View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of Direct Experiences with Children with Disabilities on Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Dispositions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of Direct Experiences with Children with Disabilities on Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Dispositions
Language: English
Authors: Bassette, Laura, Jefferson, Ruth, Stuve, Matthew, Geiser, Sarah
Source: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2023 70(6):977-993.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Student Attitudes, Familiarity, Experience, Children, Disabilities, Program Effectiveness, Interaction, Career Choice, Students with Disabilities, Day Camp Programs, Experiential Learning, Consciousness Raising
DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2021.1944611
ISSN: 1034-912X
1465-346X
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of an immersive learning (IL) course in which university students planned, developed, and implemented a 2-week day camp for children with disabilities. To assess perceptions and associated dispositional constructs, university students completed reflection activities before, during, and post camp (immediate, and 3 years after). The results indicate perceptions were impacted both during the IL course and across several timepoints after the completion of course. Comfort interacting with people with disabilities was the primary construct maintained 3-years after the camp, and results indicate the camp experience impacted career choices. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1396646
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGxr4yyh0b1T66cFkfo2HBQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA6UCm5vyLtS3LspJwIBEICBm89sW96e1QPKppovZodwakfacBVvzMOeU7g5BP0WXyJPl6MEk3sGdq0P9BQKx4mWIFFVJpIRf_mZfov5mOLemL7eERu0bDRKzsR72HH0OEPhC7OJDHQqelxbbYGuz5t0tG7LDmk-Gd-QsdtSA0LqY0_mIaonm8LDO4M5GfDEYPccJDHy1_X4ERaUXppmt545WwMC55ba5HNih5SZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0170022534;54q01sep.23;2023Aug22.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0170022534-1">The Impact of Direct Experiences with Children with Disabilities on Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Dispositions </title> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of an immersive learning (IL) course in which university students planned, developed, and implemented a 2-week day camp for children with disabilities. To assess perceptions and associated dispositional constructs, university students completed reflection activities before, during, and post camp (immediate, and 3 years after). The results indicate perceptions were impacted both during the IL course and across several timepoints after the completion of course. Comfort interacting with people with disabilities was the primary construct maintained 3-years after the camp, and results indicate the camp experience impacted career choices. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: special education; teacher preparation; dispositional development</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Higher education offers undergraduate college students a variety of opportunities to enhance perspectives and understanding of people with disabilities through authentic experiences. Given that people with disabilities were identified as the largest minority group in the United States (Brault, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]), identifying ways to increase societal understanding is needed. In higher education settings, the incorporation of authentic experiences (e.g. service-learning courses, field experiences) can be implemented across various degree areas. Furthermore, undergraduate students pursuing service-oriented or other helping professions may greatly benefit from direct hands-on experiences, which teach them to effectively interact with people with disabilities to successfully meet the demands of their future careers (e.g. elementary education teachers) (Carlson & Witschey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous research suggests direct contact with people with disabilities which focuses on meaningful interactions (over number of interactions) (Klooster, Dannenberg, Taal, Burger, & Rasker, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]) can enhance overall perceptions regarding disability (Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]; Rice, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>]; Scior, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, university coursework that includes authentic experiences (e.g. service learning components) directly with people with disabilities may provide a distinct advantage to students' personal lives and professional careers (Carlson & Witschey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]). For those entering a teaching profession, authentic experiences that include direct interactions with people with disabilities can help facilitate an understanding of inclusion and the need to uphold critical laws and principles in educational settings (e.g. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015) (Marin, 2014). Furthermore, direct experiences were found to: increase confidence in the ability to teach students with disabilities (Leyser, Zeiger, & Romi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]; Lancaster and Bain [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]); reduce misconceptions and ensure that teachers set and maintain high standards (Ashton & Arlington, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Leyser et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]; Lancaster and Bain 2010), and increase comfort working with students with disabilities (Reeves, Giles, & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-3">Previous Work and Project Overview</hd> <p>Previously, Jefferson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]) and Bassette et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]) explored this topic by examining the impact of authentic experiences at a mid-size university located in the Midwest through the university's Immersive Learning (IL) initiative. At the university, IL is defined as a pedagogy that: a) carries course credit; b) includes a partnership with a community member; c) focuses on students working to solve real-world problems; d) involves students working together as a team in an active learning environment, and e) produces a 'product'. Historically, IL projects at the university were designed and implemented to help the community partner address a specific identified need. The IL version of this particular course, the <emph>High Riding Art and Equestrian Camp</emph>, was open to all majors and intentionally designed to provide undergraduate students including preservice teachers direct experiences with children with disabilities.</p> <p>For the course, university students developed and implemented a day camp for elementary aged children with disabilities (e.g. autism, developmental disabilities) from diverse backgrounds (e.g. low socioeconomic status). Funding was secured by the course instructor (e.g. grants, in-kind donations, private contributions) and offered to the campers for free. The spaces needed for the camp were made possible by various contributions from community partnership (e.g. local farm that donated the use of a stable for horseback riding activities during one week of camp). In addition, a local high school donated the use of their facility during the second week of camp activities (e.g. gym, home economics, art).</p> <p>The impact of the course was first explored by investigating the effect of IL experience on social justice constructs in students who participated in the camp during 2011 and 2012 using a pre/post-survey and course reflections. Jefferson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]). The survey data found students reported increases in their personal communication, attitudes towards diversity, self-efficacy, and empathy. The reflection data indicated students displayed increased empathy, self-efficacy, and a larger degree of change in their beliefs and attitudes when they had direct contact with the campers (during camp), as compared to, before the camp when activities focused on academic instruction (e.g. learning about disability characteristics) and planning.</p> <p>In 2016, differences between students who participated in the traditional face-to-face course (i.e. no contact with children with disabilities) were compared to the students who participated in the IL version (Bassette et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]). A survey including five dispositional constructs (i.e. comfort interacting with people with disabilities, community engagement; ethical leadership; empathy, and emotion regulation) was administered. The results identified significant increases in the students' community engagement and ethical leadership at the end of the course.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-4">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>The purpose of the current project was to examine the impact of the IL course on additional constructs beyond those previously explored (Bassette et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]). Specifically, this project sought to identify how the IL course (i.e. direct interactions with the campers) impacted university students' perceptions and dispositions over time, as measured by reflection and interview data. In this paper, 'students' is used to refer to the undergraduate students (i.e. research participants) enrolled in the course while the children are referred to as 'campers.'</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170022534-6">Participants</hd> <p>Institutional Review Board (IRB) consent was obtained from 15 undergraduate students who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. These students were recruited from a total of 16 students who enrolled in the IL course during 2016. Students who enrolled in the three credit course included those who were taking it as part of their required teacher education curriculum, as well as those who were not education majors, but selected to take the course as an elective. The participants included nine education majors (eight elementary education and one dual special/elementary education), two psychology students, and four students from other majors (i.e. child development, mathematics, pre-physical therapy, and biology/pre-veterinary).</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-7">Course Description</hd> <p>This course is housed in the department of special education and is the only course elementary education majors are required to complete as part of their teaching preparation program. It is typically available for students to take as a face-to-face or online course, and in 2016, it was also available as an IL course and open to all majors. The content of the IL version was the same as the other versions (e.g. online) and focused on educating students about special education eligibility, disability laws/advocacy (e.g. Individualised Education Programs, special education law), characteristics of disabilities, and evidenced-based teaching practices (e.g. multi-tiered systems of support, differentiated instruction, identifying appropriate interventions). The IL version of the course addressed this content, along with, additional components the students needed to engage in to effectively prepare for the camp (e.g. develop lessons plans for each day of camp, learn how to implement a positive behaviour support intervention). Prior to enrolling in the course, prospective students were required to articulate their interest in participating by completing an application and interview with the course instructor.</p> <p>Children with disabilities who were in 3<sups>rd</sups> grade or older were recruited as campers based on their eligibility for special education services under the category of mild/moderate disability. Additionally, to participate, the campers needed to be able to care for themselves and, for safety reasons, be able to appropriately follow directions. Peers without disabilities, including two siblings and a child of one of the staff members, also participated in the camp activities alongside the campers with disabilities. Throughout the camp, staff (i.e. community members who were not university students) assisted the students in successfully working with the campers.</p> <p>The students who enrolled in the IL course began planning for the summer camp during January 2016. The camp took place during June 2016 and the university course ended in July 2016. Throughout the spring semester prior to camp, the students learned about teaching children with disabilities (e.g. special education classifications, least restrictive environment), learned evidence-based pedagogical strategies (e.g. universal design for learning), and planned the camp (e.g. identified a camp theme, travelled to the camp locations to discuss the camp with the community partners, created lesson plans, bought materials).</p> <p>The day camp took place Monday–Friday over the course of two weeks with campers arriving at 9 am and leaving at 3 pm. The first week of camp was held at the stable; campers participated in equine, art, dance, and science stations. As a result of inclement weather, the campers did not attend Friday of the first week; however, the students still met to discuss and plan the following week. The second week of camp was held at a local high school and campers participated in art, gym/movement, science, and cooking stations. On the final day, the campers' parents were invited to attend an awards ceremony alongside the camp staff (e.g. community members who supported daily camp activities), the university students, as well as the community partners. A carnival/picnic was held that afternoon after campers received their awards.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-8">Design, Data Sources, and Data Collection</hd> <p>The impact of the IL course on dispositions of the participants was explored using a mixed-method design. Data (i.e. interviews, written reflections, and video reflections) were collected over time (i.e. pre, during, post). In this document, all data sources are referred to as 'reflections'; each was elicited via a prompt from the instructor or the researchers. Table 1 summarises the 19 reflection activities students responded to throughout the study.</p> <p>Table 1. Summary of prompts and sequencing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Analyses</td></tr><tr><td>Phase</td><td>Date</td><td>Prompt #</td><td>Days Delta</td><td>Data Type</td><td>Purpose</td><td>Instructions</td><td /><td>Obj/Subj</td><td>Time</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-Camp1</td><td>4/28/16</td><td>1</td><td>−38</td><td>Interview</td><td>R</td><td>6 questions</td><td>n/a</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-Camp 2</td><td>6/2/16</td><td>2</td><td>−4</td><td>Interview</td><td>R</td><td>6 questions</td><td>n/a</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-Camp 3</td><td>6/3/16</td><td>3</td><td>−3</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>5 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 1</td><td>6/6/16</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>Several paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 2</td><td>6/7/16</td><td>5</td><td>+1</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>Several paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 3</td><td>6/8/16</td><td>6</td><td>+2</td><td>Camper Table</td><td>I</td><td>Short paragraph about each camper</td><td>n/a</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 4</td><td>6/9/16</td><td>7</td><td>+3</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>4 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 5</td><td>6/10/16</td><td>8</td><td>+4</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>6 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 6</td><td>6/13/16</td><td>9</td><td>+7</td><td>Video Reflection</td><td>R</td><td>3 comments</td><td>n/a</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 7</td><td>6/13/16</td><td>10</td><td>+7</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>4 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 8</td><td>6/14/16</td><td>11</td><td>+8</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>Focus on 2 campers</td><td>X</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>During Camp 9</td><td>6/15/16</td><td>12</td><td>+9</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>6 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 1</td><td>6/19/16</td><td>13</td><td>+13</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>4 questions</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 2</td><td>6/26/16</td><td>14</td><td>+20</td><td>Reflection</td><td>I</td><td>4 paragraphs</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 3</td><td>7/10/16</td><td>15</td><td>+34</td><td>Reflection</td><td>R</td><td>6 questions (1 paragraph each)</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 4</td><td>7/22/16</td><td>16</td><td>+42</td><td>Video Reflection</td><td>R</td><td>2 comments for 4 videos</td><td>n/a</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 5</td><td>7/22/16</td><td>17</td><td>+42</td><td>Video Reflection</td><td>R</td><td>Changes to July 10<sup>th</sup> answers</td><td>X</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Post Camp 6</td><td>Nov. '16</td><td>18</td><td>+5 months</td><td>OE Survey</td><td>R</td><td>4 questions</td><td>n/a</td><td>O</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>3-year Post 7</td><td>Fall '19</td><td>19</td><td>+3.5 years</td><td>Likert + OE Survey</td><td>R</td><td>3 questions</td><td>n/a</td><td>S</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes</emph>. X indicates prompt included in analyses. Days delta is relative to camp start date. Interviews were in-person; reflections/surveys were written online prompt; video reflections were typed comments during video. R = Research purposes. I = Instructional purposes. OE = open-ended.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-9">Pre-Camp Reflections</hd> <p>Two months prior to the camp and the week directly before the camp, students participated in interviews with the researchers. Interview questions were designed to capture expectations of the forthcoming experience (e.g. What motivated you to choose this course?; What are you most excited about?) and facilitated rapport with the researchers. The third was an instructor developed written reflection where students reflected on their readiness to begin camp.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-10">During Camp Reflections</hd> <p>Nine during camp reflections were administered. Eight of them required students to respond in writing to prompts developed by the course instructor (e.g. What have you found most gratifying, How have I demonstrated my authentic desire to make this camp an exceptional experience?). The ninth (mid-way through camp) required students to view edited footage and insert written comments on their observations and feelings as they watched videos.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-11">Camp Videography and Videographic Data</hd> <p>Prior to being filmed and before the camp began, researchers informed students about filming procedures that would occur during the camp. For example, when participants were about to be filmed, the researcher placed a Bluetooth microphone near them to capture their verbal responses. This let the individual know they were being filmed, and indicated that the student should clip the microphone onto their clothing. Filming was monitored to ensure all students were filmed during at least one activity where they led instruction; a large collection of video was captured from many angles. The researchers edited the footage in iMovie and final videos were uploaded to Swivl's platform (Swivl, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]) for the students to view.</p> <p>The first video reflection was completed mid-way through camp and required students to comment on short clips captured during the first week (range 3:06 to 6:08 minutes).The second was completed post-camp and included footage from both weeks of camp: 1) opening events from Week 1 (13:36 minutes), 2) opening events from Week 2 (9:08 minutes), and, 3) a video of Week 1 awards planning meeting combined with the final ceremony (26:26 minutes). Additionally, each participant watched individualised edited footage of himself working with campers/teammates (ranging from 17:54 to 25:07 minutes). During these reflections, students accessed the videos individually and were able to view, pause, rewind, and insert comments. When students commented, the videos automatically paused and timestamped comments.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-12">Post Camp Reflections</hd> <p>Seven post-camp reflections were also included. These included two written reflections developed by the course instructor completed during the course but after the camp ended, the second video review/commenting activity (see above), two researcher reflections (i.e. one prior to viewing the video and one after) completed within 1 month of when the camp ended, a two-month follow-up after the course ended, and a three-year follow-up activity.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-13">Data Coding</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170022534-14">Coding Procedures and Reliability</hd> <p>Relevant literature that included analyses of reliability and validity of potential dispositional constructs anticipated to be impacted was reviewed. Initially, a total of 34 constructs were identified; these were then narrowed down to 27 (i.e. seven were deemed repetitive or irrelevant). Additionally, nine previously identified as constructs of interest in the IL course were included (Jefferson et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]). The thirty-six total constructs were reviewed and combined, resulting in 19 final constructs which were then used to code the reflections (Table 2). During all rounds of coding, each construct was coded as either an occurrence (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>) or non-occurrence (0) within a reflection. This occurred even if a reflection contained multiple statements regarding the same construct (i.e. magnitude within a reflection was not captured). A reflection could, however, contain multiple constructs (codes).</p> <p>Table 2. List of constructs used for coding.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Constructs (Citation in parentheses);</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.Negative impressions of self-concepts of people with disabilities (Symons, Fish, McGuigan, Fox, & Akl, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2012</xref>); Pessimism-hopelessness (Antonak, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1982</xref>)</td><td>Idea that people with disabilities have a poor self-concept or negative feelings about having a disability – e.g. people with disabilities feel sorry for themselves</td></tr><tr><td>2.Positive impressions of self-concept of people with disabilities (Symons et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2012</xref>) & Coping (Gething & Wheeler, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">1992</xref>)</td><td>Idea that people with disabilities have a positive self-concept or positive feelings about having a disability e.g. people with disabilities feel as happy as people without disabilities, people with disabilities are not ashamed of their disabilities</td></tr><tr><td>3. Comfort interacting with people with disabilities (Symons et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2012</xref>); Coping/succumbing framework,- perceived level of information; (Gething & Wheeler, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">1992</xref>); Belief and attitude change (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Idea that someone is comfortable working with or around someone with a disability e.g. someone is comfortable around someone who is blind, uses a wheelchair, or has an intellectual disability</td></tr><tr><td>4.Conditional comfort with people with disabilities (Symons et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2012</xref>)</td><td>Idea that someone is comfortable working with or around someone with a disability but needs is based on certain conditions e.g. someone is comfortable around someone – e.g. comfort level is dependent on the person being "well-behaved" or having someone there without a disability to help them</td></tr><tr><td>5. Community engagement; Community Engagement and Cultural Competence (Levesque-Bristol & Richards, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2014</xref>); Self-efficacy towards service (Weber, Weber, Sleeper, & Schneider, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2004</xref>); Contextual understanding of systematic barriers (Segal, Wagaman, & Gerdes, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2012</xref>); Self-sacrifice; Commitment to Public Interest (Perry, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">1996</xref>)</td><td>Recognition of the needs in the community someone lives in and works with the community to help meet those needs. Individual sees beyond their own purview and consider how they can contribute to the betterment of the community</td></tr><tr><td>6. Ethical leadership – (Levesque-Bristol & Richards, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2014</xref>)</td><td>Development of moral and ethical awareness while contributing to the common good and striving for individual excellence and integrity. Ethical leaders integrate these principles into all aspects of their lives as they strive to serve and lead others</td></tr><tr><td>7. Cultural competence (Levesque-Bristol & Richards, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2014</xref>)</td><td>Begins with cultural self-awareness and builds to developing the necessary skills to engage with other cultures. Individuals with a high degree of cultural competence have a sense of respect and admirations for multiples perspectives and are adapt at navigating cross cultural differences</td></tr><tr><td>8.Accurate assessment of self and recognition of limits; Worldview (Jankowski, Sandage, & Hill, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2013</xref>); Self-efficacy (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Ability to identify strengths and limitations accurately – I have a good sense of what I am not very good at doing</td></tr><tr><td>9.Low self-focus (Jankowski et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2013</xref>)</td><td>Negative thoughts about one self > focused on one's self and how the world is impacting them – I resist change even if someone shows me a better way of doing something – I often think about if I am being treated fairly> I am often disappointed in my performance in different situations</td></tr><tr><td>10. Appreciation/recognition of limitations (Jankowski et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2013</xref>); Affective Response -happy (Gerdes, Lietz, & Segal, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2011</xref>)</td><td>Openness to be happy for others or learn from others – I am equally excited about a friend's accomplishment as my own</td></tr><tr><td>11. Optimism-human rights (Antonak, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1982</xref>); diversity (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Statements affirming the human rights of people with disabilities – might include things such as right to housing or employment, education, right to be in inclusive/mainstreamed settings</td></tr><tr><td>12. Behavioural misconceptions (Antonak, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1982</xref>)</td><td>Express misconceptions about the behaviour of people with disabilities – should live in institutional settings, are criminals, should not have access to inclusive settings</td></tr><tr><td>13.Macro self-other awareness and perspective taking (Segal et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2012</xref>); Compassion (Perry, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">1996</xref>); Empathetic attitudes (22); Perspective taking (Gerdes et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2011</xref>); Empathy (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Recognising feelings in others – ability to understand perceptions of commonalities between one's own identity group and other different groups –</td></tr><tr><td>14. Emotion regulation (Gerdes et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2011</xref>)</td><td>Internal ability to change or control ones own emotional experiences – implies observer is less likely to be overwhelmed by the emotional contagion aspect of affective sharing and avoid personal distress</td></tr><tr><td>15. Academic learning (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Recognising learning in the camper or the university student</td></tr><tr><td>16. Career development (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Recognising something will be beneficial for one's career</td></tr><tr><td>17. Motivation (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Signs of resiliency, initiation, or emotional/affect impact</td></tr><tr><td>18. Developing connections with others (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Working well with others; inter-personal communications; teamwork; collaboration; providing ideas to the group (but no reflection of growth); reward in helping others; community connections</td></tr><tr><td>19. Problem solving (Jefferson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>Adapting to a situation or making accommodations or modifications</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A total of 10 coders conducted preliminary rounds of coding. Following one to three preliminary rounds, codes identified were discussed by four final coders (i.e. two pairs). These coders conducted two additional rounds to confirm inter-rater reliability as determined by Cohen Kappa values. Specifically, coders #1 and #2 independently coded all interview/reflection data for students 1–7 and coders #3 and #4 independently coded data for students 8–15. Reliability between teams was determined by Fleiss' k values through a final round of coding; Coder #3 coded 33% of the data previously coded by Coders #1 and #2. Cohen's Kappa values ranged from 0.774 to 0.979 indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement across all codes.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170022534-16">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170022534-17">Writing Facility and Effect of Prompt Perspective on Constructs Evoked</hd> <p>A preliminary content analysis of the students' writing was conducted to determine potential effects of individual student writing facility. This analysis sought to explore the possibility of students' demonstrated differences in reflective writing styles and/or facility. Twelve written reflections were determined to reliably reflect writing facility. Specifically, theses reflection explicitly instructed students to provide a multi-paragraph narrative response. The seven reflections which did not specify a length requirement and/or did not require a written/narrative response (e.g. oral interview) were excluded (see Table 1) from the analysis.</p> <p>Total reflections submitted per student ranged from 9 to 12 and total words ranged from 3459 to 9709 across all reflections submitted (average words per reflection ranged from 288 to 883). The number of constructs evoked per student ranged from 12 to 17 (of 19 constructs) and the number of constructs evoked per reflection ranged from 1.0 to 1.55.</p> <p>The number of codes evoked per reflection was explored (range 4.22–7.55). This ratio provides the <emph>depth</emph> of the reflections with a lower number of codes potentially indicating a more focused reflection (i.e. fewer constructs evoked) and a higher number potentially indicating less focus. The average number of words/code was also analysed and ranged from 50.69 to 122.35.</p> <p>Analyses sought to determine if there were differences in writing ability; correlations between the measures were conducted. Mid-to-high correlations were found between average words and codes per reflection (r = 0.525) and average words and words per code (r = 0.787). When sorted by average word count, two students (#9 and #4) departed from high correlation to words per code that suggests that the more they wrote per reflection (based on average word count), the more codes (constructs) tended to be evoked.</p> <p>The next preliminary analysis explored the effect prompt perspective had on constructs evoked in the reflections. To explore this, the prompts were categorised into two types: six objective/evaluative and 13 subjective/introspective (Table 3). While some constructs show large changes, no pattern emerged that could be attributed to the perspective of the prompt.</p> <p>Table 3. Average number of codes per construct by objective and subjective prompts, sorted by means of pre-post change.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Construct</td><td>Pre-Post Increase</td><td>Pre-Sub (3)</td><td>Pre-Obj (0)</td><td>Pre-Average (3)</td><td>During-Sub (4)</td><td>During-Obj (5)</td><td>During Average (9)</td><td>Post-Sub (6)</td><td>Post-Obj (1)</td><td>Post Average (6)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Comfort interacting with people with disabilities</td><td>14.86</td><td>8.89</td><td>NA</td><td>8.89</td><td>12.26</td><td>2.67</td><td>6.93</td><td>24.93</td><td>16.67</td><td>23.75</td></tr><tr><td>Developing Connections with Others</td><td>9.34</td><td>37.78</td><td>NA</td><td>37.78</td><td>59.72</td><td>66.67</td><td>63.58</td><td>54.97</td><td>0.00</td><td>47.12</td></tr><tr><td>Macro self other awareness and perspective taking</td><td>7.13</td><td>15.56</td><td>NA</td><td>15.56</td><td>47.16</td><td>78.67</td><td>64.66</td><td>26.47</td><td>0.00</td><td>22.68</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural Competence</td><td>6.77</td><td>0.00</td><td>NA</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.67</td><td>1.48</td><td>7.90</td><td>0.00</td><td>6.77</td></tr><tr><td>Problem Solving</td><td>3.81</td><td>4.44</td><td>NA</td><td>4.44</td><td>17.38</td><td>36.00</td><td>27.72</td><td>9.63</td><td>0.00</td><td>8.25</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism-Human Rights</td><td>0.45</td><td>11.11</td><td>NA</td><td>11.11</td><td>1.79</td><td>1.33</td><td>1.53</td><td>13.49</td><td>0.00</td><td>11.56</td></tr><tr><td>Negative impressions of self-concepts of people with disabilities</td><td>−0.10</td><td>2.22</td><td>NA</td><td>2.22</td><td>1.67</td><td>4.00</td><td>2.96</td><td>2.47</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.12</td></tr><tr><td>Accurate assessment of self and recognition of limits</td><td>−0.72</td><td>26.67</td><td>NA</td><td>26.67</td><td>44.28</td><td>45.33</td><td>44.86</td><td>30.27</td><td>0.00</td><td>25.95</td></tr><tr><td>Community Engagement</td><td>−3.22</td><td>8.89</td><td>NA</td><td>8.89</td><td>12.14</td><td>29.33</td><td>21.69</td><td>6.61</td><td>0.00</td><td>5.67</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Learning</td><td>−7.37</td><td>51.11</td><td>NA</td><td>51.11</td><td>22.38</td><td>13.33</td><td>17.35</td><td>48.25</td><td>16.67</td><td>43.74</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural Misconceptions</td><td>−9.38</td><td>13.33</td><td>NA</td><td>13.33</td><td>10.24</td><td>5.33</td><td>7.51</td><td>4.62</td><td>0.00</td><td>3.96</td></tr><tr><td>Low self-focus (oriented towards others)</td><td>−11.14</td><td>13.33</td><td>NA</td><td>13.33</td><td>3.57</td><td>2.67</td><td>3.07</td><td>2.56</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.20</td></tr><tr><td>Appreciation/recognition of limitations</td><td>−11.32</td><td>40.00</td><td>NA</td><td>40.00</td><td>30.17</td><td>14.67</td><td>21.56</td><td>33.46</td><td>0.00</td><td>28.68</td></tr><tr><td>Career Development</td><td>−11.45</td><td>55.56</td><td>NA</td><td>55.56</td><td>20.85</td><td>10.67</td><td>15.19</td><td>43.12</td><td>50.00</td><td>44.10</td></tr><tr><td>Conditional comfort with people with disabilities</td><td>−13.17</td><td>15.56</td><td>NA</td><td>15.56</td><td>3.33</td><td>2.67</td><td>2.96</td><td>0.00</td><td>16.67</td><td>2.38</td></tr><tr><td>Positive impressions of self-concept of people with disabilities</td><td>−16.19</td><td>17.78</td><td>NA</td><td>17.78</td><td>7.02</td><td>1.33</td><td>3.86</td><td>1.85</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.59</td></tr><tr><td>Ethical Leadership</td><td>−17.04</td><td>22.22</td><td>NA</td><td>22.22</td><td>14.05</td><td>49.33</td><td>33.65</td><td>6.04</td><td>0.00</td><td>5.18</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion Regulation</td><td>−17.39</td><td>20.00</td><td>NA</td><td>20.00</td><td>5.12</td><td>8.00</td><td>6.72</td><td>3.04</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.61</td></tr><tr><td>Motivation</td><td>−49.39</td><td>66.67</td><td>NA</td><td>66.67</td><td>35.04</td><td>33.33</td><td>34.09</td><td>20.16</td><td>0.00</td><td>17.28</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Given that no clear pattern emerged as a result of writing facility or prompt perspective, the remaining analyses explored the frequencies of codes identified in the reflections over time.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-18">Impact of the IL Course on Student Disposition</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170022534-19">Quantitative Effect on Student Dispositions Over Time</hd> <p>The exploration of dispositions across the phases of the study was warranted given that the previous research found certain constructs increased during camp (Jefferson et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]). To explore the effect from this data set, the rate of codes/reflection during each phase (i.e. pre-camp, during camp, and post-camp) was calculated by dividing the total codes by the number of students who responded across all prompts in the phase (pre = 45, during = 131, and post = 82).</p> <p>Table 4 demonstrates the rate of codes (constructs) per reflection across phases of the study sorted by highest value pre-camp. The results found seven constructs increased pre to during camp (i.e. macro self-other awareness and perspective taking, developing connections with others, accurate assessment of self and recognition of limits, ethical leadership, problem-solving, community engagement, and cultural competence). Six constructs increased during to post (i.e. cultural competence, academic learning, career development, appreciation/ recognition of limitations, comfort interacting with people with disabilities, and optimism-human rights) and six increased pre-post (i.e. developing connections with others, comfort interacting with people with disabilities, macro self-other awareness and perspective taking, cultural competence, problem solving, and optimism-human rights). Figure 1 presents the eleven constructs that had increases of more than 1% between the phases.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Mean values of constructs with changes (delta) greater than one percent between phases.</p> <p>Table 4. Percent of codes per reflection across phases of the study, sorted by highest value pre-post.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Construct</td><td>Pre</td><td>During</td><td>Post</td><td>Pre-Post</td><td>Pre-During</td><td>During-Post</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Developing Connections with Others</td><td>37.78</td><td>64.12</td><td>52.44</td><td>14.66</td><td>26.34</td><td>−11.68</td></tr><tr><td>Comfort interacting with people with disabilities</td><td>8.89</td><td>6.87</td><td>20.73</td><td>11.84</td><td>−2.02</td><td>13.86</td></tr><tr><td>Macro self-other awareness and perspective taking</td><td>15.56</td><td>65.65</td><td>24.39</td><td>8.83</td><td>50.09</td><td>−41.26</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural Competence</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.53</td><td>7.32</td><td>7.32</td><td>1.53</td><td>5.79</td></tr><tr><td>Problem Solving</td><td>4.44</td><td>28.24</td><td>9.76</td><td>5.31</td><td>23.80</td><td>−18.49</td></tr><tr><td>Optimism-Human Rights</td><td>11.11</td><td>1.53</td><td>13.41</td><td>2.30</td><td>−9.58</td><td>11.89</td></tr><tr><td>Negative impressions of self-concepts of people with disabilities</td><td>2.22</td><td>3.05</td><td>2.44</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.83</td><td>−0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Accurate assessment of self and recognition of limits</td><td>26.67</td><td>45.04</td><td>26.83</td><td>0.16</td><td>18.37</td><td>−18.21</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Learning</td><td>51.11</td><td>17.56</td><td>48.78</td><td>−2.33</td><td>−33.55</td><td>31.22</td></tr><tr><td>Community Engagement</td><td>8.89</td><td>22.14</td><td>6.10</td><td>−2.79</td><td>13.25</td><td>−16.04</td></tr><tr><td>Appreciation/recognition of limitations</td><td>40.00</td><td>21.37</td><td>32.93</td><td>−7.07</td><td>−18.63</td><td>11.55</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural Misconceptions</td><td>13.33</td><td>7.63</td><td>4.88</td><td>−8.46</td><td>−5.70</td><td>−2.76</td></tr><tr><td>Low self-focus (oriented towards others)</td><td>13.33</td><td>3.05</td><td>2.44</td><td>−10.89</td><td>−10.28</td><td>−0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Career Development</td><td>55.56</td><td>15.27</td><td>43.90</td><td>−11.65</td><td>−40.29</td><td>28.64</td></tr><tr><td>Conditional comfort with people with disabilities</td><td>15.56</td><td>3.05</td><td>1.22</td><td>−14.34</td><td>−12.50</td><td>−1.83</td></tr><tr><td>Ethical Leadership</td><td>22.22</td><td>34.35</td><td>6.10</td><td>−16.12</td><td>12.13</td><td>−28.25</td></tr><tr><td>Positive impressions of self-concept of people with disabilities</td><td>17.78</td><td>3.82</td><td>1.22</td><td>−16.56</td><td>−13.96</td><td>−2.60</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion Regulation</td><td>20.00</td><td>6.87</td><td>2.44</td><td>−17.56</td><td>−13.13</td><td>−4.43</td></tr><tr><td>Motivation</td><td>66.67</td><td>34.35</td><td>15.85</td><td>−50.81</td><td>−32.32</td><td>−18.50</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Subsequent analyses were conducted to examine the frequency of codes over time to explore the effect during camp and long-term maintenance. Specifically, analyses explored: 1) Pre-post effect (i.e. average of all pre-reflections compared to all post reflections); 2) Maintenance 1 effect (i.e. average of all during camp reflections compared to all post reflections; 3) Maintenance 2 effect (i.e. average of all reflections during camp compared to 2019 post), and, 4) Maintenance 3 effect (i.e. average of all 2016 post reflections compared to the 2019 post). Z-scores of the average codes were calculated to compare the four time points. For the absolute pre-post comparison and all maintenance timepoints, comfort with people with disabilities consistently showed a gain of at least 1.5 standard deviations and the two maintenance comparisons were most profound (z = 3.18 and 2.88, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-20">Overarching Themes from Reflection Responses</hd> <p>Further clustering of reflection responses suggests four themes: 1) individual effect (i.e. macro self-other awareness/perspective taking, accurate assessment of self/recognition of limits, appreciation/recognition of limitations), 2) community impact (community engagement, developing connections with others, ethical leadership) 3) content knowledge (academic learning, career development, problem-solving, cultural competence), and, 4) perceptions of people with disabilities (comfort interacting with people with disabilities and optimism-human rights). These four themes are further demonstrated in individual student reflection responses.</p> <p>To begin, one student noted the individual effect in one of her post-camp reflections, 'To say that I learned more [than course content] about myself is an understatement'. She identified how the experience helped confirm her professional goal of working with children with disabilities as a therapeutic horseback riding instructor. In one of her during camp reflections, she further noted how she previously experienced social awkwardness and difficulties working in groups, but how the course helped with 'overcoming [her] fears and pushing boundaries'; and how, as the weeks unfolded, she became more comfortable with individuals who may operate outside of her comfort zone. She further indicated how she developed strategies in conflict resolution to overcome differences and find ways to 'work collectively on the bigger picture' to accomplish the goals for the camp.</p> <p>Understanding of community impact was noted in the youngest student who took the course during her freshmen year. The instructor identified her as reserved, but felt this student brought a fresh and inquisitive attitude to planning and implementation. In one of her during camp reflections, the student reported how the camp encouraged her to 'apply information that I already had in a realistic but controlled environment.' She further noted how, the skills and comfort of interacting with individuals with disabilities 'shouldn't be skills that a select group possess; they should be common knowledge.' She further realised that while her typical preference was to work independently, the IL course helped develop her skills in working in a group to provide the best instruction for the campers. She explicitly noted how she developed competencies in both large and small working groups, as 'pretty amazing – it's a part of life!'</p> <p>One of the teacher education students indicated an increased understanding of content knowledge. The course instructor recalled this student was encouraged to participate in the course by a friend and joined a bit later than the other students. As a result, she took on the individual responsibility of supervising the 'tech van' which involved planning technology-related activities for each of the daily themes. The student's effective planning and the atmosphere created in the tech van made it a favourite place for campers. In one of her post-camp reflections, the student noted how the experience helped her become a more patient person and she felt more comfortable working with children with disabilities in a more understanding, less frustrated way. She stated she felt more equipped about 'how to react to difficulties that may arise. In this course I learned that every student in your classroom may be different and it is important to celebrate their differences ... it changed the way I think – in a positive way.' She also reported (and confirmed in her 2019 post reflection) that she felt that the camp counsellor experience prepared her for teaching in a way that traditional 'lecture' courses could not have.</p> <p>Finally, with regard to perceptions of people with disabilities, one student indicated she was significantly impacted by the camp experience, 'I want to be a teacher who does unique lessons'. The instructor recalled this student was an elementary education major with limited previous experience in working with children with disabilities. The student's comfort was demonstrated in her effectively developing guided lesson plans during camp and the student reflected how this helped her develop confidence deep within. This student began considering additional opportunities to work with people disabilities and one of her post-camp reflections specified she was, 'thankful for this ... rare opportunity. The campers opened my eyes to another world of teaching and without them I would not be considering many other career options for my future.' Another student also noted the importance of increasing her comfort when interacting with individuals with disabilities saying this understanding 'shouldn't be skills that a select group possess; they should be common knowledge.'</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-21">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of the IL course on perceptions and dispositional constructs in college student participants both during and after the camp. The results found the changes in constructs were variable over time. Some were higher pre-camp indicating anticipation (e.g. motivation), as compared to others that were higher during the camp (e.g. macro self-other awareness and perspective taking). This indicates students were impacted by the direct interactions with the children with disabilities during the camp. Yet, other constructs were reported as most impacted post camp (e.g. comfort interacting with people with disabilities) suggesting that as the students gained additional experiences (e.g. first-year teaching) their understanding of the profound impact the IL course expanded.</p> <p>The results also suggest the IL course impacted dispositions and perceptions of undergraduate students beyond those previously identified (Bassette et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]). Authors ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]) identified empathy, self-efficacy, and changes in their beliefs and attitudes as areas that increased <emph>during</emph> camp based on student reflection data. Authors (in-press) also identified ethical leadership and community engagement as areas that increased <emph>post</emph> camp as measured by a survey. The reflection data from this study indicate that during camp, the greatest increase was in macro-self other awareness/perspective taking which is similar to the 2018 increase in empathy. The additional increases in constructs observed during the post reflections indicate the camp also impacted perceptions of disabilities across several areas (e.g. comfort interacting with people with disabilities, optimism-human rights, cultural competence). Notably, changes were observed in participants across majors regardless of the student's anticipated career or future plans to work with people with disabilities.</p> <p>The dispositional changes reported suggest that the direct contact with campers impacted the students' thoughts during the camp, as well as, their behaviour after the camp (e.g. career choice). This was observed by some participants reporting they chose to pursue careers that involved working with people with disabilities, and attributed this decision to the camp experience. For example, in the 2019 follow-up data, one participant indicated she was pursuing a master's degree in special education and another student reported working as a Registered Behaviour Technician. This is significant and suggests that the camp experience not only provided students with insights into systems of injustice but also, subsequently inspired some participants to choose careers in which they could continue to make an impact.</p> <p>Regardless of their career choice, all people will inevitably interact with many others living with disabilities. As such, an appreciation of community inclusion for people with disabilities is needed. It is important to consider the impact undergraduate programs which provide authentic experiences can have on long-term societal attitudes and understanding of disability. Institutions of higher education are in a unique position to facilitate positive attitudes and understanding to increase advocacy for people with disabilities through university experiences (e.g. field experiences, service learning). Such experiences are of critical importance, particularly for students pursuing careers in service-oriented or helping professions. Research has demonstrated that a lack of disability-specific knowledge, ableist mindsets, and discomfort interacting with people with disabilities are known areas of concern (Lam et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]) and may contribute to lower quality care of people with disabilities (Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]). The IL course sought to increase understanding and enhance attitudes by teaching the students to relate to and appreciate the campers as children and individuals first and foremost.</p> <p>These factors are also of particular interest in the field of education, given that previous research suggests pre-service teachers' comfort with students with disabilities may be indicative of inclusive teaching practices (Reeves et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). Indeed, there is a need to identify how to most effectively shape and maintain targeted inclusive teaching practices (Markelz, Riden, & Scheeler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]; Scheeler, Budin, & Markelz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]). The constructs that increased post-camp (e.g. academic learning, comfort with people with disabilities) indicate this experience enabled the teacher education participants to feel more equipped to work with students with disabilities. Results are further corroborated by the current teachers' responses to the 2019 open-ended questions. This is particularly notable, given this course was the only required special education course in the students' elementary education programme; yet, it had a lasting effect on teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-22">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>The use of reflections as the data source for this study presents several limitations. First, the reflections for the course were designed to evoke self-knowledge and awareness of working with children with disabilities while the reflections designed for the research sought to explore the overall effects of the IL experience. It is difficult to ascertain the extent the changes in constructs may have been due to differences in prompts, as well as, the degree that the reflection responses reliably reflect dispositions. Future research which seeks to explore similar types of authentic experiences could incorporate streamlined assessments to address these limitations. First, responses on reflections could be correlated with other dispositional measures to determine reliability. Additionally, future research which includes a sole assessment (e.g. oral interviews only, written reflections with length requirements held constant) would enable a more systematic examination of the impact. Lastly, the video reflections could be streamlined by having the students film themselves during the authentic experiences using their personal cell phones.</p> <p>A second limitation was that during camp, the students were required to complete a reflection prompt at the end of each day. It may be that students experienced fatigue as a result of this requirement and effort may have become automated. This may have resulted in students writing what they thought the instructor required instead of truly reflecting on their thoughts and feelings. Future research which intentionally sets aside time during the authentic experience (e.g. reflection break built in during the camp day) could address potential fatigue and increase consistency of the amount of time participants spend completing reflection activities.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-23">Conclusions</hd> <p>In conclusion, this study provided university students with the opportunity to interact and teach children with disabilities in a fun camp atmosphere. The results suggest a lasting effect on students' beliefs and attitudes across majors. In the 2019 follow-up, the students expressed great appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this IL course, and they reported vast personal and professional growth. Institutes of higher education seeking to address disability education should consider how they can provide similar authentic experiences (e.g. service learning) and how these courses can take place outside traditional lectures by incorporating them within community settings. Future research is needed to explore how university curriculum and authentic experiences can continue to impact social perceptions and dispositions of disability.</p> <hd id="AN0170022534-24">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</p> <ref id="AN0170022534-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Antonak, R. F. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the scale of attitudes toward disabled persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13 (2), 22 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ashton, J. R., & Arlington, H. (2019). My fears were irrational: Transforming conceptions of disability in teacher education through service learning. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 15 (1), 50 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bassette, L.A., & Jefferson, R., Stuve, M. & Mangino, A., (2021). Short-term fun or long-term outcomes? The effects of authentic pedagogy on the dispositional development of college students learning about the educational needs of children with disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals Spring/Summer Online.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. Current Population Reports. Retrieved February 8, 2021, <ulink href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf">http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carlson, W., & Witschey, H. (2018). Undergraduate students' attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: Integrating psychology disability curriculum and service-learning. Teaching of Psychology, 45 (2), 189 – 192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gerdes, K. E., Lietz, C. A., & Segal, E. A. (2011). Measuring empathy in the 21st century: Development of an empathy index rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and social justice. Social Work Research, 35 (2), 83 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gething, L., & Wheeler, B. (1992). The Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale: A new Australian instrument to measure attitudes towards people with disabilities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44 (2), 75 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. §, 1400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Jankowski, P. J., Sandage, S. J., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Differentiation-based models of forgivingness, mental health and social justice commitment: Mediator effects for differentiation of self and humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8 (5), 412 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jefferson, R., Grant, C., Rye, L., Bassette, L.A., Stuve, M., & Heneisen, R. (2018). University students' perceptions of social justice: The impact of implementing a summer camp for children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7 (1), 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klooster, P. M., Dannenberg, J.-W., Taal, E., Burger, G., & Rasker, J. J. (2009). Attitudes towards people with physical or intellectual disabilities: Nursing students and non-nursing peers. Advanced Nursing, 65 (12), 2562 – 2573.. (* indicates article used for codes)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, W. Y., Gunukula, S. K., McGuigan, D., Symons, A. B., Akl, E. A., & Akl, E. A. (2010). Validated instruments used to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability: A systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7 (1), 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2019). Designing university courses to improve pre-service teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of evidence-based inclusive practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (2), 51 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque-Bristol, C., & Richards, K. A. R. (2014). Evaluating civic learning in service-learning programs: Creation and validation of the Public Affairs Scale–Short Survey (PAS-SS). Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20 (3), 413 – 428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 58 (3), 251 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons, M. (1991). Enabling or disabling? Students' attitudes toward persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 (4), 311 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markelz, A., Riden, B., & Scheeler, M. C. (2017). Generalization training in special education teacher preparation: Does it exist? Teacher Education and Special Education, 40 (3), 179 – 193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6 (1), 5 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, T. (2008). Recreation student attitudes towards persons with disabilities: Considerations for future service delivery. The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism, 7 (2), 4 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves, L. M., Giles, R. M., & Johnson, T. (2019). Exploring preservice teachers' perceptions of preparedness to teach students with disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, Spring/Summer Online, 112 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rice, C. J. (2009). Attitudes of undergraduate students toward people with intellectual disabilities: Considerations for future policy makers. College Student Journal, 43 (1), 207 – 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheeler, M. C., Budin, S., & Markelz, A. (2016). The role of teacher preparation in promoting evidence-based practice in schools. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14 (2), 171 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (6), 2164 – 2182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segal, E. A., Wagaman, M. A., & Gerdes, K. E. (2012). Developing the social empathy index: An exploratory factor analysis. Advances in Social Work, 13 (3), 541 – 560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swivl (nd). What is Swivl? Retrieved December 5, 2019, https://<ulink href="http://www.swivl.com/">www.swivl.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Symons, A. B., Fish, R., McGuigan, D., Fox, J., & Akl, E. A. (2012). Development of an. instrument to measure medical students' attitudes toward people with disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50 (3), 251 – 260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, P. S., Weber, J. E., Sleeper, B. R., & Schneider, K. L. (2004). Self-efficacy toward. service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 49 (4), 359 – 369.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Bassette; Ruth Jefferson; Matthew Stuve and Sarah Geiser</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1396646
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of Direct Experiences with Children with Disabilities on Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Dispositions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bassette%2C+Laura%22">Bassette, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jefferson%2C+Ruth%22">Jefferson, Ruth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stuve%2C+Matthew%22">Stuve, Matthew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Geiser%2C+Sarah%22">Geiser, Sarah</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Disability%2C+Development+and+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Disability, Development and Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 70(6):977-993.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Familiarity%22">Familiarity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experience%22">Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Choice%22">Career Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Day+Camp+Programs%22">Day Camp Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consciousness+Raising%22">Consciousness Raising</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1034912X.2021.1944611
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1034-912X<br />1465-346X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of an immersive learning (IL) course in which university students planned, developed, and implemented a 2-week day camp for children with disabilities. To assess perceptions and associated dispositional constructs, university students completed reflection activities before, during, and post camp (immediate, and 3 years after). The results indicate perceptions were impacted both during the IL course and across several timepoints after the completion of course. Comfort interacting with people with disabilities was the primary construct maintained 3-years after the camp, and results indicate the camp experience impacted career choices. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1396646
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1396646
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1034912X.2021.1944611
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 977
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Familiarity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Choice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Day Camp Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Consciousness Raising
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of Direct Experiences with Children with Disabilities on Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Dispositions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bassette, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jefferson, Ruth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stuve, Matthew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Geiser, Sarah
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1034-912X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-346X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 70
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1