Editor’s Page

Welcome to the second issue of The Review of Disability Studies: An International 
Journal.  This issue includes a forum on “Postsecondary Education,” as well as research 
articles from a variety of fields, essays, commentary, and book reviews.  Thank you to all 
of our subscribers for your support and patience as we establish ourselves as a new 
journal!  We realize that the first two issues have been produced rather sporadically, and 
our aim is to produce four issues a year and to establish a regular publication schedule.  
All subscribers will receive four issues (a year’s subscription), regardless of when their 
subscription started. 
If you are not yet a subscriber and are viewing this issue online, note that this is the 
last issue of The Review of Disability Studies that will be available for free online. Our 
next and subsequent issues will require a subscriber password to access the online version 
of the journal (subscribers also receive a print edition).  See the front cover of the journal 
for information about how to subscribe or go to www.rds.hawaii.edu.
A final note, although there are several contributions from authors outside of the 
United States in this issue, our aim is to increase the international flavor of the journal. So 
let your friends and colleagues around the world know about the journal and encourage 
them to submit articles, essays, creative works and commentary.  Submission guidelines 
can be found on the back cover of the journal and are also available at 
www.rds.hawaii.edu.
So please, sit back and enjoy this issue of The Review of Disability Studies.

The Editors

Robert A. Stodden, Megan A. Conway, Steven E. Brown

Upcoming Forums 

Editors Note:  To inquire about submitting to the forums below, please contact the 
Guest Editors for each Forum individually.  If you are interested in being a Guest Editor 
and have ideas for a Forum Topic, please contact the RDS Editors at 
submissions_rds@cds.hawaii.edu or Tel. 808-956-6166.  General guidelines for Forum 
Editors are on the back cover of the Journal.
Fall, 2004:  “Infusing Disability Culture into Education”
Editor:  Megan Conway, mconway@hawaii.edu, Tel. 808-956-6166
Spring, 2005:  “Disability and Travel”
Editor:  Scott Rains, srains@oco.net 
Tel. (408) 267-4751

Forum: Postsecondary Education
Introduction
Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D. 

Leadership within the nation’s business and education communities has long pointed 
to the need for highly educated, skilled workers as the nation seeks to succeed in the 
increasingly competitive global economy.  Postsecondary education has been described 
as, “America’s traditional gateway to the professions, more challenging jobs, and higher 
wages” (U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan, 1998-2002).  Yet, persons with 
disabilities have often experienced limited access to and success in postsecondary 
education programs, resulting in poor employment outcomes.
Unfortunately, insufficient information has existed regarding the availability and use 
of educational supports and how such supports might affect the successful access and 
performance of persons with disabilities within postsecondary educational and 
subsequent employment environments.  The Center on Disability Studies, University of 
Hawaii, in collaboration with the Institute on Community Integration, University of 
Minnesota, Institute on Community Inclusion, Children’s Hospital/University of 
Massachusetts/Boston, Rehabilitation Research & Training Center at Virginia 
Commonwealth University, and the American Association on Higher Education & 
Disabilities (AHEAD), have responded to this critical area of need over the past five 
years with the conduct of a Rehabilitation Research & Training Center (RRTC) focused 
upon educational supports that increase access and improve outcomes for persons with 
disabilities in postsecondary education programs.
The focus of the RRTC has been on the following goals: (1) Examine and evaluate 
the current status of educational supports, including (a) individual academic 
accommodations, (b) adaptive equipment, (c) case management and coordination, (d) 
advocacy, and (e) personal counseling and career advising; (2) Identify effective support 
practices and models of delivery that contribute to successful access, performance, and 
retention/completion of postsecondary programs; (3) Identify specific barriers to the 
provision of disability-related services, including policy and funding requirements; (4) 
Assess effectiveness of promising educational practices and disability-related services 
that are important to career mobility and success in the workplace; (5) Test the 
effectiveness of specific models of delivery that are believed to increase the accessibility 
of educational supports and innovative technologies; (6) Identify the types of educational 
and transitional assistance that postsecondary programs provide to improve educational 
and subsequent labor market success; (7) Provide training, technical assistance, and 
information to educational support personnel, public and private rehabilitation personnel, 
career placement specialists, and students with disabilities based on the findings and 
implications of the proposed research program, and (8) Implement a consumer-driven 
empowerment evaluation plan.
The RRTC research program was based on an inclusive conceptual framework and 
the use of both quantitative and qualitative research designs.  In addition to conducting 
national surveys, participatory action research teams conducted field studies within 
diverse postsecondary educational settings inclusive of all disability types and levels, 
representative of urban, rural, and suburban sites, and varied across ethnic and racial 
populations.  Further, the RRTC used an innovative and integrated training, technical 
assistance, and dissemination model to ensure the application and sustainability of 
research-proven policy and practice.
This forum of papers was developed and peer reviewed for the Review of Disability 
Studies (RDS) and presents a range of findings from studies conducted through the 
RRTC.  These include findings concerning postsecondary support provision in the areas 
of assistive technology, use of natural institutional and family/community supports, and 
the preparation of faculty to be universally prepared to support all students with diverse 
learning and behavior needs.  Several papers focus on those support variables that make a 
contribution to improved performance and academic success within a postsecondary 
setting.  These papers provide an in-depth view of the struggles and successes of persons 
with disabilities within postsecondary education settings.  Other papers focus on the 
value and role of advocacy and self-determination skills for persons with disabilities in 
postsecondary education and employment settings.
Robert A. Stodden is Professor and Director of the Center on Disability Studies and 
the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports at the 
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Teresa Whelley is an Assistant Professor at the Center on Disability Studies and 
Research Coordinator within the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary 
Educational Supports at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Disability-related Simulations:  
If, When, and How to Use Them in Professional Development
Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D. and Tanis Doe, Ph.D. 

Editor’s Note - Tanis Doe passed away in her home in Victoria, British Columbia late 
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 due to a pulmonary embolism.  Doe is survived by her 
daughter, Ann Marie, and a loving community of friends, colleagues, mentees, lovers, 
dance partners and family in every sense of the word. As a Métis (Ojibway/French 
Canadian) Deaf woman with other disabilities who was active in disability, queer, and 
feminist movements internationally, she was widely respected as a disability rights 
advocate and as an educator.
Abstract: Increasing numbers of students with disabilities participate in mainstream pre-
college classes in preparation for higher education. Many educators and administrators 
have limited knowledge about specific accommodations that can facilitate learning for 
students with disabilities. Professional development has the potential to increase their 
knowledge and skills in this area. Simulations of disability experiences, such as 
completing tasks while covering eyes or sitting in a wheelchair, have sometimes been 
used to show learners what it is like to have a disability. This form of training has been 
criticized as inappropriate in the context of emerging paradigms of disability studies, 
which leads to the question: “Is the use of disability-related simulations ever 
appropriate?” In this article, we explore positive and negative aspects of disability-related 
simulations; paradigm shifts regarding approaches to disability studies; implications for 
training educators and administrators, and examples of disability awareness activities that 
maximize positive outcomes.
Key Words: postsecondary, simulations, training, disability awareness
Introduction
Despite the participation of increasing numbers of students with disabilities in 
mainstream pre-college and postsecondary classes, many educators and administrators 
have limited knowledge about legal issues, resources, and specific accommodations that 
can facilitate the learning of these students (Burgstahler, 2002; Burgstahler & Doe, in 
press; Dona & Edmister, 2001; Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle, 1998; National Center 
for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports, 2000a, 2000b; Thompson, Bethea, 
& Turner, 1997).  Effective professional development for faculty and administrators may 
result in increased success for students with disabilities in classroom participation and 
degree completion.
Training for educators and administrators has taken on many forms, including 
lectures, workshops and experiential learning.  For many years, simulations of disability 
experiences, such as completing tasks while covering eyes or sitting in a wheelchair, have 
been used to show adult learners what it is like to have a disability.  However, the use of 
this popular form of training has been criticized as inappropriate in the context of 
emerging paradigms of disability studies (French, 1992; Scullion, 1996).  Is the use of 
disability-related simulations ever appropriate?  In this article, we explore positive and 
negative aspects of disability-related simulations; paradigm shifts regarding approaches 
to disability studies; implications for training educators and administrators; and examples 
of disability awareness activities that maximize positive outcomes. 
Simulation as a Learning Tool
A simulation creates a representation of elements of reality to develop a learning 
activity so participants develop skills, gain knowledge or change their attitude about that 
reality (Duke, 1986; Hertel & Millis, 2002).  Learner-centered and engaging, these 
“problem-based units of learning are set in motion by a particular task, issue, policy, 
crisis, or problem” (Hertel & Millis, p. 18).  During a simulation, participants “carry out 
functions associated with their roles and with the settings in which they find themselves.  
The outcomes of the simulation are not determined by chance or luck.  Instead, 
participants experience consequences that follow from the actions” within the simulation 
(Hertel & Millis, p. 19).  Ideally, the experiences of participants are as realistic as 
possible.
Simulations are often used to help organizations and individuals tackle challenging 
issues more quickly and in less risky ways than in real life experiences (Wenzler & 
Chartier, 1999).  Whether delivered in face-to-face meetings or via computers, 
simulations can provide an engaging learning strategy within academic, organizational 
and business settings (Hunter & Clark, 1977; Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 
1992).  In most simulations participants are given specific roles to play.  Examples of 
simulations include medical education programs that employ computer-based simulations 
for developing surgical techniques and airplane pilots who “fly” maneuvers in simulator 
machines before attempting them in the air.  In the social sciences and humanities, mock 
trials, and games are used to develop critical thinking and practical problem solving skills 
(Karraker, 1993). 
Simulations have been found to stimulate interest in a topic and the desire to learn 
more (Brendemeier & Greenblat, 1981).  They are reputed to change perspectives, 
increase empathy, increase self-awareness, and increase tolerance for ambiguity 
(Brendemeier & Greenblat).  However, a specific simulation experience is not the same 
for every participant.  What any single learner might experience depends on a great 
number of factors the instructor cannot control.  These factors may include the similarity 
between the simulation experience and the participant’s anticipation of the experience, 
and the cognitive styles, previous experiences, and personality types of participants and 
instructors.  Critics of simulations often point to the lack of valid tools to measure 
specific outcomes of these experiences (Remus, 1991).
A second criticism of simulations is that even carefully designed tools that 
measure intended learning may neglect to measure unintended learning, sometimes 
referred to as the hidden curriculum, that is potentially quite negative (Gay, 2000).  For 
example, in simulations dealing with attitudes towards cultural differences, 
ethnocentricity, bias, and phobias can actually be reinforced instead of reduced 
(Bruschke, Gartner, & Sieter, 1993).  An evaluation of an intercultural communications 
simulation called BAFA BAFA (Shirts, 1973) found evidence of a positive change in 
enthusiasm for learning, an intended result, and an increased ethnocentrism, an 
unintended result (Bruschke, Gartner, & Seiter).  The simulated experience triggered 
negative and reactionary attitudes toward other cultures, and did not allow for more 
positive changes that might come from extended interaction across cultures (Bruschke, 
Gartner, & Seiter).  In all types of simulations there is a risk of long-lasting unintended 
negative results.
Models of Disability
Social workers, medical doctors, special education teachers, disabled student service 
administrators, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other professionals have 
historically focused on an individual’s functional limitations and on accommodations 
specific to the individual in certain environments.  Scholars in the field of disability 
studies have termed models, ideologies, paradigms, and theoretical frameworks based on 
this focus as individual, medical, or functional-limitations (Abberley, 1995; Gill, 1987; 
Hahn, 1988; Jones, 1996; Swain & Lawrence, 1994).  In general, individuals who adopt 
this perspective hold a person’s inadequacies responsible for disadvantages that they may 
experience.  The focus of a professional who intervenes is on curing, rehabilitating, and 
accommodating the individual rather than on changing the individual’s environment 
(Hahn, 1988).
In contrast, the social or minority group models of disability, which have gained 
credibility in many fields, argue that disadvantages associated with disabilities are 
primarily imposed by negative attitudes and systemic discrimination that result in system-
wide barriers to information, communication, and the physical environment (Gill, 1987; 
Hahn, 1988; Jones, 1996; Oliver & Barnes, 1998; Swain & Lawrence, 1994).  Proponents 
of these models of disability challenge perspectives that regard disability as simply an 
individual’s medical problem or personal tragedy.  Instead, they view people with 
disabilities as citizens with civil rights to full access to information, education, public 
programs, employment, and transportation.  Similarly, interactional models promote the 
idea that the interaction between the individual and the environment determines if a 
disadvantage exists at all.  For example, inaccessible facilities create barriers for those 
who use wheelchairs for mobility, but with appropriately designed ramps, elevators, and 
physical spaces, the person using a wheelchair is not disadvantaged in this environment 
when compared to non-wheelchair-users.
Individual, social and interactional models are consistent with recent legislation such 
as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which promotes the participation of 
individuals with disabilities in the most inclusive settings possible, but also mandates that 
reasonable accommodations be provided as needed.  This legislation promotes both 
systemic change and individual accommodation.
In educational environments, different models of disability play out in the contrast 
between providing accommodations and implementing universal design.  Individual or 
functional limitations models are most prevalent in postsecondary education where the 
disability services counselor recommends specific adjustments to the learning 
environment for a particular student.  Typical accommodations provided by the 
institution to an individual student with a disability include the provision of extended 
time on tests, printed materials in alternate formats (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic), 
sign language interpreters, and assistive technology.  They all center on the limitations 
and needs of the individual student that result from his/her specific disability in 
relationship to a given learning activity, program, or service.  In inaccessible situations, 
the student with a disability may provide his/her own accommodations as well, such as 
selecting courses in accessible classrooms, using assistive technology, and allocating 
extended time to complete reading assignments. 
In contrast, proponents of social and interactional models of disability and of 
universal design suggest instructors and service providers consider diverse characteristics 
of potential students as they develop their curriculum, information resources, physical 
environment, programs and services, rather than wait until a student with a disability 
enrolls in a course or expresses an interest in participating in a program or entering a 
facility.  They should consider the many characteristics of potential participants and make 
design decisions that produce environments and resources accessible to individuals with a 
broad range of abilities, disabilities, interests, and other characteristics (Bar & Galluzzo, 
1999; Burgstahler, 2001; Universal design for learning, 2003; What is universal design, 
2003).  For example, if instructors provide all course materials on a website that employs 
universal design principles, their course materials will be accessible to almost anyone.  
Hence, a student who is blind and uses speech output technology will not need to request 
accommodations.  As another example, a student who requires extra time on tests in 
many classes, may not need an accommodation in a course where the instructor gives 
take-home tests, in part, to address the variety of speeds at which his students complete 
their tasks.  Employment of universal design principles thus reduces, but does not 
eliminate the need for “individualized” disability-related accommodations.  For example, 
it is not reasonable to have a sign language interpreter in every class, but it is appropriate 
to provide interpreters in a class where a student who is deaf needs this particular 
accommodation. 
Disability-Related Simulations
Some scholars and practitioners, including the authors of this paper, believe that in 
order to maximize the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in all life activities, (a) 
society must create accessible environments, (b) individuals with disabilities must 
develop strategies for dealing with functional limitations imposed by their disabilities, 
and (c) program and service staff must provide reasonable accommodations for people 
with disabilities.  They warn that disability-related simulations as often practiced (a) 
promote functional limitations models of disability, but ignore social and interactional 
models of disability, (b) develop a sensitivity to functional limitations but do not provide 
an awareness of accommodations that, in some cases after a learning period, increase 
functionality over time, and (c) ignore altogether the impact of developing a more 
inclusive environment through employment of universal design principles.  Simulations, 
as often used in disability awareness training, involve “trying on” a physical, sensory, or 
cognitive impairment for a limited amount of time, and are sometimes followed by a 
discussion to explore what is learned (French, 1992; Scullion, 1999).  Examples of these 
activities include nurses getting into wheelchairs to “see how it feels” (Scullion), 
architects with blindfolds navigating through buildings, and educators being assigned 
disabilities and asked to perform academic tasks like completing a test, performing a lab 
activity, or taking notes (Semple, Vargo, & Vargo, 1980). 
The popularity of disability-related simulations may be due, in part, to how these 
often lively, entertaining activities engage learners (Clore & Jeffery, 1972; French, 1994).  
Simulations can create discourses about people with disabilities and social reactions to 
disability (Kiger, 1992).  However, outcomes might also be detrimental.  In actuality, 
most disability-related simulations are designed to result in negative feelings.  By 
disabling participants and simulating problematic experiences, given their new 
limitations (Clore & Jeffery, 1972; French, 1992), participants learn how difficult it is to 
maneuver a wheelchair, how frustrating it is to be unable to hear or read, how frightening 
it is to be visually impaired, or how impossible it is to participate in activities without the 
use of their hands.  They focus on what people with disabilities cannot do rather than on 
what they could do with appropriate access, technology, or skills.  Critics of these types 
of simulations do not deny there are some difficulties associated with living with 
disabilities.  However, they object to simulations that represent only a negative 
experience rather than a whole, contextual one. 
Disability-related simulations, as typically practiced, do not do a good job of 
“simulating” the disability experience at all.  They neither examine the reality of 
disability nor show how to resolve disadvantages experienced in society (Wilson & 
Acorn, 1979).  Because a participant’s “impairment” is for a short period of time, there is 
no chance for the learner to truly experience real physical limitations, chronic pain or 
cognitive limitations.  More importantly, there is no opportunity for a participant to learn 
strategies to succeed, given the limitations imposed by disability and society.  A person 
who is blind for 30 minutes will be disoriented.  Someone living as a blind adult is able to 
navigate in familiar situations and even unfamiliar settings after receiving appropriate 
training.  Likewise, pretending to be hearing impaired for ten minutes does not allow time 
for acquiring lip-reading or sign language skills.  Sitting in a wheelchair for twenty 
minutes does not allow time to develop the upper arm strength necessary to operate a 
wheelchair efficiently.  If the content of the simulation is not a true representation of a 
given reality, then that simulated experience cannot be expected to allow participants to 
gain insight into that reality. 
Criticisms of disability simulations reach far beyond the limitations of actually 
simulating a “real” disability.  Critics argue that in showing people the negative and 
difficult experiences of disability in such a way, simulations reinforce individual and 
medical models of disability.  “By reproducing the frustrations of being deprived of sight, 
hearing, or mobility without the training and socialization that minimize these problems, 
these exercises [it is argued by critics] reinforce harmful attitudes about disability and 
disabled people” (Pfeiffer, 1989, p. 53).  The experience may reinforce a belief that 
people with disabilities cannot do basic things such as travel independently, work, or 
attend school (French, 1992), and that having a disability is a state worse than death 
(Richardson, 1990).  Rather than dismantling stereotypes, such simulations may reinforce 
these myths as well as feelings of sympathy for people with disabilities.  Participants in 
disability-related simulations may even become frightened by the experience.  This 
limitation of the simulation experience can have undesirable consequences.  For example, 
through a simulation, a faculty member may learn about the challenges faced by a person 
who uses a wheelchair for mobility, but that faculty member might also conclude that a 
disability is so intolerable and limiting that s/he might subsequently become less willing 
to recommend students with this type of disability for a position in their field.
Another limitation of typical simulations is that focusing only on the disability of the 
individual does not point to the ways the design of the environment discriminates against 
people with a wide range of differences (Donaldson, 1980; Siperstein & Bak, 1980).  
This approach “neglects the significance of the built environment, social policies and 
what some consider to be institutionalized ‘disablism’.”  Inasmuch as the focus of 
simulations remains at an individual level, political and social structures are not 
implicated as possible contributing causes of disability” (Scullion 1996, p. 501).  For 
example, simulating the “view” of a web page using a text-to-speech system can 
demonstrate challenges faced by people who are blind.  If the simulation ends without 
discussing how web pages can be designed to be accessible to visitors who are visually 
impaired, participants could be left with the notion the disability causes lack of access.  
This outcome is consistent with the individual or medical model of disability. Instead, 
proponents of social and interactional models and of universal design point out the web 
page designer, not the disability, created barriers through poor, inaccessible design.  If 
universal design principles were employed when the web page was being developed, a 
visually impaired visitor can experience the full benefit of the content.  This analysis of 
the construction of the problem as well as of the solution is more consistent with 
emerging social and interactional models of disability.
A Successful Simulation
One example of a simulation experience judged successful by the instructor 
incorporated sustained contact between students and the instructor, who is a wheelchair 
user.  This management professor used a simulation with his students and reported the 
results of the exercise over a four-year period by conducting a content analysis of student 
journal entries.  The purpose of the exercise was to help students to understand the 
stigmatization of people with disabilities rather than understand disability itself.  One 
student at a time volunteered to simulate having a mobility impairment by sitting in a 
wheelchair.  The rest of the learners observed how the university community responded 
to that person. 
Students took turns in the wheelchair while conducting basic tasks such as entering 
buildings, eating in the cafeteria, and using the elevators.  The person sitting in the 
wheelchair discussed the experience with the group, and the class shared what they 
observed.  An extensive analysis of student journal entries concluded the exercise 
succeeded in improving attitudes about disability.  Specifically, participants learned 
people tended to act in patronizing and demoralizing ways towards people in 
wheelchairs, and expected that a wheelchair user could not independently perform tasks.  
For example, student observers in the class were criticized by students not in the class for 
not “helping” the student in the wheelchair.  Through these simulation experiences, 
students were able to identify stereotypes and myths they held, learn basic facts about 
disability, and form realistic perspectives on how people with disabilities are treated as a 
result of societal attitudes, not as a result of the condition itself (Pfeiffer, 1989).
Guidelines for Creating Effective Simulations
While some scholars argue that simulations of disability should never be used 
(Finkelstein, 1991; French, 1992), we feel carefully designed simulations are effective 
learning tools in specific situations.  Well-designed simulations also reduce potential 
negative consequences, while they ensure participants explore accommodation strategies, 
as well as the design of resources and environments that minimize barriers for people 
with disabilities.  Based on a review of the literature and the experiences of the authors, 
the following suggestions are offered to those who wish to use simulations that maximize 
positive outcomes for educators and administrators. 
State Objectives Clearly 
Make it clear to participants at the beginning of the activity what they will do and 
what they are expected to learn.  “Unless the simulation is prefaced with a clear 
discussion of why we are doing this and what we hope to learn and is followed by a 
conscientious debriefing about critical thinking processes and values, norms and social 
change, the simulation has merely served as recreation” (Karraker, 1993, p. 136). 
Ensure Voluntary Participation
Allowing people to decline participation eliminates reluctant or resentful 
participation, maximizes positive outcomes, and creates a sense of safety and trust.  
Those who choose not to participate may learn just as much from observing the 
experiences of others and critiquing the simulation activity.
Illustrate Challenges and Solutions Related to Both the System and the Individual
Avoid focusing exclusively on challenges imposed on individuals by a disability, and 
avoid comparing one disability experience to another in ways that devalue people.  In 
particular, avoid activities that lead to conclusions such as “this disability is far worse 
than that one,” or “I could never live with X, but I could handle Y.”  Use concrete 
examples to illustrate both barriers and strategies for overcoming barriers for people with 
disabilities (Westwood, Vargo, & Vargo, 1981).  Some strategies should highlight 
solutions employed by an individual (e.g., the student’s use of assistive technology to 
access a computer); others can show solutions implemented by other individuals (e.g., 
accessible Web page design).  Make sure when participants learn about the disability 
experience they learn how people with disabilities cope with inaccessible environments 
and negative societal attitudes through advocacy, technology and interpersonal skills. 
Demonstrate the Value of Universal Design
Simulations and debriefing discussions should examine the way in which a well-
designed environment or activity can maximize access for everyone and minimize the 
need for individual accommodations.  A simulation can be used as an opportunity to 
share information about how civil rights legislation, accessible design of technology and 
facilities, and inclusive social practices empower people and ensure equal opportunity.  
“[Administrators], teachers, and curriculum planners should examine learning outcomes 
closely and consider their role in tackling discrimination…” (French, 1992, p. 263). 

Include Consumers in Planning and, When Possible, Delivery of the Simulation
Consult people with disabilities when developing simulations and, when possible, 
involve them in the delivery, debriefing, and evaluation of simulation activities (Scullion, 
1999).  By interacting with people with disabilities, learners may realize some of their 
own assumptions about people with disabilities are not based in reality and that people 
with disabilities are more similar than they are dissimilar to people without disabilities.  
By hearing from someone who has experience in being disabled, being discriminated 
against, and developing coping mechanisms, the learner may be able to understand some 
of challenges faced by people with disabilities and, more importantly, how these 
challenges may be successfully addressed.  While a training activity involving a person 
with a disability is not as valuable as long-term contact, it can initiate a consciousness 
shift for people previously unfamiliar with disability issues (Biordi & Ooermann, 1993).  
However, when a person with a disability participates in a training activity, it should be 
made clear that one person cannot represent the views and experiences of all people with 
the same type of disability, and certainly cannot represent people with all types of 
disabilities.

Support Positive Attitude Change
Even though it can be awkward, participants should be encouraged to bring up 
personal beliefs or assumptions, even if negative, without fear of negative repercussions.  
Such disclosures can help all participants learn what underlying thoughts often inform 
discriminatory or exclusionary practices.  Personal disclosure of changed attitudes 
provides a good role model to participants.  Even for leaders who themselves have 
disabilities, it is useful to explain how their previous attitudes might have been dis-
empowering.  Some may be able to share their changed attitudes about people with types 
of disabilities other than their own.  Training facilitators should point out that with 
changes to legislation, knowledge, and design, new perceptions about disability could 
emerge.  Learners should leave with both knowledge and attitudes that support the rights 
of people with disabilities to participate in society.  Presenters should be prepared to 
recognize and handle situations where a simulated disability experience convinces faculty 
that students with disabilities are not suited to participation in postsecondary programs 
and careers in their field; when this situation occurs, potential universal design 
considerations and accommodations should be discussed as well as the essential functions 
of specific careers within a field of study. 
Debrief Thoroughly and Reflectively Acknowledge Discomfort.
An important part of successful simulation activities is a full and meaningful 
debriefing to disengage participants from what is sometimes an emotional experience, as 
well as to sort out what was learned (Jones, 1995; Livingston & Kidder, 1993).  During 
debriefing, participants can discuss what they felt and experienced and then reframe new 
knowledge and attitudes within the context of intended outcomes, perhaps replacing old 
attitudes and understandings with new.  If faculty participants have unanswered 
questions, fears, and technical difficulties from simulations, they may deal with them in 
the debriefing instead of carrying them to the classroom.  “Some people find the 
discovery process painful, which is an experience common to all forms of equality 
training.  This is to be expected when exposing societal oppression and the part an 
individual participant could have unconsciously played in it” (London Boroughs 
Disability Resource Team, 1991).  Trainers should acknowledge that learning about 
disability and difference can be uncomfortable.  Allowing for written responses as well as 
discussion in small groups and with a larger group may ensure that each person has a 
chance to reflect on what happened in the simulation, and on what was learned from it. 
Examples of Disability Awareness Activities that Maximize Positive and Minimize 
Negative Outcomes
The following two examples of simulations maximize the positive and minimize the 
negative outcomes for participants regarding attitudes and knowledge about disabilities. 
Example One: Simulation of Computer and Web Access for Students who are Blind
Objective. To increase knowledge of assistive technology and accessible Web design 
for people who are blind.
Activity. Turning off the graphics-loading feature of your Web browser can simulate 
the experiences of students who are blind accessing a website, since their speech output 
systems read only the content presented as text on the screen. Instruct participants to 
access websites understandable (e.g., universally designed) in this mode and also those 
that are not.  Then have participants access the same sites with the graphics-loading 
feature of their Web browser turned on. 
Debriefing. Discuss the experiences of participants in the activity.  They should be 
encouraged to share how, in the inaccessible site, key content could not be accessed when 
the graphics-loading function of their Web browser was turned off, and how gaining 
content from the accessible site in this mode was not difficult.  Explain that their 
experiences were similar to those of individuals who are blind and using text-to-speech 
technology that can only access text–based elements of a website.  Pointing out that the 
accessible site is a demonstration of universal design, ask how the universal design of a 
site can benefit people who are not blind (e.g., those using slower, older technology).  If 
possible, have a student who is blind and uses text-to-speech technology and who is not a 
student of any of the participants demonstrate how he/she can listen to a synthesized 
voice as it reads text content on the screen.  The student should use the system to read the 
content of the same websites that the participants accessed to show, with speech output, 
how easy it is to gain content from an accessible site and how some content at an 
inaccessible website is not available to a visitor who is blind.  Encourage participants to 
ask questions about the assistive technology as well as about the design characteristics of 
an accessible website.  Alternatives such as Braille output can be discussed as well as the 
application of text-to-speech technology for people with other types of disabilities (e.g., 
specific learning disabilities). 
Example Two: Simulation of Hearing Loss 
Objective. To increase faculty knowledge about the impact of hearing impairments on 
learning and their ability and willingness to incorporate instructional approaches that 
maximize access to learning for students who are hearing impaired. 
Activity. Have participants listen to a tape-recorded mock spelling test and write down 
the words they hear.  On the tape, common words are altered in volume and clarity to 
represent three types of hearing loss and amplification.  One level represents a high 
frequency loss; some consonants are missing or made difficult to hear.  Another level 
represents a conductive loss where all sounds are reduced in amplification, but somewhat 
detectable.  The third level simulates how sound might be perceived through a hearing 
aid that amplifies (and distorts).  When the spelling test is complete, present the correct 
answers on an overhead projection system or whiteboard, demonstrating how someone 
with a hearing impairment may misunderstand spoken words, but have access to them in 
an alternate, visual format. 
Debriefing. The discussion that follows should deal with frustrations associated with 
straining to hear, and getting wrong answers.  Address the need for good acoustics, 
amplification suited to the individual, and alternative forms of communication (e.g., lip 
reading, printed documents, and electronic mail).  Some specific information about lip-
reading, captioning, and technical aids could also be discussed.  Participants should be 
able to ask questions about the mechanics of hearing, but the discussion should be 
directed at what can be done in a class to ensure a student who has a hearing loss is fully 
included and has an equal opportunity for success compared to students with hearing 
abilities within the typical range.  The invisible nature of being hearing impaired should 
also be incorporated to reveal how faculty members might react if they think a student is 
not paying attention, when the issue is a hearing loss.  If individuals who are hearing 
impaired are involved in delivering this training exercise, they could share how they learn 
best, alternative methods of accommodation, and answers to questions.

Conclusion
Negative outcomes from the use of poorly designed simulations include unintended 
attitudinal shifts, increased anxiety about working with individuals with disabilities, and 
misunderstandings about disability experiences.  However, with appropriate designs, 
careful facilitation, open discussion, and involvement of people with disabilities, negative 
consequences of simulations can be avoided.  Appropriate use of simulations and other 
exercises can demonstrate the relationships between the environment and individuals 
with a variety of characteristics, and can show how universal design and appropriate 
accommodations can enable and empower people with disabilities.
Dr. Sheryl Burgstahler directs project DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, 
Internetworking and Technology) at the University of Washington.  DO-IT promotes the 
success of students with disabilities in postsecondary programs and careers.  DO-IT 
employs technology to help young people with disabilities achieve success in 
postsecondary education and careers.  It sponsors programs that increase the use of 
assistive technology and promote the development of accessible facilities, computer labs, 
electronic resources in libraries, Web pages, educational multi-media and Internet-based 
distance learning programs. 
Dr. Tanis Doe is a trained sociologist who works in education and advocacy with and 
for people with a range of disabilities.  She acts as an external evaluator and research 
consult for several DO-IT projects at the University of Washington.  Her Ph.D. is from 
University of Alberta in Sociology of Education and she completed a Fulbright session at 
the University of Washington School of Public Health.  She was also the director of the 
NIDRR funded Research and Training Center for Independent Living and Disability 
Policy in Oakland California.  In her spare time she performs wheelchair ballroom 
dancing.

References
Abberley, P. (1995). Disabling ideology in health and welfare: The case of occupational 
therapy. Disability and Society, 10, 221-232.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 327. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from: 
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/statute.html
Bar, L., & Galluzzo, J. (1999). The accessible school: Universal design for educational 
settings. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Biordi, B., & Ooermann, M. H. (1993). The effects of prior experience in a rehabilitation 
setting on students attitudes towards the disabled. Rehabilitation nursing, 18, 95-
98.
Brendemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of 
simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation and gaming, 12, 307-332.
Bruschke, J., Gartner, C., & Seiter, J. (1993, March). Student ethnocentrism, dogmatism 
and motivation: Study of BAFA BAFA. Simulation & gaming, 23, 9-15. 
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional 
development needs of faculty. To improve the Academy: Resources for faculty, 
instructional, and organizational development, 21, 181-183.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal design of instruction. Seattle, WA: DO-IT, University 
of Washington. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from 
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html
Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (in press). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students 
with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of 
postsecondary education and disability.
Clore, G. L., & Jeffery, K. M. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change and 
attraction toward a disabled person. Journal of personality and social psychology, 
23, 105-111.
Dona, J., & Edmister, J. H. (2001). An examination of community college faculty 
members’ knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at the fifteen 
community colleges in Mississippi. Journal of postsecondary education and 
disability, 14(2), 91-103.
Donaldson, J. (1980). Changing attitudes toward handicapped persons: A review of the 
literature. Exceptional children, 46, 504-545.
Duke, E. S. (1986). A taxonomy of games and simulations for nursing education. Journal 
of nursing education, 25, 197-207.
Finkelstein, V. (1991). Disability: An administrative challenge, the health and welfare 
heritage. In M. Oliver (Ed.), Social work, disabled people and disabling 
environments (pp. 63-77). London: Jessica Kingsley.
French, S. (1992). Simulation exercises in disability awareness training: A critique. 
Disability, handicap and society, 7, 257-266. 
French, S. (Ed.). (1994). On equal terms: Working with disabled people.  Oxford: 
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New 
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gill, C. J. (1987). A new social perspective on disability and its implications for 
rehabilitation. In F. S. Cromwell (Ed.), Sociocultural implications in treatment 
planning in occupational therapy (pp. 49-55). New York: The Haworth Press.
Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. 
Journal of social issues, 44(1), 39-47.
Hertel, J. P., & Millis, B. J. (2002). Using simulations to promote learning in higher 
education. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Hunter, M., & Clark, R. E. (1977, July). Simulation/gaming research. Educational 
technology, 17, 44-46.
Jones, K. (1995). Simulations: A handbook for teachers and trainers (3rd ed). London: 
Kegan Page.
Jones, S. R. (1996). Toward inclusive theory: Disability as social construction. NASPA 
journal, 33, 347-354.
Karraker, M. (1993). Mock trials and critical thinking. College teaching, 41(4), 134-136.
Kiger, G. (1992). Disability simulations: Logical, methodological and ethical issues. 
Disability, handicap and society, 7(1), 71-78.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices 
regarding students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 
504. Journal of postsecondary education and disability, 13(3), 5-19.
Livingston, S. A., & Kidder, S. J. (1993). Role identification and game structure: Effects 
on political attitudes. Simulation & gaming, 4, 131-144.
London Boroughs disability resource team. (1991). Disability equality training materials 
guide. London: CCETSW.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). 
(2000a). National survey of educational support provision to students with 
disabilities in postsecondary education settings. Honolulu, HI: University of 
Hawaii at Manoa.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). 
(2000b). Postsecondary education and employment for students with disabilities: 
Focus group discussions on supports and barriers in lifelong learning. Honolulu, 
HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Oliver, M., & Barnes. C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to 
inclusion. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Pfeiffer, D. (1989). Disability simulation using a wheelchair exercise. Journal of 
postsecondary education and disability, 7(2), 53-60. 
Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games 
for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation and gaming, 
23(3), 261-276. 
Remus, W. (1991). Experimental designs for analyzing data on games. Simulation and 
gaming, 12, 3-14.
Richardson, M. (1990). Disabled for a day. Nursing times, 86, 66-8. 
Scullion, P. (1996). Quasidisability experiences using simulation. British journal of 
therapy and rehabilitation, 4, 292-293.
Scullion, P. (1999). Conceptualizing disability in nursing: Some evidence from students 
and their teachers. Journal of advanced nursing, 29, 648-657.
Semple, J. E., Vargo, J. W., & Vargo, F. A. (1980). Disability simulation and its effect on 
changing the attitudes of physical therapy students towards disabled persons: 
Some preliminary experimental results. New Zealand journal of physiotherapy, 
8(2), 6-8.
Shirts, R. G. (1973). BAFA BAFA. Lajolla, CA: Simile II.
Siperstein, G., & Bak, J. (1980). Improving children’s attitudes toward blind peers. 
Journal of visual impairment and blindness, 56, 132-135.
Swain, J., & Lawrence, P. (1994). Learning about disability: Changing attitudes or 
challenging understanding? In S. French (Ed.), On equal terms: Working with 
disabled people (pp. 87-102). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. 
Thompson, A., Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in 
high education: A survey. Rehabilitation counseling bulletin, 40, 166-180.
Universal design for learning. (2003). Retrieved May 1, 2004, from the Center for 
Applied Special Technology web site: http://www.cast.org/udl/
Wenzler, I., & Chartier, D. (1999). Why do we bother with games and simulations: An 
organizational learning perspective. Simulation and gaming, 30, 375-84.
Westwood, M. J., Vargo, J. W., & Vargo, F. (1981). Methods for promoting attitude 
change towards and among disabled persons. Journal of applied rehabilitation 
counseling, 12, 220-225.
What is universal design? (2003). Retrieved May 1, 2004, from the National Center for 
Universal Design web site: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/ud.htm 
Wilson, E. D., & Acorn. D. (1979). Disability simulation and development of attitudes 
toward the exceptional. Journal of special education, 33, 303-7. 
Acknowledgement
This article is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant 
# 9800324) and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education 
(grant #P33A990042 and grant #P333A020044).  Any opinions, findings, and 
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the federal government. 

Improving Implicit Beliefs and Expectations in Academic Achievement 
for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities
Kelly B.T. Chang, Ph.D. Candidate 

Abstract: In this article, the author introduces the sociocognitive theory of implicit 
theories of intelligence (developed by Carol S. Dweck and her colleagues) to the field of 
rehabilitation, and analyzes disability issues in postsecondary academic achievement 
within this framework.  This sociocognitive theory highlights the utility of the social 
model of disability.  People hold two types of implicit beliefs about intelligence.  An 
entity belief can lead to helplessness and negative self-concepts in the face of failure, 
because it focuses on labels and stable traits.  An incremental belief leads to greater 
resilience in the face of failure by focusing on strategy and effort rather than on stable 
traits.  The value of promoting incremental beliefs about intelligence in youth with 
disabilities is discussed in light of self-determination training, perception of opportunity, 
and transition to postsecondary education.  Recommendations are presented for 
facilitating incremental beliefs in students with disabilities and improving the probability 
of academic success.
Key Words:  motivation, academic achievement, students with disabilities, implicit 
beliefs
Introduction
 Attitudinal barriers may disable people by limiting their opportunities to improve.  
Students with disabilities face low expectations for academic achievement (Berliner & 
Biddle, 1996; HEATH Resource Center, 1991; Kerka, 2002; National Council on 
Disability, 2000; R. A. Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003), and therefore are less likely 
to persevere through challenges, and less likely to succeed (Berliner & Biddle, 1996; R. 
A. Stodden et al., 2003).  Attitudes of others affect how students see themselves and what 
they expect to achieve.  Students with disabilities learn to comprehend their situations 
and abilities through feedback.  Their interpretations of this feedback may affect how 
hard they try and how well they do.  In this process, attitudes students with disabilities 
face can either inhibit or encourage academic achievement.
There is no doubt students with disabilities are at greater risk of lower academic 
achievement than their peers without disabilities.  One study found 22% of students with 
disabilities drop out of high school, compared to 12% of students without disabilities 
(Benz & Halpern, 1987).  Youth with disabilities also attend postsecondary schools at 
lower rates than do those without disabilities.  In a national longitudinal study, 19% of 
students with disabilities who graduated from high school went on to postsecondary 
education, compared to 53% of youth in the general population (Wagner & Blackorby, 
1996).  Of these, only 16% of students with disabilities who start postsecondary 
education finish with a bachelor’s degree, compared to 27% of students without 
disabilities (U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics, 
1999).  Achieving a postsecondary degree is important because the relationship between 
higher education attainment and positive employment outcomes is even stronger for 
people with disabilities than for people without disabilities.  The more education they 
have, the more likely they are to be employed, especially in their chosen profession, and 
to earn higher wages (Hoyt, 2001, October; Ladders of Opportunity, 2001).
 Changes in laws and the accommodation process from secondary to postsecondary 
school (Stodden, Jones, & Chang, 2002), attitudes of faculty and other students (Conway 
& Chang, 2003), and lack of resources and resource coordination (Whelley, Hart, & 
Zafft, 2002), as well as effects of disability on everyday postsecondary educational 
frustrations, all present barriers and challenges to students with disabilities.  To succeed 
in postsecondary education, and in subsequent employment, students must overcome and 
persevere through these barriers.  Therefore, it is important that educators, service 
providers, and families of students with disabilities become aware of the motivational 
factors that influence perseverance and success in postsecondary education.  Motivational 
factors play a key role in the completion of a degree, subsequent employment, career 
longevity and advancement. 
In mainstream American society, where individual resolve and resilience are often 
necessary for success and pursuit of the “American Dream,” how do environmental and 
attitudinal barriers influence people’s self-concepts and motivation?  Do students with 
disabilities internalize outside barriers and give up?  How can they be helped to persevere 
in the face of such obstacles?  Psychological research on motivation may provide some 
answers.  In particular, research on resilience and perseverance in the face of failures, 
such as the work of Carol S. Dweck (1999) and her colleagues, point to several aspects of 
motivation to consider in efforts to improve students’ chances of academic achievement 
and subsequent employment.  The purposes of this article are to (a) describe Dweck’s 
theory of implicit beliefs about intelligence and how these beliefs influence academic 
persistence and achievement and (b) apply this theory to issues affecting students with 
disabilities, such as self-determination, perception of opportunity, and transition into 
postsecondary education.
The Role of Student Expectations of Intelligence and Effort on Achievement:  
Implicit Beliefs About Intelligence
Psychological research may be useful when considering how to improve 
postsecondary outcomes.  However, this wealth of knowledge about student motivation 
and perseverance appears untapped in much of the literature on disability issues.  The 
author’s goal is to apply important motivational concepts to the real world situations of 
postsecondary students with disabilities.  Dweck’s theory on the processes underlying 
persistence in performing difficult tasks is highlighted below, followed by an application 
to challenges faced by students with disabilities when they transition into postsecondary 
education.
People tend to view intelligence implicitly in two different ways, as established and 
validated by Carol Dweck and her colleagues (Bandura & Dweck, 1985; Dweck & 
Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Mueller & Dweck, 
1998).  People with entity beliefs think intelligence is fixed.  Therefore, they believe that 
one’s level of intelligence is sustained over time, and that effort will not improve 
intelligence.  People with entity beliefs tend to avoid challenges, because the risk of 
failure poses a threat to their perceived level of intelligence.  In contrast, people with 
incremental beliefs think intelligence is malleable and that, with effort, intelligence can 
improve through practice.  People with incremental beliefs tend to welcome challenges 
and perceive failure as part of the growing process.  Both entity and incremental beliefs 
about intelligence have been demonstrated in elementary school students (Zietgert, 
Kistner, Castro, & Robertson, 2001), college students (Robins & Pals, 2002), and adults 
(Lim, Plucker, & Im, 2002), and in different ethnicities (Billings, 1999) and different 
countries (Lim et al., 2002; Silvera, Moe, & Iversen, 2000).  Implicit beliefs about 
intelligence have been measured in different ways, depending on the population under 
study.  A common method for measuring beliefs in adults is a questionnaire asking 
people to rate their agreement with statements like “you have a certain amount of 
intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it” (entity belief), or “you can 
change even your basic intelligence level considerably” (incremental belief).
Work on implicit beliefs about intelligence stemmed from observations of how 
people react to failure.  “Failure” is usually represented in these studies by receiving a 
low score on a test, receiving feedback that performance on a task was poor, or 
hypothetical vignettes.  Dweck and her colleagues (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; 
Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) described two distinct reactions to failure: the 
helpless response and the mastery-oriented response.  Helpless responses include a sense 
of lack of control, self-degradation of intelligence, lower expectations, lower 
performance, and giving up.  Helpless responders tend to attribute failure to their level of 
intelligence.  People with the entity perspective often exhibit helpless responses to 
failure.  In contrast, people with the incremental perspective often exhibit mastery-
oriented responses to failure.  A mastery-oriented response includes problem-solving for 
improvement, and focusing on trying harder, rather than on attributing blame for failure.  
In Zhao, Dweck, & Mueller’s study (1998) comparing responses to failure between 
people with incremental beliefs, people with entity beliefs, and students who expressed 
depressive symptoms, college students were presented with hypothetical vignettes of 
failure, including failure on the Graduate Record Exam or in a class presentation.  These 
students were then asked what they would think, how they would feel, and what they 
would do.  Students with the entity perspective responded in exactly the same way as 
depressed students, and both groups were significantly different from students with the 
incremental perspective.  People with entity beliefs and depressed students were more 
likely to make judgments of their entire intelligence on the basis of failure, saying things 
like, “I would think I was dumb.”  These two groups were also more likely to say they 
would be devastated and feel worthless and hopeless.  Finally, they were more likely to 
report they would quit.  In contrast, students with the incremental perspective talked 
about their strategies to turn failure into success or to increase effort.
Dweck and her colleagues also proposed the two different responses to failure are a 
result of different goals students emphasize when approaching a task.  Again, two distinct 
types were identified; performance goals and learning goals (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; 
Elliot & Dweck, 1988).  While both types are natural and can coexist, they sometimes 
conflict when students face decisions regarding tests of their intelligence.  Performance 
goals involve a desire to achieve positive appraisal of competence, that is, to look smart.  
Learning goals involve a desire to learn new things and develop skills.  Both types of 
goals may motivate students to achieve, but learning goals tend to lead to more mastery-
oriented responses to failure, while performance goals tend to lead to more helpless 
responses to failure.  Students who view a task as a means of learning new things 
welcome challenges and see mistakes as part of the learning process.  However, when 
students view a task as a means of appearing smart, they don’t want to risk making 
mistakes.  They see failure as an indication of low intelligence.  People can have both 
kinds of goals, but people with entity beliefs tend to have more performance goals and 
people with incremental beliefs tend to have more learning goals.
Implicit beliefs about intelligence and achievement goals influence the meaning of 
effort.  Students with incremental beliefs tend to see effort as a natural part of learning, 
while students with entity beliefs and performance goals see effort as an indication of low 
intelligence.  “If you have to work hard to understand something, you’re probably not 
very smart.”  The beliefs, goals, responses to failure, and meaning of effort described 
above are illustrated in Table 1.
If beliefs about intelligence influence goals, effort, and coping, then what, one might 
ask, influences beliefs?  To answer this question, several studies were done on the effects 
of praise and criticism (Kamins & Dweck, in press; Mueller & Dweck, 1998).  The 
results of these studies indicate that as children are raised, praise or criticism that focused 
on stable traits (i.e., something about the person that cannot be changed and is stable over 
time) within the person led to entity beliefs, performance goals, and helpless responses to 
failure.  Praise such as “you are smart” or criticism such as “you are stupid” facilitates 
belief in a fixed level of intelligence.  In contrast, praise or criticism that focused on 
strategy or effort led to incremental beliefs, learning goals, and mastery-oriented 
responses to failure.  Praise such as “you used a good strategy” or criticism such as “you 
need to try harder” indicate that the result of a task—whether successful or not—can be 
improved and is not bound to a stable level of intelligence.  The implications of this 
research are that people learn either an incremental or entity perspective of intelligence as 
they grow through feedback from family, teachers and peers and that feedback can also 
play a vital role in changing beliefs about the stability of intelligence.
Conclusions drawn from this research contrast today’s popular trend of praising 
innate intelligence to increase self-esteem.  It is widely believed that if you praise 
students for their intelligence and attribute their successes to their good traits (smart, 
good, etc.), then they will be more likely to perform well.  This may be true, but problems 
arise when those students face failure.  Since they have learned to attribute outcomes of 
their behavior to inner traits, they also attribute academic failure to lack of intelligence, 
and therefore respond to failure poorly by giving up or degrading themselves, even 
though they had high self-confidence and success before the failure.
Implicit theories also influence whether students acquire and use learning strategies 
(Chang, 2003).  College students who were taught various strategies for better learning 
and test performance reported using strategies more in their studies if they had 
incremental beliefs, focusing on learning, effort, and practice.  Students who reported 
using strategies less, believed that their need to use strategies indicated they were not 
smart, and they preferred to do what “felt natural,” even if they knew the strategies 
worked.  Their adherence to the entity perspective of intelligence prevented them from 
taking advantage of interventions meant to help them improve academic achievement.

Specific Issues in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities

Self-Determination
A current priority in disability research and practice is preparing students with 
disabilities with the skills they need to manage their lives after high school.  Self-
determination has been viewed as vital to success for people with disabilities when they 
transition into postsecondary education (Izzo & Lamb, 2002).  When introducing their 
concept of intrinsic motivation to the developing field of disability studies, Deci and his 
colleagues emphasized the importance of choice and control for people with disabilities, 
and the potential limiting effects of a system that does not allow them to make decisions 
for themselves (Deci & Chandler, 1986; Deci, Hodges, Peirson, & Tomassone, 1992).  
The area of self-determination has since evolved into a collection of skills and knowledge 
in which researchers suggest all youths with disabilities be trained.  This collection 
includes self–awareness, self–advocacy, self-efficacy, decision-making, independent 
performance, self-evaluation and adjustment (Martin & Huber-Marshall, 1995).  There 
are several programs, funded by the American government, that are meant to develop and 
implement programs to prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary education 
through self-determination training (Izzo & Lamb, 2002).  Programs in America and 
other countries have been developing ways to enhance consumer self-determination 
(Callahan & Mank, 1998; Kilsby & Beyer, 2002; Rumrill, 1999; Wehmeyer & Bolding, 
2001) and their involvement in developing their rehabilitation plan (Flannery, Slovic, 
Treasure, Ackley, & Lucas, 2002; Kilsby, Bennert, & Beyer, 2002).
These efforts to teach and implement self-determination skills must take into account 
implicit beliefs.  Students with incremental beliefs about intelligence are more likely to 
acquire and use new strategies and skills than are students who have internalized entity 
beliefs (Chang, 2003).  There may be a cyclical relationship between implicit beliefs 
about intelligence and acquisition of self-determination skills.  Students with incremental 
beliefs may be more likely than students with entity beliefs to make self-determined 
choices based on higher expectations for improvement and academic achievement.  
Similarly, students with less knowledge of the influence of their disability on academic 
achievement and the effectiveness of accommodations may be more likely to believe they 
are “just stupid” and exhibit helpless responses to challenges.  Students with entity beliefs 
about intelligence may be more likely to make choices based on their ‘label,’ fear of 
failure, and past successes.
With rapidly improving technology and a growing knowledge base about services and 
accommodations that improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, the 
potential for academic success for otherwise disabled people is stronger now than ever 
before.  Unfortunately, many students with disabilities are not aware of this potential, 
either because they have not received appropriate services to help them succeed, or 
because of the low expectations of others.  Ineffective accommodations—or no 
accommodations—can lead to academic failures, which students may attribute to their 
disability.  Low expectations of others can lead students to expect less of themselves.  
One student with a severe physical disability said: 
“In my senior year, I thought I didn’t want to go to college, because 
some people in my high school told me that I might not be able to do it.  
So I stayed home for a year, and by the middle of February I was bored to 
death.  So I called my rehab counselor and talked with him while my mom 
was at work.  In March, I went to rehab evaluation, and they said I 
probably couldn’t do it…” (National Center for the Study of 
Postsecondary Educational Supports, 2001, p. 1).
This student nearly gave in to the low expectations of others, but did not.  He attended 
college, and at the time of his interview, had two years until graduation.  He acted on an 
incremental belief and determined for himself that he would take on the challenge of 
going to college.  Other students facing similarly low expectations may not have the 
resilience to persist if they believe intelligence is an unchangeable entity. 
Perception of Opportunity, Choice and Control
A concept closely related to implicit theories of intelligence (i.e., belief in the ability 
to improve one’s self is the concept of perception of opportunity (i.e., belief about the 
ability to improve the situation).  Perception of opportunity is the degree to which an 
individual believes there are opportunities in the environment to achieve certain goals.  
Individuals who perceive opportunities to improve their situation (i.e., career 
advancement, educational attainment, etc.) may be more likely to exhibit mastery-
oriented responses to situations than those who do not perceive such opportunities.  
Individuals who perceive an opportunity for innovation or advancement in their careers 
are more satisfied with their work (Derecho, 1996) and have a higher sense of subjective 
well-being and satisfaction in life (Catsis, 2002; Harlow & Newcomb, 1990).  Perception 
of opportunity correlates positively with educational expectations in secondary school 
students, which in turn correlates with educational aspirations and career expectations 
(Wall, Covell, & MacIntyre, 1999).  And socially, perception of limited opportunity 
predicts adolescent alienation, even more so than socioeconomic status (Han, 1971).
Negative influences on perception of opportunity include stereotypes, lack of 
successful role models, and experienced or observed limits on opportunities (Durodoye & 
Bodley, 1997).  External variables that have a positive effect on perception of opportunity 
include access to education, informal support (York, Henley, & Gamble, 1985) and 
formal efforts to improve career choice patterns (Dunn & Veltman, 1989).
While most research on perception of opportunity has been conducted in the context 
of gender and minority differences, it may also be an important factor for individuals 
with disabilities.  Due to attitudinal and physical barriers, low expectations from others, 
and societal stereotypes, students with disabilities may have a lower perception of 
opportunity than students without disabilities.  This can contribute to lower attainment in 
education, dropping out, and low persistence in careers.  When individuals with 
disabilities perceive barriers to success (i.e., they have a low perception of opportunity), 
they are more likely to quit. Rumrill, Roessler, Longden, & Schuyler (1998) found 
perceived barriers to worksite accessibility and performance of essential functions related 
negatively to feelings of job mastery and job satisfaction.
Students who have met with many failures and who attributed those failures to limits 
within themselves rather than to the environment may have a lower sense of opportunity.  
Entity-oriented students would more often blame themselves for failures, even to the 
point of experiencing feelings of worthlessness and helplessness (Diener & Dweck, 
1980).  Therefore, when such students fail in their first college exams, they are less likely 
to recognize opportunities to improve the situation.  Such maladaptive cognition can 
result in lower success rates.  If students with disabilities are encouraged to see situations 
through the incremental perspective, they may be more likely to set higher expectations 
and aspirations in education, experience a higher sense of well-being, and achieve more 
academically and vocationally than they would if they continued to interpret their 
situation through an entity perspective.  Efforts to train consumers in strategies for 
expanding opportunities (i.e., job search skills, social skills necessary for requesting 
accommodations, etc.) and to expand perceptions of opportunity (i.e., through 
introduction to role models, job shadowing, and internships) have resulted in higher self-
efficacy and increased motivation to study and pursue career options (Burgstahler, 2001; 
Rumrill, 1999).
Transition to Postsecondary Education
The transition from high school to postsecondary education is often complicated, for 
anyone.  Going to a college or university often involves more freedom, and with it, more 
responsibilities.  For example, students in high school are used to being reminded if they 
have homework due, but in college, they are responsible for remembering important dates 
themselves.  Also, the entire grade for a course often depends on one-to-three tests and 
perhaps a paper.  Whereas in high school, students have many opportunities to build up 
their grades through multiple homework assignments, and making mistakes on one of 
them does not make much of a difference.  In college, most measures of student 
competence are highly concentrated.  The amount and depth of material and the context 
in which tests are taken, and in which papers are written, tend to be very different from 
what students are used to in high school.  In situations where students transition to a more 
demanding environment with higher stakes in performance, they are more likely to 
exhibit the differences in thinking between entity beliefs and incremental beliefs.  In a 
study done by Henderson and Dweck (1990), students transitioning into junior high 
school showed significant differences in academic achievement between those with 
incremental and those with entity perspectives.  Because of the higher standards, more 
difficult curriculum, and less personalized instruction, it was predicted that increased 
challenges and failures would result in helpless responses and lower achievement for 
students with entity beliefs.  Researchers found students with entity beliefs who did well 
in elementary school actually declined in class standing when faced with the challenges 
of junior high school.  In contrast, students with incremental beliefs about intelligence did 
well in junior high school.  This finding is important to remember for people who serve 
postsecondary students with disabilities, because for these students, the transition 
between high school and postsecondary education is even more difficult (Stodden et al., 
2002).
Laws which protect the rights and services of students with disabilities change 
drastically from secondary school to postsecondary school.  In high school, students are 
protected by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, an 
educational act establishing federal programs that provide assistance, initiated and paid 
for by the government, and purposing to benefit the student and improve post-school 
outcomes.  In postsecondary school, students are no longer served under the IDEA.  
Instead, they rely on civil rights laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which primarily aim to ensure 
equity and nondiscrimination.  In section 504 and the ADA, the government does not 
provide funding for support, but requires “reasonable accommodations” from 
government, private, and public organizations, including postsecondary institutions.
Under the IDEA, in high school, teachers are very aware of the special needs of their 
students and are part of a team which helps decide how best to meet those needs.  
However, in college or university, students are required to identify themselves as having 
a disability and to request accommodations from student services personnel and from 
faculty who are usually ignorant of disability issues (Stodden et al., 2002).  While 
individuals with disabilities may get services from vocational rehabilitation, 
postsecondary support personnel and vocational rehabilitation services rarely work 
together the way teachers, related services providers, and parents in high school do.  
Therefore, students with disabilities not only have to cope with the traditional changes 
between secondary and postsecondary education, but also with major changes in the 
process of accommodations.
Another transition issue is late diagnosis: 31% of students with disabilities have 
reported that their disability had not been diagnosed until college (Sharpe, 2003).  These 
students are likely to have little understanding of accommodations that could assist them 
in postsecondary studies.  If these students are not given enough counseling and 
information about coping with their disability, they may see their new label as just 
another word for “slow,” and attribute their difficulties in class to a fixed amount of 
intelligence they cannot overcome.  However, if they are introduced to strategies and 
technology to help them process information, they may learn to cope through a mastery-
oriented response to challenges.
Effective coping is necessary for any transition to a new environment.  When 
transition involves a change in academic standards, effective coping is affected by 
students’ implicit perspectives of intelligence.  Even students who are “gifted” high-
achievers in high school may not cope well.  If they have developed entity beliefs—
trying to preserve their “gifted” label for self-worth—they may be threatened by an 
environment where they are no longer the smartest in the class, and exhibit helpless 
responses to the change (Dweck, 1999).  All of the changes mentioned above could lead 
to either helpless or mastery responses, depending on whether the student believes 
intelligence to be malleable with effort or assumes it to be a fixed trait.
Vocational rehabilitation personnel, disability student services personnel, and 
transition specialists often find themselves counseling students who are learning to cope 
with all the new challenges in their environment.  Although they have no control over the 
way in which students were raised and taught with entity or incremental beliefs about 
intelligence, they may notice how these beliefs affect student persistence or defeat.  This 
may be a time of life when counseling toward an incremental perspective can impact the 
outcome of postsecondary education for students with disabilities.
Can anything be done for students who have entity beliefs and helpless responses to 
challenges?  Motivational studies say yes.  Although a study done by Robins and Pals 
(2002) indicated that implicit theories are relatively stable over the college years, another 
study by Aronson and Fried (1998, as cited in Dweck, 1999) revealed that interventions 
can be effective.  A group of high-achieving students and a group of at-risk students, who 
exhibited a gap in achievement, were shown a film that taught an incremental perspective 
of intelligence.  The film gave evidence that showed that biological changes in the brain 
result when people meet challenges and exert mental effort and that they become smarter 
because of it.  Student GPA data, which was collected at the end of the term and again at 
the end of the school year, indicated that students who had seen the film showed a 
significantly reduced achievement gap between the achieving and the at-risk groups, 
compared to similar students who had not seen the film.  In other research, Burgstahler 
(Burgstahler, 2000; Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001, Fall) uses the internet to connect 
students with disabilities with mentors who are examples of how challenges can be 
overcome.  With effective interventions, students with disabilities can be taught 
incremental beliefs about intelligence and effective coping strategies for the challenges 
they face as they transition to postsecondary education.
The application of implicit theories of intelligence to these key issues is summarized 
in Table 2.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Psychological research and theory in the area of education and motivation have 
greatly advanced.  Theories about what motivates an individual to desire achievement, 
choose challenges, get up again after failing, and enjoy the educational process can make 
a difference for people if these theories are applied by service providers.  Many 
instructional methods have their origins in psychological theory, and have been shown to 
work (Stipek, 1996).  Other attempts to shape rehabilitation efforts according to 
psychological theory have resulted in improved outcomes (Bell, Lysaker, & Bryson, 
2003; Rumrill, 1999).  
To promote incremental beliefs in students with disabilities and the people who work 
and live with them, recommendations for policy, practice and research are presented 
follow.
Recommendations for System Enhancement:  Improving the Possibility of Success in 
Postsecondary Education
	Make universal design of instruction and universal design of technology a 
national priority.  Students with disabilities will be able to achieve more if their 
environment facilitates their efforts to do the same things as people without 
disabilities.
	Improve technical assistance and training for students with disabilities to increase 
opportunities for academic achievement through the use of different strategies.
	Improve accountability and funding for effective accommodations in 
postsecondary schools to make the above recommendations possible and efficient.
	Improve collaboration between Vocational Rehabilitation, secondary and 
postsecondary schools to make the transition from secondary to postsecondary 
education smoother and to improve choice, control, and self-determination of 
consumers.
Recommendations for Rehabilitation Counselors and Postsecondary Education 
Disability Services: Taking an Incremental Approach to Service
	Emphasize the belief that students can improve.  Know yourself — do you believe 
students can improve their performance or do you prejudge them based on their 
label?
	Assess incremental beliefs as part of the counseling process.
	Participate in incremental belief training.  Promote personnel development on 
facilitating incremental beliefs, so students are taught to emphasize strategy and 
effort rather than fixed traits.
	Focus assessment feedback on incremental improvement rather than on labels or 
judgments of a fixed ability.  Always present assessments of challenging areas 
with possible solutions.  Do not just tell a person he is dyslexic, but also 
recommend technical assistance such as screen-reading software, books on tape, 
note-takers, etc.  If students still have difficulties, even with accommodations, try 
a different approach.
	Teach learning disabled (LD) students strategies for learning, with an emphasis on 
improving possibilities, rather than on deficiencies.
	Encourage students to analyze the processes involved in challenging situations, so 
potential changes in strategy or accommodations can be made.
	Connect students with mentors or role models who encourage incremental beliefs. 
Provide role models in the form of older students, graduates, adults in the same 
field, or even video stories.  Hearing the success stories of people like themselves 
can help students to improve their self-efficacy and their belief that they can 
improve academically.
Recommendations for Further Study
	Research societal and educational factors that contribute to the development of 
implicit beliefs in students with disabilities.
	Research effective ways to facilitate and sustain incremental beliefs.
	Research implicit beliefs of various cultures and minority groups, and their effects 
on students at risk.
	Research potential for changing implicit beliefs in adults with disabilities.
	Pilot programs in vocational rehabilitation offices and in disability services 
offices to assist in creating a climate of incremental beliefs.
	Infuse incremental belief training in self-determination curricula.
The theory outlined in this article has implications for the academic success of 
students with disabilities.  Promoting an incremental perspective of intelligence could 
help students with disabilities overcome attitudinal barriers and setbacks in classes, and 
take on the challenges they face while navigating through systems and between 
educational settings.  Among educators, families, and service providers, an increased 
understanding about the difference between entity beliefs and incremental beliefs could 
equip them to help students move from helpless responses to mastery-oriented behavior. 
Kelly Bow Tsin Chang has an M.A. in Psychology in the area of Teaching, 
Learning, and Cognition, with an emphasis on student motivation and self-regulated 
learning, and is a Ph.D. candidate in the same field at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.  
She works as a research assistant for the National Center on Secondary Education and 
Transition, Post Outcomes Network, where she focuses primarily on issues of transition 
from secondary to postsecondary education.  She can be contacted by email at 
Kelly.Chang@cds.hawaii.edu.
References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq. (1993).
Aronson, J., & Fried, C. (1998). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic 
achievement of African Americans: The role of conceptions of intelligence. 
Unpublished manuscript.
Bandura, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1985). The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and 
achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect, and behavior. 
Unpublished manuscript.
Bell, M., Lysaker, P., & Bryson, G. (2003). A behavioral intervention to improve work 
performance in schizophrenia: Work behavior inventory feedback. Journal of 
Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 43-50.
Benz, M. R., & Halpern, A. S. (1987). Transition services for secondary students with 
mild disabilities: A statewide perspective. Exceptional Children, 53, 507-514.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). Standards amidst uncertainty and inequality. The 
School Administrator, 53(5), 42-47.
Billings, B. L. (1999, April 15-18). Ethnicity and individual differences in achievement 
goals in kindergarten children (ED 436288). Paper presented at the Biennial 
Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Burgstahler, S. (2000). Opening doors:  Mentoring on the internet. Seattle, Washington: 
University of Washington.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model to promote career success for students with 
disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 209-215.
Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001, Fall). Supporting Peer-Peer and Mentor-Protege 
Relationships on the Internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 
34(1), 59-74.
Callahan, M., & Mank, D. (1998). Choice and control of employment for people with 
disabilities, Paper prepared for The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Self-
Determination Initiative.
Catsis, C. T. ( 2002, March). Perception of opportunity for innovation and productivity in 
relation to subjective well-being of interior design educators at major universities 
in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities 
& Social Sciences, 62(8-A), 2693.
Chang, K. B. T. (2003). A Grounded Theory of the Acquisition of Learning Strategies in 
College Classrooms. University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Conway, M. A., & Chang, K. B. T. (2003). Personnel and Student Perceptions about the 
Role of the Postsecondary Disability Support Provider. Unpublished manuscript, 
Honolulu, Hawaii.Deci, E. L., & Chandler, C. L. (1986). The importance of 
motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 
587-594.
Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Peirson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence 
as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional 
handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457-471. Derecho, C. N. (1996, 
March). Situational and dispositional factors in affective responses to work. 
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 
56(9-B), 5206.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous 
changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: (II) The 
processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-
952.
Dunn, C. W., & Veltman, G. C. (1989, October). Addressing the restrictive career 
maturity patterns of minority youth: A program evaluation. Journal of 
Multicultural Counseling & Development, 17, 156-164.
Durodoye, B., & Bodley, G. (1997, March). Career development issues for ethnic 
minority college students. College Student Journal, 31(1), 27-32.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of 
learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and 
development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. Mussen & E. M. 
Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 643-692). New York: 
Wiley.


Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and 
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement 
responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-
116.Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and 
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Flannery, K. B., Slovic, R., Treasure, T., Ackley, D., & Lucas, F. (2002). Collaboration 
and partnership to improve employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational 
Rehabilitation, 17, 207-215.
Han, W. S. (1971, March). Alienation, deviation-proneness, and perception of two types 
of barriers among rural adolescents. Social Forces, 49, 398-413.
Harlow, L. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (1990, July). Towards a general hierarchical model of 
meaning and satisfaction in life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 387-405.
HEATH Resource Center. (1991). Career planning and employment strategies for 
postsecondary students with disabilities. Retrieved January 2, 2003, from 
http://www.heath-resource-
center.org/PDFs/CareerPlanningandEmploymentStrategiesfor 
PostsecondaryStudentswithDisabilities.pdf
Henderson, V., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Motivation and achievement. In S. Feldman & G. 
Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (308-329). Cambridge, 
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hoyt, K. (2001, October). Helping high school students broaden their knowledge of 
postsecondary education options. Professional School Counseling, 5(1), 6-13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).


Izzo, M., & Lamb, M. (2002). Self-determination and career development: Skills for 
successful transitions to postsecondary education and employment. Unpublished 
manuscript, A white paper developed for the National Center on Postsecondary 
Education Supports at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Available online, at: 
http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/Publications/Pdfs/self_determination.pdf
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (in press). Person vs. process praise and criticism: 
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology.
Kerka, S. (2002). Learning disabilities and career development: ERIC.
Kilsby, M. S., Bennert, K., & Beyer, S. (2002). Measuring and reducing acquiescence in 
vocational profiling procedures for first-time job-seekers with mental retardation. 
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 287-299.
Kilsby, M. S., & Beyer, S. (2002). Enhancing self-determination in job matching in 
supported employment for people with learning disabilities: An intervention 
study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 125-135.
Ladders of opportunity. (2001). California: California Community Colleges, Sacramento. 
Office of the Chancellor.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1996, June). The relation between implicit person theories 
and beliefs in stereotypes. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual 
Convention of the American Psychological Society, San Francisco, CA.
Lim, W., Plucker, J. A., & Im, K. (2002). We are more alike than we think we are: 
Implicit theories of intelligence with a Korean sample. Intelligence, 30, 185-208.


Martin, J. E., & Huber-Marshall, L. (1995). Choicemaker: A comprehensive self-
determination transition program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(3), 147-
156.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation 
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports. (2001). Focus 
group discussions on supports and barriers in lifelong learning. Honolulu: 
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.
National Council on Disability. (2000, November). Transition and post-school outcomes 
for youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps to post-secondary education and 
employment. Washington, D.C.: Social Security Administration.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain:  
Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self 
& Identity, 1(4), 313-336.
Rumrill, P. (1999). Effects of a social competence training program on accommodation 
request activity, situational self-efficacy, and Americans with Disabilities Act 
knowledge among employed people with visual impairments and blindness. 
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 12, 25-31.
Rumrill, P., Roessler, R., Longden, J., & Schuyler, B. (1998). Situational assessment of 
the accommodation needs of employees with visual impairments and blindness. 
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 92(1), 42-54.


Sharpe, M. (2003).  Project Grad preliminary analysis, Institute on Community 
Integration. Retrieved June 25, 2003, from 
http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase2/pdf/059b(2)-H02.pdf
Silvera, D. H., Moe, S. K., & Iversen, P. (2000). The association between implicit 
theories of personality and the attributional process. Scandinavian Journal of 
Psychology, 41, 107-111.
Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), 
Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 85-113).  New York: Simon & 
Schuster Macmillan.
Stodden, R., Jones, M. A., & Chang, K. B. T. (2002). Services, supports and 
accommodations for individuals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary 
education, postsecondary education and employment. Unpublished manuscript, 
Honolulu, HI.
Stodden, R. A., Conway, M. A., & Chang, K. B. T. (2003). Professional employment for 
individuals with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, Honolulu, HI.
U.S. Department of Education, & National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). 
Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, 
participation, and outcomes (NCES 1999–187). Washington, DC.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. (1973).
Wagner, M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work or college: 
How special education students fare. The future of children: Special education for 
students with disabilities, 6(1), 103-120.


Wall, J., Covell, K., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999, April). Implications of social supports for 
adolescents’ education and career aspirations. Canadian Journal of Behavioural 
Science, 31(2), 63-71.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Bolding, N. (2001). Enhanced self-determination of adults with 
intellectual disability as an outcome of moving to community-based work or 
living environments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 371-383.
Whelley, T., Hart, D., & Zafft, C. (2002). Coordination and management of services and 
supports for individuals with disabilities from secondary to postsecondary 
education and employment. Unpublished manuscript, Honolulu. HI.
York, R. O., Henley, H. C., & Gamble, D. N. (1985, Fall). Barriers to the advancement of 
women in social work administration. Journal of Social Service Research, 9(1), 1-
15.
Zhao, W., Dweck, C. S., & Mueller, C. (1998). Implicit theories and depression-like 
responses to failure. Unpublished manuscript.
Zietgert, D. I., Kistner, J. A., Castro, R., & Robertson, B. (2001). Longitudinal study of 
young children’s responses to challenging achievement situations. Child 
Development, 72, 609-624.

Case Studies that Illustrate Achieving Career Success in Postsecondary 
Education through Self-Determination and Problem-Solving Skills
Peter W. Dowrick, Ph.D.  
Center on Disability Studies, University of Hawaii
Elizabeth Evans Getzel, M.A. 
 Lori W. Briel, M.Ed. 
Virginia Commonwealth University
Abstract: Conditions for students with disabilities in postsecondary education are 
improving and numbers are increasing.  The potential for better outcomes may well be 
addressed through personal examples of effective support and accommodations.  This 
article presents three case studies across a spectrum of conditions.  These adults, with 
sensory, emotional, and/or cognitive disabilities, were 29 to 44 years of age, with a 
variety of life choices.  They sought participatory guidance and support from a program 
at Virginia Commonwealth University.  They explored career options around which to 
build degree programs in administration, exercise science, and photography.  The 
emerging theme was the ability to create personal futures through self-determination and 
problem-solving.
Key Words: post secondary education, career planning, students with disabilities, self-
determination, problem solving
Introduction
Research to identify strategies and practices that contribute to improved employment 
outcomes are imperative for enhancing career opportunities and quality of life outcomes 
for people with disabilities (Sharpe, Johnson, Mavis, & Rosen, 2001).  The participation 
rate of these individuals in the United States (U.S.) labor force is alarmingly low 
compared to employment rates among people without disabilities (Gilmore, Schuster, 
Zaft, & Hart, 2003).  In addition, individuals with disabilities experience lower average 
earnings, limited access to employee benefits, disproportionately high representation in 
low skilled jobs, and higher rates of poverty (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000).  The 
completion of a postsecondary education that includes vocational training significantly 
improves the chances of employment success for men and women with disabilities 
(Gilson, 1996).  Indeed, employment and salaries in the workforce have become 
increasingly skewed in favor of adults with a higher education (Dowrick & Crespo, 
2004), and this difference is exacerbated for people with disabilities.  Overall, 
educational opportunities maximize preparedness for careers in today’s changing 
economy when students with disabilities learn higher order thinking and technical skills 
necessary to take advantage of current and future job market trends (Stodden, 2001).
In the 1990s, there was a 90% increase in the number of universities, technical 
institutions, community colleges, and vocational technical centers offering supports for 
adults with disabilities to continue their education (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000).  In our 
best estimate, the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary 
education doubled in the late 1990s.  In a National Center for Educational Statistics 
(NCES) study of 16 million U.S. students, 9% reported a disability in 1999-2000, 
although NCES (2002) cautioned this figure may not be comparable to previous years 
when a different set of questions was used.  While increasing numbers of individuals with 
disabilities enroll in postsecondary education, many individuals experience difficulty 
continuing or completing their program of study (Heiman & Precel, 2003; N.O.D., 1998; 
Witte, Philips & Kakela, 1998).  Factors contributing to low enrollment and high dropout 
rates for students with disabilities are not limited to the need for supports or services – 
they also include a host of systemic, socio-cultural, financial, and personal factors that 
impede academic progress (Stodden, 2001).  While a considerable body of theoretical 
knowledge exists regarding the effectiveness of various services, supports, and programs 
in postsecondary education for persons with disabilities, much less information is 
available about the personal attributes that facilitate career growth and those that lead to 
successful futures (Dowrick & Skouge, 2001; Gartin, Rumrill, & Serebreni, 1996; Tindal, 
Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, & Harniss, 1998).
In the last decade, there has been a substantial increase in the promotion of self-
determination throughout the disability community.  In their review of the link between 
education and employment, Stodden and Dowrick (2000) note “self-advocacy and self-
determination—the abilities to express one’s needs and to make informed decisions—are 
considered to be among the most important skills for students with disabilities to have 
before beginning their postsecondary educational experience” (p.21).  The main elements 
of self-determination applicable in this context are typically described to include: Self-
awareness (including self-assessment); Self-advocacy (recognizing and acting upon one’s 
rights); Self-efficacy (a person’s belief that he or she can perform an identified task); 
Decision-making (goal-setting and planning), and Independence (initiating tasks and 
adjusting goals) (Yuen & Shaughnessy, 2000).
Educators who facilitate self-determination for people with disabilities enable those 
individuals to play an active role in developing their own careers (Kilsby & Beyer, 2002).  
Similarly, goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision-making and other skills that lead to 
enhanced self-determination enable students to assume greater responsibility and control 
over their lives (Ward, 1996).  Multiple studies indicate that students who obtain self-
determination skills while attending school have a greater chance of achieving positive 
post-school outcomes than do students who have not acquired these skills (e.g., 
Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998).
Today’s growing body of knowledge suggests that providing opportunities for 
teaching and demonstrating decision-making and problem-solving skills greatly enhances 
a person’s sense of self-determination.  In the field of disabilities research, frameworks 
have been developed for teaching students self-determination.  For example, Wehmeyer 
and Palmer (2003) describe students being taught to solve a series of problems to 
construct a causal sequence to move them from where they are to where they want to be.  
Research on academic success and problem-solving skills indicates that teaching 
problem-solving skills, such as the ability to devise strategies, techniques, and 
compensatory methods to adjust for a particular disability, greatly enhances students’ 
ability to perform well in their present situations while building potential resolutions for 
encountering future obstacles (Columbus & Mithaug, 2003).
Case Studies on Disabilities in Postsecondary Education
Case studies may “put a human face on the postsecondary education issues” 
(Dowrick, 2000) and give full voice to consumer perspectives on topics such as 
postsecondary supports, scope and effectiveness of services, and employment outcomes.  
In particular, case illustrations offer details not available in surveys or aggregated data.  
The following three case studies emphasize how attributes such as self-determination and 
problem-solving may be fostered through postsecondary educational services.  These 
traits may then promote career mobility and create foundations for future career success.  
The underlying themes of each case are presented and discussed, offering conclusions 
and recommendations for future teaching, policies, and research efforts.
The Career Connections Program at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) 
offers students with disabilities access to services and supports, provides internships, and 
maximizes university and community services (Briel & Getzel, 2001) to encourage 
positive career outcomes.  Students are self-identified in their need for assistance and 
they direct the implementation of services provided.  The VCU program offers job 
placement assistance, on-site strategies to facilitate learning, and coordination of 
community supports.  The following three case examples illustrate the significant impact 
of VCU support services on access to career opportunities and life-long goals.  These 
studies also demonstrate the strategies used in creating futures through problem-solving 
skills to attain career success and improved quality of life. 
Case Example #1
“Dawn,” 36 years old, completed her undergraduate degree in history with a minor in 
political science.  Dawn obtained services through the federally funded comprehensive 
VCU Career Connections Program for postsecondary students with disabilities.  Dawn 
developed Stargardt’s Disease at a young age and became legally blind.  While attending 
VCU, she contacted the Career Connections Program for assistance in securing 
employment.  Dawn had minimal financially compensated work experience, but she had 
gained 10 years of leadership background in a volunteer organization.  Dawn was 
frustrated with her lack of opportunity for professional employment.  She had applied for 
many positions, but thought employers, after they discovered her visual impairment, 
would not call her for a second interview, let alone hire her.
The VCU staff worked with Dawn to develop an Individualized Career Plan to help 
focus on areas she needed to strengthen.  Two primary areas emerged.  First, she needed 
to revise her resume to emphasize her skills and abilities gained through her volunteer 
experience.  The second area was learning how community services (e.g. The Virginia 
Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired) could assist with the provision of 
computer technology at the work site and how to communicate this information during an 
interview.  She also took the initiative to research the skills requested by employers and 
gained proficiency in a variety of computer programs.
With assistance from the VCU Career Connections staff, a job lead was identified 
through the university career center.  The VCU Career Connections staff contacted the 
employer and arranged a short meeting to establish a supportive relationship, further 
identify job duties, clarify work processes, assess the work environment of the company, 
and determine if the position would be a good match for the student.  Information 
gathered reflected an independent position in which the employee would have his or her 
own computer and would communicate with representatives in 22 states.  It was learned 
that the employer, a VCU alumnus, had never worked with anyone with a visual 
impairment and had little understanding of how technology could be used to enhance 
production.  After a brief explanation of magnification software and closed circuit 
television screens, the employer reviewed Dawn’s resume and eagerly set up an 
interview.
As a result, Dawn secured a 30-hour per-week position as a research associate for a 
non-profit organization that served over 400 cities, counties, and towns in 22 states.  
Dawn worked for the organization for almost 2 years.  She remained in contact with the 
VCU Career Connections Program keeping them informed on how she was performing in 
her position.  While in this position, Dawn enrolled in a Master’s degree program at VCU 
and reconnected again with the Career Connections staff.
While working and going to school, Dawn decided to pursue another position and 
leave her Master’s degree program.  After resigning her position and before leaving her 
degree program, Dawn expressed an interest in pursuing a position in events planning and 
sought to capitalize on her strengths, her personal communication skills, ability to 
coordinate details, and ability to organize multiple levels of information.  She wanted to 
see if ultimately she would seek an advanced degree to help her in this field.  Several 
informational interviews were arranged for Dawn to learn more about the events planning 
field.  Dawn secured a position on a medical campus coordinating physicians’ schedules 
and education rotations.  She brought with her the closed circuit television screen she had 
used in her previous position, and she installed Zoom Text software on her computer.  
Less than a year later, Dawn secured another position at the corporate headquarters of a 
company that manufactured and distributed credit cards.  She was hired as an 
administrative assistant and received a salary $10,000 greater than in her previous job.  
Dawn worked in the distribution department, still using the closed circuit television 
screen originally purchased by the Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired.  She 
then considered supplementing her education with a post-baccalaureate certificate in 
business management.
Dawn’s example of career success illustrates the self-advocacy skills that are essential 
to the development of self-determination—for example, the ability to express her needs, 
to make informed decisions, and to advocate for those decisions (Yuen & Shaughnessy, 
2000).  Dawn also demonstrated the ability to “reframe” her disability experience through 
the understanding of her strengths and limitations, and her belief in herself as being able 
to overcome the challenges by moving from a reactive to proactive stance (Shessel & 
Reiff, 1999).  The promotion of self-determination was further nurtured through Dawn’s 
encounters with the VCU Career Connections staff, which modeled effective education 
and advocacy skills with employers and consistently provided Dawn with opportunities 
to choose her goals according to her own interests.  The VCU staff worked to maximize 
her strengths and problem solving.  By providing connections to appropriate supports and 
opportunities for potential jobs relevant to Dawn’s own interests, the staff worked to 
foster Dawn’s persistence in pursuit of future success.  The Career Connections program 
was able to identify locations for informational interviews using the VCU alumni office, 
the university career center, and other business contacts established through the program.  
This assisted Dawn to network with individuals in the field and offered an opportunity to 
discuss her strengths in a more comfortable setting than a formal job interview.  Dawn 
often expressed that the VCU Career Connections program provided her an upper hand in 
the job market by educating employers about individuals with disabilities.  The program 
staff members had the expertise about accommodating individuals with disabilities in the 
workplace and to work with these students on developing skills to manage their careers.
Case Example  #2
“Bill,” 29 years of age, had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression while in high 
school.  In college, he majored in community wellness and exercise science.  Bill 
contacted the VCU Career Connections Program after reading an article published in the 
local newspaper.  He had experienced difficulties getting an internship site for his senior 
year and had chosen not to receive support through the college’s services for students 
with disabilities. 
Bill participated with the Career Connections staff to develop an Individualized 
Career Plan that focused first on securing an internship site.  His work preferences were 
based on his recognized abilities and he was provided with direct assistance to secure a 
suitably appropriate internship.  When the employer asked about learner 
accommodations, Bill was taught to indicate how important it was for him to repeatedly 
practice a new skill and to proceed at a moderate pace.  He communicated how he could 
become easily stressed and that he dealt with stress through physical reactions.  
Previously, Bill had held a position as a grocery bagger for 2 years before being fired for 
a public outburst.  Bill was not aware of stress management techniques and was unsure of 
what strategies to apply when under stress.
The VCU staff supported Bill and provided him with appropriate coaching to secure 
an internship at a local athletic club. On the second day of work, Bill asked the fitness 
director if he could go home, as he was not “feeling well.”  On the third day, the VCU 
Career Connections staff came on-site to assist Bill in structuring his time at work.  They 
identified specific duties that could be completed throughout the day, such as helping at 
the front desk or cleaning the equipment.  It soon became apparent to the Career 
Connections staff that when Bill had any idle time, he became agitated and wanted to 
leave the work place.  To alleviate this problem, the staff modeled certain strategies for 
Bill including greeting customers, talking to co-workers, and taking a break in the staff 
office.
VCU staff again intervened when Bill had difficulty explaining how exercise 
machines worked.  After repeated observations of workouts, Bill still could not explain 
how the machines worked.  The Career Connections staff recommended Bill actively 
participate.  To help him learn about the weight machines, Bill was asked to write the 
name of each machine and muscle group strengthened by it on a 3” x 5” card.  He would 
then identify something important to remember about the specific machine and note it on 
the card.  A refined strategy was later developed in which VCU staff modeled the 
explanation and demonstration of each machine, followed by Bill performing the same 
functions.  The VCU staff also brought in customers to participate in sharpening Bill’s 
skills.
Later in the year, Bill walked out of the club after a verbal exchange with the fitness 
director.  Bill was frustrated with his inability to understand a specific job function he 
needed to complete.  VCU staff encouraged Bill to identify potential stress management 
strategies including exercise, taking a break, and reading.  With support from the VCU 
staff, Bill initiated a discussion with the fitness director about his disability and his need 
for accommodations when feeling stressed.  He selected the tactic of excusing himself for 
a few minutes and walking outside in the parking lot as one primary strategy for coping 
with stress.  The VCU Career Connections staff modeled this behavior for Bill and he 
later initiated this strategy independently while prodding a student with an introduction to 
the weight machines.  Another useful strategy suggested for Bill by VCU staff was 
keeping a daily log of his activities and feelings to identify potential stressors.  He was 
taught to review the previous day’s entries and to remember the frequent stress-free days 
he had experienced to support his growing self-efficacy.
As Bill neared the completion of his internship, the VCU staff and the Virginia 
Department of Rehabilitative Services helped Bill to arrange informal interviews at 
health clubs, YMCAs, and recreational centers to network with employers and provide 
opportunities to practice his interviewing skills.  He also received services from a job 
coach. Bill obtained a part-time position as a program assistant at a local YMCA near his 
home.  Bill and the Career Connections staff discussed successful support strategies 
identified during Bill’s internship at an informal meeting with his job coach.  They then 
modified these effective strategies to fit the environment of Bill’s new job in the aquatic 
department.  For example, Bill’s stress management technique of taking walks was 
modified at his new site to include swimming laps in the pool between aquatic sessions.  
Bill also maintained a journal and received one-on-one instruction from his job coach.  
Overall, Bill enjoyed his new job, demonstrated consistent attendance, and participated in 
various employee social activities on the weekends.
This case study illustrates the concept of creating futures, which includes divergent 
approaches to problem-solving and requires a person to invent new approaches that 
capitalize on the individual’s strengths and that are not jeopardized by the individual’s 
weaknesses (Dowrick & Skouge, 2001).  Such strategies can be employed by adults with 
disabilities to enhance long-term employment success.  When individuals generate 
unique solutions to fit their individual learning styles through brainstorming and 
problem-solving, they create images of future success that they have not previously 
achieved—known as feedforward (Dowrick, 1999).
Bill’s ability to collaborate and problem-solve with his VCU Career Connections 
team and health club staff resulted in the development of unique methods and 
interventions specific to his challenges.  Activities such as role playing, stress 
management, tasks development, and memorizing exemplify methods to facilitate 
success on multiple levels.  Successful interventions and strategies were transferred into 
the subsequent work environment to ensure ongoing success.
Case Example # 3
At 44 years of age, “Steve” elected to pursue a career in professional photography.  
He had previously completed several years of coursework at a college in Rhode Island 
and later moved with his parents to Virginia.  He transferred to Virginia Commonwealth 
University to complete his degree.  In his late thirties, Steve was in a car accident and 
subsequently experienced depression.  He was later diagnosed with attention deficit 
disorder and a learning disability.  Steve’s psychiatrist prescribed medication to assist 
with managing the attention deficits. 
Steve contacted the VCU Career Connections program, wanting a part-time job in 
photography, his main field of interest.  His long-term goals revolved around 
photography at special events, for magazines, or in studio work.  He also had an interest 
in filmmaking.  Steve felt intimidated by the interview process and lacked confidence 
about his ability to be successful in the photography field.  He had not been interviewed 
in a long time and was uncertain about expectations in that profession.
Steve registered with the Disability Support Services on campus and received 
accommodations in his classes.  He received extended time for tests and assignments and 
he taped his lectures, but still struggled to maintain a grade point average of 2.3.  He had 
difficulty with short-term memory and he transposed letters when reading and writing.  
Steve learned best in his “hands on” classes and he benefited from immediate feedback 
on his performance.  His technical skills were excellent.
Steve’s work history included several years of service in the Navy after high school, 
mill operator for 10 years, and a variety of odd jobs, including work as a substitute 
teacher and security officer.  He reported that he required extra time to learn job tasks and 
that he used strategies to assist himself with learning (e.g., he wrote out formulas on 3” x 
5” cards for mixing dyes at the mill).  For recreation, Steve enjoyed camping, fishing, 
scuba diving, and boating.  He had also been an assistant Scoutmaster for several years 
during which he taught boys photography and electronics for their merit badges.
To address Steve’s academic issues, the Career Connections Program provided Steve 
with information about other campus resources such as the Writing Center, and regular 
workshops on topics including how to decode textbooks or prepare for finals.  
Fortunately, many of Steve’s classes focused on technical skills.  Since Steve’s diagnosis 
had been relatively recent, contact information was also given regarding a support group 
for adults with attention deficit disorder.
It was agreed that participation in informal interviews would be a less threatening 
way for Steve to explore the photography profession.  Steve preferred not to disclose his 
disability to his employers.  VCU staff arranged several informational interviews with 
photographers, including specialists in a private studio, in a fine arts museum, and in 
aviation photography.  The interviews were informal and included a review of Steve’s 
portfolio, a review of his photographic equipment, and discussions concerning career 
options.  VCU Career Connections staff provided Steve with suggestions of organizations 
to join and ways to get started in the field.  The process built Steve’s confidence in his 
abilities and his career choice.
Next, a summer internship was secured for him at a local newspaper by the Career 
Connections staff.  The VCU School of the Arts encouraged qualified students to enter 
into limited and carefully selected internship arrangements, but did not have any 
available for the summer.  The Career Connections staff and Steve felt that an internship 
opportunity would greatly assist him in learning more about the photography field and to 
gain further experience.  Steve was provided with assistance in identifying opportunities 
and completing the application process.  He took full advantage of the potential 
networking opportunities.  He initiated travel to a local movie set connected with a film 
photographer.  Steve’s photograph of the movie set made the front page of the local 
newspaper and he delivered several copies to the film photographer.  He developed and 
maintained a friendship with the film photographer, learned about additional ways to get 
started in the field, and job-shadowed this photographer at another movie location.
Throughout the next year, Steve participated in additional informational interviews 
with free-lance photographers, university media services, newspaper photographers, field 
producers, and job fair representatives.  He eagerly followed suggestions made by 
employers, such as joining the National Press Photographers Association, a local film 
office, and the International Freelance Photographer’s Organization, which enabled his 
photos to appear on their website.  Through Steve’s multiple contacts, he secured a 
position working as a photographer for a large agency through which he had the 
opportunity to photograph Rod Stewart and Reba McIntyre in concert.  Steve now plans 
on marketing his photographs to various magazines to continue building his reputation 
and personal business. 
The previous case scenario demonstrates how an internship setting can be an optimal 
place for developing self-determination skills.  There is a positive relationship between 
individuals who develop an internal locus of control and the demonstration of self-
determination.  Research has indicated that as people have the opportunity to choose, and 
to make decisions and actions according to their own environment, they develop an 
internal locus of control (Lefcourt, 1984) and individuals with disabilities gain control 
over major life events (Wehmeyer & Garner, 2003).  Several researchers have questioned 
the possibility of developing self-determination for some individuals with disabilities 
who are consistently limited or denied the opportunity to make their own decisions (see 
Dowrick & Skouge, 2001).  Steve’s decision to enter the field of photography was an 
internally driven choice that was based on his interests and skill level.  With the 
assistance of the VCU staff, Steve was able to self-advocate for his needed supports and 
to gain access to opportunities within his chosen field.  Steve also demonstrated decision-
making skills (e.g., setting goals and standards, identifying information upon which to 
base his decisions, generating new solutions when needed, and choosing the best option 
to develop a plan).
Discussion
This article summarizes experiences in the lives of three individuals.  In each 
situation there were moments in which the system could have worked better for these 
students.  In each case, the individuals were able to avail themselves of staff and other 
advocates from within their environment to give leverage to their own self-determination, 
often through considerable problem-solving and experimentation to find out what worked 
as a solution acceptable for them.  There were instances of making connections between 
early employment experiences and current opportunities.  Here it was mostly university-
based staff who initiated a series of experiences that proved substantially responsible for 
the success of the graduating student in the workplace.  Another evident theme which 
emerges is the students’ considerable inner strength, perhaps the biggest factor in 
achieving their educational goals.
	“Dawn” benefited from an early job success in launching a career.  Her story 
illustrates the way in which prior employment can help employers focus their attention on 
previous work qualities, instead of her disability.  This focus was partially brought about 
with Dawn learning about community supports available to her, and informing a potential 
employer about how technology enhanced her work performance.
Postsecondary educational training that provides internship experience can be crucial 
to preparation for employment.  “Bill” succeeded in adapting to and compensating for his 
psychiatric disability.  He benefited from working with support through on-the-job 
training situations that differed from college training.  He was able to practice disclosing 
his disability, incorporating strategies into his work routine to help him learn a new work 
routine or to reduce his stress. 
“Steve” elected not to disclose his disabilities to employers; however, he worked with 
the Career Connections staff to establish informational interviews to learn as much as 
possible about his profession.  Steve’s internship proved to be an invaluable experience 
for him.  It enabled him to learn how to assess the demands of his work environment, and 
to determine if supports were needed to assist him in successfully meeting these 
demands.
The case studies presented in this article provide examples of students with 
disabilities who needed varying levels of support to better understand how to problem 
solve and request accommodations within their work environments.  Each student needed 
to affirm their strengths and abilities, and used informational interviewing, job 
shadowing, or internships as mechanisms to test new strategies to effectively interact in 
the work place.  As a result, these three students were able to pursue their chosen careers.
Peter W. Dowrick, Ph.D., is Professor of Disability Studies and Psychology at the 
University of Hawaii.  He has wide experience working with people marginalized by 
culture, disability, mental health, and other considerations.  His overarching contribution 
has been in the concepts of feedforward and creating futures, applied in situations of 
personal safety, serious mental illness, social behavior, sports and recreation, daily living, 
literacy, academic skills, health, housing, management, and jobs, among others.  
Correspondence concerning this article can be sent to: Dr. Peter W. Dowrick, 1776 
University Av. UA 4-6, University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI 96822, USA, (808) 956-8741 
(telephone), (808) 956-4371 (fax), or dowrick@hawaii.edu.
Elizabeth Evans Getzel, M.A., is the VCU-RRTC Director of Postsecondary 
Education Initiatives at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.  She 
has over 20 years of experience conducting research, evaluation, and training in the areas 
of transition planning for secondary students with disabilities, postsecondary education 
for student with disabilities, and career planning/employment for individuals with 
disabilities.
Lori W. Briel, M.Ed., is a Research Associate at the VCU-RRTC in Richmond, 
Virginia.  Currently, she provides comprehensive