Inclusive curricula in Spanish higher education? Students with disabilities speak out

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563249 Inclusive curricula in Spanish higher education? Students with disabilities speak out ArticleinDisability & Society · April 2013 DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2013.769862 CITATIONS 36 READS 200 3 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Inclusive Pedagogy in the University: faculty members's narratives View project Sistema de Indicadores de Atención a la Diversidad en el Ámbito Universitario View project Anabel Moriña Universidad de Sevilla 122 PUBLICATIONS996 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE M Dolores Cortés Vega Universidad de Sevilla 28 PUBLICATIONS191 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Anabel Moriña on 31 May 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. This article was downloaded by: [University of Regina] On: 06 August 2013, At: 08:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Disability & Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20 Inclusive curricula in Spanish higher education? Students with disabilities speak out Anabel Moriña a , María Dolores Cortés b & Noelia Melero c a Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Didáctica y Organización Educativa, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n, Seville, Spain b Departamento de Fisioterapia, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Avda. Sanchez Pinjuan, S/n, Seville, Spain c Facultad de Ciencias de la Eduación, Teoría e Historia de la Educación, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n, Seville, Spain Published online: 25 Mar 2013. To cite this article: Disability & Society (2013): Inclusive curricula in Spanish higher education? Students with disabilities speak out, Disability & Society, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2013.769862 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.769862 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 Inclusive curricula in Spanish higher education? Students with disabilities speak out Anabel Moriña a *, María Dolores Cortés b and Noelia Melero c a Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Didáctica y Organización Educativa, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n, Seville, Spain; b Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Departamento de Fisioterapia, Avda. Sanchez Pinjuan, S/n, Seville, Spain; c Facultad de Ciencias de la Eduación, Teoría e Historia de la Educación, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n, Seville, Spain (Received 9 March 2012; final version received 18 January 2013) This paper studies barriers and support affecting access, experience and performance as identified by students with disabilities at the University of Seville. Biographical-narrative research methodology is employed and the study is limited to an analysis of the design and development of subjects across the curriculum. Findings, which give voice to the students themselves, are organized in four topic areas: subject structure, methodology, tutorials, and assessment. The paper concludes with a review and discussion of key findings as well as suggestions for improvement and policy-making. Keywords: higher education; students with disabilities; barriers; support; biographical-narrative method Points of interest •Higher education is not prepared for the inclusion of disabled students, so changes are required in the teaching and learning practices. •Although both barriers and support are present in the curricula, the first are more frequent. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt measures to eliminate them. •A legal vacuum in higher education: regulation exists for curricular adaptations for disabled students but, on many occasions, it is not contemplated. •The importance of biographical-narrative methodology in highlighting the subjective experiences of the participants and making their voices heard. •The sample: a diverse group of 44 students (the different types of disabilities present in the studied university were represented, and the students were from various fields of knowledge). •The disabled student population viewed as an opportunity to improve higher education institutions. Introduction Diversity and inclusion in higher education (HE) can be seen as an opportunity or a problem. Authors such as Shaw (2009) argue that students can learn from each *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Disability & Society, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.769862 Ó2013 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 other, enriching both the classroom and the HE institution. Studies by Higbee, Siaka, and Bruch (2007) show that diversity in HE is perceived by students as enhancing the educational experience. However, for truly inclusive education to become a reality, a shared learning space and timetable are not enough; new approaches to learning and teaching (curriculum design and assessment) are also required. Reform may rouse resistance rooted in the notion that change will have a negative impact on curriculum quality, or that excellence will not be achieved. From this standpoint, diversity can be perceived as problematic. Add to this the fact that all students do not have access to the same opportunities and that some face barriers that make them question their very presence at the university. This is often the case with disabled students, as has been demonstrated internationally in the literature (Borland and James 1999; Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004; Holloway 2001; Hopkins 2011; Moswela and Mukhopadhyay 2011; Nielsen 2001; Prowse 2009; Riddell, Wilson, and Tinklin 2002; Ryan and Struhs 2004; Shevlin, Kenny, and McNeela 2004; Tinklin and Hall 1999, and so forth). Much progress has been made in terms of disability policy in HE and a number of countries have passed legislation regulating the right of disabled students to participate, learn and access equal opportunities. Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, have implemented anti-discrimination laws. In Spain, provisions for disabled students are laid out in Organic Law 4/2007 for Universities, which establishes that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrim- ination must be ensured and that university environments (buildings, grounds and facilities) must be accessible. At the local level, the University of Seville –host institution for the present study 1 –has approved bylaws regulating academic considerations affecting the disabled student body, including the need for curricular adaptations on the part of professors and zero-cost tuition for first and subsequent enrolments (Agreement 8/CG 9–12-08, BOUS, 12 January 2009). Be that as it may, HE institutions on the whole are not prepared for the inclusion of students with disabilities, as several of the aforementioned studies agree that policy is generally reactive rather than proactive, despite legislation in different countries upholding disabled student rights to a quality education (including the necessary curricular adaptations) and access to equal opportunities (Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005). Moreover, HE environments themselves may be essentially disabling, as Borland and James (1999), Reindal (1995) and Tinklin and Hall (1999) remind us. The cited studies on disability and HE have also identified significant barriers impacting the participation, progress and success of disabled students. Such barriers are essentially attitudinal and structural in nature, or involve resource availability (Moswela and Mukhopadhyay 2011). The core findings of these studies – centred on curricula and course syllabi –reveal both barriers and support in the teaching and learning processes. Likewise, work by Castellana and Sala (2006) in Spain concludes that classrooms do not have the resources needed to guarantee inclusion, and that lecturers generally do not employ effective teaching methodologies to foster full participation. As a result, disabled students do not enjoy equal opportunities with respect to their non-disabled peers. Borland and James (1999) discuss the difficulties experienced by students with disabilities on finding themselves excluded from participating in certain practical activities, or subjected to non-adapted methodologies. It has also been noted that disabled students invest a great deal of time accessing 2A. Moriña et al. Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 information that is more easily available to other students (Borland and James 1999; Tinklin and Hall 1999). With respect to support, disabled students value the introduction of new technologies into the curricula most, as they see information technology as aiding them to make the most of their subjects (Castellana and Sala 2006; Grimaldi and Goette 1999; Pearson 2001; Pearson and Koppi 2006). Other prized factors include extra time for examinations, the use of computers, and so forth (Hall and Tinklin 1998). Findings from previous research contribute to the thesis proposed by Ferni and Henning (2006), Oliver and Barnes (2010), Hopkins (2011), and so forth, that barriers experienced by disabled students are environmental rather than individual, as the social model of disability suggests. This model, which serves as a basis for the present research, claims that change must take place in the environment itself, as it is here that barriers to inclusion in society and education are erected. From this standpoint, reform must start with modifying teaching and learning environments with a view to make them as inclusive as possible. Finally, studies on the idea of tailoring the curriculum for diversity conclude that changes in this direction are beneficial to all students –enhancing teaching and learning for all (Ferni and Henning 2006; Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005; Warren 2002). Research methodology The findings presented here fall within the larger framework of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation entitled ‘Barriers and Support that Disabled Students Identify in the University’(Dir. Dr. Anabel Moriña). Conducted by a team of University of Seville lecturers from different departments and fields of knowledge –Education Sciences, Economics, Health Sciences and Experimental Sciences –this ongoing study (2011–2013) aims, primarily, to examine barriers and support identified by disabled university students themselves as affecting access, academic performance and overall experience. Three key objectives are: (1) To identify, describe and explain barriers and support that students with disabilities perceive as impacting access, academic performance and overall experience. (2) To identify, describe and explain barriers and support in university classrooms affecting disabled students. (3) To design an online faculty training guide with a view to better respond to the specific educational needs of students with disabilities. To this end, 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 2 ) and individual oral/written interviews were set up with 44 disabled students. 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 self-reports. In the second phase of research –currently underway – the life-stories of eight students who participated in the second stage were taken up Disability & Society 3 Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 again in order to carry out what is known in biographical-narrative methodology as in-depth life-stories and polyphony of voices (Frank 2011). 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, and so forth. The final phase of the study will culminate in a proposal for an online faculty training programme on the subject of response to diversity. The present paper focuses on the second objective of our research project and on phases I and II –specifically, on barriers and support impacting the classroom environment (curricula and syllabi). The study group consisted of students with disabilities enrolled at the University of Seville during the 2009/10 academic year. At the time, there were a total of 445 students with disabilities enrolled in the University of Seville out of a total student population of 72,358 (0.6%). The sample group ranged between 19 and 59 years of age, with an average age of 30.5 years. Of these, 22 were men, and 22 were women –25% in the first year of university, 16% in the second, 25% in the third, 14% in the fourth and 9% in the fifth. The remaining 11% were pursuing a postgraduate degree. Sixty-three per cent of the sample population had been enrolled in the university between one and five years, while the remaining 37% had been in the university for over five years. It should be noted that 14% of the sample had been in the university for 10 years or more. With respect to type of disability 3 (according to the nomenclature used by the University of Seville), 38% were students with physical disabilities, 15% had some sort of mental disability, 36% had a sensory disability and 11% had difficulties associated with ill-health (asthma, degenerative diseases, etc.). 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 et al. (2004). A comparative study of all data was achieved through structural analysis (Riessman 2008) using MaxQDA10 data analysis software and a system of categories and codes, as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). Findings. Between two shores: curricula at the service of students or vice versa? As discussed in the previous section, this paper only addresses findings linked to barriers and support that disabled students identified in the course syllabi for the subjects in which they were enrolled. In other words, study participants reflected on the aspects of the curriculum that contributed to –or detracted from –their inclusion in the university classroom. Occasionally, results will be examined in context as they are presented, and taken up and discussed again in the conclusions. The analysed data are organized around four topics: general course structure (content, attendance, etc.), course methodology, tutorial action and assessment. When syllabi are endless and resources inaccessible Firstly, with respect to course structure, participants questioned the Bologna Process 4 and subsequent curricular changes. In all cases, the students perceived such reforms as an obstacle. One problem students expressed repeatedly is that year-long courses have been condensed into four-month courses. Students mentioned the difficulty of keeping up in the subject; condensing course content means cramming for 4A. Moriña et al. Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 midterms, tight deadlines for completing assignments and compulsory attendance in most cases –all of which increases stress levels and even leads to dropping the subject. Participants argued that they often find it impossible to attend class regularly due to hospitalization, for example, as in the case of those with health-related disabilities. Despite this reality, based on the compulsory attendance requirement found in course syllabi and the personal experiences related by the disabled students themselves, it can be concluded that essential curricular adaptations have yet to be made: Barriers? I think the structure of the subjects, because there were subjects that were year-long and which now take four months, and well, all the syllabi that took place in a year now take four or five months, and there is no time, I have had to drop many subjects. (RSP4 5 ) In this regard, the participants agree that disability may hamper academic performance in crucial situations (such as an examination, or being unable to attend and missing content essential to success in the subject in question). To overcome this barrier, students proposed that the classes could be recorded. They explained that despite clear consensus that recording would help in cases where proper note-taking was not possible, the response from lecturers has been negative in all cases, with no collaboration whatsoever in this direction. This attitude is not new; similar testimony appears in earlier studies (Borland and James 1999; Castellana and Sala 2006; Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004; Tinklin and Hall 1999). Anyway, one lecturer said recording was not an option, but maybe, if we had questions or could not go to class, we should go to a tutorial. The problem is that many people can’t go to tutorials or have missed two weeks, and that can’t be made up in a tutorial …(RCS3) When asked which resources help or hinder the learning process, participants made frequent mention of the use of slides. Students agree that, on the whole, professors do not use this resource effectively, as slides are not made available in advance. Moreover, visually impaired students consider total reliance on visual materials to be a major barrier to learning. Such findings suggest –in line with Borland and James (1999), Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004 and Tinklin and Hall (1999) –that certain disabilities require alternatives to visual teaching materials, and that when visual material is used students must have access to it in advance as this will facilitate learning processes: Normally the resources they give you are …the materials, right? Or they give you, you get lecturers who first tell you ‘no, the slides are an aid I use to teach and I don’t give them out’but they give you the bibliography, give you the textbook where they’re based. And personally, they haven’t given me anything extra. (RSP4) Despite such objections, the use of slides for theoretical sessions is generally valued, as they are seen as making the lesson more enjoyable, to some extent. The exception is the lecturers who merely read their slides, without providing additional content or examples that could help elucidate what is being explained. Disability & Society 5 Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 I don’t know, for example, often there is no time to cover all the material, or we spend a lot of time on things I think aren’t so important …at least now they use PowerPoint, they don’t have you copying down what they say all day, but sometimes, there are many people who just read the slides, and instead of giving more information on the subject, what they do is read and that’s it. (RSP6) Another point where participants are critical is regarding access to class notes and other materials. The vast majority of students perceive this as a disability-spe- cific barrier and criticise the lack of foresight on the part of lecturers regarding the adaptation of resources and materials enough in advance. In the case of visual impairment this can be especially problematic. Visually impaired students in Spain rely on the Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles, an external service that facilitates transcription of material into Braille. It is a slow process, however, and if students are not provided with material enough in advance they will not have time to get it adapted for use in class. Similar findings appeared in two studies published over a decade ago (Borland and James 1999; Tinklin and Hall 1999) –students with disabilities spend a lot of time accessing information that is more easily available to other students: Half the time lecturers don’t know what to do, at the beginning of the semester, they tell you well I don’t know what materials I’m going to use. Me? Well, since I’ve had this disease as long as I can remember, I already know that at the beginning of the year I have to go and talk to all my professors, tell them about my disability, and let them know what help I need. So, I say to them, look, if you can you can give me the materials early, the sooner the better“”; but half the time they don’t even know what materials they’re going to use or anything. (RSP9) On the other hand, participants tend to place a good deal of value on advance access to the course bibliography, completed examination papers and good quality work by peers from previous years. Such resources are perceived as empowering the student when it comes to meeting academic requirements. One last concern has to do with what is perceived as excessive –and occasionally subpar –course content, especially in the case of new courses with academically dense syllabi. Most of the time it is impossible to cover all of the material in the time allotted and students find that the contribution of the material to learning itself is often questionable: Many lecturers try to really condense it all and cover absolutely everything in half the time. Often they leave almost half the syllabus out because they run short on time. There have been times when that half of the syllabus is not on the exam, but other times maybe two days before the exam they tell you such-and-such a topic is in the copy-shop. ‘Go study it on your own!’There wasn’t enough time in class, but it’son the exam …(RSP7) When methodology is at the service of teaching, not at the service of learning Regarding the methodology used in the classroom, participants primarily identified the traditional lecture where professors transmit content and provide theoretical explanations in the form of PowerPoint presentations, and where interaction with students is very limited: Well, I think there is still a tendency to lecture at university. (RCS7) 6A. Moriña et al. Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 Higbee, J. L., K. Siaka, and A. L. Bruch. 2007. “Student Perceptions of their Multicultural Learning Environment: a Closer Look.”In Diversity and the Postsecondary Experience, edited by J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, and I. M. Duranczyk, 3–24. Minnesota: Centre for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. Holloway, S. 2001. “The Experience of Higher Education from the Perspective of Disabled Students.”Disability & Society 16 (4): 597–615. Hopkins, L. 2011. “The Path of Least Resistance: A Voice-Relational Analysis of Disabled Students’Experiences of Discrimination in English Universities.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (7): 711–727. Hopkins, D., and D. Sterns. 1996. “Quality Teachers, Quality Schools: International Perspectives and Policy Implications.”Teaching and Teacher Education 12 (5): 501–517. Marcelo, C., and A. Estebaranz. 2002. “Marco General de Investigación Sobre la Enseñanza en la Universidad.”In Enseñanza y Aprendizaje en la Educación Superior, coord. C. Mayor, October 7–26, Barcelona. Martín, E. 2006. “Profesorado Competente Para Formar Alumnado Competente: El Reto Del Cambio Docente.”In Psicología del Aprendizaje Universitario: La Formación En Competencias, edited by J. I. Pozo and M. P. Pérez, 199–215. Madrid: Morata. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Moriña, A. 2010. “School Memories by Young People With Disbilities: An Analysis of Barriers and Aids to Inclusion.”Disability & Society 25 (2): 163–175. Moswela, E., and S. Mukhopadhyay. 2011. “Asking for too much? The Voices of Students with Disabilities in Botswana.”Disability & Society 26 (3): 307–319. Nielsen, J. A. 2001. “Successful University Students with Learning Disabilities.”Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 15 (4): 37–48. Oliver, M., and C. Barnes. 2010. “Disability Studies, Disabled People and the Struggle for Inclusion.”British Journal of Sociology of Education 31 (5): 547–560. Pearson, E. J. (2001) “Strategies for Developing Inclusive Online Courses.”Paper presented at WebCT Asia-Pacific Conference, Adelaide, Australia, April 10. Pearson, E., and T. Koppi. 2006. “Supporting Staff in Developing Inclusive Online Learning.” In Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher Education, edited by M. Adams and S. Brown, 56–66. London: Routledge. Pozo, J. I., and C. Monereo. 2006. “Introducción: La Nueva Cultura Del Aprendizaje Universitario O Por Qué Cambian Nuestras Formas de Enseñar y Aprender.”In Psicología del Aprendizaje Universitario: La Formación en Competencias, edited by J. I. Pozo and M. P. Monereo, 9–28. Madrid: Morata. Pozo, J. I., and M. P. Pérez. 2006. “Aprender Para Comprender y Resolver Problemas.”In Psicología del Aprendizaje Universitario: La Formación en Competencias, edited by J. I. Pozo and M. P. Monereo, 31–53. Madrid: Morata. Prowse, S. 2009. “Institutional Construction of Disabled Students.”Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31 (1): 89–96. Reindal, S. M. 1995. “Some Problems Encountered by Disabled Students at the University of Oslo –Whose Responsibility?”The European Journal of Special Needs 10 (3): 227–241. Riddell, S., T. Tinklin, and A. Wilson. 2005. Disabled Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Riddell, S., A. Wilson, and T. Tinklin. 2002. “Disability and the Wider Access Agenda: Supporting Disabled Students in Different Institutional Contexts.”Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 4: 12–26. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Ryan, J., and J. Struhs. 2004. “University Education for All? Barriers to Full Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Australian Universities.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 8 (1): 73–90. Shaw, J. 2009. “The Diversity Paradox: Does Student Diversity Enhance or Challenge Excellence?”Journal of Further and Higher Education 33 (4): 321–331. Shevlin, M., M. Kenny, and E. Mcneela. 2004. “Participation in Higher Education for Students with Disabilities: An Irish Perspective.”Disability & Society 19 (1): 15–30. Disability & Society 13 Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 Tinklin, T., and J. Hall. 1999. “Getting Round Obstacles: Disabled Students’Experiences in Higher Education in Scotland.”Studies in Higher Education 24: 183–194. UNESCO. 2009. Second Collection of Good Practices. Education for Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO. Warren, D. 2002. “Curriculum Design in a Context of Widening Participation in Higher Education.”Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1 (1): 85–99. 14 A. Moriña et al. Downloaded by [University of Regina] at 08:35 06 August 2013 View publication statsView publication stats