Artifact 1 Reflection: Leveraging Academic Advising to Support Students with Disabilities

Artifact 1, Leveraging Academic Advising to Support Students with Disabilities, is a practitioner paper

written for Contemporary Issues in Special Education. As the first cognate course in the Special

Education concentration within the Interprofessional Leadership program, as well as the first research

paper I wrote as part of the program, this was my first opportunity to conduct research about special

education in post-secondary education and dive into the research about the topic. In addition, since I

explored this topic as a problem of practice, it allowed me to examine the problem and solutions. While

my research interests have evolved since writing this paper, it created a foundation on which I began to

think about my Dissertation in Practice. Finally, this was an opportunity to explore who I am as a student

and a writer.

Considering Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, this class and this paper specifically aligned with the

first stage of learning, knowledge, since this is the class where I began to explore and learn about my

problem of practice. As my first dive into the research, before I started to work on this paper, I did not

know how many students in post-secondary education had disabilities, the disparity in retention and

graduation rates, and the research about the reasons for these disparities. This knowledge has been

carried through all my other classes as I began to ask myself, ‘what can we do to support post-secondary

students with disabilities?’ In addition, this paper provided me with general knowledge about the legal

differences between high school and post-secondary education, family involvement, and campus

climate. All of these were issues I knew about anecdotally from my 20 years working with students but

finding the research to support it was beneficial.

In addition to identifying the research and a problem of practice, this paper was pivotal for me in

identifying current and potential solutions. The paper was centered around the idea of academic

advising being one resource to support students with disabilities due to their consistent relationship
with students. However, I also identified some of the limitations that advisors have. While the paper

makes only one brief mention of academic coaching (the topic that has eventually become the focus of

my Dissertation in Practice), the exploration of the pros and cons of academic advising as a resource for

students with disabilities opened the door for me to explore academic coaching in a subsequent

semester. For example, as explained in the research, I noted that the caseloads for academic advisors

often prevent students from having the relationship that is most likely to impact a student with a

disability. However, caseloads in coaching are often considerably lower, making it a potential solution.

Toward the end of my research for this paper, I read about Universal Design for Learning (UDL). I am

embarrassed to say that I was not aware of UDL before starting research for this paper. But, after

coming across articles about UDL in the classroom and one article about UDL in advising, it opened up

an entirely new way of thinking about advising. As soon as I read the resource about using UDL in

advising, it immediately changed my practice in advising, coaching, and leading. I have incorporated the

concept into discussions with advisors and often reflect on UDL in our work. It will also be integrated

into our coaching practice and my DIP in some important ways.

In addition to providing significant research into the topic of students with disabilities in post-

secondary education and giving me a variety of solutions to think through, it also helped me get back

into academic writing. This was the first research paper for the program and the first full research paper

that I have written in some time. Working through the process of outlining my topic, narrowing and

making it broader, and getting constructive feedback were all valuable components to easing me back

into writing. Reviewing and reflecting now on the paper, I can see that the writing aligns with my current

style, and I have not changed dramatically. However, I think that my writing has improved and matured

since then as I have learned how to shift from the day-to-day writing that I do at work to the academic

writing required for my classes. Dr. Wiley provided good feedback that showed my strengths in

organization and clarity but needed work on being wordy. If I were to write the same paper now,
approximately 18 months later, I think that I would see some improvements in my writing, and a deeper

dive into UDL for advising, but otherwise, it would include the same main ideas and topics. At the time

that I was writing it, I thought about turning it into a practitioner piece for Academic Advising Today,

which is an online publication that looks at the theory and practice of academic advising. There is little

research currently on this topic specifically for academic advising and I think this would be a good fit for

a practitioner piece like this one. I hope to come back turn it into an article that I can submit for that

audience.

When I look back on this paper, it is a strong representation of me as a student and a writer,

particularly as one of the first significant papers I wrote for the program. It showed me that I could do

the work needed for the program and manage the writing. However, it also helped me think about what

I wanted to focus on as I further investigated my problem of practice and potential solutions. However,

it also changed my approach, particularly learning about UDL, as I immediately integrated that into my

advising, coaching, and supervision with my team.