Creating, Resisting or Neglecting Change: Exploring the Complexities of Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities

Abstract

Recent teaching and learning scholarship has documented the importance of uncovering and removing barriers to learning experienced by students with disabilities (e.g., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). At the same time, in Ontario, new legislation is making this issue especially pronounced. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA, 2005), mandates universal access for persons with disabilities, requiring the removal of barriers to their full participation in all aspects of society, including higher education. This article reports on the first phase of a larger project designed to collect qualitative data about the effects of the AODA legislation on the teaching and learning environment at one University. Building on previous work that investigates students with disabilities' experiences of tertiary learning (e.g., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006), it reports on the results of semistructured interviews that explored the ways in which students with and without disabilities, instructors, administrators, and staff perceive the relative accessibility and inclusiveness of teaching and learning at this institution, with an eye to ultimately enhancing learning for all students.Results from this first phase suggest a number of areas in which both barriers to and facilitators of educational accessibility exist at the study University, including: attitudes; knowledge; disciplinary features; pedagogical choices; and, institutional practices. We suggest that these findings may be of relevance to others in different constituencies and contexts, and provide recommendations for enacting change related to teaching and learning accessibility and thereby improving the student learning experience.L'avancement récent des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage a permis de documenter l'importance de dévoiler et de surmonter les obstacles à l'apprentissage des étudiants ayant des incapacités (p. ex., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). En même temps, en Ontario, une nouvelle loi rend ce problème particulièrement évident. La Loi de 2005 sur l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées de l'Ontario (LAPHO, 2005), rend obligatoire l'accès universel pour ces personnes, ce qui nécessite l'élimination des obstacles à leur pleine participation à tous les aspects de la société, y compris à l'éducation supérieure. Le présent article traite de la première phase d'un grand projet visant à recueillir des données qualitatives sur les effets de la LAPHO sur le milieu d'enseignement et d'apprentissage dans une université. Les auteurs s'inspirent des études antérieures auprès des étudiants handicapés afin d'étudier leur expérience de l'apprentissage dans un établissement d 'enseignement supérieur (p. ex., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006). L'article rapporte les résultats d'entrevues semi-structurées concernant la perception qu'ont les étudiants handicapés, les autres étudiants, les professeurs, les administrateurs et le personnel de l'accessibilité relative et du caractère inclusif de l'enseignemen...

Moving Towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching: A Synthesis of Recent Literature

“…Other studies emphasize that all institutional actors are responsible for inclusion, pointing toward the need to develop a systemic culture of inclusivity (Moriña Díez, López Gavira, & Molina, 2015;Hughes, Corcoran, & Slee, 2015). Similarly, Marquis et al (2012;2016b) present evidence that resonates with the idea that movement towards positive change will require both 'top down' and 'bottom up' pressures, attention to departmental contexts, and a strong evidence base. Echoing points made by Hockings (2010), authors also emphasize the need for adequate and coordinated central services and supports (Hughes, Corcoran, & Slee, 2015;Marquis et al, 2012;2016b).…”

“…Similarly, Marquis et al (2012;2016b) present evidence that resonates with the idea that movement towards positive change will require both 'top down' and 'bottom up' pressures, attention to departmental contexts, and a strong evidence base. Echoing points made by Hockings (2010), authors also emphasize the need for adequate and coordinated central services and supports (Hughes, Corcoran, & Slee, 2015;Marquis et al, 2012;2016b). Bastiaens (2009), for example, advocates for institution-wide initiatives such as a diversity barometer to measure what is going on within institutions, integrated with resources, communities of practice involving different stakeholders (academic developers, professional staff, faculty), and shared knowledge.…”

“…This emphasis on flexibility and on students working with faculty to shape their distinctive assessment paths also underscores the important role of students as partners in inclusive learning communities. A sustained theme that emerged in both the current review and Hockings' work is the extent to which stakeholders, particularly faculty, worry that inclusive assessment practices may reduce academic standards and erode educational quality (Ashworth, Bloxham, & Pearce, 2010;Marquis et al, 2012;Marquis et al, 2016b). As Ashworth, Bloxham, and Pearce (2010) note, even faculty who value inclusion struggle to reconcile their desire to teach inclusively with their existing standards and practices.…”

“…Moreover, consideration must also be given to the ways in which group work might create a context in which pre-existing prejudices and attitudinal barriers can present particularly strongly (Marquis et al, 2012). With this in mind, these findings might also be taken to indicate the importance of moving beyond surface considerations of inclusive and equitable pedagogical techniques used by individual educators to refocus attention on the larger social, cultural, and institutional structures within which pedagogical choices are deployed (McArthur, 2010).…”

Five Windows and a Locked Door: University Accommodation Responses to Students with Anxiety Disorders

“…The general professorial disinterest in learning more about teaching students with disabilities is a troubling finding, as faculty training is one of the main predictors of attitudes toward students with disabilities (Leyser & Greenberger, 2008), which in turn affects success for these students (Rao, 2004). While studies show that some professors hold positive attitudes about making accommodations for students with disabilities (Bruder & Magro-Wilson, 2010;Marquis et al, 2012), seven percent of professors view making the accommodations as time-consuming and inconvenient (Bruder & Magro-Wilson, 2010), and some administrators, professors, and staff members in a study by Marquis et al (2012) believed that the benefits of accommodation did not outweigh the time and effort expended.…”