College students with disabilities redefine activism: Self-advocacy, storytelling, and collective action.

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezekiel W. Kimball ◽  
Adam Moore ◽  
Annemarie Vaccaro ◽  
Peter F. Troiano ◽  
Barbara M. Newman
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. p361
Author(s):  
Leigh Gruber ◽  
Barbara Nell Martin

This paper explored the perceptions of special education staff and college students with disabilities about self-advocacy instruction through the lens of social justice. Investigated were three public schools and one community college. Data revealed differing perceptions between educators and students regarding the level of self-advocacy instruction that students with disabilities received. The implications for this research and practice include that high school personnel understands and implements principles of social justice to teach students with disabilities to have self-advocacy skills.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shwalb ◽  
Tyler R. Pedersen ◽  
Julie E. Preece ◽  
Edward A. Martinelli ◽  
Phil A. Rash ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven L. West ◽  
Carolyn W. Graham ◽  
Peter Temple

Objective: Our objective was to provide the first comprehensive picture of alcohol use and binge drinking by US college students with disabilities (SWDs), who represent at least 11% (1.6 million) of the US college student population. Methods: In fall 2013, we used a stratified random sampling technique to identify and recruit 2440 SWDs from 122 US colleges and universities. A total of 1285 (53%) SWDs from 61 (50%) colleges and universities completed a survey of alcohol and other drug use and the use of substances by student peers. We conducted 4 multiple logistic regression analyses to compare binge-drinking and non–binge-drinking SWDs by potential correlates of such use and a final model that included only significant variables. Results: SWDs aged <21 vs ≥21 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.99) who spent more time vs less time socializing (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38), who spent less time vs more time studying (OR = –0.89; 95% CI, –0.80 to –0.99), and who used vs did not use marijuana (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75) or amphetamines (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) were significantly more likely to binge drink. SWDs who reported using barbiturates were less likely to binge drink than were those who did not use barbiturates (OR = –0.36; 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.61). In the final model, use of amphetamines (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.65) or marijuana (OR = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94) was the highest predictor of binge drinking. Conclusion: SWDs’ reported rates of binge drinking, although high, were not as high as those of nondisabled college students. Nevertheless, prevention efforts should be targeted toward college SWDs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document