1. Preparing for university life: A program evaluation
Ashleigh Hillier, Justin Kopec, & Shawn Donnelly
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Introduction
Results
Federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 modified secondary academic standards, resulting in higher high school graduation rates. Along with the increase in prevalence, access to higher education for those with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has greatly increased.
While many of these students excel academically, social challenges as well as challenges surrounding communication, daily living skills, and self-advocacy can hinder their success.
Universities and colleges continue to adapt by seeking out cost-effective programming in order to increase retention rates, integration, and achievement.
Access to mentoring programs has been shown to be a cost-effective way to address these transitional issues (Adreon & Durocher, 2009). However, these efforts are often implemented after students have already begun attending college.
Taking a preventative approach and preparing high school students diagnosed with ASD for the transition to college is crucial for ensuring the long-term success of these students.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a college preparation mentoring program geared towards high school students with ASD.
Bar Graph of Pre- vs. Post- Concerns
Methods
Participants
47 adolescents, 39 male and 8 female.
Ages ranged between 16 and 22 (Average age: 18).
All participants had previously been diagnosed with an ASD.
Mentors were college undergraduate students enrolled in an advanced psychology seminar.
A total of 9 cohorts of participants completed the program over a 4 year period.
Measures
Participants were administered a pre- and post- questionnaire. Questionnaires contained both quantitative and qualitative items.
Questions aimed to evaluate participants’ perceived readiness for university, especially regarding academics, social interactions, and university life.
Procedures
Participants were recruited from various organizations in the surrounding communities serving those with ASD and other programs run on campus for those with ASD.
The program duration was once a week for an hour for 6 weeks.
Mentors were given a suggested curriculum, which covered topics such as time management, campus support services, choosing a major, class schedules, and socializing on campus.
Activities included a campus tour, visiting a dorm, and attending a lecture.
Discussion
Our university preparation program was successful in helping high school students with ASD improve their understanding, knowledge, and confidence regarding transitioning to university.
The program model has a number of key advantages including the cost effectiveness and the inclusion of college students as mentors for the program participants.
Given the need for this type of programming our success is encouraging, particularly given the short term nature of the program.
The program also provided unique opportunities for the mentors themselves, many of whom began to consider future career paths working with those with ASD.
Future research can address the long-term affects of this program model by evaluating these outcomes after the participants have entered college.
We hope this model will be replicated at other universities and ultimately improve the success and retention of young adults with ASD in academia.