Making University Classrooms More Inclusive: The Key Importance Of Faculty Training

Author(s):

Víctor M. Molina(presenting / submitting)Anabel Moriña Noelia Melero Víctor Hugo Perera

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 07 C, Student Diversity and Inclusion

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-J104

Chair:

Tamás Kozma

Contribution

Abstract

Adequate policies for faculty training in diversity continue to be pending on the agendas of many universities. This paper presents the recommendations of 44 university students with disabilities not only for adequate faculty training, but also on informing them on both matters of the disability itself and how to respond to the needs derived from it. A biographical narrative methodology was used and the university-life histories of the students were compiled.

Theoretical Framework

Moving toward a university model based on the principles of inclusive education is a challenge for higher education (HE). Only one decade ago, the reality in classrooms was much different than today. The explanation for this change cannot be sought only in terms of differences in today’s students, but also in the transformations that have taken place in the classroom. Furthermore, a first glance attracts attention to an obviously more diversified student body. In fact, it is a proven reality that the number of university students with disabilities is slowly increasing (Debram & Salzberg, 2005).

This increase in students with disabilities in university classrooms has doubtlessly been influenced by declarations and regulations passed over the last years. In 1998, the UNESCO World Declaration on HE, underscored the right of every person to an education and equal rights of access to higher studies for all, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) stated that persons with disabilities must be ensured access to HE, professional training, adult education and life-long learning.

However, the existence of such declarations and legislation are not enough to guarantee the right of these students to an education based on the principles of inclusive education. In this sense, many authors (Fuller, Bradley & Healey, 2004; Tomlinson 1996), claim the need for HE to be inclusive, and its responsibility for responding to the needs of the entire student body. A substantial number of discourses have arisen around this subject, and in this context, it is recommended that the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) is the best way to respond to student needs.

A line of research which studies the barriers and aids that students with disabilities come up against in HE emerged at the end of the nineties, and has gradually been consolidating (Fuller, Bradley, & Healy, 2004; Moriña, López, & Molina, 2014; Shevlin, Kenny, & Mcneela, 2004). All these studies coincide in condemning the continual barriers they must confront, whether in the macro-institutional environment (inaccessible buildings and virtual environments, unending bureaucracy, unapplied regulations, etc.) or in the classroom environment (negative attitudes and uninformed faculty members, strict, non-inclusive curricula, etc.).

Many studies reviewed conclude that many staff has not been sufficiently sensitive or have shown a complete lack of training in how to handle disability in the classroom (Moswela & Mukhopahdyay, 2011). This is an especially important point, as some of the key factors to success of students with disabilities include knowing the professors, and professors’ attitudes or willingness to adapt curricula (Burgstahler, 2005).

These studies likewise reflect the need for training and informing faculty members in matters referring to disability. In fact, most of the studies done to date on HE and students with disabilities have reached the same conclusion.

Therefore, faculty members must be made aware and have an opportunity for training to understand the advantages of inclusion. As Hurst (2006) says, training in disability should be obligatory for the entire staff.

Finally, it is fundamental to consider the use of the new technologies inside and outside of the classroom to favor inclusion of students with disabilities (Pearson & Koppi, 2006).

Method

The results pertain to a wider study which was carried out by a multi-disciplinary research team of professors from different branches of knowledge (Education, Economics, Health and Experimental Sciences). The specific goals which were pursued were to identify, describe and explain the barriers and aids to access, trajectory and results perceived by students with disabilities in the university as an institution as well as in university classrooms. The research was based on a biographical-narrative methodology. Through it, it was attempted to make students with disabilities heard. It has been previously concluded that this type of methodology emphasizes the importance of people talking about themselves, without repressing their subjectivity. Therefore, as a methodology for research, it is most suitable for listening to the voices of groups such as students who could be suffering from discrimination. Specifically, the research was designed in two stages. 44 students participated in the first. Several different discussion groups were held (at least one in each of the five fields of knowledge) and individual interviews. In the second, in-depth life histories were constructed for 16 of the participants. Some of the instruments used for collecting data employed in these histories were the in-depth interview, photographs and lifeline. This paper concentrates on the recommendations that university students with disabilities made for faculty training. Data were collected during three years. The general sample profile was 19 to 59 years of age with a mean of 30.5. 25% of them were in the first year of their degree studies, 16% in the second, 25% in the third, 14% in the fourth and 9% in the fifth. The remaining were studying for a master’s degree. 63% of the students had been at the university from one to five years, while the other 37% had been studying for over five years. 14% of the students had been at the university for ten years or more. Finally, 38% of the students had physical disabilities, 15% psychological disabilities, 36% sensorial disabilities and 11% had difficulties associated with some organic problem. Data analysis was done from a double perspective. On one hand, for each history, a narrative analysis as proposed by Goodley, Lawthom, Clough, and Moore (2004) was done. On the other, a structural analysis was done for comparative analysis of all the information collected, using a system of categories and codes, as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) with the MaxQDA10 data analysis program.

Expected Outcomes

For education and learning to become inclusive, the students with disabilities in this study recommended that their professors be informed and trained, both in matters concerning disability itself and in how to respond to the needs derived from it. They also think they should be trained in the new technologies. These proposals for improvement are related to the barriers they find in the classroom, in some cases with regard to a negative attitude by faculty members in dealing with the needs associated with their disabilities. In many others, this situation is related to training, as they think the faculty is unprepared or does not know what to do in certain situations in which the student requires curriculum adaptation. It is also significant that among the suggestions proposed by these students, there are no differences based on the type of disability or by what they are studying. The students in this study go beyond this and what this training would have to be like. In the first place, before faculty members can be informed or trained, they have to be made aware of the reality lived in the classroom. In the second place, the university should not only provide training, but also inform them of the number of students with disabilities, the legislation that has been developed to guarantee their inclusion, their rights, etc. And in the third place, give them the training they need. Finally, it is indispensable not only to support training in disability, which is practically nonexistent at this university, but also in the use of the new technologies. In conclusion, through the use of the biographical-narrative methodology, we have been able to discover from the voices of the students with disabilities themselves that they require a more and better informed faculty to adequately deal with their needs

References

Burgstahler, S. (2005). Accommodating students with disabilities: Resources for faculty instructional and organizational development professional development needs of faculty. To Improve the Academy, 21, pp.179-195. Debram, C. C., and & Salzberg, C. H. (2005). A validated curriculum to provide training to faculty regarding students with disabilities in Higher Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18 (1), pp. 49-62. Fuller, M., Bradley, A., and & Healey, M. (2004) Incorporating disabled students within an inclusive higher education environment. Disability & Society, 19 (5), pp.455-468. DOI: 10.1080/0968759042000235307 Goodley, D. Lawthom, R. Clough, P., and & Moore, M. 2004. Researching life stories. London: Routledge. Hurst, A. (2006). Disability and maistreaming continuing profesional development in higher education. En M. Adams and & S. Brown (Eds.), Towards inclusive learning in higher education (pp.56-66). London: Routledge. Miles, M.B., and & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. CA, USA: Sage Publications. Moriña, A., López, R., and & Molina, V. 2015. 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 Moswela, E., and & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011). Asking for too much? The voices of students with disabilities in Botswana. Disability & Society, 26, pp.307-319. DOI:10.1080/09687599.2011.560414. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Pearson, E., and & Koppi, T. (2006). Supporting staff in developing inclusive online learning. En M. Adams & S. Brown (Eds.)., Towards inclusive learning in higher education (pp.56-66). London: Routledge. Shevlin, M., Kenny, M., and & Mcneela, E. (2004). Participation in higher education for students with disabilities: an Irish perspective. Disability & Society, 19, 15-30. DOI:10.1080/0968759032000155604. Tomlinson, J. (1996). The Tomlinson report—inclusive learning. Further Education Funding Council Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee (FEFCE). Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15072/1/inclusive%20learning-summary.pdf United Nations (UN) (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

Author Information

Víctor M. Molina (presenting / submitting)

University of Seville

CIF: Q-4118001-I

Sevilla

Anabel Moriña

University of Seville, Spain

Noelia Melero

University of Seville, Spain

Víctor Hugo Perera

University of Seville, Spain

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for