Content uploaded by Yasuhiro Kotera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yasuhiro Kotera on Apr 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards Another Kind of Borderlessness: Online Students with Disabilities
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Kotera, Y., Cockerill, V., Green, P., Hutchinson, L., Shaw, P., & Bowskill, N. (2019).
Towards another kind of borderlessness: Online students with disabilities. Distance Education.
doi: 10.1080/01587919.2019.1600369
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 1
Abstract
Online learning is crucial to success for higher education institutions. Whilst the
existing literature predominantly focused on its economic advantages, we focused on
its inclusivity. At an online learning unit of a UK university, the number of students
with disabilities (SWD) is three times higher than the national average. Having a
degree makes significant financial and psychological differences in the lives of SWD.
Though recent literature focused on inclusivity of online learning, an appraisal of first-
hand experience of SWD studying online is a missing perspective. Accordingly, we
aimed to explore their experience, using thematic analysis of semi-structured
interviews involving ten SWD. Three themes emerged: i) having control over studies
as an advantage of online learning, ii) personal touch helps SWD’s online learning,
and iii) challenges SWD experience with the social element of online learning. Our
findings will help to develop the inclusivity of online learning to a new level.
Keywords: online learning, disabilities, sense of control, personal touch, social
learning
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 2
Introduction
Online learning has become a primary focus in higher education (HE), attracting an
increasing number of students. A survey response by 2500 American colleges and
universities reported that about 70% of public institutions, and half of private non- and for-
profit institutions agreed that online education was pivotal to their long-term strategies. That
same survey showed 70% of HE institutions provided online programmes, including more
than 11,000 completely online programmes (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Further, during the fall
of the 2009 semester, about six million students undertook at least one online programme - a
21% increase from the previous year -, whilst the enrolment of the entire HE only grew 2% in
America (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Three years later, the number had risen to seven million
students in US HE, who were enrolled in an online course (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
American institutions primarily attributed this increase to economic factors such as
heightened fuel costs and unemployment rates, highlighting the way online learning has
widened participation in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2008).
Another notable group of people gaining access to education, through the advent of
online education, is learners with disabilities (i.e., a mental or physical impairment [Equality
Act, 2010]). This study aimed to explore online learning experience of this student
population.
Literature Review
Online education can support people with disabilities (PWD) worldwide (Roberts,
Crittenden & Crittenden, 2011) and although not a large number, the number of students with
disabilities (SWD) in online learning has been increasing as a consequence of greater
accessibility (Burdette, Greer & Woods, 2013; Thompson, Ferdig & Black, 2012).
Particularly for PWD, earning a degree makes a significant difference in their lives,
improving employment opportunities and working conditions. For example, among PWD,
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 3
degree holders make 50% more lifetime income than non-degree holders. Additionally, PWD
with degrees feel more secure about their job than those without degrees (Thind, Stevens &
Waters, 2016). PWD can enhance their job prospects radically by getting a higher degree,
thus making a critical difference in their lives (Association of Graduate Careers Advisory
Services, 2016). Despite this impact, participation of PWD in HE has been generally low. For
instance, while 41% of non-disabled 19-year-olds in England and Wales enrolled on HE
programmes (predominantly face-to-face programmes), this compared with only 28% of
PWD in the same age group (Riddell, Edward, Weedon & Ahlgren, 2010). In Australia,
though the number of SWD had increased 98% from 2007 to 2015, the proportion of SWD is
still low at 6% of the overall student population (Australian Government Department of
Education & Training, 2016). Likewise, 13% of all the students in HE in the UK, and 10% in
the USA had disabilities (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2016; United States
Department of Education [USDE], 2009). Despite the greater benefits SWD could enjoy,
their participation to higher education is lower than non-disabled students (McManus, Dryer
& Henning, 2017).
In our university in the UK, the rate of students with disabilities is similar to the
nation-wide rate, accounting for 12% of the entire student population. However, in our
departmental entity for online learning, 40% of the online students have declared disabilities
(University of Derby, 2017). This is more than three times the national figure and figures for
the whole university. Previous survey-based studies reported that this difference may be
explained by the greater accessibility of online learning (Burdette et al., 2013; Thompson et
al., 2012), however research into the first-hand experience of SWD in online learning has
been scarce. Lastly, given that approximately 600 million people worldwide have some type
of disability (8% of the world population; United Nations Educational Scientific & Cultural
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 4
Organization, 2009), and online learning attracts learners worldwide (Shonfeld & Ronen,
2015), it is essential to investigate the experiences of online learners who have a disability.
HE aims to foster inclusion, increase the involvement of SWD, and broaden the
participation of socially marginalised groups (Shevlin, Kenny & Mcneela, 2004). Despite the
recent emphasis on market-driven attributes in HE (Riddell, 2009), awareness of SWD in HE
has been increasing (e.g., the Disability Discrimination Act in Australia [1992]; the Equality
Act in the UK [2010]), and more support for SWD in HE is urgently needed (Lombardi et al.,
2018). SWD commonly spend more time and effort than students without disabilities, causing
higher levels of stress and anxiety, and reduced self-esteem (i.e., feeling they are not
academic enough; Mullins & Preyde, 2013; Ryan, 2007). Managing their own learning
disabilities can negatively impact i) their emotional wellbeing (Davis, Nida, Zlomke &
Nebel-Schwalm, 2009) - an increasing category of disabilities (i.e., mental impairments)
(American College Health Association, 2008) - and ii) academic performance (Richardson,
2009). Additionally, many SWD are reluctant to disclose their disabilities (Shevlin et al.,
2004; Zeng, Ju & Hord, 2018) being afraid of institutionalised discrimination, and
unfamiliarity with the process of disclosure (Fuller, Bradley & Healey, 2004; Lambert &
Dryer 2018; Shepherd, 2018). Further, delayed disclosure can be perceived as asking for
unfair advantages in some cases (Gibson, 2012). SWD in Greek HE noted the feeling of
embarrassment to disclose their disabilities, ambiguous satisfaction with the university’s
support services, and a greater need for career guidance (Vlachou & Papananou, 2018).
Moreover, lecturers are often unaware of, or lacking in confidence with, SWD and related
issues (Collins, Azmat & Rentschler, 2018; Roth, Pure, Rabinowitz & Kaufman-
Scarborough, 2018; Shepherd 2018), and particularly so in online learning (Massengale &
Vasquez, 2016). These experiential issues (instead of the policy level issues) may highlight
that while advocacy for SWD has been advanced, the delivery of support for this group
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 5
remains challenging, creating a barrier to HE (Gibson, 2012). In the increasing complexities
of HE (e.g., commercialisation), achieving broad inclusion is a serious concern for
academics, administrators, students, and their families (Bessant, 2012).
While research has progressed in SWD in face-to-face learning, an investigation into
the experience of SWD in online learning is relatively new. A survey (Roberts et al., 2011)
reported that 27% of PWD (i.e., those who had never undertaken online learning) were
worried if their disabilities might have a negative impact on their potential to succeed in
online learning. The ratio increased to 46% among SWD (i.e., those who had undertaken or
were undertaking online learning) who responded saying their disabilities had a negative
impact. Unsurprisingly the ratio of SWD who declared their disabilities was low (24%),
despite the relatively high rate of satisfaction with the institutional support (45% satisfied;
Roberts et al., 2011). A thematic analysis in a study of eight Australian dyslexic students
undertaking online learning illustrated: i) their stress and anxiety caused by increased study
time needed to catch up with the curriculum, ii) more family time as a result of family
support in their learning, and iii) enhanced self-esteem and improved quality of life, derived
from their achievements despite their challenges (Lambert & Dryer, 2018). Considering the
high accessibility of online learning and experiential issues SWD face in HE, investigation
into the experience of more diverse SWD (e.g., various types of disabilities) in online
learning is needed.
This study, therefore, will explore:
Research Question (RQ) 1: Why have our students chosen online learning over face-to-face
learning?
RQ2: What helps and challenges their experience of online learning? and
RQ3: How can online learning better support them in the future?,
through focused interviews and qualitative analysis.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 6
Methods
Research Design
This study employed thematic analysis of in-depth qualitative semi-structured
interviews attended by ten online students who had declared their disabilities and had at least
one year of prior experience learning online (five women and men; RNGage=22-63,
Mage=43.9, SDage=12.7 years; five psychology, four healthcare, and one business students; six
postgraduate and four undergraduate students). All of them presented the medical evidence of
their disabilities; nine were receiving the university’s disability support plan. On average, the
participants had 2.6 years of prior experience learning online. Eight UK students, and one
from another European country and North America. Their declared disabilities were dyslexia
(n=3), dyspraxia (n=3), epilepsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), social
anxiety, cerebral palsy, visual disturbances, and Irlen syndrome (all n=1). Dyslexia is a
learning difficulty, causing problems with reading, writing and spelling (National Health
Services [NHS], 2018). Dyspraxia causes difficulties in one’s coordination skills, relating to
writing (i.e., typing in the online context), remembering, and managing time and emotions
(NHS, 2018). Likewise, epilepsy, causing frequent seizures, hinders one’s coordination skills
(NHS, 2018). ADHD is a behavioural disorder characterised by inattentiveness and
hyperactivity, which can bother one’s concentration on academic work (Wolf & Wasserstein,
2001). Social anxiety is characterised by an intense and consistent fear in social situations,
causing poor engagement in academic work (Bernstein, Bernat, Davis & Layne, 2008).
Cerebral palsy is a prolonged movement condition, relating to visual disturbances, making
studying difficult (NHS, 2018). Lastly, Irlen syndrome is a perceptual processing disorder,
causing various academic problems including writing and reading (Irlen Institute, 2017). All
participants had full time jobs. The demographic information was summarised in Table 1.
[Please insert Table 1]
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 7
Participants
Programme leaders distributed the research information in the announcement page for
their programmes. Students who were interested in participating in the study were asked to
contact the first researcher. Of 19 students who had contacted the first researcher, ten students
were chosen for an hour-long Skype interview, maintaining the representativeness of the
sample: programme, type of disability, residence, gender, and age (Table 1). The rest of nine
students were excluded as they could cause imbalance of the representativeness. All co-
researchers were based in the UK, and assigned to interview students who were not in their
programmes, in order to limit biased responses. The ten interviews reached a point of
saturation, ensuring that the data obtained were adequate and of high quality to support the
study: the co-researchers agreed that interviewing more participants would not add anything
to the overall story (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Procedure and Analysis
Ethical approval of this study was granted by the university’s research ethics
committee. The Helpful Aspects of Therapy Questionnaire (HAT: Llewelyn, 1988) was
employed to establish interview questions to capture the experience of learning (e.g., Kotera,
2018). The questions in the HAT were suitable for this study because they were clear and not
intrusive to the interviewees, thus helping them to focus on the helpful factors in their
learning experience (Elliott, 2012). We did not employ the Students with Disabilities and
Online Learning (SDOL) survey (Roberts et al., 2011), because we intended to explore our
students' experience in-depth, rather than the descriptive and categorical information.
The interviews were conducted via Skype or Blackboard Collaborate, and audio-
recorded for transcription. Online interviews are inexpensive, geographically flexible, and
user-friendly (Saumure & Given, 2010), thus especially helpful for SWD to focus on their
interviews (e.g., no need to visit an interview site; Choi et al., 2014). Each interview explored
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 8
topics such as reasons why they decided to study in online settings; what the
advantages/disadvantages of online learning were, in comparison with face-to-face learning;
what helped/hindered their online learning; and what they hoped for the future of online
learning (Annex 1). During the interviews, active-listening skills and open-ended questions
were utilised, in order to elicit the full experience of the students (Michael & Hoppe, 2006).
All co-researchers were teaching in helping subjects (education, nursing, psychotherapy and
social work), and proficient in these skills.
Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data for its high applicability: our analysis
was not restricted to any existent philosophical framework, hence this form of analysis was
deemed to be appropriate for investigating this nascent area (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Thematic analysis i) segments, ii) categorises, iii) summarises, and iv) reconstructs the data,
to identify the salient concepts and patterns of experience within the data, which contributes
to delineating the common themes (Givens, 2008). In addition to Braun and Clarke’s
procedure (2006), an investigator triangle (Hales, 2010) was established for transparency and
coherency: an education researcher who was familiar with online learning, and another who
was not familiar with online learning, reviewed the data extracts of each theme identified by
the co-researchers, to reach an agreement on all themes. The following steps were taken
(Braun & Clarke, 2006):
1. Familiarisation
The interview transcriptions were read repeatedly, enabling initial interpretation
(Bird, 2005), in order to find patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
2. Generating Initial Codes
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 9
To organise the data into meaningful groups, coding was conducted (Tuckett, 2005)
and codes were created at this point (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The 24 codes were accessibility,
flexibility, practicality, organisation, time management, interaction, control, insecurity,
mental health issues, social pressure, digital skills, authentic materials, career change,
psychological distance, flexibility, perception towards online learning, stigma, other duties in
life, senior learners, motivation, multimodality, collaboration, isolation and self-pace.
3. Searching for Themes
The codes were categorised into potential themes. We employed the mind-map
method in order to view all the codes synchronously, and move and connect them freely
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). The 24 codes were categorised into three themes: control over their
studies, personal touch and social element of learning. No codes were identified as an outlier.
4. Reviewing Themes
All the coded data extracts and themes were reviewed for coherency and accuracy
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). The data were organised into three types: the advantages of online
learning, what helps online learning of SWD, and the areas of improvement, required of the
university, for SWD in online learning. The theme ‘control over their studies’ corresponded
to the advantages of online learning, the theme ‘personal touch’ addressed what helps online
learning of SWD, and lastly the theme ‘social element of learning’ was linked with the areas
of improvement for SWD in online learning.
5. Defining and Naming Themes
The essence and the scope of data apprehended by each theme were defined (Braun &
Clarke, 2006).
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 10
Results
The data extracts of ‘control over their studies’ revealed that SWD found
accessibility, flexibility, and self-paced nature of online learning particularly helpful to their
studies, fitting their study times in their professional and family lives. The data extracts of
‘personal touch’ revealed multimodal and organised contents and authentic materials helped
SWD manage their mental health issues and affects (e.g., motivation) to study. Lastly, the
data extracts of ‘social element of learning’ illustrated that SWD experienced difficulty
interacting with peers and faculty in online learning. Each theme responds to each research
question (i.e., Theme 1 to RQ1, Theme 2 to RQ2, and Theme 3 to RQ3).
Theme 1: Having Control Over Studies as an Advantage of Online Learning
All participants reported that having control over their studies was a notable
advantage of online learning, referring to the accessibility and flexibility of online learning
(e.g., no geographical restriction with internet; study anytime with any pace they want; can be
studied on various devices), while managing other duties in their lives. This was particularly
important to SWD, as they manage their disabilities in their daily life, which are often out of
their control. The accessibility and flexibility of online learning allow them to study while
managing their symptoms and other life commitments (Owusu-Ansah, Agyei-Baffour &
Edusei, 2012; Walker, 1989).
Participant 1: The main reason [why I chose online learning] is that I wouldn't be able
to live in another country because I already have my career here. … I can arrange the
time [to study] that is flexible.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 11
Participant 7: I didn’t want to be tied down to lecturers. … It’s been a while since my
undergraduate, so I wanted to have control over my studies. … Being a full-time
worker, going to lecturers would be difficult.
Despite being a full-time worker, the accessibility and flexibility of online learning
enabled them to study for a degree in order to change or advance their career, instead of
starting to build it (as commonly seen in younger students in the face-to-face). This may be
related to their preference for the practical study contents.
Participant 9: The course I am taking offers learning materials that can be used on the
job, applied in the workplace and support continuous professional development.
SWD reported that practical contents of online learning were especially useful to
them, because online learning is a helpful medium enabling them to access such contents
(Shonfeld & Ronen, 2015). Another salient advantage of online learning SWD noted was less
social pressure. Being able to access the learning materials remotely, and not needing to be at
a certain location allows them to avoid social pressure that could be present in the face-to-
face setting.
Participant 7: In the face-to-face setting, I feel pressure to respond to lecturers’
questions immediately. Because of my dyslexia, I have short-term memory on spoken
words. … When I feel pressured, my dyslexia gets worse. My mind goes blank.
Participant 8: I have no worries about feeling or looking different in terms of my older
age group. I feel included, and able to live up to my potential with online learning.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 12
These comments highlight SWD’s anxiety about how they would be perceived in the
face-to-face setting and stigma about their disabilities, demonstrating how significant this
concern is for SWD.
Participant 7: If you want something more for your disabilities, you will be singled
out [in the face-to-face],… while [in online learning] I can interact with my tutor
considering my individual symptom, I don’t feel singled out.
Participant 9: No worries about feeling or looking different, or being made fun of,
then feeling [that I am] not good enough.
Lastly, some students reported that being able to develop their digital skills was an
advantage of online learning and that feature played an important role in their decision to
study online. Proficient digital skills can give them a sense of control (Badge, Dawson, Cann
& Scott, 2008).
Participant 5: I’m not computer-literate and, thought that one of the problems about
learning about computer[s] is that you have to do it: it is not until you do it over and
over again that you become fluent in it.
Participant 9: Learning how to do research online opened up a new world. … It helps
to seek out scholarly articles online.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 13
These comments implied that being able to control their studies (e.g., time and
location) was a key determinant for them to study online, enabling them to manage their other
life commitments.
Theme 2: Personal Touch Helps SWD’s Online Learning
SWD noted that a sense of personal touch would help manage their emotions in
learning (e.g., anxiety, frustration, motivation), which can be a notable barrier for their
academic success (Lambert & Dryer, 2018).
Participant 2: I really need the opportunity to chat to people … I have several online
learning relationships where we chat.
Participant 7: Lecture videos specifically made for the programme makes you feel …
more value to the programme. … more specific and tailored.
Key emotions or emotive words reported in relation to their learning experience were:
anxiety, depression, anger, frustration, stress, insecurity, isolation, psychological distance,
and motivation. In order to manage their emotions, authentic materials created by the tutors
and multimodal contents were suggested by SWD.
Participant 3: I would hope for a much more personalised experience … More of
social [emphasis] would be terrific… more social networking and face-to-face
opportunities, particularly different regions.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 14
Participant 8: More variety of media would improve online learning, for example,
video and lecture capture. … Media specifically made for the module, made by the
lecturer would … feel more personal to the programme.
These data extracts suggest that a sense of personal touch can help SWD overcome
emotional challenges in online learning.
Theme 3: Challenges SWD Experience with the Social Element of Online Learning
While SWD were overall satisfied with their learning experience, some areas for
improvement have been identified. They can be summarised as difficulty with interactions
with others (including collaboration and informal conversations), which can be easier in the
face-to-face setting.
Participant 4: There is a lot of difficulty with social loafing; some people were easy to
contact, others weren’t.
Participant 6: A challenge is that it can be very difficult and time-consuming to
collaborate with people, whereas if you are in the same office, that’s very easy. …
you have to be a lot more proactive to connect with people. … struggles with the
interactions.
Participant 10: There is something about sitting down … with someone, … [that]
would give you that extra support, which doesn’t really happen in the same way
online, because people come from different countries and backgrounds, and access the
content at different times.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 15
While SWD appreciate that a sense of personal touch was useful to their online
learning (Theme 2), difficulty in the social element of learning was a challenge for them. This
can be observed not only at the logistical level, but also at the interpersonal level.
Participant 2: I have mentioned it (his disability) to my group and I think it made them
feel uncomfortable, which made me feel uncomfortable in a way. They are very nice
people, and in no way rude or discriminatory but it’s just a weird thing to get your
head around … it’s the mismatch of intimacy and disclosure that is hard to get right in
a digital context.
The social element of learning is crucial to their learning experience (Elcicek,
Erdemci & Karal, 2018; Song, Kim & Park, 2018). Comments from SWD suggest how the
university, including educators and learning designers, can support their social learning
experience would be one area to be improved.
Discussion
This study qualitatively analysed semi-structured interviews attended by ten SWD
who were learning in the online platform. Three themes emerged from the dataset: having
control over studies as an advantage of online learning (Theme 1), personal touch helps
SWD’s online learning (Theme 2), and challenges SWD experience with the social element
of online learning (Theme 3).
SWD reported that having control over their studies was a notable advantage of online
learning. They can organise their study time around their professional and family duties,
referring to the flexibility and self-paced nature of online learning. This is consistent with the
experience of online students without disabilities, noting the spatiotemporal flexibility (Cole,
2000) and the autonomous access to the learning materials/activities (Anderson, 2008).
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 16
However, these advantages may be accentuated in the experience of SWD. Indeed, a sense of
control was associated with SWD’s wellbeing (Owusu-Ansah et al., 2012). Because SWD
need to deal with difficulties associated with their disabilities, which are often out of their
control, having a sense of control may be especially important for their wellness (Owusu-
Ansah et al., 2012; Walker, 1989). Further research is needed to distinguish how these
advantages are experienced in students with and without disabilities.
SWD found the job-related contents of online learning useful, and similar feedback
has been received from online students in general, who tend to be working adults, as well
(Friedman, 2014). Today many HE institutions focus on recruiting working adults, who
prefer learning something practical to their current and future work (Amira Baharudin, Murad
& Hj Mat, 2013). Online learning provides such contents than face-to-face learning
(Clinefelter & Aslanian, 2016), which is less accessible for working adults (McKay & Gatta,
2009). Our findings revealed that online learning can overcome that challenge, providing
access to education for this population of learners, which conforms to the Commission of
European Communities’ lifelong learning strategy (Laal & Laal, 2012).
Less social pressure and stigma on disability was reported as another advantage of
online learning. Inclusivity has been emphasised in education, and the social model of
disability, recognising all types of disabilities (Shakespeare & Watson, 2001), has been
increasingly applied in the traditional educational settings (Kruse & Oswal, 2018). However,
the application of this model in online learning was not successful partly because of its
individualised methods of learning (e.g., asynchronous learning) (Woolgar, Coopmans &
Neyland, 2009), thus models such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL; USDE, 2010) - a
model that reduces barriers for participation and provides appropriate support embedded in
the learning structure - have been widely employed in online learning (U.S. Department of
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 17
Education, 2010). Indeed, in the face-to-face setting, SWD had more favourable attitudes
towards PWD than students without disabilities (Bogart, Logan, Hospodar & Woekel, 2018).
Further, SWD were more sensitive to social pressure than students without disabilities
(Bryan, Pearl & Fallon, 1989). PWD recorded more stress from a social pressure task,
perceptually and physically, than people without disabilities (Bishop-Fitzpatrick, Minshew,
Mazefsky & Eack, 2017), suggesting that stress management of SWD in higher education is
crucial for their academic success. Thus, it is understandable that our sample of SWD noted
less social pressure was a pronounced advantage of online learning. Future research should
explore these social aspects of online learning. For example, how much impact these features
have in SWD’s decision-making process for enrolling to online learning, would be worthy of
further investigation. Lastly, SWD noted the development of digital skills as an advantage of
online learning and this may explain previous findings reporting SWD’s active engagement
with various digital tools (Badge et al., 2008). Developing digital skills was in line with the
learners’ need in the 21st century (Adams Becker et al., 2017), suggesting that online
learning can respond to this emerging educational need today.
SWD reported various emotions they have experienced in online learning (e.g,
anxiety, frustration, stress, insecurity, and isolation), and personal touch and authentic
materials were deemed to play a crucial role in their management of emotions. This was
consistent with the recent findings about online education (Elcicek et al., 2018; Song et al.,
2018), which highlighted the importance of social presence in online learning, commonly
regarded as the individual’s perception as a real person co-existing with others in the online
learning environment (Biocca, Harms & Burgoon, 2003; Gunawardena, 1995; Picciano,
2002), reducing transactional distance – a key predictor of online student engagement
(Bolliger & Halupa, 2018). Wang’s (2014) survey study with 361 online students reported the
importance of trust among disabled students and students without disabilities; however, the
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 18
sample size of SWD was too small (n = 15) to be considered important. While these previous
studies focused on learners without disabilities, our findings of SWD can make original
contributions. Authentic materials were also reported as effective tools for SWD’s online
learning. As reported in the Horizon Report (Adams Becker et al., 2017), personalised
materials of online learning can be a solution for the achievement gap and retention problem
in higher education. Our sample of SWD noted that these types of materials gave them a
sense of personal touch, which was conducive to their emotional management in learning.
This may provide a new insight about the mechanism of how personalised materials help
SWD’s learning experience, namely, emotional management. Future research should explore
this aspect of online learning for SWD further. For example, an intervention study to explore
the effects of webinars delivered by their tutor, on SWD’s emotions and academic
performance would be worthwhile.
Lastly, facilitation of their social learning was consistently highlighted by the
participating SWD, as an area of improvement for SWD’s online learning that the university
needs to be aware of. This was highlighted among online students in general too (Cohen,
2003). Numerous studies have reported that both formal and informal collaborative work,
which encourages student engagement and constructive discussions, is vital to online learning
as such work contributes to deep learning (Ku, Hung & Akarasriworn, 2013; Stegmann et al.,
2011). However, implementation is difficult because online collaborative work takes place in
a virtual and often asynchronous setting, causing students’ insecurity and apprehension,
particularly in a cohort comprised of students from diverse backgrounds (Hernández-Sellés et
al., 2015). SWD reported difficulties connecting with their culturally-diverse learning
communities, due to a lack of perceived shared disability and cultural experiences (Burke &
Goldman, 2018). However, by nurturing their self-learning ability, SWD may be able to
counter these difficulties (Shonfeld & Ronen, 2015). While previous research reported the
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 19
logistical challenges of online collaboration (e.g., difference of digital proficiency; Curtis &
Lawson, 2001), our study, focused on SWD, identified interpersonal issues, as noted by
Participant 2 (‘the mismatch of intimacy and disclosure’). To facilitate the social element of
online programmes, recent studies reported promising results. Harker-Schuch et al. (2016)
found that online courses that centred around collaborative learning activities (Savery &
Duffy, 1995), resulted in improved student satisfaction: students were particularly satisfied
with the practical knowledge they developed through online collaboration. Likewise, use of
social media (e.g., Facebook) in online education had positive impacts on students’ learning
experience (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2018), however privacy and safety of students still need to be
ensured (McCarthy, 2012). These types of studies need to be conducted focusing on SWD to
enhance their online collaboration and socialisation.
There are several limitations to this study. Our findings are specific to the current
modest sample of SWD, who were older than the general online student population (Mage=32
years old; Oanca, 2018), hence may not be generalisable to the general online SWD’s
experience. Additionally, an institutional bias may be present, as all the participants were
recruited from one institution. Subject bias may also be present, as our participants were
predominantly in psychology or healthcare. Indeed, due to the entry requirements, some
subjects are less likely to have SWD, however, in the future, research with students in more
comprehensive disciplines would be helpful.
Conclusion
This study explored first-hand experiences of SWD in online learning through a
thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews involving ten SWD studying in our online
programmes. SWD reported that having a sense of control over their studies was a
determining factor in their enrolment. Learning components that made them feel a sense of
personal touch were particularly useful to their academic emotional management. While
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 20
SDW were overall satisfied with their learning experience, the social element of online
learning was challenging to them, suggesting an area of improvement for the future.
Greater inclusion has been receiving increased attention as a goal for online learning.
This study explored experiences of SWD in online learning and provides unique
contributions to educators, educational researchers, and students. Our findings contribute
towards the development of inclusive practice in online learning, progressing towards another
level of borderlessness in education, by understanding the experiences of SWD.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 21
References
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., &
Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition.
Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton: Athabasca
University.
Akcaoglu, M. & Lee, E. (2018). Using Facebook groups to support social presence in online
learning. Distance Education, 39, 334-352.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States,
2008. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States,
2010. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
American College Health Association. 2008. National College Health Assessment: Reference
Group Data Report, Spring 2008. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Amira Baharudin, S.N., Murad, M., & Hj Mat, N.H. (2013). Challenges of adult learners: A
case study of fulltime postgraduates students. Social and Behavioral Sciences 90, 772-781.
Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services. (2016). What happens next? A report on
the first destinations of 2013 disabled graduates. Sheffield: Author.
Australian Government Department of Education & Training. (2016). Higher education
equity groups tables for the 2015. Canberra: Author.
Badge, J.L., Dawson, E., Cann, A.J., & Scott, J. (2008). Assessing the accessibility of online
learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 103-114.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 22
Bernstein, G.A., Bernat, D.H., Davis, A.M., & Layne, A.E. (2008). School-based
interventions for anxious children: 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1039–1047.
Bessant, J. (2012). ‘Measuring Up’? Assessment and students with disabilities in the modern
university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16, 265–281.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of
social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12, 456-480.
Bird, C. (2005). How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qualitative
Inquiry, 11, 226–248.
Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Minshew, N.J., Mazefsky, C.A., & Eack, S.M. (2017). Perception of
life as stressful, not biological response to stress, is associated with greater social disability in
adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 1-
16
Bogart, K.R., Logan, S.W., Hospodar, C., & Woekel, E. (2018). Disability models and
attitudes among college students with and without disabilities. Stigma and Health.
Bolliger, D., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional
distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39, 299-316.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Bryan, T., Pearl, R., & Fallon P. (1989). Conformity to peer pressure by students with
learning disabilities: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 458-459.
Burdette, P., Greer, D., & Woods, K. (2013). K-12 online learning and students with
disabilities: Perspectives from state special education directors. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 17, 65–72.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 23
Burke, M. & Goldman, S. (2018). Special education advocacy among culturally and
linguistically diverse families. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(1), 3-
14.
Choi, N., Marti, C., Bruce, M., Hegel, M., Wilson, N., & Kunik, M. (2014). Six-month
postintervention depression and disability outcomes of in-home telehealth problem-solving
therapy for depressed, low-income homebound older adults. Depression and Anxiety, 31,
653-661.
Clinefelter, D., & Aslanian, C. (2016). Online college students 2016: Comprehensive data on
demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: Learning House.
Cohen, V.L. (2003). Distance learning instruction: A new model of assessment. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 14, 98–120.
Cole, R. (2000). Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer. London: Greenwood Press.
Collins, A., Azmat, F., & Rentschler, R. (2018). Bringing everyone on the same journey:
Revisiting inclusion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education.
Curtis, D.D., & Lawson, M.J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks 5, 21-34.
Davis, T.E., Nida, R.E., Zlomke, K.R., & Nebel-Schwalm, M.S. (2009). Health-related
quality of life in college undergraduates with learning disabilities: The mediational roles of
anxiety and sadness. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 228–234.
Disability Discrimination Act. (1992). Australian Government Federal Register of
Legislation. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04426
Elcicek, M., Erdemci, H., & Karal, H. (2018). Examining the relationship between the Levels
of digital citizenship and social presence for the graduate students having online education.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19, 203-214.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 24
Elliott, R. (2012). Qualitative methods for studying psychotherapy change processes. In A.
Thompson & D. Harper (Eds.), Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health &
Psychotherapy (69–81). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwells.
Equality Act. (2010). Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010
Friedman, J. (2014). Online education by discipline. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2014/09/17/online-education-
by-discipline-a-graduate-students-guide
Fuller, M., Bradley, A., & Healey. M. (2004). Incorporating disabled students within an
inclusive higher education environment. Disability and Society, 19, 455–468.
Gibson, S. (2012). Narrative accounts of university education: Socio-cultural perspectives of
students with disabilities. Disability and Society, 27, 353–369.
Givens, L. (2008). Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods (2nd ed). London:
Sage.
Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and
collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1, 147-166.
Hales, D. (2010). Introduction to triangulation. Geneva: UNAIDS.
Harker-Schuch, I.E.P., Chuang, V.J., Bregnhøj, H., Furu, P., Andersen, I., & Henriksen, C.B.
(2016). Facilitating online project collaboration: New directions for learning design. Læring
& Medier, 16, 1-31.
Hernández-Sellés, N., González-Sanmamed, M., & Muñoz-Carril, P. (2015). Student's
perceptions of online collaborative learning at the Ninth International Technology, Education
and Development Conference. 2nd-4th March 2015, Madrid, Spain.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 25
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2016). Full-time HE student enrolments by level of
study, subject area, sex, age group, disability status and ethnicity 2015/16. Cheltenham:
Author.
Irlen Institute. (2017). What is Irlen syndrome? Retrieved from http://irlen.com/what-is-irlen-
syndrome/
Kotera, Y. (2018). A qualitative investigation into the experience of neuro-linguistic
programming certification training among Japanese career consultants. British Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 46(1), 39-50.
Ku, H.Y., Hung, W.T., & Akarasriworn, C. (2013). Collaboration factors, teamwork
satisfaction, and student attitudes toward online collaborative learning. Journal Computers in
Human Behavior, 29, 922-929.
Laal, M., & Laal, A. (2012). Lifelong learning; Elements. Social and Behavioral Sciences,
47, 1562-1566.
Lambert, D., & Dryer, R. (2018). Quality of life of higher education students with learning
disability studying online. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
65, 393-407.
Llewelyn, S. (1988). Psychological therapy as viewed by clients and therapists. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 223–237.
Lombardi, A., Gelbar, N., Dukes, L., Kowitt, J., Wei, Y., Madaus, J., … Faggella-Luby, M.
(2018). Higher education and disability: A systematic review of assessment instruments
designed for students, faculty, and staff. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11, 34-50.
Massengale, L.R., & Vasquez, E. (2016). Assessing accessibility: How accessible are online
courses for students with disabilities? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
16, 69-79.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 26
McCarthy, J. (2012). International design collaboration and mentoring for tertiary students
through Facebook. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 755–775.
McKay, H., & Gatta, M. (2009). Online learning for low skill adults. Washington, DC:
Communications Workers of America.
McManus, D., Dryer, R., & Henning. (2017). Barriers to learning online experienced by
students with a mental health disability. Distance Education, 38, 336-352.
Michael, H., & Hoppe, M. (2006). Active listening: ImproveyYour ability to listen and lead.
Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
Mullins, L., & Preyde, M. (2013). The lived experience of students with an invisible
disability at a Canadian university. Disability & Society, 28: 147-160.
National Health Services. (2018). Health A-Z. Retrieved from
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/
Oanca, A. (2018). Why is Distance Learning So Popular in the United States? Retrieved from
https://www.distancelearningportal.com/articles/393/why-is-distance-learning-so-popular-in-
the-united-states.html
Owusu-Ansah, F., Agyei-Baffour, P., & Edusei, A. (2012). Perceived control, academic
performance and well-being of Ghanaian college students with disability. African Journal of
Disability, 1, 34.
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and
performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 6, 21-40.
Richardson, J. (2009). The attainment and experiences of disabled students in distance
education. Distance Education, 30, 87-102.
Riddell, S., Edward, S., Weedon, E., & Ahlgren, L. (2010). Disability, skills and employment:
A review of recent statistics and literature on policy and initiatives. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 27
Riddell, S. (2009). Social justice, equality and inclusion in Scottish education. Discourse, 30,
283–297.
Roberts, J., Crittenden, L., & Crittenden, J. (2011). Students with disabilities and online
learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance
and services. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 242-250.
Roth, D., Pure, T., Rabinowitz, S., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2018). Disability awareness,
training, and empowerment: A new paradigm for raising disability awareness on a university
campus for faculty, staff, and students. Social Inclusion, 6, 116-124.
Ryan, J. (2007). Learning disabilities in Australian universities: Hidden, ignored, and
unwelcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 436-442.
Saumure, K., & Given, L. (2010). Using Skype as a research tool: Lessons learned from
qualitative interviews with distance students in a Teacher-Librarianship Program. Retrieved
from http://lrsv.umd.edu/abstracts/Saumure_Given.pdf.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outmoded
ideology. Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9-28.
Shepherd, R. (2018). A phenomenological study of students with hidden disabilities in higher
education: A cross sectional study of learning support needs in a University in the UK
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Derby, UK). Retrieved from
http://derby.openrepository.com/derby/
Shevlin, M., Kenny, M., & Mcneela, E. (2004). Participation in higher education for students
with disabilities: An Irish perspective. Disability and Society, 19, 15–30.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 28
Shonfeld, M. & Ronen, I. (2015). Online learning for students from diverse backgrounds:
Learning disability students, excellent students and average students. The IAFOR Journal of
Education, 3, 13-29.
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative
argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning
environment. Instructional Science, 40, 297-323.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Song, H., Kim, J., & Park, N. (2018). I know my professor: Teacher self-disclosure in online
education and a mediating role of social presence. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1455126
Thind, R., Stevens, T., & Waters, B. (2016). Into higher education 2016: For anyone with
learning, health or disability issues. London: Disability Right.
Thompson, L. A., Ferdig, R., & Black, E. (2012). Online schools and children with special
health and educational needs: Comparison with performance in traditional schools. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 14, 249–257.
Tuckett, A. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience.
Contemporary Nurse, 19, 75–87.
United Nations Educational Scientific & Cultural Organization. (2009). Learning to live
together. New York, NY: Author.
United States Department of Education. (2009). Disability discrimination: Overview of the
laws. Washington, DC: Author.
United States Department of Education. (2010). Connect and inspire: Online communities of
practice in education. Washington, DC: Author.
TOWARDS ANOTHER KIND OF BORDERLESSNESS 29
University of Derby. (2017). University of Derby Online Learning Students Demographics.
Derby: Author.
Vlachou, A., & Papananou, I. (2018). Experiences and perspectives of Greek higher
education students with disabilities, Educational Research, 60, 206-221.
Walker, J. (1989). Mark's story: A disabled‐student's case study in distance education.
Distance Education, 10, 289-297.
Wang, Y. (2014). Building student trust in online learning environments. Distance Education,
35, 345-359.
Wolf L.E., & Wasserstein J. (2001). Adults ADHD. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 931, 396–408.
Woolgar, S., Coopmans, C., & Neyland, D. (2009). Does STS mean business? Organization,
16, 5-30.
Zeng, W., Ju, S., & Hord, C. (2018). A literature review of academic interventions for college
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41, 159-169.
Table 1. Participant list
GN
Age
Programme
OLE
Residence
Disability
Support Plan
Participant 1
M
37
PG Psychology
3
Other Europe
ADHD
Receiving
Participant 2
M
43
PG Psychology
1
UK
Visual disturbances
Receiving
Participant 3
F
57
UG Healthcare
3
UK
Dyslexia
Receiving
Participant 4
M
39
UG Psychology
4
UK
Social Anxiety
Receiving
Participant 5
F
61
PG Healthcare
2
UK
Dyslexia
Receiving
Participant 6
M
22
PG Psychology
3
UK
Cerebral palsy, Epilepsy
Receiving
Participant 7
F
37
PG Business
2
UK
Dyslexia, Irlen syndrome, Dyspraxia
Receiving
Participant 8
F
40
PG Psychology
4
UK
Dyspraxia
Receiving
Participant 9
F
63
UG Healthcare
3
North America
Dyspraxia
Not Receiving
Participant 10
M
40
UG Healthcare
2
UK
Dyslexia
Receiving
GN=Gender; UG=Undergraduate; PG=Postgraduate; OLE=Online Learning Experience (years). All had a full-time job at the time of the
study.
Annex 1. Interview questions
The aim of this interview is to explore your experience of why you have decided to study
online, what the advantages and disadvantages are of online learning, and what you hope for
online learning in the future. Below are guide questions to stimulate this explorative
discussion.
Why did you decide to study online? What you thought would be advantages and
disadvantages of online learning? Since you started to study, have those advantages and
disadvantages been true to you?
What is your perception toward students with disabilities studying in a face-to-face
programme? What is your prior experience as a disabled student in a face-to-face
environment?
What has been the best part of online learning for you so far?
Is there anything you want changed in your online learning experience?
What do you hope for online learning in the future?
Is there anything else that you feel I should have asked, or that you would like to add?