Improving the academic experience of students with disabilities in higher education: faculty members of Social Sciences and Law speak out

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciej20 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20 Improving the academic experience of students with disabilities in higher education: faculty members of Social Sciences and Law speak out Arecia Aguirre, Rafael Carballo & Rosario Lopez-Gavira To cite this article: Arecia Aguirre, Rafael Carballo & Rosario Lopez-Gavira (2021) Improving the academic experience of students with disabilities in higher education: faculty members of Social Sciences and Law speak out, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34:3, 305-320, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2020.1828047 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1828047 Published online: 07 Oct 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 452 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Improving the academic experience of students with disabilities in higher education: faculty members of Social Sciences and Law speak out Arecia Aguirre a , Rafael Carballo b and Rosario Lopez-Gavira c * a Departamento de Pedagogía y Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Lengua y Literatura, Universidad Jaume I, Castellón, España; b Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, Logroño, España; c Departamento de Contabilidad, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, España (Received 26 February 2020; final version received 2 September 2020) This article describes the key elements to develop an inclusive pedagogy in the university through the testimonies of Social Sciences and Law faculty members. A total of 25 faculty members from seven different Spanish universities participated in the study, who were recommended by their students with disabilities based on their good practices. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted individually . The data were progressively analysed using a system of categories and codes. The results show three key elements to improve the academic experience of students with disabilities: disability-specific training for faculty members, a good faculty–student relationship and the willingness to make reasonable adjustments . This article proposes a well-trained faculty, who develop a flexible teaching with a positive and close relationships toward their students, as the ideal profile to serve as an example to other colleagues and universities in order to improve the quality of academic and social experiences for students with disabilities. Keywords: Inclusive pedagogy; higher education; students with disability; faculty members; qualitative methodology 1. Introduction In the last few decades, educational institutions around the world have made great efforts to improve the academic lives of students with disabilities. However, finding suitable solutions to respond to student diversity still requires thorough research, as it is necessary to know their real needs, the difficulties they encounter and especially the practices that guarantee their learning and participation. Although the needs and difficulties of students with disabilities at the University have been widely explored, further knowledge is needed about teaching practices and effective processes to achieve the real inclusion of these students. Organisations such as UN (2015) and the UNESCO (2017) recognise the culture of inclusion as one of the quality indicators of education. Among the actions in favour of educational inclusion, there is a significant legislative development that regulates the rights of people with disabilities. In the scope of Higher Education (HE), after the implementation of © 2020 The European Association for the Advancement of the Social Sciences *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2021 Vol. 34, No. 3, 305–320, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1828047 the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), European universities became more democratic for people with disabilities (Martins, Borges, and Gonçalves 2018). The above-mentioned legislative actions contributed to the increase of the number of students with disabilities that access university (Kendall 2017). In Spain, specific regulations have been created to protect the rights of this social group, such as the General Law of Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion published in 2013, and the university legislation (e.g. the University Student Statute) that regulates the implementation of reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. However, apart from facilitating their access to HE, it is necessary to create and implement policies and actions that guarantee the continuation and academic success of these students (Mayhew 2003; Thomas 2016). Numerous authors have focused on identifying the barriers that students encounter throughout their academic studies (Biggeri, Di Masi, and Bellacicco 2019). Among these difficulties, students highlight architectural barriers, the lack of accessible teaching resources and methods, and social barriers (Weis, Dean, and Osborne 2016). Among these barriers, faculty members are often pointed out as the main challenge by students with disabilities (Moriña and Perera 2018). Students often highlight negative attitude faculty members toward disability as a big problem (Elbeheri et al. 2018). These attitudes have direct influence on the relationships between the faculty and the students. The latter, and not only those with disabilities, consider their relationship with their faculty members as a determining factor in their academic success. A close relationship with a positive attitude toward disability and the willingness to make the necessary adjustments improve the chances of success of the students (Gorard et al. 2006). However, students usually mention that their relationships with their faculty members are distant; they even state that some faculty members show negative attitudes and often behave strangely when they are told that a student has a disability (Moriña, Molina, and Cortes-Vega 2018). In other cases, negative attitudes translate into a lack of empathy toward disability when faculty members do not make the reasonable adjustments that students require; for example, when the necessary materials are not provided in advance, no accessible materials are used and the teaching and evaluation methods are not adjusted to ensure the participation of all students (Claiborne et al. 2011; Mahtab and Ahmad 2011; Vickerman and Blundell 2010; Yssel, Pak, and Beilke 2016). Sometimes, this is due to the fact that faculty members consider that making reasonable adjustments would privilege students with disabilities (Moriña, Molina, and Cortes-Vega 2018). Other authors state that faculty members are willing to make adjustments that require little effort (such as recording a lecture), and that they are more reluctant to those changes that involve greater time and effort (Burgstahler and Doe 2006; Elbeheri et al. 2018). However, this is a personal matter, since other studies have pointed out that a large number of faculty members usually show a high degree of willingness to make all the necessary adjustments (Yssel, Pak, and Beilke 2016). Negative attitudes of faculty members toward adjusting methods and resources, as well as their lack of communication strategies, are mostly due to the lack of knowledge and training regarding disability. A considerable number of faculty members do not know that making certain adjustments is a legal obligation in Spain (Carballo, Morgado, and Cortés-Vega 2019, as is the case in other neighbouring countries such as Portugal (Martins, Borges, and Gonçalves 2018). The above-mentioned General Law of Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion (2013) states that reasonable adjustments should be provided for those who need them at all stages of education in Spain. Failure to provide reasonable 306 A. Aguirre et al. accommodation can be sanctioned. At the institutional level, each university indicates in its legislation the obligation to make these adjustments for students with disabilities, as well as other rights such as the choice of groups and schedules or free tuition. The adjustments that the legislation regulates are not very specific. Some of these adjustments consist of giving more time to carry out evaluation exams or making work deadlines more flexible. However, the legislation is not clear and the willingness of faculty members to make adjustments plays a key role. The lack of information about the obligation to make adjustments is a widespread difficulty for students, which faculty members admit (Wray and Houghton 2018). As in other countries, such as the United States (Gunersel and Etienne 2014), the pedagogical training of faculty members in Spain is not compulsory. Moreover, there are few disability-specific courses available, and faculty members usually do not request information from alternative sources, such as the support services for students with disabilities (Hanafin et al. 2007). As reported by Collins, Azmat, and Rentschler (2018), it is imperative to improve the processes of faculty training in inclusive pedagogical practices and disability. There are few studies focused on analysing the processes of faculty training in disability and inclusive education (Carballo, Morgado, and Cortés-Vega 2019; Cunningham 2013; Sowers and Smith 2004). The experiences carried out to date show that training has multiple benefits, such as the improvement of attitudes and sensitivity toward disability, an increased commitment to the inclusion of all students and the acquisition of knowledge about teaching methods and accessible materials design (Sowers and Smith 2004). In the field of students with disabilities in HE, most studies have focused on analysing the perspectives of students. On the other hand, the testimonies of faculty members reveal their perspectives about the difficulties they encounter when working with students with disabilities and allow understanding their attitudes toward this social group (Martins, Borges, and Gonçalves 2018). In this study, we present the opinions of a group of faculty members of Social Sciences and Law known for developing inclusive practices. We show the opinions of experienced faculty members about the key elements to achieve a real inclusion of students with disabilities in the university context, with the aim that they may serve as an example to other colleagues and institutions of HE. We present the profile of the ideal faculty member considering three previously analysed aspects: faculty training in disability, the importance of their relationship with their students, and the realisation of reasonable adjustments in their teaching and evaluation methods. 2. Method The results of this study are part of a larger research project entitled ‘Title omitted for the blind review’(2017–2020), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The aim of this project is to study what faculty members do to carry out inclusive pedagogy, and why and how they do it. The present article is focused on analysing the opinions and experiences of the participants about three key aspects in the development of an inclusive pedagogy. To this end, three research questions guided this analysis: .How important is faculty training for the teaching and learning process regarding students with disabilities? .How does the relationship with the students influence the teaching and learning process? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 307 .Which are the reasonable adjustments that faculty members make to ensure the participation of students with disabilities? 2.1. Participants A total of 119 faculty members from all fields of knowledge from 10 Spanish universities participated in this study. Of the total sample, 25 participants were from Social Sciences and Law, who carried out their teaching activities in seven different universities. To access the sample, two strategies were applied. On the one hand, students with disabilities were contacted through the disability support services of the participating universities. They were asked to collaborate in the study by recommending faculty members who had fostered their social and educational inclusion through inclusive practices. To that end, they were given a list of characteristics that these faculty members should have: they facilitate the learning process; promote an active learning; use a variety of methods; care about the learning of all students; they are flexible and help when a student is in need; motivate their students; promote group participation and learning; and make every student feel important. In addition, we used the ‘snowball’technique (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000). The collaboration request was directly sent to students with disabilities who participated in previous projects conducted by the research team, and also to colleagues who knew students with disabilities in different Spanish universities. The students who replied to the request sent the information about faculty members to the research team, explaining the reasons for their choices. Then, we contacted the proposed faculty members via e-mail or phone. Apart from receiving information about the objectives and methodology of the research, they were also informed that they had been recommended by their own students for being inclusive faculty members. We initially contacted 35 faculty members of Social Sciences and Law, of whom 10 decided not to participate in the study, stating that they either did not have enough time to conduct the interviews or were unavailable due to health issues. Regarding the profile of the participants, 15 of them taught in Faculties of Economics and Business, 5 in Faculties of Law, 3 in the field of Journalism and 2 in Social Work. With respect to gender, the sample was composed of 14 men and 11 women. Regarding age, 3 of them were under 40 years, 10 ranged between 41 and 50 years, and 12 were 51 or older. With respect to experience, only one participant had less than 5 years of university teaching experience, 6 of them had between 6 and 10 years of experience, 8 had between 11 and 20 years of experience and 10 had more than 20 years of experience. Regarding their experience with students with disabilities, all participants had had at least one student with a disability in their classrooms during some academic year. 2.2. Research instruments A qualitative research methodology was employed, using individual semi-structured interview as data gathering instrument. Two individual interviews were conducted with each participant (one focused on beliefs and knowledge about disability, and the other one focused on educational designs and actions). The average duration of the interviews was 90 min. Some of the questions that guided the interviews were the following: Do you believe it is necessary for faculty members to be trained in order to improve the learning of the students?; Do you think that the relationship 308 A. Aguirre et al. between the faculty member and the students is important?; How do you think this relationship influences the learning of the students?; What strategies do you carry out to foster the relationship with your students?; What do you think about the need to make adjustments in your subject for students with disabilities?; What kind of adjustments do you usually make for students with disabilities? The interviews were conducted individually by the members of the research team. Most of them were carried out face-to-face. In those cases, in which a participant was not available, the interview was performed via Skype or phone call. Of the 25 participants, 18 were interviewed face-to-face, 4 via phone call and 3 using Skype. All interviews were recorded in audio and transcribed verbatim for later analysis. 2.3. Data analysis A progressive structural analysis was conducted using a system of categories and codes that was generated inductively, following the proposal of Miles and Huberman (1994). This was carried out with the MaxQDA12 data analysis software. After categorising all the information, which was performed by work groups, the entire research team conducted a second categorisation. This joint analysis allowed organising the doubtful information. Table 1 shows the categories and codes used for the analysis of the information presented in the results section of this article. 2.4. Ethical issues Regarding the ethical matters of this study, the participants signed an informed consent report. This document contained information about how the information provided in the interviews would be treated. It also ensured the anonymity of their data, in compliance with Organic Law 3/2018 of Personal Data Protection, and guaranteed their digital rights. Through this informed consent document, we committed to removing and deleting the information of those participants who decided to terminate their participation in the project whenever they wanted. Table 1. Categories and codes system. Categories Codes Training in disability Importance Training opportunities Difficulties for training Training courses and programmes Collaborative work with colleagues Disability support services Faculty-students relationship Influence on the students Motivation for learning Communication skills Strategies to improve the relationship Reasonable adjustments Need Obligatory nature Resources Methodologies Evaluation Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 309 The research team gave a copy of the results report to each participant and allowed them to edit or delete any piece of information at their discretion. 3. Results The results are presented in three sections, which correspond to three key elements that the participants considered fundamental to attend to the diversity of their classrooms: pedagogical and disability training, faculty-students relationship, and reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. 3.1. Training in disability: is it an essential key for inclusion? An important aspect is the training that the participants had in disability issues. Although they were faculty members characterised by developing good inclusive practices, only 4 of the participants stated that they had received specific training. They had received this training from the universities where they worked. These were short courses on attendance to students with disabilities whose participation was always voluntary. Other faculty members commented that there was a lack of training opportunities, and that the lack of training was made up by goodwill, empathy and the help offered by the disability support services. The participants mentioned the fact that faculty training in Spain is not compulsory. They acknowledged that initial and on-site faculty training was essential, although they considered the university system as a barrier to the participation of faculty members in training courses. I think all training is fundamental. The problem is that the system does not favour our training. It is up to us to train in certain teaching areas. If we do not choose, or if our circumstances do not allow that, we do not get any training (faculty 23). A large number of the participants stated that pedagogical training is necessary, although it is neither required nor recognised as it should be in the professional access and promotion processes in the university context. In addition to the knowledge in their professional field, which they acquired through doctorate studies and research activity, they also confirmed that they had to train in order to know how to teach students. Therefore, they considered on-site training to be fundamental, even though it is not compulsory. With respect to training in attention to diversity, most participants commented that courses about this topic are very beneficial, although they are not very common among the courses offered by universities. Specifically, regarding attention to students with disabilities, they recommended that all faculty members should learn about the different types of disabilities, their educational needs and how to respond to them. It is very important for faculty members to be taught, at least at a basic level, about each type of disability. The aim is for faculty members to know how to attend to students with different disabilities, as there are considerable differences between these. For instance, a physical disability is totally different from a mental disability (faculty 4). The participants stated that, through these courses, they had acquired knowledge and strategies to attend to students with disabilities from an inclusive perspective. Moreover, they considered these experiences as spaces for group reflection and teamwork with other colleagues, from whom they also learned. Therefore, they valued the learning derived from 310 A. Aguirre et al. sharing experiences with other faculty members, as they learned about their situations and what strategies they used to respond to the requests of the students. I realised that, in the courses I took here at the university, I learned much more from what other colleagues tell, the problems they encounter and how they solve them (faculty 5). However, most participants did not have specific training in disability and they recognised the lack of such kind of training. They also agreed in recommending this training for those faculty members who do not have it, as they had to face unknown situations without the necessary knowledge. Although they were able to overcome the barriers through their interest and goodwill, talking to the students and seeking resources independently, they stated that these situations would be easier with the appropriate training and they could have acted with more confidence. In fact, although they learned to develop more inclusive methods and practices, they recognised that they must receive more training to do so even better. Although most participants had not participated in training courses, they also commented on different training alternatives other than courses and programmes. In this sense, collaborative learning with other faculty members was another training option positively valued by the participants. Another alternative mentioned was to request and receive counselling from the disability support services of each university whenever necessary. These services offered counselling on what to do to adjust methods, materials and evaluations to the characteristics of each student with disability. In the university, we have a specific service devoted to the attention to students with disabilities. It is a service that provides closeness, which makes things much easier for both students and the faculty. We can ask them anything we want; they are always available to discuss any situation (faculty 20). Lastly, the participants pointed out that they could ask external professionals for counselling when they did not know how to approach a situation. This was another source of information and counselling about teaching and communication strategies. One of the participants shared his experience in this regard, commenting on how helpful it was for him to receive professional counselling from an external expert. I think it is very important to work with other professionals, such as psychologists, pedagogues and even psychiatrists. In my case, the disabilities I attended to were more psychological and psychiatric than physical, and it helped a lot. I visited a psychologist to learn from him how to approach the situation. We talked many times about how to deal with the student’s episodes of crisis and euphoria (faculty 8). Although training and information about attending to students with disabilities was very important to all the faculty members, the ways to obtain these knowledge and strategies were varied, despite the common objective: the educational and social inclusion of students in the classroom, and their academic success. 3.2. What to do to achieve a good faculty-students relationship? The faculty-students relationship has a considerable impact on the teaching and learning process. The participants considered good attitude and accessibility as fundamental Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 311 characteristics, since these have a direct influence on the learning of the students. They considered that the relationship with students had to be based on closeness, respect and empathy. Even with a large number of students, the participants tried to learn all their names in order to address them more closely. In the specific case of students with disabilities, the participants knew that it was essential to offer them their support and be open to make all necessary changes and adjustments. I think that students benefit from faculty members who have a close attitude. I am always willing to support my students with whatever they need, as long as I obtain a positive response from them (faculty 8). Communication skills were another aspect pointed out by the participants, since they determine the perception of students toward faculty member. The participants considered that the way in which they communicate with their students has a direct impact on their levels of motivation for the subject. They stated that tensionless, peer-to-peer and friendly communication can make the students get more involved in their own learning. I think that motivation for a topic is strongly related to the communication skills of the faculty member. It is not only about verbal language, but also the way in which one talks. Communication is everything, and it has to be effective in order for the students to get involved in the subject (faculty 13). Regarding the methodology, with the aim of maintaining a constant bidirectional communication, the participants used strategies that allowed the participation of the students and granted them the leading role. These strategies included debates and cooperative work. In opposition to traditional master lectures carried out in university classrooms, these faculty members preferred to work in a practical and participatory manner. In addition to giving the students the chance to participate, they wanted the contents of the subject to be connected to professional reality. Thus, the students could see the utility of their learning, which greatly improved both their motivation and their perception toward the faculty member. When a faculty member is really interested in a subject, he/she makes sure that the knowledge reaches the students, who must acquire it and work with it. I try to get my students to participate actively in the generation of such knowledge, which must be useful to them. We have to go beyond the theoretical content and introduce practical content (faculty 1). Furthermore, the planning of the course, the methods, the activities and the evaluation systems were discussed and agreed upon with the students. Through these strategies, the students felt that their opinions were important, and they participated in the design of their own learning process. I think it is always important to take the opinion of the students into account when tackling the different topics. Exchanging points of view and making agreements with the students can shed light on certain aspects that may have not been considered (faculty 12). Lastly, in order to achieve a continuous communication and show themselves available to students outside of the classroom, the participants stated that they used different tools, such as tutorials. In this way, if a student needed something from the faculty member, he/she did not have to wait until the next lecture in order to speak with him/her. In the case of students 312 A. Aguirre et al. Claiborne, L. B., S. Cornforth, A. Gibson, and A. Smith. 2011.“Supporting Students with Impairments in Higher Education: Social Inclusion or Cold Comfort?”International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (5): 513–527. Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000.Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. London: Routledge/Falmer. Collins, A., F. Azmat, and R. Rentschler. 2018.“Bringing Everyone on the Same Journey’: Revisiting Inclusion in Higher Education.”Studies in Higher Education 44 (8): 1475–1487. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1450852. Cunningham, S. 2013.“Teaching a Diverse Student Body - A Proposed Tool for Lecturers to Self- Evaluate Their Approach to Inclusive Teaching.”Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 8 (1): 3–27. Davies, P. L., C. L. Schelly, and C. L. Spooner. 2013.“Measuring the Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning Intervention in Postsecondary Education.”Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 26 (3): 195–220. Dwyer, T. 2017.“Persistence in Higher Education Through Student–Faculty Interactions in the Classroom of a Commuter Institution.”Innovations in Education and Teaching International 54 (4): 325–334. doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1112297. Elbeheri, G., J. Everatt, F. Theofanides, A. Mahfoudhi, and K. Al Muhareb. 2018.“Attitudes of Academics to Special Needs Accommodations in Kuwait.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 24: 1035–1049. doi:10.1080/13603116.2018.1508517. Florian, L., and K. Black-Hawkins. 2011.“Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.”British Educational Research Journal 37 (5): 813–828. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096. Frank, H., M. McLinden, and G. Douglas. 2020.“Accessing the Curriculum; University Based Learning Experiences of Visually Impaired Physiotherapy Students.”Nurse Education in Practice 42: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2019.102620. Gorard, S., E. Smith, H. May, L. Thomas, N. Adnett, and K. Slack. 2006.Review of Widening Participation Research: Addressing the Barriers to Participation in Higher Education. Bristol: HEFCE. Gunersel, A. B., and M. Etienne. 2014.“The Impact of a Faculty Training Program on Teaching Conceptions and Strategies.”International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 26 (3): 404–413. Hanafin, J., M. Shevlin, M. Kenny, and E. Neela. 2007.“Including Young People with Disabilities: Assessment Challenges in Higher Education.”Higher Education 54: 435–448. doi:10.1007/ s10734-006-9005-9. Kendall, L. 2017.“Supporting Students with Disabilities Within a UK University: Lecturer Perspectives.”Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55 (6): 694–703. doi:10. 1080/14703297.2017.1299630. Kim, J., and C. Sellmaier. 2019.“Making Disability Visible in Social Work Education.”Journal of Social Work Education,1–12. doi:10.1080/10437797.2019.1661899. Kumar, K. L., and M. Wideman. 2014.“Accessible by Design: Applying UDL Principles in a First- Year Undergraduate Course.”The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 44 (1): 125–147. Mahtab, A., and M. M. Ahmad. 2011.“Do Public Representatives in Local Governments Know About “Disability Rights”in Pakistan? An Awareness Assessment Case From Southern Punjab.”Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 24 (4): 409–426. doi:10.1080/13511610.2011.633429. Martins, M. H., M. L. Borges, and T. Gonçalves. 2018.“Attitudes Towards Inclusion in Higher Education in a Portuguese University.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (5): 527–542. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1377299. Mayhew, L. 2003.“Disability–Global Trends and International Perspectives.”Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 16 (1): 3–28. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994.Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moriña, A. 2019.“The Keys to Learning for University Students with Disabilities: Motivation, Emotion and Faculty-Student Relationships.”PloS one 14 (5): 1–15. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0215249. Moriña, A., R. Lopez-Gavira, and V. M. Molina. 2014.“Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: A Biographical-narrative Approach to the Role of Lecturers.”Higher Education Research & Development 34 (1): 147–159. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934329. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 319 Moriña, A., V. M. Molina, and M. D. Cortes-Vega. 2018.“Voices From Spanish Students with Disabilities: Willpower and Effort to Survive University.”European Journal of Special Needs Education 33 (4): 481–494. doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1361138. Moriña, A., and I. Orozco. 2020.“Spanish Faculty Members Speak Out: Barriers and Aids for Students with Disabilities at University.”Disability & Society.doi:10.1080/09687599.2020. 1723495. Moriña, A., and V. H. Perera. 2018.“Inclusive Higher Education in Spain: Students with Disabilities Speak out.”Journal of Hispanic Higher Education.doi:10.1177/1538192718777360. Palmer, J., and A. Caputo. 2003.The Universal Instructional Design Implementation Guide. Guelph: University of Guelph: Teaching Support Services. Savvidou, C. 2011.“Exploring TeacherśNarratives of Inclusive Practice in Higher Education.” Teacher Development 15 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1080/13664530.2011.555224. Snijders, I., R. M. J. P. Rikers, L. Wijnia, and S. M. M. Loyens. 2018.“Relationship Quality Time: the Validation of a Relationship Quality Scale in Higher Education.”Higher Education Research and Development 37 (2): 404–417. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1355892. Sowers, J., and M. R. Smith. 2004.“Evaluation of the Effects of an Inservice Training Program on Nursing Faculty Members’Perceptions, Knowledge, and Concerns about Students with Disabilities.”Journal of Nursing Education 43: 248–252. Stein, K. F. 2014.“Experiences of College Students with Psychological Disabilities: The Impact of Perceptions of Faculty Characteristics on Academic Achievement.”International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 26 (1): 55–65. Thomas, L. 2016.“Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups.”In Widening Higher Education Participation. A Global Perspective, edited by M. Shah, A. Bennett, and E. Southgate, 135– 159. Oxford: Elsevier. UN. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goals [Knowledge platform]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/ transformingourworld. UNESCO. 2017.Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Education 2030. Paris: UNESCO. Vasek, D. 2005.“Assessing the Knowledge Base of Faculty at a Private, Four-Year Institution.” College Student Journal 39 (2): 307–315. Vickerman, P., and M. Blundell. 2010.“Hearing the Voices of Disabled Students in Higher Education.”Disability and Society 25 (1): 21–32. doi:10.1080/09687590903363290. Weis, R., E. L. Dean, and K. J. Osborne. 2016.“Accommodation Decision Making for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities”Journal of Learning Disabilities 49 (5): 484–498. doi:10. 1177/0022219414559648. Wray, M., and A. M. Houghton. 2018.“Implementing Disability Policy in Teaching and Learning Contexts –Shop Floor Constructivism or Street Level Bureaucracy?”Teaching in Higher Education 24: 510–526. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1491838. Yssel, N., N. Pak, and J. Beilke. 2016.“A Door Must Be Opened: Perceptions of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education.”International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 63 (3): 384–394. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2015.1123232. 320 A. Aguirre et al.