Gillian Hayward

Definition of your user group

My user group is people with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities affect individuals’ ability to
interpret what they see or hear, generally involving spoken language and written symbols (Ross & Akin,
2002). Learning disabilities include Auditory Processing Disorder, Dyscalculia, Dysgraphia, Dyslexia,
Language Processing Disorder, and Perceptual/Visual Motor Deficit (Learning Disabilities Association of
America, 2017). The processing problems associated with learning disabilities can interfere with basic
skills (reading, writing and math), as well as higher level skills like “organization, time planning, abstract
reasoning, long or short term memory and attention” (LDAA, 2017). People with learning disabilities are
generally of average or above-average intelligence, there is often a gap between their perceived potential
and their achievement, and they have their learning disabilities throughout their lifetime (LDAA, 2017).

The real-life contexts of the users

The studies focused on people with learning disabilities from childhood through adulthood, in several
contexts. The study by Williams and Hanson-Baldauf focused on seven students, aged 14-16, from the
special needs unit of a mainstream school testing a web information portal for usability, all identified as
having mild learning disabilities (2010).
Several of the studies looked at university students with learning disabilities. At East Carolina
University, Hoover, Nall and Willis studied a library instruction program for students in Project STEPP, a
program to assist students with documented learning disabilities with their academics, and social and life
skills (2013). They have a reduced course load to allow more time for study, and graduate in five years
(Hoover, Nall & Willis, 2013). Webb & Hoover also used four students with learning disabilities from
Project STEPP to study the effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning in making library tutorials
(2015). Hollins and Foley studied sixteen students with documented learning disabilities, all enrolled in
online courses through a northeastern U.S. university, to see how they experience online services (2013).
Black et al. interviewed fifteen students from an urban university in California, twelve with disabilities
(Black, Weinberg & Brodwin, 2015). Fichten et al. looked at information and communication technology
use in 196 students with and without learning disabilities from Montreal area French and English
language junior/community colleges (Fichten, Nguyen, King, Barile, Havel, Mimouni, Chauvin, Budd,
Raymond, Juhel & Asuncion, 2013). Hartman-Hall & Hagga studied a diverse group of 86 college
students in the Washington, D.C. area with learning disabilities, some of whom use university support
services (2002). Nielsen studied four male and four female university students with learning disabilities,
from diverse backgrounds, all successful students (2001).
Rogers and Namaganda worked together with people with learning disabilities to conduct a literature
review, as well as to interview information providers about their approaches (2005). The study took place
in England, and the individuals with learning disabilities (presumed to be adults) were not further
identified to protect their anonymity.
Three studies did not focus on the learning disabled users themselves, but it is clear that the aim was
to encourage improvement of services to them, in context. Mune & Agee looked at eBook accessibility in
the platforms held at San Jose State University for students with physical and learning disabilities (2016).
Ross & Akin focused on services and resources for children with learning disabilities in public libraries in
Texas (2002). Brind’Amour’s study looks at school media centers and how well they are catering to the
information needs of special needs students, including students with learning disabilities (2010).
 Related theories, models, and approaches applied in related research about this user group

In Dervin’s sense-making model, the user is the focus (Morris, 1994). This model “focuses on
understanding information within specific contexts and on understanding how information needs develop
and how they are satisfied” (Morris, 1994, p. 22). Each of these studies focuses on understanding the
information needs of people with learning disabilities, and how those needs can be satisfied through
thoughtfully designed resources and services.
Taylor’s approach says that users make choices about what information to use based “on the context
within which a user lives and works” (Morris, 1994, p. 23). These studies show that people with learning
disabilities’ unique information needs, or context, prescribe that they need unique resources and services
in order to be able to make these choices.
The studies could be described as using the Constructivist or Cognitive View, in which information
needs are seen in terms of individuals’ knowledge structures (Naumer & Fisher, 2009). This view “seeks
to understand information needs based on the mental models, processes, and relationships” (Naumer &
Fisher, 2009, p. 2455). These studies all aimed to find the most effective means of meeting the
information needs of the learning disabled population, specified in a particular context.
The Information Transfer model could also be used to describe some of the studies. It says that
information need might be represented as a request for a physical document from a system, or information
as thing; “the system might then be measured according to its capacity to deliver the physical objects
meeting the information need” (Naumer & Fisher, 2009, p. 2455). Several of the university-based studies
focused on testing information systems for learning disabled students. (Hoover et al., 2013; Williams &
Hanson-Baldauf, 2010; Hollins & Foley, 2013).
Nahl describes Affective load theory as focusing on the thoughts and feelings of users in their
information behavior (2005). She says that it “identifies affective states of users that disrupt ongoing
cognitive operations” (Nahl, 2005, p. 39). Students with learning disabilities are often described as being
frustrated by information seeking. Black et al. describe a student with a learning disability using a
university library for research, and being frustrated because he didn’t come with the necessary
information (title, article number) for the library staff to help him (2015). Nielsen describes learning
disabled students (LDS) as often forgetting and misunderstanding, and having ongoing self-doubt, in their
learning and information behavior (2001).
Sonnenwald’s Information horizon theory is a framework which considers individuals’ context and
situation to find their information horizon – the inter-related resources from which they get information
(2005). For LDS, information horizons are uniquely affected by their learning disabilities. All of the
studies describe the students’ context and situation, and explained (although not with that term) how their
information horizons were affected by them. One study said that for LDS, “having negative perceptions
of one’s academic, cognitive, and social abilities is associated with less reported willingness to seek help”
(Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002, p. 265). This could certainly apply to their information-seeking behavior.
Kuhlthau’s Information search process is described as a holistic interplay of thoughts, feelings and
actions during six stages of information seeking behavior – initiation, selection, exploration, formulation,
collection, and presentation (2005). She says that uncertainty and anxiety can be expected in the early
stages of the information search process (Kuhlthau, 2005). For LDS, their uncertainty and anxiety may be
increased because of their disabilities. Nielsen describes LDS reporting taking easier classes, avoiding
ones which sounded interesting, but they were worried they would fail (2001). Black et al. quote a student
saying “It’s just that I process information differently than other people” (2015, p.11) – an awareness
which could cause increased anxiety in information behavior.
 Methodologies and techniques used in research for determining users’ information needs and
behaviors

In the study by Williams and Hanson-Baldauf, researchers conducted four-stage usability sessions
with the learning disabled users to evaluate the website: ascertaining prior knowledge, freely browsing the
site, completion of assigned tasks, and feedback (2010). The researchers recorded their observations via
observation and notetaking (Williams & Hanson-Baldauf, 2010).
The Project STEPP study used hands-on activity, peer teaching, repetition, pacing, multimedia
instructional tools and individual follow-ups to test to instruct the students on the library and information
literacy, and assessment was conducted with pre- and post-tests. (Hoover et al., 2013). Webb & Hoover
first surveyed biology professors to determine information literacy expectations for freshman &
sophomore students (2015). They then designed a LibGuide-hosted tutorial for a Biology course at East
Carolina University which incorporated Universal Design for Learning principles (Webb & Hoover,
2015).
In the virtual campus study, researchers observed and interviewed students with learning disabilities
while they completed tasks in the virtual environment (Hollins & Foley, 2013).
The Rodgers and Namaganda study used researchers and people with learning disabilities to interview
information providers about their approaches to creating “easy information,” and to write and test draft
guidance (2005). The Ross and Akin study asked 136 public libraries in Texas to answer an electronic
survey about their services, programs and resources for children with learning disabilities (2002).
Black et al. interviewed students in a primarily qualitative study about their learning and information
needs and how they were being met by their university (2015). Fichten et al. sent a questionnaire to
students about if and how they use specialized information and communication technologies (2013).
Hartman-Hall & Haaga (2002) interviewed and tested students about their willingness to seek help for
their learning disabilities (affecting their information behavior). Nielsen interviewed eight LDS enrolled
in a university on three separate occasions, using a 30-question guide to gauge the success of their
university studies (2001).
Brind’Amour sent electronic surveys to librarians and special education teachers in her school district
in New York State to ask them about how they work together to provide resources and services for the
information needs of students with learning disabilities (and other disabilities) (2010).
Mune & Agee tested sixteen eBook platforms that are part of the San Jose State University library
holdings (2016). They were evaluated for features deemed as necessary to make a platform fully
accessible to people with disabilities, including learning disabilities (Mune & Agee, 2016). These
features include text-to-speech capability and adjustable font size/color/style (Mune & Agee, 2016).
The information sources and services provided to and used by this user group

The American Library Association’s Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy states that
“Libraries should use strategies based upon the principles of universal design to ensure that library policy,
resources and services meet the needs of all people” (2017). The policy also states that libraries should
“ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to library resources” (American Library
Association, 2017).
The information ecology of libraries must include all users, including those who learn differently. If
users with learning disabilities are not included as a focus in the information ecology, they will feel
marginalized, and their information needs will not easily be filled. Libraries must provide sources and
services that are appropriate for all learning abilities.
 By employing Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning and Instruction principles,
libraries can ensure that environments, services and systems are designed to meet the needs of all people
who wish to use them (National Disability Authority, 2014). If these principles are used consistently to
provide for people of all abilities, all users will feel included (including those with learning disabilities),
and their information needs will be more likely to be met.
Related issues and considerations to better serve the users

People with learning disabilities have unique information needs and behaviors. Consideration of
their needs in design and provision of library sources and services is necessary, and studies like these help
to understand how best to serve these users. Black et al. found that institutes of higher learning can help
reduce the barriers to learning for LDS by implementing principles of Universal Design (2015). Fichten et
al. found that LDS are not using the information and communication technologies created to help them
with their learning and information needs, but that they could benefit by doing so. Hartman-Hall and
Haaga found that LDS need encouragement and motivation from their institutions to seek help such as
learning accommodations (2002) Hoover et al. found that with the specialized instruction that the students
with learning disabilities were given, they reached the same learning outcomes as their non-learning-
disabled peers (2013). All of the students in Nielsen’s study were having successful university careers,
and indicated that early diagnosis and teacher knowledge of LD were most effective in their success
(2001).
Your major takeaways from the studies, along with practical applications and implications in
providing suitable sources and services

Findings indicate that more can be done to help people with learning disabilities fill their
information needs. In addition to resources and systems being designed with all users’ needs in mind,
training of library staff to raise awareness of the issues that people with learning disabilities may have is
of great importance. Ross & Akin found that programs, materials and resources were rarely tailored to
children with learning disabilities in Texas public libraries (2002). More research and training about the
needs of people with learning disabilities could empower the libraries to start to include more services
(Ross & Akin, 2002). Brind’Amour encourages special education teachers to share their knowledge of
the learning disabled user group with librarians/school media specialists so that services, technology and
collections can be tailored to them (2010). Mune and Agee’s eBook platform study encourages librarians
to inform publishers that accessibility is a major consideration in their e-book purchase decisions, and
“urge their compliance with common accessibility standards” (2016).
Empowering users with learning disabilities is of vital importance; doing so will improve their
user experience. Rodgers and Namaganda state that their most important finding was to include the
learning disabled audience when creating information intended to meet their needs (2005). Hollins &
Foley recommend that web designers use students with learning disabilities in their usability testing, and
that universities help their students more by teaching strategies to navigate the online environment (2013).
The Project STEPP study found that with the specialized instruction that the students with
learning disabilities were given, they reached the same learning outcomes as their non-learning-disabled
peers (Hoover et al., 2013). The authors believe that all students’ information needs can be met more
successfully if instruction employing their techniques is used (Hoover et al., 2013).
My Recommendations
If the user-centered paradigm is employed to guide the actions of information professionals for all
user groups, sources and services will be engaging and accessible for all patrons, including those with
learning disabilities. There is certainly an opportunity for more studies to be done focusing on people with
learning disabilities – many gaps exist in the research literature. More research could help to further
establish how best to meet the information needs of this user group.
References
American Library Association. (2017). Library services for people with disabilities policy. Retrieved
from http://www.ala.org/ascla/resources/libraryservices

Black, D., Weinberg, L., & Brodwin, M. (2015). Universal Design for learning and instruction:
perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education
International, 25(2), 1-26. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/

Brind’Amour, C. (2010). Special education students and the school media center. Current Studies in
Librarianship, 30 (1/2), 49–67. Retrieved from http://learn.kent.edu

Fichten, C. S., Nguyen, M. N., King, L., Barile, M., Havel, A., Mimouni, Z., Chauvin, A., Budd, J.,
Raymond, O. Juhel, J.-C., & Asuncion, J. (2013). Information and communication technology
profiles of college students with learning disabilities and adequate and very poor readers. Journal
of Education and Learning, 2(1), 176-188. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jel/index

Hartman-Hall, H. M., & Haaga, D. F. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help for their learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 263. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/en-
us/nam/journal/learning-disability-quarterly

Hollins, N., & Foley, A.R. (2013). The experiences of students with learning disabilities in a higher
education virtual campus. Educational Technology Research and Development, (4), 607. doi
10.1007/s11423-013-9302-9

Hoover, J., Nall, C., & Willis, C. (2013). Designing library instruction for students with learning
disabilities. North Carolina Libraries (Online), 71(2), 27-31. Retrieved from
http://www.ncl.ecu.edu/index.php/NCL

Kuhlthau, C. (2005). Kuhlthau’s information search process. In K.E. Fisher (Ed.), Theories of information
behavior (pp. 230-234). Retrieved from http://learn.kent.edu

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2017). Types of learning disabilities. Retrieved from
https://ldaamerica.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/

Morris, R. (1994). Toward a user centered information service. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 45(1), 20-30. Retrieved from http://learn.kent.edu

Mune, C. & Agee, A. (2016). Are e-books for everyone? An evaluation of academic e-book platforms'
accessibility features. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 28(3), 172-182. doi:
10.1080/1941126X.2016.1200927

Nahl, D. (2005). Affective load. In K.E. Fisher (Ed.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 39-43).
Retrieved from http://learn.kent.edu

Nardi, B.A. & O’Day, V.L. (May 1999). Information ecologies: using technology with heart. First
 Monday, 4(5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org

National Disability Authority. (2014). What is Universal Design. Retrieved from

http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/

Naumer, C.M. & Fisher, K.E. (2009). Information needs. In Encyclopedia of library and information
sciences, (3rd ed., pp. 2452-2458). New York: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved
from http://learn.kent.edu

Nielsen, J. A. (2001). Successful university students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Student
Psychotherapy, 15(4), 37. Retrieved from https://taucccd.memberclicks.net/

Rodgers, J., & Namaganda, S. (2005). Making information easier for people with learning disabilities.
British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 52-58.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2005.00341.x

Ross, V., & Akin, L. (2002). Children with Learning Disabilities and Public Libraries: An E-
Survey of Services, Programs, Resources, and Training. Public Library
Quarterly, 21(4), 9-18. doi 10.1300/J118v21n04_03

Sonnenwald, D. (2005). Information horizons. In K.E. Fisher (Ed.), Theories of information behavior (pp.
191-197). Retrieved from http://learn.kent.edu

Webb, K. & Hoover, J. (2015). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the academic library: A
methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. College &
Research Libraries, 76(4), 537-553. doi:10.5860/crl.76.4.537

Williams, P. & Hanson-Baldauf, D. (2010). Testing a web information portal for people with learning
disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 42-51. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01142.x