Cited by 18Disability Education and EmploymentMusic Education and AnalysisInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport

Developing effective academic accommodations in higher education: A collaborative decision-making process

Hsiao, Feilin, Zeiser, Shelly, Nuss, Daniel, Hatschek, Keith·2018·International Journal of Music Education

Abstract

This case study describes a collaborative decision-making process for developing effective academic accommodations for a music major with a disability, whose prior accommodations suggested by the Disability Support Services (DSS) failed to address her needs. Cross-departmental collaboration between the DSS and the School of Music, as well as dynamic interactions among students with disabilities (SWDs), faculty members, peer tutors, and DSS specialists are emphasized. Multiple sources of information were collected, including in-depth/semi-structured interviews and a review of all relevant documentation such as case reports, weekly logs, email correspondence, results of psychological testing and academic portfolio contents. The themes that emerged from the data include resistance to the unknown, the language of negotiation, the decision-making process, and transformation (with three sub-themes: from fear of stigmatization to self-advocacy, from resentfulness to acceptance and commitment, and from reaction to pro-action). Key elements contributing to the collaborative process consist of effective communication among all members, the promotion of self-advocacy skills for SWDs, and faculty’s recognition of SWDs’ potential to succeed and while engaging flexible methods for delivering course content and assessing outcomes. A framework for delivering viable services for music majors with disabilities is outlined and discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0255761417729545

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsiao, F., Zeiser, S., Nuss, D., & Hatschek, K.
Affiliations
University of the Pacific (US)
Corresponding author
Hsiao, Feilin
Venue
International Journal of Music Education
Published
2017-09-07
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
244-258
ISSN
  • 0255-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-795X
OpenAlex
W3097063507
Cited by
18
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Music Education (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarly Commons (University of the Pacific) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Music Education and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Keywords
academic accommodations, students with disabilities, music education, disability services, collaborative decision-making, self-advocacy, stigma, faculty attitudes, peer tutoring, cross-departmental collaboration, higher education, service delivery framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review