Compensation Strategies Used by High Ability Students with Learning Disabilities

 

 

Sally M. Reis

University of Connecticut

Lilia M. Ruban

University of Houston

 

 

 

 

Running Head:  COMPENSATION STRATEGIES

 

Research for this report was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.  Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment.  This report, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

 

(Please include the above as a footnote to the chapter.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Recent research has provided fascinating examples of the problems faced by high ability students with learning disabilities, as well as the compensation strategies they used to address and overcome the challenges associated with specific learning disabilities (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, in press). For example, Reis et al. (2000) found that these students offered received content remediation that they did not need, rather than instruction in compensatory strategies, in their elementary and secondary school learning disabilities programs. Many academically talented young people with learning disabilities never qualify for programs for gifted and talented learners and fail to succeed in school but those who do learn strategies that help them to succeed, despite their learning problems.

  In this chapter, current research about compensation strategies is discussed, as are the strategies used by successful high ability college students who have learning disabilities. When these students do succeed in challenging academic environments, it is because they have learned to compensate for their deficits as well as to develop their gifts and talents. The use of these compensation strategies is essential for academic success, especially in the areas of study and performance strategies, self-regulation and time management strategies, opportunities for counseling, self-advocacy, and the development of an individual plan using metacognition and executive functions. Of particular note is the emerging understanding of the role that self-regulation plays in the successful academic performance of students with learning disabilities. The importance of academic self-regulation to achievement in this population cannot be understated, as self-regulated learning (SRL) is “a pivotal construct in contemporary accounts of effective academic learning” (Pintrich, 1995, p. 173). A synthesis of research in different fields such as giftedness, learning disabilities and academic self-regulation provides insights into the nature and idiosyncrasies of academic self-regulation among high ability students with learning disabilities (Ruban, 2000; Ruban et al., in press).

            Only two studies have identified compensation strategies used by successful students with LD in a college environment and whether college students with learning disabilities (including high ability students with LD) use similar or different learning and study strategies to succeed in a challenging learning environment, as compared to their non-disabled peers (Reis et al., 2000; Ruban, 2000). Few studies have investigated the question of how different populations of college students acquire self-regulated learning strategies and study skills, and how and in what contexts they choose to use them in their academic work (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wolters, 1998). This chapter will provide a summary of the limited research conducted on the self-regulated learning strategies and compensation strategies used by high ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in challenging academic settings.

 

Compensation Strategies Used by Successful High Ability Students with

Learning Disabilities

Hannah and Shore (1995) suggested that the study of gifted students with learning disabilities (GLD) provides deep insights into the nature of giftedness and the combination as well as interaction of exceptionalities.  According to these researchers, an increasing interest in the study of these twice exceptional students is particularly noteworthy, especially due to the fact that giftedness and learning disabilities until recently have been studied separately from a cognitive perspective.  In reviewing the relatively limited research in this area, Hannah and Shore (1995) concluded that research has been conducted primarily in the following three areas: case studies (Baum, 1984; Rosner & Seymour, 1983; Suter & Wolf, 1987); comparisons of test performance of GLD students to that of populations of gifted and LD students (Barton & Starnes, 1989; Suter & Wolf, 1987); and educational programming options (Baum, 1984, 1988; Baum, Owen, & Dixon, 1991; Suter & Wolf, 1987). Baum and Owen (1988) found that some high ability students with learning disabilities had unique characteristics related both to persistence and individual interests, and also demonstrated lower academic self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) than their peers who had not been identified as gifted and learning disabled. Baum and Owen also found that 36% of the students in their study who had been identified as possessing a learning disability simultaneously demonstrated behaviors associated with giftedness.  Hannah and Shore’s (1995) study showed that, in terms of metacognitive knowledge and strategy use, gifted students with learning disabilities performed in a manner that was more similar to their gifted peers than their peers who had learning disabilities, providing support for the hypothesis that a strong relation exists between metacognition and giftedness.

Newer theories of intelligence (Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1999; Sternberg, 1981, 1995, 1997) and expanded conceptions of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978; 1986) suggest that the talents and abilities of some students are not accurately measured by the instrumentation currently used.  Learning disabilities in high ability students with learning disabilities are difficult to identify (Baum, 1984; Baum & Owen, 1988; Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995), as they often  perform extremely well in some areas and poorly in others.  Some will never be identified as gifted because their high abilities mask their disabilities or their learning disabilities mask their talents, resulting in average or below average school performance (Baum, et al., 1991; Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983). Students with learning disabilities identified as gifted using traditional methods may demonstrate different profiles, as some display problems in school from a young age, while others encounter frustration only when the material and content become increasingly more challenging (Baum et al., 1991; Daniels, 1983; Whitmore & Maker, 1985).  Some students with severe reading problems, for example, develop excellent auditory memories that enable them to memorize books and passages, and this ability helps them to mask their inability to read until late in elementary school (Reis et al., 1995). Accumulated research evidence supports the contention that gifted students with learning disabilities represent a very heterogeneous group of students, which makes it difficult to make canned generalizations about this unique population (Baldwin, 1999; Hannah & Shore, 1995; Olenchak, 1994; Reis et al., 2000).

Researchers report that some high ability students with learning disabilities can be quite productive in nonacademic settings (Baum, 1984; Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1983; Reis et al., 1995; Schiff, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 1981; Whitmore, 1980).  Baum (1984) investigated the use of an enrichment program based on the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) that was successfully implemented for gifted students with learning disabilities, and suggested four educational implications that could guide the development of special programs for this population.  First, these students need focused attention on their gifts and talents -- rather than the usual singular focus on their disabilities.  Second, talented students with learning disabilities thrive in a supportive environment in which their individual abilities are valued and appreciated.  Third, students need to obtain a unique set of strategies to compensate for their learning problems in addition to the content instruction they so often receive.  Finally, gifted students with learning disabilities must understand their unique pattern of academic and learning strengths as well as weaknesses in order to learn to compensate for these discrepancies.  More recent studies provide evidence that disruptive behaviors of high ability students who have learning disabilities improve or even disappear when these students participate in talent development programs designed to identify and nurture their special gifts and talents (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Baum, Owen, & Oreck, 1996; Baum, Renzulli, & Hebert, 1994; Olenchak, 1994, 1995). 

A conflict exists between these types of remedial strategies used in special education and the academic needs of high ability students with learning disabilities, as high ability students with learning disabilities do not respond favorably to the remedial approach of special education, such as the repetition of basic skills to ensure mastery (Baum, 1984; Baum & Owen, 1988; Daniels, 1986; Jacobson, 1984; Reis et al., 1995; Whitmore, 1980).  Current research has found that successful adults with learning disabilities emphasize their potential to achieve rather than focusing on their deficits caused by their disability (Reis et al., 1995; Gerber & Reiff, 1991).  Factors such as persistence, self-confidence, the will to conquer adversity, and strong character have been cited as contributing to the success of individuals with disabilities (Gerber & Reiff, 1991; Maker, 1978; Reis et al., 1995).  Gerber and Reiff (1991) studied highly successful adults with learning disabilities from 24 states and Canada and identified several themes associated with career success, of which the most prevalent was the desire and effort to gain control of one’s life.  They found a correlation between higher degree of control and an increased likelihood of success in life. Other themes that emerged from extensive interviews with adults studied by Gerber and Reiff included the desire to succeed; goal-orientation; reframing or reinterpreting the disability in a positive sense; persistence; goodness of fit between strengths, weaknesses, and career choice; learned creativity or divergent thinking; and a social ecology of support systems, including family and friends.  Learning how to premeditate or conquer their learning disability was not a major factor in the lives of these successful adults; rather they learned to compensate for their disability and move forward.

 Specific Compensation Strategies

Little has been written about compensation strategies for gifted students with learning disabilities in elementary and secondary schools.  Crux (1991) referred to the compensation strategies as a broad class of learning strategies that “describe study, cognitive, spatial, memory, or learning strategies” (p. 7), and explained that students with learning disabilities use compensation strategies because they provide effective methods for processing information when thinking, remembering, storing and making sense of old and new information. She found variations in the characteristics of compensatory methods and strategies, which was understandable, as the purpose of these strategies is “to provide ways of compensating for a learning problem” (Crux, 1991, p. 5). Baum et al. (1991) suggested that successful high ability students with learning disabilities who are able to work in their interest areas use compensation strategies as a way to address their disabilities.  Since so many intervention programs at the K-12 settings have focused on remediation approached that have been shown to be ineffective for high ability students with learning disabilities, an effective model for considering compensation strategy service delivery systems can be found in the education of university students with learning disabilities (Shaw, Brinckerhoff, Kistler, & McGuire, 1991).  The postsecondary framework requires that students gain the autonomy seldom learned in elementary or secondary special education programs.  At the postsecondary level, more colleges and universities provide services for an increasing number of students with learning disabilities who are pursuing higher education (Mangrum & Strichart, 1997).  In some university settings, students participate in a program to learn to understand their specific learning needs and gain assistance in utilizing compensatory strategies to circumvent academic disabilities and become independent and successful learners in academically challenging college or university settings (Brinckerhoff et al., 2002; McGuire et al., 1991; Vogel & Adelman, 1993).

 

Compensation Strategies Taught in Successful University Programs: Study Strategies and Skills

In one study documenting the specific activities of university students with learning disabilities, McGuire et al. (1991) found that the areas most commonly addressed in a successful university program for students with learning disabilities, included study strategies, course-related performance strategies (e.g., reading comprehension and written expression), counseling, and self-advocacy training.  Study strategies and specific skills to compensate for the learning disability emerged as the primary need of university students with learning disabilities, including specific types of note-taking strategies, time management, test-taking preparation, and library skills.  Note-taking strategies are seldom taught in the regular university curriculum, yet were found to be critical for the organization of information delivered in classes. 

Time management was the most frequently occurring objective among study strategies in successful university programs for students with learning disabilities (McGuire et al., 1991).  The use of one-month organizers and semester overview calendars was consistently modeled and further enhanced in weekly, and sometimes daily meetings that included discussions about how to maximize the use of time.  Successful time management depends on students' abilities to self-monitor their activities and make appropriate decisions, and self-monitoring of time management must also include understanding the need for extra time to complete academic tasks in the area of the specific disability.

Instruction in test-taking skills is rarely provided in students' educational experience (Bragstad & Stumpf, 1987), but successful university students with learning disabilities must plan for test preparation.  Learning specialists in university centers often model strategies for analyzing multiple choice questions, suggest methods to reduce test-taking anxiety, and help students to learn to use an error analysis approach to review tests and pinpoint reasons for incorrect answers. Strategies related to classroom performance, such as written expression, reading comprehension, and mathematical processes, are also taught by learning specialists in university learning disability programs (McGuire et. al, 1991).  Written expression instruction helps students in the development of skills such as the organization of written assignments, proofreading, and sentence structure and mechanics.

 

Counseling and Self-Advocacy

Counseling for university students with learning disabilities can include academic, personal, and career concerns, and has been found to absorb one third of the learning specialists' instructional time (McGuire et al., 1991; McGuire & Madaus, 1999).  Academic counseling may help some students to consider balancing their academic course load in light of their learning strengths and weaknesses.  If, for example, pace and depth in reading is a problem, students may be advised to adjust their selection of courses to avoid a class schedule in which overwhelming amounts of reading are required in every class.  Students are also advised of the other more clinical counseling services available to them at the university, if personal counseling is required.

High ability students with learning disabilities often need guidance in understanding their profile of strengths and weaknesses in order to utilize appropriate strategies and advocate for academic accommodations (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983).  Self-advocacy requires an understanding of these strengths and weaknesses and the students' skills in presenting their abilities as well as weaknesses in their communication with faculty.  This self-awareness enables students to request for accommodations such as extra time on tests, alternative testing environments, or extensions for assignments.  Self-monitoring is essential, as students use metacognition to both monitor and adjust for their individual areas of strengths and weaknesses (Brinckerhoff et al., 2002).

 

Academic Self-Regulation

According to Bandura (1997), one of the major advances in the study of lifelong cognitive development relates to the mechanisms of self-regulated learning in academic settings.  Academic self-regulation refers to the process in which students activate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989; 1998a, 1998b; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Self-regulated learners are generally characterized as active learners who efficiently and effectively manage their learning with respect to metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral aspects (Zimmerman, 1989).  Zimmerman identified the hallmarks of academic self-regulation to include: academic time management, practice, mastery of learning methods, goal-directedness, and a robust sense of self-efficacy.  The construct of academic self-regulation has gained increasing attention in the last two decades, resulting in numerous studies conducted in a variety of settings with individuals representing different age and achievement groups and disability status (see, for example, Brinckerhoff et al., 2002; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998) as well as several longitudinal studies (e.g., Vermetten et al., 1999).

Self-regulated learning is an important component for college students, with postsecondary settings placing greater emphasis on students’ self-directedness and independence.  The term self-regulated learning describes “independent, academically effective forms of learning that involve metacognition, intrinsic motivation, and strategic action” (Perry, 2002, p. 1). In contrast to K-12 students, most college students have control over their own time management and schoolwork schedules as well as over how they structure their studying and learning activities (Pintrich, 1995).  More generally, models of self-regulated learning provide a very useful description of what effective learners do in college courses (Pressley & McGormick, 1995).  Educational researchers have devoted considerable attention to identifying aspects of instructional approaches that promote students’ development of academic self-regulation (Butler, 1998; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Given research showing that focus on content remediation is not effective for students with learning disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996),  and even counterproductive for high ability students with learning disabilities (Baldwin, 1999; Reis et al., 2000), the current focus on fostering students’ regulation of their own leaning and motivation becomes particularly important (Butler, 1998; Policastro, 1993; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998).

 

Self-Regulated Learning Strategies and Academic Achievement

A major component of academic self-regulation is self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies defined by Zimmerman (1989) as “actions and processes directed at acquiring information or skills that involve agency, purpose, and instrumentality perceptions by the learners” (p. 329). Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988) identified 14 types of self-regulated learning strategies in high school students including such methods as organizing and transforming information, self-consequating, seeking information, and rehearsing and using memory aids. Students’ use of these strategies was highly correlated with their achievement and with teachers’ ratings of their self-regulation in a class setting. In fact, students’ reports of their use of these self-regulated learning strategies predicted their achievement track in school with 93% accuracy, and 13 of the 14 strategies discriminated significantly between students from the upper achievement track and students from lower tracks.  The self-regulated learning strategies described by Zimmerman (1989) encompass three classes of strategies that all students use to improve self-regulation of their (a) personal functioning; (b) academic behavioral performance; and (c) learning environment (Bandura, 1986; Zimmerman, 1989).

 

 

An Interplay Among Self-Regualtion, Metacognition, and Executive Functions

Researchers have found significant differences in the use of study skills and learning strategies among low-, high-achieving students and students with learning disabilities, which, in turn, provides a strong link to their academic achievement (Pintrich et al., 1994; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998). The apparent deficiency of students with learning disabilities in the process of learning has been examined by Sternberg and Davidson (1986) and Schiff et al. (1981), among the others. Extensive studies conducted at the University of Kansas by Deshler et al. (1996) corroborated other researchers’ findings that students with learning disabilities are either “strategy deficient” or “actively inefficient,” or, in other words, unable to spontaneously transfer the strategies they learned from previous contexts to new contexts (Wang & Pallinsar, 1989; Wong & Jones, 1992). As an example, the Strategic Intervention Model (SIM) developed at the University of Kansas (Ellis, 1990) is predicated on the idea that, if students become empowered with strategic approached to learning, then, in addition to learning skills, they will also learn why and when to apply these skills and monitor their implementation, as part of an important process referred to as executive functions (Bursuck & Jayanthi, 1993; Stuss & Benson, 1986).

Research has suggested that the use of metacognition can help talented students process information more efficiently and academic self-regulation to learn more effectively (Hannah & Shore, 1995; Shore & Dover, 1987; Sternberg, 1981). Several case studies of gifted students with learning disabilities poignantly illustrated the frustration between understanding complex information and having a disability in the regular processing of information mode (Baum et al., 1991, 1996; Whitmore & Maker, 1978). As Hannah and Shore (1995) aptly noted, “their giftedness suggests metacognitive strength, their learning disabilities suggest metacognitive weakness” (p. 96).

 

Academic Self-Regulation: Differing Views

            Some differences in views on academic self-regulation exist among the researchers. According to Zimmerman and Paulsen (1995), some investigators treat self-regulation as an idiosyncratic set of skills that each student must develop personally as he or she progresses through school. In particular, Crux (1991) argues that each student with learning disabilities needs to develop a personalized set of compensation strategies whose functionality depends on the utility of a particular strategy in certain contexts and circumstances. Other researchers assume that a common, or standard set of self-regulatory skills exists used by a general population of students (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988). Recent research (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998) has shown that a common set of self-regulatory skills does exist, that these skills are highly predictive of students’ academic success, and that these skills can be taught. Strategies described by Zimmerman (1989) are standard SRL strategies that arguably all academically successful students use.  Reis et al. (2000), however, described a set of specific compensation strategies that included some similar and some different strategies to those identified by Zimmerman (1989). Reis et al. (2000) defined compensation strategies to include “study strategies, cognitive or learning strategies, compensatory supports, environmental accommodations, opportunities for counseling, and the development of an individual plan incorporating a focus on metacognition and executive functions” (p. 124).  In another recent study, Ruban (Ruban, 2000; Ruban et al., in press), found empirical evidence supporting the previous research by Reis et al. (2000) suggesting that a specific set of strategies is used primarily by students with LD, and that these compensatory strategies differ from the larger set of standard self-regulated learning strategies used by a general population of students.

 

Motivation in Using Self-Regulated Learning Strategies as a Function of their Utility

            In addition to monitoring and controlling cognitive and metacognitive strategies, self-regulated learners also actively manage other important aspects of their classroom learning (Wolters, 1998).  In particular, according to the social cognitive theory of academic self-regulation, students regulate the motivational, affective, and social determinants of their intellectual functioning as well as the cognitive aspects (Corno, 1989; Corno & Kanfer, 1993; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sansone et al., 1992).  In fact, Bandura (1997) contended that the cognitive aspects of self-regulated learning cannot be viewed separately from the motivational aspects.  For example, a student may have adaptive cognitive and metacognitive skills, but they will exert little influence on academic performance if he or she fails to use them or fails to find personal utility in them. Personal utility refers to students’ personal and informal assessment of the usefulness of a particular learning strategy or method in their own academic work.  Simply put, if students do not find ways to internalize a particular learning strategy and apply it consistently in their courses, they will not use it (Garner, 1990; Nolen & Flaladyna, 1990).  As a consequence, motivation, characterized as a student’s willingness or desire to be engaged and commit effort to completing a task, is an important component of classroom learning that students may choose to self-regulate (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sansone et al., 1992; Wolters, 1998). 

 

Research On Academic Self-Regulation and the Use of Compensation Strategies by High Ability Students with Learning Disabilities

            Accumulated research findings have afforded a rich base for understanding the nature of human exceptionality, including giftedness and learning disabilities. Importantly, a study of dual exceptionalities (e.g., gifted students with learning disabilities, and/or ADHD) has made significant strides in the last decade. Researchers studying academic self-regulation have conducted studies in both K-12 and postsecondary settings. It appears that designing studies that make avail of the accumulated knowledge gained by the cross-fertilization of different although related fields can provide rich insights into the study of such complex phenomena as giftedness, learning disabilities, dual exceptionalities, and academic self regulation.

            The description of two empirical studies that follows has served to fill this gap. The first study (Reis et al., 1995, 2000) is unique in that it identified compensation strategies used by successful high ability students with learning disabilities in a college environment. The second study (Ruban, 2000; Ruban et al., in press) explored the question of whether university students with and without learning disabilities  (including high ability students with LD) use similar or different self-regulated learning strategies to succeed in a challenging university environment; whether the pattern of the use of these strategies differs among different populations of students (i.e., normal-, low-, high achieving students and students with learning disabilities); and whether the differences in these patterns of strategy use are at least partially a function of their essential goals and motivations.

 

Study 1:  Investigating the Use of Compensation Strategies by High Ability

 University Students With Learning Disabilities

Reis et al. (2000) used qualitative methods to investigate compensation strategies used by talented students with learning disabilities in elementary and secondary school learning disabilities programs, finding that multiple compensation strategies were employed by all of the participants in this study to succeed in challenging university settings.  Each participant used some of the individual strategies within each of the major categories of compensation strategies to be successful in a challenging university setting.  All participants attributed their success in their scholastic environments to their ability to employ these varied strategies. Study and time management strategies included but were not limited to:  methods of learning to study, note taking, identifying key points when reading and preparing for tests, library skills, and the use of daily, weekly, and monthly calendars.  Compensation strategies included the use of computers, word processors, books on tape, and self-advocacy.  Executive functions included planning techniques such as time management, metacognition, setting work priorities, and self directed speech to help in difficult academic situations.  Most of the participants in the study had previously learned only limited compensation strategies without the benefit of a formal, structured learning disability program in their elementary or secondary careers.  One participant explained:

I learned to compensate for some of my learning problems but for others, I was still working it out.  I knew I had learning disabilities.  I knew that was why I couldn't do things the same way other people did them, but I didn't necessarily know how to work it out [the other problems].

           

            Some of the compensation strategies were quite simple.  For example, it was difficult, if not impossible, for many of the participants to listen and take notes at the same time, because taking notes required so much effort, due to reading, writing and spelling difficulties.  These students often learned to photocopy someone else's notes and compare them with their notes to determine whether they had missed anything important during lectures.

Another compensation strategy used was taking a reduced load of courses.  Students who used this strategy usually took four, or occasionally three classes a semester, as compared to five classes, which is normally considered a full course load at their university.  This strategy provided the flexibility to invest additional time and effort in their studying to compensate for disabilities. Most of the students acknowledged that their use of compensation strategies was due to their participation in the UPLD (University Program for College Students with Learning Disabilities).  It was because of this program that they became aware of and learned to ask for accommodations such as the use of extended time for examinations, or taking an exam using a computer.  Many requested extra help from professors who knew that these students had learning problems because they had disclosed their difficulties when requesting accommodations.  One participant explained:

I work with my professors.  I even go to one of my professors with my notebook, and she takes the time to sit with me and read through my notebook.  She sees that I miss certain things, and she discusses the notes that I have missed.  Another professor goes through major concepts and ideas with me, and I have learned to use visual cues to help my memory.

Most of the participants acknowledged that their use of various types of equipment such as computers, tape recorders, or books on tape was due to their participation in UPLD.  Most also used various learning strategies described in the SQ3R strategy including:  preview reading, structured reading (i.e., reviewing what they will focus on by using boldfaced topic headings), reading abstracts or chapter summaries which provide a "blueprint" of key information, and planning considerable amounts of time for reading. The participants in this study also indicated they used outlining and notecards as well as mnemonic techniques. While many of the students mentioned multiple learning and compensation strategies, each had developed an individual set of strategies that enabled him/her to succeed. For some participants, this system included various study strategies, such as organizing their time to find the large blocks needed to complete their reading, and analyzing their own difficulties to be able to overcome them. One explained his system:

Well, I've become better at planning.  To improve my grades at school, I request untimed test time for the testing accommodations to enable me the time to read the questions thoroughly and ask for help if I can not read a word.  Planning and organizing have taught me to carry a calendar around and I go through all my syllabi and plan out when the exams are and what reading has to be done.  I don't always get it all done.  Right now I'm behind in a couple classes.  But, I know what I need to do and I have to do it in little pieces . . . Chunking is the term that they use. It keeps me from getting overwhelmed, if I have a list of eight chapters that I need to do by next Saturday, that's overwhelming for me.  I have to break it up, I have to start with chapter one on Sunday and continue through the week adding a chapter each day.  If the chapters are really long, I do sections of chapters at different times of the day.   Self-awareness is a big thing for me as I have to know how long I need to do something.  When I started college I couldn't plan out how long I needed to read a chapter.  How long I needed to work on something.  Now I have learned how much time it takes me to do my work and I have a much better idea of how to plan.

Most participants also indicated that they could not be employed during the academic year because of the amount of time necessary for them to complete their academic work.  One participant, who worked at a job related to his passion and avocation, bicycling, took only two courses a semester, but most worked only in the summer.

Several of the participants also mentioned what may be labeled an "underground network," that included a system of checking with other students about professors from whom they should take classes.  These students tried to find professors who were regarded as fair, would make the necessary accommodations for students with learning disabilities, and whose lectures were keyed to the assigned text.  The option of selecting these professors was possible because participants attended a large university and had many choices while at a smaller college, fewer choices would exist.  Joe indicated that selection of professors was a major "success" strategy for him.  "I learned to cope by getting the right teachers, those who let me compensate for my learning disability."

Three themes emerged related to compensation and learning strategies used by successful high ability university students with learning disabilities.  First, each participant developed a unique system developed in consideration of the nature of the disability, his/her personal styles and preferences, and a set of appropriate compensation strategies.  Second, these successful students devoted an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy to their studies, as summarized by one participant who described his preparation for a chemistry exam:

For the last chemistry exam, for example, my notes run very close to the book.  I went through the book.  I took notes on nearly everything in the book that wasn't considered important.  All the major theories of people!!  On the six chapters, I took 12 pages of notes, and then I went through that, and what I did is, I studied that, and then I rewrote everything that I didn't feel like I had the first time.  I would just do that until I knew everything backwards and forwards, and then I went through the notes in the book, and anything I hadn't studied already in the book and the notes.  I just wrote down what to study, but I spend days of doing that amount of studying.  It wasn't just taking the notes.  I didn't count that as just studying.  I would finish reading the chapters about a week before the exam, and spend a couple of days taking notes on the exam, for the exam from the book.  I'd say I probably put in 30 hours or more studying for the exam.  I mean that. . . .I'd put in the days before the exam perhaps, 3 to 5 hours a day for at least 4 to 5 days in a row.

The third theme was the degree of comfort the participants gained using the various learned compensation strategies.  A continuum existed relating to the adjustment these students experienced around the use of compensation strategies for their learning problems.  Some participants believed they were "cheating" or not really working if they used reasonable accommodations such as extended time for tests and the use of a word processor for exams.  Several had been constantly told in elementary and secondary school that if she would only work and study harder, she could overcome her learning problems.  Accordingly, in the university setting, one young woman continued to believe that asking for help was analogous to admitting she hadn't worked hard enough. 

If I got an A, I wanted to get it under the same circumstances as everybody else.  Because I felt like maybe I was cheating in my work, if I had an advantage that they [other students] didn't.  After a while, though, I realized that I am at a slight disadvantage, anyway, so it [using extra time in exams] just balances out.  Now that doesn't bother me at all anymore, and like I said, with the extra time in exams, sometimes I use it.  I am always prepared to use (this accommodation), like I will get there early, or I will have the option to stay late. 

Approximately half of the students used services provided in the UPLD and various learned compensation strategies easily and without guilt, while still others analyzed and reflected about why they needed help and why it may be difficult to request assistance.  Another participant in this study explained:

I think that the hardest thing is to . . . know when I need more help, and when I can do it on my own.  I am an individual, and I don't like someone else doing things for me, or even doing things with me, and it was very hard to get to the point to say, "I need help learning to memorize things."  I want to be able to do it on my own, and I was constantly being told that I was smart enough to do it on my own, and it was frustrating to realize that I have to do extra to get to [the] same point that other people can get to just by reading it.

While many of the students mentioned multiple learning and compensation strategies, it is clear that each selected the particular strategies that worked best for him/her.  For each participant, an individual system, defined by Stuss and Benton (1986) as executive functions, was developed, sometimes intuitively by the individual student, and sometimes collaboratively by the student and a learning specialist from the UPLD, which enabled him/her to succeed using a combination of compensation and learning strategies. 

 

Self-Perceived Strengths

Another strategy for success, developed by almost all of the participants, was the acquisition of excellent work habits in response to difficulties.  Dedication was needed to succeed in a challenging university system, and many students emphasized their strong belief in their own potential and a willingness to go to great lengths to realize that potential.  The majority believed that their capacity for hard work was their greatest asset.  Each of these students learned how to work hard because of his/her learning disability, and the determination and motivation of each of these students was quite clear in their interviews and in the corresponding interviews with their parents.

The work ethic described by the participants transferred into their employment; each had one or a number of summer jobs to defray college costs.  The motivation that enabled them to work hard usually focused on obtaining a university degree.  In fact, many of the participants in this study became more committed to graduate because of their learning disability.

                        Several of the participants had to change their majors in order to succeed in a challenging university setting.  For those who must spend hours reading what students who do not have learning disabilities can read in minutes, the pursuit of a liberal arts degree remains challenging, even when the most sophisticated compensation strategies are gained.  Some of the students in this study majored in liberal arts, and used many compensation and learning strategies.  However, other students learned to select majors in areas that enabled them to tap into their strengths and succeed without the hours of reading required in the liberal arts curriculum.  Mathematics, engineering, sciences, physical therapy, and music are all areas selected for majors by this group. 

 

Counseling

Half of these students were affected by what happened to them as elementary and secondary students due to the discrepancy created by their high abilities and their learning disabilities.  Complex emotions continue to affect many of them, and half of the sample sought counseling to reconcile some of the problems and mixed messages that they believed had been caused by their educational background.  Two considered suicide and one actually planned her death:

This is a good one.  What I did as a senior was, I watched all these kids apply at schools.  They were my best friends applying to schools and everything else you know, and they were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in class, and I said, ‘what the hell am I going to do?’  My father has this nice job.  My uncle is a professor at Cornell, and I am this real shameful thing in the family, I mean, it was really awful and I knew, there wasn’t anything that I could do.  I couldn’t take notes.  There were so many things that I couldn’t do, so I decided that suicide was the answer, and I planned to do it before graduation.  I carried it right out, I mean, I gave all my stuff away.  I did all the things that kids do when they are planning to kill themselves.  And I decided I’d make peace with everyone.  I had a teacher pull me in, and she said, ‘are you thinking about suicide?’  And it was so abrupt and straightforward.  I didn’t know what to do except say, yes.

Appropriate interventions were made for this young woman who eventually gained compensation strategies, which enabled her to become extremely successful in both college and graduate school.  However, she was involved in counseling during much of that period of her life.  In all probability, similar counseling opportunities will be necessary for other high ability students with learning disabilities.

 

Discussion of the Findings in this Study

These studies indicate that some high ability students with learning disabilities succeed in a challenging, rigorous university setting with the help of various compensation strategies.  Too often, however, the LD programs in which they participated in elementary and secondary school focused on remediation of content-related deficits or the opportunity to do homework or catch up on work missed in class instead of instruction in compensation strategies they needed.  Their subsequent participation in a university program for students with learning disabilities provided their first organized opportunity for training in compensation and learning strategies, and they all believed that this postsecondary program was essential to their success.

Participants were able to resolve the conflict between their abilities and their disabilities.  Some learned the compensation strategies needed to directly address their learning disability and become successful in an area that may have initially appeared difficult, if not impossible. Some participants were careful to select an academic direction in which they had strengths and in which their success was not dependent upon the acquisition of compensation strategies or the mastery of academic content that was directly affected by their learning disability. These options are not available to an elementary or secondary student who has either no choices or extremely limited academic choices in school.  The majority of participants combined the two options mentioned above as they attempted to both compensate for their learning disability and also select a major area of concentration that fostered the use of their strengths to enhance their academic performance. Baum's (1984) observations about the importance of focusing on a talent while developing compensatory strategies are certainly affirmed by these successful adults with learning disabilities, as was Sternberg’s notion of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1995, 1997), enabling a focus on strengths and compensation for deficits.  Renzulli's theories (1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, Renzulli & Reis, 1997) about the importance of focusing on interests, learning styles, and curriculum strength areas were also found to be accurate for the population studied.

The creation of a personal plan for academic success varied among participants, but always included these elements:  the use of carefully selected and individually necessary compensation strategies, and the integration of certain executive functions that guided the students' decisions and the directions they either followed or ignored.  All of the successful participants shared the ability to focus on developing their talents instead of focusing on their deficits. Educators must reexamine the approaches used at the elementary and secondary levels to address the special education needs of high ability students with learning disabilities.  Programs for students with learning disabilities that focus on remediation will not help this population.  Instruction in compensatory strategies and self-advocacy must be incorporated in a program that fosters self-regulation and self-reliance, a critical factor for success in future academic and life endeavors.

 

Study 2: Comparing the Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies and Compensation Strategies Among University Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

            Ruban (Ruban, 2000; Ruban et al., in press) used survey research methods to examine patterns in the use of self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies and compensation strategies among university students with and without learning disabilities. The sample of respondents (N=470) was comprised of four groups of undergraduate students from a large research university in the northeast: normal achieving students (n=89), low achieving students (n=102), high achieving students (n=227), and students with learning disabilities (n=53). A convenience sample of undergraduates who were enrolled in an introductory learning class represented the normal achieving group; students who, at the time of the administration of the survey, were on academic probation for failing to meet the university’s minimum scholastic requirements represented low achieving students; a random sample of university Honors Scholars comprised the high achieving group; and students with LD were sampled from the same comprehensive support program for students with LD from which participants in Study 1 were sampled (UPLD, or University Program for College Students with Learning Disabilities).

A new instrument entitled Learning Strategies and Study Skills Survey (LSSS, Ruban & Reis, 1999) was developed for this study. The LSSS survey was designed to explore the relationship between the use of self-regulated learning strategies/compensation strategies and academic achievement of different groups university students, using Zimmerman’s (1989) work on self-regulated learning, Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah’s (1977) study of individual learning preferences, and Reis et al.’s (1995, 2000) work on compensation strategies used by academically successful students with learning disabilities. The LSSS survey was designed to assess college students’ self-reported study behaviors in generic learning situations, and confirmatory factor analysis provided sufficient support for the construct validity of the survey, χ2 (642)=1080.63, TLI=.90, CFI=.91; RMSEA=0.038. The instrument included six factors, and the first three factors represented standard SRL strategies (Conceptual Skills; Study Routines; and Routine Memorization), while the last three factors represented compensation strategies (Reading & Writing Metacognitive Strategies; Compensatory Supports; and Help Seeking).

            Respondents were also asked to respond to two open-ended questions related to two areas. First, they were asked to consider any special ways of studying or creative approaches that they found useful in their academic work (such as figuring out how to study difficult material more efficiently, or finding a good way to memorize important information). The second question examined students’ motivations for using these self-regulated learning strategies or study skills, asking the students to explain the reasons as to why self-regulatory methods help them to succeed in their academic work.

            A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used, to add breadth and scope to the findings (Creswell, 1994).  Quantitative data techniques included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, Kline, 1998) to examine the psychometric properties of the LSSS survey, and discriminant function analysis to examine group differences among normal-, low-, high-achieving students and students with LD regarding the use of SRL strategies and compensation strategies (i.e., mean scale scores on the LSSS survey) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Qualitative data analyses were conducted for both open-ended questions using the coding paradigm suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990), which included open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, and interrater agreement for coding both questions was fairly high (88% and 80%, respectively).  Highlights of the major findings from this study is presented below.