Hidden voices in higher education: inclusive policies and practices in social science and law classrooms

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20 International Journal of Inclusive Education ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20 Hidden voices in higher education: inclusive policies and practices in social science and law classrooms Rosario López Gavira & Anabel Moriña To cite this article: Rosario López Gavira & Anabel Moriña (2015) Hidden voices in higher education: inclusive policies and practices in social science and law classrooms, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:4, 365-378, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.935812 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.935812 Published online: 15 Jul 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1435 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 10 View citing articles Hidden voices in higher education: inclusive policies and practices in social science and law classrooms Rosario Lo´pez Gavira a and Anabel Morin ˜a b ∗ a Department of Accounting and Finance, School of Economics and Business, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; b Department of Teaching and Educational Organization, School of Education, University of Seville, Seville, Spain (Received 4 September 2013; accepted 11 June 2014) This paper pertains to a broader biographical-narrative research project which studies barriers and support as identified by students with disabilities at a Spanish University (Barriers and Support That Disabled Students Identify in the University. Project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Dir. Dr Anabel Morin ˜a; Ref. EDU 2010–16264, 2010–2014)). The present study focuses specifically on barriers and support identified by students with disabilities enrolled in undergraduate programmes in the Social Sciences and Law. The purpose of this paper is to analyse, from the point of view of disabled students (applying the biographic-narrative methodology), which barriers and which support this group encounters in Higher Education. To this end, findings are organised in the following categories: general institutional data; infrastructure, architectural and accessibility-related data; faculty and teachingrelated data; data relating to fellow students; and suggestions for improving the university and/or university classrooms. In the Conclusions section, we return to our earlier discussion of key findings which shed some light on how the University helps or hinders learning among participants in the study. From this perspective, taking as a reference the social model of disability, we conclude that in order to be inclusive, the University needs to commit itself to adopting proactive measures that eliminate the barriers that do not permit the learning and the full participation of the students in question. Keywords: inclusive education; disability; barriers; support; higher education; social sciences and law 1. Introduction Inclusive education at the University has been advancing as a movement that challenges any and all situations of exclusion. A growing number of voices are calling for higher education (HE) environments in which all students can learn, participate and develop a sense of belonging (Barnes 2007; Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004; Hurst 1996; Morin ˜a, Cortes, and Melero 2014; Moswela and Mukhopadhyay 2011). From this standpoint, students with disabilities represent an opportunity for HE institutions to review and revise inclusive practices and policies. If we consider the statistics, the reality of the situation is that – in many countries – the number of students with disabilities is growing steadily. Several underlying factors #2014 Taylor & Francis ∗Corresponding author. Email: anabe[email protected] International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015 Vol. 19, No. 4, 365–378, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.935812 explaining this trend include the growing body of norms and regulations recognising disability rights, deployment of inclusive educational practices, new, accessible technologies (Hockings, Brett, and Terentjevs 2012), new university services, initiatives designed to provide support for educational needs, and so on. In this sense, since the 1990s there has been growing emphasis on the need for inclusive policy and praxis in HE. Yet, as findings from a range of studies in different international contexts demonstrate, students with disabilities do not always have a positive HE experience; the university system is, in fact, among the least inclusive environments in terms of access and long-term success (Fuller, Bradley, and Healy 2004; Holloway 2001; Hopkins 2011; Mullins and Preyde 2013; Nielsen 2001; Prowse 2009; Riddel and Weedon 2014; Shevlin, Kenny, and McNeela 2004). As these studies point out, students with disabilities, in practice, face significant barriers to participation and learning opportunities – despite the existing anti-discrimination laws. In the case of Spain, provisions for students with disabilities are laid out in Organic Law 4/2007 for Universities (Ley Orga ´nica de Universidades 4/2007), which establishes that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination must be ensured and that university environments (buildings, grounds and facilities) must be accessible. At the local level, the University that has been the host institution for the present study has approved by laws regulating academic considerations affecting students with disabilities, including the need for curricular adaptations on the part of lecturers and zero-cost tuition for first-time and subsequent enrolment (Agreement 8/ CG 9-12-08, 12 January 2009). That said, while it is true that Higher Education may provide an opportunity for students to participate more fully in society, a considerable body of literature identifies significant barriers hampering participation, progress and success among students with disabilities. These obstacles are mainly attitudinal, structural and resource-related (Moswela and Mukhopadhyay 2011). Participation in HE environments can be limited by inaccessible curricula, negative attitudes among faculty and staff, and architectural barriers (Ferni and Henning 2006; Oliver and Barnes 2010). Moreover, students with disabilities face additional hurdles and challenges that become more manifest the more they struggle to succeed in their quest for a college education, as Adams and Holland (2006) explain. These barriers are reinforced by a society where, despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws, full inclusion is far from being a reality (Slee 2013). In fact, although some research has identified actions that favour the inclusion of students with disabilities – as an example, the creation of student support offices at most universities (Hanafin et al. 2007) – in most cases, such initiatives depend upon the attitudes and good will of the staff rather than institutional policies (Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004). On the other hand, these studies usually identify obstacles that work as solid hindrances in university careers. In some cases, it is even a determining factor for students to abandon their studies. In general, some of the studies reviewed conclude that when it comes to the inclusion of people with disabilities, it appears on paper but in practice, it is rarely applied. According to the social model of disability, it is precisely the society – and in this case, the university – that erects the hurdles hampering inclusion (Oliver 1990). In this sense, teaching and learning praxis, in and of itself, can be a barrier to learning for students with disabilities (Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004; Powell 2003). While the medical model sees disability as an ‘individualized problem’ (Armstrong and Barton 1999, 212), the social model, in contrast, does not approach disability as a personal 366 R. Lo ´pez Gavira and A. Morin˜a tragedy, an abnormality, a disease needing a cure – but rather as a catalyst for discrimination and oppression (Barton 1998). From this perspective, the need arises to restructure educational environments with a view to empower all students to participate (Oliver 1990). In keeping with the social model, universities should avoid using medical labels to identify learning needs and develop inclusive teaching strategies and a daily praxis of inclusion instead (Matthews 2009). For the purposes of this study, then, support and barriers are linked, conceptually, to the social model of disability (Baron, Phillips, and Stalker 1996). In this sense, we understand ‘support’ as a set of factors (effective strategies, positive attitudes, relationships, etc.) which contribute towards social and educational inclusion of students in HE classrooms. Barriers, on the contrary, are factors which impede inclusion, hinder learning, and limit membership and active participation on equal terms. As Messiou (2006) explains, an individual may experience exclusion, for example, when he or she cannot access the curriculum, is not offered opportunities to participate, is rejected by peers or even denied the right to social interaction, or when his or her skills and abilities are not valued. Barriers, argue Ainscow and Miles (2009), can also refer to how access, participation and overall learning experience can be hampered, for some students, by inappropriate teaching methods or a lack of resources, need-specific programmes and expertise. The literature recognises that all excluded students – including students with disabilities – can be classified as ‘lost voices’. A number of studies have explored student perspectives and experiences in different educational stages (BeauchampPryor 2012; Hopkins 2011; Stevens 2009). Other studies make the case that people who experience exclusion – when listened to – can provide valuable feedback which can provide relevant information regarding inclusive education (Corbett and Slee 2000; Tangen 2008). The general consensus is that people who experience exclusion should play a key role since their unique perspective is an asset when it comes to constructing inclusion. Taking the personal history of students participating in this study as our point of reference, we may reflect upon how the range of attitudes, practices and behaviours disabled students face in classroom and other university settings have an impact on their academic trajectory. These voices also inform us when formulating a series of proposals aimed at making inclusive higher education a reality. 2. Methodology The findings presented here fall within the broader 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. Conducted by a team of faculty from a variety of departments and disciplines (Education, Economics, Health Sciences and Experimental Sciences), this ongoing study (2009–2014) aims, primarily, to examine barriers and support identified by disabled university students themselves as affecting access, their academic trajectory and overall performance. The three key objectives were: (1) Identify, describe and explain barriers and support that students with disabilities perceive as impacting access, academic trajectory and overall performance at the university, as an institution. International Journal of Inclusive Education 367 (2) Identify, describe and explain barriers and support that students with disabilities experience in HE classroom environments. (3) Design an online faculty training guide with a view to better provide for the unique educational needs of disabled students. To this end, we took a biographical-narrative approach and conducted our research in two phases. Phase 1 comprised two stages. In the first stage, a series of discussion groups (at least one group per each of the five fields of study 1 ), and individual oral/written interviews were carried out with a total of 44 students. In the second stage, mini-life histories were recorded for 16 of the first-stage participants. These histories are thematic in nature as we focused on a specific life period: the university experience. Three data collection instruments were employed: lifelines, focused interviews and self-reports. In Phase 2 of research – currently underway – the life histories of eight students who participated in the second stage of Phase 1 phase were taken up again in order to carry out what, in biographical-narrative methodology, is known as in-depth life histories 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 on. The final phase of the study, still under work, will culminate in a proposal for an online faculty training guide on responding to diversity. This paper focuses on Phase 1 of the project (realised in the academic years of 2009/ 2010 and 2010/2011) and, more specifically, on the second research objective: understanding barriers and support impacting the Social Sciences and Law classroom environment. The study population included students with disabilities enrolled at the University during the 2009/2010 academic year. At the time, there were a total of 445 students with disabilities enrolled, out of a total student population of 72,358 (0.6%). A total of 44 students participated in the project, 8 of whom were enrolled in degrees in the field of study we focus on in this paper: Law (two), Business Sciences (two), Economics (one), Business Management (two) and Employment Sciences/ Labour Sciences (one). With regard to year of study, the breakdown was as follows: first-year (one), second-year (one), third-year (three), fourth-year (two) and fifth-year (one). The average number of years at university thus far was five years. It is worth noting that several students had been at university as long as seven–nine years already. With regard to type of disability, four students had a sensory disability: sight-related (three); hearing-related (one); two students had general physical disability; and two students had specific psychical disability. Finally, a comparative analysis of data from this phase of the research involving all participants and research techniques employed is carried out using MaxQDA10 data analysis software and a system of categories and codes, as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). 3. Findings The findings presented here shed light on barriers and support students perceive both in university classrooms and in the broader arena of the university, as an institution (libraries, buildings, facilities, etc.). 3.1. The role of the university as an institution In this section we present our analysis of the university experience, in the broad sense of the term. The objective is to study institutional barriers and support which impact rules 368 R. Lo ´pez Gavira and A. Morin˜a and regulations, access to information, campus architecture and infrastructure accessibility, disabled student services (DSS), and so on, as identified by the students themselves. Finally, we take a closer look at what the ideal university would be like for these students. 3.1.1. A university which makes room for students with disabilities? Generally speaking, study participants identified a significant number of positive aspects when asked to reflect on the university as an institution. However, a series of areas where improvement was needed were identified as well. Overall, the barriers outnumbered the instances of support mentioned in every case. With regard to the initial stages of the university experience, participants identified a range of hurdles disabled students were faced with from the outset. One student, RSE8, 2 for example, pointed out that no guidance was offered to help students with disabilities understand university structures, how the university operates, and so on. This participant underscored the general lack of knowledge regarding disabled students at the university and suggested the need to warn them of this reality as early as possible. Another obstacle, according to participants, was the fact that there was very little information out there regarding the individual situation of disabled university students. Several participants also identified bureaucratic hurdles (paperwork required for scholarships and other financial aid, for example), which they faced throughout their university experience. On another front – policies providing support for students with disabilities at the university – there appeared to be a vast gap between policy and practice. The general consensus was that, on paper, the university was all promises and good intentions; the reality, however, was a very different story. RSE3: The University is designed very well; organically it is almost perfect, organically speaking. Another story is when people apply the rules and regulations, in practice. But the rules and regulations, in theory, are in good shape ... and any issue you can think of, there’s the university website that takes you to online learning, takes you to accessibility ... almost perfect in that sense. Another thing is when you put those charts and policies into practice, that’s when things fall apart. On the issue of international mobility, a lack of coordination with university support centres in the host country was identified as problematic. Students spoke of how difficult it was to actually take the step to study abroad and expressed a desire for more information from their home institution regarding resources available to students with disabilities at the host university. Study participants also gave examples of support they have received throughout their university experience. Virtually all of the students we interviewed had had access to some sort of support; and, across the board, free tuition – allowing these students to continue on at the university – was the most frequently mentioned. New technologies were highly valued as well, as tools which fostered integration and helped disabled students adapt to higher education and university life. One visually impaired student spoke of the special importance online access to information and course materials had for his education. RSE8: Good things ... well, e-mail and university online ... that they keep sending you e-mails is very important because it makes you fully accessible. The e-zines they send International Journal of Inclusive Education 369 you, it’s all fully accessible, which means you can actually access the information. Now it’s you who decides ... I’m not interested in this e-mail so I’ll delete it, I won’t even bother to read it ... but if I want to inform or be informed ... I get constant e-mails from the university informing me about everything that’s going on. Finally, participants in our study valued interaction with non-faculty university personnel and highlight widespread goodwill and readiness to meet their needs among this sector. 3.1.2. Do DSS promote inclusion? Virtually all of the participants in this study made some mention of the support they had received throughout their university experience thus far. Help from student aides, 3 for example, was highly valued across the board. DSS – or SAD (Servicio para el Alumnado con Discapacidad; Service to Students with Disabilities), as the service is known at this University – was seen as providing essential support for the disabled student community as well. Several students also expressed their satisfaction with how DSS has helped them overcome daily obstacles such as access to parking, self-copying carbonless notebooks and larger screens for visually impaired students. That said, while DSS is generally seen as being supportive, participants made a point of mentioning a number of barriers that they had encountered and also pointed out areas where improvement was needed. Several students expressed the opinion that DSS should get behind creating specific spaces for disabled students on the different university campuses. Another petition was for the service to be more proactive when it came to getting the word out about the support they provided – especially among incoming first-year students. Finally, study participants had nothing but praise for the support provided by organisations outside the university, such as the ONCE, 4 Spain’s national organisation for the blind. 3.1.3. Architectural barriers at the university? Participants in our study pointed out that the university was plagued with architectural and structural barriers affecting access to classrooms and facilities – and agreed that there was much need for improvement in this area. Among other examples, students highlighted too many stairs and an almost total lack of ramps. It should be noted that accessibility was a problem even in the case of modern campuses, such as the School of Labour Studies, which despite having been built in recent years were not designed with people with disabilities in mind. Barriers due to inappropriate or inadequate signage were reported as well. Trouble areas included: signs in university copy centres, grade postings on department bulletin boards, general information screens and displays, classroom identification signs, contrast on signs throughout the university, and so on. Yet another area of concern was classroom acoustics. It is worth noting that, while the student who initially reported the problem had a hearing impairment, various other students who did not share this disability mentioned poor acoustics as a barrier as well. Finally, a significant number of other physical barriers affecting classroom space were identified – for the most part relating to cramped classroom layout, poor lighting, 370 R. Lo ´pez Gavira and A. Morin˜a inappropriate or inadequate classroom furniture, and so on. The lack of specific spaces for students with disabilities was of special concern. 3.1.4. Dreaming of the perfect university In this section, the students shared their thoughts on what their perfect university would be like. One of the early proposals was the creation of specific spaces on each campus where students with disabilities could share experiences, participate in sports activities, and so on. Such spaces would foster coexistence among students with disabilities while providing the opportunity for social interaction and mutual enrichment. New, stronger, working relationships with partner institutions would be needed as well. A great deal of value was placed on collaboration between the university and organisations such as the ONCE, aimed at providing support, increasing accessibility and creating opportunity for students with disabilities. More opportunities for practical engagement and obligatory internships were another common demand. To this end, students mentioned the desirability of working towards agreements aimed at adapting the workplace to people with disabilities. RSE5: One of the weak areas at the university is practical engagement ... internships, should be required, not optional. It has to be obligatory, so when you go out into the real world you have some real experience, right? Not just go out there full of theory ... because what they’re really looking for out there, apart from a degree, is real-life experience. Another petition was that disabled students be provided with more guidance and training – at the start of their university experience – as to university structure and operation as well as regarding the resources, support and opportunities available to them. Study participants also highlighted the importance of more personalised services, taking each case, each set of needs into account. They noted that sometimes disabled students were not given the individual attention they deserved. The university should adapt to the students rather than asking students to adapt to the university. Finally, several students emphasised the need to invest more resources in improving infrastructures, buildings and classrooms, reducing the number of students per class, hiring and training faculty, and creating spaces for students with disabilities, among other improvements. 3.2. Is there room for disabled students in university classrooms? In this section, we analyse university classroom environments as experienced by disabled students in Social Sciences and Law degrees. Analysis is divided into three subsections: teaching/learning processes and the role of the lecturers; peers and classmates; and recipes for the perfect classroom. 3.2.1. Building bridges or raising walls? Lecturers took centre stage in the experiences narrated by the students in our study. While in certain cases faculty were seen as a source of support, for the vast majority of students, they were associated with barriers; so much so that the most commonly mentioned barrier was the fact that lecturers failed to adapt their classes to include International Journal of Inclusive Education 371 disabled students. The students considered that faculty should take their needs into account and not treat them as if they did not have disabilities to deal with. RSE1: Some lecturers see you there and don’t even say anything to you, they aren’t concerned at all. They treat you like any other student, and I don’t think it should be like that. You aren’t just another student, you have special needs and the lecturers should realize that. One of the most commonly cited problems was overuse of outdated teaching strategies, that is, traditional lecturing, on the part of faculty. Many of these students rejected this methodology in a generalised manner, questioning what is learned in this way. The students believed that the use of this methodology was due to the concerns on the part of the lecturers to finish the syllabus, with no place for a methodological approach other than the raw expository. The students reflected about what they learned with this methodology and they said, ‘ ... it is explained, it is studied for the examination, the examination is taken and then, have I really learned anything?’ Study participants also perceived the fact that some lecturers showed little or no interest in teaching motivating, participatory classes – or in teaching at all, for that matter – as clearly negative. It is important to point out here, however, that, on the whole, the problems students with disabilities identified and talked about were not directly related to their disability; they were common to any other student, as they had to do with teaching methodologies and lecturers’ varying ability to transmit their knowledge. One recurring complaint involved what was perceived as poor or even negligent use of tools like PowerPoint. Students reported that many lecturers simply went from one slide to the next, reading verbatim without giving any added explanations or clarifications. Information received in this way was perceived as being insufficient. This was especially problematic for students with certain types of disabilities – visual and auditory impairment, for example – as they found it impossible to retain all of the information they were being given. Another concern, as RSE1 pointed out, were those courses in which attendance was weighted highly, as this may be a disadvantage for students with disabilities who found it necessary to miss class for long periods of time. Yet another problem area was the numerous exam-related barriers that disabled students had to face. The students we interviewed spoke first-hand of hurdles such as being denied enough time to take exams, not having access to exams adapted to their disability, and so on. In some cases students went to the extreme of temporarily abandoning the course and waiting, in the hope that a more disability-friendly lecturer would be assigned to teach the subject. Another clear barrier with respect to faculty was the use of new technologies – considered crucial to accessibility and inclusion. All too often it seemed lecturers failed to make use of the new technologies in the classroom. The students we interviewed believed that this was due to a closed-minded attitude and general lack of training among faculty. In relation to the above, some participants said they believed that the basic problem was the lack of lecturer training for the disabled. Thus they considered that it was important that lecturers were trained, but also recognised it as a difficulty, as it would be complicated to meet any form of disability. In short, they said lecturer training on disability in a more general way would be possible. Moreover, they thought that – 372 R. Lo ´pez Gavira and A. Morin˜a