1. University Faculty Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Learning Disabilities: A Comparison between Arabic and Hebrew- Speaking Lecturers Marlyn Khouri Orly Lipka Michal shechter-Lerner University of Haifa University of Haifa University of Haifa and Edmond J Safra Brain Research Center  

2. Background- LD in Higher Education
It has been estimated that 3-11% of the entire student population in higher education institutions have a disability that is taken into consideration (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
An increasing number of students with learning disabilities have entered post-secondary education in recent years
(Murray, Flannery & Wren, 2008).

3. Background – Faculty Attitudes
Faculty’s:
Knowledge
Attitudes
Willingness to provide accommodations
Willingness to provide reasonable academic modifications
Are critical factors for the success
of students with disabilities in higher education
(e.g., Burgstahler, 2005; Dona & Edmister, 2001; Skinner, 2004; Vogel, et al., 2008).

4. Background – Faculty Attitudes
Students with disabilities, especially transparent ones, like LD, emotional disorders, chronic health problems, report that:
Faculty often lacks sensitivity
Awareness of their needs
As a result: feel a sense of intimidation and rejection
(Kurth & Mellard, 2006; Wilson, Getzel, & Brown, 2000).

5. Background – Faculty Attitudes
The vast majority indicate that lecturers are reluctant to change their teaching methods and adapt to the needs of their students
(e.g., Hopkins, 2011; Moswela & Mukhopadhyay, 2011.(
Do not always display appropriate attitudes towards students with disabilities (Díez, Gavirab, & Molina, 2014).

6. Background- Attitudes in Israel
In Israel there is a social, cultural and ethnicity diversity.
Arabic speakers learn in different schools than Hebrew speakers and even among Hebrew speakers the curricula are different (secular versus religious schools).
In the Hebrew speaking schools, there is an awareness and integration of students with LD in mainstream classes.
Unfortunately, in Arabic speaking schools there is not enough awareness and knowledge about LD. As a result negative perceptions still exists, which often leads to negative stereotypes (Jabbarine & Aghbaria, 2010).
Background- Attitudes in Israel

7. Current Study The purpose of this study:
to examine Hebrew and Arabic speaking faculty:
Attitudes about LD in the higher education setting.
knowledge about LD
(2) to examine if and how this knowledge affects their willingness to provide assistance for these students.

8. Method- Participants
Number- 53 faculty members. Mother-tongue- 25 native Arabic speakers; 28 native Hebrew speakers. Gender- 29 males and 24 females. Academic degree- Most of the participants had a third academic degree. Age- 36 to 45.

9. Method- measures
1. Experience/Contact with People with Disabilities- 11 statements. The faculty members were asked to rate the questions on a Likert scale of 6 degrees: 1 "never" to 6 "to a very great extent". For example: "to what extent do you have contact with students with LD?“
2. Perceptions and Attitudes toward LD Students (Murray & Flannery, 2008)- Faculty members were asked to rate 10 statements on a Likert scale of 6 degrees: 1- "Completely Disagree“ to 5- "Completely Agree", and 6 - "N.B.= No base for determining". For example, "Students with LD are able to academically compete at the university level".

10. Method- Measures
3. Knowledge about LD (Leyser &Greenberg, 2008)- This questionnaire was included in order to determine the lecturers’ willingness to gain knowledge regarding LD. The faculty members were asked to rate the questions on a Likert scale of 6 degrees.
4. Accommodations provision (Leyser & Greenberg, 2008)- 28 statements categorized under four factors: providing instructional accommodations (INS); providing technological accommodations (TEC); providing examination accommodations (TEST); and perception of fairness of accommodations (FA). Faculty members were asked to rate the questions on a Likert scale of 6 degrees: 1 "never" to 6 "to a very great extent".

11. Method
Procedure
A survey had been sent via to more than 200 faculty members using a digital questionnaire on Google Drive and a mailing list that was published on the university website.
Lecturers were from different faculties and departments on campus and were selected arbitrarily. The sent out included a description of the study. Furthermore, all the responses were anonymous, and were immediately recorded on Google Drive. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to fill in.
Data analyses
The data was entered into SPSS software, and was analyzed by using an independent t-test and chi-square test.

12. Results
כפי שניתן לראות על פני כל המדדים לא נמצאו הבדלים מובהקים בין המרצים דוברי העברית לדוברי הערבית. להזכירכם, הסקלה היא מ – 1 עד 6 כך שלגבי חלק מן המדדים אנחנו רואים שיש מקום לשיפור כמו לגבי הקשר עם סטודנטים לקויי למידה והידע שיש למרצים בתחום.

13. Results- Accommodations Provision*
בתוך החלק של התאמות לסטודנטים עם לקויות למידה המרצים דיווחו על מידת נכונותם לבצע את ההתאמות מ – 1 כלל לא עד ל – 6 במידה רבה מאוד.

14. Results- Accommodations Provision** *
בתוך החלק של התאמות בהוראה המרצים דוברי הערבית סימנו כי הם מוכנים במידה רבה יותר למתן עזרה אישית בעזרת בדיקת טיוטות של הסטודנט לפני הגשת העבודה הסופית וכן לאפשר לסטודנט להשלים את המטלות באופן חלופי (למשל – הצגה בעל פה במקום להגיש פרוייקט בכתב)

15. Results- Accommodations Provision** * * **
ההיגדים לגבי סיוע ומתן התאמות במבחנים היו מחולקים ל – 2: באיזו מידה אתה מוכן לתת את ההתאמות הבאות ובחלק השני באיזו מידה אפשרת בפועל את ההתאמות במבחנים.
ההבדלים בין הקבוצות היו ב – אפשרות למתן מבחן בעל מבנה חלופי (למשל מבחן רב ברירה במקום מבחן עם שאלות פתוחות) ובמתן האפשרות להיבחן בעל פה או להקליט את התשובות במקום להיבחן בכתב. ביצוע בפועל של ההתאמות במבחנים היו במתן הארכת זמן במבחנים ומתן אפשרות להיבחן תחת השגחה במקום שונה מחדר הכיתה.
הנתונים מתוך התזה מעלים כי ההסכמה הנמוכה ביותר היתה עם ההיגדים של שינוי פורמט הבחינה (2.56 – דוברי ערבית 2.68 דוברי עברית) ועם מתן האפשרות להיבחן בעל פה (2.56 / 2.5)

16. Discussion – Attitudes and knowledge regarding LD
Similar results were found among Hebrew and Arabic lecturers on all measures
Total scores of the different questionnaires indicated that the lecturers reported on not having enough contact with LD students and that they sought more knowledge regarding LD.
However, their perceptions and attitudes were relatively high and in accordance their readiness to provide accommodations.
ניתן לייחס את הידע הדומה של המרצים למחקר הנרחב הקיים בתחום לקויות הלמידה. ובישראל במיוחד, חוק שיוויון זכויות לאנשים עם מוגבלות והחוק של זכויות תלמידים עם לקויות למידה במוסדות על תיכוניים.
הסבר נוסף יכול להיות החשיפה לנושא באמצעי המדיה השונים והחשיבות שמייחסים לנושא זה בדיקנט הסטודנטים.

17. Discussion – Willingness to provide assistance
As was found in previous research, lecturers were reluctant to change their evaluation methods and adapt to the needs of their LD students.
Hebrew-speaking faculty were less willing to provide accommodations, that modified the exam format hence, compromising test impartiality. On the other hand, Arabic speaking lecturers were willing to look for unconventional ways to help LD students.
Both groups reported on providing technological accommodations to the greatest extend even though Hebrew speaking lecturers were significantly more willing to do so.

18. Implications
The current research emphasizes the ability of knowledge to eradicate stereotypes and negative attitudes toward people with learning disabilities.
If lecturers had more knowledge It might have supported their understanding of the fairness of accommodations
The lecturers’ inclination to provide technological accommodations, might indicate their awareness to the importance of using assistive technology as a salient means to help LD students overcome their difficulties
Technological accommodations have great potential to support students with LD demanding less effort from lecturers than providing instructional accommodations.
מבחינת התערבות יש מקום לסדנאות ולהגברת הידע בנושא של סיוע והתאמות וכדי לגשר על הצרכים השונים של סטודנטים לעומת מרצים.