Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Communication Disorders

Perceptions of university instructors toward students who stutter:

A quantitative and qualitative approach
Derek E. Daniels a,*, James Panico b,1, Jennifer Sudholt b,1
a
b

Wayne State University, 207 Rackham Hall, 60 Farnsworth, Detroit, MI 48202, United States
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, 1329 Founders Hall, Edwardsville, IL 62026, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 8 February 2011
Received in revised form 17 June 2011
Accepted 28 July 2011

Many research studies have focused on perceptions of stuttering by various groups of

people. However, there is limited research on the perceptions of university instructors
toward stuttering and people who stutter. Therefore, this study explored the perceptions
of university instructors toward stuttering and students who stutter, and their beliefs
about classroom participation. Participants included 328 university instructors across a
variety of disciplines at two Midwestern universities. Each participant completed a 12item questionnaire regarding perceptions related to stuttering, students who stutter, and
classroom participation. Of the 328 participants, 212 completed an open-ended question
about their experiences and concerns of working with students who stutter. Results
indicated that increased knowledge of stuttering is associated with positive attitudes
toward students who stutter. Moreover, the participants in this study expressed a need for
more information about stuttering and ways to accommodate students who stutter in the
classroom.
Learning outcomes: After reading this article, the reader will be able to: (1) discuss the
challenges that university instructors face when working with students with disabilities;
(2) provide a rationale for the need to explore the perceptions of university instructors
toward students who stutter; (3) describe the major themes of university instructors
knowledge of stuttering, and beliefs about classroom participation for students who
stutter; and (4) discuss the need for disseminating more knowledge about stuttering to
university instructors.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Stuttering
College
University
Students
Perceptions
Survey

1. Introduction
Research suggests that instructors experience challenges when working with students who exhibit different types of
speech, language, and learning disorders in the educational setting (Bento, 1996; Crowe & Walton, 1981; Ginsberg, 2002;
Rocco, 2001b; Skinner, 2007). Some of these challenges include learning about the various types of disorders, structuring
courses to meet the needs of these students, and knowing when and how to provide appropriate classroom accommodations
when necessary (Bento, 1996; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003). The ways in which instructors address these challenges are
important because they may affect student motivation, student participation in classroom activities, and the students
willingness to seek out mentoring relationships (Bento, 1996; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Silverman, 1990).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 313 577 8676; fax: +1 313 577 8885.
E-mail addresses: DDani21113@aol.com, dedaniels@wayne.edu (D.E. Daniels).
1
Tel.: +1 618 650 5838; fax: +1 618 650 3307.
0021-9924/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.07.002

632

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

Access to education for students with disorders (e.g., speech, language, learning, and mobility) has grown over the last
30 years (Rocco, 2001a). The university setting, in particular, is important because students at this level are preparing to
enter the workforce. Moreover, Worley (2000) stated that the college campus serves as a microcosm representing, to a
degree, the social beliefs and behaviors of the larger society (p. 125). There is a growing body of research that has recognized
the need to explore how students with different types of disorders manage in the university setting (Bento, 1996; Dorsey &
Guenther, 2000; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Rocco, 2001a, 2001b; Skinner, 2007; Worley & Cornett-Devito, 2007). In
particular, exploring the perceptions of university instructors is important because they help create the environment where
students are expected to participate, and determine the academic outcomes of students. Therefore, it is important to gain
knowledge of the ways in which they view students with disorders.
The focus of this study is exploring university instructors experiences with students who stutter. There is a great deal of
research that explores university instructors experiences with students exhibiting other types of disorders, such as learning
disabilities (Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Rocco, 2001a, 2001b; Skinner, 2007; Worley & Cornett-Devito, 2007). However,
limited research exists on their experiences with students who stutter. Thus, in order to frame a discussion on issues that
university instructors may encounter when working with students who stutter, a general review of their responses to
students with other types of disorders is necessary. Though the experience of stuttering is not parallel with the experiences
of other speech, language, or learning disorders, instructors must still consider their beliefs and think differently about their
courses despite the nature of the disorder.
1.1. University instructor perceptions and views of students with disabilities
The literature on university instructors perceptions of disability and accommodations suggests that instructors hold
diverse views on this topic (Bento, 1996; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Skinner, 2007). Bento (1996), for example, conducted an
exploratory study to investigate the barriers that existed between non-disabled faculty and disabled college students. Three
barriers were identied from the study: informational, ethical, and attitudinal.
Informational barriers referred to the lack of knowledge that an instructor had about a disability, and lack of knowledge
about appropriate legislation (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973). Faculty participants in the Bento (1996) study expressed a few concerns about students with disabilities; these
included the instructors comfort level for asking students about their disability, doubting whether a student really exhibited
a disability, wondering why students asked for accommodations late in the semester, and instructors knowing too little
about disabilities, accommodations, or where to access information. Ethical barriers referred to the dilemmas involved in
making the most appropriate decisions. For example, instructors struggled with giving equal treatment to all students in an
impartial manner, or giving differential treatment based on the students needs. Finally, the major attitudinal barrier that
emerged was ambivalence. This referred to the instructors empathy and admiration toward students with disabilities, but
also realizing that their challenges may always restrict them in certain ways. Bento provided a specic example of one
participants experiences with a student who stutters:
In the beginning of the course, she did not participate at all during class. The professor actively stimulated her to take
part in class discussions, and considered the extra time necessary for the student to express herself. . .. Midway
through the course, the student was participating so much that her excessive use of air time started making a
signicant dent in the time available for other students or even the professor to talk. (p. 498)
In this example, the instructor felt challenged with a dilemma of either continuing to encourage the student to
participate at the expense of time, or restricting participation at the expense of the students self-condence. This
example serves as one among many of the beliefs that instructors may hold about students with disorders such as
stuttering.
The Bento (1996) study provides some evidence that barriers exist between university instructors and students with
disorders. Therefore, it would not be surprising to observe these themes when exploring university instructor
perceptions of students who stutter in particular, especially since stuttering is largely misunderstood in the general
population (Schlagheck, Gabel, & Hughes, 2009). There is limited research on the ways in which university instructors
view stuttering and students who stutter. A majority of research has explored school teacher perceptions of stuttering
(Crowe & Walton, 1981; Emerick, 1960; Lass et al., 1992; Woods & Williams, 1976; Yeakle & Cooper, 1986).
The following sections will discuss research on school teachers, and then move into a discussion on university
instructors.
1.2. School teacher perceptions of stuttering
There is some evidence in the literature on the ways in which school teachers perceive stuttering and students who
stutter. Woods and Williams (1976), for example, explored the possible presence of a stutter stereotype among seven
groups of people, one of which was elementary school teachers. Participants rated four hypothetical people who stutter
(2 hypothetical male children and 2 hypothetical male adults) on 25 personality traits. Results indicated that
unfavorable ratings were assigned to the hypothetical person who stutters from all surveyed groups, suggesting the

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

633

presence of a stutter stereotype. In particular, classroom teachers rated the hypothetical boy who stutters
signicantly lower than the hypothetical boy who did not stutter on 16 scales of the administered semantic differential
scale.
Crowe and Walton (1981) administered the Teacher Attitudes Toward Stuttering (TATS) Inventory to 100 elementary
school teachers. This questionnaire consisted of 36 attitude statement items followed by ve strength of agreement responses
(e.g., strongly agree to strongly disagree). Knowledge of stuttering was measured by the Alabama Stuttering Knowledge Test.
The nal inventory score was compared with the participants knowledge of stuttering, age, years of teaching experience,
educational level, and the participants personal experience with stuttering (i.e., that is being a person who stutters or knowing
someone who stutters). Results suggested that a positive correlation existed between a teachers knowledge of stuttering and
attitudes toward stuttering. No signicant differences were found between the participants TATS inventory scores and the
variables of educational level, age, years of teaching experience, or personal experience with a student who stutters.
Yeakle and Cooper (1986) administered the Teacher Perceptions of Stuttering Inventory to 521 teachers. This
questionnaire consisted of ve teacher demographic items (grade level presently teaching, years of experience teaching,
number of students who stutter, completion of a college course on stuttering, and currently having a student who stutters),
and 10 attitudinal statements with ve strength of agreement responses. Results indicated that teachers who had more
experience with students who stutter, and a course on speech disorders, held realistic attitudes toward students who stutter
and their expectations for classroom performance.
And nally, Lass et al. (1992) administered a questionnaire to 103 elementary and secondary teachers asking them to list
adjectives described four hypothetical persons who stutter: a typical 8-year old female, a typical 8-year old male, a typical
adult female, and a typical adult male. Results revealed that the participants listed a majority of negative adjectives toward
people who stutter, which included shy, insecure and nervous. In addition, most of the adjectives listed focused on
personality traits, rather than appearance, intelligence or speech.
Based on these studies, it is clear that educators have limited knowledge of stuttering and students who stutter. Findings
suggest that positive attitudes toward students who stutter appear to be associated with increased knowledge of stuttering.
Less is known about university instructors. The following section discusses the available literature on university instructors
views of stuttering.
1.3. University instructor perceptions of stuttering
Silverman (1990) conducted a study that explored how college professors viewed the intelligence and competence of
students who stutter. A total of 87 college professors across 3 universities served as participants. A semantic differential scale
was used to rate the student who stutters on several different characteristics related to intelligence and competence. Results
indicated that 85 of the 87 professors held positive views of the intelligence of students who stutter, while 83 of the 87
professors held positive views of their competence. Dorsey and Guenther (2000) later conducted a study to explore the
perceptions of college students and university professors toward a hypothetical college student who stutters. They
administered a semantic differential scale to 34 university professors and 57 college students to assess their perceptions. The
authors found that both groups held negative attitudes toward students who stutter, with the university professors holding
more negative stereotypes than the college students.
Results of both of these studies appear to have conicting results when looking at the views of college instructors
toward stuttering. Moreover, both studies contained relatively small sample sizes, with 87 professor participants in the
Silverman study and 34 professor participants in Dorsey and Guenther, therefore reducing the generalization of the
ndings. And nally, as with the teacher studies, both studies focused on personality characteristics, thereby not including
views on classroom participation, and did not include a qualitative component where instructors could discuss their
experiences.
1.4. Purpose and research questions
The literature examining perceptions of university instructors toward stuttering and students who stutter is limited.
Moreover, previous studies on teacher and college instructor perceptions of stuttering, and other types of disorders in
general, suggest that knowledge, discipline, gender, rank, tenure status, number of years as a college instructor, having a
course in stuttering, and having a personal history with stuttering may be important variables to explore (Crowe & Walton,
1981; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Skinner, 2007; Yeakle & Cooper, 1986). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore
the knowledge that university instructors have about stuttering, and their beliefs about classroom participation for students
who stutter. The specic questions that guided this research were as follows:
(1) What perceptions do university instructors have about stuttering and students who stutter?
(2) Are there signicant differences in the ways that university instructors rate their perceptions of stuttering and students
who stutter based on demographic variables of discipline, gender, rank, tenure status, number of years as a college
instructor, having a course in stuttering, and having a personal history with stuttering?
(3) What beliefs do university instructors have about working with students who stutter in the classroom?

634

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
A survey exploring college instructors perceptions of stuttering was mailed to 1500 faculty members across two
Midwestern universities. A total of 328 instructors completed and returned the survey instrument. Participants were asked
to complete demographic information including gender, rank, tenure, and discipline. Out of all the respondents, 151
participants identied themselves as male and 168 participants identied themselves as female. Relative to academic rank,
the majority of participants identied themselves as assistant professors (28%), followed by associate professors (27.1%), full
professors (22.3%), lecturers (11.3%), and instructors (11%). Furthermore, there was a near-even distribution between
tenured and non-tenured instructors, with 47.3% of the participants identifying themselves as tenured and 51.2% of the
participants identifying themselves as non-tenured. The majority of responses were received from participants in the College
of Arts and Sciences (60.2%), followed by the Colleges of Education (17.1%), Engineering (8%), Nursing (7%), and Business
(4.9%). The fewest responses were received from the Colleges of Pharmacy (1.5%) and Law (1.2%).
2.1.1. Survey instrument
An adapted version of the Teachers Perceptions of Stuttering Inventory (Yeakle & Cooper, 1986) and Teacher Attitudes
Toward Stuttering (TATS) Inventory (Crowe & Walton, 1981) was used to assess university instructors perceptions of
students who stutter. Specically, the questionnaire consisted of three major sections. The rst section gathered information
including the number of students who stutter the instructor has taught, has the instructor taken a course where he or she
learned about stuttering, has the instructor ever had a prior history with stuttering, and does the instructor have a relative
who stutters. The second section of the survey consisted of 12-Likert statements about educational issues related to
stuttering and students who stutter in the classroom where participants rated each statement using the choices strongly
agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The 12 statements were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

From what I understand, most stuttering is caused by an underlying psychological problem.

People who stutter should be excused from oral presentations in front of the class.
I think stuttering interferes with the persons academic performance.
It is difcult to know how to react to people who stutter in the classroom situation.
From what I understand, most stuttering is caused by an underlying physical problem.
Of all types of communication disorders, stuttering appears to be the most disruptive.
Most people who stutter can be described as being shy.
Instructors should avoid calling attention to the speech of the person who stutters.
People who stutter should be exempt from oral discussion groups.
Instructors should encourage students who stutter to pursue careers that demand little speaking.
Instructors have little inuence on the person who stutters attitudes toward stuttering; the student develops most of his
attitudes independently.
12. Allowances should be made in the evaluation of a person who stutters academic performance.
The nal section of the survey consisted of an open-ended component, which provided the participants the opportunity
to describe their feelings about working with students who stutter as well as clarifying any of their responses to the 12
statements.
2.2. Procedure
All instructors and faculty members, via campus mail, received a packet containing an informed consent form as well as
the survey questionnaire. The consent form explained that the paper-and-pencil survey takes approximately 1015 min to
complete. Completed questionnaires were placed in sealed envelopes and returned to the investigators. Furthermore, no
participants names were included anywhere on the survey instrument to maintain anonymity and condentiality. Data
from the questionnaire were coded and entered into statistical software (SPSS, version 17) for analysis.
2.3. Quantitative data analyses
Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequency distributions) were used to observe the number and percentage of participant
responses to the 12 survey statements. After analysing responses to each of the 12 statements, the participant responses
were grouped according to the independent variables of discipline, gender, rank, tenure status, estimated number of
students who stutter, number of years as a college instructor, having a course in stuttering, having stuttered at some point in
life, and having a relative who stutters. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to observe for possible group
differences on the 12 statements. Probability values less than .05 (with a Bonferroni adjustment to correct for Type 1 error)
were considered statistically signicant. In addition, effect sizes (eta squared, h2) were included for signicant ndings to
measure the strength of association between the independent and dependent variables.

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

635

2.4. Qualitative data analysis

The last section of the survey asked participants to indicate their feelings on working with students who stutter in the
classroom by providing them with space to write an open-ended response. A total of 212 participants responded to the openended question. The results were analysed for major themes through open, axial, and selective coding methods (Creswell,
1998). Codes were assigned to each narrative response (e.g., limited knowledge of stuttering, uncertainty about classroom
accommodations, instructor support) and then grouped together according to content similarity. Some narrative responses
contained multiple codes. For example, some instructors discussed having limited knowledge of stuttering but talked about
the importance of classroom accommodations and instructor support. Narrative responses were not coded if they failed to
directly address the question of working with students who stutter in the classroom. Twenty-ve participants provided
responses that were unable to be coded.
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative results
3.1.1. Research question 1: What perceptions do university instructors have about stuttering and students who stutter?
This research question was addressed by analysing descriptive responses to the survey items. The results suggest that
instructors hold diverse perceptions about stuttering and students who stutter. In particular, the majority of participants
were undecided about the cause of stuttering. For example, 36.3% (n = 119) were undecided as to whether stuttering resulted
from an underlying psychological problem, and 49.7% (n = 163) were undecided as to whether it resulted from an underlying
physical problem (see Table 1).
In many cases, the participants responded in ways that would be expected of the general population of speech-language
pathologists (Swartz, Gabel, Hughes, & Irani, 2009). For example, more than half of the participants disagreed that people
who stutter should be excused from oral presentations (70.4%), oral discussion groups (82.6%), or that stuttering interfered
with academic performance (71.9%). In addition, more than half of the participants (77.8%) disagreed that they should
encourage people who stutter to pursue careers that require little speaking. Though a majority of participants responded like
the general population of speech-language pathologists in these cases, some participants were either undecided or agreed
with the above-mentioned statements.
3.1.2. Research question 2:Are there signicant differences in the ways that university instructors rate their perceptions of
stuttering and students who stutter based on demographic variables of discipline, gender, rank, tenure status, number of years as a
college instructor, having a course in stuttering, and having a personal history with stuttering?
This research question was addressed by a one-way analysis of variance with each independent variable on the 12 survey
statements. No signicant differences were found on the 12 statements with rank, tenure status, and number of years as a

Table 1
Distribution of responses to the 12 survey items.
Survey Question
1. From what I understand, most stuttering is caused by
an underlying psychological problem.
2. People who stutter should be excused from oral
presentations in front of the class.
3. I think stuttering interferes with the persons
academic performance.
4. It is difcult to know how to react to people who
stutter in the classroom situation.
5. From what I understand, most stuttering is caused
by an underlying physical problem.
6. Of all types of communication disorders, stuttering
appears to be the most disruptive.
7. Most people who stutter can be described as being shy.
8. Instructors should avoid calling attention to the speech
of the person who stutters.
9. People who stutter should be exempt from oral discussion groups.
10. Instructors should encourage students who stutter to pursue
careers that demand little speaking.
11. Instructors have little inuence on the person who stutters
attitudes toward stuttering; the student
develops most of his attitudes independently.
12. Allowances should be made in the evaluation of a person
who stutters academic performance.

SA

SD

119 (36.3%)

100 (30.5%)

52 (15.9%)

4 (1.2%)

48 (14.6%)

1 (0.3%)

18 (5.5%)

77 (23.5%)

181 (55.2%)

50 (15.2%)

4 (1.2%)

49 (14.9%)

38 (11.6%)

146 (44.5%)

90 (27.4%)

3 (0.9%)

75 (22.9%)

46 (14%)

151 (46%)

53 (16.2%)

14 (4.3%)

75 (22.9%)

163 (49.7%)

57 (17.4%)

21 (6.4%)

63 (19.2%)

173 (52.7%)

71 (21.6%)

1 (0.3%)
80 (24.4%)

46 (14%)
157 (47.9%)

68 (20.7%)
48 (14.6%)

178 (54.3%)
31 (9.5%)

35 (10.7%)
9 (2.7%)

0 (0%)
1 (0.3%)

3 (0.9%)
10 (3%)

32 (9.8%)
46 (14%)

214 (65.2%)
190 (57.9%)

79 (24.1%)
81 (24.7%)

3 (0.9%)

21 (6.4%)

49 (14.9%)

200 (61%)

55 (16.8%)

5 (1.5%)

68 (20.7%)

78 (23.8%)

141 (43%)

35 (10.7%)

0 (0%)

Note: SA, strongly agree; A, agree; U, undecided; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree.

14 (4.3%)

636

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

college instructor. Signicant differences were found on some of the statements with course in stuttering, having a previous
history with stuttering, gender, and discipline. The following sections will discuss these ndings.
3.1.3. Course in stuttering
A total of 322 participants responded to this background variable. Of these, 26 participants reported having a course in
stuttering. Signicant differences were observed on items 1, 4, 7, and 11 of the survey between participants who had a
course in stuttering and those who did not have a course in stuttering. These results suggested that instructors who had a
course in stuttering were more likely than those who did not have a course to disagree on the following statements:
stuttering resulted from an underlying psychological problem, F(1, 320) = 5.470, p = .020, h2 = .016 (M = 3.88, SD = 0.952); it
is difcult to know how to react to people who stutter in the classroom situation, F(1, 325) = 10.097, p = .002, h2 = .03
(M = 4.15, SD = 0.924); most people who stutter can be described as being shy, F(1, 325) = 4.601, p = .033, h2 = .013 (M = 3.96,
SD = 0.662); and instructors have little inuence on the attitudes of people who stutter toward stuttering, F(1, 325) = 5.975,
p = .015, h2 = .018 (M = 4.23, SD = 0.710). Participants who had no course in stuttering were likely to be undecided on these
statements.
3.1.4. Having a previous history of stuttering
A total of 326 participants responded to this background variable. Of these, 30 reported that they stuttered at some
point in time. Signicant differences were observed on statement 2 of the survey, F(1, 324) = 6.225, p = .013, h2 = .018
(M = 4.13, SD = 0.571). This result suggested that instructors who stutter were more likely to disagree that people who
stutter should be excused from oral presentations in front of the class. Instructors who did not stutter were more likely to
be undecided.
3.1.5. Gender
A total of 319 participants responded to this background variable (151 males and 168 females). Signicant differences
were noted on statement 11, F(1, 317) = 15.794, p = .000, h2 = .047 (M = 3.69, SD = 0.917). This result suggested that female
instructors were more likely to disagree that instructors have little inuence on the person who stutters attitudes toward
stuttering. Male instructors were more likely to be undecided.
3.1.6. Discipline
Across all disciplines, signicant differences were noted on statement 1, F(6, 315) = 3.359, p = .001, h2 = .06, and statement
11, F(6, 320) = 4.663, h2 = .08. For statement 1, results of post-hoc analyses suggested that instructors in the College of Arts
and Sciences were more likely to agree that stuttering is caused by an underlying psychological problem than instructors in
the College of Education (p = .001). Instructors in the College of Education were more likely to disagree that stuttering is the
result of an underlying psychological problem than instructors in the College of Engineering (p = .001), and instructors in the
College of Engineering were more likely to agree that stuttering is caused by underlying psychological problem than
instructors in the College of Nursing (p = .015).
For statement 11, results of post-hoc analyses suggested that instructors in the College of Arts and Sciences were more
likely to disagree that instructors have little inuence on the person who stutters attitudes toward stuttering than
instructors in the College of Engineering (p = .006); instructors in the College of Education were more likely to disagree that
instructors have little inuence on the person who stutters attitudes toward stuttering than instructors in the College of
Engineering (p = .000); instructors in the College of Nursing were more likely to disagree that instructors have little inuence
on the person who stutters attitudes toward stuttering than instructors in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (p = .041), and
Engineering (p = .000).
From these results, it appears that instructors in the College of Education tended to exhibit more accurate knowledge of
stuttering.
3.2. Qualitative results
3.2.1. Research question 3: What beliefs do university instructors have about working with students who stutter in the classroom?
This research question was addressed by analysing the themes that emerged from the participants responses to the
open-ended question, Please indicate your feelings on working with students who stutter in your classroom. Four major
themes emerged from the narrative responses: (1) knowledge and exposure to stuttering, (2) comfort level, (3) classroom
accommodations, and (4) instructor support and encouragement. The following section discusses each theme and associated
subthemes, and provides participant quotes.
3.2.2. Theme 1: knowledge and exposure of stuttering
This theme focused on the degree of information and experience the participants reported about stuttering and working
with students who stutter. A total of 53 participants (25%) contributed responses to this theme. Subthemes included limited
knowledge of stuttering and limited experience of working with students who stutter (27 participants), no knowledge or
experience (19 participants), and the need for more information about working with students who stutter (7 participants).
Examples of participant responses include:

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

637

Ive had little experience with stutterers. I would like to know better how to help a stutterer or any other student.
Would appreciate guidance on working with students who stutter.
It appears that many instructors have little to no experience working with students who stutter and express a need for
ways to address potential concerns that students who stutter may bring to the classroom.
3.2.3. Theme 2: comfort level
This theme focused on the degree of comfort that instructors feel about working with students who stutter. A total of 48
participants (23%) contributed to this theme. Subthemes included feeling comfortable working with students who stutter
(31 participants), equal treatment to all students in the class (7 participants), discomfort working with students who stutter
(6 participants), and uncertainty of how to interact with students (4 participants). Examples of participant quotes include:
I feel comfortable working with students who stutter.
I would just like to comment that this survey brings to my attention how little I know about stuttering and my
uncertainty of how I would interact with a student who stutters in the classroom.
3.2.4. Theme 3: classroom accommodations
This theme focused on the beliefs that instructors expressed about accommodating students who stutter. A total of 94
participants (44%) contributed to this theme. Subthemes included making necessary accommodations relative to student needs
(63 participants), uncertainty about how to handle accommodations (14 participants), impartial treatment of all students
(11 participants), and refusal to provide preferential treatment (6 participants). Examples of participant quotes included:
I am comfortable having these students in class but dont know how to evaluate oral presentations. Also, there may be
some awkwardness on my part in facilitating class discussions.
[Students who stutter] should receive no preferential treatment and be expected to perform as any other student.
Participants generally agreed that students who stutter should participate to the same degree as students who do not
stutter in classroom activities. This is indicated in the observation that a large percentage of participants felt that students
who stutter should not be exempt from oral presentations and oral discussion groups, and that stuttering did not interfere
with academic performance.
3.2.5. Theme 4: instructor support and encouragement
This theme focused on characteristics that instructors felt were important to facilitating classroom success of students
who stutter. A total of 76 participants (36%) contributed to this theme. All 76 participants agreed that supportive instructors
(e.g., patience, encouragement, and respect), and a supportive classroom atmosphere were important to the success of
students who stutter. Examples of participant quotes included:
It is important to be sensitive and patient when communicating with those who stutter.
The well-rounded teacher should be equipped to address needs of a wide range of abilities. We should embrace
diversity.
4. Discussion
This study was designed to investigate university instructors knowledge of stuttering and beliefs about classroom
participation for students who stutter. The ndings appear to be consistent with previous literature on university instructor
perceptions of students with other types of disorders, and beliefs about classroom participation: that is, instructors tend to
have limited knowledge about students with different disorders, and, while willing to accommodate, they often have limited
knowledge or resources on ways to do so (Bento, 1996; Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; Skinner, 2007; Worley, 2000). Studying the
perceptions that instructors have of students with disorders, and in particular students who stutter, is important because,
according to Frymier and Wanzer perceptual barriers are usually recognized as the real barrier in interactions between
able-bodied persons and persons with disabilities (p. 176). They also suggest that perceptual barriers lead to differences in
behavioral treatment.
Students with different speech, language, and learning needs are becoming more prevalent in the university setting.
University instructors, however, have not always been knowledgeable of various types of disorders. In addition, students
with disorders, though prevalent in the university setting, may not typically be the majority in their classrooms (Worley,
2000). This suggests that instructors need more resources on the needs of students with disorders, including stuttering. As
evidenced in this study, university instructors are not typically exposed to students who stutter. Reasons for this may include
the 1% prevalence rate of stuttering in the adult population, people who stutter exhibiting variable amounts of disuencies,
and using coping strategies to hide stuttering. Increased knowledge and exposure to stuttering is likely to lead to more
appropriate responses to students who stutter from instructors. For example, instructors who reported having a course in

638

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

stuttering were likely to not view stuttering as a psychological problem, did not express discomfort in reacting to students
who stutter, and held overall positive views of students who stutter.
Overall, results of this study suggest that university instructors hold various opinions on knowledge of stuttering and
expectations of students who stutter in the classroom. Some instructors reported uncertainty about the cause of stuttering or
specic ways to help students who expressed concern, while others expressed a degree of comfort in accommodating
students. However, it appears that most agree that instructors should treat all students fairly, exhibit patience and empathy,
and tailor classroom assignments to meet individual student needs when necessary. More support may be needed to assist
instructors on specic ways to help students who stutter achieve classroom goals.
4.1. Conclusion
As population demographics continue to change, college instructors will need more information on ways to address the
needs of students with disorders, including students who stutter. Worley (2000) discussed important characteristics of
teachers in the context of students with disabilities on college campuses. He identied four important preoperational
variables: attitudes of teachers, contact with students, behavior of teachers, and training prior to entering the classroom.
These variables appear relevant to understanding instructors concerns when working with students who stutter, and ways
to address those concerns.
Regarding the preoperational variable of attitudes, Worleys review of research indicated three trends. First, college
instructors tend to support the inclusion of students with disabilities into the classroom, but are reserved when inclusion
impacts them directly. In addition, college instructors also express ambivalence in their interactions with students with
disabilities. This trend was supported by the present study, and other studies of students with learning disabilities (Bento, 1996;
Skinner, 2007). Second, Worleys literature review indicated that type, severity, and causes of disability make a difference in
how instructors interact with students. And third, female instructors and instructors in the social sciences and education tend to
have more positive attitudes toward students with disabilities. This observation, according to Worley, seems to mirror the
cultural and educational socialization (p. 128) of females and those disciplines. Results of the present study likewise
suggested that instructors in the social sciences and education held more accurate views of stuttering and students who stutter.
Regarding contact, Worley indicated two important trends. First, teachers have more favorable attitudes toward students
with disabilities when they have had prior contact with them. And second, the power dynamic between professor and
student, and the number of students in the classroom, affects whether students choose to disclose their disability. This trend
of prior contact was supported by the present study.
Regarding the third preoperational variable of behavior, Worley identied four types of instructors: avoiders, who remain
distant from students; guardians, who protect and advocate for students; rejecters, who destroy condence through
discriminatory practices; and nurturers, who provide support, encouragement, and accommodations when needed. The
present study suggested that the majority of participants were guardians and nurturers, as they were willing to help students.
Finally, regarding training, Worley indicated that few faculty receive training for interacting with students with
disabilities. In addition, anxieties about teaching these students and the demand it takes on their time inuence the decision
to attend training opportunities. As evidenced in this study, most faculty participants received little training or knowledge on
how to work with students who stutter.
Though ndings from this study may not be surprising, they validate the need for disseminating more information about
stuttering and ways to work with students who stutter. College instructors need more venues of learning information about
students with different needs. If instructors are knowledgeable about different student needs, they can create fair and just
classrooms where all students can succeed.
Appendix A. Continuing education unit questions
Questions
1. According to the literature review, which one of the following best reects a challenge faced by instructors when working
with students with disabilities in an educational setting?
A. Making sure they possess current knowledge of all major disabilities
B. Determining where to send the student to address the disability
C. Knowing how to provide appropriate accommodations for the student when necessary
D. Deciding which types of assignments should count toward the students grade because of the disability
E. None of the above
2. According to the study by Bento (1996) which examined barriers between non-disabled faculty and disabled college
students, the three barriers identied were:
A. Moral, situational, and ethical
B. Functional, ethical, moral
C. Ethical, moral, and informational
D. Informational, ethical, and attitudinal
E. None of the above

D.E. Daniels et al. / Journal of Communication Disorders 44 (2011) 631639

639

3. Which of following was one of the major themes that emerged from the narrative responses?
A. Knowledge and exposure to stuttering
B. Comfort level
C. Classroom accommodations
D. Instructor support and encouragement
E. All of the above
4. Which of the following best summarizes the results of the present study according to participant responses?
A. Students who stutter should not participate in classroom discussions and deliver oral presentations
B. Stuttering does not seem to interfere with academic performance
C. Many instructors were willing to provide accommodations but were not aware of how to do so
D. None of the above
5. Which of the following is NOT true based upon the views generally held by instructors who reported having had a course
in stuttering in the present study?
A. Stuttering should not be viewed as psychological problem
B. Instructors expressed discomfort in reacting to students who stutter
C. Instructors held overall positive views of students who stutter
D. A and B
E. A, B, and C

References
Bento, R. F. (1996). Faculty decision-making about reasonable accommodations for disabled college students: Information, ethical, and attitudinal skills. College
Student Journal, 30, 494501.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ve traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crowe, T. A., & Walton, J. H. (1981). Teacher attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6, 163174.
Dorsey, M., & Guenther, R. (2000). Attitudes of professors and students toward college students who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 25, 7783.
Emerick, L. L. (1960). Extensional denition and attitude toward stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 181186.
Frymier, A. B., & Wanzer, M. B. (2003). Examining differences in perceptions of students communication with professors: A comparison of students with and
without disabilities. Communication Quarterly, 51(2), 174191.
Ginsberg, A. P. (2002). Working with students who stutter. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38, 138140.
Lass, N. J., Ruscello, D. M., Schmitt, J. F., Pannbacker, M. D., Orlando, M. B., Dean, K. A., et al. (1992). Teachers perceptions of stutterers. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 7881.
Rocco, T. S. (2001a). Helping adult educators understand disability disclosure. Adult Learning, 12, 1012.
Rocco, T. S. (2001b). My disability is part of me: Disclosure and students with visible disabilities. In R. O. Smith, J. M. Dirk, P. L. Eddy, P. L. Farrell, & M. Polzin (Eds.),
In Proceedings of the 42nd adult education research conference (pp. 319324). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Schlagheck, A., Gabel, R., & Hughes, S. (2009). A mixed methods study of stereotypes of people who stutter. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and
Disorders, 36, 108117.
Silverman, F. H. (1990). Are professors likely to report having beliefs about the intelligence and competence of students who stutter? Journal of Fluency Disorders,
15, 319321.
Skinner, M. E. (2007). Faculty willingness to provide accommodations and course alternatives to postsecondary students with learning disabilities. International
Journal of Special Education, 22, 3245.
Swartz, E., Gabel, R., Hughes, S., & Irani, F. (2009). Speech-language pathologists responses on surveys on vocational stereotyping (role entrapment) regarding
people who stutter. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 36, 157165.
Woods, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (1976). Traits attributed to stuttering and normally uent males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 267278.
Worley, D. W. (2000). Communication and students with disabilities on college campuses. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication
and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 125140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Worley, D. W., & Cornett-Devito, M. M. (2007). College students with learning disabilities (SWLD) and their responses to teacher power. Communication Studies, 58,
1733.
Yeakle, M. K., & Cooper, E. B. (1986). Teacher perceptions of stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 345359.