This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]

On: 18 August 2014, At: 05:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Confronting similar challenges?

Disabled and non‐disabled students’
learning and assessment experiences
a a a
Manuel Madriaga , Katie Hanson , Caroline Heaton , Helen
a a a
Kay , Sarah Newitt & Ann Walker
a
Sheffield Hallam University , Sheffield, UK
Published online: 18 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Manuel Madriaga , Katie Hanson , Caroline Heaton , Helen Kay , Sarah
Newitt & Ann Walker (2010) Confronting similar challenges? Disabled and non‐disabled students’
learning and assessment experiences, Studies in Higher Education, 35:6, 647-658, DOI:
10.1080/03075070903222633

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070903222633

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Studies in Higher Education
Vol. 35, No. 6, September 2010, 647–658

Confronting similar challenges? Disabled and non-disabled

students’ learning and assessment experiences
Manuel Madriaga*, Katie Hanson, Caroline Heaton, Helen Kay, Sarah Newitt and
Ann Walker

Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

ManuelMadriaga
Studies
10.1080/03075070903222633
0307-5079
Original
Society
02009
00
M.Madriaga@shu.ac.uk
000002009
Taylor in
for
Article
CSHE_A_422437.sgm
and Higher
(print)/1470-174X
Research
FrancisEducation
into Higher
(online)
Education

The article presents evidence from a systematic survey of disabled (n = 172) and
non-disabled (n = 312) students regarding their learning and assessment
experiences within one higher education institution in the UK. This study builds
upon previous work in the sector, with the aim of gathering evidence to inform
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

inclusive policy and practice for the benefit of all students, disabled or non-
disabled. The findings indicate that, while disabled students confront barriers of
access in their learning and assessment, there are similar difficulties they share
with non-disabled students.
Keywords: disability; disabled students; inclusive education; inclusive practice

Context
It has been observed that there has been a rise in the number of disabled students enter-
ing into higher education internationally (Hadjikakou and Hartas 2008, 103). The
recent literature reflects this, as the topic of disabled students and higher education has
been explored in such places as Finland (Poussu-Olli 1999), the USA (Getzel 2008;
Lancaster, Mellard, and Hoffman 2001; Nelson, Dodd, and Smith 1990; Wilson,
Getzel, and Brown 2000), Ireland (Hanafin et al. 2007; Shevlin, Kenny, and McNeela
2004), South Africa (Matshedisho 2007), and Cyprus (Hadjikakou and Hartas 2008).
Within the international literature (Hadjikakou and Hartas 2008; Matshedisho 2007;
Shevlin, Kenny, and McNeela 2004), the UK, particularly with its disability discrim-
ination legislation and policies specific towards disabled students accessing education,
is often cited positively as a point of comparison.
In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1995) along with the follow-
ing 2001 DDA Amendment Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA),
increased attention to the disabled student experience in higher education (Borland
and James 1999; Goode 2007; Holloway 2001; National Disability Team and Skill
2004; Parker 1999; Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005). The early literature in this area
drew attention to physical access, welfare support, transitions and disabling attitudes
in universities. More recent literature has concentrated on the teaching, learning and
assessment experiences of disabled students to inform inclusive curricula (Adams and
Brown 2006; Freewood and Spriggs 2003; Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004, Fuller
et al. 2004, 2009; Hanafin et al. 2007; Jacklin et al. 2007; Madriaga 2007; Waterfield,
West, and Parker 2006; Weedon and Fuller 2004). The work of Freewood and Spriggs

*Corresponding author: Email m.madriaga@shu.ac.uk

ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online

© 2010 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075070903222633
http://www.informaworld.com
 648 M. Madriaga et al.

(2003) ignited this area of work, employing a qualitative approach with a small sample
size. The work eventually evolved into large-scale surveys (e.g. Fuller, Bradley, and
Healey 2004; Fuller et al. 2004, 2009; Healey et al. 2006; Waterfield, West, and
Parker 2006; Waterfield and West 2006). The work of Fuller et al. (2004) was the
catalyst for gathering systematic evidence of the disabled student learning experience.
They conducted an institutional survey of the teaching, learning and assessment expe-
riences of disabled students within one UK university. They were able to get question-
naire responses from 173 of 593 respondents who declared a disability at the
institution. Some of their key findings were:

● 44% of respondents reported barriers connected to their disability which

impacted on their learning in lectures;
● 22% of respondents reported barriers related to their disability which impacted
on other on-campus classes, and for essentially the same range of reasons as
quoted for barriers in lectures;
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

● 13% of respondents reported barriers related to their disability impacting on

their off-campus learning;
● 21% of respondents reported barriers to using libraries;
● 17% of respondents reported barriers to using publicly available information
technology (IT) facilities;
● 34% of respondents considered they had experienced difficulty with written
coursework;
● 30% of respondents considered that examinations were a barrier in relation to
their disability;
● one in five of respondents considered that an assessed oral presentation was a
barrier in relation to their disability (Fuller et al. 2004, 309–13).

They followed up their survey with focus group interviews (Fuller, Bradley, and
Healey 2004). Some of the themes pulled from the data were that:

● respondents experienced difficulties taking notes in classes;

● respondents found it difficult to participate in class discussions due to difficul-
ties relating to hearing or seeing the lecturer;
● disabled students reported difficulty with written coursework, examinations and
assessment of oral presentations;
● direct input from teaching staff was highlighted as being beneficial in the plan-
ning of assessed work (Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004, 461–4).

An issue with the Fuller, Bradley, and Healey (2004) and Fuller et al. (2004) studies,
as with previous studies on the disabled student experience (Borland and James 1999;
Parker 1999; Holloway 2001; National Disability Team and Skill 2004; Riddell,
Tinklin, and Wilson 2005), was their lack of contrast with the non-disabled student
experience. Questions revolving around this issue were confronted in the Higher
Education Funding Council of England project, Staff–Student Partnership for Assess-
ment, Change and Evaluation (SPACE) (2003–5). This project consisted of surveying
disabled students at eight universities. While discovering that only about a third of
disabled student respondents entitled to ‘special arrangements’ actually received them
in assessments, Waterfield, West, and Parker (2006, 84) questioned the consistency
and efficacy of special provisions for supporting the assessment of disabled students
 Studies in Higher Education 649

in higher education. In considering the validity of alternative assessments for disabled

students, they considered the applicability, possibility and equity of inclusive assess-
ments. The latter they saw as being suitable for a diverse student population, regard-
less of disability. While recognising that some students may require a particular
assessment, they sought an assessment toolkit which reduces the likelihood of
discrimination and ghettoisation of disabled students. For instance, the common
higher education practice of placing disabled students in separate examination accom-
modation from non-disabled students perpetuates the ghettoisation of disabled
students, and vice versa. It was this knowledge that compelled the authors to eventu-
ally include non-disabled students in their study. From this, they found evidence to
suggest that there were similar difficulties and experiences shared by both student
cohorts with regard to assessment.
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Teaching and Learning
Research Programme (TLRP) project on ‘Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of
Disabled Students’ Learning in Higher Education’ (2004–7) had followed on from the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

SPACE project work on assessment, and examined the teaching, learning and assess-
ment experiences of disabled students at four higher education institutions. This found
some overlap between the disabled and non-disabled student learning experience in
confronting difficulties with assignments and different modes of teaching (which will
be described later in this article). It was concluded that any attempt to dismantle
disability-related barriers in teaching and learning will have to begin with the premise
that ‘everyone is impaired’, not just disabled people (Healey et al. 2006, 40–41;
Shakespeare and Watson 2001).
The work presented in this article has been informed by both SPACE and ESRC
projects. However, our study is qualitatively different from the previous studies, in
that it places more emphasis on the non-disabled student voice in order to offer further
evidence to institute inclusive practice within higher education. The previous studies
took the non-disabled student voice for granted, placing them in the background as a
control group (Healey et al. 2006), or as an afterthought (Waterfield, West, and Parker
2006). This was evident in the proportions of non-disabled students within the SPACE
project (29%) and the ESRC project (9%). While we understand the premise for
discounting the non-disabled student feedback, given the lack of disability awareness
in previous work regarding student learning and assessment practices (Hanafin et al.
2007), we cannot discount how managers within higher education institutions worry
about academic standards and privileging one student group over another when
accommodating disabled students (Nelson, Dodd, and Smith 1990; Riddell and
Weedon 2009, 37). To dispel this worry and inform managers, teaching and adminis-
trative staff towards making positive, inclusive changes in academic practice, we
attempted to give equal voice to both disabled and non-disabled students with the aim
of gathering evidence to ‘enhance the quality of scholarship, teaching and learning for
all students, not just those who have disabilities’ (Hanafin et al. 2007, 446). One of
the ways we have done this was through our research methods, in which we formu-
lated a random, strategic sample of both disabled and non-disabled students from the
outset. While we acknowledge that there are particular differences in disabled and
non-disabled student experiences, we also believe there are commonalities shared
between the two cohorts. The evidence detailed below demonstrates this, giving
credence to the Waterfield, West, and Parker’s (2006) argument that inclusive learn-
ing and assessment should not perpetuate the ghettoisation of disabled students from
non-disabled students and vice versa. Thus, we approached this study with the premise
 650 M. Madriaga et al.

that ‘everyone is impaired’ (Healey et al. 2006, 40–41; Shakespeare and Watson
2001), which is unlike the previous SPACE and ESRC projects, where the initial
objective was to gauge disabled student learning experiences. Our methodological
approach is explained below, followed by presentation of results indicating contrast-
ing as well as somewhat similar experiences of the two student cohorts.

Methods
A research instrument developed and used in the quantitative facet of the ESRC TLRP
project was employed with minor amendments at a single higher education institution
in Northern England. However, having utilised many of the same survey questions
from the ESRC TLRP study, our project did not employ the same methods. The ESRC
TLRP study sent out separately-worded questionnaires to two different groups,
disabled and non-disabled students, which emphasised a distinction between the
groups of students. Our project did not aim to replicate this divide. It set out to
examine the teaching, learning and assessment experiences of all students within the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

institution, taking into account the diversity of the student body.

Fifty per cent of full-time undergraduate students who were registered in the
institution’s central database as having declared that they had a disability or specific
learning difficulties (n = 1336) were randomly selected, by assigning each student on
the database with a random number and then selecting numbers 1 to 668. To control
as far as possible for differences in the intrapersonal characteristics between the
disabled and non-disabled student groups, each of the selected disabled students
were matched by age (under 21, 21–30, 31+), ethnicity/race (white, non-white), year
of study (first year, continuing) and gender (male, female) with two students who
were not registered on the database as disabled (668 disabled and 1336 non-
disabled). The decision to pair each disabled student with two non-disabled students
was based on the premise that this technique would increase the likelihood of receiv-
ing replies from matched students. From the initial sample of 2004 students, 484
students (24%) returned completed questionnaires, of which 398 fulfilled the
matched requirement (i.e. a questionnaire was received from a disabled student and
at least one of their matched non-disabled students). To determine whether there
were differences between the two samples of data (unmatched sample and matched
sample), we compared the mean rating of all statements in the questionnaire. The
application of independent t-tests showed very few differences between the mean
ratings for the two samples, therefore only the results for the unmatched sample are
reported here.
The identified students were posted the questionnaire at their homes during the
Easter vacation. Four weeks later, students who had not returned completed question-
naires were emailed a reminder which included an offer for the sending of an elec-
tronic version of the questionnaire. In order to enhance student response, an incentive
of being entered into a £100 shopping voucher prize draw was employed. This was
premised on previous practice within the institution of study when implementing its
annual student experience survey. The returned questionnaires were scanned in
Teleform and the data was saved as both an Excel and an SPSS spreadsheet.
Four hundred and eighty-four students (68.5% female) returned completed
questionnaires, of which 35.5% (172 students, 65.7% female) were registered on the
university database as having a disability. As shown in Table 1, just under half of disabled
students were categorised as having specific learning difficulties, approximately 15%
 Studies in Higher Education 651

Table 1. Number and percentage of disabled students returning questionnaires by disability

type.
No. of students % of disabled participants
Specific learning difficulties, (e.g. dyslexia) 81 47.1
Unseen disabilities (e.g. diabetes, epilepsy, 25 14.5
asthma)
Mental health difficulties 16 9.3
Deaf/hearing impairments 11 6.4
Blind/partially sighted 6 3.5
Multiple disabilities 6 3.5
Autistic spectrum disorder/Asperger syndrome 5 2.9
Wheelchair users/mobility problems 2 1.2
Other disabilities 20 11.6
Total 172 100
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

categorised as having unseen disabilities and just under 10% were categorised as having
mental health difficulties. One hundred and twenty-one students (70.3% of the disabled
student group) were in receipt of support from the institution’s disabled student support
team. The mean age of the disabled student group (25.2 years, SD = 8.8) was very similar
to that for the overall sample (24.07 years, SD = 7.9). In terms of ethnicity, 88.5% (429
students) of the overall sample and 88.4% of the disabled group were White British,
with small numbers of Asian/Asian British, Black/Black British, Chinese and mixed-
race students in each group. Both the disabled and the non-disabled group contained
students from a wide range of courses, who were either in their first year of study or
continuing.
Open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire which sought additional
information to accompany the quantitative data. All open-ended responses were input
into Excel at the outset. This information was then analysed and coded with Nvivo.
While the analytical approach was broadly grounded theory, in that it attempted to bring
together recurring themes in the open-ended responses (Charmaz 1995), it was also
informed by our preoccupations with inclusive practice and socially-just pedagogies
in higher education (Goodley 2007; Madriaga and Goodley 2010).

Differences between the disabled and non-disabled student learning and

assessment experiences
In the Healey et al. (2006) study, there were particular differences in how disabled and
non-disabled students perceived their learning experiences. Some of the differences
highlighted in the previous study were confirmed in our study. For instance, like
Healey et al. (2006, 40), we found, using independent t-tests, that disabled students
identified greater difficulties than non-disabled students in taking notes (t [308] =
9.917, p < .000) and in having enough time to read course materials (t [308] = 3.541,
p < .000) (see Table 2). However, unlike Healey et al. (2006, 40), we also found that
more disabled students identified greater difficulties than non-disabled students in
hearing their lecturers (t [308] = 3.460, p < .001), gaining physical access into univer-
sity buildings (t [308] = 2.202, p < .028) and receiving handouts and other materials
in an appropriate format (t [308 = 3.773, p < .000).
 652 M. Madriaga et al.

Table 2. Significant differences in mean scores for the following statements by disability
status (p < .05) (1 = Agree Strongly–5 = Disagree strongly).
Questionnaire statements Disabled students Non-disabled students
I frequently have difficulties in taking notes 2.66 (SD = 1.256) 3.65 (SD = 0.921)
I frequently have difficulties hearing the lecturer 3.51 (SD = 1.031) 3.83 (SD = 0.922)
I have experienced difficulty reading course 2.88 (SD = 1.089) 3.25 (SD = 1.136)
materials
I have experienced some difficulty with physical 4.15 (SD = 1.021) 4.34 (SD = 0.799)
access to the building
I have experienced some difficulty with handouts 3.51 (SD = 1.188) 3.90 (SD = 1.025)
and other materials not being in an appropriate
format
I have problems writing continuously in 2.54 (SD = 1.140) 3.03 (SD = 1.096)
examinations
I have had some problems when giving oral 2.87 (SD = 1.181) 3.18 (SD = 1.135)
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

presentations
I sometimes experience difficulty with my 2.48 (SD = 1.393) 3.49 (SD = 1.183)
literacy skills (spelling, grammar, etc.)

Disabled student difficulties in learning are also present in the area of assessment.
In the Healey et al. (2006, 40) study, disabled student respondents identified greater
difficulties than non-disabled students with the amount of time required to complete
assignments, physically writing and literacy. This was somewhat confirmed in our
study. While our evidence confirmed that disabled students experienced physical
difficulties with writing (p < .000), and difficulties with literacy skills (p < .000) (see
Table 2), it did not confirm significant differences between the two cohorts in regard
to difficulties on the amount of time required to complete assignments. Healey et al
(2006, 40) also highlighted that non-disabled students experienced greater difficulties
in the areas of assessed group work and oral presentations than disabled students. This
confirms existing evidence from the Waterfield and West study (2006, 124), where
disabled students expressed more satisfaction about performing oral presentations
than non-disabled students. However, our findings present contrary evidence. There
was no statistically significant difference found between the student cohorts in
responding to the question of group work. Moreover, in regard to difficulties in
delivering oral presentations, there was a significant statistical difference (p < .004)
showing that disabled students identified greater difficulties than non-disabled
students in this particular method of assessment.
The qualitative aspect of the findings also offers additional evidence of the
difficulties that disabled students experience in their learning and assessment. Many
of these difficulties are attributed to bad practice in teaching. For instance, there were
comments which referred to lecturers speaking too quickly during their lectures:

Some lecturers rush through slides and many people (me included) don’t have time to
make notes. It is very frustrating as we then have half completed notes and often can go
early at the end due to it being a rushed lecture. (First-year student with specific learning
difficulties)

Lecturer talking class too fast to make accurate notes [sic]. (Third-year student with
specific learning difficulties)
 Studies in Higher Education 653

I have had difficulty keeping up with lecturers, when note taking, they often speak too
quickly and I miss the point I was trying to note down. Also I am a lot slower at carrying
out work than my friends and so often struggle in seminars. (Third-year student with
specific learning difficulties)

Other disabled students commented that they experienced difficulties engaging with
learning due to lecturers not being aware that they have an impairment which requires
consideration:

Being singled out by a guest speaker due to using a laptop they were not informed
beforehand [sic]. (Third-year student with specific learning difficulties)

[Lecturers] not being made aware I had disability until the second semester of my final
year although problems were apparent to lecturers from year one. (Third-year student
with mental health difficulties)

Disabled students also attributed difficulties with learning to not having access to
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

handouts or lecture notes during or after lectures. This particular practice is sometimes
perceived as an entitlement to all disabled students who receive university disabled
student support in UK higher education institutions. This view stems from the practice
being considered an example of disabled student minimum provision (Madriaga and
Goodley 2010). However, this particular practice, as evidenced below, is poorly
implemented by some teaching staff within the institution of study:

Most lectures I don’t have any notes for and they take a long time to go up on Blackboard
[WebCT] [sic]. (First-year student with specific learning difficulties)

No support/handouts when I was told I would be given them. Things stated in my

[university disability support statement] that have not been done. (Third-year student
who is blind/partially sighted)

In addition to difficulties in accessing lectures, lecture notes and just being known by
lecturers as having a disability, disabled students complained about the amount of
coursework they had to complete:

Felt at times that the delay of releasing assignment questions adds stress to the workload.
It feels like time is being wasted, when it could be being used to read more around the
assignment topics, mainly because my reading speed is slower than average. (Second-
year student with specific learning difficulties)

Deadlines – coursework deadlines worth 50% of a module have been placed at the same
date as other pieces of coursework. This can lead [to] work for one of the 50% course-
work assignments of a lesser quality because of the lack of time spent on it. (Third-year
student with unseen disability)

These findings confirm existing evidence (Healey et al. 2006; Waterfield and West
2006) about the differences in learning and assessment experiences between disabled
and non-disabled students. It has even shown that disabled students, in contrast to their
non-disabled peers, experience greater difficulties in hearing their lecturers, gaining
access into buildings and receiving handouts in appropriate formats. The findings
should not come as a surprise, considering previous work in the area of disability and
higher education (Borland and James 1999; Parker 1999; Holloway 2001; Madriaga
2007). They confirm some of the challenges that disabled students confront and
 654 M. Madriaga et al.

negotiate in their everyday university lives, which have not yet been adequately
addressed at this particular institution. They also, however, highlight the somewhat
similar experiences and difficulties of both student cohorts in their learning and
assessment experiences.

Similar experiences and issues impacting all students?

Evidence that both disabled and non-disabled students confront similar difficulties has
been presented in previous work (Healey et al. 2006; Waterfield and West 2006). The
Waterfield and West study (2006, 126) found evidence to suggest there were
‘negligible differences’ between student cohorts in some aspects of assessment, such
as group work, oral presentations and undertaking mathematical calculations. As
mentioned earlier, Healey et al. (2006, 40) even found that a higher proportion of non-
disabled students than disabled students indicated greater difficulties in group work
and oral presentations. However, points of comparison and similarity presented in
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

these previous studies were limited. For instance, in the Healey et al. study (2006),
only responses about group work and oral assessment showed that non-disabled
students experience more difficulties than disabled students. The SPACE project
(Waterfield and West 2006), like the Healey et al. (2006) study, only focused upon
similarities of opinions between the two cohorts in learning styles and perceptions of
literacy in regard to assessment. Both studies presented findings without any evidence
of significance testing. In contrast, we found evidence of negligible differences
between the two student cohorts in areas of both learning and assessment. In conduct-
ing independent t-tests comparing questionnaire responses for disabled and non-
disabled students, we found no significant differences (p >.05) in all of the statements
listed in Table 3. Moreover, in measuring the effect sizes (using the eta square statis-
tic) between the two cohorts for each statement, we have found that the magnitude of
differences between mean scores was small to minuscule (Cohen 1988).
Presenting the mean scores and ranking the magnitude of differences (by eta
squared) for each statement presented us with some telling evidence about the extent
of negligible differences between disabled and non-disabled student experiences. For
instance, three out of the top five statements in Table 3 indicated the somewhat similar
negative attitudes expressed by all students towards receiving feedback on academic
work or progress from lecturers. In the same way, seven out of the top ten statements
presented us with evidence that all students tended to share negative sentiments
towards their engagement with lecturers and teaching practices.
Even the qualitative findings of the survey also presented negligible differences
between the disabled and non-disabled student learning and assessment experiences.
More significantly, difficulties in learning as expressed by some non-disabled students
resembled experiences commonly associated with disabled students:

Missed first semester exams and occasional lectures and seminars in second semester
due to medical reasons. (First-year non-disabled student)

I find it hard to read and keep log of information that I’m reading. I may have to read the
documents over and over again. (First-year non-disabled student)

I find it really difficult to write to the expected level and find I struggle as I don’t under-
stand what I am reading and had to read over and over and over again and there isn’t
enough time [sic]. (Second-year non-disabled student)
 Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

Table 3. Means scores for disabled and non-disabled students for the following statements ranked by eta squared (from least to most).*
Disabled sample Non-disabled
Questionnaire statement (5 = Disagree strongly–1 = Agree strongly) group sample group Eta2
1 The feedback on my work helps to clarify things that I haven’t fully understood 3.46 (SD = 0.959) 3.47 (SD = 0.970) .00003
2 My lecturers make a real effort to understand difficulties I may be having with my work 3.32 (SD = 0.985) 3.30 (SD = 0.917) .00005
3 I have had difficulty due to lectures, seminars, workshops interfering with meal times** 3.67 (SD = 1.039) 3.69 (SD = 1.060) .00007
4 My lecturers give me helpful feedback on my progress 3.35 (SD = 0.959) 3.33 (SD = 0.931) .00011
5 The feedback on my work helps me to improve my ways of learning and studying 3.66 (SD = 0.848) 3.63 (SD = 0.910) .0003
6 My lecturers have been helpful when I have approached them about difficulties with my studies 3.83 (SD = 0.892) 3.78 (SD = 0.913) .0005
7 I find some teaching staff uncooperative** 3.25 (SD = 1.226) 3.18 (SD = 1.168) .00067
8 My lecturers make it clear, right from the start, what they expect from me 3.26 (SD = 0.916) 3.31 (SD = 0.926) .00068
9 My lecturers normally give me useful comments on my work 3.42 (SD = 0.995) 3.35 (SD = 0.941) .001
10 My lecturers give me plenty of examples and illustrations to help with my understanding 3.42 (SD = 0.924) 3.50 (SD = 0.847) .00157
11 My lecturers are good at explaining things in a number of different ways 3.44 (SD = 0.921) 3.52 (SD = 0.811) .0016
12 The handouts and/or other materials on WebCT/Blackboard are helpful 3.98 (SD = 0.982) 4.06 (SD = 0.833) .00165
13 I sometimes find it difficult to discover what is expected of me in my coursework** 2.40 (SD = 1.082) 2.49 (SD = 0.988) .00178
14 Within my course, I have some choice over what aspects of the subject I choose to concentrate on 3.39 (SD = 1.056) 3.29 (SD = 1.191) .00198
15 My course is helping me develop my ability to work as a team member 3.80 (SD = 0.983) 3.90 (SD = 0.864) .002
16 I frequently find it difficult participating in discussions** 3.51 (SD = 1.070) 3.61 (SD = 1.008) .002
17 I have experienced difficulties with coursework because it is not always clear what is required** 2.29 (SD = 1.049) 2.40 (SD = 1.029) .002
18 The workload is too heavy** 2.76 (SD = 0.878) 2.86 (SD = 0.950) .002680
19 I have had some difficulties with participating in assessed group work** 3.13 (SD = 1.095) 3.26 (SD = 1.088) .003
20 I have experienced difficulties with the amount of time available to complete coursework** 2.42 (SD = 1.116) 2.57 (SD = 1.125) .004
21 My course is helping me to develop the ability to plan my own work 3.69 (SD = 0.894) 3.82 (SD = 0.767) .0056
22 It is easy to know the standard of work expected 3.29 (SD = 0.991) 3.44 (SD = 0.890) .006
Studies in Higher Education

*Guidelines for interpreting eta squared values are: .01 = small effect, .06 = medium effect, .14 = large effect (Cohen 1988, 25–26).
**Items reversed.
655
 656 M. Madriaga et al.

It is this kind of evidence, showing negligible differences between disabled and

non-disabled students, which has been limited in previous work (Healey et al. 2006;
Waterfield et al. 2006).

Concluding thoughts
Studies of the disabled student experience have come a long way from single-
institution qualitative studies with small sample sizes (e.g. Borland and James 1999;
Holloway 2001; Freewood and Spriggs 2003). Research has now become more
systematic (Fuller, Bradley, and Healey 2004; Fuller et al. 2004), gathering feedback
from non-disabled students to better understand the disabled student learning and
assessment experience (Healey et al. 2006; Waterfield, West, and Parker 2006).
Having utilised a similar research instrument to that employed in Healey et al.’s study
(2006), we sought to build upon previous work by strategically incorporating non-
disabled students in our random sample of respondents. This was done in order to
gather robust evidence to inform institutional inclusive policy and practice. Our find-
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

ings confirmed evidence presented in Healey et al. (2006). For instance, we found that
disabled students indicated having greater difficulties than non-disabled students with
the amount of time required to complete coursework and difficulties with literacy.
However, at the same time, we found contrary evidence. For instance, unlike Healey
et al. (2006), we found no significant statistical difference between disabled and non-
disabled students in regard to difficulties with assessed group work. The same can be
said for a lot of the statements within the survey. This contrast may be the result of
previous work having a different proportion of non-disabled students in the sample
(23% non-disabled) than our study (65% non-disabled), and the former presenting
data without any evidence of significance testing.
It is not to be discounted that we found a greater proportion of disabled students
who mentioned they had experienced difficulties in learning due to individual
impairments compared to non-disabled students. For instance, disabled students indi-
cated greater difficulties than non-disabled students in taking notes, hearing the
lecturer, reading course materials, access into buildings and having appropriate
formatted handouts. But, confronting these challenges was not the preserve of
disabled students. This is significant. As one second-year non-disabled student stated
above, ‘I struggle as I don’t understand what I am reading and had to read over and
over and over again’. This is not too different from a statement made by a third-year
student with specific learning difficulties addressing the same question: ‘[I] have
struggled to understand text I’ve been learning due to the complicated way it has
been wrote out [sic]’.
Addressing persisting issues of staff disability awareness (with specific attention
drawn to the disabled student experience), disability disclosure and accounting for a
sense of inclusivity in teaching, learning and assessment requires urgent attention. It
is not only about meeting the requirements of disability discrimination law. It should
be about enhancing the student learning experience, cancelling out distinctions,
removing ghettoising ‘barriers’ between being disabled and non-disabled. By
contrasting the two student experiences, we wanted to show that difficulties and chal-
lenges in learning and assessment are not only the preserve of a ‘disabled student
support’ agenda. All students will benefit from a disabled student support, or inclusive
practice, agenda that does not necessitate discriminating between disabled and non-
disabled students (Waterfield, West, and Parker 2006). This agenda should not be cast
 Studies in Higher Education 657

aside as an equality and diversity issue, it is a quality issue – ensuring quality teaching,
learning and assessment in higher education (Hanafin et al. 2007).

Acknowledgements
We want to say thank you to Professor Mary Fuller and the Economic Social Research Council
(ESRC) – Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) project ‘Enhancing the Quality
and Outcomes of Disabled Students’ Learning in Higher Education’ (2004–7) (RES-139-25-
0135) for allowing us access and use of their research instruments for our own study. We also
want to say thank you to the two anonymous referees for their insight and comments.

References
Adams, M., and S. Brown. 2006. Introduction. In Towards inclusive learning in higher educa-
tion: Developing curricula for disabled students, ed. M. Adams and S. Brown, 2–9.
London: Routledge.
Borland, J., and S. James. 1999. The learning experience of students with disabilities in higher
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

education: A case study of a UK university. Disability & Society 14, no. 1: 85–101.
Charmaz, K. 1995. Grounded theory. In Rethinking methods in psychology, ed. J.A. Smith,
R. Harré, and L.V. Langenhove, 27–49. London: Sage.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freewood, M., and L. Spriggs. 2003. Striving for genuine inclusion – Academic assessment
and disabled students. In Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years
on: Proceedings of the 2002 10th Improving Student Learning Symposium, ed. C. Rust,
353–62. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes
University.
Fuller, M., A. Bradley, and M. Healey. 2004. Incorporating disabled students within an
inclusive higher education environment. Disability & Society 19, no. 5: 455–68.
Fuller, M., J. Georgeson, M. Healey, A. Hurst, K. Kelly, S. Riddell, H. Roberts, and E. Weedon.
2009. Improving disabled students’ learning: Experiences and outcomes. London:
Routledge.
Fuller, M., M. Healey, A. Bradley, and T. Hall. 2004. Barriers to learning: A systematic study
of the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in Higher Education 29,
no. 3: 303–18.
Getzel, E.E. 2008. Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus. Exceptionality 16,
no. 4: 207–19.
Goode, J. 2007. ‘Managing’ disability: Early experiences of university students with disabili-
ties. Disability & Society 22, no. 1: 35–48.
Goodley, D. 2007. Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability
studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education 11, no. 3: 317–34.
Hadjikakou, K., and D. Hartas. 2008. Higher education provision for students with disabilities
in Cyprus. Higher Education 55: 103–19.
Hanafin, J., M. Shevlin, M. Kenny, and E. McNeela. 2007. Including young people
with disabilities: Assessment challenges in higher education. Higher Education 54, no. 3:
435–48.
Healey, M., A. Bradley, M. Fuller, and T. Hall. 2006. Listening to students: The experi-
ences of disabled students of learning at university. In Towards inclusive learning in
higher education: Developing curricula for disabled students, ed. M. Adams and S.
Brown, 32–43. London: Routledge.
Holloway, S. 2001. The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled
students. Disability & Society 16, no. 4: 597–615.
Jacklin, A., C. Robinson, L. O’Meara, and A. Harris. 2007. Improving the experiences of
disabled students in higher education. York: Higher Education Academy. http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/jacklin.pdf (accessed July 15,
2009).
 658 M. Madriaga et al.

Lancaster, S., D. Mellard, and L. Hoffman. 2001. Disability support services for community
college students. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
Madriaga, M. 2007. Enduring disablism: Students with dyslexia and their pathways into UK
higher education and beyond. Disability & Society 22, no. 4: 399–412.
Madriaga, M., and D. Goodley. 2010. Moving beyond the minimum: Socially-just pedagogies
and Asperger Syndrome in UK higher education. International Journal of Inclusive
Education 14, no. 2: 115–31.
Matshedisho, K.R. 2007. Access to higher education for disabled students in South Africa: A
contradictory conjuncture of benevolence, rights and the social model of disability.
Disability & Society 22, no. 7: 685–99.
National Disability Team and Skill. 2004. Aspiration raising and transition of disabled
students from further education to higher education. Final report. Ormskirk: National
Disability Team.
Nelson, J.R., J.M. Dodd, and D.J. Smith. 1990. Faculty willingness to accommodate students
with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning
Disabilities 23, no. 3: 185–9.
Parker, V. 1999. Personal assistance for students with disabilities in HE: The experience of
the University of East London. Disability & Society 14, no. 4: 483–504.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 05:01 18 August 2014

Poussu–Olli, H. 1999. To be a disabled university student in Finland. Disability & Society 14,
no. 1: 103–13.
Riddell, S., T. Tinklin, and A. Wilson. 2005. Disabled students in higher education. London:
Routledge.
Riddell, S., and E. Weedon. 2009. Managerialism and equalities: Tensions within widening
access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities. In Improving disabled
students’ learning: Experiences and outcomes, ed. M. Fuller, J. Georgeson, M. Healey, A.
Hurst, K. Kelly, S. Riddell, H. Roberts, and E. Weedon, 3–18. London: Routledge.
Shakespeare, T., and N. Watson. 2001. The social model of disability: An outdated ideology?
Research in Social Science and Disability 2, no. 1: 9–28.
Shevlin, M., M. Kenny, and E. McNeela. 2004. Participation in higher education for students
with disabilities: An Irish perspective. Disability & Society 19, no. 1: 15–30.
Waterfield, J., and B. West. 2006. Inclusive assessment in higher education: A resource for
change. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Waterfield, J., B. West, and M. Parker. 2006. Supporting inclusive practice. In Towards inclu-
sive learning in higher education: Developing curricula for disabled students, ed. M.
Adams and S. Brown, 79–94. London: Routledge.
Weedon, E., and M. Fuller. 2004. What is it like for you? Surveying the learning experiences
of disabled students in four HE institutions. Paper presented at Teaching Learning
Research Programme Annual Conference, November 22–24, in Cardiff.
Wilson, K., E. Getzel, and T. Brown. 2000. Enhancing the post-secondary campus climate for
students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 14, no. 1: 37–50.