshops can be helpful, but they can also lead to fear and pressure of

exposing one’s disability identity without thinking.

Sometimes we have speakers come in every semester for student athletes and

sometimes they’ll ask, does anyone have trouble concentrating? And I just think

it’s kind of tricking us into making us feel more comfortable that were all going

through the same thing. I remember thinking if we would raise our hands right

now, we would give ourselves away, but not in a mean or oblivion way but it’s

just trying to get other athletes to realize people have similarities

The fear of being singled out by her peers caused slight discomfort in a large group

setting.

Emily shared her experience of disclosing her disability to her teammates stating

there was a lot of shock, surprise, and sympathy. She began feeling as though her

teammates only liked her because she was viewed as “not a tokenism, but sort of like a

step under”. Similar to Jamie, Emily struggles with wanting to feel equal to her peers.

She states she will not disclose her disability if it will make her feel less than her peers. “I

want to prove to everyone that I deserve to be there just as much as everyone else instead

of being someone who got their based on a disability”. Emily stated throughout her

interview that self-confidence regarding her academic abilities is a skill she is working on

daily.

Don stated that most people view his ADHD as a weakness, but he sees it as a

part of who he is, which makes him unique. When it comes to his teammates, Don spoke

about a time he was asked to participate in specific team activities in which he was left

feeling uncomfortable and opted out of participation. Over time, he stood his ground and

123

stated he felt more respect from his teammates, as his teammates started asking him to

hang out one-on-one.

Earl recited a powerful memory where he was assigned to work on a group

project with his peers. He first struggled to find group members because everyone in the

class knew he was a football player and had assumptions about his academic performance

and abilities. By taking ownership and leading the delegation of tasks for his peer, he felt

the need to prove his peer’s assumptions wrong.

I was actually the only Black person in the group, so I could just tell the vibe like

they were trying to be friendly, but I knew we started talking about all the work

and stuff, like they were just trying to give me something so simple and I just felt

so belittled like I can do more than that. It was like writing my name. I was like

no, you’re not gonna do that, this is how we’re gonna break it down and I

delegated the portions. Obviously, I was asking them too, if there were willing to

do it… it was kind of an even split, but I made sure that I had one of the portions

that people would think twice about getting because it was a little extra work and

we got the second highest score out of all the six groups in that lab

Earl also shares that his teammates do not really discuss academics or support each other.

Being on a football team the only time academics are really discussed, is typically in

conversation about an athlete passing his courses. The only other time teammates discuss

academics is during season, and if a teammate asks, they’re not asking how did you

perform, they are just purely asking if you completed the assignment or tasks so that

everyone can go and perform on the field.

Each participant shared a sense of wanting to feel equal to their peers and

validated for their academic achievements. The intersectionality of identities influences

the perceptions and reactions college athletes with learning disabilities or ADHD

encounter when interacting with their peers. Furthermore, college athletes with learning

124

challenges want to be seen as equal to their peers and hesitate to disclose their disability

in various environments.

Subtheme 1B: Interaction with Athletic Staff

Athletic staff, coaches and athletic trainers or physical therapists were mentioned

overlapping in several interviews. All three female participants have athletic coaches who

are male, and each individual said they have a close enough relationship with their coach

that they feel comfortable disclosing their disability. Jamie and Alex have similar

experiences in disclosing their disability to their head coach. Jamie stated she needed to

share the information with her head coach, to be excused from practice to meet with their

disability support coordinator on campus for an initial intake appointment. She stated her

coach was supportive and had an individual and private conversation with her expressing

his support.

Alex had to disclose to her coach as she needed accommodations to perform at

her peak athletically. With a slight hearing loss, she needed her coach to make

accommodations on which side of the lake he voices his instructions from, and Alex

explained he may need to repeat instructions multiple times. Alex also mentioned that her

coach was willing to incorporate the changes for a few practices but then fell into his old

habits, so she had to remain consistent and remind him of her needs and

accommodations. When her coach followed through with Alex’s requested

accommodation and started to see improvement, he was willing to engage in these

changed behaviors consistently.

Emily stated she has not needed to self-disclose to her coach, but if she ever felt

there was a need to, she would feel comfortable because of their relationship. Earl

125

expressed similar beliefs that his coach would not treat him differently, but his ADHD

might be used as a joke within conversations. He reiterated that disclosure comes down to

the persons situation, and coach’s relationship with the athlete. Don expressed that the

relationship he has with his head coach is distant. He stated his coach could care less

from his own interactions, or lack thereof, and things he has heard from other teammates,

so he chooses not to have a conversation about his ADHD. However, it is important to

note that Don’s disability does not influence his athletic ability to focus the same way his

ADHD influences his ability to succeed academically in the classroom. Earl and Jamie

also shared similar comments about how they can hyper focus in while participating in

their sport because it something they are passionate about, and they are continuously

moving their bodies.

In addition to the relationships and reactions of coaching staff, another

commonality amongst the participants is the topic of medication and athletic

participation. For athletes who are diagnosed with ADHD, two students opted out of

taking medication as they did not want to deal with the side effects or want their

personality to be altered. Two participants actively take medication for their ADHD. Both

students who actively take prescribed medication disclosed times where their medication

was openly discussed around teammates and other individuals without their permission.

For example, Alex recalled a time where her coach addressed her medication in front of

other teammates, because he was frustrated. She stated that the athletic trainer had a

personal conversation and explained she planned on reiterating in the next coaches

meeting that his actions violated HIPPA. Alex stated she was thankful for her athletic

126

trainer’s support and educating her that her coaches’ actions were inappropriate. Don

speaks about similar experiences but with his physical therapists.

So the prescription I take is called methylphenidate, well the root word is meth

and so someone saw my prescription when they handed it to me and then the

whole team thinks I’m taking meth, and everyone knows I’m not so they start

giving me a hard time… there is a moment where I was annoyed by it, but that

was very brief… its very thrown around, you’ll have a physical therapist say, oh I

have your ADHD medicine or a couple days ago did you get the medicine yelling

it across the entire room, I’m like yeah I got all of it and its, I mean cuz I’m very

like that, but someone else that doesn’t really want it shared its very non

confidential

When it comes to a student’s self-disclosure process their relationship with their coach

helps guide their comfort and decision-making process to disclose their disability.

Athletic support staff also play vital roles in terms of managing college athlete’s

medication and privacy information about their ADHD. Disclosure of a disability, such a

personal and private matter comes down to the interactions, perceptions and reactions of

others, especially athletic staff, and variations peer interaction. The theme of reactions

and perceptions of others is continuously streamed throughout the remaining analysis as

it overlaps several times with advocacy and beliefs on academic support.

Theme 2: Being Vocal and Persistent

The second major theme that appeared throughout the data is the participants

shared response to being vocal and persistent about their needs. Jamie said she asks a lot

of questions in the classroom or with tutors surrounding content knowledge, when she

does not understand the material. Alex has had to ask to be relocated during an exam she

was taking in the disability support center because the environment was inconducive to

her success on the exam. Emily stated she asks as a last resort because of her confidence,

but she has been told that she is vocal about her needs. Earl said he shares his needs with

127

his athletic academic counselor and Don stated, “I can speak my needs, but I can’t ensure

my needs”. Don has consistently remained vocal throughout his first semester in college

about his needs, but he feels he has little control, but he continues to speak his mind.

Each student shared a story of a time they had to be both vocal and persistent to

seek change. Don mentioned a time he asked to drop ECON from his schedule and he did

not want to waste the next four weeks in additional tutoring or continue attending the

class, when he knew he could place more time and effort into his other classes. Don

ended up dropping the course on the last day to withdraw with a “W” on his transcript

that semester.

I still say how I feel… but I actually stopped speaking up when I realized I had no

one else to speak to, I knew nothing was going to change… At that point, I talked

to everyone I could possibly talk to and so it kind of turned into, well he did

everything he could

He felt agitated because he was vocal and persistent in asking to have some say and

control in his academic demands but felt as though his athletic academic counselor was

not listening to his needs and individual perspective.

Alex was struggling in an anatomy course at one point in her collegiate

experience and asked her athletic academic counselor for more tutoring sessions. Her

athletic academic counselor appeared apprehensive to the idea, but Alex continued to

push and eventually got what she needed as she saw her grade starting to rise. She said,

“if an athlete needs it, then give it them”. Emily was hesitant to ask for help her second

full semester in college when she knew she was struggling to keep up with the academic

demands because of her disability. Reaching out to her athletic academic counselor was

one of the most monumental moments in her collegiate career throughout her first year.

She had to vocalize her needs with confidence something Emily struggles with as she

128

said she is still growing her confidence but she is beginning to view her disability in her

own way stating, “It’s not like you’re not trying hard enough, it’s sort of just something

in your way that keeps you from being as equal”.

Earl talked about a frustrating moment where technology was not on his side.

Reflecting on the experience, there was a course that had assignments each week, and one

week there were no assignments on his calendar on their institutions online academic

platform, and no weekly announcements in the course. When he noticed he had received

all zeros the following week for missed assignments Earl reached out to his athletic

academic counselor and faculty member about the concern. Earl mentioned that he felt as

though everyone was pointing the blame on him, stating it was his fault. He felt frustrated

in the moment and ended up dropping the course a few weeks later, but he continued to

be vocal about the issue and reached out to the professor to ask for assistance, but the

requests were not approved.

Jamie was reminded of a time in high school where she was continuously asking

the teacher questions because she did not understand the material. The teacher got so

frustrated that she threw her papers across the room. Jamie continued to stand her ground

and ask questions. She felt it was important and although people may “get annoyed”, it

helps Jamie to vocalize her questions and seek understanding rather than giving up on the

process of learning.

Students can be vocal and persistent but unfortunately, they are not always in

control of ensuring their own needs. In some situations, being vocal and persistent helps

ensure personal and individuals needs are met. Other times, individuals feel as though

they exhausted all options, and they were vocal with persistence but sometimes their

129

requests are not heard or fulfilled. In order to vocalize and remain persistent individuals

must first have the knowledge and education. In addition, the person’s childhood and

upbringing can have implications on how students view their disability and advocacy

skills.

Subtheme 2a: Knowledge and Education

Knowledge and education were themes that were found numerous times thought

the interview transcripts which can be split into two different categories First the

individual’s knowledge and education, and faculty and professional staff’s knowledge, or

lack of education. For the purposes of this analysis section, personal knowledge and

education will be addressed. When asked about their working knowledge of laws and

services that pertain to their disability, Jamie and Alex stated they had more knowledge

about 504 plans from their high school experience but lack any specific knowledge

pertaining to federal laws that may affect them now that they are in college. Emily

mentioned she has more knowledge about the process of how to apply for

accommodations in college but knows very little about the laws. Earl said “zero”, and

Don said he “has a lot of knowledge from a strategy perspective”. All participants lack

knowledge about the laws that effect their rights as a disabled individual.

When asked about their personal knowledge regarding their disability Don and

Jamie mentioned vaguely sitting down with a psychiatrist who conducted a

psychoeducational evaluation and reviewed their test results with them. Jamie was

reminded of when she first was diagnosed in the eighth grade.

That was a really hard time to try and figure out what was going on, but like once

I knew it just brightened everything up and I was like, okay, like now I can figure

out what I need to do to like be successful in school

130

Whereas Alex and Emily rely heavily on their athletic academic support staff (learning

specialist or athletic academic counselor) for assistance. Don, Earl, and Jamie all

mentioned the influence the internet as had on their knowledge. Earl said he has looked

“on google”, Jamie said she used the internet to do research and she has recently started,

“following more twitter pages and social media platforms about it”. Don stated he took

“time on my own to really look into it”.

When speaking up and advocating for other individuals, everyone said they would

feel comfortable, with one exception, language usage and education. Don said

“knowledge” was important to have when it came to advocating and Emily said

“spreading awareness” was important to consider. Jamie talked about a time she did not

have enough knowledge to continue to push for accommodations on the ACT. She said,

“I didn’t try to fight anymore, I didn’t really know what I was talking about at the time”.

Without the knowledge or education, Jamie was left feeling unconfident on how to

address the situation and gave up on being vocal and persistent. Alex stated that as long

she has access to the education, she feels comfortable, stating “First I had to learn what’s

appropriate language to use”. Similarly, Earl explained that he does not feel comfortable

unless he has some background knowledge one what he is speaking about.

I’ve always been a person who if I’m not educated enough don’t speak for nobody

because I can get trapped into a debate or argument so I try to like find certain

times where I know enough to speak up because I don’t want to speak up and be

wrong, now I’m embarrassing that person even more

Having the language, knowledge, and education is crucial for students to stand up for

their needs and advocate for others, but also is needed for their own personal advocacy

skills.

131

When students lack the knowledge or language to communicate their needs or

lack education about the laws and processes to receive accommodations, they lack the

ability to remain persistent and stop advocating for their needs. Students feel more

confident when they know what they are talking about and can communicate those needs

vocally with other. Persistence is critical in ensuring students get their needs met with

proper accommodations.

Subtheme 2b: Influence of Personality and Upbringing on Confidence

Throughout the data analysis students attributed their personality and upbringing

to their overall confidence in connection with advocating or communicating their needs.

A participant’s childhood and overall personality either improves or reduces their

decision to communicate their need. For example, Jamie grew up watching her stay at

home mom stand up for whatever she needed. Jamie described her mom as “persistent”,

and a “strong women figure”. Jamie also contributes some of her vocalization to her

outgoing personality. When looking at confidence, Jamie stated she is willing to speak up

and ask for help when she is trying to understand content material in the classroom.

Similar to Jamie, Alex also shared that her parents attending college influenced

the way she communicates her needs. She said her parents had open conversations telling

her to “make sure you get this, this, this and this”. Alex also remembers a learning

moment in her educational journey where she “wasn’t successful” and she remembers

feeling “really overwhelmed”. She stated that the moment she realized she was struggling

allowed her to pause and reassess her decisions. Alex said her confidence has come with

time practicing vocalizing what she needed to maintain academic success throughout

college.

132

Like the support Jamie and Alex described, Emily also finds comfort and support

in her parents, as they have watched her struggle throughout her educational experience.

It appeared that her parent’s decision to place Emily in a specialized school for dyslexic

children in elementary education altered the way she views and disability which

continues to influence affect her self-confidence. Once she entered middle school, Emily

and her parents felt she had developed the skills to continue her education without

disruption. However, when Emily entered college she was met with unexpected struggles,

like those she experienced when she was younger. Her childhood experiences affect her

confidence and comfort levels in vocalizing her needs today. When she is feeling

overwhelmed Emily will call her parents as they can relate to her experience as they have

played an active role in her educational decisions throughout K-12.

Don spoke about the confidence he established in childhood from not only his

parents instilling the importance of standing up for his beliefs but also the parental figures

he was surrounded by when growing up, which influenced his learned behaviors to

vocalize his needs. Don said when he got hurt playing sports throughout his childhood he

was encouraged to speak up and say something instead of playing injured which could

cause more damage to the body. Having strong, influential parental figures helped shape

the way Don communicates his needs. In addition, Don capitalized on his personality and

embraces his disability attributes.

And I'm more of like the person that says whatever's on my mind. And I say it

with confidence because that's how I feel. And so then there's times where I think

with ADHD a lot of people utilize it in different ways. Some people are a lot more

hyper, some people are more talkative. I tend to be more talkative, so I say things

that people think are weird, and that's perfectly fine with me.

133

Don’s confidence comes from his personality and upbringing. He grew up in an

environment where he was encouraged to speak his mind and communicate his needs.

Additionally, Don he also finds confidence through his personality when interacting with

others.

Earl attributes his confidence to his “unique” and “different’ personality because

he is “fun and witty” and enjoys engaging in conversations with others. He learned

different ways to bring up the topic of ADHD from his interaction with peers in high

school. Earl also shared a different experience when it came to his family and overall

perspective on vocalizing his disability:

I did have some people in my family who were diagnosed with disabilities. We

still love them the same, but you can just tell every so often they will treat a little

different so I’m like nah, I’m good, I’m fine… I can do this I don’t need that, I

don’t need to live that life, disability makes me unique… it’s not bad it’s just me.

On top of his childhood experiences and family’s perceptions of disability, Earl thinks

that some of his confidence also stems from the stubborn side of his personality. He can

strike up a conversation with anyone and utilizes his fun and witty personality to help

gain leverage in conversations when he is advocating for his needs.

The development of confidence and speaking for one’s needs appears to be

attributed to an individual’s childhood experiences while overall personality influenced

their confidence and decision-making process to advocate for their needs. Some believe

their personality is more influential where others believe their parental figures helped

shaped their perspectives when communicating their needs with confidence. Either way,

each participant demonstrated skills through examples and their own beliefs on how

confidence, communication and advocacy skills were instilled or developed into their

tools for success.

134

Theme 3: Building Rapport and Relationships Influence Perceptions of Support

As previously mentioned, disclosing a disability to a coach begins with the

relationship and connection an athlete has with athletic staff. When it comes to

academics, building rapport is essential. There are two main areas students felt

relationship building was critical to their overall academic success. The first category is

academic support staff, which for the purses of this analysis refers to athletic academic

counselors. The second category examines targeted support services pertaining to peer

interactions, and professionals within the field of athletic academic support services.

Disclosing their disability with faculty members, can cause discomfort and

several students discuss this concept of a missing meaningful relationship throughout the

disclosure process. Looking at some of the students’ experiences may provide a deeper

insight to this overarching theme of rapport building and perceptions of support. Jamie

mentioned that teachers do not usually engage in meaningful conversation with her about

the matter.

…teachers that I just met and I tell them they’re obviously not gonna be like, oh I

didn’t know this, but like they have so many students to deal with so they’re like

oh thank you for that like move along

Alex shared in her interview that faculty need “better contact… better communication”.

She said there needs to be more education or “emphasis” on what is appropriate and

inappropriate to ask when you are approaching the discussion with a disabled student.

Don also shared a similar perspective to Jamie on how professors handle the topic of

disability.

In college, it really doesn't matter, the professors don't really care in terms of

lecture halls, and there's a point to be said about how teachers even in smaller

classrooms, it doesn't seem like they genuinely care. A lot of the times, you have

so many teachers that have so many students, and you're just one of them. So, you

135

try to build relationships as much as you can, but at the end of the day, you kind

of leave and so some teachers take time, and I've had a couple that are (but) it’s

kind of rare, but most of the time you don't feel like you're close enough to bond

or they don't really come forward to you personally to the point where you

shouldn't even tell them because if you tell them they're like, Okay, well, thanks

for telling me and it's kind of pointless, okay. So, it's one of those where it kind of

seems like it doesn't matter. It's not as big of a deal.

Don expressed similarities that align with Jamie’s perspective on disclosing and

discussing an accommodation with faculty members. Emily also stated she would not feel

comfortable going into an in-depth conversation with faculty about her disability.

One factor influencing academic success appears to be related to students seeking

support through meaningful relationships, which begins with building rapport. The

consensus with disclosing a disability to faculty members derives from a lack of rapport

and meaningful relationship building. Many times, students are discussing something

personal within their first interaction with a professor, which cause uncertainty. However,

the underlining perspective is if students had a “bond” or connection with their faculty

member prior to seeking accommodations, then students may feel more supported and

forthcoming with information.

Subtheme 3a: Athletic Academic Support Staff

Athletic academic counselors and tutors were mentioned throughout each

participant’s comment regarding their academic success. Jamie mentioned that she

disclosed her disability to her athletic academic counselor early on in her collegiate

experience. She said she met with her athletic academic counselor once a week for about

30 minutes her entire freshman year and feels as though their office is a safe place to

“vent”. Although she feels as though her athletic academic advisor is understanding, she

said their “not really like knowledgeable on like what I kind of go through” but she

136

reassured me that they have never made her feel different, they just want to make sure

Jamie is taken care of in regards to her academic and overall success.

Emily shared a similar experience where she felt comfortable enough with the

relationship and rapport that had built with her athletic academic counselor to seek help.

At the time she said she did not get into the details, but she felt comfortable and confident

enough to express her need for further academic assistance. Emily meets with her

academic advisor once a week, either weekly or biweekly depending on their schedule.

Emily said her academic advisor is available if she ever needs support on anything and

meets consistently to check in on her academic progress.

Earl stated that he engages in academic conversations about 90% of the time,

when speaking with his academic counselor. He shared that he feels comfortable

conversing with his athletic academic counselor, and they are consistently in

communication about assignments. Earl said he views his athletic academic counselor

and the tutoring support program as a privilege.

I low key get a slight bit more privilege than a non-athlete. Because I know I'm

working for every single thing that I get.… like an advisor I can just go straight

into a building and talk to them and they talk to me every single day. I understand.

I'm working for all those things, but at the same time a regular student doesn't get

that access as easy as I do…. I get to have access to my advisors. And my tutors

like on command like one call. So, I don't have to go search for an advisor or set

up an appointment as often you know what I'm saying, so yeah. So, just a bunch

of positives to come with playing my sport.

Earl provides a unique perspective to the services athletes are provided in connection

with helping maintain their NCAA eligibility and overall academic success. It is

important to note, although Earl feels privileged to have these services, nothing is handed

to him, he still must put in the work and effort to succeed academically and athletically.

137

Alex describes her athletic academic counselor as being supportive and offers an

open-door policy. Her athletic academic counselor was already informed of her disability

when she entered college, and during her first year, she met with them on a weekly basis.

After her first year in college, her athletic academic counselor would conduct meeting

when it was time to schedule and enroll in courses for the proceeding semester. Alex also

shared that her academic counselor “makes sure that I’m NCAA eligible, um, which is

way harder than you think”.

Every participant provided positive comments and insisted that their athletic

academic advisor was supportive, built positive relationships, and cared about their

overall success academically and individually. However, Don stated that he felt the least

support from his athletic academic advisor when considering his academic success. He

never feels as though they hear him, and he perceives them to take everything as a

personal attack. He says, “anytime I ever have something to say, I would be spoken

for…”. Although he does not feel support from his athletic academic counselor, he did

find a sense of rapport and genuine connection with his campus advisor, who Don stated

he believed had his best interest in mind academically.

Two students mentioned learning specialist support, as Alex stated she feels her

learning specialist’s office is a welcoming environment, a quiet space to get work done,

and they are encouraging, and understanding. She has used the learning specialist once

her sophomore year when she was struggling with organizing her notebooks, papers,

folders, and binder. Don stated he was placed with his learning specialist and he felt they

was uneducated, viewed him as a number, grouping him prescribing techniques and

138

strategies that are given to all students with ADHD, rather than being provided specific

support for his own individualized needs.

I have to sit in this meeting for 20 minutes, then it turned into where we didn't

know what to do, so (they) tried to help me with my homework, and we couldn't,

it took us 22 minutes to get through one question, and then she's like, yeah, let's

just not work on this today…. Then she made me download an app to play a

Lumosity game. I am like, I'm not three I don't need to connect trains to these

tracks to make my brain work, this is a waste of time. And everything (they) told

me specifically for me, we had a PowerPoint presentation, and that is what she

told everybody else. So, the teaching learning specialist is not necessarily, it

doesn't feel individualized, and it's probably for someone that doesn't care about

school. Maybe other sports that just have terrible grades and someone that needs

to be constantly told what to do the entire time.

Don not only provided a frustrating experience he had with his learning specialist, but he

talks about her strategy of grouping, rather than viewing students as individuals.

Additionally, he seems to express some stigma related to going to a learning specialist, as

he states they are better suited for people who get below average grades.

All students stated that tutors played an integral part to their overall academic

success. Jamie and Alex shared experiences where they have had to advocate for

additional tutoring appointments to keep their grades from declining. Don stated that

some tutors are more helpful than others, explaining that he had a tutor who googled

information the entire session, and felt he could google his own questions to seek the

answers. His tutor ended up getting switched throughout the semester and he felt more

confident with the knowledge his new tutor was presenting. Building rapport and

meaningful relationships with athletic academic advisors and tutors is important for

students to feel a sense of academic support on their college campus.

139

Subtheme 3b: Targeted Support Services and Programs

When building rapport and meaningful relationships, the participants felt as

though two main areas of targeted support services would improve their overall sense of

academic success and connection to their campus community. The first area of

improvement is peer interaction and finding a community of other college athletes who

have disabilities or challenges like their experiences. The second area pertains to the

transitional support from high school to college and the resources or outreach that are

limited or non-existent at most institutions. Students offered several suggestions on how

services could be improved. These ideas and suggestions are explored further below.

Acknowledging college athletes’ multiple priorities and identities, is often

forgotten, as Emily stated there is limited time or resources to address any other aspect of

her identity because her time is consumed thinking about her athletic and academic

demands.

I feel like college athletes experience some type of issue with learning or attention

or even like depression or anxiety. So I feel like sometimes not at (my institution)

per se but sometimes it’s sort of hidden or not addressed because they’re athletes

and then their students and then there’s all these other roles that they need to fit

before its bubbled down to you have like anxiety or depression or a reading

disability. So, I feel like for most college athletes, it’s not one of their top

concerns because they have so much more to focus on …if you look at my time,

it's sort of like, I swim for four hours a day, I go to school for six hours a day, I

study for another like eight hours a day. And then like, you know, there's not a lot

of time to address that part of me. And I feel like most athletes might feel the

same way… So, it's sort of hard to find time to address those things that are

abnormal or something that not everyone faces

As Emily stated there is no time to really think about other considerations outside of her athletic

and academic demands. However, students also agreed that there are limited resources or

opportunities to address their other identities, especially relating to disability.

140

When examining what peer interaction may look like, students suggested different

perspectives. Jamie stated she would like to see groups that have a “social aspect” to them,

normalizing and finding a comfort in the idea that other college athletes also have ADHD or a

learning disability. Having a group to talk about their experience is viewed as a positive, because

Jamie only had adults telling her the process of seeking accommodations, which lead her to

feeling alone, and isolated thinking she was the “only one having to do it”. She said she was

confused throughout the process, and she was the only one on her team that had to follow the

process.

Student stated that group interactions can be intimidating and Alex pointed out that high

profile students such as a head quarterback on the football team, if invited to a group for students

with ADHD or learning disabilities may not be as comfortable showing up, as people would talk

and gossip. She stated, “I don’t know if people would be okay with self-identifying…like this is a

meeting and everyone in here has a learning disability”. She said she would feel comfortable with

it, but not everyone is as comfortable with the idea of self-disclosure. Emily validated Alex’s

perspective by stating, “I don’t think most people would go to a group… it’s like you want to

support the people but you don’t want to like make them feel different, so there is that fine

barrier”. One thing Alex, Emily, Earl, and Don all mentioned was a peer mentor or a buddy

system that incorporated a similar consideration of navigating the universities policies and

procedures with a disability. Don said if he had an upperclassman who took the time to speak to

him about their experiences, he would listen to them, and it would be more relatable than much

older, unrelatable professionals guiding him through his collegiate experience.

Another issue is the transition from high school to college and the lack of outreach that

occurs between the institution and the admitted disabled college athletes. The first step to

changing campus culture is as Emily suggested, talking about it, and not feeling judged by

everyone else, or as Alex summarized, normalizing disability in conversation. After including

more conversations about disability into the overall campus culture, it is important to examine

141

what type of support is missing for this population of students. Jamie and Alex both agreed that

an email providing outreach would have been beneficial in their transition from high school to

college.

Jamie wanted the information to be accessible so, ‘you don’t have to go like searching for

it”. She suggested a webpage that shows college athletes with disabilities how to navigate the

accommodation process at their institution. She also suggested having coaches reach out over the

summer to offer information about disability services for all students. Both Alex, Earl, and Don

suggested having a professional advocate specifically for collegiate athletes which would be

beneficial. Don and Earl agreed that colleges can be more proactive in their outreach by assigning

a professional advocate once they are admitted making contact via phone and email, so students

do not have to search for help. Don and Earl also wanted more educationally qualified individuals

to help provide support towards academic success. Earl stated that he felt a program that focused

on the first six weeks of college focusing on topics such as organization and transitional support

would be helpful.

It wouldn’t hurt having like an actual professional who knows about disability and

knows like this person gets sidetrack, this might be too much of an assignment

right here, let me break it down for them, and just like showing them the ropes for

like six weeks so they can like learn it

Students want to learn, and feel included in their campus community, but they need more targeted

support services from their institutions to make their experience smoother and more relatable.

Rapport building among college athletes and their athletic academic support staff is

important as students are spending large amount of time with their academic counselors and

tutors throughout the semester. More services need to be offered, allowing students to explore

aspects of their identity. It is important for students to feel a sense of community with other

disabled college athletes and be reminded they are not alone or isolated throughout the process.

Additionally, university administrators should evaluate their outreach to college athletes with

disabilities.

142

Mission & Value Statements

Every institution has a different mission, vision, and value statement that help

guide institutional employees’ actions. Without giving away specific institutional

information to protect the identities of each student, a blind review was conducted of

each participant’s institutional mission and value statements. Each institution provided

different language and words such as “inclusion”, “diversity”, “personal growth”,

“student development”, “community”, and “equity”. Although words sound great on

paper, when this language is not met with action, individuals can feel excluded, ignored,

or forgotten.

Each participant shared different experiences on their college campus where they

felt unheard, excluded, belittled, or appeared “different” than others through interactions

with their peers, faculty, or athletic staff. If the mission and values of each institution are

to strive to create environments of inclusion, or personal growth and development, then

institutions pose a gap between words and actions, specifically within this population of

collegiate athletes with ADHD or learning disabilities.

As expressed in the introduction, many individuals are uncomfortable with having

conversations about disability or individual impairments. It is often a “forgotten” identity

in diversity statements and educational opportunities. Creating change means becoming

uncomfortable through cognitive dissonance and providing learning opportunities in and

outside of the classroom. Colleges and universities across the country offer diversity, and

inclusion centers focused on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color)

communities, or LGBTQ+ support services. These departments not only provide

resources and professionals who help towards identity development and community

143

education but also allow for connections and a sense of community or safety within the

campus culture. But where do students who are disabled go to build community?

The sole purpose of many disability support services is to ensure that the

institution is meeting the legal obligations of the ADA and are in compliance with

offering appropriate accommodations for registered students. Many disability support

services are also expected to take on educating the entire campus community but are

understaffed. However, I question which office and professional personnel are

responsible for helping disabled students learn about their own identity development and

support diverse training with others in the community. We have student development

theories based on race, gender, sexual orientation, but why has it taken decades for any

attention to be focused on disability identity formation and included within student affairs

and higher education curricula and research? Higher education needs to improve and

reflect on their actions to ensure their words meet their students’ perceived experiences.

Below are two different word clouds (see Figure 4) that help examine the

differences between university mission and value statements in comparison with words

from participants transcripts and what students stated they wanted “more” from their

institution. The images in Figure 4 show large gaps between the values college

documents profess within their campus culture and overall local community. However,

students shared experiences where they wanted “more” of these same or similar services,

opportunities, and values.

144

Figure

Word Cloud

Demonstrating Institutional Mission and Value Statements Compared to the

Participants’ Perspective on What is Missing in their Collegiate Experiences and Campus Culture

(a) Institutional Mission & Value

Statement Word Cloud

(b) Participants

’ Transcripts

“MORE” Word Cloud

145

Conclusion

Each student provides a unique educational experience and journey which lead to their

current perspective relating to their disability disclosure, self-advocacy, and academic support

and success. The first section of this chapter was intended to provide an insight into each

student’s perspective and summarize the individual interviews, highlighting key information. The

second section aimed to find the common themes that were streamed throughout the data.

Students appear to consider the reactions and perceptions of others in their decision-making

process when deciding to self-disclose their disability. There interactions with peers and athletic

staff emphasized and provided examples of their thought process. Additionally, students are vocal

and persistent, speaking up for their needs. Having a basic education and knowledge is essential

to being vocal, and the influence of personality and upbringing on their confidence may influence

the amount of communication an individual commits to a specific cause. Finally, building rapport

and relationships influences the perceptions of support students feel towards their academic

success. Many of the participants agreed their athletic academic counselors were supportive and

understanding, as they had built a sense of good rapport and meaningful relationships with them

throughout their collegiate experience. Furthermore, students provided various ways targeted

support services and programs could be implemented into their campus culture, for disabled

college athletes.

The next chapter will focus on connecting previous literature and research to the themes

identified above, by addressing the original research questions. Recommendations will be

provided from various viewpoints, sharing different ways in which improvements can be

implemented and enhanced within the field of collegiate athletics, and academia. Finally, the

various limitations and future research considerations will be addressed.

146

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this research was to examine the lived experiences of college

athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD surrounding disability disclosure,

advocacy, and overall academic support at NCAA FBS D1 institutions. This chapter will

examine the common themes and how they inform the research questions guiding this

study. Similarities and potential discrepancies between the findings and previous

published literature will be revealed. Recommendations, limitations, and future research

suggestions will also be discussed.

Discussion

The purpose of this section is to outline the themes that emerged throughout the

data, connecting the findings back to the central research question, and examining how

they align with previous literature and research. This section will walk through each

theme and subtheme providing connections between all three aspects from the research

question, finding, and literature review. As previous stated, only 1% of all published

scholarly work in top-tier higher education journals involved students with disabilities

(Pena, 2014). It is difficult to link these findings to the literature, as limited publications

have barely skimmed the surface of examining the experiences and lack voice for this

specific student populations (disabled, college athlete).

147

Decision Making Process & Choices

College is a place to learn content knowledge, challenge beliefs, gain new

perspectives, and develop skills and independence. Students are often transitioning from

a dependent environment, living with parental or legal guardians, to an autonomous

environment. Although all participants in the study stated they felt comfortable making

their own choices and decisions in their collegiate experience, Alex stated she felt

pressure to ensure she verifies her choices through several adults in athletics to ensure she

makes the right choice, and Don explained that academically his opinions are not

validated or considered.

The descriptions Alex and Don provide may be linked to the pressures academic

support staff are under to maintain students NCAA academic eligibility (Meabon &

Schuh, 1994). Therefore, Alex feels the consistent need to ensure she has cleared any

final decisions she makes by all potential stakeholders. There is also the underlying

pressure to ensure any decisions made reflects proper representation of their team, and

institution (Hill, 2001). In addition, Don’s experience of feeling a lack of control or input

into his academic schedule or course load in conversations with his athletic academic

counselor could be linked to the balancing act athletic academic counselors consider to

ensure their athletes are academically eligible to continue their athletic participation.

Reactions & Perceptions of Disclosure

Students shared a commonality that the potential reactions and perceptions of

other dictate their decisions to disclose their disability. Disclosing a disability to another

individual can be a vulnerable experience, which comes with potential benefits and

disadvantages (Gerber & Price, 2003; Hughs & Graham, 1994; Petronio, 2002; Barnard-

148

Brak, Lechtenberger, & Lan 2010). One benefit described by a Jamie, Alex, and Emily

include the approval of academic accommodations. However, disclosing a disability can

cause several potential uncomfortable questions to arise (Marshak, Van Wieren, Farrell,

Swiss, & Dugan, 2010) Don, Earl, Alex, and Jamie all expressed times they felt treated

like a number rather than an individual when disclosing their disability with a faculty

member. This same concept aligns with findings that disability support personnel are

known to group students as a number when they offer accommodations based on a

diagnosis or label rather than an individual’s specific academic needs (Brinckerhoff,

Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; Cawthorn & Cole, 2010).

Petronio and colleagues (1984) provided four factors that influence a student’s

decision to self-disclose. These included the relationship with the individual, the context

of the situation, the individual’s potential response and the individuals own beliefs about

their disability. Students in this study stated that the reactions and perceptions of others

were consistent thoughts that potentially hindered or persuaded their decision to disclose

their disability to others within their collegiate experience. Similar to Megivern, Pellerito,

and Mowbray (2003) study on psychiatric disabilities, students want to feel a sense of

belonging on their college campus, and their research found that one third of participants

struggled to feel a social connection which lead to feelings of isolation, stigma or

discrimination. Sense of belonging plays into two major aspects of college athletes’ lives,

their peer interactions and athletic involvement.

Interactions with Peers

Peer interactions are critical for helping students get acclimated to campus and

feel a sense of belonging. When peers uphold negative stereotypes of students who

149

participate in intercollegiate athletics, it can be detrimental to the academic success and

personal beliefs one may hold about their own capabilities. Stereotypes linked to an

athletic identity are filled with words like “dumb”, “lazy”, or lack of motivation and

intellectual ability (Ferrante, Etzel, & Lantz, 1991; Watson, 2006). All participants in this

study shared an experience of a time when their peers assumed a negative stereotype

about their identity and abilities. Earl and Don, both stated they have been called “weird”

or “strange” by their peers for their ADHD and how the symptoms manifest as

“different” to what Western society deems normal. A research study conducted by Smith

in 1999, on college athletes with ADHD found similar comparisons, where students

explained negative messages they received from individuals which led to feeling

abnormal due to their ADHD, which caused a sense of devalue and perpetuated this

concept that individuals with ADHD were abnormal.

Emily shared a time where she disclosed her dyslexia to her teammates and peers

and explained the interaction was “awkward” and made her feel uncomfortable. She is

often balancing this identity of being smart with the assumptions that an athlete with a

learning disability cannot be perceived as smart, because as she explained, having a

learning disability is “counterintuitive” to the idea of intellectual intelligence. Similar

research by Olney and Kim, (2001), aligns with these same findings which showed non-

disabled students have little exposure to disabled individuals, which perpetuates

misconceptions. These misconceptions are internalized by students with learning

impairments.

The NCAA has published data on the perception’s athletes have about

interactions with their peers in academic settings. This study found that 44% of male

150

NCAA D1 college athletes and 29% of female NCAA D1 athletes report feeling that

other students assume they are not good enough academically because they participate in

college athletics (NCAA 2017b). These perceptions rang true throughout this

phenomenological study, for all students. The findings could be even more evident

because there are multiple layers to each participants identity which are linked back to

negative stereotypes and assumptions. Students wanted to be viewed by their peers as

equal pertaining to their academic success and the role they play in the classroom.

Interactions with Athletic Staff

Students spend a large amount of time with their coaches and athletic staff. The

NCAA allows DI athletes to only engage in 20 hours of athletic practice a week, however

coaches are known to expect more time (Benford, 2007; Huml, Hancock, & Bergman,

2014). Don mentioned in his interview how athletic programs and coaches bypass the

NCAA bylaw by creating “optional” athletic practices, but there is an underlying

assumption that these are mandatory.

Optional turns into noptional, pretty much all the time because…if you don’t

follow the rules and you kind of do your optional thing, then you will be more in a

situation where you and everyone knows that your coaches are going to look at

you in a different… I think it’s all about the ignorance you can act like it’s

optional, but I think even the coaches know it’s not

As described above, coaches and athletes are spending more than 20 hours a week

together, which demonstrates the amount of influence a coach has on their athlete’s

holistic development and success.

As seen throughout the data four of the five participants had created close

relationships with their coach, stating that they have already disclosed their disability or

would feel comfortable doing so, if needed. Whereas Don felt their coach never took the

151

time to get to know him as an individual once he was recruited and signed to the team.

One reasoning behind this lack of holistic development and individualism could be due to

the lack of focus on development and the pressure and expectation to win athletic

competitions (Naylor, 2007).

Fry (2010) suggests that coaches should take the time to get to know their athletes

and create a team culture that is welcoming and acknowledges their athlete’s presence. In

addition to supporting their athlete’s holistic development, many coaches at NCAA D1

institutions are provided large financial bonuses each year if their team meets specific

academic eligibility requirements linked to GPA and APR (Wilson, 2017). Coaches play

an active role in the message’s students receive about the importance of their academics

(Bell, 2009). There appears to be a higher standard and overall environment of academic

success for female sports, compared to male sports. Emily, Alex, and Jamie each shared

different experience that highlighted their coach’s response towards their academic

endeavors. Whereas Earl stated the coaching staff and players care more about the

completion of work rather than grades, and Don stated he felt his coach only cared about

their teams grades for the monetary bonus, rather than the individual success and

development of the players.

The decision to disclose a learning disability or ADHD to a coach was based on

the relationship between the coach and athlete, and if it was necessary crucial information

for a coach to be made aware of the impairment. This stems back to the perceptions and

reactions students have about their relationship with their coach which guides their

decision on disability disclosure. If a student does not feel supported by their coach, they

152

will not share information about themselves, such as a disability in fear of being labeled,

stereotyped, or perceived as incapable within their athletic performance.

When a student opts into taking medication for their ADHD, the NCAA must be

notified under the education-impacting disability process (NCAA, 2019b). Students must

disclose their diagnosis to their team doctor, trainers, and compliance office, if they

decide to continue medication throughout their athletic participation while in college.

Alex and Don were the only two students who are prescribed medication for their ADHD

and both provided times where their coach or other athletic staff member mentioned their

medication in front of their teammates. Both agreed that sometimes their confidentiality

and rights to privacy around their medication is not a top priority.

Being Vocal and Persistent

One major theme throughout this study was the need to be vocal and persistent to

advocate for ones needs or the needs of others. In order to consistently vocalize their

needs, participants felt a desire to be competent in their knowledge and education on the

topic. In addition, having a sense of self-confidence within the context of the situation to

self-advocate was critical. Confidence appeared to stem from either personality or a

student’s childhood and parental figures throughout their upbringing,

With a lack of literature on self-advocacy within intercollegiate athletics, the

closest body of literature where connections can be drawn, derives from help seeking

skills around mental health. Lund (2019) concluded that college athletes with ADHD

were less likely to seek mental health support or help for a mental health concern, in

comparison to non-athlete peers. Reardon and Factor (2010) found similar results stating

153

that college athletes experience barriers and stigma related to addressing mental health

concerns.

Gender differences also exist, as males are less likely to seek support than females

due to societal stigmatization (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-

Carlson, 2003; Steinfeldt, Steinfeldt, England, & Speight, 2009). Asking for help could

also be linked to masculinity threat to some capacity. Ultimately, Earl was less likely to

speak up and ask for help unless it was going to cause others to perceive him in a

negative light during tutoring sessions, and Don felt ignored and stopped advocating for

his needs as he often felt unheard. All three female participants use accommodations

regularly and some are still learning how to be vocal and persistent, whereas Alex is

extremely confident and persistent which is evident in her examples and narrative

experience. This could also be due the fact Jamie and Emily were finishing their first year

at the time of their interview, and Alex was in her final semester of undergraduate

studies. Additionally, Alex has more knowledge and education about her disability which

allows her to have more confidence to practice using self-advocacy skills.

The concept of persistence can also be tied back to stereotypes and negative

labels. Stowkowski (2013) found that college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD were aware of labels and stereotypes but used the misconceptions as motivation

to challenge other individuals’ perspectives. Students in this study used the possible

misconception of labels to remain persistent and vocal throughout their self-advocacy.

Each participant demonstrated resilience which helps the momentum of persistence.

154

Knowledge and Education

In order to be vocal and persistent, it was evident that knowledge and education

are essential. Communication of needs is unattainable without having proper language

and the comfort to speak about one’s own impairment and how it affects their daily life,

in and outside of the classroom (Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer & Eddy, 2005). All

students agreed that knowledge and education is essential to advocate for others, and they

would not feel comfortable speaking up if they did not have the proper language or were

uneducated on the topic. The same applies to self-advocacy, in order to communicate

one’s personal needs and be persistent, one must process and comprehend their learning

challenges or find the language, strategies, and techniques that will help them be vocal

about their needs (Hadley, 2011; Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer & Eddy, 2005).

Similar to the claims in other bodies of literature, there is a lack of emphasis

within education, on advocacy skill development and the transition from high school to

college (Cawthon & Cole, 2010; Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; Vaccara,

Kimball, & Wells, 2015). Jamie and Don stated they vaguely remember a psychiatrist or

clinical psychologist sitting down and reviewing their psychoeducational report once

testing was complete and a diagnosis was prescribed. However, Jamie, Alex, Don, and

Earl stated they used the internet to research more about their disability to find language

and learn about their impairments.

Without the basic knowledge or language to express how their impairment effects

their environment, students are limited to their self-advocacy and persistence.

Additionally, all five participants had no working knowledge or educational background

on any laws that influence their rights as an individual with a disability. Test and

155

colleagues (2005) state that knowledge of laws and services are critical to an individual’s

advocacy skill development. Council III and Gardner III (2018) explain that students who

lack knowledge of their rights may be less likely to advocate for their needs in fear of

losing their scholarship and other negatively impacting consequence related to athletic

participation. Lack of knowledge or language about an impairment can lead to students

who shy away from vocalizing their needs in academic environments (Barnard-Brak,

Sulak, Tate, & Lechtenberger, 2010; Smart, 2001).These alarming results emphasize the

need for more education and advocacy skill development, taking an individualized

approach, to guiding students towards finding their voice and confidence to stay

persistent in their efforts.

Influence of Personality and Upbringing on Confidence

The second subtheme that emerged when analyzing the theme of being vocal and

persistent which was student’s confidence, rooted in experiences from their childhood

and upbringing, their personality, or a combination. There is limited literature or research

on how the formation of self-advocacy skills are learned, but the influence of family,

peers and educators are known as important factors (Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman,

2015). One study which can be strongly connected to the findings in this study derives

from the professional field of nursing. Foley, Minick and Kee (2002) demonstrated the

nurses learn to advocate for their patients by observing others and explained that some

individuals felt like it was a part of “who I am”. In addition, putting these skills into

practice-built confidence which reiterated the learning process.

Jamie, Alex, and Emily spoke about their parental figures who they either

observed modeling the action of advocacy on their behalf or played an integral role in

156

their current experiences by supporting their advocacy and choices to advocate while in

college. Don suggested his coaches growing up were viewed as parental role models and

encouraged him to speak up for his needs.

Although parental figures played a major role in the development and confidence

of advocacy skills, personality also seemed to be a factor for Earl and Don. This “who I

am” concept that is grounded in research (Foley, Minick, & Kee, 2002) is similar to the

way personality was described by Earl and Don. Earl and Don both stated that their

personality allows them to advocate as they can make others feel comfortable when

conversating by using their humor. They are not afraid to be seen as different, which

provides them the confidence to speak their mind and not shy away from advocating for

their needs.

Building Rapport and Relationships Influence Perception of Support

As discussed earlier, the relationship between coaches and athletes is essential as

trust, and respect allows for connections grounded in safe environments that inform

students decision to feel comfortable enough to disclose their disability without

judgement. Faculty appeared to be a common denominator which helped validate the

importance of rapport building and the perceptions of academic support. Students who

utilize and connect with their disability and tutoring services, find social groups within

the campus community, and build relationships with faculty, which appears to align with

more success in their educational endeavors (Adams & Proctor, 2010; Getzel & Thoma,

2008; Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, & Newman, 2015).

Alex, Emily, and Jamie all described times they methodically contemplated the

pros and cons of disclosing their disability to a faculty member due to potential

157

stereotypes or risk of being asked in-depth personal questions. This discomfort was met

with the competing thought that their request for accommodations could offset potential

barriers within the curriculum such as timed test and exams which eases some anxiety

and helps provide an equitable academic experience they need and deserve.

Don, Alex, and Jamie also spoke about times in which they felt faculty members

were dismissive throughout the disability disclosure process. Research demonstrates that

faculty members perceive their engagement with disabled students as approachable and

accommodating (Cawthon & Cole, 2010; Debrand & Salzber, 2005; Murray, Flannery &

Wren, 2008). Despite this believed assumption, research demonstrates similar findings as

Don, Alex and Jamie, where students felt dismissed or unwelcomed within the academic

environment, lacking a sense of belonging within the classroom (Kurth & Mellard, 2002;

Hadley, 2011)

The relationship and rapport faculty build with their students, aids in creating a

comfortable environment for students to disclose a disability. Faculty can either be

dismissive or overly engaging, which can cause the student to feel uncomfortable. As

Alex stated, more education is needed for faculty to properly engage in these

conversations. Students want their faculty members to genuinely care, without asking too

many in-depth questions as some faculty are unsure on the most appropriate way to

approach the conversation.

Athletic Academic Support Staff

Athletic academic support services are implemented for college athletes to help

support retention and guidance through academic, social-emotional, and career endeavors

towards the goal of graduation (Thompson, Petronio, & Braithwaite, 2012). All five

158

participants mentioned their athletic academic counselor playing a role within their

academic journey. Most participants viewed their athletic academic counselor as a

positive role model, who they felt comfortable sharing information with, relating to their

disability. Jamie, Alex, and Emily mentioned they attend frequent appointments with

their athletic academic counselors their first year in college. These weekly meetings

allowed for rapport, trust, and genuine care to be established. Earl explained he talks with

his academic advisor multiple times a week, even in his fifth year of school. Don

however expressed negative interactions with his athletic academic counselor which lead

to his disbelief in their overall support for his academic success. Don’s experience

reiterates Huml, Hancock, and Bengers (2014) research which found college athletes felt

a lack of support from their athletic academic counselors in connection with their

academic and overall career endeavors.

As previously illustrated specific services such as the utilization of tutoring is

beneficial for academic success (Adams & Proctor, 2010; Daly-Cano, Vaccaro, &

Newman, 2015) and mandated by the NCAA (Abell, 2000; Carodin, Almond, & Ratto,

2001; Meyer, 2005). All students mentioned tutoring in some capacity throughout their

interviews. Jamie and Alex mentioned how tutoring services have assisted in their

academic success. Earl talked about how he often tries to use tutoring as a challenge,

motivating him to do his work independently, so he does not need to sit with someone at

a scheduled time to complete his work. He feels comfortable enough to disclose his

ADHD with tutors because he often struggles with attention during sessions. Don

provided mixed perceptions on tutors, stating that it depends on how well the tutor can

reteach the content material.

159

Building rapport and having a genuine connection with athletic academic support

staff such as tutors and athletic academic counselors helps cultivate a culture of

acceptance and academic support. Ridpath (2014) reiterates that athletic academic

support staff are vital in the process of encouraging students with disabilities to seek

disability support services on campus. In addition, it is understood that athletic academic

support staff are critical in help students develop the knowledge and skills to advocate

(Ridpath, 2014). It is important to consider if athletic academic counselors are hindering

or assisting in the development of their disabled students advocacy skills as Council III

and Gardner III (2018) explain that athletes may perceive their academic support staff to

be their advocates instead of taking ownership and practicing the required skills.

Finally, there is a limited amount of research on learning specialists and the role

they play in disabled college athletes’ lives (Steinberg, et al., 2018; Weiss, 2011).

Learning specialist were mentioned by Alex and Don with different viewpoints. Alex

mentioned that she finds the learning specialist offices to be welcoming and professionals

have helped her once to organize her coursework and physical notes and paperwork her

sophomore year. Don mentioned that he felt his learning specialist was helpful the first

few minutes until they prescribed a “group” approach to working with Don’s ADHD,

instead of getting to know Don as an individual. Surprisingly, learning specialists did not

appear as a major theme, as many students did not interact with learning specialists on a

consistent basis. This could be related to each student’s personal advocacy skills and their

ability to succeed academically, however learning specialists should be helping students

transition beyond academic needs, assisting students build their advocacy skill

160

development and deepen their knowledge and education of their own strengths and

challenges in academic settings.

Targeted Support Services and Programs

A few students stated that they felt as though their disability identity is ignored

within their campus culture. Two main ideas emerged from the data which included peer

support or mentoring and transitional services or college outreach. Support programs

when implemented through consistent assessment and evaluation, help students gain

knowledge, develop skills, and guide students towards retention and graduation.

Students mentioned wanting to feel connected to peers through either an

upperclassman with similar experiences and identities, or a mentor program. This concept

is suggested by Council III and Gardner III (2018) as an excellent way for student to

build leadership roles and allow opportunities for students to be change agents within the

campus culture. Mentoring peer to peer interactions allows for continuous self-advocacy

and perpetuates a culture of acceptance (Council III & Gardner III, 2018). Furthermore,

this concept is reiterated by other research that demonstrates peer support can help

incoming student navigate disability support services processes and role model self-

advocacy skills (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005). Don mentioned that he

was told by older professionals how to navigate the process of testing and seeking

accommodations and the information would have been more receptive if it came from a

peer who was also an athlete. Jamie said she felt isolated as she thought she was the only

one seeking support.

When transitioning from high school to college, students often struggle due to

their athletic obligations (Lally & Kerr, 2005), and new academic demands (Hodes,

161

James, Martin & Milliner, 2015). Students suggest support services for college athletes

with disabilities that begin when the student is admitted into college. Jamie suggested this

responsibility fall on the coach or an easily accessible website that outlines the process to

request accommodations specific to college athletes. Alex, Don, and Earl all suggested a

professional advocate who begins outreach during the admissions process and serves as a

resource between athletics and academic campus services. Don suggested continuous

outreach via phone or video chat throughout the summer would help build a relationship

between student and the advocate. Earl suggested a professional that would provide

support the first six weeks of college and is educated in learning challenges for those with

learning impairments. Students felt colleges could do more to foster an environment of

awareness, acceptance, and overall support for a hidden population of students on college

campuses.

Recommendations

There are many different aspects that individual professionals and institutional

systems can consider creating change from the findings provided in this research study,

either from the collective voice, or individual experiences. The following

recommendations address suggestions that disability support services, faculty and staff,

higher education administration, and the NCAA and policy which should consider

creating environments of inclusion. The final section will make recommendations for

students. These recommendations are not an exhaustive list but provide some guidelines

and insights into how improvement around inclusion can begin at various levels within

higher education.

162

Disability Support Services

When addressing disability support services, it is essential that departments are

practicing what they preach. Out of the three students who opted into utilizing disability

support services, one student at a non-Power 5 institution stated that the process to

request accommodations and provide letters to their faculty were inconvenient, as

everything was still being processed on paper rather than using technological advances.

Technology can provide more opportunities and accessibility for students with varying

impairments. It is recommended that disability support services evaluate their numerous

documentation processes and determine if they can utilize technology to allow students a

smoother and easier accessible format, to a process that already has several hurdles and

barriers to access. Allowing processes to take multiple formats (i.e., paper base and via

online) encourages an environment that is accessible for all disabled students. Disability

support services should role model and practice what they preach, inclusivity and

accessibility.

Another consideration which falls under disability support services but is a larger

institutional concern, are the environments and physical spaces allotted for students to

take tests when extra time, or reduced distraction accommodations are utilized. Two

students in the study who currently use this accommodation described the reduced

distraction aspect to benefit their overall test taking experience, however both students

stated concerns about the location, or overall physical environment of the space. Jamie

mentioned that her testing center is far away from any parking structure, which is

inconvenient and causes her to need to preplan and factor in walking time and consider

parking when she opts to take her exams at the testing center on campus. Additionally,

163

Alex mentioned that her testing center has poor lighting, and at times can be louder than

the classroom she would be taking the test in if she did not opt into the reduced

distraction accommodation. Many times when we think of “building access” we think

about physically accessing a building for those with physical disabilities, but

administrators neglect to think about the location of the building, or interior of the

buildings and how lighting, noise and other sensory items could affect the test taking

environment. Testing centers and disability support services should be located in

accessible locations and offer an environment that is conducive to academic success.

All students agreed that knowledge, language, and education is essential to feel

comfortable taking a stand to advocate for their own needs, and others. Students can

benefit from a college professional sitting down and talking through psychoeducational

evaluation, strengths, and challenges to learn not only how their disability affects their

learning but also find ways they feel comfortable communicating their needs with new

language. In addition, it is important for students to understand what accommodations

they can receive and why they are receiving those specific selected options. Two students

mentioned that there were other accommodations that could be beneficial but were

uncertain why they were not offered. Viewing the student as an individual is critical to

their advocacy development, rather than prescribing accommodations based off what is

typical for a group of students with ADHD or a specific learning disability to receive.

The final improvement this study focuses on when examining disability support

services is the lack of additional support beyond providing accommodation letters and a

quiet space to take tests or exams. Alex stated she was provided an accommodation to use

a ScribePen, but she was left feeling overwhelmed and was unsure how the

164

accommodation could assist her note taking process. Emily stated that she felt on her own

when learning how to navigate technology pertaining to text-to-speech or audio readers

on her computer. It is fantastic that individuals are provided such great accommodations,

but if students do not have the knowledge or education on how to operate these specific

technological advances, they are useless.

Faculty and Staff

When considering or thinking through ways faculty and staff can improve their

support, there are two main concepts that arise. The first concept that will be discussed

deals with education, training, and privacy. The second concept will focus on universal

design, and how it can be implemented into the classroom and overall campus

community.

The privacy issue surrounding HIPPA and the ignorance on behalf of the athletic

coaching staff, and trainers or physical therapists is alarming. Two students who

participated in this study take medication for their ADHD. If a student opts into taking

any medication, the NCAA needs to be notified and approve the medication and dosage.

Taking medication is a private matter that should be kept confidential amongst those who

truly need to know. The privacy of athletes should be considered in all situations. The

best way to address the issue of medication or any medical information would be

privately, in a one-on-one setting. Coaching staff and athletic support staff should also go

through yearly trainings on how to navigate conversations surrounding students personal

and medical records.

Education is important for students with disabilities to have conversations with

faculty and staff that feel safe and free from judgement. The findings indicated that there

165

is room for all faculty and staff from all departments to improve their education and

knowledge. Simply placing a paragraph in a course’s syllabi and reviewing it on the first

day of classes is not enough. Faculty and teaching assistants (TA) should attend more

trainings and educate themselves on appropriate language and how to navigate the

accommodations process at their institution. One suggestion is normalizing conversations

surrounding disability and ensure these voices are being acknowledged in public spaces,

where they matter most. In addition to open communication, a training that provides

faculty and staff with a symbol that can be placed outside of their office space and

department may begin to allow visibility and a sense of acknowledgement and comfort,

so students know who they can speak to about their disability, and which faculty and staff

have been through the training. One student did state that faculty have the best intentions,

but they do not always know the most appropriate course of action or word choices to use

in conversations. A workshop focusing on how faculty can hold conversations with

students throughout the disability disclosure process would be beneficial.

One thing that was evident was the critical role athletic academic counselors play

in the overall academic success of college athletes. Most students did feel extremely

supported by their athletic academic counselor, however, athletic academic counselors

are not usually trained on how to approach conversations around disability and typically

resort to referring a college athlete to a learning specialist or to disability support

services. Although these are important steps to take, it is also essential that athletic

academic counselors are taking the time to educate themselves on different disabilities,

and how these disabilities can affect a student’s overall learning and academic

experience. Another suggestion is implementing more hybrid roles to help college

166

athletes with learning disabilities learn from professionals who are trained to support

learning challenges as a learning specialist, and support NCAA athletic academic

eligibility as an athletic academic counselor. Hybrid positions allow for students to

connect with professionals who help towards development and creating spaces that

consider a student’s holistic academic success.

One subtheme that was evident throughout the research was the importance of

knowledge and education on the ability to advocate. Although it is recommended that

personnel from disability support services engage in these conversations, it is evident that

many services that support the disabled community on college campuses are understaffed

and underfunded. Many athletic academic support centers hire learning specialists who

are not educated or equipped with the skills and knowledge to hold in-depth discussions

with their college athletes interpreting what their personalized psychoeducational

assessments indicate about their learning strengths and challenges. Hiring individuals

with a background in reading psychoeducational evaluations, learning strategies, adaptive

technology, and disability law will allow for professionals to begin holding conversations

and helping students develop the language and education they need to not only be

successful as a learner throughout their collegiate tenure, but also understand and build

knowledge to express and communicate their needs in the workforce.

Beyond education and knowledge, it is important for action to be implemented to

create change. Universal design is a tool that can be used throughout academic

curriculum and considered when planning the use of materials, technology, and

assessments. The purpose of universal design is to ensure inclusion, and flexible support.

Faculty should consider some of the most common accommodation requests they receive

167

and create new innovate ways to implement those requests into their curricular. For

example, extended time on assessments such a quizzes, tests, and exams are

accommodations frequently approved for a variety of impairments. Instead of forcing

students to come forward to request this modification, professors can already remove

timed assessments. Universal design benefits all students, and faculty should begin to

consider how they can implement some of these practices into their teaching styles. This

takes reflection and consideration on analyzing how barriers can be removed and how

removal will allow a more inclusive educational experience for all students, not just

students in the disabled community.

Another consideration is to begin incorporating more disabled theories and

examples of disability into the curriculum. Disability is often ignored in the learning

environment, and there are many opportunities to incorporate exceptional and disabled

identity into the academic curriculum. Faculty and staff should also consider being more

inclusive by ensuring their PowerPoint presentations are accessible, making their reading

materials accessible for all students who may use a screen reader or assistive technology,

and modeling some assistive technology in their classroom. Assistive technology may be

created to assist a student with a disability, but it is not limited to just the disabled

community.

Administration & Organization

Administrators who have influence and power over the holistic operations and

organizational structure of institutions within higher education and athletic departments

should consider implementing several programs and services that support disabled

college athletes. The first recommendation focuses on campus climate and marketing

168

materials. Often, when someone envisions someone with a disability, they picture images

of wheelchairs, canes, service animals, or physical attributes, but often time nonapparent

and cognitive disabilities are neglected. When considering the way disability is presented,

it is important to ensure that students with varying disabilities are visually represented

through marketing materials and publications (Huger, 2011).

One theme throughout Don’s interview was the concept of feeling more like

number rather than an individual in almost all aspects of his collegiate experience from

the classroom, to his athletic participation. It is important to consider if disability

perspectives are being acknowledged in decisions that affect the entire campus such as

building construction, policies and procedures, and organizational issues. Ensuring

students play an active role in their institution’s decision-making process can help

minimize barriers that effect all individuals, but especially those with specific

impairments. Inviting students to serve on committees can help ensure accurate

representation is implemented and students are provided a voice.

One subtheme highlighted throughout the data was a need for more targeted

support services aiming to provide specific assistance for college athletes with a learning

disability or ADHD. Students expressed the importance of transitional support and

outreach from the university. Students recommended that their athletic departments or

academic support offices provide outreach to all students, spreading awareness about the

disability support services via email, or having accessible information on the athletic

academic support website. Letting all students know what is available is important, as not

all students choose to come forward and disclose. Outreach also takes less pressure off

the student and allows the institution to be more proactive rather than reactive. It may

169

also be suggested that disability support services be renamed “accessibility” services as

the name “disability” may hinder students from seeking help and support, and the term

accessibility could be more student friendly language.

One specific idea voiced consistently by participants, consisted of the creation of

a college athlete advocate position. Students had a wide range of ideas on what the

purpose and role of this professional would include. One student suggested that the

college athlete advocate focuses on working with students in crisis, helping them through

various moments throughout their collegiate career which could include navigating the

accommodation process, connecting students with resources on campus when a sexual

assault, mental health concern, family emergency or other crisis arises.

The word cloud was one of the most powerful images of how universities are

missing the mark on the disabled student experience. In order to create an inclusive

environment, there must first be buy in from upper administration who have an

understanding of the importance of placing words and values outlined in university

mission and value statements into action. One way individuals can check to ensure their

words are meeting their actions is by consistently observing and assessing through

evaluating their campus climate. The actions of diversity, equity, and inclusion must be

felt throughout the entire campus community for values and mission statements to be

more than fancy words on paper. Assessments are a great way to gauge if words are

meeting up with perceptions at large.

When it comes to budgeting and funding, there are many ways universities can

invest more financially into the disabled community, rather than just providing the

minimum requirements. The ADA provides guidelines, but the law does not always

170

consider student perspectives. For example, the ADA may ensure a space is physically

accessible by building a ramp for an individual who uses a wheelchair, but the question is

to consider is whether or not that space is welcoming and inclusive beyond the building

structure the ADA requires by law. Administration should consider investing in a

disability expert or consultant to conduct “accessibility audits” which can be continued

year round by an institutional ADA coordinator or maybe hiring a member of disability

support services whose position solely focuses on creating inclusive and accessible

spaces in and outside of the classroom.

When it comes to testing students who have ADHD or learning disabilities, a

psychoeducational evaluation can range between $2,000 to $5,000 depending on the

types of assessments needed, geographical location, and the professional conducting the

assessment. In addition, the testing time to conduct a full evaluation can take between

two weeks or up to several months. Administrators should consider policies and

procedures that allow temporary accommodations for an academic semester, for students

to be able to access while they go through the evaluation process. A pre-screening

appointment with a member of the disability support staff could allow for further

discussion on what these accommodations may entail. Funding and scholarships could

also be provided for students who cannot afford this costly testing, which is another

barrier to receiving the services a student may require for their overall academic success.

Another consideration administration should consider is the physical organization

and where disability support services are housed. Every institution is different and there

is no consensus on the best location, however it would be beneficial if administrators and

other stakeholders began viewing disability support services beyond just required spaces

171

to meet ADA laws and began viewing accessibility centers as a place to build community

and connect with other likeminded individuals who hold similar identities. Faculty and

staff may also feel excluded from disability support services as a place to connect within

a community and only view the services as a place to seek assistance on accessibility and

proper ADA documentation. Creating an accessibility cultural center similar to the one at

Syracuse University would allow for an inclusive environment similar to the same

objectives and goals multicultural, LGBTQ and international centers provide on campus.

When hiring and recruiting faculty, staff, administrators, or professionals who

work in disability support services, it is important to be inclusive and ensure disability is

represented at all levels throughout the organization. Disability support services should

be staffed by qualified, educated, and well-informed individuals who have knowledge on

ADA law, but also have the skills to help develop students through counseling and

advocacy work. It is important for students on college campuses to see others with

disabilities represented in all aspects of their college campus.

NCAA & Policy

The NCAA has tremendous room to grow and an opportunity to set the

precedence in best practices when it comes to supporting college athletes, and athletic

departments. The NCAA D1ctates many rules and regulations, but the organization has

rarely touched anything relating to disability and implementation of best practices. First

the NCAA should consider investing more money into research that can provide

evidence-based practices that can be implemented at any institution across all three

divisions. The NCAA should acknowledge students with education-impacting disabilities

172

and allow student perspective to be voiced in the creation of bylaws that affect academic

progress and standards.

Students with ADHD had mentioned that they were nervous to consider the

possibility of medication due to the strict NCAA guidelines. The NCAA should consider

student perspectives asking for student who use medication for more information about

their usage. Students should never have to feel as though they need to choose between

medication or going without because the process is strenuous or there is no room for

individualization. Every individual’s impairment is unique and should be examined on a

case by case basis rather than clumped into one bylaw or expectation on dosages. This is

not an area where one policy pertains to all. Students should have the right to medicate

their ADHD as they see fit, and there should be room for mistakes as we are all human,

mistakes will happen.

Finally, the NCAA has a lot of control and power over what types of trainings and

educational opportunities are mandated for coaches, compliance staff, and other athletic

department personnel. The NCAA should consider implementing annual trainings and

workshops that focus on learning challenges and students with learning impairments.

These trainings should focus on HIPPA and FERPA but could also include knowledge

and workshops on various learning styles and how this knowledge can be incorporated

into their coaching style or interactions with students in various forms. There should also

be a culture of acceptance rather than fear of retaliation if a student wants to pursue a

formal complaint about a coach or athletic staff member in alleged violation within the

compliance office. The NCAA can help support students with varying disabilities voices

through their immense power over athletic programs. The NCAA has invested financially

173

through money and time on mental health over the past decade but have neglected to

invest the same resources into college athletes with EIDs.

Students

This section is split into two sections, the first aspect will address ways students

who do not identified as disabled can promote inclusivity and advocacy on their campus.

The second will be examining ways students with disabilities can create change and

recommendations for inclusion. It is important to note that we all play a role in creating

inclusive environments and solely placing this burden on the student with a disability will

not change the system or current operation of society.

As evident in the self-disclosure process, reactions and interactions with peers

were fueled with stereotypes and feelings of incapability within academic success. It is

encouraged that student organization leaders engage in workshops focusing on inclusive

event management and workshop that teach students to consider varying perspectives

when it comes to universal design. When planning an event, all aspects from the physical

space to the welcoming atmosphere should be consider. Students should be asked to go

through training on inclusive language and how to confront peers on non-inclusive

language when it comes to disability. Campus wide lectures and programming should

target students without disabilities allowing for opportunities to engage in materials,

educational trainings, and learn about the disabled community, as many students hold

strong stereotypes and misconceptions about disabled individuals.

One thing that was evident throughout the participants narratives was the need for

connection, inclusion, and a sense of belonging, within the campus community. For

students who have already developed great advocacy skills, it is encouraged that they

174

seek out opportunities to get involved on their college campus by asking to serve on

different committees, providing feedback openly with others when something is not

accessible, and sharing personal thoughts, feelings, and perspectives with institutional

leaders who create change.

There is power in numbers and advocating for change is no different. It is

encouraged that students empower each other, through support, and mentorship. Creating

student lead organizations for disabled students, not only provides a space for

community, but for their voices, perspectives, and agenda to be vocal and persistent.

Students want more interaction with other athletes who had similar disabilities either

through peer mentor programs, or student lead clubs. Students wanted an opportunity to

engage with students who have similar challenges and go through similar struggles.

Rallying together to advocate for a cause and equal access and educate others within the

community is essential. More times than not, students are ashamed of their disabled

identity, something that needs to be kept hidden or a secret and it is time to normalize

what it means to have a disability.

Limitations

As with all research studies, there are limitations to consider. In this study there are

several limitations pertaining to recruitment and limitations relating to diversity within

the population of participants who volunteered. It is important to consider that this

research originally set out to recruit participants athletically competing at institutions in

the Power 5 conferences, but after considering to expand this requirement to include non-

Power 5 conferences, lead to the inclusion of FBS institutions. This decision created a

larger gap in comparison as Power 5 schools typically have more funding and resources

175

compared to other NCAA D1 schools outside of those conferences. As originally

expected, students reported vastly different experience due to their institutional funding

and financial revenue. Lack of funding leads to varying experiences which is evident in

some of the responses provided by participants, especially those at non-Power 5

institutions. For example, Earl directly mentioned in his interview that if his athletic

department were provided with the same funding that Power 5 conferences receive, his

school would be able to offer better resources. Jamie did not directly mention finances;

however, her disability services department is still operating without technological

advances, which could be due to lack of funding and resources.

When addressing the limitations related to recruitment it is important to consider two

specific factors, the athletic perspective relating to the NCAA and disability context

relating to laws and comfort of professionals. I found that many professionals (academic

advisors/counselors or learning specialists) were hesitant to pass along the research

opportunity. A few professionals explained via email that the hesitancy derived from the

fact that this research provided an optional monetary incentive. The NCAA has strict

rules under “extra benefits”. Although the NCAA bylaw 16.11.1.6.2 states students may

receive benefits for participating in research, either lead by or under the supervision of a

faculty member with IRB approval, professionals still wanted to clear the research

through their compliance office, which is understandable. However, none of these

professionals who shared this concern followed back up with information after the

request once it was sent to compliance.

In addition, some professionals expressed concern about FERPA by discussing the

research with students they knew who had disabilities. When talking about disabilities

176

professionals may feel restricted and safeguard students with disabilities due to the ADA

and other federal laws. Another perspective is the fact that some professionals may not

have known how to go about discussing the opportunity with students, especially if they

do not have language or discuss disability with their student caseload. Some professionals

from private institutions shared that they have departmental policies against sharing

research outside of the institution to protect their athletes. Although athletic departments

are trying to protect their student’s athletes, they may be stifling their voices from being

heard.

The second largest limitation is the lack of diversity within the participants

demographic surrounding race, level in school, and overall ability to advocate and

communicate for their needs. Most of the participants described themselves as advocates

and felt comfortable speaking up for their needs when it came to their academics.

Therefore, this research is missing a large population of students on college campuses

who are not registered with their institutions disability support services or do not feel

comfortable disclosing their disability as openly as these participants, so the research is

limited in its participants views which lean towards having experience and comfort in

sharing ones disability in exchange for accommodations.

Four out of the five participants were White and had a documented disability on file

with their athletic department or disability support services. One participant who

identified as Black, had never been “medically” diagnosed, which provided a completely

different perspective. Studying disability is complicated because as explained by Evans

and colleagues (2017), there are variations in a student’s impairment, choices, and

environments. The variation causes rich individual narratives, but cause difficulty to

177

streamline common experiences among all participants due to their college campus

culture, impairments or abilities, and decision-making processes which lead to their

choices around self-disclosure and self-advocacy. There is a lack in diversity, as Black

male college athletes’ voices are not provided thoroughly throughout this research, and

there is limiting gap of the second and third year collegiate experience for college athletes

with a disability.

Future Research

With little knowledge and gaps in the literature surrounding learning disabled

college athletes, and after analyzing the findings from this study, there are different

realms in which future research can explore. The suggestions below are not an exhaustive

list of directions, but rather some ways in which this specific research study can be

expanded. The following suggestions examine the research from various perspectives.

This research presented is limited as the students who opted into participate view

themselves as advocates and have a wide range of skill development and experience in

advocacy and self-disclosing their disability. However, there are many students who are

uncomfortable speaking about their disability with others and have not developed the

confidence to advocate for their potential needs. One approach to collecting a wider range

of responses would entail a quantitative approach, such as offering survey questions,

where students may be more inclined to answer questions anonymously.

Most of the participants in this study identified as White. More inclusion and

targeted recruitment of students from a variety of ethnic backgrounds would be beneficial

and would allow for a greater representation of experiences, culture, and world views. In

addition, when going through the data there were some codes and overlapping

178

experiences that only pertained to participants with ADHD, and others that only pertained

to participants with a learning disability. Although these are often clumped together due

to their high incidence rate, it would be helpful to separate the disabilities even further, if

possible. For example, students with ADHD have the option to medicate whereas

learning disabilities do not require or offer medication to assist with potential challenges.

Furthermore, ADHD is viewed by others in our society as more acceptable compared to a

learning disability, such as dyslexia. Conducting research solely on one impairment

might provide even further insight and direction.

One finding throughout this study examined peer interactions and stereotype

threat between college athletes with disabilities and their peers. More research should

consider peer interaction and their support or hinderance to the college experience. In

addition, more work needs to examine the intersecting identities of college athletes with a

learning challenge and take that a step further to explore stereotype threat for men of

color. It is known that the majority of Power 5 football and men’s basketball rosters are

Black men, and it is suggested that a significant amount of this same population receives

assistance for learning or ADHD challenges that influence their academic success.

Further research needs to allow this specific population to have a voice in the literature so

words can be put into action.

All participants at one point or another throughout their interview spoke about

their family and how they helped build confidence, provided a model of self-advocacy, or

helped shaped their students beliefs and perspectives on what it means to have a

disability. When it comes to academic success and perspective on disability, all

participants spoke about their parents playing an active role. This included the way Don,

179

Jamie, and Alex talked about discussing their disability and academic success and

triumphs with their families, to the way Emily and Earl viewed their disability based on

their childhood and family’s experiences. Emily and Earl both touched on how their

families rejected or hesitated to label or view their child as “different” than what society

deems “normal”. Future research should consider community cultural wealth (Yosso,

2005) more specifically the connection between aspirational or familial capital and how

this is connected back to the lives of college athletes with disabilities.

Although students were the focus of this research study, and student voice is

extremely valuable, research focusing on professionals in the field is critical, especially

focusing on athletic academic counselor and learning specialists. It is also recommended

that when institution, department, or personnel implements any targeted support services,

data should be collected to help inform best practices through assessment and evaluation.

This data can also be published and should be continuously examined, letting both the

data provided in numbers and students perspective lead the initiative.

Finally, it is critical for future researchers to consider best practices on how they

should go about crafting research that is inclusive to all participants. This begins with

doing research “with” rather “on” students with disabilities. In addition, studies with the

disabled community should consider allowing participants to play an active role in the

research process. Researchers should consider focusing on a specific impairment as

students with ADHD and learning disabilities shared vastly different unique experiences

such as medication for ADHD, or their confidence in academics related to specific

learning impairments. Finally, research and materials need to be provided in accessible

180

format, and accessibility should be at the forefront of all recruitment materials, data

collection instruments and documentation or forms that will be completed by participants.

Conclusion

The goals of this research study were to provide student voice and perspective, offer

recommendations for professionals and organizations associated with college athletics,

while contributing to the research through a social justice perspective. This study aimed

to examine the lived experiences of college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD surrounding self-disclosure, advocacy, and academic success. This study

provided a narrative and revealed a shared phenomenon amongst participants which

demonstrated self-disclosure of a disability considers individuals reactions and

perceptions, self-advocacy is accomplished by being vocal and persistent and perceptions

of academic support are centered around rapport and relationships. The findings and

recommendations of this study should help students feel a sense of community and

normalcy within their shared experiences. Practitioners and individuals who have

influence of higher education universities or the organizations that dictate policies or

procedures should consider how they can become more inclusive in their practices and

overall support for college athletes with nonapparent disabilities.

Conducting this research has not only challenged my thinking about how society

views disabilities on a larger conceptual level but it has also provided me an opportunity

to reconsider how I personally interpret my own impairment within different

environments and contexts within higher education. As my research evolved, I too, grew

and learned with the process. I am more cognizant and aware of how I can be more

inclusive, and previous research, theories, and frameworks have provided great insight

181

into how societal “norms” continue to dominate our thinking and actions or lack thereof.

I hope research and leaders in higher education continues to make this “invisible” identity

more visible, ensuring disabled students have a voice and are considered in all decisions.

The title of this research begins with “The Ball is in Your Court”. The reasoning

for this title is not only a play on words relating to athletics, but to consider how we all

contribute to perpetuated systems held in place that oppress students and individuals with

disabilities. We all play a role no matter how little or large in taking action to change the

way we think, navigate our world, and ensure that every student is included. This is not

an issue that only affects the disabled; inclusion and universal design cannot be achieved

without everyone creating change within their own personal life and reflecting on how

they view and navigate their own world and how that affects others with varying

impairments. Considering personal unconscious bias and taking the time to educate is a

starting point, but I think we can all dig deeper to create larger systematic change in our

culture. The goal is to provide a space where we can all be provided an equitable

experience and not be viewed as “different” or “abnormal” because we have varying

abilities and different ways of navigating our world. We should aim to create an inclusive

environment where no one feels segregated, excluded, or embarrassed due to their

abilities. Individuals, institutional systems, and our society at large have a long way to go

to achieve this goal, but it starts with awareness and realizing our individual roles and

how we can influence change. So now the ball is in your court… what are you going to

do to create non-disabling environments?

182

REFERENCES

Abell, V. L. (2000). 2000-2001 NCAA Division I manual. Indianapolis, IN: The National

Collegiate Athletic Association.

Adams, K. S., & Proctor, B. E. (2010). Adaptation to college for students with and

without disabilities: Group differences and predictors. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 22(3), 166-184.

Adams, W.C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Newcomer, K.E., Hatry,

H.P., & Wholey, J.S (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation, (pp. 492-

505). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help

seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5–14.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed). Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. (1990). Retrieved from

http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm.

Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for

school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 27(4), 380-402.

Bailey, S. (2017). A Comparison of academic and athletic performance in the

NCAA. College Student Journal, 51(2), 173-182.

Baker, K. Q., Boland, K., & Nowik, C. M. (2012). Survey of faculty and student

perceptions of persons with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 25(4), 309–329.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of the

willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters' beliefs disable the

Americans with Disabilities Act? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 85-99.

183

Banks, J., & Hughes, M. S. (2013). Double consciousness: Postsecondary experiences of

African American males with disabilities. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4),

368–381.

Barkley, R. A., Fletcher, K., Fischer, M., & Smallish, L. (2003). Does the treatment of

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with stimulants contribute to drug

use/abuse? A 13-year prospective study. Pediatrics, 111, 97-109. 338, b1955.

Barnard, L., & Lan, W. Y. (2007). Faculty attitudes towards persons with disabilities

when controlling for diversity attitudes. International Journal of Diversity in

Organisations, Communications, and Nations, 7(1), 1-9.

Barnard-Brak, L., Lectenberger, D., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Accommodation strategies of

college students with disabilities. The Qualitative Report, 15(2), 411-429.

Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, T., Tate, A., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Measuring college

students’ attitudes toward requesting accommodations: A national multi-

institutional study. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 141-147.

Barnhill, C. R., & Turner, B. A. (2013). Broken promises: The effect of psychological

contract violation on student-athlete trust and intentions to leave their team.

Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6, 179–195.

Beamon, K. (2012). “I’ma Baller”: Athletic identity foreclosure among African-

American former student-athletes. Journal of African American Studies, 16(2),

195-208.

Beamon, K. (2014). Racism and stereotyping on campus: Experiences of African

American male student-athletes. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(2), 121-134.

Bell, L. F. (2009). Examining academic role-set influence on the student-athlete

experience. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 19(4), 19-41.

Benford, R. D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the

“edutainment” industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 1-28.

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence & power in clinical nursing

practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennett, R. A. III., Hodge, S. R., Graham, D. L., & Moore, J. L. III. (2015). Black males

and intercollegiate athletics: An exploration of problems and solutions (Vol.

Diversity in Higher Education (Vol. 16)). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Benson, M. (1994). Executive summary of reports 91-01 to 91-06 (NCAA research report

91-07). Overland Park, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

184

Berger, R. J., & Lorenz, L. S. (Eds.) (2015). Disability and qualitative inquiry: Methods

for rethinking an ableist world. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Bethel, B., Biffle, E., & Scragg, B., (2012). Defining the profession: Establishing

professional standards for learning specialists. Retrieved from

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/players/files/2012/06/DefiningLS.pdf.

Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2011). Reclaiming the game: College sports and

educational values. Chicago, IL: Princeton University Press.

Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Jacquelin, V. (2001). The communication of social

stereotypes: The effects of group discussion and information distribution on

stereotypic appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 463.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., Petitpas, A. J., Bachman, A. D., & Weinhold, R. A.

(1998). Newspaper portrayals of sport psychology in the United States, 1985-

1993. The Sport Psychologist, 12(1), 89-94.

Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promoting access,

accommodations, and independence for college students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 417-429.

Broughton, E., & Neyer, M. (2001). Advising and counseling student athletes. New

Directions for Student Services, 93, 47-53.

Burgstahler, S. E. (2007). Applications of universal design in education. Seattle:

University of Washington.

Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. In

S. E. Burgstahler & R. C. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education:

From principles to practice (pp. 23–43). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Burmeister, E., & Aitken, L. M. (2012). Sample size: How many is enough? Australian

Critical Care, 25(4), 271-274.

Burroughs, K. M. (1997). Learning disabled student athletes: a sporting chance under the

ADA? The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 14(1), 57-91.

Byers, W., & Hammer, C. H. (1997). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college

athletes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

185

Calmore, J. (1992). Critical race theory, Archie Shepp, and fire music: Securing an

authentic intellectual life in a multicultural world. Southern California Law

Review, 65, 2129-2231.

Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete success

both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33.

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A., J. (2014). The

use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 545–

547.

Casuso-Holgado, M. J., Cuesta-Vargas, A. I., Moreno-Morales, N., Labajos-Manzanares,

M. T., Barón-López, F. J., & Vega-Cuesta, M. (2013). The association between

academic engagement and achievement in health sciences students. BMC Medical

Education, 13(1), 33.

Cawthon, S. W., & Cole, E. V. (2010). Postsecondary students who have a learning

disability: Student perspectives on accommodations access and obstacles. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(2), 112-128.

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2012a). About UDL. Retrieved from

http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2012b). UDL guidelines: Theory and

practice version. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines

theorypractice.

Clark, M., & Parette, P. (2002). Student athletes with learning disabilities: A model for

effective supports. College Student Journal, 36(1), 47-61.

Cohen, M., Kahn, D., & Steeves, R. (2000). Hermeneutic phenomenology research: A

practical guide for nurse researchers. London, England: Sage Publications.

College teams exploit new rule for 'learning disabilities'. (2009, December 28). USA

TODAY, p. 8A.

Collier, R. (2012). Person-first language: What it means to be a" person". Canadian

Medical Association. Journal, 184(18), E935.

Collins, M. E., & Mowbray, C. T. (2005). Higher education and psychiatric disabilities:

National survey of campus disability services. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 75(2), 304-315.

Comeaux, E. (2008). Black males in the college classroom: A quantitative analysis of

student athlete–faculty interactions. Challenge, 14(1), 2.

186

Comeaux, E. (2011). A study of attitudes toward college student–athletes: Implications

for faculty-athletics engagement. Journal of Negro Education, 80, 521–532.

Comeaux, E. & Harrison, C.K. (2007). Faculty and male student-athletes: Racial

differences in the environmental predictors of academic achievement. Race,

Ethnicity and Education, 10(2), 199-214.

Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for

student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235-245.

Cooper, J. N. (2012). Personal troubles and public issues: A sociological imagination of

Black athletes’ experiences at Predominantly White Institutions in the United

States. Sociology, 2(3), 261-271.

Cooper, J. N., & Hawkins, B. (2014). The transfer effect: A critical race theory

examination of Black male transfer student athletes’ experiences. Journal of

Intercollegiate Sport, 7(1), 80-104.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Corrigan, P. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for research

methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychology, Science and Practice, 7(1), 48-

67.

Corrigan, P., & Matthews, A. (2003). Stigma and disclosure: Implications for coming out

of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 235-248.

Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends

and emerging issues. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/types-learning-disabilities/what-is-ld/state-

of-learning disabilities

Cory, R. C. (2011). Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus

resource. New Directions for Higher Education, 154(154), 27-36.

Council III, M. R., & Gardner III, R. (2018). Developing effective self-advocacy skills in

student- athletes with disabilities. In M. R. Council III, S. R. Hodge, & R.A.

Bennett III, (Eds.). The collegiate athlete at risk: Strategies for academic support

and success. Charlotte, NC. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Crawford, V. (2002). Embracing the monster: Overcoming the challenges of hidden

disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.

187

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.

Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five approaches. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummings, R., Maddox, C. D., & Casey, J. (2000). Individualized transition planning for

students with learning disabilities. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 60–72.

Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research:

Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions

of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253-263.

DaDeppo, L. M. (2009). Integration factors related to the academic success and intent to

persist of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 24(3), 122-131.

Daly-Cano, M., Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. (2015). College student narratives about

learning and using self-advocacy skills. Journal of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 28(2), 213-227.

Davis, K. (2006). In the penalty box: The push for academic reform leaves some schools

lagging. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(4), 24-26.

Davis, L.J. (2011) Why is disability missing from the discourse on diversity? Chronicle

of Higher Education. 25 September 2011. Available online at

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-is-Disability-MissingFrom/129088/.

Debrand, C. C., & Salzberg, C. L. (2005). A validated curriculum to provide training to

faculty regarding students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 49-61.

De Cesarei, A. (2014). Disclosure of disability by university students: Development of a

study protocol. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(08), 71-76.

deJong, M., & Schellens, P. (1998). Focus groups or individual interviews?: A

comparison of text evaluation approaches. Technical Communication, 45, 77–88.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2013). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Denbo, S. (2003). Disability lessons in higher education: Accommodating learning

disabled students and student athletes under the Rehabilitation Act and the

Americans with Disabilities Act. American Business Law Journal, 41, 145.

188

Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with

learning disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6),

483-497.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Triangulation: A case for methodological evaluation and

combination. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods (2nd ed., pp. 339- 357).

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

DeSensi, J. T. (2014). Sport: An ethos based on values and servant leadership. Journal of

Intercollegiate Sport, 7(1), 58-63.

DiCenso, A., Guyatt, G., & Ciliska, D. (2005). Evidence-based nursing: A guide to

clinical practice (pp. 120-135). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.

Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education

across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation, 22(1), 41-47.

Duffy, J. T., & Gugerty, J. (2005). The role of disability support services. In E. E. Getzel

and P. Wehman (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with

disabilities (pp. 89-115). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Dybwad G. & Bersani H. (1996) New voices: Self-advocacy by people with disabilities.

Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Eckes, S. E., & Ochoa, T. A. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high

school to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 6-20.

Engstrom, C. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1991). A study of prejudice toward university

student‐athletes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 189-193.

Engstrom, C. M., Sedlacek, W. E., & McEwen, M. K. (1995). Faculty attitudes toward

male revenue and nonrevenue student-athletes. Journal of College Student

Development, 36(3), 217-227.

Erlandson, D. A., Hartis, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & AlIen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic

inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling

and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics,

5(1), 1-4.

Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (2011, November 14). Social involvement and identity

involvement of students with disabilities. Poster presented at the Association for

the Study of Higher Education conference, Charlotte, NC.

189

Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher

education: A social justice approach. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Ferrante, A. P., Etzel, E., & Lantz, C. (1991). Counseling college student-athletes: Issues

and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Ferris, E., Finster, M., & McDonald, D. (2004). Academic fit of student-athletes: An

analysis of NCAA division IA graduation rates. Research in Higher Education,

45(6), 555-575.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Learning disabilities: From

identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Foley, B. J., Minick, M. P., & Kee, C. C. (2002). How nurses learn advocacy. Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, 34, 181-186.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated

text. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(6), 645-672.

Forman, A. E., Baker, P. M., Pater, J., & Smith, K. (2011). Beautiful to me: Identity,

disability, and gender in virtual environments. International Journal of E-Politics

(IJEP), 2(2), 1-17.

French, S., & Swain, J. (1997). Changing disability research: Participating and

emancipatory research with disabled people. Physiotherapy, 83(1), 26-32.

Friedensen, R., McCrae, B., & Kimball, E. (2017). Using qualitative research to

document variations in student experience. In E. Kimball & K. Loya (Eds.), Using

qualitative research to promote organizational intelligence (pp. 53-64). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fry, M. (2010). Creating a positive climate for young athletes from Day 1. Journal of

Sport Psychology in Action, 1, 33-41.

Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research.

The Qualitative Report, 20, 1208–1416.

Gansemer-Topf, A. M., & Schuh, J. H. (2006). Institutional selectivity and institutional

expenditures: Examining organizational factors that contribute to retention and

graduation. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 613-642.

Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student

athletes at a Division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1),

75-83.

190

Gaston-Gayles, J. G. (2009). The student athlete experience. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 144, 33-41.

Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. (2015). Sampling in qualitative

research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative

Report, 20(11), 1772-1789.

Gerber, P. J., & Price, L. A. (2003). Persons with learning disabilities in the workplace:

What we know so far in the Americans with Disabilities Act era. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 132-136.

Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities

in higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus.

Exceptionality, 16(4), 207-219.

Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opportunities for

people with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Getzel, E. E., & Thoma, C. A. (2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities

and the importance of self-determination in higher education settings. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 77-84.

Goldstein, S. (2007). Understanding AD/HD and occurring conditions. ATTENTION!

13(6), 42-44.

Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (Eds.). (2000). Accommodations in higher education under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians,

educators, administrators, and lawyers. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gould, D. (2016). Quality coaching counts. The Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 13-18.

Graham, S. A. (1999). Transition plans for student athletes with learning

disabilities Baylor, TX: Baylor University.

Grandy, J., Lough, N., & Miller, C. (2016). Improving student-athlete academic success:

evaluation of learning support tools utilized by academic advisors for

athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 10(3), 199-

217.

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities:

Educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61(5),

460-471.

Gulas, I. (1974). MMPI low-point codes for a “normal” young adult population: A

normative study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 77-78.

191

Gunn, E. L., & Eddy, J. P. (1989). Student services for intercollegiate athletes. College

Student Affairs Journal, 9(3), 36-44.

Guralnick, M. J. (1999). Second-generation research in the field of early intervention. In

M. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 3-22). Baltimore,

MD: Paul Brookes.

Hadley, W. M. (2006). LD students' access to higher education: Self-advocacy and

support. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 10-16.

Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabilities: A student development

perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 154, 77–81.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Insider accounts: Listening and asking

questions. Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 2, 124-156.

Harmon, N. (2010, January-February). Overscheduled and overcommitted: The lives of

student. [Electronic version]. About Campus, 14(6), 26-29.

Harper, S. R. (2006). Black male students at public universities in the U.S.: Status, trends

and implications for policy and practice. Washington, DC: Joint Center for

Political and Economic Studies.

Harper, S. R. (2009). Niggers no more: A critical race counternarrative on Black male

student achievement at predominantly White colleges and universities.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 697-712.

Harris, H. L., Altekruse, M. K., & Engels, D. W. (2003). Helping freshman student

athletes adjust to college life using psychoeducational groups. Journal for

Specialists in Group Work, 28(1), 64-81.

Harrison, K. C., Comeaux, E., & Plecha, M. (2006). Faculty and male football and

basketball players on university campuses: An empirical investigation of the

“intellectual” as mentor to the student athlete. Research Quarterly for Exercise

and Sport, 77(2), 277-284.

Hartman, R. C. (1993). Transition to higher education. New Directions for College

Student Services, 64, 31-43.

Hartmann, T. (2003). The Edison gene: ADHD and the gift of the hunter child. Rochester,

VT: Park Street Press.

Hawkins, B. J. (2010). The new plantation: Black athletes, college sports, and

predominantly White NCAA institutions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

192

Henry, W., Fuerth, K., & Figliozzi, J. (2010). Gay with a disability: A college student’s

multiple cultural journey. College Student Journal, 44(2), 377–388.

Herbert, J. T., Welsh, W., Hong, B. S. S., Soo-Yong, Byun, Atkinson, H. A., & Kurz, C.

A. (2014). Persistence and graduation of college students seeking disability

support services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22–32.

Hill, K., Burch-Ragan, M., & Yates, D. Y. (2001). Current and future issues and trends

facing student-athletes and athletic programs. In M. F. Howard-Hamilton & S. K.

Watt (Eds.), Student services for athletes: New Directions for Student Services,

93, 65-80.

Hishinuma, E. S., & Fremstad, J. S. (1997). NCAA college freshmen academic

requirements: Academic standards or unfair roadblocks for students with learning

disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 589-598.

Hodes, J. S., James, T., Martin, G., & Milliner, K. (2015). Go for the win: A

collaborative model for supporting student-athletes. Learning Assistance

Review, 20(1), 47-60.

Hollis, L. P. (2001). Service ace? Which academic services and resources truly benefit

student athletes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &

Practice, 3(3), 265-284.

Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with

learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student

perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678-684.

Howard‐Hamilton, M. F., & Sina, J. A. (2001). How college affects student athletes. New

Directions for Student Services, 2001(93), 35-45.

Howard-Hamilton, M. F, Cuyjet, M. J., & Cooper, D. (2011). Understanding

multiculturalism and multicultural competence among college students. In M. J.

Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.). Multiculturalism on

campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating

inclusion (pp. 2–18). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Huff, A. S. (2009). Designing for research for publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Huger, M. S. (2011). Fostering a disability‐friendly institutional climate. New Directions

for Student Services, 2011(134), 3-11.

193

Hughes, C., & Williams-Graham, J. (1994). To disclose or not to disclose: That is the

question. Columbia, MO: Missouri State Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education, Jefferson City, Division of Special Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED377600).

Huml, M. R., Hancock, M. G., & Bergman, M. J. (2014). Additional support or

extravagant cost?: Student-athletes' perceptions on athletic academic centers.

Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 410–430.

Iaccarino, M. A., Fitzgerald, M., Pulli, A., Woodworth, K. Y., Spencer, T. J., Zafonte, R.,

& Biederman, J. (2018). Sport concussion and attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder in student athletes: A cohort study. Neurology: Clinical Practice, 8(5),

403-411.

Irick, E. (2011). Student-athlete participation: NCAA sports sponsorship and

participation rates report. Retrieved from http://www.nwcaonline.com/nwcawebsi

ite/docs/saving-wrestlingfiles/pdf-.pdf?sfvrsN = 0.

Jackson, R. L., Drummond, D. K., & Camara, S. (2007). What is qualitative research?

Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 21-28.

Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondary

education for students with learning disabilities: A survey of college service

coordinators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 463-470.

Jolly, C. J. (2008). Raising the question # 9 is the student-athlete population unique? And

why should we care? Communication Education, 57(1), 145-151.

Jones, S. R. (1996). Toward inclusive theory: Disability as social construction. NASPA

Journal, 33(4), 347-354.

Jordan, J. M., & Denson, E. L. (1990). Student services for athletes: A model for

enhancing the student‐athlete experience. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 69(1), 95-97.

Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social

stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 109–128.

Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic

methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured

interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.

Kamusoko, S. D., & Pemberton, C. L. A. (2013). Student-athlete wellbeing and

persistence: An in-depth look at student-athlete perceptions. Journal for the Study

of Sports and Athletes in Education, 7, 41–61.

194

Kanahara, S. (2006). A review of the definitions of stereotype and a proposal for a

progressional model. Individual Differences Research, 4, 306–321.

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2013). Law of higher education (5th ed.). Somerset, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons.

Kaplowitz, M. (2000). Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual

interviews. Quality & Quantity, 34, 419–431.

Kaplowitz, M., & Hoehn, J. (2001). Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the

same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics, 36, 237–

247.

Kelly, C. A., Ketcham, C. J., Patel, K., & Hall, E. E. (2018). Test setting and ADHD

influence baseline concussion testing neurocognitive performance in collegiate

student-athletes: 1967 Board # 228 May 31 3. Medicine & Science in Sports &

Exercise, 50(5S), 476.

Kranke, D., Jackson, S. E., Taylor, D. A., Anderson-Fye, E., & Floersch, J. (2013).

College student disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive classroom

accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(1), 35-

51.

Kuhn, T. L. (2008). Historical foundations of academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R.

Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive

handbook (pp. 3-16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuo, J., Hagie, C., & Miller, M. (2004). Encouraging college student success: The

instructional challenges, response strategies, and study skills of contemporary

undergraduates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 60-71.

Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in

postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,

19(1), 71-84.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviews.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lafrenière, M. K., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Carbonneau, N. (2011). Passion for

coaching and the quality of the coach-athlete relationship: The mediating role of

coaching behaviors. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12, 144-152.

Lally, P. S., & Kerr, G. A. (2005). The career planning, athletic identity, and student role

identity of intercollegiate student athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 76(3), 275-285.

195

Lawrence, S. M., Harrison, C. K., & Stone, J. (2009). A day in the life of a male college

athlete: A public perception and qualitative campus investigation. Journal of

Sport Management, 23, 591–614.

Lehmann, J. P., Davies, T. G., & Laurin, K. M. (2000). Listening to student voices about

postsecondary. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(5), 60-65.

Levine, J., Etchison, S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance among

student–athlete populations: a factor in academic underperformance. Higher

Education, 68(4), 525-540.

Lewis, A., & Porter, J. (2004). Interviewing children and young people with learning

disabilities*: guidelines for researchers and multi‐professional practice. British

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 191-197.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Effective evaluation. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Lund, S. (2019). A Comparison of College Student-Athletes With Attention-Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Nonathletes With ADHD: Academic

Adjustment, Severity of Mental Health Concerns, and Complexity of Life

Concerns. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University.

Lux, S.J. (2016). The lived experiences of college students with a learning disability

and/or 201 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ames, IA: Iowa State

University.

Lynch, R. T., & Gussel, L. (1996). Disclosure and self‐advocacy regarding disability‐

related needs: Strategies to maximize integration in postsecondary

education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74(4), 352-357.

Madaus, J. W. (2008). Employment self-disclosure rates and rationales of university

graduates with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 291-

299.

Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting

concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(2), 123-131.

Maher, A. R. (2014). From scattered to centered: Understanding and overcoming

ADHD. Eau Claire, WI: PESI Publishing & Media.

Manderino, L. M., Zachman, A. M., & Gunstad, J. (2018). Novel ImPACT validity

indices in collegiate student-athletes with and without histories of ADHD or

academic difficulties. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1-12.

196

Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D. R., Swiss, L., & Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring

barriers to college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(3), 151-165.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (2006). The how of the study: Building the research design.

In C. Marshall & G. Rossman (Eds.), Designing qualitative research (pp. 51–96).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martin, B. E., Harrison, C. K., Stone, J., & Lawrence, S. M. (2010). Athletic voices and

academic victories: African American male student-athlete experiences in the

Pac-Ten. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(2), 131-153.

Martin, J., Van Dycke, J., Greene, B., Gardner, J., Christensen, W., Woods, L. (2006).

Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for

student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72,187-200.

Mason, C., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (2004). Implementation of self-determination

activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 441-451.

Mason, A., & Mason, M. (2005). Understanding college students with learning

disabilities. Pediatric Clinics, 52(1), 61-70.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

May, A. L., & Stone, C. A. (2010). Stereotypes of individuals with learning disabilities:

Views of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 483-499.

McGuire, J. M. (1988). An approach to meeting the needs of the LD student in a two-year

college setting. In C. Mangrum & S. Strichart (Eds.), College and the learning

disabled student. (2nd. ed.) (pp. 229-236). Philadelphia, PA: Grune and Stratton.

Meabon, D. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1994). Keeping Your Institution off the NCAA Sanctions

List: Issues for student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 31(3), 217-224.

Meekosha, H. & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so “critical” about critical disability

studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75.

Megivern, D., Pellerito, S., & Mowbray, C. (2003). Barriers to higher education for

individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 26,

217-231.

Melendez, M. C. (2006). The influence of athletic participation on the college adjustment

of freshmen and sophomore student athletes. Journal of College Student

Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 39-55.

197

Mellard, D. F., Hall, J. P., & Parker, K. (1999). Assisting adult educators in preparing

individuals with disabilities for employment. American Rehabilitation, 25(3), 24-

31.

Menke, D. J. (2016). Inside the bubble: college experiences of student–athletes in

revenue-producing sports. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in

Education, 10(1), 16-32.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Meyer, S. K. (2005). NCAA academic reforms: Maintaining the balance between

academics and athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 15–18.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A

methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Milsom, A., & Hartley, M. (2005). Assisting students with learning disabilities

transitioning to college: What school counselors should know. Professional

School Counseling, 8(5), 436–441.

Mithaug, D. (1996). Equal opportunity theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Monda, S. J. (2011). At risk college athletes and academic achievement: Experiences of

first year football players. Poster presented at the NCAA research symposium,

Indianapolis, IN.

Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., & Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with

learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97–

118.

Murray, C., Flannery, B. K., & Wren, C. (2008). University staff members' attitudes and

knowledge about learning disabilities and disability support services. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 73-90.

Murray, C., Lombardi, A., & Kosty, D. (2014). Profiling adjustment among

postsecondary students with disabilities: A person-centered approach. Journal of

Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 31-44.

Murty, K. S., & Roebuck, J. B. (2015). Deviant exploitation of black male student

athletes on white campuses. Deviant Behavior, 36(6), 429-440.

N4A Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1998). Services for student-athletes with

learning disabilities. Survey results May 1998. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.nfoura.org/Committees/Cold/surveymay99.html.

 
 
198 
N4A. (2013). Best practices for promoting and maintaining a culture of student-athlete 
success, accountability, and academic integrity. Westlake, OH: Author. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2014). Football Bowl Subdivision – 
Membership Requirements, Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from: 
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Football%20Bowl%20Subqa%2012%208
%2014.pdf 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017a, May) Interassociation consensus 
Document: mental health best practices. Understanding and supporting student-
athletes mental wellness. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-
institute/mental-health-best-practices.  
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017b, August, 7) Social Environments Study. 
Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/ncaa-social-
environments-study. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017c, December, 1). Ole Miss lacked 
institutional control in football program. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/aou  
t/resources/media-center/news/ole-miss-lacked-institutional-control-football 
program. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2019a). 2019-2020 NCAA Division I manual. 
Indianapolis: IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2019b). Educational-impacting disability. 
Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/education-impacting-
disabilities. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (2019c, January 31). Former Missouri tutor 
completed coursework for 12 student-athletes. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/former-missouri-tutor-
completed-coursework-12-student-athletes. 
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2019d). The Student-Athlete Experience. 
Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes.  
 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2019e). What is the NCAA. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/what-ncaa. 
 
National Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities. (1990). Definition of learning 
disabilities. Retrieved June, 2019, from 
https://njcld.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/learning-disabilities-issues-on-
definition-1990.pdf 
 

199

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The documentation

disconnect for students with learning disabilities: Improving access to

postsecondary disability services. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(4), 265–274.

Naylor, A. H. (2007). The coach's dilemma: balancing playing to win and player

development. Journal of Education, 187(1), 31-48.

Newman, L. (2005). Changes in postsecondary education participation of youth with

disabilities. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 27(2), 30-38.

Nezu, C., Nezu, A., & Arean, P. (1991). Assertiveness and problem-solving training for

mildly mentally retarded persons with dual diagnoses. Research in Developmental

Disabilities, 12, 371–386.

Nind M. (2009) Conducting qualitative research with people with learning,

communication and other disabilities: Methodological challenges. National

Centre for Research Methods, pp. 24. (ESRC National Centre for Research

Methods Review Paper).

Njororai, W.W. S. (2012). Challenges of being a black student athlete on U.S. college

campuses. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 40–63.

Nwadike, A. C., Baker, A. R., Brackebusch, V. B., & Hawkins, B. J. (2015). Institutional

racism in the NCAA and the racial implications of the “2.3 or take a knee

legislation”. Marquette Sports Law. Review, 26(2), 523-543.

O'Shea, A., & Meyer, R. H. (2016). A qualitative investigation of the motivation of

college students with nonvisible disabilities to utilize disability services. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(1), 5-23.

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based

practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148.

Olney, M. F., & Kim, A. (2001). Beyond adjustment: Integration of cognitive disability

into identity. Disability & Society, 16(4), 563-583.

Ostiguy, B. J., Peters, M. L., & Shlasko, D. (2016). Ableism. In M. Adams & L. A. Bell

(Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 299–337). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Pate, J., Stokowski, S., & Hardin, R. (2011). Third time’s a charm: The case of

Tennessee’s four junior football players who endured three different head coaches

in three seasons. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 4, 354–369.

200

Pearson, H. (2010). Complicating intersectionality through the identities of a hard of

hearing Korean adoptee: An autoethnography. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 43(3), 341–356.

Parsons, J. (2013). Student athlete perceptions of academic success and athlete

stereotypes on campus. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36(4), 400-416.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade

of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health

Services Research, 34, 1189–1208.

Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities

in higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 30-

40.

Peña, E. V., Stapleton, L. D., & Schaffer, L. M. (2016). Critical perspectives on disability

identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2016(154), 85-96.

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Petronio, S., Martin, J., & Littlefield, R. (1984). Prerequisite conditions for self‐

disclosing: A gender issue. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 268-273.

Polakow, V. (1993). Lives on the edge: Single mothers and their children in the other

America. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. VaUe & S.

Hailing (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-

60). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Potuto, J. J. R., & O'Hanlon, J. (2007). National study of student-athletes regarding their

experiences as college students. College Student Journal, 41(4), 947-966.

Quick, D., Lehmann, J., & Deniston, T. (2003). Opening doors for students with

disabilities on community college campuses: what have we learned? What do we

still need to know? Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27(9-

10), 815-827.

Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A

literature review. College Student Journal, 38(2), 191-199.

201

Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L. (1999). Patterns of

change and predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: Results

from a twenty-year longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 14(1), 35-49.

Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary

institutions (No. NCES 2011–018). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics website https://nces.edu.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=

2011018.

Reardon, C. L., & Factor, R. M. (2010). Sports psychiatry: A systematic review of

diagnosis and medical treatment of mental illness in athletes. Sports Medicine,

40(11), 961-980.

Reusen, A., & Bos, C. (1994). Facilitating student participation in individualized

education programs through motivation strategy instruction. Exceptional

Children, 60, 466-476.

Richards, L. & Morse, J.M. (2013a). Coding. Chapter 6. In qualitative methods, 3

ed.

(pp. 149-168). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Richards, L. & Morse, J.M. (2013b). The integrity of qualitative research. Chapter 2. In

Qualitative methods, 3

ed. (pp. 23-48). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2014). Disabled students in higher education: Discourses of

disability and the negotiation of identity. International Journal of Educational

Research, 63, 38-46.

Ridpath, B. D. (2010). Perceptions of NCAA Division I athletes on motivations

concerning the use of specialized academic support services in the era of the

Academic Progress Rate. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 253-

271.

Ridpath, M. (2014). In Brown, G. T., Hainline, B., Kroshus, E., & Wilfert, M. (Eds.).

Mind, body and sport: Understanding and supporting student-athlete mental

wellness. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safety/sport-science-

institute/introductionmind-body-and-sport

Rishe, P. J. (2003). A reexamination of how athletic success impacts graduation rates

Comparing student‐athletes to all other undergraduates. American Journal of

Economics and Sociology, 62(2), 407-427.

Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. London,

England. Sage Publications.

202

Rubin, L. M., & Moses, R. A. (2017). Athletic subculture within student-athlete academic

centers. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(4), 317-328.

Russell, C., Gregory, D., Ploeg, J., DiCenso, A., & Guyatt, G. (2005). Qualitative

research. In A. DiCenso, G. Guyatt, & D. Ciliska (Eds.), Evidence-based nursing:

A guide to clinical practice (pp. 120-135). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.

Saldaña, J. (2011). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Salzberg, C. L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C. C., Blair, R. J., Carsey, A. C., & Johnson, A. S.

(2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need,

content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 15(2), 101-14.

Salzer, M. S., Wick, L. C., & Rogers, J. A. (2008). Familiarity with and use of

accommodations and supports among postsecondary students with mental

illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 59(4), 370-375.

Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal

of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115-38.

Satterfield, J., Croft, C., & Godfrey, M. (2010). Whose responsibility is it anyway: The

student-athlete? Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(1), 34.

Schulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life: College sports and

educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2001). Program standards for disability services in higher

education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 81-90.

Shaw, S. F., Keenan, W. R., Madaus, J. W., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Disability

documentation, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, and the

summary of performance: How are they linked? Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 22(3), 142-150.

Shaw, R. A. (2011). Employing universal design for instruction. In M. S. Huger (Ed.),

Fostering the increased integration of students with disabilities (New Directions

for Student Services, no. 134, pp. 21–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Shriberg, A., & Brodzinski, F. R. (1984). Rethinking services for college athlete. New

directions for student-athletes in division I revenue producing sports. Sociology of

Sport Journal, 9, 48-59.

Shropshire, K. L., & Williams Jr, C. D. (2017). The miseducation of the student athlete:

How to fix college sports. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.

203

Siegfried, J. J., & Burba, M. G. (2004). The college football association television

broadcast cartel. The Antitrust Bulletin, 49(3), 799-819.

Silver, L. (2006). The misunderstood child. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Simons, H. D., Bosworth, C., & Fujita, S. (2007). The athlete stigma in higher education.

College Student Journal, 47, 251–273.

Simons, H. D., Van Rheenen, D., & Covington, M. V. (1999). Academic motivation and

the student athlete. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 151-162.

Singer, J. N. (2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male

student‐athletes. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 365-386.

Smart, J. (2001). Disability, society, and the individual. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Smith, S. D. (1999). Examining the role of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADHD) in the life experiences of University Student-Athletes. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University

Snyder, P. L. (1996). Comparative levels of expressed academic motivation among

Anglo and African American university student-athletes. Journal of Black

Studies, 26(6), 651-667.

Solórzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance

through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano

students in an urban context. Urban Education, 3, 308-342.

Sommo, A., & Chaskes, J. (2013). Intersectionality and the disability: Some conceptual

and methodological challenges. Research in Social Science and Disability, 7, 47–

59.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Staurowsky, E. J., & Sack, A. L. (2005). Reconsidering the use of the term student-

athlete in academic research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(2), 103-116.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities

and performance of women and African Americans. American Psychologist, 52,

613–629.

Steinberg, M. A., Walther, C., Herbst, M., West, J., Wingler, D., & Smith, J. (2018).

Learning specialists in college athletics: Who are they and what do they

do? Journal of Higher Education Athletics & Innovation, 1(4), 77-118.

204

Steinfeldt, J. A., Steinfeldt, M. C., England, B., & Speight, Q. L. (2009). Gender role

conflict and stigma toward help-seeking among college football

players. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(4), 261.

Stokowski, S. E. (2013). I know I can learn. The experiences of NCAA Division I – FBS

student-athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD in higher education.

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

Stokowski, S. E., Blunt-Vinti, H., Hardin, R., Goss, B. D., & Turk, M. (2017). I know I

can learn: The perceptions of NCAA Division I football college athletes with

learning disabilities. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2017 Special

Issue, 95-118.

Stokowski, S. E., & Huffman, L. T. (2014). Sport participation motivations of student-

athletes with learning disabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 85(S1), A124.

Stokowski, S., Goldsmith, A., Croft, C., Hutchens, S., & Fridley, A. (2020). The impact

of football on student–athletes with education-impacting disabilities. Journal for

the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 14(1), 1-18.

Stokowski, S., & Ferguson, T. (2020). Student-Athlete, Black Football Student-Athletes

with Education-Impacting Disabilities. In NASPA Knowledge Community

Publication. NASPA, Washington, DC.

Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Swadener, B. B. (2010). “At risk” or “at promise”?: From deficit constructions of the

“other childhood” to possibilities for authentic alliances with children and

families. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 3, 7–29.

Swadener, B. B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.). (1995). Children and families “at promise”:

Deconstructing the discourse of risk. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Swadener, B. B., & Niles, K. (1991). Children and families “at-promise” making home-

school community connections. Democracy in Education, 5(3), 13-18.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable (Vol. 2). New

York: Random House.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual

framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special

Education, 26(1), 43-54.

205

Thoma, C. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and the transition to

postsecondary education. In E. E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.), Going to college:

Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities (pp. 49-68). Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

Thompson, A. (2013). Social class and learning disabilities: Intersectional effects on

college students in New York City. Research in Social Science and Disability, 7,

267–292.

Thompson, J., Petronio, S., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2012). An examination of privacy rules

for academic advisors and college student-athletes: A communication privacy

management perspective. Communication Studies, 63(1), 54-76.

Thompson, M. V. (2012). Creating a culture of inclusion: Shifting the disability frame.

ACPA Developments, 10(1). Retrieved from

http://www2.myacpa.org/developments/spring‐2012/creating‐a‐culture‐of‐

inclusion‐the‐disability‐frame/2306

Tierney, W. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-

first century. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Trainin, G., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of

college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4),

261-272.

Trainor, A. A. (2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students

with LD during the transition planning process. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

38(3), 233–249.

Trainor, A., & Graumann, K. D. (2012). Reviewing qualitative research in the social

sciences: A guide for researchers and reviewers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Trammell, J. (2009). Red-shirting college students with disabilities. Learning Assistance

Review, 14(2), 21-31.

Trammell, J., & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with

disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(1), 5-15.

Treme, J., & Burrus, R. T. (2016). NCAA basketball: when does recruiting talent

translate into wins for power conferences? Journal of Economics and

Finance, 40(4), 735-753.

Troiano, P. F., Liefeld, J. A., & Trachtenberg, J. V. (2010). Academic support and

college success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of

College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 35-44.

206

Tuffrey‐Wijne, I., Bernal, J., & Hollins, S. (2008). Doing research on people with

learning disabilities, cancer and dying: ethics, possibilities and pitfalls. British

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 185-190.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Table

269: Number and percentage distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary

institutions, by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2003-

04 and 2007-08. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (2012 ed.). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_269.asp

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Table

311.10: Number and percentage distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary

institutions, by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2007-

08 and 2011-12. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (2013 ed.). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_311.10.asp

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and disability:

Education needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in

supporting students. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved

from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1033.pdf.

Vaccaro, A., Kimball, E. W., Wells, R. S., & Ostiguy, B. J. (2015). Researching students

with disabilities: The importance of critical perspectives. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 2014(163), 25-41.

van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning giving methods in

phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Van Reusen, A. K., Bos, C. S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1994). The self-

advocacy strategy for education and transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge

Enterprises.

Vickers, M. Z. (2010). Accommodating college students with learning disabilities: ADD,

ADHD, and dyslexia. Raleigh, NC: John W. Pope Center for Higher Education

Policy. Retrieved from http://www.popecenter.org/acrobat/vick ers-mar2010.pdf.

Walker, Y. N. (2004). Playing the game of academic integrity vs. athletic success: The

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intercollegiate student-athletes with

learning disabilities. Marquette Sports Law Review, 15, 601.

Walling, L. L. (1996). Hidden abilities in higher education: New college students with

disabilities. (Monograph Series 21). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for

The Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.

207

Watson, J. C. (2005). College student-athletes' attitudes toward help-seeking behavior

and expectations of counseling services. Journal of College Student

Development, 46(4), 442-449.

Watson, J. C. (2006). Student-athletes and counseling: Factors influencing the decision to

seek counseling services. College Student Journal, 40(1) 35-42.

Watt, S. K., & Moore, J. L. (2001). Who are student athletes? In M. F. Howard-Hamilton

& S. K. Watt (Eds.), Student services for student athletes. New Directions for

Student Services, no. 93. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wehmeyer, M., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student

involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional

Individuals, 18, 69–83.

Weiss, M. P. (2011). Supporting student athletes with disabilities: A case study. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(2), 161-163.

Weston, M. A. (1999). Academic standards or discriminatory hoops leaning-disabled

student-athletes and the NCAA initial academic eligibility

requirements. Tennessee Law Review, 66(4), 1049-1126.

Weston, M. A. (2005). The intersection of sports and disability: Analyzing reasonable

accommodations for athletes with disabilities. St. Louis University Law Journal,

50(137), 137–163.

Williams, P., & Shoultz, B. (1982). We can speak for ourselves. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.

Wilson, K., Getzel, E., & Brown, T. (2000). Enhancing the post-secondary campus

climate for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 14(1),

37-50.

Wilson, M. (2017). NCAA Division I football coaching contracts: A comparative

analysis of incentives for athletic and academic team performance from 2006,

2009, and 2011. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 11(4), 237-255.

Wolniak, G. C., Pierson, C. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Effects of intercollegiate

athletic participation on male orientations toward learning. Journal of College

Student Development, 42(6), 604-24.

Wolverton, B. (2008, September 5). Spending plenty so athletes can make a grade. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, A3-A10.

208

Wolverton, B. (2014, December 11). Payments for athletes? Check. Players with

balanced lives? Not so much. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com /article/Payments-for-Athletes-Check/150807.

Wolverton, B. (2016, February 28). The hottest hire in athletics? Learning specialists.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(25), A14.

Wrisberg, C. A., & Martin, S. B. (1994, October). Attitudes of African-American and

Caucasian athletes towards sport psychology consultants. Paper presented at the

meeting of Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology,

Incline Village, NV.

Yopyk, D. A., & Prentice, D. A. (2005). Am I an athlete or a student? Identity salience and

stereotype threat in student-athletes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 329

–336.

Yosso, T. J. (2000). A critical race and LatCrit approach to media literacy: Chicana/o

resistance to visual microaggressions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of California, Los Angeles.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of

community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

Zimbalist, A. (1999) Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time

college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

209

Appendix A

Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

RQ2: What does this process of self-disclosure look like for college athletes with

learning disabilities and/or ADHD?

In your own words, how would you describe your disability?

Describe how your disability affect your college experience, if at all?

How does your athletic participation influence your college experience, if at all?

Have you ever felt stereotyped based on one or more of your identities?

If so, can you explain the experience? What did you feel and by whom?

In what academic situations do you disclose your disability? (Faculty, peers, academic

support)

In what athletic situations do you feel the need to disclose your disability? (coach, trainer)

Can you describe a time you felt pressured to disclose your disability?

In what academic situations do you knowingly choose not to self-disclose and why?

Before deciding to self-disclose information about your disability, what to do you consider?

After disclosing your disability how did you feel and what are the reactions of others?

Have you ever disclosed your disability to your coach? Please explain why or why not.

RQ3: How do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD advocate for their

academic success?

How would you define being an advocate for something or someone?

In what ways do you ensure your needs are met in regard to your academic success?

How comfortable do you feel making your own decisions in your college life?

How do you stand up for yourself in environments or spaces where you do not have power?’

How much knowledge do you have in regard to laws and services related to your disability?

Who or where do you go to gain more information in regard to your disability?

Describe a time when you stood up for something you needed to help you succeed

academically. What did that look like? How did it feel? What about a time related to

athletics?

Who do you communicate your needs too in regard to your disability? In what situations or

contexts? What makes you feel comfortable? What makes you feel resistant?

How did you learn to communicate or advocate for your needs?

How comfortable do you feel advocating for others? What does this look like?

RQ1: In what ways do college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD describe

academic support within their campus community?

What types of support do you personally use to help you succeed academically?

How often do you use or interact with these support services that are available?

Who is your support system when it comes to academics and how do they support you?

When it comes to your academic success, where do you feel the least supported?

What could your university do differently to better support your needs?

What choices do you make in relation to your academics that help you succeed?

How can colleges better support college athletes with disabilities?

What can athletic departments do to better support college athletes with disabilities?

What type of support would you want to see implemented to help college athletes with

disabilities navigate their transition to college?

210

Appendix B

Demographic Data Sheet

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Under pseudonym, please DO

NOT put your legal name, instead please create a fictional name of your choosing. If you choose

to leave the space blank, a name will be provided to you by the researcher.

Pseudonym: ___________________________________________________________

Conference: ___________________________________________________________

Year in School: _______________________ Gender: ___________________

Race/Ethnicity: _________________________________________________________

Age: _______________ Sport: ________________________________________

Major: ________________________________________________________________

Disability: ADHD Learning Disability Unknown Other ____________

Did you receive disability services in high school? Yes No

Are you registered with Disability Services on your campus? Yes No

How long have you known about your disability? __________________

What year were you diagnosed? ______________

“Self-Advocacy is learning how to speak up for yourself, making your own decisions about your

own life, learning how to get information so that you can understand things that are of interest to

you, finding out who will support you in your journey, knowing your rights and responsibilities,

problem solving, listening and learning, reaching out to others when you need help and

friendship, and learning about self-determination.”

– Center for Parent Information and Resources

Please use the following scale: (1 = extremely uncomfortable: 10 = extremely comfortable)?

Based on the definition above, how comfortable do you feel self-advocating?

How comfortable do you feel speaking up for your needs?

How comfortable do you feel reaching out to others when you are in need?

211

Appendix C

Subject Recruitment Email

Good morning _______________________,

My name is Stephanie O’Donnell and I am a current Ph.D. student working under the supervision

of Professor Amy Hirschy (XXX-XXX-XXXX), from the University of Louisville, in the

Counseling and Personnel Services (College Student Personnel) program. I am conducting

research on current NCAA DI college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD and their

collegiate experience.

I was reaching out to see if you could send the following message (after the signature) to some

current students you think would be interested in participating. Another option is to print out the

attached flier and publicize the opportunity in your office space.

If you are not the appropriate person to contact to have this message sent out, please feel free to

forward this on to whoever that person may be. If you have any further questions or concerns,

please contact me at stodon[email protected] or XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Thank you,

Stephanie O’Donnell

Dear Student,

My name is Stephanie O’Donnell and I am a current graduate student working under the

supervision of Professor Amy Hirschy (XXX-XXX-XXXX) at the University of Louisville. I am

conducting research on current NCAA DI college athletes with learning disabilities and/or

ADHD and their collegiate experience.

As a former student who participated in athletics with a disability, I am interested in hearing your

story and experiences on your college campus. Participation in this research study would help

inform how learning specialists, academic counselors or advisors, and other administrators or

faculty can better the collegiate experience for athletes with nonvisible disabilities. I am seeking 6

to 10 current college athletes with learning disabilities and/or ADHD from a variety of NCAA

Division I institutions and athletic teams to discuss their collegiate experience.

• I am looking to conduct a one-time, audio recorded, 90-minute interview via phone or

video chat.

• Questions will focus on understanding how you view academic support, self-disclosure

(sharing your disability with others), and self-advocacy (speaking up for your needs).

• You will be compensated $20.00 for your time which is in compliance with NCAA

bylaw 16.11.1.6.2.

• Your confidentiality will be strictly safeguarded in this study, which includes not

informing your coach, athletic staff, and academic administrators that you are

participating.

If you are interested in more information or would like to participate, please contact Stephanie

O’Donnell via email at stod[email protected] or via phone (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

212

Appendix D

Recruitment Flier

213

Appendix E

Preamble

The Ball Is In Your Court: A Phenomenological Study Examining College Athletes with

Learning Disabilities and/or ADHD on College Campuses

UofL Institutional Review Boards

IRB NUMBER: 19.1121

IRB APPROVAL DATE: 11/19/2019

Date: November 1, 2019

Dear College Athlete:

You are being invited to participate in a research study by answering questions

provided by email in the attached demographic sheet followed by an audio

recorded, one on one, 90-minute interview conducted via phone or video chat.

This study is seeking 6 to 10 current NCAA Division I college athletes with

learning disabilities and/or ADHD from a variety of Power 5 conference

institutions and athletic teams to discuss their collegiate experience. This study can

help inform college professionals on the specific academic needs of students when

it comes to sharing their disability and speaking up for their needs.

This study is conducted by Dr. Amy Hirschy of the University of Louisville and

Ph.D. doctoral candidate Stephanie O’Donnell. There are no known risks for your

participation in this research study. The information collected may not benefit you

directly. In compensation for your time and effort, you will receive $20.00 in the

following weeks after the interview has been completed. This is in compliance

with NCAA bylaw 16.11.1.6.2. The information learned in this study may be

viewed as beneficial and informative to others within the profession. The

information you provide will be used towards completion of dissertation work and

potential publication. Your completed demographic sheet and interview will be

stored electronically online through the University of Louisville’s encrypted

password protected storage system.

Since you will be paid by prepaid card for you time, inconvenience, or expense

while you are in the study, the University of Louisville may collect your name,

address, social security number, and keep records of how much you are paid. You

may or may not be sent a Form 1099 by the University. This will only happen if

you are paid $600.00 or more in on year by the University. This will not include

payments you may receive as reimbursement for actual expenses based on receipts

or actual miles traveled. We are required by the Internal Revenue Service to

collect this information and you may need to report the payment as income on

your taxes. You can still be in the study even if you do not want to be paid.

Individuals from the Department of Counseling & Human Development, the

Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Human Subjects Protection Program Office

214

(HSPPO), and other regulatory agencies may inspect these records. In all other

respects, however, the data will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law.

Should the data be published, your identity will not be disclosed.

Taking part in this study is voluntary. By answering questions on the initial

demographic sheet, you agree to take part in this research study. You do not have to

answer any questions that make you uncomfortable. If you decide to be in this study

you may stop taking part at any time.

If you decide not to be in this study or if you stop taking part at any time, you will

not lose any benefits for which you may qualify.

If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints about the research study, please

contact:

Dr. Amy Hirschy

[email protected]

(XXX) XXX-XXXX

Stephanie O’Donnell

[email protected]

(XXX) XXX-XXXX

If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, you may call the

Human Subjects Protection Program Office at (502) 852-5188. You can discuss

any questions about your rights as a research subject, in private, with a member of

the Institutional Review Board (IRB). You may also call this number if you have

other questions about the research, and you cannot reach the research staff, or want

to talk to someone else. The IRB is an independent committee made up of people

from the University community, staff of the institutions, as well as people from the

community not connected with these institutions. The IRB has reviewed this

research study.

If you have concerns or complaints about the research or research staff and you do

not wish to give your name, you may call 1-877-852-1167. This is a 24 hour hot

line answered by people who do not work at the University of Louisville.

Sincerely,

Stephanie O’Donnell

Dr. Amy Hirschy

215

CURRICULUM VITAE

Stephanie O’Donnell

[email protected]

Education

University of Louisville; Louisville, KY

Doctor of Philosophy: Counseling & Student Personnel Services December 2020

Dissertation: The Ball is in Your Court: A Phenomenological Study Examining College Athletes with

Learning Disabilities and/or ADHD on College Campuses

Clemson University; Clemson, SC

Graduate Certification: Athletic Leadership May 2019

University of Alabama; Tuscaloosa, AL

Master of Arts: School Counseling May 2017

Master of Arts: Higher Education Administration May 2016

Keene State College; Keene, NH

Bachelor of Science: Elementary Education May 2013

Bachelor of Arts: Gender and Psychological Development May 2013

University of Kentucky; Lexington, KY

National Student Exchange Program Fall 2010

Higher Education Experience

University of Louisville; Louisville, Kentucky

Quality Enhancement Plan Graduate Assistant: Delphi Center August 2018-December 2019

- Provided administrative assistance for the executive director of the quality enhancement plan

- Co-chaired the student advisory team committee, meeting once a month

- Analyzed and interpreted assessment, data, and instruments related to teaching and learning

- Conducted benchmarking pertaining to teaching and learning, and quality enhancement plans

- Implemented and maintained marketing strategies for the quality enhancement plan

General Studies Instructor: Student Success and Exploratory Advising August 2019-October 2019

- Facilitated lessons and assessments for a group of 16 students through exploration and development

- Provided educational opportunities for students to transition and navigate their first year through college

University of Kentucky; Lexington, Kentucky

Resident Director: Residence Life September 2017-July 2018

- Supervise a group of 9 student staff members, 1 full-time office assistant and 250 residents

- Conduct academic conversations with students on academic probation

- Collaborate with departments on campus and provide referrals to residents

- Engage in partnership with Living Learning Partners and Peer Mentors

- Serve on several committees to enhance university and department mission and goals

216

The University of Alabama; Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Graduate Community Director: Housing and Residential Communities August 2014-May 2017

- Supervised a group of 10 resident advisors, 5 freshman advisors, and 480 residents

- Implemented and conducted several professional development, team building and training opportunities

- Collaborated with departments on campus and provide referrals to residents

- Managed and conducted administrative tasks and conduct hearings with residents

- Communicated with parents and students on unvisited policies

- Supported residents and student staff through conflict, mediation, and crisis management

- Served in an on-call rotation, and respond to emergencies, and crisis response

- Facilitated roommate mediations, and staff conflicts

- Utilized Habitudes, to provided leadership development

Summer Graduate Assistant: Housing and Residential Communities May 2015-July 2015

- Managed and supervised a group of 13 orientation assistants and 3 summer resident advisors

- Provided customer service experience working with parents, residents, and future students

- Created weekly schedules for student staff members as well as handled operational tasks

- Trained all student staff members on housing policies, procedures, and orientation information

- Contacted and organized all keys, parking passes, and information for camps and conferences

Community Service Intern: Center for Sustainable Service and Volunteerism May 2015-July 2015

- Designed and implemented a community service model for Housing and Residential Communities

- Planned seven different community service outreach programs to fit the unique needs of residents

- Communicated and outreached to various departments on campus and within the community

- Marketed the events in several different strategic ways throughout campus (i.e. technology)

Assumption College; Worcester, Massachusetts

National Orientation Directors Association (NODA): Orientation Intern May 2016-June 2016

- Trained and led 20 Orientation Leaders and 6 Executive members through student and parent orientations

- Developed diverse training sessions for staff to effectively ran orientation throughout the summer sessions

- Produced and evaluated online assessment surveys to evaluate and enhance future sessions

- Managed and operated orientation food budget throughout training and orientation sessions

Keene State College; Keene, New Hampshire

Resident Hall Assistant: Residential Life August 2011-December 2012

- Created a living learning community and with 50 sophomore, transfer, and international students

- Facilitated programs to enhance study skills, and academic support

- Guided transfer and international students, providing resources and transitional support

- Served on call, facilitated roommate mediations, and responded to crisis, and emergencies

Summer Conference Worker May 2012-August 2012

- Managed administrative tasks such as checking in and out conference guests, and provided information

- Served on-call, provided customer service to guests, and prepared residence rooms for conference

Teacher Associate for Intro to Education: Education Department January 2011-December 2012

- Co-instructed and oversaw anywhere from 5 students to 12 students in a course

- Prepared and implemented lesson plans, activities, group discussions and assessments

- Graded assessment tools, and provided one-hour study sessions for students weekly

Athletic Academic Services

University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Assistant Learning Specialist: Academic Support Programs August 2020-Present

- Provide comprehensive academic support to a designated caseload one-on-one and in small groups

- Support the tutoring services program by scheduling/canceling sessions, hiring and evaluating tutors

- Provide strategic tools to enhance students learning, organization, and time management skills

- Guide students through learning various assistive technology strategies to enhance their learning

- Review and propose changes to initial “at-risk” evaluation document

- Assist in initial disability screenings for students refereed for evaluation and accommodations

217

University of Central Florida; Orlando, Florida

Assistant Athletic Academic Advisor: Academic Support January 2020-May 2020

- Monitored and managed academic progress for a caseload of 16 athletes and football defensive walk-ons

- Conducted and monitored team and group study-hall twice a week for 75 minutes

- Worked one-on-one with student-athletes on developing academic skills

- Compiled and maintained reports such as study hall, grades, eligibility, class checking, and coaches report

- Academically advised caseload of students through multi-term registration

University of Louisville; Louisville, Kentucky

Thorntons Academic Center of Excellence

Athletic Academic Support Intern January 2019-December 2019

- Assisted with administrative tasks, such as book distribution, book vouchers, and grade reports

- Created a learning assistant manual and resource documents for academic advisors from across campus

- Reviewed degree audits for the registrar’s office, ensuring credits hours are accurate for all students

- Collaborated with learning specialist to review documents and aid in assessments

Athletic Academic Learning Assistant January 2019-May 2019

- Worked individually with students, ranging from 30 minutes once a week to one hour three times a week

- Guided students through study skills, organization, time-management, and learning strategies

- Aided students in completing objective-based study hall

- Researched and conducted presentation on writing skills and reading comprehension

Athletic Academic Tutor August 2018-December 2019

- Tutored approximately three students per week in humanities, sports administration, and psychology

- Abided by NCAA, FERPA, ACC, and institutional policies and regulations

- Developed an understanding of and utilize EAB, GradesFirst, and TeamWorks software

- Promoted educational pedagogy suited for each individual tutorial meeting

University of Kentucky; Lexington, Kentucky

Internship: Center for Academic & Tutorial Services (CATS) January 2018-June 2018

- Observed, shadowed, and interacted with athletes, academic counselors, and graduate assistants

- Learned NCAA regulations on eligibility, recruitment, academics, and financial aid

- Tracked student athlete’s attendance, tutoring sessions, and academic grades

School Counseling Experience

Tuscaloosa City Schools; Tuscaloosa, Alabama

School Counseling Internship: Northridge High School January 2017-April 20017

- Experienced 300 hours in a high school, 180 observable hours, and 120 direct, hands-on experience

- Collaborated and communicated with coaches, teachers, and administrators on student progress

- Met bi-weekly with students one on one, to discuss academic progress and career trajectories

- Assisted with career counseling and higher education preparation

School Counseling Internship: Tuscaloosa Magnet School- Elementary January 2017-April 2017

- Experienced 300 hours in an elementary school, 180 observable hours, and 120 direct, hands-on

- Created and implemented classroom, group, and individualized guidance lessons based on ASCA

School Counseling Practicum: Tuscaloosa Magnet School- Middle August 2016-November 2016

- Experienced 130 hours in a middle school, 66 observable hours, and 63 direct, hands-on experience

- Completed over 22 direct individual counseling sessions with undergraduate and graduate students

- Assisted with 10 hours of group counseling sessions and 15 hours in career counseling

K-12 Teaching Experience

The University of Alabama; Tuscaloosa, Alabama

The University of Alabama CrossingPoints March 2015-March 2016

College of Education and the Tuscaloosa County School Systems providing transitional services for

students with disabilities 18-21

218

- Volunteered three hours a week working with exceptional children ages 18-21

- Participated in recreational, academic, job placement and daily living skills

Keene State College; Keene, New Hampshire

Student Teaching; Wheelock Elementary School January 2013-May 2013

- Taught and managed a kindergarten classroom of fifteen students

- Created lesson plans implementing the common core with New Hampshire standards

- Provided 600 hours, and three solo weeks of teaching

AmeriCorps Service

City Year Boston, AmeriCorps; English High School, Boston, MA August 2013-June 2014

Education nonprofit organization uniting young people for a full year of service keeping students in school

and on track to graduate

- Provided 10,000 plus hours of service to Boston community through educational and physical service

- Mentored a cohort of 10

grade special education students in attendance, behavior, and coursework

- Organized initiatives and evaluated student data on retention as attendance coordinator

- Provided individual interventions, modeling response to intervention at levels tier two and three

- Collaboratively worked with staff, teachers, and administrators in Early Warning Indicator meetings

- Created individualized educational plans for students slipping off track, and in danger of failing

- Communicated with parents on students’ academic progress, attendance, and behavior

- Provided tutoring services and collaborated with the Boston Scholar Athletes program

Committee Work

University of Louisville; Louisville, Kentucky

ADA Compliance Committee October 2018-December 2019

- Serve as a student representative, collaborating with faculty, staff and administrators

- Discuss pressing issues surrounding accessibility and access on campus

The University of Alabama; Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Housing and Residential Communities

Training Committee: Housing & Residential Communities October 2016-January 2017

- Created and executed Community Director Spring training

- Collaborated with other professionals from campus to create informative presentations

- Developed a diversity and social justice workshop for graduate students

Search Committee for Area Coordinator November 2016-January 2017

- Served on a search committee to help find an area coordinator for Housing & Residential Communities

- Dedicated several hours and weeks throughout the process to rank applicants, and conduct interviews

Manual and Training Committee January 2015-December 2016

- Designed and implemented a housing manual to assist student staff members through training

- Created unique, engaging training opportunities for student staff members

- Evaluated prior assessments and evaluations to recreate learning outcomes for training sessions

Residential Curriculum Committee August 2015-December 2016

- Researched and provided feedback on language used within the development of curriculum outcomes

- Generated assessment tools to evaluate the outcome of Residential Curriculum

Recruitment and Selection Committee September 2014-May 2016

- Participated in the process of hiring professional and student staff members

- Organized recruitment strategies for student staff members and graduate assistants

- Interviewed and engaged with potential professional staff member candidates when on campus

Higher Education Administration & Student Affairs

Higher Education Organization Committee October 2014-May 2016

- Created and maintained alumni relations with the department of higher education

- Provided transitional support for students entering into the program of higher education

219

- Served as the community and service outreach partner to the city of Tuscaloosa, AL

- Planned community building activities for the department of higher education

Search Committee for Coordinator of Informal Recreations April 2015-July 2015

- Served on a search committee to help find a coordinator for information recreations

- Met several times throughout the process to look over resumes, and conduct phone interviews

- Provided feedback on candidates on campus interviews, and ability to fit the dynamics of the department

Keene State College; Keene, New Hampshire

All Access Committee January 2010-May 2013

- Advocated to ensure a safe and inclusive campus for the disabled

- Evaluated data and discussed higher education documents, and articles

- Collaborated with other professional higher education staff

Global Education Ambassador January 2011-May 2013

- Promoted, persuaded, and informed students about National Student Exchange

- Interacted with international students, as an initial contact person

Professional Memberships

National Association for Academic Advisors of Athletics (N4A) March 2018-Present

National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) August 2019-Present

Certifications

National Certified Counselor Certification (NCC) November 14, 2017

New Hampshire Teaching Certification; Elementary Education K-8 September 6, 2015

Alteristic Green Dot Certification: Violence Prevention Strategies July 2018

Service, Activities, and Honors

Chi Sigma Iota: Counseling Professional Honor Society; University of Alabama April 2015-May 2017

Assistant Cheerleading Coach; English High School Boston, MA September 2013-January 2014

Kappa Delta Pi: Epsilon Pi Education Honor Society; Keene State College September 2012-May 2013

National Colligate Honors Society; Keene State College January 2011-May 2013

Admissions Tour Guide; Keene State College September 2009-May 2013

Keene State College Cheerleading; Keene State College September 2009-May 2013

Presentations

Under Construction: Building Strong Relationship for Effective Tutoring; NCLCA 2019 October 4, 2019

The Leadership Compass: Who am I as a Leader?; NCLCA 2019 October 5, 2019

N4A National Conference 2019; Orlando, FL Research Poster Session June 2019

N4A National Conference 2020; Las Vegas, NV Universal Design June 2020

University of Alabama UA-Leads; Leadership Compass February 21, 2015

Alabama NASPA 2015; Student Development Theory, Afro-America Gospel Choir January 24, 2015

Higher Education; High Impact Practices: First-Generation Students & Study Abroad April 21, 2015

Publications

O’Donnell, S. (2020). (Review of the book The Collegiate Athlete4 at Risk: Strategies for Academic

Support and Success, by M. R. Council III, S. R. Hodge, & R. A. Bennett III). Journal of Issues in

Intercollegiate Athletes 2020,13 i-iii i.

Grants

NCAA Graduate Grant 2019 Unfunded

University of Louisville Graduate School Counsel 2019 $500.00