Introduction

Staff know that we have an anticipatory duty towards students and an obligation to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ however, this presupposes that all teaching staff understand the features of a range of disabilities and are able to factor this in to their teaching. The purpose of this training is to fill this gap by highlighting some of the barriers faced by students with impairments and the simple things we can do, as a matter of course, to make our teaching accessible.

There is considerable disagreement both within the literature and amongst disabled individuals about the most appropriate terminology to use in respect of disability. Throughout this training resource I would be using vocabulary that distinguishes between an individual’s impairment and the disabling effect of the actions, or inactions, of society.

At various points in this resource there will be a ‘student quotes’ these quotes are taken verbatim from a survey I am running across Exeter’s campuses about the experiences that students with impairments have at the university.

Training site map

You can navigate the site by either clicking on the “next” button at the bottom of each page, or by using the table of contents on the left hand side. On the right hand side of each page there is a list of the impairments that most commonly occur in the student body; this is background material and provides information on the prevalence of each category of impairment and the summary of how such impairments might typically effect a students’ teaching and learning experience and their performance in assessments.

Rationale of this resource

The objective of this resource is to highlight some of the barriers faced in-class by students with the most commonly occurring disabilities, and to illustrate the simple changes that you can make to your classes, and teaching material, that can help reduce or eliminate such barriers. I will not be considering the adaptations required for students with multiple complex needs as these would necessarily have to be addressed on a case-by-case-basis. I will be focusing upon the barriers that teaching staff can reduce or eliminate, rather than factors that are typically outside of the control of teaching staff such as the University’s physical infrastructure.

Background

Globally it is estimated that 15% of the population live with a disability (WHO 2011)[1]. Likely due to higher than global averages of diagnosis rates and longevity, in the UK it is estimated that 22% of the general population, and 19% of working-age adults, have an impairment of some form.

The UK performs poorly, when compared to similarly developed European countries on measures of the employment rate for individuals of working age who have a disability.[2] In the UK 48% of people who have an impairment are employed versus 75% of those without a disability; this difference is 8 percentage points higher than the European average (Eurostat 2015). HE has an important role in the education and employability of all students, but it is especially important to address the employability of students with impairments, and to do this we must address barriers to learning.

The graph shows the employment rate of GB individuals, in 2009, aged 16-59, by category of disability, using data from the National Archives. The employment rates are as follows. Diabetes 65%, Chest or breathing problems, asthma, bronchitis 60%, Severe disfigurement, skin conditions, allergies 58%, Heart, blood pressure, circulation 54%, Stomach, liver, kidney, digestive problems 53%, Other health problems or disabilities 52%, Difficulty in hearing 50%, Progressive illness not included elsewhere 43%, Problems with arms or hands 42%, Problems with back or neck 40%, Problems with legs or feet 38%, Epilepsy 38%, Difficulty in seeing 32%, Depression, bad nerves or anxiety 22%, Severe or specific learning difficulties 15%, Mental illness, phobia, panics, nervous disorders 10%.

This chart shows GB employees aged 16-64 and their median hourly earnings. The nondisabled and £11.55, the average figure for disabled persons £10.80, for progressive health conditions is £11.61, visual impairments is £10.83, or hearing impairments is £10.54, or learning difficulties or disabilities it is £7.65, mental health conditions it is £10.17, physical disabilities is £10.23 and for other health conditions is £10.84.

According to the DWP (2018) in the Family Resources Survey 2016/17, between 2002/3 and 2009/10 the participation rate in HE by students, aged 19 with an impairment, has risen from 18% to 33%, however this still lags behind the participation rate for their non-impaired peers which was 32% in 2002/3 rising to 41% in 2009/10.

Graph of First degree entrants with a known disability using HESA data. In 2003-4 those who have declared a disability, but are not in receipt of DSA numbered approximately 10,000 rising to over 25,000 in 2015-16. For those in receipt of DSA the numbers rose from over 5,000 to approximately 18,000 during this period.

HESA (2017) estimate that approximately 12% of enrolled students have a known disability and 6.6% of home students are in receipt of Disabled Students’ Allowance.

This chart shows the percentage of students in receipt of disabled students allowance (DSA) by subject in the year 2017-18. The approximate percentages are as follows: medicine and dentistry and veterinary science 5.8%, subjects allied to medicine 7.1%, biology 6.8%, agriculture and related subjects 10.5%, physical sciences 6.4%, mathematical sciences 4.7%, computer sciences 6.5%, engineering and technology 5.5%, architecture, building and planning 6.5%, social studies 6.9%, law 4.9%, business and administrative studies 4.5%, mass communication and documentation 6.8%, languages 5.9%, historical and philosophical studies 7.4%, creative arts and design 10.1%, education 7.6%, combine subjects 8.5%, with an overall average of 6.6%.

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission the number of people with an impairment, aged 25 to 64 in GB, who have a degree level qualification is significantly different (at 1%) from the number of non-disabled individuals who hold degree level qualifications.

In 2010/11 percentage of nondisabled people with a degree's 28.5 or the equivalent percentage or individuals with impairments was 14.5. In 2015/16 35.3% of nondisabled people at degree level qualifications while only 18.7% of people with impairments did.

The same study shows that there are also significant differences (at 1%) between the percentage of nondisabled people holding degree level qualifications and their disabled peers when the data is split by disability.

The percentage of individuals aged 25 to 64 in Great Britain with a degree level qualification in 2010/11 was 28.5% for the nondisabled, while for individuals with progressive health conditions it was 14.5%, for visual impairments it was 11.8%, the hearing impairments 9.8%, learning difficulties or disabilities was 7.5%, mental health conditions 10.2%, for physical disabilities 10.4% and for other health conditions 14.4%. By 2015/16 the figures had increased for all groups, for the nondisabled was 35.3%, or individuals with progressive health conditions was 23%, the visually impaired if 17.1%, hearing impairments it was 13.3%, learning difficulties or disabilities 7.4%, mental health conditions 14.9%, physical disabilities 15.8% and for other health conditions the rate 17.8%.

While we might expect the overall participation rate in higher education to be slightly lower amongst disabled individuals than the nondisabled, because some disabilities do effect intellect, we can see that there is still a lower participation rate, among individuals with disabilities that do not affect intellect, than the participation rate of the nondisabled.

Madriaga (2007), citing the National Disability Team and Skill (2004) report, says that the underrepresentation of people with disabilities in the student body was due to three main factors: a lack of knowledge about higher education, insufficient skills to enter higher education and inadequate practical, procedural and financial support.

Training teaching staff about how to make their teaching accessible is especially important when we consider the rising proportion of students with disabilities accessing HE. In 2011/12.9% of the student body declared a disability rising to 11% in 15/16 (HESA 2017). Evans et al. (2017) suggest that this is likely to be due to improvements in the school sector, enabling more students with impairments to enter HE. Fuller et al. (2004) and Healey et al. (2001) estimate that the true number of students with disabilities may be higher than official estimates because of a reluctance by students to officially declare their disability status.

Additionally, there is evidence that students declaring a disability have lower completion rates and degree classifications and the non-impaired peers (Richardson et al. 2003).

The graph shows the non-continuation rates for three categories of student between 2008/9 to 2014/15 using HESA data. Over time there has not been much change in the continuation rates for each group of students. The data shows just over 7% of students who have not declared a disability dropping out of Higher Education, compared to a non-continuation rate of about 6.5% of students who are in receipt of DSA funding, while approximately 10.4% of student who have declared a disability, but are not in receipt of DSA funding, do not complete their studies.

Woodfield (2014), using HESA data from 2014, found that sector-wide 66% of students with impairments obtained an upper degree, compared to 65% of non-impaired students. However only 63% of students in the largest sub-group of impairments (learning difficulties) obtained an upper-degree. There were also noticeable differences between the relative performance of impaired and non-impaired students between disciplines. In all disciplines bar Business and Management, Economics, and Finance and Accounting, students with impairments, on average, were less likely to obtain an upper-degree than their non-impaired peers, with the biggest difference in performance exhibited in the disciplines of Languages, Medicine and Dentistry, Music, Dance and Drama, Psychology, and Veterinary Medicine.

In their summary of the literature, Orr and Hammig (2009) find that there have been increasing numbers of students with disabilities attending higher education, but they have lower retention and completion rates than their nondisabled peers with many students with disabilities dropping out during the first year. Factors contributing to higher attrition rates amongst students with impairments include a lack of ‘academic preparation’ and ‘transition support’ as well as insufficient support whilst in higher education because of a lack of knowledge on the part of academic staff on appropriate teaching modifications. They also report evidence that teaching staff are themselves concerned that they do not have enough training or knowledge to effectively teach students with impairments.

Similarly, Brandt (2011) says that teaching staff need more training in disability awareness and that this may involve either cultural change or simply more information on why a student might need an adjustment, for example they quoted a blind student who stated “faculty have no idea what it’s like to be a student with a disability”. I aim to address this deficit with this training resource.

Evans et al. (2017) say that current practice within Higher Education tends to look at ways of mitigating the impact of a student’s disability, for example through the use of extra time in exams and extended deadlines. These individual based modifications or adaptations are time-consuming and can be costly; it would be far more effective to deliver teaching and assessments in ways that are accessible so that individual mitigations would not be required.

The most common forms of disability in HE

The most common type of disability reported by students in HE is a specific learning difference, such as dyslexia, dyspraxia or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In 2015-16, almost half of those students with a known disability who started a higher education programme had a specific learning difference.

There have been considerable increases in recent years in the number of students with a known mental health condition. This increased by 220 per cent between 2010-11 and 2015-16. [3]

Why accessibility benefits all students

Given the incidence of impairment amongst the general population it is highly unlikely that there will be no students with an impairment in a typical lecture, even if you have not been made aware of their presence. Not all individuals will have been diagnosed and many students choose not to disclose their impairment for a variety of reasons including the fear of being stigmatised. For example, Pope et al. (2007) estimated that, due to possible under diagnosis, up to two-thirds of students who exhibited characteristics of dyslexia and/ or ADHD did not receive any learning support at all.

The rates of disability diagnosis also vary internationally as a function the stigma of disability, wealth and the degree of a country’s development.

Accessible course design, delivery and assessments will benefit all students for example, current research suggests that speech perception, for people, with and without hearing loss is a function of both visual and auditory clues; that is, people with no hearing loss, unconsciously lip-read to some extent. [4]

Brandt (2011) reviews literature that demonstrates that non-disabled students face similar barriers to those that disabled students do. However, the impact on disabled students can be much more pronounced; for example, delays in providing module reading lists will affect all students, but the impact upon students who need material in accessible formats will be more pronounced because of the time taken to convert reading material into a format that they can access.

The government’s Disability Equality Indicators, using NNS data, demonstrate that students with impairment(s) are less satisfied with their course than their non-impaired peers.

This table is entitled ‘Satisfaction Levels with Higher Education’. It shows the percentage satisfaction rates for three groups of students in 2010 and 2011. In 2010 Non-disabled students had satisfaction rates of 83%, students with dyslexia satisfaction was 77% and ‘other disability’ had a rate of 81%. In 2011 non-disabled had a satisfaction rate of 83%, students with dyslexia (79%) and ‘Other disability (81%).
This data is only collected in England.

Next >>

References

[1] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf;jsessionid=0D5425B9059E0E4F73B1AA2860C59BCF?sequence=1 13/11/18

[2] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131101163230/http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-equality-indicators.php 13/11/18

[3] Defined here as a ‘basic activity difficulty’ https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/8/8c/Infographic_Disability_statistics_final.png 13/11/18

[4] Adapted from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/analysis/HEinEngland/students/disability/

[5] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1080/13682820802090281 13/11/18