The role of lecturers and inclusive education

THE ROLE OF LECTURERS AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION V ıctor M. Molina, V ıctor Hugo Perera Rodr ıguez, Noelia Melero Aguilar, Almudena Cot an Fern andez and Anabel Mori~ na University of Seville Key words: Higher Education, students with disabilities, lecturers, learning barriers, learning bridges, biographical-narrative methodology. This paper presents an analysis of how lecturers respond to students with disabilities, the initial question being: do lecturers aid or hinder students? Findings pertain to a broader research project employing a non-usual research methodology in higher education research and students with disabilities: the biographical-narrative methodology. The general aim is to analyse –by listening to the students themselves –barriers and support identified as affecting access, academic performance and overall perception of the higher education (HE) experience. This paper focuses only on the role that lecturers play in the inclusive education of students with disabilities. Unlike other international research, this paper has explored the barriers and support differentiating between five fields of knowledge: Health Sciences, Experimental Sciences, Social Sciences, Engineering and Technology and Humanities. As mentioned above, the present paper focuses specifically on one of the objectives of our research project: making an analysis of lecturer-centred data obtained by means of biographical-narrative methodology, by the first time in this field. Introduction In recent years, advances have been made in disability policy at Spanish universities, especially in terms of creating more inclusive learning environments. The primary initiative to date is a support service for students with disabilities. That said, although efforts to foster inclusion at the tertiary level—and the growing number of students with disabilities at university—are clear signs of progress, serious barriers to full participation in learning still exist (Slee, 2011). The research shows that university responses to diversity tend to be reactive, not proactive (Riddell, Tinklin and Wilson, 2005); as a result, higher education (HE) environments can be especially disabling (Borland and James, 1999). Although a number of studies pinpoint the most frequent barriers students with disabilities encounter at university, we wish to pay special attention to pioneering work by Borland and James (1999) –perhaps, the most frequently cited literature on the subject. These authors conclude that students face three types of barriers: (1) Physical access barriers (infrastructures and spaces); (2) Curricular access barriers (methodology, content, etc.); and (3) Attitudinal barriers. Gitlow (2001) identifies attitudinal barriers as being the most relevant as they precede –and hence may have an impact on –the other two barrier types. Attitudinal barriers are also the most difficult to eradicate. On a more concrete plane of analysis, literature on barriers and support rooted in teaching methodologies and faculty attitude is abundant, despite being a relatively recent line of research. Studies on questions relating to inclusive practices at HE institutions abound, among others: Borland and James (1999); Holloway (2001); Moswela and Mukhopadhyay (2011), Nielsen (2001); Prowse (2009); Riddell, Wilson and Tinklin (2002); Shevlin, Kenny & McNeela (2004); and Tinklin, Riddell & Wilson (2004). These authors denounce the vulnerability of students with disabilities and call for a comprehensive overhaul of HE environments with a view to cultivate proactive, inclusive policymaking. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that lectures are key players when it comes to helping or hindering students throughout the teaching/learning process. Although some studies report positive university experiences among students with disabilities (Hall and Tinklin, 1998; Nielsen, 2001), the vast majority indicate that lecturers drag their feet when asked to change their teaching style and adapt to the needs of their students (Holloway, 2001; Moswela and Mukhopadhyay, 2011; Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson, 2005). In this way, Riddell, Tinklin and Wilson (2005) explained that it was not easy to provide an extra-support to students with disabilities as lecturers didn’t have enough time. These studies find that attitudinal barriers are often the most common type hurdle students with disabilities face. As lectures are not generally receptive to changing their teaching or adapting curricula, adaptations must be insisted upon by the students themselves in the majority of cases. The general ª2016 NASEN1046 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs Volume 16 Number s1 2016 1046–1049 doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12361 conclusion is that curricula are not inclusive and that faculty are neither informed nor trained to respond to the learning needs of these students. Thus, most of lecturers were not trained nor experienced for dealing with disabilities. Research Methodology We opted to employ biographical-narrative methodology and conduct our research in several phases. The first phase included two stages. In the first, several discussion groups were assembled (at least one group for each of the five fields of knowledge), and individual oral/written interviews were set up with 44 students with disabilities. In the second stage, mini life stories were completed for 16 students who participated in the first stage. These stories are thematic in nature as we have focused on a particular life period: the university experience. Three data collection instruments were used in the preparation of these stories: life lines, focused interviews and selfreports. In the second phase of research, the life stories of eight students who participated in the second stage were taken up again in order to carry out what is known in biographical-narrative methodology as in-depth life stories and polyphony of voices. A wide range of data collection techniques were used, including in-depth interviews, photography, interviews with key players in the life of each student, observations, etc. The present paper focuses on the role that lecturers play in the inclusive education of students with disabilities. Lecturers have been pointed out as the main barrier by the students with disabilities in higher education. Consequently, we have chosen this subject for this paper. In this way, the research team have deeply analysed how faculty can help to the inclusion or exclusion of the students with disabilities in higher education. Finally, two types of analysis were performed. For the preparation of each story, what the literature terms a narrative analysis was carried out in the manner proposed by Goodley, Lawthom, Clough, et al. (2004). A comparative study of all data was achieved through a structural analysis using MaxQDA10 data analysis software and a system of categories and codes, as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). Findings As mentioned earlier, this study aims to provide an analysis of the impact faculty attitudes have on students with disabilities’performance at university. Following an analysis of the data, it should be noted that participating students identified many more barriers than bridges when speaking about the role lecturers play in their learning experience. Noteworthy as well is the fact that in the larger context of the research project, which serves as a framework for this study, all of the students report faculty as being the number one barrier to learning. University Lecturers and Students with Disabilities: Building Bridges or Erecting Barriers? In this section, we will focus analysis on faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities. Justification for this is twofold: (1) participants in this study have consistently reported concerns in relation to Faculty attitudes, and (2) generally speaking, due to their special disability-related needs, these students require more frequent, direct interaction with lecturers than the rest of their peers. With regard to attitudes perceived as negative, a number of students mention that lecturers often behave strangely when students introduce themselves and inform them of their disability: Yet, the greatest concern expressed by participants is the barrier lecturers erect when they explicitly distance themselves from their students’problems. These students explain that when they inform lecturers of their situation and/or learning needs, some tell them they cannot make exceptions and that they should expect to be treated like any other student; others simply ignore students’needs all together. Although the majority of students express a desire to be treated like any other student as much as possible, they also recognise that they have special learning needs and that when lecturers fail to address them a barrier is erected which can be especially difficult to overcome. However, faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities are not always negative. Some students, in fact, tell about very positive experiences involving lecturers. That said, reports of positive attitudes and interaction with students with disabilties are few and far between –far less common than the negative experiences. Nevertheless, the emphasis these students place on positive experiences is much greater; and it is not rare for a student to admit that working with lecturers who have understood and supported them has contributed significantly to their academic success. Inside the Classroom: Does Teaching Include or Exclude? Again, with regard to the role of the lecturer in the learning process, participants perceive more barriers than bridges. It is important to point out here, however, that, on the whole, the problems students with disabilities identify and talk about are not directly related to their disability; they are common to any other student, as they have to do with teaching methodologies and lecturers’varying ability to transmit their knowledge. One recurring complaint involves what is perceived as poor or even negligent use of tools like Power Point. Students report that many lecturers simply go from one slide to the next, reading verbatim without giving any added explanations or clarifications. Information received in this ª2016 NASEN 1047 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1046–1049 14713802, 2016, S1, Downloaded from https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-3802.12361 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [11/07/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License way is perceived as being insufficient. This is especially problematic for students with certain types of disabilities –visual and auditory impairment, for example –as they find it impossible to retain all of the information they are being given. Another common scenario occurs when lecturers drag their feet about providing students with course materials in advance. This is especially problematic as students identify early access to such material as crucial to understanding explanations, assimilating the information, and making the most of class time. On the whole, students with disabilities place a great deal of value on lecturers who go beyond traditional lecturing, employ a range of teaching techniques, give examples, encourage student participation, and attempt to transmit their knowledge through different channels. Yet, as mentioned earlier, positive perceptions of teachers and teaching often have little or nothing to do with the disabilities in question;rather, they are informed by individual notions of what makes for a good lecturer. Hence, students speak about the positive impact of lecturers keeping course content up to date, of praxis activities being closely linked to real life, or of examples being used to illustrate explanations. Adapting the Curriculum: A Show of Good Will? Although, strictly speaking, curricular adaptations are the sole responsibility of lecturers, they deserve a closer look as study participants consistently refer to the issue. It is also important to note here that this is one of the few areas in which students have identified more bridges than barriers. In the first place, students report that adaptations to the curriculum –when carried out –are generally done by lecturers in a spirit of good will rather than in application of university regulations or respect for the legal rights of students with disabilities. There is widespread consensus among study participants: university faculty are largely unaware of disability legislation regulating curricular adaptations. This issue will be expounded upon in the next section of this paper. In many cases, a lecturer’s refusal to adapt the curriculum is such a hurdle for these students that it may even lead to them dropping the course. On the other hand, many students speak of positive experiences when it comes to approaching lecturers with requests for curricular adaptations. Common concessions include extended deadlines for assignments, course materials in digital formats, special materials for class work and adapted exams. It should be noted, however, that in virtually every case adaptations are conceded on a good will basis –upon reaching an agreement with the lecturer; rarely in compliance with university regulations recognising students with disabilities rights. Faculty, neither trained nor informed In this section, the aim is to delve into one of the most commonly mentioned barriers affecting students with disabilities: the lack of faculty training in attending to special needs and an overall lack of awareness at all levels of Higher Education regarding disability –both of which greatly hinder academic progress for these students. This is clearly one of the most deeply rooted barriers affecting study participants. As a result of this lack of training in diversity, it is sometimes the students themselves who have to inform their lecturers of their special learning needs. Another area in which students identify some lecturers as lacking in training is IT and new technologies. Such tools, say the students, are especially helpful when it comes to keeping up to speed in courses and as a channel for information. A serious learning barrier is erected when they are not able to harness IT tools to communicate effectively with students. Finally, a good number of participants complain about the lack of information available to lecturers regarding the existence of students with disabilities in their courses as well as specific training in best teaching practices. Students find having to seek out lecturers to inform them of their disability and special needs problematic –especially so, considering they have to approach several different lecturers each semester. Given that universities have access to this information a priori, these students argue that there should be an efficient mechanism allowing lecturers to know exactly what special situations they will be facing prior to the start of each semester. Conclusions Do lecturers tend to build learning bridges or raise learning barriers when working with students with disabilities? Based on the research presented here, we can conclude that more barriers than bridges exist. That said, students do report receiving a good deal of support from their lecturers –although almost exclusively in a spirit of good will; when lecturers do help, however, it tends to have a very positive impact on students’academic performance. Faculty do not always display appropriate attitudes towards students with disabilities. Study participants speak of them turning their back on their problems –or behaving in an awkward manner. In many cases, it seems lecturers feel that curricular adaptations of any kind are a form of favouritism. Similar findings appear in work by Borland and James (1999), Gitlow (2001), and Moswela and Mukhopadhyay (2011) who conclude that attitudinal barriers have the greatest impact on learning and academic achievement. ª2016 NASEN1048 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1046–1049 14713802, 2016, S1, Downloaded from https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-3802.12361 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [11/07/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Positive attitudes, however, often depend almost entirely on the good will of faculty and –although well received by students –are hard to come by, as Hall and Tinklin (1998) corroborate. Again, when they do display positive attitudes, they are especially appreciated by students with disabilities. As the participants themselves suggest, this study confirms that good teaching practices not only benefit students with disabilities but also the student body as a whole. In this sense, inclusive curricula provide new opportunities for all students, as authors such as Ferni and Henning (2006) and Fuller, Healey, Bradley, et al. (2004). As far as curricular adaptations are concerned –of special interest to students with disabilities –this is the only area in which members of this group feel they receive support, albeit out of the good will of lecturers rather than owing to an awareness of or compliance with existing legislation. These students also denounce cases where they refuse to extend deadlines or adapt exams and assignments –a clear case of norms infringement. Lecturers also lack sufficient training in diversity and disability, according to study participants. This can become a primary barrier and is more often due to deficient faculty training than to inappropriate attitudes on the part of lecturers. Similar findings are reported in work by Moswela and Mukhopadhyay (2011), who conclude that ignorance of the issues facing students –and how to deal with them –is widespread; these authors recommend better faculty training as the best way to guarantee a quality, diversity-centred education. Moreover, ignorance on the part of faculty of the very existence of students with disabilities –let alone their special needs and legal rights – is a barrier which universities could eliminate quite simply by providing lecturers with the appropriate documentation at the beginning of each term; that and, expecting lecturers to be aware of their legal obligations. Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest. Address for correspondence Víctor M. Molina, Facultad de Qu ımica, University of Seville, c/Profesor Garcia Gonzalez, 2. 41012 Sevilla (Spain) Email: [email protected] References Borland, J. & James, S. (1999) ‘The learning experience of students with disabilities in higher education. A case study of a UK university.’Disability & Society, 14 (1), pp. 85–101. Ferni, T. & Henning, M. (2006) ‘From a disabling world to a new vision.’In M. Adams & S. Brown (eds), Towards inclusive learning in higher education, pp. 23–31. London: Routledge. Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A. & Hall, T. (2004) ‘Barriers to learning: a systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university.’ Studies in Higher Education, 29 (3), pp. 303–318. Gitlow, L. (2001) ‘Occupational therapy faculty attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in their educational programs.’TheOccupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21, pp. 115–131. Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Clough, P. & Moore, M. (2004) Researching life stories. London: Routledge. Hall, J. & Tinklin, T. (1998) The experiences of disabled students in higher education. Glasgow: The Scottish Council for Research in Education. Holloway, S. (2001) ‘The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students.’Disability & Society, 16 (4), pp. 597–615. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis. USA: Sage Publications. Moswela, E. & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011) ‘Asking for too much?’The voices of students with disabilities in Botswana, Disability & Society, 26 (3), pp. 307–319. Nielsen, J. A. (2001) ‘Successful University Students with Learning Disabilities.’Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 15 (4), pp. 37–48. Prowse, S. (2009) ‘Institutional construction of disabled students.’Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31 (1), pp. 89–96. Riddell, S., Tinklin, T. & Wilson, A. (2005) Disabled students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Riddell, S., Wilson, A. & Tinklin, T. (2002) ‘Disability and the wider access agenda: supporting disabled students in different institutional contexts.’Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 4, pp. 12–26. Shevlin, M., Kenny, M. & McNeela, E. (2004) Participation in higher education for students with disabilities: An Irish perspective. Disability and Society, 19 (1), pp. 15–30. Slee, R. (2011) The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge, Abingdon. Tinklin, T., Riddell, S. & Wilson, A. (2004) Policy and provision for disabled students in higher education in Scotland and England: The current state of play. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (5), pp. 637–659. ª2016 NASEN 1049 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 1046–1049 14713802, 2016, S1, Downloaded from https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-3802.12361 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [11/07/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License