Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

TRANSITION AND INCLUSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Shaila M Rao. Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Educational Studies
#3506, Sangren Hall
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo    MI 49009
United States
Phone: (269)387-2470
Shaila.Rao@wmich.edu

Dorothy Fancher
Assistant Director
Disabled Students Resources and Services
Western Michigan University
Dorothy.fancher@wmich.edu

ABSTRACT

This paper reports findings from a study done with freshmen (N = 90) with disabilities at a university in the Midwest in the United States that examined relationship between the nature of transition preparation students received in high school, student characteristics, attrition in freshmen year, seeking or not seeking services from the center that looked into their needs on campus, and success as measured by the grade point average in freshmen year. Results of part of the study from the first semester of freshman year with students (n =29) who sought services of the Disabled Students Resources and Services on the university campus and participated in the study indicated a need for more qualitative approach to clarify this relationship.

Introduction

Angela was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder – Mixed type when she was seven years old.   From grade school through high school, she has utilized the Resource Room for untimed tests and tutoring assistance.   Her teachers knew of her disability and always granted extensions on her assignments and projects.   She has been accepted to her first choice of a university and assumes her mother has taken care of everything, as usual.

Sam is a student who has been blind from birth.   He’s pretty independent and responsible and prefers to do things on his own.   His high school has always provided his textbooks on tape and Brailled his other materials.   As a client of the Commission for The Blind, Sam will not have to pay for his textbooks, however several of the books and course packs he needs are not available from Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic.   On top of that, he has heard from some friends, he will have to provide his own readers and scribes for his tests.

Kristin has Cerebral Palsy and uses a motorized wheel chair.   Her mother has made all the necessary arrangements for her to live on campus.   She is very concerned about how she will ever get from building to building in the ten minutes between classes, especially in winter.

            The ‘inclusion’ movement gained momentum since the Salamanca Statement in 1994 (UNESCO:1994) which recognizes the necessity and urgency of providing education for all children, young people, and adults within the regular education system. The policy of ‘inclusive schooling’ is being practiced in various countries all over the world. The goal of education/inclusive education for all children with disabilities at elementary, middle, and high school level is for their eventual transition to adult and community living. For students with disabilities, as with other students, schools offer three paths to follow: (1) general education with preparation for life with a set of basic skills, (2) college preparatory-preparation for 2-year community college and/or 4-year university setting, and/or (3) vocational preparation- preparation for employment upon leaving secondary school (Wood, 2002).

Postsecondary Education as Option for Students with Disabilities

Angela, Sam, and Kristen are three of many students with disabilities who aspire for a successful post-secondary transition to higher education. Over the years, in the United States as with other countries around the world, more students with disabilities transition to post secondary setting for continued education in colleges and/or universities. In the United States passage of laws such as Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 have literally opened doors of colleges and universities to students with different disabilities. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2004) more and more high school students with disabilities are planning to continue their education in postsecondary schools, including vocational and career schools, two- and four- year colleges, and universities.

For students with and without disabilities participation in postsecondary education is a known predictor of a successful employment outcome (Zaft, Hart, & Zimbirch, 2004). The authors posited that completion of any type of postsecondary education significantly improves chances of securing meaningful employment for students with all disabilities and “meaningful employment is one of the hallmarks of successful adult life”. Successful transition, successful inclusion, and eventually successful completion of post secondary education in colleges and universities however, depends on how well prepared students with different disabilities are to face various challenges that are posed by entirely different environment and demands of college and university education.

            Skinner and Lindstrom (2003) estimated the number of students with disabilities enrolled in colleges and universities to be 428,280 as of 1997-1998. National Center for Educational Statistics in 1999 and Thomas in 2000 (as cited in Rao & Gartin, 2003) reported an increase from 29 percent in 1986, to 45 percent in 1994, of persons 16 or older with a reported disability that had either attended some college or had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 1996, roughly 6 percent of all undergraduates reported having a disability. To help students with disabilities with an accessible education that is mandated by law, universities and colleges across United States have special offices set up on campuses to address needs of students with disabilities. In spite of such measures taken at the university level, it is the responsibility of high schools to ensure that students who leave schools are ‘informed and prepared’ so that their disability, does not become a handicap (limitations imposed by the disability that affect one’s interaction with the environment) that may prevent successful completion of college/university education.

Transition to Postsecondary Education

            In the wake of an increased number of students transitioning into higher education, numerous studies (Benz, Lindstrom, Unruh, 2004; Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000; Blanchett, 2001; Brinkerhoff, 2000; Harris & Robertson, 2001; Kohler & Field, 2003; Mellard & Lancaster, 2003; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001; Zhang & Stecker, 2001) focused on transition practices in schools that lead to successful postsecondary outcomes including transition to post school employment, community living, and/or higher education. Recommendations offered included parental involvement, student involvement and empowerment, student centered planning, opportunities to enhance students’ self-determination and self advocacy, awareness of one’s own strengths and limitations, collaboration during service delivery, enhanced legal knowledge among others. However, there is a dearth of studies that focused on retention of students in higher education and/or traced students through successful completion of their postsecondary education and/or attrition and then tried to study possible influence of these programs. Harris and Robertson (2001) through one such longitudinal study with 40 students in a university setting recommended more contact between high school teachers and postsecondary personnel, two important parts of the paths to success of students with disabilities.

Support in Postsecondary Education

All incoming freshmen anticipate their first year at a university with excitement and trepidation.   On one hand, they are thrilled to be leaving home, security, and routines to enter the adult world.   On the other hand, they will be facing the challenges of independence, responsibility, and decision-making of a university student.   This is also true of freshman students with disabilities. Most colleges and universities now have designated offices/centers on their campuses to address needs of students with disabilities and help them achieve their full potential. Most centers strive to (1) enhance the first year experience for students with disabilities by providing person-to-person contact and information needed to facilitate the student’s transition to college, (2) provide students with opportunities to become intellectually engaged, more self aware, and strongly bonded to the university, (3) empower faculty and their colleges to participate fully in the process for accommodating students with disabilities, (4) promote the development of partnerships between students with disabilities and their colleges, and (5) develop methods for regularly assessing and using evaluation information gathered from students, faculty, staff, and the community to further improve services to support students with disabilities during their freshman year and beyond.

The nature of support and services offered by college and universities as a result of ADA 1990 and Section 504 however, differs from what is offered in Grades K-12 in public schools as a result of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, 1997, and 2004 in many ways. The extent of nurturing, understanding, and individual planning through a structured plan such as an individualized education plan (IEP) often offered in the K-12 setting is not available to students with disabilities in their freshman year and beyond. Free and appropriate public education (FAPE) offered in K-12 is mandated by IDEA. However, postsecondary institutions are not required to provide FAPE but only ‘reasonable accommodations’ that ensure students with disabilities are not discriminated.   Moreover, while in school, parents, teachers, and other care givers may advocate for students with disabilities and help secure services provided, required and needed by law which is different from the voluntary nature of self-disclosure of disability/disabilities and supporting valid documentation about the disability required at the postsecondary institutions to receive any accommodations.

Lack of proper knowledge about the available resources, facilities, and requirements may lead to unrealistic expectations, and /or failure to seek much needed adjustments and assistance for a successful transition to freshman year, and eventually successful completion of postsecondary education. As Harris and Robertson (2001) concluded, “once the students are on campus, they are often disadvantaged not by their disability as such but by their expectations of what people are going to do for them.” This ignorance may often cause their disability to become a handicap: some students may try and overcome this handicap, for some the handicap may prevent them from reaching their full potential during the freshman year, and for some others the handicap may become so unbearable that it may result in their dropping out from the chosen course of study. As such, transition planning they receive in their high schools may very well become a ‘holding power’ for freshmen with disabilities in higher education and their eventual successful completion of postsecondary education.

Purpose and Background of Study

This paper reports results of the first part of a study with freshmen (2004-2005 academic year) with disabilities at a large research-focused, student-centered university in the Midwest. Purpose of the study was to examine the nature of transition planning and preparation students with disabilities received in the high schools they graduated from and also other student related factors and study how these influence their successin meeting different challenges that the university setting posed during their freshman year. The study proposed to identify significant variables related to possible attrition in order to provide institutional support (including support from the university and the center for students with disabilities on campus) to reduce risk of attrition and help them reach their full potential. The operational definition of attrition was the act of dropping out any time during the first year or failing to register for the following semester and success was their grade point average (GPA). Success at the university is considered an earned average GPA of 2.00 on a 4.00 scale.   Should a freshman student not earn a 2.00, that student is placed on academic probation. This paper reports attrition and success as examined after the first semester (fall 2004). The second phase of study will continue and will be completed in Fall 2005.

This attempt was the first of its kind to study experience of freshmen with disabilities on the university campus and was a joint effort between a faculty from Department of Educational Studies and the Disabled Students’ Resources and Services (DSRS). Database on entering freshmen over the last three years (2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004) prior to this study showed that in 2001 there were a total of 4,669 entering freshmen with 93 students identified as having disabilities. In 2002, the total in-coming freshmen were 4,543 and 106 students reported as having a disability at the orientation. . In 2003, the figures were 4.732 freshmen with 115 identified as having a disability. No attempt was made however, to study their freshman experience or study how initiation of services with DSRS would have impacted their experience during the freshman year. As such, we also examined effect of initiation of service with DSRS on their success during freshman year.

Method

Design of Study

Our study examined relationship between attrition rate, success of students in their freshman year (outcome/dependent variables) and nature of transition services received in high school they graduated from, student characteristics, and whether or not student initiated contact with DSRS and sought help during their freshman year (predictor/independent variables).   The study utilized a survey research design, a combination of descriptive and explanatory categories of survey method to gather information about the program and student factors.

Participants

The Population for this study was freshmen students (N=90) who identified themselves as having a disability at the orientation and received fliers with information about DSRS, and/or contacted DSRS after the orientation in June 2004. The information included details of services available to students with disabilities on university campus through DSRS and procedures to be followed if they wanted to request any of the listed accommodations on campus. As with every year, DSRS made every effort to meet with new students at the beginning of the entering semester via e-mail and phone. Participants for the study were the freshmen with identified disabilities (n = 29) who initiated contact with DSRS, came for the usual initial interview, and who were 18 years of age or above. Another 13 students who initiated the services later in the Fall semester did not get the surveys and were not included in this study.

Instrument

This study developed two questionnaires. The first given at the beginning of their freshman year in Fall 2004 had three sections. The first section collected student information such as age; ethnic group; gender; type of disability; type of diploma; year and GPA in high school; and information related to their freshman year such as course of study planned, number of credit hours planned to take, plans related to job, stay, and financial aid. The second section collected information about the nature of transition planning received while in high school.   The program variables included in this section were decided based on research (Benz et al., 2004; Benz et al., 2000; Blanchett, 2001; Brinkerhoff, 2000; Harris & Robertson, 2001; Kohler & Field, 2003; Mellard & Lancaster, 2003; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003; Thoma et al., 2001; Zhang & Stecker, 2001) that focused on transition practices in schools that lead to successful postsecondary outcomes including transition to post school employment, community living, and/or higher education. The questions had dichotomous (yes/no) choice of response and included information regarding nature of transition plans: student and parent involvement, opportunities for volunteer and paid work opportunities and experience, college preparatory classes, vocational education classes; help understanding their disability, setting realistic postsecondary options; help in developing and applying effective study skills, test preparation and test taking skills, note-taking skills, and self-management skills; and questions regarding preparation for college/university life including need to self-advocate (understanding and self-disclosing their disability, and responsibility to clarify   needs. Information in section one and two were the independent variables. The third section included an open-ended question seeking any other comments they wanted to share about the high school preparation they received.

The second questionnaire to be administered in April/May 2005 at the end of their freshman year has two sections. The first section gather information regarding their freshman year: field of study, number of credit hours, GPA in the two semesters, if they requested and type of accommodations (classroom and/or laboratory) and if they were provided, financial aid received, whether they held a job and how many hours they worked, and where they lived. The second section of this questionnaire has three open-ended questions asking: what they would do differently if they came as a freshman again, what advice they would give to other freshmen with disabilities, any other experiences they would share to help the university and DSRS to better help future freshmen with disabilities to face possible challenges during their freshman year,

Procedures and Data Collection

Participants were asked to respond to first questionnaire at the beginning of freshman year in Fall 2004 (August/September), during their first visit to DSRS and the second will be given towards the end of Spring semester in April 2005. The director or the assistant director explained the nature and purpose of the study and the contents of the consent letter to the participants when necessary, during their first visit to DSRS and obtained their consent. Participants had an option of taking the survey either in a face-to-face situation or taking the survey with them, completing, and dropping it off after completion. Reminders were sent to participants who did not return the survey within a week via e-mail and/or phone call. No feedback was collected from the participants towards the end of Fall semester (December 2004). The DSRS database was used to collect information regarding their continued registration for Spring 2005 and their GPA for Fall 2004.

From the twenty-nine (n = 29) students who initiated contact with DSRS and visited DSRS early in the semester, twenty either took the survey in a face-to-face situation or returned the survey at a later time. Of the nine who did not return one called the DSRS and informed that he had decided not to participate. The other eight failed to respond to e-mail and phone reminders to return the survey. This resulted in a response rate of 69%.

These twenty participants will be invited to take the second questionnaire at the end of Spring semester 2005, in April/May 2005. Data about their continued registration and their GPA will be obtained through summer sessions and during Fall 2005 using the DSRS database and tallied using the questionnaire identification number.

Data Analysis

          The first round of analysis took place in February 2005. Descriptive statistics summarized questionnaire responses, organized, and described data obtained from the participants regarding. Table 1 reports the demographics of the participants. A series of independent samples t-tests and Pearson’s product moment correlation were used to study relationship between individual independent variables (questions in the demographics section and nature of high school transition program) and dependent variable of success as measured by GPA at the end of Fall 2004.

          Figure 1 and Figure 2 are graphic representation of students’ success as measured by their GPA at the end of the first semester (Fall 2004). An earned average of a GPA between 2.00 to 4.00 indicated success while a GPA of less than 2.00 resulted in an academic probation.

Figure 1 GPA of 29 participants

Out of a total of ninety (N= 90) students who self-reported their disability only 29 (n = 29) students made initial contact with DSRS and either completed the survey while in the appointment or took it home to complete later. Twenty students (69%) returned the surveys. Of these, 15 students (75%) were successful while 5 (25%) were placed on academic probation. From the nine who did not return the survey three (33%) were successful while 6 (67%) were placed on academic probation. Figure 2, represents GPA of all ninety students obtained toward the beginning of Spring 2005 who self reported having a disability at the orientation. Overall, out of the 90 freshmen students with disabilities 52 students or (54%) of students were successful with a GPA of 2.00 or higher while 38 students were not successful in the first semester at the university. From these 38 students 8 either left the university or had incompletes. Students get an incomplete when they have not completed all of the work involved with the class and, therefore, have an extension to complete the class for a grade within a specified time.

          Table 2 –Table 5 report results of t-tests that were significant. From the 29 students who took the survey, those who returned the survey had a better GPA (M =2.56, SD = .68) compared to the GPA of those who did not return the survey (M =1.49, SD = .72, t(29) = 3.07, p = .005. Freshmen who indicated that they had jobs at the time they took survey had a significantly better GPA (M =3.13, SD = .69) compared to the GPA of those who did not return the survey (M =2.14, SD = .90), t(29) = 2.26, p = .037. Another demographic variable of significance was the number of credit hours the students planned to take. There was a significant positive correlation (r = .519, p < .05) between their GPA and number of credit hours that the students indicated they were planning to take (Table 6) suggesting that those who had indicated taking more credit hours during the first semester of their freshman year did better. Gender, disability type, proposed field of study, and their proposed plan of stay did not significantly impact their first semester GPA.

          Analysis of the section studying nature of transition planning the students received in high school produced some interesting and intriguing results. Many (10-17 out of 20) students indicated absence of important components such as: having and being included in individual transition plan (ITP); participation in vocational education classes; help in maintaining personal files; help in understanding rules, regulations, and statutes governing their education in postsecondary settings; and visits to prospective colleges and universities. Almost half (8-9 out of 20) of the students indicated not being enrolled in college preparatory classes; not receiving help in understanding their disability; and not being given necessary information on self-advocacy. Although most of these variables did not impact their first semester GPA significantly, those who indicated negatively on these items in fact had better GPA.

    T wo areas of transition planning however, had significant effect and are of particular interest: 1) having/not having an ITP and 2) receiving/not receiving help while exploring post-secondary work options. Those who indicated not having an ITP (13 students) had a significantly better GPA (M =2.89, SD = .72) compared to the GPA of 7 who had an ITP (M =1.93, SD = .98, t(29) = -2.52, p = .021. Those who did not receive any help exploring post-secondary work options   (6 students) also did better (M =3.26, SD = .80) compared to the GPA of the 14 who received help (M =2.25, SD = .82, t(29) = -2.54, p = .020.

Discussion

          This study discussed results based on data captured in the first semester (Fall 2004) of the 29 freshmen students with disabilities who sought DSRS help. The study will gather more data from these students at the end of their freshman year in May/June 2005. The second phase will analyze their freshman year experience through three open ended questions and also study their progress in the second semester through other questions with a dichotomous response choice.

The data analysis indicated five areas of particular interest: 1) full participation in the study by returning the survey, 2) holding a paid job as indicated at the time survey was taken, 3) number of credit hours they proposed to take as indicated in survey, 4) having an individualized transition plan (ITP) in their high school, and 5) receiving help in high school while exploring post-secondary work option. In each case, there are various extraneous variables which may have contributed to the outcomes, but they are speculations at this point.   Further study would be recommended to validate the impact of factors 4 and 5 related to transition services planned in high school. What would be beneficial to understand is why those with ITPs and assistance with work options were less successful than their counterparts would be how the transition planner or counselor presented the information.   Did the person encourage/discourage the student by connotation or mannerisms.   Did the student get the impression that a disability service office at a post-secondary institution would be helpful or would it be difficult to receive accommodations?   Did the ITP planner share information about how much or limited a parent’s involvement could be?   The questions are limitless, but worth consideration.  

A puzzling result is the fact (factor 1 above) that of the 29 students who consented to participate in the study, those who returned the completed survey were more successful than the nine who did not.  It could suggest that those students were reminded of the services and planning received in high school and, therefore, were better prepared to seek out services at the university. In case of factor 2 and 3 above, it could be speculated that students who were employed and those who enrolled in more credit hours were able to manage their use of time more effectively, thus allowing for more efficient study and class preparation.

            This survey also presented some results, which although proven not statistically significant, are indeed questionable.   For instance, those students who did not receive any sort of assistance from their high schools in understanding their disabilities were more successful than those students who indicated they had received the help. Perhaps that question on the survey was misinterpreted or did not clearly convey the meaning of “help in understanding.”   Students who received help in planning educational goals were less successful than those who did not.   The researchers wonder how the students who participated in the survey interpreted this question: did they know what educational goals are or are these goals just achieving a degree in order to get a good job?

Conclusion

            Of interest to the researchers was the initiation of services for thirteen freshman students with disabilities (from the original sixty nine who had not initiated contact after orientation) later in the fall semester. While these students did not participate in the original study by consenting to and completing the freshman survey, they did come to DSRS once they had experienced hardships based on the effects of their disabilities. Some of these students had failed an exam or had discovered that university life was more difficult than anticipated.   Many of these students commented that they had assumed accommodations were available for the asking.   Self-advocacy was not something they had encountered in their high schools.   Parents and teachers had always taken care of everything, so these students were unprepared to access available resources. Consistent with the students who initiated services and completed the survey, these students tended to be more successful (62% earned 2.00 or higher).   For some, the interventions were timely and made the difference; for others the accommodations were provided too late in the semester to allow for recovery of previous low scores and other difficulties.   A total of 61% of those students who received accommodations through DSRS were successful.

            Another interesting outcome of the information available on the incoming freshman with disabilities is the success rates for those students who never initiated accommodation services.   Of the remaining forty-eight students (from the sixty nine), sixteen students actually sent in documentation, but did not follow through with an appointment. Fifty percent of these were successful and fifty percent were not.   The remaining thirty-two students did not send in documentation nor make contact with DSRS. However, fifty-six percent of these students were successful.   What is unknown is whether or not any of these forty-eight students spoke to professors and were provided accommodations without the benefit of validated disabilities.   Technically, students are supposed to identify they have disabilities, provide the documentation which substantiate the disabilities, and request the accommodations every semester.   It is difficult to determine whether a professor simply took a student’s claim of a disability and granted the requests or not. Out of the 90 students who enrolled at the university, 8 students did not enroll for the second semester, two from these eight being participants in this study. We will invite them to take our second survey and try to study the reasons why they had decided to withdraw.

Future Directions

Results of this first survey with beginning freshman students with disabilities leave more unanswered questions.   The small number of participants may not be representative of the entire population of students with disabilities entering the university, but does present some interesting possibilities.   Extending the research to longitudinal studies with additional years of new freshman may show emerging trends, which then could be the catalyst for change in transition programs and cooperative transition initiatives between high schools and college.

References

Benz, M. R., Linstrom, L., & Unruh, D. (2004). Sustaining secondary transition programs in local schools. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 39-50.

Benz, M. R., Linstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children 66(4), 509-529.

Blanchett, W. J. (2001). Importance of teacher transition competencies as rated by special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(1), 3-12.

Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1996). Making the transition to higher education: Opportunities for studentempowerment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 118-136.

Harris, R., & Robertson, J. (2001). Successful strategies for college-bound students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 45(3), 125-131.

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (3), 174-183.

Mellard, D. F., & Lancaster, P. E. (2003). Incorporating adult community services in student’s transition planning. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 359-368.

Rao, S. , & Gartin, B. C. (WINTER, 2003). Attitudes of University Faculty towards Accommodations to Students with Disabilities . Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education, 47-55.

Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college: Strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing   School Failure, 47(3), 132-137.

Thoma, C. A., Rogan, P., & Baker, S. R. (2001). Student involvement in transition planning: Unheard voices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(1), 16-29.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the World Conference on special needs education: Access and quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June 1994. Available: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2004).   Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities, Washington, D.C., 20202.

Wood, J. W. (2002). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings (4 th ed.). Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Zaft, C., Hart, D., & Zimbrich, K. (2004). College career connection: A study of youth with intellectual disabilities and the impact of postsecondary education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39 (1), 45-53.

Zang, D., & Stecker, P. M. (2001). Student involvement in transition planning: are we there yet? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(3), 293-303.

Table 1

Participant Characteristics

N = 20

Table 2

Independent Samples t-test for Participants Who Returned the Survey and Those Who Did Not Return Survey

N = 20, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 3

Independent Samples t-test for Item Asking If Students Held A Job At the Time of Survey

N = 20, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 4

Independent Samples t-test for Influence of Having ITP in High School

N = 20, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 5

Independent Samples t-test for Influence of Receiving Help in Exploring Postsecondary Work Options

N = 20, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 6

Relationship Between Number of Credit Hours Enrolling at The Time of Survey and GPA

N = 20,   Correlation is significant at *p < .05 (2-tailed)

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact