4.3 Review

Academic success factors in university students with disabilities: a systematic review

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 729-746

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1940007

关键词

Academic success factors; students with disabilities; university; systematic review

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain
  2. State Research Agency
  3. FEDER funds European Union [EDU2020-112761RB-100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically reviewed factors identified by university students with disabilities as necessary for academic success, categorizing personal factors such as self-advocacy and external factors including family and peers. Universities can use these findings to develop actions that support the academic success of students with disabilities.
This study provides a systematic review of the literature on what factors university students with disabilities recognise as necessary for their academic success. This systematic review was conducted in ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science. The opinions of 3854 students in a total of 31 qualitative and quantitative studies were analysed through a system of categories and codes. The results were organised according to the description of the studies (type of methodology, country and type of disability) and personal and external factors favouring success. Among the personal factors of students with disabilities who progress and remain at university, self-advocacy, self-awareness, self-determination, self-esteem and executive functioning stood out. Regarding external factors, the following were identified: family, disability offices, staff and faculty members, and peers that influence their academic success. This paper includes significant findings that universities can use to develop actions that promote the development of some of the factors identified in this study, thus favouring the learning and academic success of students with disabilities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据