CAMPUS LIFE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF POSTSECONDARY DEAF AND
HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

AUTHORS:
Jeff Porter
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Renee Camerlengo
Carnegie-Mellon University
Maggie DePuye
Northern Illinois University
Mark Sommer
Northern Essex Community College, Gallaudet Regional Center

EDITOR AND TASK FORCE CHAIR:
Ross Stuckless

NETAC COPY EDITOR:
Kathleen Smith
Rochester Institute of Technology
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Rochester, New York

1999

---

CAMPUS LIFE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF POSTSECONDARY DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

Jeff Porter, Renee Camerlengo, Maggie DePuye, and Mark Sommer

1 INTRODUCTION

Postsecondary education generally centers on teaching/learning interactions and student progress within the formal curriculum, leading to degree completion and certification. This formal arena of postsecondary education enhances student development not only in the academic, intellectual, and career development domains, but in personal and social domains as well.

However, it would be a mistake to underestimate the tremendous educational impact and value of the campus life that surrounds and permeates this formal arena. Students, some more than others, engage in co-curricular activities, access a rich range of campus resources, and interact with faculty, staff, and peers throughout the broader campus community.

Campus life carries the same importance for deaf and hard of hearing students as for their hearing peers. The extent to which they are able to access and engage meaningfully in campus life programs and resources will influence fundamentally the overall richness and impact of their college experience.

In Part I of this report, we will consider some general issues characterizing student development in postsecondary education, closing this section with a brief discussion of strategies for fostering student development. Part I should provide a useful context for the discussion and recommendations pertaining directly to deaf and hard of hearing students that follow in Part II.

Part II of the report pertains to the full access and engagement of deaf and hard of hearing students in campus life, with general recommendations for communication and language access, barrier-free facilities, and programmatic initiatives. These will be applied to eight common campus life programs and services.

PART I. STUDENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE BROAD CONTEXT

Soaring hopes and heavy expectations challenge postsecondary education these days. The defining purposes framing this challenge are an interesting mix of idealism and pragmatism (Bowen, 1977; Boyer, 1987; Knox, Lindsay & Kolb, 1993).

On the one hand, postsecondary education aims at nothing less than facilitating students' life-long pursuits toward intellectual, moral, and aesthetic fulfillment. And on the other, it focuses pragmatically on the short-term development and certification of the skills and knowledge that enable entry into the technical/professional work force and economic mainstream.

The mission of postsecondary education encompasses both the wings of individual growth and the roots of social utility. It simultaneously represents a liberating vehicle for personal development and one of the few means available for bridging the gap between the haves and the have nots.

DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

Given this framework of hopes and expectations, student development should be a major focus in postsecondary education. While student development at the postsecondary level is a complex construct, and resistant to single-factor conceptualizations (Ewell, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), most of its models are grounded in some common assumptions:

• Student development represents interdependent growth in various dimensions of personal and interpersonal functioning.
• Student development can be conceptualized as growth through a continuous sequence of stages, with successive stages representing progressively more differentiated means of analysis and pro-gressively more integrated modes of resolution.
• Student development represents a lessening in the tendency to anchor values and actions in the judgments of others, and a strengthening in the tendency to frame such values and actions in terms of one's own belief system.

For the purposes of this report, student development is conceptualized as occurring across four primary dimensions: intellectual, identity formation, interpersonal, and moral. These are described briefly as follows (Moore, 1990; Morrill, Hurst & Oetting, 1980; Rodgers, 1989).

Intellectual dimension. William Perry's theory of intellectual development (Knefelkamp, Widick & Parker, 1978; Perry, 1970) was developed within a postsecondary context. The theory posits a continuum comprised of three major stages regarding the way individuals view knowledge and values.

Dualism assumes a right-wrong, good-bad world. Students at this stage seek direction and "answers" from authority. Authority is embodied by faculty, who hold absolute "truths" that can be learned.

Multiplicity describes students who recognize that not all answers are absolute. Uncertainty about truth validates a diversity of opinion. At this stage, students view all opinions as equally valid in the absence of absolute truth.

Relativism, the third stage, reflects the insight that quality of thought can validate one intellectual viewpoint over another. Recognition of intellectually valid processes or systems of thought serves to screen out alternative positions and contributes to personal commitment toward selected viewpoints. Career decisions, lifestyle choices, personal relationships, and political and religious views are decided upon in relation to the quality of thought used in deriving them.

Identity formation dimension. Establishing a clearer and more stable sense of self is a critical developmental task for postsecondary students. Students entering college encounter numerous challenges that raise questions for them in their self-identity. In broad terms, identity formation can be conceived as three stages along the continuum noted below (Chickering, 1969; Thomas & Chickering, 1984).

Students at the conforming stage judge themselves harshly and tend to be "other-directed" as they seek to fulfill external expectations placed upon them.

As students move to the experimental stage, they try out new lifestyles and values and become less rigid in judging themselves and others. This lack of absolutes can also create ambiguity and dilemmas about self-identity.

The intentional stage represents the beginning of resolving such major identity questions as "Who am I?" and "Who can I become?" The intentional self is rooted in internal beliefs rather than external expectations.

Interpersonal dimension. This dimension plays a critical role in student development. It is particularly critical for college students in establishing new interpersonal ties within new educational environments, beyond the familiar and secure spheres of family relations and long-standing friendships.

It is at once a pivotal source and a central mode of expression for a student's developing self-identity. It also is the means of establishing group identity and identity within the larger postsecondary institution. The interpersonal domain is the mirror we hold up to get a better look at ourselves and the medium we use in making contact with other social beings.

Based on the works of Chickering (1969) and Heath (1977), the Interpersonal Dimension in turn can be differentiated into three components: Interpersonal Relatedness, Interpersonal Competence, and Social Perspective.

Interpersonal Relatedness. This component refers to changes in the way students generally relate to others, not only with peers but also with people occupying a wide variety of roles in their lives.

The Self-Centered stage refers to a focusing on one's own needs and interests, with interpersonal activities serving mainly to satisfy egocentric concerns.

The Role-Dominated stage represents a mild shift from egocentrism. The student now regulates interpersonal activities in terms of perceived norms, roles, and the expectations of others. However, similar to the most basic stage, interpersonal relations still have the primary purpose of self-confirmation.

The Intimate stage is the most advanced developmental position, representing interpersonal relations among students that are capable of interdependent and reciprocal satisfaction of one another's needs through non-defensive, spontaneous, and trusting interpersonal exchange. Affirmation of the other, as much as confirmation of the self, guides interpersonal relationships at this stage of development.

Interpersonal Competence. Interpersonal competence refers to managing oneself effectively in working with others, in order to accomplish a common task requiring joint efforts. It refers to that set of interpersonal behavior and attitudes commonly known as "teamwork skills".

Two stages along this continuum can be conceived as Unilateral Imposition and Collective Action. Development along this continuum reflects a shift from using group projects for satisfying personal needs, to assessing and orchestrating the collective needs and strengths of the group in effectively accomplishing a common goal.

Social Perspective. This component refers to the way students interpret the diversity of people and cultures.

This developmental continuum represents growth in tolerating and appreciating a wider diversity in people. It reflects a positive shift in openly responding to persons in their own right rather than exclusively in terms of stereotypes. Development along this continuum is sparked by a willingness to discount cultural preconceptions, is sustained by an awareness and appreciation for cultural differences, and is culminated by the insight that cultural differences are but variations of a fundamental humanity.

The Ethnocentric stage characterizes the student who unquestioningly believes his/her culture and background is superior to others.

Cultural relativism represents an increase in tolerance for cultural diversity and a lessening in cultural stereotyping. Also, at this stage there is a beginning appreciation for the basic linkage between cultural and personal identity.

The Anthropocentric stage represents realization of the common elements of humanity underlying all cultural variations, e.g., the need for communication, order, uniqueness, and collective identity. Cultural differences at this stage are valued as "localized expressions" of the common threads running through humanity.

Moral Dimension. Students can undergo many changes in their moral development throughout their postsecondary experience. They are exposed to diverse values and beliefs, and are challenged to make important decisions and choices having both short- and long-term consequences.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development (1981) presents in a useful way how individuals progress through stages in reasoning about moral issues and developing a greater sense of self in relation to others.

Kohlberg identifies three major stages of moral reasoning: egocentrism, sociocentrism, and allocentrism.

At the level of egocentrism (the preconventional level), the individual has very little understanding or concern for the rules and expectations of society, and 4 makes moral decisions primarily from a self-serving reference.

At the level of sociocentrism (the conventional level), the individual is able to identify with, and internalize, social rules and regulations in deciding upon issues of "right" and "wrong". Most people from adolescence through adulthood, including college students, typically reason at this level.

At the third level, allocentrism (the postconventional level), the individual is concerned with individual rights and collective responsibilities, and has a sense of self as part of a greater humanity, with a concern for consistently applying principles of justice. Resolving issues of "right" and "wrong" requires the application of such principles, rather than simply following established social rules and regulations.

FOSTERING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

Based on an extensive review of college impact studies over a 20-year period, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) summarized the following findings regarding the nature and dynamics of student development. We can assume that these findings apply to hearing, hard of hearing, and deaf students alike.

• Students develop in an integrated manner, with changes in one developmental dimension reinforcing and reflecting changes in other dimensions.
• Students make significant gains not only in factual knowledge and intellectual skills, but along a broad array of value, social, and moral dimensions as well.
• Students' psychosocial changes represent not only refinements in self-identity, but also advancements in how they engage and interact with other people.
• Students make significant advances in using principled reasoning to arrive at moral judgments.
• What students gain from their postsecondary experience is determined largely by the level and quality of their involvement in both academic and non-academic activities throughout the campus community.
• Students who take active responsibility for the significance and consequences of their postsecondary experience (instead of merely assuming the role of passive recipients of institutional effort) are most successful in furthering their own development.

Institutional resources, curricula, and reputation do not inevitably translate into student development (Astin, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Moreover, student development does not necessarily signify institutional effectiveness; students can grow without having attended college X, Y, or Z.

In mobilizing institutional resources to support student development, the following principles have been found useful (Banning, 1980; Chickering, 1969; Morill, Hurst & Oetting, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

• Development is facilitated when students experience challenges requiring novel responses, and when they are supported by their campus community in searching for effective new strategies free of earlier habits and preconceptions.
• Following the premise of person-environment interaction, students actively shape their postsecondary environment as much as they are shaped by it (with the development of important skills, values, and ways of seeing the world not so much happening within students as resulting from interactions between students and their environment).
• Individual differences, in terms of such personal characteristics as cultural and ethnic backgrounds, learning styles, and existing developmental levels, affect the meaning and outcome of all educational experiences.
• Designing campus living quarters that are responsive, rather than insensitive, to student development requires shared vision and intentional, collective action; as such it represents the central task of each member of the educational community.

PART II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS

Student development theory and research is meaningful only when it is grounded in and illuminates individual lives, such as those of Angela, Becky, Luke, and Christopher.

Angela is the only person who is deaf in her family. She's had little exposure to Deaf culture or sign language. As she enters 5 college and explores her developing self-identity, she would benefit greatly from some support from campus life professionals in locating local, regional, and national "Deaf culture" resources.

Becky is deaf also. Unlike Angela, she uses American Sign Language (ASL), not English, as her native language. She needs "language access" and tutorial support in the Learning Center for extra help in a writing course she is taking.

Luke is hard of hearing. He's suddenly been inspired by the idea of joining with several other deaf and hard of hearing folks on campus, and maybe some interested people from the local community also, and establishing a college-sponsored ASL Poetry Club.

Christopher is hard of hearing. He feels that he's not a part of either the "deaf" or "hearing" worlds. He wants some support in figuring out how to meet interesting people and establish friendships.

Deaf and hard of hearing college students contend with all the same challenges as hearing students in terms of their growth along the four dimensions of student development described earlier, i.e., intellectual, identity formation, interpersonal, and moral.

However, the individual learning characteristics, background experiences, language and communication strengths and needs, and personal aspirations of deaf and hard of hearing students in negotiating and developing along these dimensions can vary widely. Such diversity exists not only in comparison to hearing students as a whole, but among deaf and hard of hearing students themselves as seen in the lives of Angela, Becky, Luke, and Christopher .

In the face of such diversity, the need for colleges to provide a widely differentiated array of support resources and educational experiences is evident. Sparking and helping to sustain the development of all individual students, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, is a critical and ongoing challenge.

Deaf and hard of hearing students often face navigating the hidden rocks and sudden whirlpools of college life without the necessary tools and/or a responsive and supportive campus environment. The two and four-year college retention rate for deaf students is considerably lower than that for students who hear (Stinson & Walter, 1992). Also, consistent with research on the persistence of college students in general, their persistence in completing college involves the "interpersonal fit" between themselves and their campus environment as much as the presence or absence of academic difficulty (Scherer, Stinson, & Walter, 1987).

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: OBLIGATION AND COMMITMENT

Federal laws and regulations setting forth the legal obligations of postsecondary institutions for making reasonable accommodation in supporting the access and engagement of deaf and hard of hearing students in campus programs and resources are well established. In the closing section of this report, these are discussed and interpreted by Jo Anne Simon, a legal authority in this area.

However, we wish to emphasize here that the legal realm of obligation regarding the fulfillment of laws and regulations does not have the same logic or focus as the educational realm of commitment regarding student and community development. The fact that a college is doing what is "legally required" does not necessarily coincide with its doing "whatever is possible" in ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing students have full opportunity for engaging the array of educational resources and campus services that comprise a successful college experience. The former approach responds to an educational institution's legal requirements; the latter approach honors its defining purpose.

Some general guidelines that may assist colleges and students in establishing a supportive environment for deaf and hard of hearing students are noted below (see National Center for Law and Deafness, 1992; Porter, Rosenfield, & Spaull, 1995). They are organized according to the categories of Overall, Communication and language access, and Programming for community membership.

Overall

• Deaf and hard of hearing students require access to the same full range of postsecondary educational opportunities that are available to the general student population.
• Deaf and hard of hearing students have a right to special services and accommodations, tailored to their needs, in support of their educational progress at whatever college for which they are eligible and choose to attend.
• As active partners in realizing meaningful accommodations, deaf and hard of hearing students are responsible for "self-identifying" their need for accommodation.
• All college programs and services should be provided in a manner that affords full opportunity for meaningful interaction among hearing, deaf, and hard of hearing students, based on individual choice.

Communication and language access

• Colleges should provide "auxiliary aids and services" to ensure effective communication among hearing, deaf, and hard of hearing individuals, e.g., interpreters, assistive listening devices, written materials, TV with provisions for closed captions, other captioned media, telephones compatible with hearing aids, or TTYs.
• Colleges should install flashing fire alarms for public rooms and private living facilities, and flashing doorbells where needed.
• Colleges should ensure that campus-wide events such as graduation ceremonies, plays, and guest speaker programs are accessible to deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
• Existing theaters and other assembly areas should provide assistive listening systems (induction loop, infrared, or FM transmission devices) to facilitate effective communication for all.2
• On-campus emergency phone numbers should be directly accessible by TTYs (without relying on Relay Service).
• Communication devices offered to the college community in general, e.g., pay phones, should be accessible to deaf and hard of hearing individuals also.
• All such accommodations to ensure linguistic and communication accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals should be provided free of charge to individual users.
• In choosing among alternative auxiliary aids and services to ensure linguistic and communication accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals, colleges should give primary consideration to the preferences of these consumers.
• Steps to ensure linguistic and communication accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals should not represent "undue burden" (in terms of significant difficulty or expense) for the college.

Programming for community membership

• Break down the "insider/outsider" dichotomy.

Whether in terms of gender, race, nationality, disability, or any other marginalized personal characteristic, an "outsider" is perceived as fundamentally different from the defining norms and beliefs of the "insider" culture. The rules of the game (and the assumptions supporting them) governing this insider culture have been established and refined over time without consideration of, or provision for, the differences personified by the "outsiders". It can be thus for a student who is hard of hearing attending a "hearing" college.

Access to the insider culture by an outsider too often means access to a setting rooted in traditions, and rewarding skills and perspectives not possessed by the outsider, while ignoring those traditions, skills, and perspectives the outsider brings. Gaining access to the insider culture usually obliges the outsider to learn and conform to the already established rules of the game. Outsiders are perceived as different, and changing the core assumptions and practices of the insider culture is typically viewed as inappropriate, if not heretical.

• Overcome the mindset of "inclusion through additive change".

Higher education's insider culture typically operates on the faulty assumption that inclusion is an additive, rather than transformative process. The thinking goes something like this: "We fulfill our moral obligation to include those historically excluded by

The problem with this additive approach is that the core values and patterns that define the insider culture are not held up for examination or encouraged to evolve in response to the needs and strengths of the newly included community members. Historically excluded individuals are included, but it happens through their relegation to pockets of special interests around the fringe.

• Transcend the "politics of differences".

As described by Shelby Steele (1990), once outsiders gain access to the insider culture, they often deal with continuing institutional exclusion by converting their "difference" into a political force. Different racial, ethnic, gender, disability, and sexual orientation groups are then forced to assert their rights and compete with one another for power based on the single attribute that makes them outsiders in the first place.

All the while the values and practices of the core community remain unexamined and constant as the constituent outsider groups battle to win self-contained concessions that do nothing to change the insider culture. In the face of such unresponsiveness, cynicism among outsiders can grow, and the outsiders can disengage themselves from broader campus involvement. To avoid this, the collective college community should make an effort to transcend politics based on differences, including differences that stem from gradations in the ability to hear.

These general observations and suggestions can be turned to practical use with respect to the quality of campus life for deaf and hard of hearing students on a college campus. However, how they are implemented will vary considerably from college to college.

RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

As indicated in the first report of this series, depending on their qualifications and other personal circumstances, deaf and hard of hearing students today can and do choose from a large array of colleges. In doing so, they will also be choosing among colleges that vary from large enrollments of deaf and hard of hearing students (two exceeding 1,000) and special programs for these students, to colleges without any known deaf or hard of hearing students. Deaf and hard of hearing students have good reason to expect more comprehensive "special" campus life services and resources in the former college settings than in the latter.

Rather than suggest only the basic campus life services and resources necessary for legal compliance, the authors have chosen to include those that also reflect extraordinary commitment. Many of the recommended practices that follow are more exemplary than basic. Also, it should be noted that some, though by no means all, of the noted features of campus life are more applicable to colleges that have student housing than to those that do not.

The general guidelines noted in the preceding section in turn can be translated into recommended practices.The following practices aim at ensuring quality experiences for deaf and hard of hearing students when interacting with the specific organizational areas of campus life noted below. Within each campus life area, they are organized around the issues of Communication and Language Access, Barrier-Free Facilities, and Programmatic Initiatives.

1. College Union facilities/Student activities
2. Housing/Residence Life
3. Health services
4. Recreational sports
5. Judicial and Campus Safety programs/services
6. Programs/Services for students from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds and international students
7. Programs for commuter students
8. Accessing off-campus community resources

COLLEGE UNION FACILITIES/STUDENT ACTIVITIES

PROGRAMS/SERVICES FOR STUDENTS FROM DIVERSE ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUNDS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Communication and language access

• A college that admits deaf or hard of hearing students with primary languages other than English or ASL makes educational co-curricular campus activities and campus life resources accessible to each of these students in his/her primary language.

• The college acknowledges and affirms the ethnic, racial, and international diversity of members of its campus community through educational programs and campus life resources that reflect this diversity.

  Parenthetically, the self-identities of deaf and hard of hearing students who are also members of ethnic/racial minorities, are a matter of personal choice. It cannot be assumed that their self-identities are defined exclusively or even primarily by their deafness/hard of hearing status. Nor should the converse assumption be made.

• The college ensures that social and/or governance organizations established for community members representing ethnically and racially diverse interests are both linguistically and programmatically accessible for deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

PROGRAMS FOR COMMUTER STUDENTS

Communication and language access

• The college ensures that any special social and/ or governance organization established for students who commute (rather than reside on campus) is accessible linguistically and programmatically for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Barrier-free facilities

• The college ensures that the signage directing commuting students and visitors (including those who are deaf or hard of hearing) around the campus is clear and visually accessible.

ACCESSING OFF-CAMPUS COMMUNITY RESOURCES

• Deaf and hard of hearing students become informed about "access resources" such as interpreting services, hearing aid service and sales, and church congregations of deaf people that may be available off campus. Some students may need to be advised as to their "access rights" in initiating commerce with community-based businesses.
• Deaf and hard of hearing commuter students are encouraged to seek out involvement with local community-based deaf and hard of hearing organizations.
• The college involves itself in off-campus activities that enhance the community as a setting for deaf and hard of hearing people to live and work.

POSTSCRIPT PERTAINING TO LAWS AND REGULATIONS3

The area of student life is clearly covered by §504 and ADA, but on the whole we have been given less guidance in this regard by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) because the overwhelming number of complaints filed by students with disabilities involve auxiliary aids and services in the academic context.

Nevertheless, the applicable regulations clearly regard student life/student services, including student housing, as among the "programs and activities" covered by the law. While there have been relatively few cases brought in this arena, OCR has found, for example, that while there need not be a TTY in each and every building, they must be located in such a way as to provide equivalent access to the programs and activities within those facilities.

OCR has also found that an institution's responsibility to provide equal access to programs and services extended to a student wheelchair user who had been denied the opportunity to become a volunteer counselor because the counseling center was inaccessible to her wheelchair. OCR required that the student be given the necessary training in an accessible location and be permitted to meet with peer clients in an appropriate accessible location other than the counseling center. OCR has also found, for example, that an interpreter should have been provided for a voluntary, but educationally related school-sponsored field trip; academic advising and orientation services; and that students should not be expected to bear all or part of the cost.

In one case, a student with a severe physical disability sued for the right to have a roommate instead of the single room the university offered on the assumption that other students would not want to have a severely disabled roommate who used attendant care. The Court found for the student, consistent with existing Supreme Court precedent in which the Court held that a denial of rights based on the anticipated reactions of others to the person with a disability violated §504.

Thus, deaf and hard of hearing students must be given equal access to all areas of student life, although not surprisingly, this area has taken a back seat to academic access. But the ADA requires that communications with deaf or hard of hearing persons must be "as effective as communication with others." OCR has repeatedly held that the term "communication" in this context means the transfer of information, including, but not limited to, the verbal presentation of a lecturer, the resources of the Internet, etc. In addition, when determining what type of auxiliary aid or service is necessary, public colleges and universities must give "primary consideration" to the requests of the individual with a disability.

This does not necessarily mean that deaf and hard of hearing students must be provided, for example, a sign language interpreter for each and every student event, but rather that the facts and circumstances be assessed to determine what will yield "effective communication." OCR has consistently applied the following three criteria to assess whether effective communication has been provided: (a) timeliness of delivery, (b) accuracy of the translation, and (c) provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual with the disability. Thus, the type of actual service provided may be determined in part by the level of importance of the information to be conveyed, which is arguably less important in the context of certain student activities, than others. While many of these issues have been resolved in the area of academic accommodations, there remains a great deal of "wiggle room" in the area of student services, in which we will undoubtedly see more legal action in the future.

 

---

1In the order listed above, the authors are associated with National Technical Institute for the Deaf (Rochester, New York), Carnegie-Mellon University (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Northern Illinois University (DeKalb, Illinois), and Northern Essex Community College, Gallaudet Regional Center (Haverill, Massachusetts). (return to text)
2 See the National Task Force companion report on assistive listening devices-Warick, R., Clark, C., Dancer, J., & Sinclair, S. (1997). Assistive Listening Devices. (Same source as present report.) (return to text)
3 Contributed by Jo Anne Simon, consultant/attorney specializing in laws and regulations pertaining to students with disabilities. (return to text)

---

References

Astin, A.W. (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banning, J.H. (1980). Management of the campus ecology. In U. Delworth & G. Hanson (Eds.) A Handbook for Student Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, H.R. (1977). Investment in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Chickering, A. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ewell, P.T. (1991). To capture the ineffable: Newer forms of assessment in higher education. In G. Grant (Ed.) Review of Research in Education. Washington, D.C. : American Educational Research Association.

Heath, D. (1977). Maturity and Competence: A Transcultural View. NY: Gardner Press.

Knefelkamp, L.C., Widick, C., & Parker, C.A. (Eds.). (1978). Applying New Developmental Findings. New Directions for Student Services, No. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knox, W.E., Lindsay, P., & Kolb, M.N. (1993). Does College Make a Difference? Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Moore, L.V. (Ed.). (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. New Directions for Student Services, No.51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morrill, W., Hurst, J.C., & Oetting, E.R. (Eds.). (1980). Dimensions of Intervention for Student Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

National Center for Law and Deafness. (1992). Legal Rights: A Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Porter, J., Rosenfield, E., & Spaull, E. (1995). The Illusion of Inclusion. Unpublished manuscript. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology.

Rodgers, R.F. (1990). Student development. In Delworth, U., Hanson, G. and Associates (Eds.). Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scherer, M.J., Stinson, M.S., & Walter, G.G. (1992). Factors affecting persistence in deaf college students. Technical Report. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology.

Steele, S. (1990). The Content of our Character. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Thomas, R. & Chickering, A. (1984). Education and identity revisited. Journal of College Personnel, 25, 392-399.