samijames.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewActive duty and student veterans enrolled in college face unique challenges that colleges may not be equipped to address. Those challenges are

Running Head: CURRENT AND FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS AS COLLEGE 1

Current and Former Service Members as College Students:

A Unique Student Population

Samantha James

LIU Post

Author Note

Samantha James, Ed.D Program in Educational Leadership, LIU Post.

CURRENT AND FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS AS COLLEGE 2

Abstract

Active duty and student veterans enrolled in college face unique challenges that colleges may not

be equipped to address. Those challenges are examined as well as strategies colleges are

attempting to implement to assist this population. Recommendations for future interventions and

programs are also discussed.

Keywords: GI Bill, military-friendly, reintegration, student service members, student

veterans, veterans


Current and Former Services Members as College Students:

A Unique Student Population

Much like the higher education landscape is changing (students no longer need to set foot

on a college campus to earn a degree), so is the student population. Previously, the student body

was comprised of traditional students, however, they are now in the minority and “non-

traditional” students have become the majority.

A “traditional” student is generally between the ages of 18-24; they enroll in college right

after they graduate from high school; they are full-time students; and they do not have other

“major responsibilities and roles that compete with their studies” (Panacci, 2015). A “non-

traditional” student is one who did not enroll in college right after high school; may have

attended college and dropped out; attends part-time; is financially independent; and has other

responsibilities (Panacci, 2015).

One subgroup of the non-traditional student population is student service

members/veterans (SSM/Vs). The signing of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944

(commonly referred to as the GI Bill of Rights) has been referred to as “one of the most

significant pieces of legislation ever produced by the federal government” because it provided

funds to veterans to attend college, among other things. The government specifically provided

funds to veterans for education and training, loans for homes, farms, and businesses, and

unemployment pay. By the time the original GI Bill ended on July 25th, 1956, 7.8 million of the

16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program (U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, n.d.).

The bill has gone through several revisions including the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational

Assistance Program (Post-9/11 GI Bill) which provided education benefits including tuition and


fees, a monthly housing allowance, and a stipend for books and supplies. The most recent

version of the bill, renamed the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act

(Forever GI Bill), eliminates the 15-year time limit veterans had in which to use their education

benefits; for those who left active duty on or after January 1, 2013 there is no time limit (Powell,

2017). The bill also provides up to an additional nine months of benefits for students pursuing

science, technology, engineering, and/or math (STEM) as well as assistance to students whose

colleges cease operations (Hess, 2017).

It is important to understand student veterans: who they are and the difficulties they face.

This will be examined in subsequent sections, as well as what colleges are doing to meet the

needs of this population, as well as the related literature in lieu of best practices for military

undergraduates as the data is scarce. The final section will review the material that was

presented and discuss recommendations for the future: both for research and ideas that colleges

can implement now.

Who are Student Veterans?

In the 2011–12 academic year, military undergraduates represented 4.9% of all

undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary education in the U.S. There were approximately 1.1

million military undergraduates, up from 914,000 in 2007-08. Their average age was 34,

compared to 32 for nonmilitary independent students and 20 for nonmilitary dependent students,

and 77.7% were male. A small percentage (1.4) of military undergraduates were dependent,

34.8% were unmarried with no dependents, 12.2% were married with no dependents, 17.8%

were unmarried with dependents, and 33.7% were married with dependents (Radford, Bentz,

Dekker, & Paslov, 2016).


Eighteen percent of military undergraduates reported a disability compared to 13% of

their nonmilitary independent peers. Four percent reported a hearing-related disability, 1%

reported a vision-related disability, 13% reported a cognitive-related disability, 6% reported an

ambulatory-related disability, and 18% had one of more of those disabilities (Radford et al.,

2016).

Between the 2007-08 and 2011-12 academic years, the percentage of military

undergraduates attending for-profit colleges increased from 14% to 24% while the percentage

attending public schools decreased from 42% to 37%. Eighteen percent took their classes online,

and for those students who only attending one school during the year, 16% were enrolled in a

completely online program (Radford et al., 2016).

Difficulties Facing This Population

Veterans face unique challenges when reintegrating into society and veteran students may

face even greater difficulties. Veterans often feel a “lack of community” compared to what they

felt and experienced while in the service; they are no longer with the systems and people they

relied on for years (Adams, Lee, & Holden, 2017; Schonfeld, 2015). Their relationships are

often strained because veterans have difficulty relating to family and friends who do not

understand their experiences in the military, and they also may have inadequate adjustment time

as well as unemployment and financial difficulties (Schonfeld, 2015).

Veterans also suffer from physical and mental wounds including depression, anxiety,

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) (McDermott, 2017;

Moon & Schma, 2011). Major technological and medical advances have increased the

likelihood of service members surviving combat-related injuries, so there is a good chance that

veteran students will be entering college with some form of a disability (Cate, 2014).


When enrolling in college, veterans face barriers relating to finances, their benefits, the

bureaucratic nature of colleges, interpersonal relationships, and how to be a successful college

student. Veterans face a lack of financial resources and unemployment, as well as the difficulty

of having a job, attending school, and familial obligations. A disability may prevent the

individual from working, and expiring GI Bill benefits (for those who left the service prior to

2013) may leave the veteran with unpaid tuition bills (Albright et al., 2017).

Veterans often have trouble relating to their younger, civilian classmates and this can lead

to isolation. They may find their younger classmates to be immature and as they may not

understand the veterans’ military experience, there may be a lack of common ground on which to

base friendships (Adams, Lee, & Holden, 2017). Borsari et al. (2017) noted that student veterans

may also have difficult interactions with civilian classmates who may have little knowledge or

concern about conflicts overseas or who may ask inappropriate questions (e.g., Have you killed

anyone?).

Veterans may also have problems relating to or interacting with their professors. Elliott

(2014) noted that professors may teach a version of history or events that do not match with the

veteran’s first-hand experience and this may be a source of conflict or frustration for the veteran

student.

In general, academia can be challenging because it can “clash” with the military culture;

academia is often considered liberal, especially when compared to the military. In college,

students are encouraged to speak up and question ideas and theories. In the military, conversely,

people are expected to obey commands and not question their superiors (Elliott, 2014). These

issues can make it so veteran students do not want to participate in class, which can lead to lower

grades (Olsen, Badger, & McCuddy, 2014).


Other issues include poor study habits, which may be the result of cognitive and memory

issues stemming from traumatic brain injuries. Such injuries may impair the veteran’s ability to

learn and self-regulate, and the physical demands of writing, using the computer, or performing

lab assignments may be too difficult (Borsari et al., 2017). In addition, receiving few, if any,

credits from their military experience can be quite discouraging for the students.

Understanding Student Veterans’ College Experiences

Olsen, Badger, and McCuddy (2014) examined student veterans’ challenges as the

veterans transitioned to college, but they also examined the veterans’ strengths, which was a

rarity in the literature. Their mixed-methods exploratory study used a purposive sample of

University of Kentucky students with active duty military experience. The researchers used the

university military student email list with approximately 500 subscribers; ten students responded

and scheduled interviews.

The qualitative data were gathered using semi-structured individual interviews exploring

the following areas: the participants’ perceptions of the assets and strengths they bring from the

military; specific challenges they faced during their transition from soldier to college student;

their perceptions of why student veterans choose not to participate in programs geared towards

them; and ideas about what programs or resources might benefit future student veterans.

Out of the ten participants, 70% were male, 80% were undergraduate students and 20%

were graduate students. The average age was 30 and the ages ranged from 23-47. Forty percent

had served in the Army or Army Reserves, 20% in the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserves,

20% in the Navy, and 20% in the Air Force. The average time served was 5.15 years and 70%

had been deployed to a combat zone while on active duty.


When asked about the strengths they believed they had gained while in the military, three

themes emerged: self-discipline, leadership and teamwork abilities, and possessing new

perspectives and different/valuable experiences as a result of the military service. They also

noted that as the military taught them how to handle great amounts of stress, college was less

stressful by comparison.

When asked about their challenges, they noted social interactions with other students,

financial stress, and experiencing culture and/or role differences. They noted that their ideal

support resources would be socially-focused, but would also allow them to access information.

As for why this population may not participate in support programs, they indicated that this was

because they do not want to be identified as veterans on campus, having a lack of free time, and

living off campus. One of the participants suggested that transition programs could focus on

making connections with VA and campus resources, reviewing study habits, and helping service

members understand some of the social and financial challenges of leaving military culture

(Olsen, Badger, & McCuddy, 2014).

Military-Friendly

In an effort to meet the needs of their military undergraduates and to appear attractive to

future military undergraduates, colleges are adding services and programs in the hopes of being

designated “military-friendly.” This is a somewhat arbitrary term with vague definitions.

Strickley (as cited in Moon & Schma, 2011) noted that “military friendly” refers to the efforts

made by colleges to identify and remove barriers for student veterans to help them transition

smoothly to college. In addition to removing barriers, colleges also seek to add services they feel

will benefit this population. The American Council on Education (n.d.) noted that military-


friendly refers to the support, admissions, funding, communication, and services that a college

offers to this population.

Military Times awards the “military-friendly” designation based on colleges’ answers to

150 survey questions (which were influenced by what veterans told the magazine was important

to them as students), data collected to determine how colleges rates across five categories:

university culture, academic quality and outcomes, policies, student support, and cost and

financial aid, and their “own editorial judgment” (Gross, 2017).

The designation of being “military-friendly,” at least when it comes from Military Times,

is arbitrary. The fact that data are missing from some schools (see here) means that the school

cannot accurately state how successful they were at retaining and graduating veteran students,

and that the magazine uses “editorial judgment” means that they can make a decision to include

or not include a school on the list with no justification.

Essentially, “military friendly” is a marketing term used to drive veteran students to

certain schools; there is at least one media outlet that accepts payment to be included on their list

(see here). While “military-friendly” schools continue to implement programs and offer

assistance to students, there is little empirical evidence to prove if “military-friendly” equates to

any kind of success for the veteran student.

The Lack of Data

Researchers have examined the needs of this population but one major issue is that many

veterans are reluctant to self-identify, which makes them hard to track. Cate (2014) noted that

accurate data on this population is hard to find. How do administrators know the struggles and

needs of this population if they do not know who they are? Without that information is it

difficult to determine “best practices” and what works.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/20/ftc-settlement-says-rankings-military-friendly-colleges-were-deceptive-promotions

https://bestforvets.militarytimes.com/2018-11-20/colleges/4-year/


National databases have poor collection methods, narrow inclusion criteria, and mistakes

in identifying student veterans. The U.S. Department of Education manages the National Center

of Education Statistics (NCES) which tracks postsecondary student academic outcomes via

several databases. However, many of the NCES databases do not properly identify and track

students who are veterans. The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), an NCES

database, contains information about student veterans but the data are weak.

NPSAS uses the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in classifying

samples as active duty service members or veterans; student interviews and institutional records

supplement the data. The FAFSA contains two questions about military service: 1) Does the

applicant currently serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? and 2) Is the applicant a

veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces? The two questions are not all-inclusive and leave out people

whose status allows them to use the GI Bill. The GI Bill benefits are not included in Title IV

funding under the Higher Education Opportunity Act so student veterans do not have to complete

a FAFSA; those that do not complete and submit a FAFSA are excluded from the NPSAS

database.

The Department of Veterans Affairs can identify nearly every student veteran, but has

only recently been instructed to track and collect information on student veteran outcomes.

However, they collected information related only to the amount and destination of the benefit-not

the student’s academic outcome. A student may complete their degree prior to using up their

benefits or they might continue in school after exhausting their benefits; both groups of students

would not be counted. These weaknesses make it difficult to get an accurate and complete

picture of student veteran postsecondary completion (Cate, 2014).


Measuring the Success of Military Students

Sponsler, Wesaw, and Jarrat (2013) noted that there is no accurate count of active

military and veteran students attending colleges in the U.S. and there is little information about

the success of this population with regard to completion rates and the factors affecting it. To

better understand these issues, the authors, as a joint venture between NASPA and InsideTrack (a

higher education coaching firm), surveyed NASPA member institutions. In November 2012, the

researchers sent an online invitation to 1,162 institutions to complete an online survey. Of those

1,162 institutions, 239 institutions completed the survey (21% response rate). Respondents

included public and private institutions of varying size across the U.S. Survey data were

matched to NCES integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS).

Researchers found that most institutions are trying to meet the needs of military

undergraduates, but they are doing so without the benefit of data. Nearly 75% of the schools

either had a specific staff member or an office dedicated to serving this population, but while

they attempted to serve them, it seems there was less of an attempt to understand them. Only

25% of responding institutions indicated that they had some understanding of why military

undergraduates dropped out or stopped out of school.

Few schools were disaggregating retention and completion data in ways that allowed

them to track these students. Even more interesting was that of the 72% of the institutions that

did not track retention and completion rates for active duty students, 36% said they had goals for

improving retention and completion rates within the following two years. Similarly, of the 67%

who do not track retention and completion rates for student veterans, 38% noted they wanted to

improve retention and completion rates.


Of the responding institutions, only 5% said their military-friendly initiatives were

effective and had the data to prove it. Thirty-one percent said their initiatives were effective but

they had no data, 2% said it was not effective and they had no data, 54% said it was too early to

evaluate, and 8% were categorized as “other.”

Clearly, the literature acknowledges the weak and incomplete data and there have been

some attempts at a more comprehensive collection, such as the Million Records Project, which is

examined below. However, despite the college administrators not having accurate data, they are

trying, in various ways, to meet the needs of military undergraduates and help them succeed. It

is this literature that is examined in subsequent sections and the last section will discuss

recommendations for the future: both for research and practice.

The Million Records Project

Accurate data will allow schools to understand how “military-friendly” they really are,

policy-makers will be able to make informed, data-driven decisions, and most importantly,

student veterans can make informed decisions about where to attend school. As such, several

entities came together to attempt to collect that accurate data. The Student Veterans of America

(SVA) entered into a partnership with VA and the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) to

create and develop the Million Records Project (MRP).

This project used VA information to identify the veterans that used education benefits

and the NSC collected data on approximately 96% of all postsecondary students in the United

States. This was a secondary data quantitative analysis study designed to report student veteran

postsecondary completion rates based on initial school enrollment cohorts, student veterans’

time-to-completion, their highest level of education, and their majors or degree fields. The

researchers obtained completion data for 1 million student veterans who initially used their GI


Bill benefits between 2002 and 2010; their total sample size was 898,895 and they analyzed

788,915 records.

They focused on several variables of student veteran postsecondary academic

performance: postsecondary completion (Associate and Baccalaureate Degrees), initial degree

level, highest level of education completed, time-to-completion, and degree field. They found

that the overall student veteran completion rate was 51.7% (ranging from a vocational certificate

to a doctorate). Of those with a postsecondary completion (n = 407,483), 79.5% (n = 323,798)

earned a certificate or degree after enrolling in VA benefits; approximately half (52.6%) of the

sample who first earned an associate-level degree did so within four years. For those in the

sample who initially completed a bachelor’s degree, a majority (50.5%) completed it within five

years and a cumulative total of 59.4% completed it within six years.

Nearly half of the sample (47.3%) earned a baccalaureate-level degree, 29.2% earned an

earned an associate-level degree, and only 6.3% reported a certificate as their highest degree

(regardless of GI Bill usage). For those who earned a degree after enrolling in GI Bill benefits,

7.3% earned a certificate, 33.6% earned an associate-level degree, 49.7% earned a baccalaureate-

level degree, 8.8% earned a master’s-level degree, and only 0.7% earned a doctorate as their

highest level of education (with GI Bill usage). The results found that those who earned a degree

prior to using GI Bill benefits had higher levels of education than those who relied solely on the

benefit to earn a degree.

While the researchers believed they had comprehensive information, compared to the

literature available at the time, they noted that their research had limitations: they only included

the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and Post 9/11-GI Bill; there was a lack of data on the sample’s

enrollment status as the results are based on certificate or degree attainment only. There was no


information on enrollment intensity (part-time or full-time enrollment) and some of the variables

did not have complete, detailed information (e.g., the specific date when an individual enrolled in

the GI Bill benefit was not provided).

What Colleges are Doing

Colleges do realize that active duty and student veterans are a unique subset of their

nontraditional student population and they try to provide program and services to meet those

needs. As Sponsler, Wesaw, and Jarrat (2013) found that only 5% of the schools in their study

collect data on this student population, many schools are uncertain of the effectiveness of their

efforts. However, it is important to understand what colleges are doing, even without the

empirical data. Below, the efforts of both Western Michigan University and D’Youville College

(both were designated as “military-friendly”) are examined.

Western Michigan University

With an influx of veteran students, who appeared to need a variety of services, and to

make their school more military-friendly, the administrators at Western Michigan University

(WMU) created the Advocacy Office for Transfer Students and Military Affairs (later renamed

the Office of Veteran and Military Affairs [Moon & Schma, 2011]). The school has been named

among the nation’s top colleges for veterans by Military Times magazine for eight consecutive

years (Roland, 2017).

Faculty and administrators work together in what they call the “System of Care” and this

is overseen by the university’s Military Oversight Committee. The authors, one of whom is the

Director of the Office of Military and Veterans Affairs at WMU, noted that the success of the

office stems from their guiding principles: listen to the soldiers and “everybody plays.” The


second principle refers to the buy-in from faculty and staff so that everyone is working for the

benefit of the student veterans.

The needs of the students quickly became apparent and one of the most pressing issues

was the accurate and efficient processing of the GI Bill benefits. However, WMU had already

addressed this as they have a full-time employee in the Registrar’s Office whose sole

responsibility is to process the benefits paperwork. Veteran students want to connect with one

another in a safe environment, so the university created the Military and Veteran Student

Association. In addition to connecting with fellow veterans, the Association tries to connect with

the campus community and the local community. WMU also asked a representative from the

local Veterans Administration (VA) to visit the campus once a month to discuss benefits and

answer any other questions the students might have.

The university also assists student veterans financially in several ways. They participate

in the Yellow Ribbon program which means that they cover the difference (if there is one)

between what the GI Bill covers and the tuition bill, they created the Returning Veterans Tuition

Assistance Program (which awards full tuition for the first semester), and provide in-state status

for subsequent semesters (this was later expanded to include spouses and dependent family

members). There is also an emergency loan available to students to cover expenses including

books and housing.

The university also made it easier for students to receive a refund if they are deployed in

the middle of a semester as they just have to show a copy of their orders. Deployed students also

have priority when registering for classes so they will not be closed out of a class and delay their

graduation. The admissions office also has one employee dedicated to processing military

transcripts, and the college offers two classes specifically for veterans: one dealing with the


transition from “soldier to student” and the other teaches meditation and how to handle the stress

of being a college student. The university also works with local veteran groups as well as food

banks, housing services, and family service agencies to provide services for student veterans.

However, despite all the efforts made by the university, student veterans still felt that

faculty and staff needed to be more sensitive to veterans on campus, they stated that student

veterans need mentoring, and that campus community still had misconceptions about them. The

authors touted WMU’s efforts to accommodate and embrace veteran students, yet they provided

no data as to whether they were successful. In addition, while they placed 99 on the Military

Times’ list of best colleges, they did not provide the graduate rate for their military students.

Without data it is impossible to know if the programs are helping this population.

D’Youville College

D’Youville College, a private college in Buffalo, New York, ranked number one on the

Military Times list of best 4-year colleges, had 2,965 students including 263 military-affiliated

students in 2016. Their overall retention rate was 80% and 98% for military students and their

graduation rate was 44% overall and 96% for military students (DYC Veteran Advantage, 2016).

The college boasts that more veterans enroll with them compared to any other college in

western New York. They offer a number of services and benefits to military undergraduates and

their dependents including up to a 50% tuition waiver to active duty service member and

veterans, as well as up to a 20% tuition waiver for their dependents. The college offers personal

guidance through the admissions process, academic advisement to not only plan the degree but to

account for possible deployment as well, and they offer tutoring and mentoring by student

veteran peers. In addition, they provide information and updates on issues, concerns, and


legislation affecting student veterans and their families, there is a Student Veteran Association

chapter and they work with a local veteran community service organization.

D’Youville College provides its military and student veterans with a student veteran

lounge with Skype-equipped computers so students can connect with military friends who may

be overseas. They also have a social work intern and a mental health counselor on staff, they

have a liberal leave policy for students who deploy mid-semester, and they have an emergency

fund for military and veteran students who may experience a financial emergency or crisis (DYC

Veteran Advantage, 2016).

What Works is Unclear

This population has a variety of needs including administrative, health (both physical and

mental), and social. O’Herrin (2011) noted that more research is needed before programs and

interventions can be called “best practices” because the current measures of success are

qualitative and anecdotal. Steele (2015) further noted that “there is no empirical evidence that

federal initiatives designed to help veterans complete higher education actually work [yet] there

is no evidence to suggest otherwise.”

Colleges implement services and programs so they at least appear that they are

addressing this population’s administrative needs, but there is no data collection to determine

effectiveness. In addition, other needs were identified including disabilities, mental health, and

social support, but how can colleges address these needs? The lack of research pertaining to this

population suggests that administrators and researchers should examine related literature and

literature that examines comparable groups. Some of that literature is examined below as it

relates to social support and relationships and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), two issues facing

this population.


Social Support and Relationships

It is important for veteran students to develop and maintain relationships with other

students as to not feel isolated and alone while in school. As discussed previously, this

population may have difficulty making connections with traditional students or those who have

not had military experience. However, as many veteran students do not self-identify, they may

not know how to find other veteran students. Colleges can create “safe spaces” for veteran

students where they can gather, talk, and feel as though they belong.

A web-based social support program for student veterans. Adams, Lee, and Holden

(2017) examined student-veteran perceptions about the development of a “web-based social

support program” through which student veterans could connect with one another. While they

noted that there is no specific research that addresses web-based social support for student

veterans, other groups have used this approach and the research does support the use of support

groups to assist student veterans’ transition to college.

They conducted a qualitative, exploratory study whose population was 21 student

veterans attending a midsize, midwestern university. Sixteen participants were male and five

were female, and they ranged in age from 20-63. Three participants were Hispanic and 19 were

Caucasian; twelve of the participants were first-generation college students. Participants were

recruited via email and placed into three focus groups that were moderated by trained facilitators.

The facilitators followed a set of interview questions or prompts and the groups lasted 90

minutes, during which several themes emerged.

Maintaining communication with fellow veteran students was important to the

participants, not only for practical purposes including exchanging information, but to keep in

contact with “battle buddies”; they were concerned about their friends’ well-being and referred


to them as “family.” As maintaining contact is important so is the method of communication.

Facebook, for example, was deemed to be for “superficial” contact, while the phone, texts, and

emails were used for “deeper” relationships.

While the participants did not have much time for social commitments, they did prefer

face-to-face contact, whenever possible, to help maintain friendships and provide intimate,

personal contact. It was also important for them to develop a sense of identity as a student

veteran with each other; they acknowledged that there was a lack of trust in the civilian student

population and they wanted to protect their privacy.

Most importantly, they wanted access to people and professionals who could help them

without judging them. They suggested an online format similar to Blackboard or Canvas in

which they could have access to information, but also a place where they can chat with one

another in private; the group is only open to students who are currently or were formerly in the

military. It was also important that access to the group continue after graduation, reassignment,

or deployment, so the relationships and friendships can continue.

Videoconferencing for delivery of breast cancer support groups. Collie et al. (2007)

examined the effects of a support group via videoconferencing for women with breast cancer

who live in rural areas. The study took place in the nine-county Intermountain Region of

northeastern California; this area covers more than 30,000 square miles of rugged terrain and the

researchers had not been able to identify a professionally-led support group for women in the

area who had breast cancer.

The researchers’ goals were to reduce distress and to increase emotional expression and

self-efficacy for coping with cancer, two possible mediators for reductions in distress. As such,

they hypothesized that 1) women receiving the intervention would tend to have significantly less


distress after, as addressed by changes in symptoms of depressions and PTSD; 2) the women

receiving the intervention would tend to have significant increase in self-efficacy for coping with

cancer and emotional expression; 3) the intervention would be feasible to implement and the

women receiving it would report that it was acceptable to them.

Twenty-seven women with breast cancer (average age was 60.71) were recruited in four

counties using flyers, networking, referrals from health professionals, and referrals from a hair

salon that is an informal breast cancer informational center in one of the towns. The women

were given a pretest prior to the beginning of the study and they participated in one of four

support groups by going to a videoconferencing site near them. They met for eight 2-hour

weekly support group sessions led by a Licensed Clinical Social Worker.

After the groups ended, the participants were contacted to complete a posttest and 17

women completed it. The questionnaires used included the Stanford Psychological Oncology

Questionnaire (pretest only for demographic and background information); the Center for

Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (for symptoms of depression); the PTSD Checklist-

specific Version for PTSD symptoms as described in the DSM-IV; the Cancer Behavioral

Inventory (CBI) for self-efficacy for coping with cancer; and the Courtauld Emotional Control

Scale for emotional expression. The researchers also conducted 30-minute interviews with 20 of

the participants.

The support group participants showed improvement on nearly all of the psychosocial

measures with a decrease in depression symptoms and in PTSD symptoms. Self-efficacy and

emotional expression did not show a significant change, however.

All of the women who were interviewed said they felt better as a result of participating

and they would recommend it to other women. They thought it was valuable because it allowed


them to share information and develop strong emotional bonds with other group members. It

was also noted that most of the women in the group described themselves as people who do not

complain and do not expect help. Yet, the developed close emotional bonds which “reduced

their stress and gave them strength.” Satisfaction scores ranged from five to ten with a mean of

nine and there were only two scores below eight.

The researchers noted their limitations including the use of self-reports, the N was small

(which makes generalizability difficult), and there was no random assignment to treatment and

control groups; everyone in the study received the treatment. In addition, the pretest and

posttest, while necessary for this type of study, leaves open the possibility that changes in the

two scores are due to factors unrelated to the treatment. There was also no follow-up with the

participants beyond the posttest.

The researchers noted that the findings suggested a need for both “informational and

emotional support” and this also applied to the women who were past their treatment. These

findings can possibly be applied to military undergraduates because they have expressed a desire

for an online support group that would provide them with information as well as a place to

develop bonds and friendships (see Adams, Lee, & Holden, 2017, above).

It was interesting that the participants described themselves as people who do not

complain and do not expect help; it is possible that this can also be used to explain the military

undergraduate population, especially considering they are often reluctant to even admit they are

or were in the military. Yes, the fact that the participants in this study volunteered for it may

indicate something about them actually wanting help and support, but that should not negate the

results nor should it keep researchers from considering this study to be positive support when

implementing something similar for the military undergraduate population.


Online support group use and psychological health. Mo and Coulson’s (2013) goal

was to test how online support group participation may promote empowerment and

psychological health among individuals living with HIV/AIDS. They cited several sources

which touted the benefits of such a support group: receiving social support, having lower levels

of social isolation and depression, better coping skills, and an improved quality of life. They

also discussed empowerment as a result of online support groups; empowered patients take more

control over their decisions and actions, and they often have a greater understanding of their

illness. They also noted the importance of optimism, which plays a role in adaption to chronic

disease.

The authors hypothesized that more online support group participation would be related

to an increased exposure to empowering processes, which would then be related to increased

levels of optimism. They also believed that optimism would have a negative relationship with

loneliness and depression and loneliness would have a positive relationship with depression.

Participants were recruited from HIV/AIDS-related online support groups. Twelve

support groups were contacted and six responded; they were all public in nature and had at least

ten new messages posted each day (showing that it was an active group). A message was posted

with a link to the survey along with an explanation of the research and the inclusion criteria

(which included individuals who have been HIV positive for at least one month, were at least 18

years old, and had participated in an online HIV/AIDS support group).

The researchers asked about the frequency and pattern of their online support group use.

They used a 43-item scale to measure exposure to potentially empowering processes which

including receiving useful information, receiving social support, finding positive meaning, and

helping others. Loneliness was measured by the 10-item UCLA Loneliness Scale which


measures global feelings of isolation and alienation. Optimism was measured by the Life

Orientation Test which is a 10-item scale measuring individual differences in generalized

optimism and pessimism. Depression was measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies

Depression Scale which is a 20-item scale measuring depressive symptomatology.

There were 340 participants: 83.7% were male and the average age was 47.81. The

education categories were not clear: high school or less (3.6%), college (42.3%), university

(27.4%), and graduate school or higher (26.8%). The authors did not make the distinction

between “attended” and “graduated” for the different categories nor did they note the difference

between college and university.

Slightly more than half of the participants reported that they were in a relationship (52%)

and 41.5% said they were not. More than half of the participants were asymptomatic (53.4%),

16.5% were symptomatic, and 30.1% had AIDS.

The average participation time in a support group was 55.66 months, with an average of

3.83 days and 4.08 hours a week. Seventy-five percent were active and posted to the group and

2.7% had mostly negative experiences, 49.7% had both negative and positive experiences, and

47.6% had mostly positive experiences.

The authors found that the amount of time spent participating in the support group was

positively correlated with exposure to all four empowering processes. Exposure to the

empowering processes was positively correlated with optimism, and optimism showed

significant negative correlation with loneliness and depression. They noted their findings were

consistent with previous studies that argued the psychological benefits of participating in online

support groups for this population.


Specifically, the benefits of participating in an online support group that can relate to the

student veteran population include receiving useful information, receiving social support, finding

positive meaning, and helping others. Student veterans have expressed those needs, so this type

of support group can easily translate to that population. Another important aspect of this online

support group, of which the authors made note, was hearing the “success stories” of other

participants; it was helpful for participants to hear how other people were coping and to know

that other people went through the same experiences. They discussed how online support groups

have the potential to reduce isolation and loneliness, and these were also concerns expressed by

the student veteran population.

The limitations of this study included its reliance on the self-selection of participants; the

fact that they chose to participate may indicate certain things about their personality that could

affect the results. It is possible that the people who chose to participate did so because they had

such positive experiences and wanted to share that information. In addition, this study was

cross-sectional, which did not allow the researchers to study the participants over time. This

study could be a first step or exploratory study with future research studying HIV/AIDS patients

who were randomly assigned to groups (e.g., no support group, in-person support group, and

online support group) and studied over time (pre- and posttest).

Traumatic Brain Injuries

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC [2017]), traumatic

brain injury is caused by a “bump, blow, or jolt to the head that disrupts the normal function of

the brain,” however, not all such injuries result in a TBI. The severity can range from mild (with

a brief change in mental status or consciousness) to severe (with an extended period of

unconsciousness or memory loss [CDC, 2017]).


It is estimated that 22% of all combat casualties from the conflicts in Iraq and

Afghanistan are brain injuries and 60 to 80% of soldiers who have other blast injuries may also

have traumatic brain injuries (Summerall, 2017). In civilian life, the main causes of TBIs are

falls, motor vehicle accidents, being struck by an object, and assault. In the military population,

the main causes are blasts, blasts plus motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), MVAs alone, and

gunshot wounds.

Jantz and Coulter (as cited in Hendricks et al., 2015) noted the major types of limitations

resulting from TBIs include neurological, cognitive, and emotional/behavioral and those with

mild to moderate TBIs may experience seizures, headaches, insomnia, and/or sensory deficits.

This can affect the student with note-taking, reading comprehension, writing, and studying,

although not all brain injuries will manifest the same way.

As some veterans with TBIs (and non-veterans) will attend college, adult educators will

be faced with how best to work with adults with brain injuries. It is necessary to examine the

literature as it relates not only to veterans but to college students with TBIs as well to determine

how researchers and educators are helping this population. There may not be “best practices” yet

but there is some promising research.

Cognitive support technology and college students with TBIs. In their study on an in-

progress program called “Project Career,” Hendricks et al. (2015) sought to determine the

effectiveness of cognitive support technology (CST) and vocational rehabilitation to improve

career readiness and employment outcomes for undergraduate students with TBIs. While the

researchers were in the middle of the five-year project (2013-2018) when they wrote the article,

they did so to report their findings up until that point, which they felt were encouraging.


They recruited 30 students a year in total from the three participating colleges for a

project total of 150 students. As of April 28, 2015, they served 56 students with TBIs, 14 of

whom served in the military. The students in the study sustained their injuries between one and

33 years prior to participating. The mean age was 27.1 with an age range from 18 to 52, 58.9%

were male, and 66.1% were full-time students.

The reported causes of the participants’ TBIs were a vehicle accident (37.5%),

combat/IED (16.1%), sports/recreation injury (16.1%), a fall (14.3%), assault/gunshot (7.1%),

and other (8.9%). Memory was the number one reported cognitive difficulty (73.2%), headaches

were the number one physical difficulty (23.2%), and anxiety was the number one

emotional/behavioral difficulty (16.1%).

The students were given baseline assessments at the beginning of their participation and

that information was used to develop a customized, technology-driven intervention to provide

cognitive, psychosocial, and educational supports in addition to vocational services. An iPad

served as the CST devices and it was loaded with different applications including those for note-

taking, academic support, calendars, and games (called “games” but designed to help improve

brain function).

The researchers reported that of the 20 students for whom app usage had been measured

after six months, 17 (85%) used note-taking apps and 94% of them found the apps to be helpful.

Fifteen students (78%) used academic support apps and all of the students found the apps to be

helpful. Calendar apps were used by 12 of the 20 students (60%) and all the students found them

to be helpful. The “game” apps were used by seven students (35%) and all seven found them to

be helpful.


In addition to the qualitative data that showed the apps were useful, the authors noted

significant improvements on three of the four measures of the students’ feelings towards the use

of technology and its possible impact. The first measure was involvement in Typical Activities

and while the results were not statistically significant, they did indicate the students were more

active and they sought out new activities. The score change for Personal/Social characteristics

was significant indicating the students had become more positive, independent, and social. The

score change for both Perspectives on Technology and Overall Experiences with Technology

indicated students had more positive attitudes towards technology.

Despite their mid-project success, the authors acknowledged their limitations. The first

was that this was a demonstration project-there was no control group against which to compare

the intervention (this would be a good future study). There was also no control or use

requirement for the students; they could use the apps as much as or as little as they wanted. They

were also asked to self-report on their use and if they believed the apps were helpful. While they

do not have the final results yet, the authors believe that any college could implement this project

for students with TBIs. They envisioned improved academic achievement, better employment

opportunities, and greater independence for this student population.

Reading comprehension strategies for adult college students with acquired brain

injury. Griffiths, Sohlberg, Kirk, Fickas, and Biancarosa (2016) set out to determine, via a

within-subject group comparison, if adult college students with acquired brain injuries (ABIs)

benefitted from using reading comprehension strategies to improve comprehension of expository

texts. The adults in this study could read to extract the main idea, supporting details, and

produce basic inferences when reading, but they had difficulty when they had to learn new

content and they had problems with reading comprehension. The authors noted that, in general,


adults with ABI have difficulty with expressive tasks and listening comprehension tasks, unless

they have an apparent structural frame. They hypothesized that the reading comprehension

strategies would support readers to build a coherent mental representation, or structure, of what

they read.

The subjects consisted of 24 adults with a history of ABI who were currently or

previously enrolled in Coastline Community College’s Acquired Brain Injury Program. There

were several restrictions on who could participate: they must be between 18 and 55 years old,

they must be at least six months post-injury, they could not have had a prior diagnosis of a

learning disability, had adequate vision, and they must have been able to use a computer

keyboard and mouse, among other qualifiers.

There were 11 males and 13 females with an average age of 36 years and an education

level of 14.08 years. Fifteen people identified as white, two as Hispanic, one as Asian, and one

as Pacific Islander; five people did not provide race information. Thirteen participants had a

traumatic ABI and 11 had a non-traumatic ABI. The mean time post-onset was six years, nine

months.

The independent variable was the reading comprehension strategy: either the reading

strategy condition (RS) or the no-strategy condition (NS). The RS condition divided the reading

process into three phases: pre-reading, reading, and review. In the pre-reading phase, readers

were guided to preview the text through presentation of chapter headings and initial sentences of

each section. In the reading phase, participants were asked to highlight information and take

notes as they read section, then summarize each section before moving on to the next. In the

review section, readers were presented with their section summaries, asked to read each aloud,

hide them, and then test themselves by trying to recall each one.

http://www.coastline.edu/students/students-with-disabilities/acquired-brain-injury


The control condition consisted of the text in a PDF reader window and participants were

instructed to read the chapter using the scroll bar or tools to navigate the chapter. They were

provided with a word processing program in an adjacent tab so they can take notes as they read.

The dependent variables included two types of assessment tasks: free recall tasks and a

sentence verification task. There were two free recall tasks: one immediately after reading the

chapter and one on the following day. There were four dependent variables: quantity of recall,

efficiency of recall, local cohesion, and global cohesion. After the free recall (“Tell me

everything that you learned from the chapter that you read”) the participants were informed that

they would be completing a true/false test.

The authors found that readers recalled more information when provided with the reading

comprehension strategies. In both the immediate and delayed free recall tasks, participants

produced more correct information units (CIUs) in the RS condition than the NS condition. In

the RS condition of the immediate free recall task, participants produced on average 11.34 more

CIUs and they produced 23.68 more CIUs in the delayed free recall task. Another interesting

finding was that after a 24-hour delay, readers produced more information in less overall time if

they had been provided with reading comprehension strategies during the reading sessions.

Readers’ efficiency of recall was only better in the strategy condition for the delayed free recall.

The findings suggest that reading strategies improve not only quantity and efficiency of

comprehension, as measured by the free recall task, but also the accuracy of understanding at the

global and local level. The authors warned against making inferences as this research is in its

early stages and is experimental. The restrictions on who could participate, as well as the single

site, make it difficult to generalize the results.


They also noted that not all people benefit from the same reading comprehension

strategies; they suggest matching strategies and supports to specific needs. Since the authors did

not take other factors into account such as injury type, severity, time post-onset, and

demographic differences, those are factors that should be examined in future research.

Recommendations

The literature stated it repeatedly: there is little-to-no data concerning “what works” and

“best practices” for the military undergraduate population. As discussed in the previous sections,

colleges move forward without data and create offices and develop services for this population

based on their perceived needs. Few colleges collect data to determine if their efforts are

worthwhile, so on the surface it may seem that they are military-friendly but there may be no real

benefit to the students.

As such, the first recommendation is for colleges to identify and track student veterans

individually. Without this information, it is difficult to assess needs and implement programs

and procedures to meet those needs. In addition, it is impossible to determine graduation rates

without tracking the students.

Colleges can track student veterans starting with admissions applications-by making it a

required question on the application. It is possible that student veterans will not want to self-

identify and they might check “no,” but this can be cross-referenced with the veterans benefits

that are processed. When the certifying official receives paperwork for a new student, he/she

should make sure that student is listed as a veteran in the system, and the same cross-reference

should happen when a military transcript is evaluated. This will hopefully capture more student

veterans than relying on the admission questions alone.


Colleges need to collect data on their military-specific programs and the students that use

them. If a college has a tutoring program specifically for student veterans where the tutors are

also veterans, then they need to collect data on the students who use the program. They can track

those individual students to see what grades they receive and if they graduate and they can also

compare them to the student veterans who do not make use of the tutoring program. That would

be a good first step to determine the effectiveness of their programs.

Colleges also need to educate their campus community and this includes the staff,

faculty, and students. The literature discussed students making insensitive comments or asking

them inappropriate questions which may seem innocuous on the surface, but that can have a

major effect on the student veteran. It is important for the campus community to understand the

transition this population faces when leaving the military and beginning school, as well as the

possible disabilities and apprehensions they may have.

Other recommendations for this population include mentoring programs for new students

where a new student veteran is paired up with another student veteran who has been at the school

for at least a year. In addition to possibly becoming friends, the “veteran” student veteran can be

the “go to” person and help the new student acclimate to the school. Colleges may also want to

consider programs for “veterans only” including a veteran peer tutoring program. Since the

literature discussed the difficulties this population can have with civilian students, they might be

more comfortable and receptive to tutoring if it were a fellow veteran assisting them. Colleges

may also want to consider a specific orientation and classes for active duty and veteran students.

The literature review examined “what works” for various groups as it relates to social

support and traumatic brain injuries. Studies examined social support and support groups at a

distance for people battling cancer and HIV/AIDS and the results were positive; the participants


showed increased optimism, decreased loneliness, depression, and PTSD symptoms. They also

developed relationships and made connections with other people who had similar experiences.

This can be helpful to the military undergraduate population. Distance, schedules, and

concerns about outing themselves as veterans on campus we all reasons provided for not

participating in activities on campus geared toward active duty students and student veterans.

With an online meeting space, they can either connect in real time or post messages on

discussion boards and have asynchronous conversations.

For students with brain injuries, two promising studies were examined, the first of which

examined the use of iPads with special applications to assist students with note-taking, academic

support, scheduling, and “games” to help improve brain function. The students who used the

applications became more positive, independent, and social. The second study examined the

effect of reading strategies intervention (which divided the reading process into phases) on

reading comprehension. This strategy showed promise with the quantity and efficiency of

comprehension and the accuracy of understanding. These may be tools and techniques that

disability professionals, faculty, and even college staff can use with their students with brain

injuries (not just veterans).

College administrators and faculty should take the related literature into account when

implementing plans and services for military undergraduates as it is a good starting point. It is

reasonable to assume that what works for one group may work for a related group, but when that

program is implemented, those responsible need to keep detailed records so they can analyze

their data after to determine if it was successful and beneficial for the students. Without specific

data on military undergraduates, there really cannot be “best practices” for this population, just

educated guesses based on related literature.


References

Adams, P. Lee, H. S., & Holden, B. (2017). A needs assessment for developing a web-based

social support program for student veterans. Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health,

25, 23-29. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database.(Accession No. 125736927)

Albright, D. L., Fletcher, K. L., Pelts, M. D., & Taliaferro, L. (2017). Use of college mental

health services among student veterans. Best Practices in Mental Health, 13, 65-79.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database.(Accession No. 123489097)

American Council on Education. (n.d.). Toolkit for veteran friendly institutions. Retrieved from

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Toolkit-for-Veteran-Friendly-Institutions.aspx

Borsari, B., Murphy, J. G., McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., Darcy, M. G., Yurasek, A., Miller, M. B.,

Martens, M. P., & Carey, K. B. (2017). Student service members/veterans on campus:

Challenges for reintegration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87, 166-175.

doi:10.1037/ort0000199

Cate, C. A. (2014). Million Records Project: Research from Student Veterans of America.

Retrieved from http://studentveterans.org/images/Reingold_Materials/mrp/download-

materials/mrp_Full_report.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). TBI: Get the facts. Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html

Collie, K., Kreshka, M. A., Ferrier, S., Parsons, R., Graddy, K., Avram, S., Mannell, P., Chen,

X-H., Perkins, J., & Koopman, C. (2007). Videoconferencing for delivery of breast

cancer support groups to women living in rural communities: A pilot study. Psycho-

Oncology, 16, 778-782. doi:10.1002/pon.1145


Cuthbert, R. (2017, November 29). Protect the GI bill from the Republicans’ tax plan. The New

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opinion/gi-bill-tax-

senate-house.html

DYC veteran advantage. (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.dyc.edu/admissions/veterans/veteran-advantage.aspx

Elliott, M. (2015). Predicting problems on campus: An analysis of college student veterans.

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 15, 105-126. doi:10.1111/asap.12066

Griffiths, G. G., Sohlberg, M. M., Kirk, C., Fickas, S. & Biancarosa, G. (2016). Evaluation of

use of reading comprehension strategies to improve reading comprehension of adult

college students with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 26, 161-

190. doi:10.1080/09602011.2015.1007878

Gross, N. (2017, November 20). 218 schools make Military Times: Best Colleges 2018 rankings.

Retrieved from

https://www.militarytimes.com/education-transition/rankings/2017/11/20/218-schools-

make-military-times-best-colleges-2018-rankings/

Hendricks, D. J., Sampson, E., Rumrill, P., Leopold, A., Elias, E., Jacobs, K., Nardone, A.,

Scherer, M., & Stauffer, C. (2015). Activities and interim outcomes of a multi-site

development project to promote cognitive support technology use and employment

success among postsecondary students with traumatic brain injuries.

NeuroRehabilitation, 37, 449-458. doi:10.3233/NRE-151273

Hess, A. (2017, November 10). Five new educational opportunities for veterans provided by the

GI bill. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/5-new-educational-

opportunities-for-veterans-provided-by-the-gi-bill.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/5-new-educational-opportunities-for-veterans-provided-by-the-gi-bill.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/5-new-educational-opportunities-for-veterans-provided-by-the-gi-bill.html


Kirchner, M. J. (2015, August). Supporting student veteran transition to college and academic

success. Adult Learning, 26, 116-123. doi:10.1177/1045159515583813

Mo, P. K. H. & Coulson, N. S. (2013). Online support group use and psychological health for

individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Patient Education and Counseling, 93, 426-432.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.004

Moon, T. L. & Schma, G. A. (2011). A proactive approach to serving military and veteran

students. New Directions for Higher Education, 53-60. doi:10.1002/he.426

Panacci, A. G. (2015). Adult students in higher education: Classroom experiences and needs.

College Quarterly, 18. Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2015-vol18-num03-

summer/panacci.html

Powell, F. (2017, August 16). Five things for veterans to know about expanded GI benefits.

Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/

articles/2017-08-16/5-things-for-veterans-to-know-about-expanded-gi-bill-benefits

Radford, A. W. (2009). Military Service Members and Veterans in Higher Education: What the

New GI Bill May Mean for Postsecondary Institutions. Retrieved from

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Military-Service-Members-and-Veterans-

in-Higher-Education.pdf

Radford, A. W., Bentz, A., Dekker, R., & Paslov, J. (2016). After the post-9/11 GI Bill: A profile

of military service members and veterans enrolled in undergraduate and graduate

education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016435.pdf

Roland, C. (2017, November 22). WMU named one of top 100 schools for veterans by Military

Times. Retrieved from https://wmich.edu/news/2017/11/44012


Schonfeld, L., Braue, L. A., Stire, S., Gum, A. M., Cross, B. L., & Brown, L. M. (2015).

Behavioral health and adjustment to college life for student service members/veterans.

Journal of American College Health, 63, 428-436. doi:10.1080/07448481.2014.963106

Sponsler, B. A., Wesaw, A. J., & Jarrat, D. (2013). Measuring the success of student veterans

and active duty military students. Retrieved from

https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/NASPA_vets_13%281%29.pdf

Steele, B. (2015). Postsecondary prepatory programs for veterans: A federal reporting chasm.

Planning for Higher Education Journal, 43. 63-69. Retrieved from ProQuest Database.

Summerall, E. L. (2017). Traumatic brain injury and PTSD: Focus on veterans. Retrieved from

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/co-occurring/traumatic-brain-injury-ptsd.asp

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). Education and training: History and timeline.

Retrieved from https://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration. (2017). Education.

Retrieved from https://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/ABR-Education-FY16-

03022017.pdf