"Inclusive University Classrooms: the Importance of Faculty Training"
Author(s):
M Dolores Cortés- Vega (presenting / submitting) Beatriz Morgado Rosario López-Gavira Rafael Carballo Almudena Cotán Fernández
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
22. Research in Higher Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 11 C,

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
17:15-18:45
Room:
K5.09
Chair:
Serap Emil

Contribution

In 1998, the UNESCO World Declaration on Higher Education, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (WHO, 1948), forged a new vision of higher education, which underscores the right of every person to an education and equal rights of access to higher studies for all. Fuerthemore, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) stated that persons with disabilities must be ensured access to higher education, professional training, adult education and life-long learning.

In Spain, Organic Law 4/2007 on universities had already referred to the inclusion of persons with disabilities at universities. It also included the obligation for university environments to be accessible, and inclusion of the principles of universal accessibility and respect for all in plans of study.

The number of university students with disabilities is increasing (Debram & Salzberg, 2005). In this sense, universities should be inclusive and respond to the needs of the entire student body. Ferni and Henning (2006) explain that participation in educational environments is restricted by inaccessible curricula, negative attitudes of faculty and physical barriers. The social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) poses the need for restructuring these environments in such a way that the entire student body can participate and learn in them.

Many studies have been developed and highlighted that students with disabilities have to cope with continuing barriers, whether in the macro-institutional environment (inaccessible buildings and virtual environments, unending administrative bureaucracy, unapplied regulations, etc.) or in the micro-institutional classroom environment (negative attitudes and uniformed faculty members, strict, non-inclusive curricula, absence of adjustments, etc.) (Moriña, López, & Molina, 2014). In this sense,  students with an invisible disability, many often prefer not to reveal their disability because they are perceived negatively by others (Riddell & Weedon, 2014). This is worrying because although in some cases, faculty members have helped the student and shown a positive attitude, many faculty has not been sufficiently sensitive or has shown a complete lack of training in how to attend these students in the classroom  (Moswela & Mukhopahdyay, 2011). This is important, and some of the key factors to success of students with disabilities include knowing the professors, and professors’ attitudes or willingness to adapt curricula (Leyser, Greenberger, Sharoni, & Vogel, 2011). Hadjikakou and Hartas (2008), mention that most faculty members have neither training nor previous experience in the subject of disability. In this sense, it is necessary to train and inform faculty members in matters referring to disability.

The main objective of this paper is to identity, describe and explain barriers and aids related to faculty that students with disabilities experience in classroom.

 

Method

Participants Forty-four students with some type of disability participated in this study. All of them were contacted during the 2009/2010 academic year though the University of Seville Office for Students with Disabilities. During that specific academic year, there were 445 students registered at the University with a disability. Data Collection The research is based on a biographical-narrative methodology. Through 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. Data was collected during a three-year period and focused upon elaborating about their life histories. The instruments used varied, including group and individual interviews, lifelines, self-reporting, photographs, a day in their lives and interviews with key people in the lives of each student (Frank, 2011). Data Analysis Data analysis was performed from two perspectives. On the one hand, to draft each history, a narrative analysis was carried out, as proposed by Goodley, Lawthom, Clough, & Moore (2004). On the other hand, for the comparative analysis of all information collected from all the various techniques and participants, a structural analysis was performed (Riessman, 2008), using a system of categories and codes based on Miles and Huberman's (1994) proposals. MaxQDA10 software was used to analyze all data. Ethical Considerations All participants provided informed, written consent to participate in the study. Participants were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of all information provided. All participants were informed that they were free to withdraw at any point in the study, in which case, their data would not be taken into consideration for the analysis and all information would be eliminated. Another aspect that was contemplated referred to their co-participation in the research process. All students were invited to participate in the decision-making of the actual research process. Thus, they all participated in the design of the instruments used to collect the data and in the analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings There are four essential improvement proposals that would contribute to creating the ideal university classroom. These are accessible architecture for all, participative methodologies and the use of various technological resources, positive attitudes towards disability on behalf of the faculty and specific faculty training in disability awareness and new technologies. The results obtained highlight the fact that on many an occasion, the faculty fails to adequately attend the diversity found in the classroom, due to a lack of specific, awareness training. Currently, there are proposals to train the faculty in disability concerns (for example: Debran, & Salzberg 2005; Healey, Jenkins, Leach, & Roberts, 2001; Teachability, 2002), but more must be contemplated and sufficient resources supplied to develop such programs. In the future, it would be extremely interesting for universities to consider these proposals and design training programs similar to those described in this work. Additionally, for these students, it is vital that emphasis be placed on disability training—all but inexistent at the university studied—and in the use of new technologies. Nevertheless, it must be stated that at the University of Seville, major efforts and advances have been made. However, in keeping with the results presented in this article, it is essential to analyze how these efforts have been developed, what mechanisms have failed, who has benefited from such training and assess whether or not the training received has been put to use. Lastly, if Higher Education honestly strives to be a reference of excellence, it is decisive that policies based on an inclusive educational model be implemented. The same holds true for the construction of a university where its maximum goal is quality learning, the feeling of belonging and the participation of all students.

References

Debram, C. C., & 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), 49-62. Frank, A. W. (2011). Practicing Dialogical Narrative Analysis. En J.A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Varieties of narrative analysis (pp. 33-52). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Ferni, T., & Henning, M. (2006). From a disabling world to a new vision. En M. Adams and S. Brown (Eds.), Towards inclusive learning in higher education, pp.23-31. London: Routledge. Goodley, D. Lawthom, R. Clough, P., & Moore, M. (2004). Researching life stories. London: Routledge. Hadjikakou, K., & Hartas, D. (2008). Higher education provision for students with disabilities in Cyprus. Higher Education, 55, 103-119. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9070-8. Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Leach, J., & Roberts, C. (2001). Issues in Providing Learning Support for Disabled Students Undertaking Fieldwork and Related Activities. Leyser, Y., Greenberger, L., Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2011). Students with disabilities in teacher education: Changes in faculty attitudes toward accommodations over ten years. International Journal of Special Education, 26 (1), 162-174. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. CA, USA: Sage Publications. Moriña, A., López, R., & Molina, V. (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 Moswela, E., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011). Asking for too much? The voices of students with disabilities in Botswana. Disability & Society, 26, 307-319. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.560414. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2014). Disabled students in higher education: Discourses of disability and the negotiation of identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 38-46. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Ángeles: Sage Publications. Teachability (2002). Teachability project: Creating an accessible curriculum for students with disabilities. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. 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 World Health Organization (WHO) (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO: Geneva Switzerland. Recuperated from file:///C:/Users/anabel/Downloads/ICF_18.pdf

Author Information

M Dolores Cortés- Vega (presenting / submitting)
Universtity of Seville
Physiotherapy
Seville
Beatriz Morgado
Universtity of Seville, Spain
Rosario López-Gavira
Universtity of Seville, Spain
Rafael Carballo
Universtity of Seville, Spain
Almudena Cotán Fernández
University of Isabel I, Spain

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.