students writing three essays about difficulties adjusting to college were

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Adjustment to Higher Education: A Comparison of Students With and Without Disabilities

1 Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

2 Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Miriam Sarid

3 Western Galilee College, Acre, Israel

Inbar Aharoni Zorach

Adi anna hagag, hila peretz, associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

The present study examined adjustment to higher education among students with disabilities from a multifaceted perspective (academic, social, emotional, institutional) immediately following their first year of study and onward, with three primary objectives. First, we examined whether students with no disabilities adjust better to higher education than do students with disabilities (mental, physical, sensory, ADHD/LD). Second, we examined differences among the specific disability groups in adjustment to higher education overall and in specific subscales. Finally, we examined the unique pattern of adjustment in each disability group, and sought to determine whether the groups differed with respect to this pattern. Of the 469 students who participated in the study, 234 had disabilities (mental disabilities, sensory, ADHD/LD, physical) and 235 were matched controls. The results indicated that students with disabilities as a whole reported lower adjustment than did controls. A close examination of the differences between the disability groups in the four subscales demonstrated unique adjustment challenges for each of them. The findings demonstrate the importance of specifically examining each disability group, to learn about needs and support.

Introduction

Higher education, a principal means of achieving professional and economic goals, is seen by many today as a natural stage in the human life cycle. It is believed to contribute to self-determination and to the establishment of a positive self-image ( Lidor et al., 2008 ). Post-secondary education, in particular, is a predictor of gainful employment in meaningful occupations, which open opportunities for career development and hence for good quality of life ( Getzel et al., 2001 ; Dutta et al., 2009 ; Sachs and Schreuer, 2011 ).

College students with disabilities are a growing subpopulation at 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions ( Newman et al., 2011 ). This change is largely related to social and legislative policies and public opinions supporting the provision of equal education and employment opportunities for people with disabilities worldwide ( Sarid et al., 2020 ). In Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the United States government mandated postsecondary institutions to provide students with disabilities equal access to education, including support services.

Students with disabilities have varying levels of access to and support for grades K–16. Laws like IDEA (1975) ensure that students are provided with free and appropriate public education (FAPE) through high school or age 21. The 2004 IDEA Improvement Act specified that postsecondary institutions should be accessible and provide accommodations for students with disabilities. However, studies demonstrate that students with disabilities still face difficulties in these settings. Thus, despite the aforementioned rise in enrollment, in 2007, only one fourth of United States students with disabilities participated in some type of postsecondary education ( Snyder et al., 2009 ).

Several studies have proposed theoretical models of retention and persistence in higher education (i.e., Tinto, 1975 , 1993 ; Bean and Metzner, 1985 ), most of which focus on characteristics of students before entering post-secondary education that determine their persistence during the first year ( Tinto, 1975 , 1993 ). The majority of these studies examined students who represented the first generation in their families to attend post-secondary education (e.g., Warburton et al., 2001 ) and came from low SES backgrounds (e.g., Engle and Tinto, 2008 ). Few studies have examined theories of retention and persistence among students with disabilities ( Kim and Lee, 2016 ).

Higher Education in Israel

The Israeli higher education system has undergone dramatic changes since the mid-1990s. Initially based on six public research universities, it is now also encompassing over fifty public colleges, private colleges primarily focused on high-demand areas such as law and business administration, and teaching colleges. The central achievement of this structural reform was a rapid rise in the number of students enrolled in post-secondary education: from 75,000 in 1990 to approximately 265,000 in 2015 ( CBS, 2015 , Table 54.8). Today, nearly 50% of undergraduate students attend academic (public and private) colleges and 15% attend teaching colleges.

Alongside rising rates of enrollment in post-secondary education in Israel’s general population, a specific rise in students with disabilities has occurred. This is largely due to constitutional changes including the 1998 “Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law,” which recognizes the rights of people with disabilities and the societal obligation to support and uphold these rights ( Admon, 2007 ). Still, as in the United States, the proportion of Israelis with disabilities in post-secondary education remains lower ( Ben-Simon et al., 2019 ) than the general population.

Students With Disabilities

The Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA Amendments Act, 2008 ) defined disability as a physical or mental condition that causes substantial functional limitations of one or more life activities, including learning.

Learning disability (LD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are often classified as one group, “LD and/or ADHD,” in both research and clinical settings ( DuPaul et al., 2013 ). In some cases, ADHD is categorized as a type of LD ( Bizier et al., 2014 ). Explanations for this include high comorbidity rates, with the two disorders diagnosed comorbidity 45.1% of the time ( DuPaul et al., 2013 ).

The number of students with LD enrolled in post-secondary institutions has increased dramatically. However, similar to students with ADHD, students with LD demonstrate difficulties in this context, with one study indicating that 80% of them had not graduated 5 years after high school, compared to 56% of students without disabilities ( Murray et al., 2000 ). In addition, students with LD who display lower levels of adjustment to college reported greater need for counseling services and academic support ( Saracoglu et al., 1989 ).

Another common disability in postsecondary education is mental disabilities. Those living with mental disabilities have lower chances of achieving their higher education goals and completing college ( Collins, 2000 ) and approximately 86% of them will drop out of college before completing their degree ( Collins and Mowbray, 2005 ). The enrollment numbers of students with hearing impairments in post-secondary education have also increased significantly over the past 25 years. One American study reports significant progress for deaf and hard of hearing students, citing an increase in overall enrollment in post-secondary education from 50% to 73% between 1990 and 2005. Physical disability is another condition that influences the adjustment of students to postsecondary education.

Hidden Disabilities

Hidden disabilities are defined as “conditions that provide no atypical appearance or no readily observable functional limitations to those interacting with the individual peripherally” ( Falvo et al., 1982 ). Though not as vulnerable to stigmatization due to overt differences, individuals with invisible disabilities can experience employment difficulties, presumably due to anxiety related to having an invisible disability ( Frable, 1993 ). Across the United States, there is evidence that approximately 10% of undergraduate and graduate students report having a disability. Approximately 70% of these students reported disabilities such as learning, attention, psychiatric, or chronic health impairments ( Raue and Lewis, 2011 ). Students with ADHD/LD or mental disabilities face obstacles that moderate their success in higher education, such as psychological distress, poor social and interpersonal skills, persistent cognitive deficits (especially in the area of executive functioning), and alcohol abuse ( Wolf, 2001 ), or attentional difficulties ( American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013 ), compared with other students with disabilities. ADHD is classified in DSM-5 as a mental disabilities ( American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013 ).

Visible disabilities are more stigmatized than invisible disabilities. Indeed, in an empirical study utilizing multidimensional scaling, Frable found that visibility was a “master status” that causes people to be treated differently ( Frable, 1993 ). Some students with disabilities choose not to disclose their disabilities, to mitigate stigmatization, and as a result receive less academic support from the academic institution ( Grimes et al., 2017 ).

A key factor in determining whether students remain and succeed in post-secondary education is their ability to adjust to the often complex environment (“post-secondary adjustment”). Students who experience difficulties in adjusting to the academic environment are at higher risk of attrition ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ).

In the past, investigators viewed post-secondary adjustment as a single variable ( Mooney et al., 1991 , p. 445). The more current, multifaceted view suggests that academic adjustment comprises functioning in four distinct domains. The first, “academic achievement,” includes motivation for learning, appropriateness of skills to academic requirements, and ability to earn satisfactory grades. The second domain, “social adjustment,” encompasses involvement in the study environment, including the ability to establish social networks. The third, “personal emotional adjustment,” reflects psychological and physical conditions; it is indicative of self-perception and represents the ability to cope with study-related challenges that can lead to stress and anxiety. The fourth and final domain, “institutional adjustment,” involves how students feel about their relationship with academics, in general, and to their academic environment, in particular ( Baker and Siryk, 1984 , 1989 ; Gerdes and Mallinckrodt, 1994 ).

Many studies have examined adjustment among students in post-secondary education, especially during the first year of study (i.e., Horn and Carroll, 1998 ). Most of the research conducted in this field addresses the first year of post-secondary education, in which most of the dropouts occur. The research on adjustment of students in the second and third years of study is limited and the characteristics of adjustment in this group are largely unknown. Among the variables that have been examined is psychological capital (i.e., Liran and Miller, 2019 ). Liran and Miller, for example, found that psychological capital, as manifested in four variables, self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, predicted adjustment to academic studies in a sample of 250 typical second and third year students at an Israeli university.

Adjustment in Students With Disabilities

Some research has examined students at higher risk for adjustment difficulties, such as international students (i.e., Poyrazli and Grahame, 2007 ; Lashari et al., 2018 ; Lee et al., 2018 ). Another group of studies examinedthe adjustment of students with disabilities. In some cases, researchers examined a group of students with disabilities as one group, such as LD, ADHD, physical, mental disabilities, or sensory difficulties ( Murray et al., 2014 ). Though limited, the work on students with disabilities suggests that they are indeed at risk in terms of overall adaptation to the college experience, social adjustment, and institutional attachment to college ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ), and that they can experience logistical, socio-environmental, and attitudinal barriers to success ( Wolanin and Steele, 2004 ). Krisher and Shechtman (2016) , for example, showed that the academic achievement and adjustment scores of students who reported having LD were lower than those of students who did not. Murray et al. (2014) measured adjustment by means of self-efficacy to college, student engagement, and GPA. They revealed three distinct adjustment profiles of students, and approximately twice as many students with disabilities were classified as poorly adjusted as were classified as highly adjusted ( Murray et al., 2014 ).

It appears that students with disabilities in postsecondary education face the same challenges as do students without disabilities, with the addition of challenges specifically related to their disabilities. Several studies have compared students with and without disabilities with respect to college adaptation using the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker and Siryk, 1984 ), which assesses overall adjustment to college, as well as the four specific areas of academic adjustment, personal–emotional adjustment, social adjustment, and attachment (to the institution). While students with and without disabilities were not found to differ in terms of academic achievement, they did differ with respect to the subscales measuring social adjustment, personal-emotional adjustment, and school attachment. Students with disabilities were significantly less adapted than their peers without disabilities on all three of these psychosocial dimensions ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ; Herrick, 2011 ). This finding, reported in two separate studies, indicates greater struggles with psychosocial aspects of adaptation to college among students with disabilities ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ; Herrick, 2011 ). In addition, higher levels of self-reported visibility of disability to others and better self-advocacy skills were statistically significant positive predictors of adaptation to college ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ).

Another limited group of studies examined adaptation to post-secondary education among specific groups with disabilities. While an increasing number of students with ADHD now attend institutions of higher education ( Green and Rabiner, 2012 ), they appear to struggle throughout their academic career, and their chances of graduating are significantly lower than those of students without disabilities ( Weyandt and DuPaul, 2006 ). In accordance, students with ADHD were shown to have significantly lower scores on the SACQ than their peers without ADHD. Students with ADHD also had lower levels of self-reported social skills and self-esteem, both of which were associated with lower levels of adaptation to college ( Shaw-Zirt et al., 2005 ).

One study reported fewer experiences in the three activities related to social inclusion, namely art and theater events, clubs and organizations, and student acquaintances, among students with psychiatric disability. These students also estimated gains from their studies as lower than those of the two other groups. On the other hand, students with psychiatric disability were more likely to participate in library activities than students with physical and sensory disabilities. Students with physical disabilities were more satisfied with their studies than were the other two groups of students with disabilities ( Sachs and Schreuer, 2011 ).

The Current Study

Limited studies have examined the adjustment of specific disability groups from a multicomponent perspective beyond the first academic year. Therefore, to address the paucity of research on adjustment to postsecondary education among students with disabilities, and to focus on single disabilities, the present study examined the impact of four unique disabilities that vary with respect to visibility and mental disabilities, as well as physical and academic impairment, in a large sample. The aim was to gain a deeper understanding of adjustment to higher education among groups of students with different disabilities, as compared to one another and to a typical control group, after the first year of study and onward. In addition, the study aimed to examine the adjustment of students with visible versus invisible disabilities. A broad and diverse sample of Israeli post-secondary (i.e., university or college) students was employed alongside a control group matched for gender, academic faculty, institution, and year of study.

The study had three specific objectives. First, we examined adjustment among all the students with disabilities in our sample, compared with the control group. Second, we examined social, academic, institutional, and emotional components of adjustment among the four disability groups (LD/ADHD, physical, mental, and sensory). Finally, we examined the unique pattern of adjustment in each group of students with disabilities, and evaluated differences between the groups in an attempt to shed light on their specific needs and challenges. We predicted that students with no disabilities would have higher adjustment scores than students with disabilities, and students with difficulties related to academic performance would have the lowest adjustment scores.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Table 1 presents the demographic and background characteristics of the sample. Overall, 469 college and university students from eight universities and fifteen colleges in Israel participated in the study, of which 235 (68% female) had disabilities and 232 (75% female) did not. Of the participants, 95% were undergraduates and 5% were graduate students; Hebrew was the first language of 94% of the students.

Demographic and background characteristics of the sample.

Four disability subtype groups were based on participant self-reports, and included hidden and visible disabilities: hidden disabilities included mental disabilities ( n = 63) and ADHD/LD ( n = 67), while visible disabilities included sensory ( n = 53) and physical disabilities ( n = 54). For each group of students with disabilities, a group of students without disabilities from the same institution was matched with respect to gender, field of study, and year of study. About 25% of the participants in the mental disabilities group, 12% of the ADHD/LD group, 17.5% of those with sensory disabilities, and 29% of those with physical disabilities resided on campus. In the control group, 30% reported that they reside on campus. Chi square comparison indicated a significant difference in the ratio of those who reside on campus among the groups (Chi square = 9.8, p = 0.04). About 54% of the students with disabilities received some kind of support from their academic institution, while no differences were found with regards to the ratio of support between groups of disabilities (Chi square = 0.11, p = ns). In addition, no differences were found in the type of support the participants received. The main support types reported were academic (40% of the participants with disabilities), financial support (13%), and emotional support (19%). The groups did not differ in the type of supports received (Chi square = 37.1, p = ns).

To address the possibility of comorbidity of symptoms between disabilities, the participants were asked to note the disability most significantly affecting their functioning.

Background and Demographic Questionnaire

The questionnaire included demographic information regarding gender, year, field, and institution of study, and diagnosis of disability.

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

The original Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) was a 52-item self-report questionnaire. It was developed in English and translated to Hebrew by Khalili (2006) using the standard back translation method. Participants respond to each of the questionnaire items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (doesn’t apply to me at all) to 9 (applies to me very much), such that higher scores represent better adjustment. A shortened Hebrew modified version of the original SACQ ( Baker and Siryk, 1989 ) was developed and partly modified in order to adapt the content to the reality of Israeli university and college students.

The questionnaire comprises four subscales: academic adjustment, including 19 items addressing adaptation to academic challenges in the learning environment (e.g., “Lately I have been having doubts regarding the value of a college education”), with high internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; personal-emotional adjustment, including 9 items addressing general psychological distress (e.g., “I have been feeling tense or nervous lately”), Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81; social adjustment, including 12 items addressing the ability to cope with social interactions (e.g., “I am meeting as many people and making as many friends as I would like to the college”), with high internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83; and institutional adjustment, including 6 items addressing commitment to academic goals (e.g., “I am happy with my decision to attend this college”), Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71.

In addition, data were collected regarding emotional/social and academic support services used by participants, and the period of time such support was received.

Support offices at most institutions of higher education in Israel (all the universities, many colleges, and a teachers’ college) were asked to send their registered students an online post about the study and an electronic questionnaire. The current study was part of a larger study that examined different variables contributing to the adjustment of students in higher education. Data were collected over 2 years. Students with disability who completed the questionnaires were asked to pass them on to a friend at the same college with no diagnosed disability, matched for faculty and department, gender, and year of study. When students with disability were not able to find a matched control, a request was posted on the Facebook page of the institution or by the department secretary. Students returned the questionnaires to the researcher via email and received $20 for their effort. Prior to entering the study, participants were given an explanation regarding its purpose and procedure, and signed an informed consent form. This research was supported by the Israeli National Insurance Institute (social security). In addition, the study received the approval of the University of Haifa Faculty of Education ethics committee.

Data Analysis

SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the data. To address the first research question, differences between the study and control groups were tested using an independent samples t -test. To address the second research question, a comparison between the four groups of disabilities and the control group was conducted using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), followed by univariate analyses of variance and Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons. Finally, to examine the unique pattern of adjustment in each group of students with disabilities, the differences between adjustment subscales within each group and between the groups were tested with a two-way repeated measures MANOVA with Adjustment Subscale as a within-subjects factor and Group as a between-subjects factor (4 × 5). Following this general comparison, we conducted pairwise comparisons in each group, with Bonferroni corrections to account for cumulative type 1 error. To better understand the adjustment patterns, we classified the participants into clusters using a k-means cluster analysis with the four adjustment subscales. The number of clusters was determined according to the ‘elbow’ method, in which the number of clusters for k-means was chosen by fitting k-means models for a range of consecutive numbers, usually 1 up to some maximum number, and plotting an elbow plot of the total within sum of squares (WSS) value for each number of clusters versus that cluster number ( Flynt and Dean, 2016 ). In addition, cross-tabulations and chi square tests were used to compare the groups on demographic variables. Chi square test as well as cross-tabulation was also used to compare the cluster distribution in each group of participants, and also to compare visible versus invisible disability groups.

Pearson correlations were used to examine the correlation between subscales of adjustment.

The first aim of the study was to compare the adjustment scores of the entire sample of students with disabilities to those of the control students without disabilities. To this end, an independent samples t -test was conducted with total adjustment score as the dependent measure. The results indicated lower adjustment scores in students with disabilities ( M = 5.90, SD = 1.11) as compared to controls ( M = 6.57, SD = 0.96), t (467) = 6.88, p = 0.001, d = 0.60.

The second aim was a detailed examination of adjustment among the five study groups (four disability groups and typical students), based on the four adjustment subscales. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted, followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each adjustment measure, and post hoc Tukey tests.

A main multivariate effect was found between the groups with respect to adjustment level, Multivariate Wilks’ F (16,1409) = 7.70, p < 0.001, η = 0.06. As shown in Figure 1 , the results indicated that the scores of students with disabilities were lower than those of their peers without disabilities on all four adjustment subscales. Pairwise comparisons revealed the following results:

Adjustment to higher education by category of adjustment and group of disability. C, control group; A, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder/learning disabilities (ADHD/LD) group; M, mental disabilities; P, physical disabilities; S, sensory disabilities.

The academic adjustment of students with mental disabilities was lower than that of the following three groups: sensory disabilities, physical disabilities, and controls. Students with ADHD/LD had lower academic adjustment scores than controls but did not differ significantly from the other disability groups.

The social adjustment scores of students with mental disabilities were lower than those of students with other disabilities, and of typical students. No other between-group differences were found with respect to social adjustment.

Personal adjustment scores were lower in the mental disabilities group than in all other disability groups and the control group. The sensory disability group’s adjustment scores were higher than those of the ADHD/LD group, and personal adjustment score was lower than that of control group.

The control group showed higher institutional adjustment scores than the mental disabilities group. No other between-group differences were found with respect to institutional adjustment.

In addition to differences, as can be seen in Table 2 , Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the adjustment subscales. All the correlations were found to be higher than r = 0.36 and significant ( p = 0.001), in the entire sample as well as in each group of students with disabilities.

Pearson correlation coefficients between adjustment subscales.

The third research objective was to identify the unique pattern of adjustment in each group of students with disabilities and examine whether the groups differed with respect to this pattern. We began with a two-way repeated measures MANOVA with Adjustment Subscale as a within-subjects factor and Group as a between-subjects factor (4 × 5). The results indicated a significant Group x Adjustment Subscale interaction with respect to academic versus institutional adjustment, F (4,464) = 2.48, p < 0.05, and personal versus institutional adjustment, F (4,464) = 14.72, p < 0.001. Following this general comparison, we conducted pairwise comparisons in each group, with Bonferroni corrections to account for cumulative type 1 error (see Table 3 and Figure 1 ).

Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and ANOVA results examining differences in adjustment measures between groups of students with and without disabilities.

Students with mental disabilities . Personal adjustment was the subscale with the lowest scores, as compared to the other three subscales, among participants with mental disabilities. Institutional adjustment had the highest scores compared to the other adjustment types.

Students with ADHD/LD . We found significant differences between all adjustment subscales in this group, with institutional adjustment receiving higher scores than social, academic, and personal adjustment.

Students with sensory disability . Institutional adjustment scores were higher than those of all other subscales among the students with hearing and vision impairments. No other differences were found between the subscales.

Students with physical disability . As in the other groups, institutional adjustment scores were higher than other adjustment scores in students with physical disabilities. In addition, their personal adjustment scores were lower than their social and academic adjustment scores.

Control group . Like participants with physical disabilities, controls had the highest scores on institutional adjustment, and lower personal adjustments scores than academic and social adjustment scores.

To better understand the adjustment patterns in the different disability groups (third research question), we conducted a k-means cluster analysis with the four adjustment subscales in the whole group of participants. The analysis classified the entire sample into two clusters (groups); The number of clusters was determined based on the “elbow” method. According to this method, the number of clusters for k-means was chosen by fitting k-means models for a range of consecutive numbers, usually 1 up to some maximum number, and plotting an elbow plot of the total within sum of squares (WSS) value for each number of clusters versus that cluster number ( Flynt and Dean, 2016 ). The value for one cluster was WSS = 3358.3, and the value for two clusters was WSS = 1801.9. For three clusters the value dropped to WSS = 1423, and therefore, two clusters were chosen as the number of clusters.

Following the cluster analysis, the group means were examined and revealed that the first cluster (see Table 3 ) represented respondents who had higher scores on all adjustment subscales ( n = 270) and the second cluster represented respondents who had lower scores on all adjustment subscales ( n = 199). To further investigate clusters in the groups, in the next step we cross-tabulated the groups by cluster (see Table 4 and Figure 2 ).

Distribution of clusters in the groups and mean adjustment subscale scores according to cluster analysis.

Students with disabilities: adjustment mean scores of high and low adjustment students.

The results of the cross-tabulation showed that the majority of participants with mental disabilities or ADHD/LD were classified in the low adjustment group, whereas the majority of participants in the control and sensory disability groups, were classified in the high adjustment cluster (for means of adjustment subscales by cluster see Figure 3 ).

Ratio of low and high adjustment students in groups of disability.

Participants with physical disability were divided approximately half and half. We then divided the groups into visible (physical and sensory disabilities) versus invisible disabilities (mental disabilities and ADHD/LD disabilities), and repeated chi-square analysis. Results showed that in the invisible disabilities group, a higher percentage of students were classified in the low cluster, while in the visible disabilities group, a higher percentage were classified in the high cluster. An additional chi-square subgroup analysis indicated significant differences between each group of either visible and invisible disabilities versus control (χ 2 = 8.34, p = 0.01; χ 2 = 43.8, p < 0.001) and also between those two groups of disabilities (χ 2 = 9.28, p < 0.01).

While post-secondary education is associated with academic, social, personal, and institutional challenges for all students, students with disabilities are likely to face additional challenges. The current research examined adjustment in students with disabilities attending institutions of post-secondary education in Israel. Participants came from a representative sample including students with one of four specific disabilities, mental disabilities, sensory, physical, or ADHD/LD, and students without disabilities.

The first research question examined differences between all students with disabilities and control students with respect to general adjustment. The findings showed that, as a group, students with disabilities adapted less successfully than students without disabilities. These findings are in line with those of a similar study by Adams and Proctor (2010) , who referred to adaptation as a univariate measure. Given that adjustment is related to dropout rates and that students with disabilities are at particular risk for dropping out, attention to their adjustment needs is important ( Costello and Stone, 2012 ).

Our second aim was to compare the four groups of students with disabilities to typical students with respect to the four adjustment subscales. Overall, students with disabilities reported lower adjustment compared to their peers without disabilities on all four measures. These results are generally consistent with most previous findings on adjustment among students with disabilities ( Adams and Proctor, 2010 ; Herrick, 2011 ).

While previous studies found significant differences between students with and without disabilities on three subscales (social, personal, and institutional), the current study suggests that these difficulties extend to academic aspects of adjustment as well. This difference might be due to differences in the characteristics of the disability groups examined. In accordance, the current study shed light on difficulty patterns (social, personal, institutional, academic) associated with specific disability groups, which can serve as the basis for the provision of tailored support.

Students with mental disabilities demonstrated lower adjustment scores on all four subscales, reporting lower personal and social adjustment compared to all the other disability and control groups. Their lower scores on personal adjustment are not surprising, taking into consideration their type of disability. Furthermore, this finding might validate their self-classification into a group with mental disabilities. This group also reported greater difficulties with academic adjustment than the physical and sensory disability groups and had significantly lower institutional adjustment scores than did controls. These results are partially consistent with previous findings on students with mental disabilities. Collins and Mowbray (2005) , for example, reported that this group experienced difficulties with concentration, time management, class attendance, coping with stress, non-completion, poor physical health, and building social networks. Furthermore, studies have shown that students who experience mental disabilities have lower completion rates than other students with disabilities ( Martin, 2010 ). In keeping with previous results, the current study highlights the constant challenges that students with mental disabilities experience in many aspects of post-secondary education and calls for support services tailored to meet these challenges.

Students with ADHD and/or LD are another group of students that reported significant difficulties in several aspects of adjustment. As expected, this group demonstrated significantly lower scores on academic and personal adjustment compared to the control group. The current results are therefore consistent with previous reports that ADHD is associated with lower grade point average, more academic difficulties, and less effective study skills ( Advokat et al., 2011 ; Weyandt and DuPaul, 2013 ; Gormley et al., 2015 ). Our results also support Tinto’s (1975) model and proposition that student trajectories and, in turn, academic persistence are shaped by the interaction between experiences in high school and at college ( Tinto, 2010 ). Students with ADHD/LD are likely to experience academic difficulties during their earlier school years, which might influence their academic adjustment during post-secondary education.

Previous work has also shown that students with ADHD and/or LD report more symptoms of depression and anxiety than non-ADHD/LD students do ( Hoy et al., 1997 ; Carroll and Iles, 2006 ; Rabiner et al., 2008 ; Blase et al., 2009 ). The results of the current study support these findings as well, as students with ADHD and/or LD reported difficulties in personal adjustment (e.g., “I have been feeling tense or nervous lately”). This finding has implications for the type of support services that should be provided for these students and calls for close monitoring during their post-secondary journey. ADHD is classified in the DSM-5 ( American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013 ) as a mental disability. Nevertheless, the current study results that revealed differences between ADHD and those who self-identified as having a mental disability, provide empirical justification for differentiating between these groups. The symptoms of anxiety, depression, and attention deficits may affect adjustment and functioning in higher education, and are less typical among students with visible disabilities such as motor or other physical disabilities.

Students with physical disabilities only showed lower adjustment than controls in the personal adjustment category, and most of the adjustment difficulties reported by students with sensory disabilities were in the personal realm as well. There is very limited research on these two groups in the context of adjustment to higher education, such that future studies are warranted to reveal the particular challenges they face. One implication of this result is that institutions should identify students with invisible disabilities early on, probably during the registration stage, examine their adjustment needs (social, emotional, and academic), and provide them with appropriate support.

Our third research question addressed the unique pattern of adjustment in each group of students with disabilities, and examined whether the groups differed with respect to this pattern. For all groups, including controls, institutional aspects of adjustment seemed to be the least problematic. Institutional adjustment reflects academic commitment to the institution and, indirectly, student retention. It is well-documented that students who drop out of postsecondary education mostly do so during their first year ( Chen, 2012 ; Respondek et al., 2019 ). As the participants in the current research were all in their second year or beyond, they were likely to be more committed to their studies and to the institution they attend. We can therefore conclude that second and third year students face fewer institutional adjustment difficulties than other types of adjustment difficulties.

In the control group, personal adjustment appeared to be more problematic than social, academic, and institutional adjustment. This pattern was also revealed in the two invisible disability groups (i.e., mental disabilities and ADHD/LD) as well as the physical disability group. Personal adjustment might be a reflection of daily stress and concerns inherent in the academic environment, such as stress resulting from academic requirements or from daily conflicts between academic and work demands.

Our ANOVA results were supported by a clustering procedure in which all the students were divided into low and high adjustment clusters, independent of disability. The classification of these clusters indicated a higher percentage of students with low adjustment in the invisible disabilities groups, and a lower rate of low adjustment students in the visible disabilities group. It should be noted that clustering of students was conducted according to their perception of adjustment, and therefore the clustering reflects severity of adjustment and not the disability itself. Self-perception can indicate the student’s functioning in postsecondary education, and thus might be no less important than objective severity of disability. These results are supported by a similar result presented by Murray et al. (2014) which showed over-representation of students with disabilities in a low adjusting group, as approximately twice as many students with disabilities were classified as low in adjustment than were classified as high.

In addition, it is possible that the group of those with hidden disabilities was less inclined to disclose their disabilities in order to be perceived merely as students and not as disabled, as proposed by Grimes et al. (2017) : “Choosing non-disclosure may offer an opportunity to re-develop their identity away from “disabled” and toward “university student.” However, these students might still have more adjustment difficulties than others.

The current study had several limitations. First, we mostly used self-report measures, which are based on subjective perceptions. Some of our disability groups include comorbid disabilities, which probably reflect the actual population at the postsecondary education level. These comorbidities should be taken into consideration in interpreting the findings. Future studies should include more objective measures, such as grade point average and dropout rate. In addition, we examined specific disability groups. It is necessary to extend the use of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker and Siryk, 1989 ) to different types of students with disabilities. Future studies should include additional groups, such as students with autism, who have been shown, for example, to struggle during the transition from high school to post-secondary education (e.g., Kapp et al., 2011 ), and more information on the adjustment of these students and students with different disabilities is needed. In addition, this study investigated adjustment beyond the first year of studies and therefore does not relate to challenges that first year students may face. As a high proportion of students with ADHD/LD do not participate in postsecondary education, our participants may not have had the same level of academic difficulties as others who do not study in college, which might be related to their adjustment. This issue requires further investigation of additional academic parameters such as college achievements and dropout rates.

Even within the broad categorization of disability employed in this study, closer examination of specific subtypes will provide a better understanding of adjustment. For instance, students with physical disabilities in the current study included a wide variety of causes, such as chronic disease, amputation, and more. Each condition could manifest in a different way and might require different types of support.

One of the findings revealed lower personal adjustment of the group with mental disabilities. This finding is not surprising, as this scale reflects self-perception and represents the ability to cope with study-related challenges that can lead to stress and anxiety.

Adjustment likely develops over the course of academic studies. The current study examined adjustment at one point in time, and not the developmental aspects of students who continue to study. Future research should explore adjustment as a continuous process in relation to demographic characteristics such as parental support, drug abuse and coping style.

The present study sought to expand the existing literature on students with disabilities in post-secondary education in several ways. First, it examined and compared students with different disabilities to indicate their specific adjustment needs and to see adjustment in relation to visible versus non-visible disabilities. Second, most studies have examined adjustment during the first year of postsecondary education and the current study indicated the persistent adjustment challenges experienced by students with disabilities beyond the first year. Third, the findings indicate that students with mental disabilities and ADHD/LD who all have invisible disabilities, experience significant difficulties in many aspects of post-secondary education. Finally, the results suggest that support services should assess the needs and challenges of students with disabilities and be aware that these may vary among groups of students with different disabilities.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Education at the University of Haifa, Israel. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

OL and MS conceptualized this study and contributed to the writing and interpretation of the data. IA, AB, AH, and HP contributed to data collection. AB coordinated the data collection of the study. MS contributed to the statistical analysis. All authors agreed to be accountable for the content of the work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This study was sponsored by a grant from the Israeli National Insurance Institute.

• ADA Amendments Act (2008). ADA Amendments Act 2008 Pub. L. No. 110-325 42 U.S.C. §1201 et seq. Heathrow, FL: ADA Amendments Act. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adams K. S., Proctor B. E. (2010). Adaptation to college for students with and without disabilities: group differences and predictors. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 22 166–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Admon Z. (2007). “ The right to accessibility in the international and Israeli legislation ,” in The Accessibility of the Israeli Society for Persons with Disabilities on the Threshold of the 21st century. eds Feldman D., Danieli Lahav Y., Haimovitz S. (Tel Aviv: Lapam Publication; ), 177221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Advokat C., Lane S. M., Lou C. (2011). College students with and without ADHD: Comparison of self-report of medication usage, study habits, and academic achievement. J. Atten. Disord. 15 656–666. 10.1177/1087054710371168 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychiatric Association [APA] (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker R. W., Siryk B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. J. Couns. Psychol. , 31 179–189. 10.1177/0748175611400291 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker R. W., Siryk B. (1989). SACQ Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean J. P., Metzner B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Rev. Educ. Res. , 55 485–540. 10.2307/1170245 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ben-Simon A., Dahan O., Saka N., Margalit M., Mana A. (2019). Testing Accommodations for Students With Learning Disabilities and ADHD: Needs, Hidden Theories and Coping Resources. Jerusalem: National Institute for Testing and Evaluation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bizier C., Till M., Nicholls G. (2014). Learning Disabilities Among Canadians aged 15 Years and Older, 2012. Ottawa: Statistique Canada. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blase S. L., Gilbert A. N., Anastopoulos A. D., Costello E. J., Hoyle R. H., Swartzwelder H. S., et al. (2009). Self-reported ADHD and adjustment in college: Cross- sectional and longitudinal findings. J. Atten. Disord. 13 297–309. 10.1177/1087054709334446 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll J. M., Iles J. E. (2006). An assessment of anxiety levels in dyslexic students in higher education. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76 651–662. 10.1348/000709905X66233 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CBS (2015). Central Buearau of Statistics (CBS). Denmark: Annual Statistical Yearbook. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen R. (2012). Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: a multilevel event history analysis. Res. High. Educ. 53 487–505. 10.1007/s11162-011-9241-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins K. D. (2000). Coordination of rehabilitation services in higher education for students with psychiatric disabilities. J. Appl. Rehabil. Couns. 31 36–39. 10.1891/0047-2220.31.4.36 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins M. E., Mowbray C. T. (2005). Higher education and psychiatric disabilities: National survey of campus disability services. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 75 304–315. 10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.304 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costello C. A., Stone S. L. (2012). Positive psychology and self-efficacy: potential benefits for college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 25 119–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• DuPaul G. J., Gormley M. J., Laracy S. D. (2013). Comorbidity of LD and ADHD/LD: Implications of DSM-5 for assessment and treatment. J. Learn. Disabil. 46 43–51. 10.1177/0022219412464351 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutta A., Scguri-Geist C., Kundu M. (2009). Coordination of postsecondary transition services for students with disability. J. Rehabil. 75 10–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Engle J., Tinto V. (2008). Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First-Generation Students. Available online at: http://www.pellinstitute.org/publications-Moving_Beyond_Access_2008.shtml [ Google Scholar ]
• Falvo D. R., Allen H., Maki D. R. (1982). Psycho-social aspects of invisible disability. Rehabil. Literature 43 2–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flynt A., Dean N. (2016). A survey of popular R packages for cluster analysis. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 41 205–225. 10.3102/1076998616631743 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frable D. E. (1993). Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions among those who are different. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19 370–380. 10.1177/0146167293194002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerdes H., Mallinckrodt B. (1994). Emotional, social and academic adjustment of college students: a longitudinal study of retention. J. Couns. Dev. 72 281–288. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb00935.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Getzel E. E., Stodden R. A., Briel L. W. (2001). Pursuing postsecondary education opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Life Beyond Classroom 3 247–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gormley M. J., Pinho T., Pollack B., Franklin M., Busch C., Anastopoulos A. D. (2015). Impact of study skills and parent education on first-year GPA among college students with and without ADHD: A moderated mediation model. J. Attent. Disord. 22 334–348. 10.1177/1087054715594422 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green A. L., Rabiner D. L. (2012). What do we really know about ADHD in college students? Neurotherapeutics 9 559–568. 10.1007/s13311-012-0127-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimes S., Scevak J., Southgate E., Buchanan R. (2017). Non-disclosing students with disabilities or learning challenges: Characteristics and size of a hidden population. Aust. Educ. Res. 44 425–441. 10.1007/s13384-017-0242-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrick S. J. (2011). Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Predictors of Adaptation to College. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horn L. J., Carroll C. D. (1998). Stopouts or Stayouts? Undergraduates who leave college in Their First Year (NCES 1999-087). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoy C., Gregg N., Wisenbaker J., Manglitz E., King M., Moreland C. (1997). Depression and anxiety in two groups of adults with learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Q. 20 280–291. 10.2307/1511226 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IDEA (1975). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S.C. § 1400 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapp S. K., Gantman A., Laugeson E.A. (2011). “ Transition to adulthood for highfunctioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders ,” in A Comprehensive Book on Autism Spectrum Disorders , Ed. Mohammadi M. R. (London: InTech; ), 451–478. 10.5772/21506 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalili L. (2006). The Relationships Between Differentiation, Collectivism and Adjustment to University Life among Arabstudents. Ph.D. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Haifa, Israel: Available online at: http://nprimofe.haifa.ac.il/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=NHAU [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim W. H., Lee J. (2016). The effect of accommodation on academic performance of college students with disabilities. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 60 40–50. 10.1177/0034355215605259 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krisher H., Shechtman Z. (2016). Factors in the adjustment and academic achievement of college students with learning disabilities in Israel. Int. Res. High. Educ. 1 125–135. 10.5430/irhe.v1n1p125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lashari S. A., Kaur A., Awang-Hashim R. (2018). Home away from home–the role of social support for international students’ adjustment. Malaysian J. Learn. Instr. 15 33–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C., Sung Y. T., Zhou Y., Lee S. (2018). The relationships between the seriousness of leisure activities, social support and school adaptation among Asian international students in the US. Leisure Stud. 37 197–210. 10.1080/02614367.2017.1339289 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lidor N. H., Dahan O., Kasif-Weisberg L., Tabakman M. (2008). Supportive education program for people with psychiatric disabilities in the Universities. Israeli J. Occup. Ther. 17 9–22. 10.1007/BF02521025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liran B. H., Miller P. (2019). The role of psychological capital in academic adjustment among university students. J. Happiness Stud. 20 51–65. 10.1007/s10902-017-9933-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J. M. (2010). Stigma and student mental health in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 29 259–274. 10.1080/07294360903470969 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mooney S. P., Sherman M. F., Lopresto CT. (1991). Academic locus of control, self esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of college adjustment. J. Couns. Dev. 69 445–448. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb01542.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray C., Goldstein D. E., Nourse S., Edgar E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 15 119–127. 10.1207/sldrp1503_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray C., Lombardi A., Kosty D. (2014). Profiling adjustment among postsecondary students with disabilities: A person-centered approach. J. Divers. High. Educ. 7 : 31 10.1037/a0035777 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman L., Wagner M., Knokey A. -M., Marder C., Nagle K., Shaver D., et al. (2011). The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities Up to 8 Years After High School. A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poyrazli S., Grahame K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students within a semi-urban campus community. J. Instr. Psychol. 34 : 28 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabiner D. L., Anastopoulos A. D., Costello J., Hoyle R. H., Swartzwelder H. S. (2008). Adjustment to college in students with ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 11 689–699. 10.1177/1087054707305106 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raue K., Lewis L. (2011). Students With Disabilities at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Respondek L., Seufert T., Hamm J., Nett U. (2019). Linking changes in perceived academic control to university dropout and university Grades: A longitudinal approach. J. Educ. Psychol. 10.1037/edu0000388 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sachs D., Schreuer N. (2011). Inclusion of Students with disabilities in higher education: performance and participation in student’s experiences. Disabil. Stud. Q. 31 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Saracoglu B., Minden H., Wilchesky M. (1989). The adjustment of students with learning disabilities to university and its relationship to self-esteem and self-efficacy. J. Learn. Disabil. 22 590–592. 10.1177/002221948902200913 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarid M., Meltzer Y., Raveh M. (2020). Academic achievements of college graduates with learning disabilities vis-a-vis admission criteria and academic support. J. Learn. Disabil. 53 60–74. 10.1177/0022219419884064 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw-Zirt B., Popali-Lehane L., Chaplin W., Bergman A. (2005). Adjustment, social skills, and self-esteem in college students with symptoms of ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 8 109–120. 10.1177/1087054705277775 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder T. D., Dillow S. A., Hoffman C. M. (2009). Digest of educational statistics 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tinto V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Rev. Educ. Res. 45 89–125. 10.3102/00346543045001089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tinto V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition , 2nd Edn Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tinto V. (2010). “ From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student retention ,” in Higher Education: ”Handbook of Theory And Research , Ed. Smart J. (Dordrecht: Springer; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Warburton E. C., Bugarin R., Nunez A. M. (2001). Bridging the Gap: Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Success of First-Generation Students. Statistical Analysis Report. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weyandt L. L., DuPaul G. (2006). ADHD in college students. J. Atten. Disord. 10 9–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weyandt L. L., DuPaul G. J. (2013). College Students With ADHD: Current Issues and Future Directions. New York, NY: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolanin T. R., Steele P. E. (2004). Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: A Primer for Policymakers. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolf L. E. (2001). College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities: Outcomes and interventions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 931 385–395. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05792.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Calendar/Events
• One-Stop Resources
• My Wisconsin Portal
• More Resources

• LEARN Center
• Research-Based Teaching Tips

Efficient Ways to Improve Student Writing

Strategies, Ideas, and Recommendations from the faculty Development Literature

General Strategies

• View the improvement of students’ writing as your responsibility. Teaching writing is not only the job of the English department alone.  Writing is an essential tool for learning a discipline and helping students improve their writing skills is a responsibility for all faculty.
• Let students know that you value good writing. Stress the importance of clear, thoughtful writing. Faculty who tell students that good writing will be rewarded and poor writing will be penalized receive better essays than instructors who don't make such demands. In the syllabus, on the first day, and throughout the term, remind students that they must make their best effort in expressing themselves on paper. Back up your statements with comments on early assignments that show you really mean it, and your students will respond.
• Regularly assign brief writing exercises in your classes. To vary the pace of a lecture course, ask students to write a few minutes during class. Some mixture of in-class writing, outside writing assignments, and exams with open-ended questions will give students the practice they need to improve their skills.
• Provide guidance throughout the writing process. After you have made the assignment, discuss the value of outlines and notes, explain how to select and narrow a topic, and critique the first draft, define plagiarism as well.
• Don't feel as though you have to read and grade every piece of your students' writing. Ask students to analyze each other's work during class, or ask them to critique their work in small groups. Students will learn that they are writing in order to think more clearly, not obtain a grade. Keep in mind, you can collect students' papers and skim their work.
• Find other faculty members who are trying to use writing more effectively in their courses. Pool ideas about ways in which writing can help students learn more about the subject matter. See if there is sufficient interest in your discipline to warrant drawing up guidelines. Students welcome handouts that give them specific instructions on how to write papers for a particular course or in a particular subject area.

Teaching Writing When You Are Not an English Teacher

• Remind students that writing is a process that helps us clarify ideas. Tell students that writing is a way of learning, not an end in itself. Also let them know that writing is a complicated, messy, nonlinear process filled with false starts. Help them to identify the writer's key activities:
• Developing ideas
• Finding a focus and a thesis
• Composing a draft
• Getting feedback and comments from others
• Revising the draft by expanding ideas, clarifying meaning, reorganizing
• Presenting the finished work to readers
• Explain that writing is hard work. Share with your class your own struggles in grappling with difficult topics. If they know that writing takes effort, they won't be discouraged by their own pace or progress. One faculty member shared with students their notebook that contained the chronology of one of his published articles: first ideas, successive drafts, submitted manuscript, reviewers' suggested changes, revised version, galley proofs, and published article.
• Give students opportunities to talk about their writing. Students need to talk about papers in progress so that they can formulate their thoughts, generate ideas, and focus their topics. Take five or ten minutes of class time for students to read their writing to each other in small groups or pairs. It's important for students to hear what their peers have written.
• Encourage students to revise their work. Provide formal steps for revision by asking students to submit first drafts of papers for your review or for peer critique. You can also give your students the option of revising and rewriting one assignment during the semester for a higher grade. Faculty report that 10 to 40 percent of the students take advantage of this option.
• Explain thesis statements. A thesis statement makes an assertion about some issue. A common student problem is to write papers that present overviews of facts with no thesis statement or that have a diffuse thesis statement.
• Stress clarity and specificity. The more the abstract and difficult the topic, the more concrete the student's language should be. Inflated language and academic jargon camouflage rather than clarify their point.
• Explain the importance of grammar and sentence structure, as well as content. Students shouldn't think that English teachers are the only judges of grammar and style. Tell your students that you will be looking at both quality of their writing and the content.
• Distribute bibliographies and tip sheets on good writing practices. Check with your English department or writing center to identify materials that can be easily distributed to students. Consider giving your students a bibliography of writing guides, for example:

Crews, F.C. Random House Handbook. (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.

A classic comprehensive textbook for college students. Well written and well worth reading.

Lanham, R.A. Revising Prose . (3rd ed.) New York: Scribner's, 1991. Techniques for eliminating

bureaucratese and restoring energy to tired prose.

Tollefson, S. K. Grammar Grams and Grammar Grams II . New York: HarperCollins, 1989,

1992. Two short, witty guides that answer common questions about grammar, style, and usage. Both are fun to read.

• Science and Engineering Barrass, R. Scientists Must Write. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1978. Biddle, A. W., and Bean, D. J. Writer's Guide: Life Sciences. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1987.
• Arts and Humanities Barnet, S. A Short Guide to Writing About Art . Boston: Little, Brown, 1989. Goldman, B. Reading and Writing in the Arts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978.
• Social Sciences Biddle, A. W., Fulwiler, T., and Holland, K.M. Writer's Guide: Psychology . Lexington, Mass,:

Heath, 1987. McCloskey, D. N. The Writing of Economics . New York: Macmillan, 1987.

• Ask a composition instructor to give a presentation to your students. Invite a guest speaker from the composition department or student learning center to talk to your students about effective writing and common writing problems. Faculty who have invited these experts report that such presentations reinforce the values of the importance of writing.
• Let students know about available tutoring services. Individual or group tutoring in writing is available on most campuses. Ask someone from the tutoring center to give a demonstration in your class.
• Use computers to help students write better. Locally developed and commercially available software are now being used by faculty to help students plan, write, and revise their written work. Some software available allows instructors to monitor students' work in progress and lets students collaborate with their classmates.

Assigning In-Class Writing Activities

• Ask students to write what they know about a topic before you discuss it. Ask your students to write a brief summary of what they already know or what opinions they hold regarding the subject you are about to discuss. The purpose of this is to focus the students' attention, there is no need to collect the summaries.
• Ask students to respond in writing to questions you pose during class. Prior to class starting, list two or three short-answer questions on the board and ask your students to write down their responses. Your questions might call for a review of material you have already discussed or recalling information from assigned readings.
• Ask students to write from a pro or con position. When presenting an argument, stop and ask your students to write down all the reasons and evidence they can think of that supports one side or the other. These statements can be used as the basis for discussion.
• During class, pause for a three-minute write. Periodically ask students to write freely for three minutes on a specific question or topic. They should write whatever pops into their mind without worrying about grammar, spelling, phrasing, or organization. This kind of free writing, according to writing experts, helps students synthesize diverse ideas and identify points they may not understand. There is no need to collect these exercises.
• Have students write a brief summary at the end of class. At the end of the class period, give your students index cards to jot down the key themes, major points, or general principles of the day's discussion. You can easily collect the index cards and review them to see whether the class understood the discussion.
• Have one student keep minutes to be read at the next class meeting. By taking minutes, students get a chance to develop their listening, synthesizing, and writing skills. Boris (1983) suggests the following:
• Prepare your students by having everyone take careful notes for the class period, go home and rework them into minutes, and hand them in for comments. It can be the students' discretion whether the minutes are in outline or narrative form.
• Decide on one to two good models to read or distribute to the class.
• At the beginning of each of the following classes, assign one student to take minutes for the period.
• Give a piece of carbon paper to the student who is taking minutes so that you can have a rough copy. The student then takes the original home and revises it in time to read it aloud at the next class meeting.
• After the student has read their minutes, ask other students to comment on their accuracy and quality. If necessary, the student will revise the minutes and turn in two copies, one for grading and one for your files.
• Structure small group discussion around a writing task. For example, have your students pick three words that are of major importance to the day's session. Ask your class to write freely for two to three minutes on just one of the words. Next, give the students five to ten minutes to meet in groups to share what they have written and generate questions to ask in class.
• Use peer response groups. Divide your class into groups of three or four, no larger. Ask your students to bring to class enough copies of a rough draft of a paper for each person in their group. Give your students guidelines for critiquing the drafts. In any response task, the most important step is for the reader to note the part of the paper that is the strongest and describe to the writer why it worked so well. The following instructions can also be given to the reader:
• State the main point of the paper in a single sentence
• List the major subtopics
• Identify confusing sections of the paper
• Decide whether each section of the paper has enough detail, evidence, and information
• Indicate whether the paper's points follow one another in sequence
• Judge the appropriateness of the opening and concluding paragraphs
• Identify the strengths of the paper

Written critiques done as homework are likely to be more thoughtful, but critiques may also be done during the class period.

• Use read-around groups. Read-around groups are a technique used with short assignments (two to four pages) which allows everyone to read everyone else's paper. Divide the class into groups no larger than four students and divide the papers (coded for anonymity) into as many sets as there are groups. Give each group a set and ask the students to read each paper silently and decide on the best paper in the set. Each group should discuss their choices and come to a consensus on the best paper. The paper's code number is recorded by the group, and the same process is repeated with a new set of papers. After all the groups have read all the sets of papers, someone from each group writes on the board the code number from the best paper in each set. The recurring numbers are circled. Generally, one to three papers stand out.
• Ask students to identify the characteristics of effective writing. After completing the read-around activity, ask your students to reconsider those papers which were voted as excellent by the entire class and to write down features that made each paper outstanding. Write their comments on the board, asking for elaboration and probing vague generalities. In pairs, the students discuss the comments on the board and try to put them into categories such as organization, awareness of audience, thoroughness of detail, etc. You might need to help your students arrange the characteristics into meaningful categories.

The Strategies, Ideas and Recommendations Here Come Primarily From:

Gross Davis, B. Tools for Teaching . San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993.

And These Additional Sources…

Boris, E. Z. "Classroom Minutes: A Valuable Teaching Device." Improving College and

University Teaching, 1983,31(2), 70-73.

Elbow, P. "Using Writing to Teach Something Else." Unpublished paper, 1987.

Hawisher, G. E., and Selfe, C. L. (eds.). Critical Perspectives on Computers and

Composition Instruction.  New York:  Teachers College Press, 1989.

Holdstein, D. H., and Selfe, C. L. (eds.). Computers and Writing: Theory, Research,

Practice. New York: Modern Language Association, 1990.

Lowman, J. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

Petersen, B. T. "Additional Resources in the Practice of Writing Across the Disciplines."

In C. W. Griffin (ed.), Teaching Writing in All Disciplines . New Directions in Teaching and Learning, no. 12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

Bright Idea Network , 1989. (For information contact David Graf, Iowa State University, Ames.)

Pytlik, B. P. "Teaching Teachers of Writing: Workshops on Writing as a Collaborative

Process." College Teaching , 1989, 37(1), 12-14.

Tollefson, S. K. Encouraging Student Writing . Berkeley: Office of Educational

Development, University of California, 1988.

Walvoord, B. F. Helping Students Write Well: A Guide for Teachers in All Disciplines.

(2nd ed.) New York: Modern Language Association, 1986.

Watkins, B. T. "More and More Professors in Many Academic Disciplines Routinely

Require Students to Do Extensive Writing." Chronicle of Higher Education, 1990, 36(44), pp. A13-14, A16.

We use cookies on this site. By continuing to browse without changing your browser settings to block or delete cookies you agree to the UW-Whitewater Privacy Notice .

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

17 Approaches for Encouraging Students to Revise Their Writing

• Share article

(This is the final post in a five-part series. You can see Part One here ; Part Two here ; Part Three here , and Part Four here .)

The new question-of-the-week is:

How do you get students to want to revise their writing?

In Part One , Melissa Butler, Jeremy Hyler, Jenny D. Vo, and Mary Beth Nicklaus shared their recommendations. All four were guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

In Part Two , Matthew Johnson, Emily Phillips Galloway, Robert Jiménez, Holland White, Joy Hamm, and Alexandra Frelinghuysen offered their commentaries.

In Part Three , Alexis Wiggins, Keisha Rembert, Alicia Kempin, Sara Holbrook, and Michael Salinger contributed their ideas.

In Part Four , Tara Bogozan, Michelle Shory, Irina McGrath, Mary K. Tedrow, and Donna L. Shrum provided their suggestions.

Today, Sarah Falbo, Jonathan Eckert, Dr. Tracy Edwards, Dr. Rebecca Alber, and Tamera Musiowsky-Borneman “wrap up” this series.

“Authentic audience”

Sarah Falbo began her career with Teach For America in Compton, Calif., and has since taught writing in public, charter, and private elementary and middle schools in the Pittsburgh area. She has also taught at WPWP-sponsored Young Writers Institutes for many summers and coaches students through the college-application essay-writing process:

Six ways to answer the magic question: How do we get students to want to revise their writing?

• Offer them authentic assignments, not arbitrary prompts. I find that when my students are invested in the assignment, they are much more likely to care about their writing and want to make it better. Let them take a stance on a controversial issue that matters to them for a debate, propose a solution to a real-world problem as a TED-talk script, or have them choose two high-interest topics to compare/contrast.
• Have them appeal to an authentic audience. Find opportunities to have someone other than you their teacher read and respond to your students’ writing. Some options for an additional audience include blogs, writing contests, letters to the editor/principal/CEO, or even the class down the hall.
• Show them the underlying structure to their piece to help them see what they can add or don’t need. This can be a revelation—especially to our students to whom the writing process can seem mysterious or too touchy feely. One good way to do this is to add color, literally. Have students color-code reasons, elaboration, and examples in a persuasive essay or details in a memoir. Is there a balance?
• As motivation, help them see that their favorite authors often spend more time planning and revising than drafting. The following blog has lots of practical advice from famous authors and even a handwritten plot chart that J.K. Rowling used while planning out The Order of the Phoenix (See 12 Contemporary Writers on How They Revise .)
• Explicitly teach students how to use the tools already at their fingertips. Students having trouble typing the words? Use the voice-activated microphone. Finding or spelling the perfect word? Check out the online thesaurus or dictionary. Detecting grammatical errors? Try the grammar checker. I know that this can be controversial, but since these tools are here to stay, why not teach our students how to use them responsibly to improve their writing.
• Pick out positive student examples to share with the class during the revision stage. Too often, students equate revision with correction; instead, share an excellent transition, a terrific metaphor, an original thought, or a perfectly chosen word to motivate students at the start of a revision lesson.

I hope that you and your students find these six tips useful as you embrace the messiness of revision—this essential, yet often dreaded step to improved writing.

“Three principles”

Jonathan Eckert is a professor and the Copple Endowed Chair at Baylor University. He has taught elementary, middle, undergraduate, and graduate students outside of Chicago; Nashville, Tenn.; and now, Waco, Texas. He is the author of The Novice Advantage and Leading Together :

I am convinced that I cannot intrinsically motivate any student to want to do anything …. But don’t stop reading.

I have taught 4th graders through graduate students over the past 25 years and have come to realize that by definition, intrinsic motivation comes from within. That is not something that an external person can force.

This does not mean I have given up on getting students to revise their writing well. I am just starting with a different premise—this one: As teachers, we can create conditions where students are more likely to be intrinsically motivated. We do this by providing honest feedback and helping students realize improvement is possible and observable. Here are three principles that have helped me:

Principle #1: Make improvement valuable to students

As a college professor, it makes me sad to see other professors write numerous comments on an assignment that has been graded. What do college students do with these papers once they see the grade? Most recycle the paper or click to the next screen without internalizing the comments.

College students are almost exactly like the middle school students I taught in this regard. In fact, this is true of almost all human beings. Whether we do well or not, the comments do not mean a great deal if there is nothing we can do to improve upon our performance and the subsequent evaluation because the final judgment has already been rendered. At a minimum, students should have an opportunity to improve their grades, but more importantly, they should be able to identify ways in which their work improves over time. This is not about grade inflation. This is about giving students the feedback they need to demonstrate deep, meaningful learning through their writing.

Principle #2: Give concrete feedback on students’ best efforts

As teachers, we need to create opportunities for students to get feedback from peers and from us when they can still improve their final product. That means two things: 1) We have to train peers to give clear, specific feedback for improvement; and 2) as teachers, we need to be sure that we give feedback on “first final drafts.”

Students need specific things to look for in their peers’ writing with training on what good writing would look like; otherwise, peer feedback becomes pooled ignorance. I got the phrase, “first final draft,” from another professor. What it means is that we need students’ best efforts so we can give them meaningful feedback. For many students, a “rough draft” is whatever they can get together the night before, on the bus, or right before class. As I tell my students, the quality of my feedback is dependent on the quality of the work upon which it is based.

Principle #3: Remember that students are just like us

We all want to get better. We want feedback to improve, not evaluation that feels like judgment. Teachers are far more receptive to an evaluation process that focuses on improvement than one that feels like judgment. Our students’ writing should not be any different. Our feedback should point them toward good examples, provide direction for improvement, and facilitate their ability to grow as writers.

While we cannot intrinsically motivate other human beings, we can create conditions where they are more likely to want to improve as writers. As Dan Willingham, a cognitive scientist at the University of Virginia, writes, “People are naturally curious, but we are not naturally good thinkers; unless the cognitive conditions are right, we will avoid thinking.” This is especially true for writing, so the key is to tap into curiosity and improvement as we engage in the writing and feedback process with our students.

“Nobody reads this stuff but you anyway!”

With nearly 20 years of educational experience, Dr. Tracy Edwards has an extensive background in teaching, literacy, and curriculum development. Tracy currently works as a 5th grade teacher and curriculum developer at Odyssey Charter Schools:

“A significant part of the writer’s practice—maybe the only part that matters when it comes to attitudes—is recognizing that writing is difficult, that it takes many drafts to realize a finished product, and that you’re never going to be as good as you wish.”

- John Warner, Why They Can’t Write

Writing can be tough. It’s particularly challenging because it never really seems finished. For students, the sense of dread often comes when they realize revision is a natural part of the writing process—one that requires them to make some sophisticated decisions around when a piece is done.

The Power of Authentic Audience

Many teachers make the mistake of ignoring the importance of audience in conversations around student writing. However, the reality is, students, do not want to write for US. They simply don’t.

Writing is a valid, authentic expression of the millions of ideas and questions students have swirling around in their heads. When writing, students want to give their opinions, debate, or simply express things they’ve been deeply contemplating. However, having them write simply for us is not enough for them to want to revise. I discovered this while doing my unit on persuasive writing years ago. Students initially let out the usual large groans when they found out that they’d have to revise their drafts, perhaps several times. “Why? Nobody reads this stuff but you anyway!”

At the time, I had given them the writing prompt, “Should students have to wear uniforms?” Yes, students had plenty of valid opinions about this idea. Yes, they had researched and even cited sources and written the first draft. Yet, they couldn’t fathom why they needed to further clarify ideas and content if it was just for me. “Well, who do you think should be reading these?” I asked. “The principal, assistant principal, and anyone else who can actually do something about it” was the consensus.

So I made them a deal. When they completed the assignment, I would give every single letter to our administration. I even asked the principal to come in and reassure them that he would read them. The resistance to revision began melting away almost immediately. They were suddenly extremely invested in revising their work. Their ideas and voices mattered, and they wanted to make sure that these ideas came across clearly, even if this meant replacing large chunks of their original texts.

They ended up creating their own peer-editing circles, requesting appointments with me when they wanted my feedback, and holding discussions on our social network where they gave each other tips on how to make sure their messages were clear. It was truly glorious and it forever changed my views on what revision can look like for developing writers, especially when they’re intrinsically motivated to do so.

Dr. Rebecca Alber is an instructor at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education. A teacher educator and literacy specialist, she advocates liberatory education and literacy in all K-12 classrooms. She is an ardent follower of the Abolitionist Teaching Network @ATN_1863 and Rethinking Schools @Rethink Schools:

First, share with them that revision is about reseeing a draft, not correcting or editing it but making the writing stronger and tighter. (Correcting comes during the editing process.)

Next, share the reason and rationale for revision. For example, I would show my high school students Tupac Shakur’s The Rose That Grew from Concrete poetry collection. I’d take the book, open-faced, and on the left-side page is a scribbled poem from his journal with cross-outs, words replaced, and arrows rearranging phrases and words, and on the right-side page is the published poem in its new form. We then look closely at Shakur’s handwritten draft on the left and compare it with the more polished typed version. Students quickly see how tinkering with the words and the arrangement can make one’s writing have way more of a punch.

Next, I teach students explicitly a revision strategy. This means I take them step by step through a revision activity using a draft of their writing so they can see how a simple activity, such as one called “looping,” can improve their draft.

Here’s how looping works: Ask students to find a golden line from their draft and then write it at the top of a clean page of paper. Then, give them five or six minutes to firewrite (write without stopping) below that golden line. I then ask them to read over this new writing piece and I then ask, Do you like it better than your original draft? More than half the class would say yes. Even those who decide to stick with their original draft tend to see the value in the exercise and usually transfer some of the new writing to their original draft.

Another explicit revision strategy: Color-coding helps students identify exactly what they can replace, rearrange, omit in their drafts. For example, give your students colored pencils and have them go through their draft. First, with a green pencil, for example, they underline lines where they tell (“she was so tired”) and then they can rewrite it to show (“with eyelids drooping, she shuffled across the room”). Have them take an orange pencil, for example, and underline all the “dead” words—those words overused and common ( good, bad, nice ). They can then replace those words with less common words ( worthy, wicked, pleasant).

What I found is that if I provide space and time in writers’ workshop for these explicit revision activities, and time for them to share, they actually enjoy revising their drafts.

“Be the model”

Tamera Musiowsky-Borneman is an international educator, adviser, and coach who has taught in Singapore, New York City, and Edmonton, Canada. Follow her on Twitter: @TMus_Ed:

Student writers will write just to get it done! To get their teacher off their back! And honestly, there is triumph in completing a rough draft! Writing is a challenging process for even the most gifted writers, and revising can present additional stress, impeding the flow of completing written work. Revising a draft is a commitment requiring stamina and another set of skills.

Because revising writing can have the appearance of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as a teacher, you will want to alter the appearance so what students’ experience in the revising process is actually a sheep in sheep’s clothing.

Four ideas to get students to want to revise their work:

• Be the model for how revision looks and sounds. Take your students through your own process of revising your own writing. Always have some writing pieces in a notebook or in your Google Drive that you can revise in front of your students. I show students all the drafts I have started, open one, and go through my process. I do a natural flow of thinking out loud and make revisions, connecting that to the process taught in class.
• Partner up. Kids love to talk and share. So let them! When I asked students what motivates them to revise their writing, responses were overwhelmingly the same: a partner and colored pens. Give students checklists and some nice pens, and set timers for focused partner revision sessions.
• Use social media. Reach out to students’ favorite authors! You can tweet, direct message, send a snap, or create an Instagram story. With the accessibility teachers have to social media for school use as well as published-author public accounts, it is entirely possible that you and your students can send a tweet to a favorite author asking about how they revise their books!
• Schedule a Skype call. Again, given accessibility to writers in the digital world, you can potentially set up a Skype call with an author to discuss the revision process with students. If you are unable to set up a call with an author, check their websites for videos or tips about the writing process. YouTube can be your next choice for finding authors working through the revision process.

I find joy in teaching writing. It does not need to become a chore or stressful. If you enjoy writing, likely your students will, too.

Thanks to Sarah, Jonathan, Tracy, Rebecca, and Tamera for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign - new ones won’t be available until late January). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts

Race & Racism in Schools

School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis

Classroom-Management Advice

Best Ways to Begin the School Year

Best Ways to End the School Year

Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning

Implementing the Common Core

Facing Gender Challenges in Education

Teaching Social Studies.

Cooperative & Collaborative Learning

Using Tech in the Classroom

Student Voices

Parent Engagment In Schools

Teaching English-Language Learners

Reading Instruction

Writing Instruction

Education Policy Issues

Differentiating Instruction

Math Instruction

Science Instruction

Advice for New Teachers

Author Interviews

Entering the Teaching Profession

The Inclusive Classroom

Learning & the Brain

Administrator Leadership

Teacher Leadership

Relationships in Schools

Professional Development

Instructional Strategies

Best of Classroom Q&A

Professional Collaboration

Classroom Organization

Mistakes in Education

Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Advertisement

Effects of SRSD college entrance essay exam instruction for high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties

• Published: 20 August 2018
• Volume 32 , pages 1507–1529, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Amber B. Ray 1 ,
• Steve Graham 2 &
• Xinghua Liu 3  

1273 Accesses

13 Citations

Explore all metrics

Strategies instruction has improved the writing of high school struggling writers in previous studies, including students with disabilities. This study examined the effectiveness of argumentative writing instruction for the ACT writing exam using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model with high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Using a multiple baseline across participants design, four 10th grade students (three males, one female) were taught to analyze ACT prompts, plan, and write an argumentative essay using the SRSD model. Following instruction, students increased quality of their plans, number of argumentative elements, overall ACT essay score, number of words, and number of transition words in their ACT essays. Students were positive about the strategy, learning process, and its effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Writing Interventions Using SRSD for Secondary Students with and At-Risk for Learning Disabilities: A Review of Empirical Research

Effectiveness of an SRSD writing intervention for low- and high-SES children

Naymé Salas, Marilisa Birello & Teresa Ribas

Can Argumentative Writing Improve Math Knowledge for Elementary Students with a Mathematics Learning Disability?: A Single-Case Classroom Intervention Investigation

ACT, Inc. (2017a). ACT profile report — National: Graduating class of 2017 . Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/P_99_999999_N_S_N00_ACT-GCPR_National.pdf . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

ACT, Inc. (2017b). Exemplar early high school writing test prompt. Retrieved from https://www.discoveractaspire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6359-Aspire-Exemplar-Writing-EHS_FINAL_web_01.12.17.pdf . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

ACT, Inc. (2018a). Writing sample essays . Retrieved from https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/writing-sample-essays.html?page=0&chapter=0 . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

ACT, Inc. (2018b). W riting test scores . Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/writing-test-scores.html . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500303 .

Google Scholar  

Barge, M. A. (2018, January 11). Complete list: Which colleges require ACT writing? 100 + schools. Retrieved from http://blog.prepscholar.com/complete-list-which-colleges-require-act-writing-all-schools . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126974 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018a). English language arts standards introduction key design considerations . Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/ . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018b). Key shifts in English language arts . Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/ . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Education Northwest. (2012). What are the traits . Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits/trait-definitions . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31 (1), 21–32.

Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gewertz, C. (2017, February 8). Feds: States must make case for ACT. Education Week (p. 9).

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44 (4), 1–12.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 405–438). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185 .

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 .

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools . Retrieved from Carnegie Corporation of New York website: https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/3c/f5/3cf58727-34f4-4140-a014-723a00ac56f7/ccny_report_2007_writing.pdf . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Hoover, T. M., Kubina, R. M., & Mason, L. H. (2012). Effects of self-regulated strategy development for POW +TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 20, 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.640903 .

Jacobson, L. T., & Reid, R. (2010). Improving the persuasive essay writing of high school students with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 76, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600202 .

Jacobson, L. T., & Reid, R. (2012). Improving the writing performance of high school students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and writing difficulties. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 20, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.724624 .

Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kiuhara, S. A., O’Neile, R., Hawken, L., & Graham, S. (2012). The effectiveness of teaching 10th grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text. Exceptional Children, 78, 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800305 .

Lane, K. L., Robertson, E. J., Mofield, E., Wehby, J. H., & Parks, R. J. (2009). Preparing students for college entrance exams: Findings of a secondary intervention conducted within a three-tiered model of support. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507314022 .

Lewis, W. E., & Ferretti, R. P. (2011). Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.001 .

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Hoover, T. (2013). Effects of quick writing instruction for high school students with emotional disturbances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611410429 .

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2015). Academic intervention. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Psychological Corporation. (2009). WIAT III: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.100.4.879 .

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), In advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 142–175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). College enrollment and work activity of 2015 high school graduates. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers (NCEE 2012-4058). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides/writing_pg_062612.pdf . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016-014), Chapter 2. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 . Accessed 19 Aug 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Special Education, College of Education, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 1776 University Avenue, Wist Hall 120, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

Amber B. Ray

Warner Professor of Special Education, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, PO Box 871811, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1811, USA

Steve Graham

Research Institute of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Xinghua Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amber B. Ray .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ray, A.B., Graham, S. & Liu, X. Effects of SRSD college entrance essay exam instruction for high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Read Writ 32 , 1507–1529 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3

Download citation

Published : 20 August 2018

Issue Date : 15 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Writing intervention
• Secondary education
• Self-Regulated Strategy Development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Should college essays touch on race? Some feel affirmative action ruling leaves them no choice

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

When she started writing her college essay, Hillary Amofa told the story she thought admissions offices wanted to hear. About being the daughter of immigrants from Ghana and growing up in a small apartment in Chicago. About hardship and struggle.

Then she deleted it all.

“I would just find myself kind of trauma-dumping,” said the 18-year-old senior at Lincoln Park High School in Chicago. “And I’m just like, this doesn’t really say anything about me as a person.”

When the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in higher education , it left the college essay as one of few places where race can play a role in admissions decisions. For many students of color, instantly more was riding on the already high-stakes writing assignment. Some say they felt pressure to exploit their hardships as they competed for a spot on campus.

Supreme Court strikes down race-based affirmative action in college admissions

In another major reversal, the Supreme Court forbids the use of race as an admissions factor at colleges and universities.

June 29, 2023

Amofa was just starting to think about her essay when the court issued its decision, and it left her with a wave of questions. Could she still write about her race? Could she be penalized for it? She wanted to tell colleges about her heritage but she didn’t want to be defined by it.

In English class, Amofa and her classmates read sample essays that all seemed to focus on some trauma or hardship. It left her with the impression she had to write about her life’s hardest moments to show how far she’d come. But she and some classmates wondered if their lives had been hard enough to catch the attention of admissions offices.

This year’s senior class is the first in decades to navigate college admissions without affirmative action. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in decisions going back to the 1970s, but this court’s conservative supermajority found it is unconstitutional for colleges to give students extra weight because of their race alone.

Still, the decision left room for race to play an indirect role: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that universities can still consider how an applicant’s life was shaped by their race, “so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability.”

Scores of colleges responded with new essay prompts asking about students’ backgrounds.

Post-affirmative action, Asian American families are more stressed than ever about college admissions

Parents who didn’t grow up in the American system, and who may have moved to the U.S. in large part for their children’s education, feel desperate and in-the-dark. Some shell out tens of thousands of dollars for consultants as early as junior high.

Nov. 26, 2023

When Darrian Merritt started writing his essay, his first instinct was to write about events that led to him going to live with his grandmother as a child. Those were painful memories, but he thought they might play well at schools like Yale, Stanford and Vanderbilt.

“I feel like the admissions committee might expect a sob story or a tragic story,” said Merritt, a senior in Cleveland. “I wrestled with that a lot.”

Eventually he abandoned the idea and aimed for an essay that would stand out for its positivity.

Merritt wrote about a summer camp where he started to feel more comfortable in his own skin. He described embracing his personality and defying his tendency to please others. But the essay also reflects on his feelings of not being “Black enough” and being made fun of for listening to “white people music.”

Like many students, Max Decker of Portland, Ore., had drafted a college essay on one topic, only to change direction after the Supreme Court ruling in June.

Decker initially wrote about his love for video games. In a childhood surrounded by constant change, navigating his parents’ divorce, the games he took from place to place on his Nintendo DS were a source of comfort.

‘We’re really worried’: What do colleges do now after affirmative action ruling?

The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action has triggered angst on campuses about how to promote diversity without considering race in admissions decisions.

But the essay he submitted to colleges focused on the community he found through Word Is Bond, a leadership group for young Black men in Portland.

As the only biracial, Jewish kid with divorced parents in a predominantly white, Christian community, Decker wrote he felt like the odd one out. On a trip with Word Is Bond to Capitol Hill, he and friends who looked just like him shook hands with lawmakers. The experience, he wrote, changed how he saw himself.

“It’s because I’m different that I provide something precious to the world, not the other way around,” wrote Decker, whose top college choice is Tulane in New Orleans because of the region’s diversity.

Amofa used to think affirmative action was only a factor at schools like Harvard and Yale. After the court’s ruling, she was surprised to find that race was taken into account even at public universities she was applying to.

Now, without affirmative action, she wondered if mostly white schools will become even whiter.

A lot of what you’ve heard about affirmative action is wrong

Debate leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision has stirred up plenty of misconceptions. We break down the myths and explain the reality.

It’s been on her mind as she chooses between Indiana University and the University of Dayton, both of which have relatively few Black students. When she was one of the only Black students in her grade school, she could fall back on her family and Ghanaian friends at church. At college, she worries about loneliness.

“That’s what I’m nervous about,” she said. “Going and just feeling so isolated, even though I’m constantly around people.”

The first drafts of her essay didn’t tell colleges about who she is now, she said.

Her final essay describes how she came to embrace her natural hair. She wrote about going to a mostly white grade school where classmates made jokes about her afro.

Over time, she ignored their insults and found beauty in the styles worn by women in her life. She now runs a business doing braids and other hairstyles in her neighborhood.

“Criticism will persist,” she wrote “but it loses its power when you know there’s a crown on your head!”

Collin Binkley, Annie Ma and Noreen Nasir write for the Associated Press. Binkley and Nasir reported from Chicago and Ma from Portland, Ore.

More to Read

Editorial: Early decision admissions for college unfairly favor wealthy students

Jan. 4, 2024

HBCUs brace for flood of applications after Supreme Court affirmative action decision

Sept. 22, 2023

Opinion: In a post-affirmative action world, employers should learn from California’s experience

Sept. 16, 2023

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Is your child struggling to master the potty? These 5 takeaways from our panel can help

New Occidental College president bullish on liberal arts, champion of equity and inclusion

March 26, 2024

World & Nation

High school teacher and students sue over Arkansas’ ban on critical race theory

California extends deadline for students seeking state financial aid amid FAFSA turmoil

March 25, 2024