ArticlePDF Available

Towards another kind of borderlessness: online students with disabilities

Taylor & Francis
Distance Education
Authors:

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: (1) having control over studies as an advantage of online learning, (2) personal touch helps SWD’s online learning, and (3) 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.
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
Age
Programme
OLE
Residence
Disability
Support Plan
Participant 1
37
PG Psychology
3
Other Europe
ADHD
Receiving
Participant 2
43
PG Psychology
1
UK
Visual disturbances
Receiving
Participant 3
57
UG Healthcare
3
UK
Dyslexia
Receiving
Participant 4
39
UG Psychology
4
UK
Social Anxiety
Receiving
Participant 5
61
PG Healthcare
2
UK
Dyslexia
Receiving
Participant 6
22
PG Psychology
3
UK
Cerebral palsy, Epilepsy
Receiving
Participant 7
37
PG Business
2
UK
Dyslexia, Irlen syndrome, Dyspraxia
Receiving
Participant 8
40
PG Psychology
4
UK
Dyspraxia
Receiving
Participant 9
63
UG Healthcare
3
North America
Dyspraxia
Not Receiving
Participant 10
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?
... Research has shown that online flexibility can assist SWD in a variety of ways. For example, online flexibility can help them manage disability-related difficulties such as pain and other issues while studying (Verdinelli & Kutner, 2016), as well as working at their own pace (Kotera et al., 2019;Murphy et al., 2019). In Verdinelli and Kutner's (2016) study, it was reported that participants experience discrimination owing to their disability in traditional settings, therefore they opted for online environment. ...
... Massengale & Vasquez (2016) evaluated six online courses and identified the five challenges, including incompatibility with screen readers, inaccessible links to text, tables without headers, content that opens in pop-up windows and using of JavaScript. In a different study, Kotera et al. (2019) identified problems with social aspects of learning. In addition to these barriers, students also face other barriers including self-regulation and minimising disabilities, a sense of isolation, and a lack of communication (Cole, 2019;Poles, 2020). ...
... Such research studies should consider the type of online platform, student engagement, motivation, self-efficacy, and instructor feedback. Currently, there's not much research on the first-hand experience of students with disabilities in online learning (Kotera et al., 2019). Therefore, more research is needed. ...
Chapter
The chapter examines online self-efficacy among students with disabilities, their preferences for studying online, and their challenges, as well as accessible online courses (universal design for learning). Online learning environments require self-efficacy, which varies according to disability type. Online formats must provide enhanced flexibility and accessibility. Instructors may overlook accessibility issues due to a lack of training. Loneliness has also been associated with negative online learning experiences. UDL ensures equitable access to learning materials. This review can inform policy and practice to ensure online learning is accessible to students with disabilities. Finally, for online learning to succeed, it is equally essential to obtain feedback from students with disabilities. Hence, more research is needed to expand and explore the impact of online learning environments on students with disabilities in higher education. The research should also focus on the types of accommodations and disability services most required for online learning.
... However, achieving this goal may be a mirage as students with disabilities (SWDs) continue to face critical challenges in their studies. For instance, Kotera et al. (2019) identify an increase in the number of students with disabilities in the United Kingdom without commensurate support to facilitate their online learning. The authors classified the educational challenges of SWDs as physical, technological, systemic, financial, or attitudinal. ...
... Globally, funding for educational institutions keeps dwindling and the allocation of SWDs leaves much to be desired. Kotera et al. (2019) lament the complicated and restricted qualification criteria which in their opinion contradicts human rights dictates. This is corroborated by Ferati et al. (2016) who identify stigma and constraints as major challenges SWDs face in their bid to access financial aid. ...
... Additionally, teacher competence in communication, acculturation, or dealing with diversity, and in socio-emotional learning practices can affect their demonstration of empathy toward students (Navarro-Mateu et al., 2019). As reviewed in the literature, one of the highlighted challenges of SWDs is attitudinal (Kotera et al., 2019) and teacher factors that affect the learning of SWDs (Amponsah, 2021). Moriña andOrozco (2020a, 2020b) call for the demonstration and application of universal design of learning (UDL) principles by faculty as an empathetic approach to teaching. ...
Chapter
Students with disabilities (SWDs) are among the most marginalized group of learners who may struggle to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to provide authentic solutions to real-life problems. As a result, policymakers and educators have recognized rethinking design for inclusiveness as a means to provide support for and meet the needs of such learner cohorts. This rethink has resulted in the adoption or adaption of the design-based learning (DBL) approach which seeks to improve the learning experience of SWDs through five iterative design thinking (DT) processes: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. It is important to note that the prevailing literature has largely taken a generic look at the application of the DT processes in inclusive settings. This chapter thus critically focuses on the first process of DT (empathize) to facilitate deep engagement between designers and SWDs as a strategy for reducing instructional barriers and aiding the development of their problem-solving skills. The theoretical analysis of the literature concludes with a proposed model which highlights four key factors (environmental, classroom, teacher, and student factors) as enablers for instructors to demonstrate empathy in inclusive settings. Moving forward, we recommend a participatory design approach through the consideration of the four interrelated factors in the proposed model when constructing the educational process of SWDs. Also, a supportive and disability-friendly learning environment should be created for SWDs in terms of architectural and instructional design.
... Once online education was progressing to reach its peak of usability and accessibility, more studies delved into the deeper aspects of online education for people with disabilities, particularly from an inclusivity viewpoint (e.g. Moeller and Jung, 2014;Burgstahler, 2015;Newman, et. Al, 2017;Smith, Jeffery and Collins, 2018;Kotera, et. Al, 2019;Stone, et. Al, 2019). Moeller and Jung (2014) argued that function as discursive sites of normalcy by marking both online education and its users as less-than substitutes for the "real" versions." According to them technology, these narratives persuade marginalized bodies to recognize themselves as problems in need accessible and usable ...
... ble and usable courses promote the social inclusion of all students. Smith, Jeffery and Collins (2018) suggested that online programs can limit potentials for equity and inclusion in educational spaces. Nevertheless, some studies show that the number of students with disabilities in online courses is growing as a result of increasing accessibility (Kotera, et. Al, 2019;Burdette, Greer, & Woods, 2013;Thompson, Ferdig, & Black, 2012). For instance, Kotera, et. Al (2019) reported that the number of s the national average. ...
... ) suggested that online programs can limit potentials for equity and inclusion in educational spaces. Nevertheless, some studies show that the number of students with disabilities in online courses is growing as a result of increasing accessibility (Kotera, et. Al, 2019;Burdette, Greer, & Woods, 2013;Thompson, Ferdig, & Black, 2012). For instance, Kotera, et. Al (2019) reported that the number of s the national average. ...
... In this respect, we recognise that people diagnosed with mental health conditions (notably but not limited to agoraphobia or social anxiety) may be confined to the home and are subject to similar dynamics of disability-related disbelief and associated exclusions as evidenced in the ELC arena. [29][30][31] Therefore, while we focus on ELC, the following discussion and recommendations for academic inclusion may benefit others with 'hidden' or poorly recognised health conditions. ...
... 1 2 63 Our promotion of remote access as an inclusivity tool does not negate the need to address this divide. Nevertheless, recent research has shown that a leading UK online education provider (University of Derby) has three times as many disabled students as the national average, 30 suggesting that remote delivery of academic programmes can be a significant facilitator of DEI. We therefore conclude by offering recommendations with a view to building on such strategies of inclusion. ...
Article
Full-text available
People with disabilities are subject to multiple forms of health-related and wider social disparities; carefully focused research is required to inform more inclusive, safe and effective healthcare practice and policy. Through lived experience, disabled people are well positioned to identify and persistently pursue problems and opportunities within existing health provisions that may be overlooked by a largely non-disabled research community. Thus, the academy can play an important role in shining a light on the perspectives and insights from within the disability community, and combined with policy decisions, these perspectives and insights have a better opportunity to become integrated into the fabric of public life, within healthcare and beyond. However, despite the potential benefits that could be yielded by greater inclusivity, in this paper we describe barriers within the UK academy confronting disabled people who wish to embark on health research. We do this by drawing on published findings, and via the lived experience of the first author, who has struggled for over 3 years to find an accessible PhD programme as a person with energy limiting conditions who is largely confined to the home in the UK. First, we situate the discussion in the wider perspective of epistemic injustice in health research. Second, we consider evidence of epistemic injustice among disabled researchers, focusing primarily on what philosophers Kidd and Carel (2017, p 184) describe as ‘strategies of exclusion’. Third, we offer recommendations for overcoming these barriers to improve the pipeline of researchers with disabilities in the academy.
... Ethnicity is only one identity of BAME students, and other identities may buffer or compound challenges they may experience. A large proportion of online learners have family and work responsibilities (Zamecnik et al., 2022), and there are many more students in online learning 7 who have a disability (Kotera et al., 2019). Therefore, intersectionality becomes very important to consider with this population. ...
... In comparison, postsecondary students with and without autism opting into online learning express satisfaction with these environments and gain academic advantages from it (Adams et al., 2019). Indeed, postsecondary students with disabilities report several practical advantages of online learning, such as flexibility of work location and pace as well as avoidance of social pressures (Kotera et al., 2019), which could further explain the preference for online learning among postsecondary students with autism. However, barriers to success in online learning, including disorientation, inability to secure additional clarification of assignments and course tasks, and inefficient study habits, have been noted among postsecondary students with autism (Adams et al., 2019). ...
Article
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is often characterized in existing literature by deficits in social skills and communication. Due to COVID-19, a new issue has presented itself for many students—learning effectively in online education. Despite evidence suggesting many college students with autism prefer online courses, research specifically investigating the challenges these students face in emergency remote instruction is limited. Using a virtually adapted nominal group technique (NGT), this project examined the challenges students with and without autism face in emergency remote and hybrid postsecondary education and inquired about resources available to them. Themes such as struggling to form relationships, poor communication, and a need for increased accessibility emerged from the participants with (n = 8) and without (n = 11) autism. Ultimately, these findings highlight challenges that postsecondary students with and without autism are facing in emergency remote instruction and supports that would be helpful in these educational experiences.
... Although these results could be accurate for students without disabilities, this study highlighted the importance of teaching and social presence for students with disabilities. Similarly, Kotera et al. (2019) stated that the social aspect of learning could be a challenge for students with disabilities because they could struggle to communicate about their disabilities. Lee et al. (2021) inserted that students with disabilities reported low self-efficacy in interaction socially with classmates, although they indicated high self-efficacy for academic interaction with classmates. ...
Article
Full-text available
Considering the rise of online education and an increasing number of students with disabilities in higher education, examining the validity of the Self-efficacy Questionnaire for Online Learning (SeQoL) for students with disabilities is warranted. The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of (SeQoL; Shen et al., 2013) for students with disabilities in higher education. We analyzed the internal structure, convergent validity, criterion validity, and reliability of SeQoL. A sample of 278 students with disabilities responded to an online survey in Spring 2021. Most of our sample were female, White, and undergraduate students. We used confirmatory factor analysis, correlation, multivariate analysis of variance, and Cronbach’s alpha to analyze the data. Our results indicated that data fit the five factors model with 25 items. Students who preferred online or hybrid courses had significantly higher online learning self-efficacy than face-to-face courses. Limitations and future research were discussed.
Chapter
Full-text available
Much emphasis has been put on the inclusivity of educational opportunities in international agreements, conventions, and declarations, with the valuable work that continues to be done globally. However, one area needs more attention for disability-inclusive international development, that is, higher education, which is still limited and not fully inclusive or accessible for individuals with disabilities globally (Covas & de Luna, 2019). This chapter presents a case study of the Aksaray University in the Republic of Türkiye. This chapter aims to deconstruct the Turkish social system with emphasis on education and employment first and show an example of how the current system is disrupted to ensure the proper application of international agendas that Türkiye is officially and legally a part of. For this chapter an eclectic approach is used combining a wicked problem frame with disability studies in education from a reconceptualist perspective. This chapter is arranged into four sections, including (a) background on education and employment in the Turkish legal and social system to understand the foundation of current systems that is a gateway or product of higher education for individuals with disabilities; (b) recent understanding of the inclusive, accessible, and nondiscriminatory higher education and where the Turkish higher education system stands in it for individuals with disabilities; (c) a case example of Aksaray University for how to disrupt the system by provision of the disability support services within the university; and (d) conclusion with future implications for policy, research, and practice.
Article
This study assessed the positive perception of distance learning of undergraduate students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or specific learning disorder (SLD), and examined their personal resources (academic self-efficacy [ASE] and sense of coherence [SOC]), and social vulnerability (loneliness) in predicting their positive distance learning perception. Participants were 276 Israeli undergraduates, 138 diagnosed with ADHD/SLD and 138 in a comparison group without disabilities. Students’ positive perceptions toward distance learning, ASE, SOC, and loneliness were assessed via self-report questionnaires. Students with ADHD/SLD reported a less positive perception of distance learning, lower ASE and SOC, and higher loneliness than students without disabilities. In both groups, females had a more positive perception of distance learning than males. ASE uniquely contributed to a positive perception of distance learning only for students with ADHD/SLD. As hybrid learning becomes more and more common in higher education, it is critical to understand the unique needs and adaptation to distance learning of students with ADHD/SLD.
Cover Page
Full-text available
IAFOR Journal of Education: Volume 3 – Issue 2 Editor: Bernard Montoneri, Providence University, Taiwan Published: September 2015 ISSN: 2187-0594 https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.3.2 https://iafor.org/journal/iafor-journal-of-education/volume-3-issue-2/
Article
Full-text available
Employing some of the features of participatory research methodology, a disabled faculty joins a student with mental health diagnosis to examine the factors that hinder or enable success for this group. The theoretical framework or scholarly bearings for the study comes from the critical social model of disability, disability services scholarship in the United States, and education theory literature on “student success”. With a particular focus on students with bipolar disorder, the article highlights the gaps in disability scholarship on this specific group while underscoring the oppression experienced by them through the inclusion of an autoethnographic segment by the primary author in this collaborative, scholarly work. The model of access, we propose, moves beyond accommodations—which are often retrofits or after the thought arrangements made by an institution—and asks for environmental support, social and institutional inclusion, and consideration for students with psychiatric health diagnosis. This article not only presents an array of problems in the United States academy but also a set of recommendations for solving these problems. Going beyond the regime of retrofit accommodations, we ask for an overhaul of institutional policies, infrastructures, and curricula so that the academy is inclusive of neurodiverse bodies and appreciates their difference.
Article
Full-text available
A select committee of faculty, staff, administrators and students collaborated to create and implement the Disability Awareness, Training, and Empowerment (DATE) program on the campus of a midsize public state institution in the Northeastern United States. Based on studies of existing literature in the field, as well as campus climate information, the committee created a unique training program that has, to date, seen the training of over 350 faculty members, staff and administrators. This article will explore the literature that was surveyed to form the philosophical underpinnings of the program. The starting place for the training was No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement (Shapiro, 1993), as well as the research of Cole and Cawthon (2015), Hehir and Schifter (2015), and Oliver (1990). After surveying this supporting literature, the article will then explore the evolution and facilitation of the training program, including the various iterations of the training as it took its final form. The article will conclude with an exploration of possible new directions for disability awareness training programs on university campuses. The discussion also includes an expansion to the student body and a corresponding fulfillment of the university’s civic engagement course requirements.
Article
Full-text available
This study explores student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes in online courses. Researchers also investigated linkages between these elements. Data were collected from students enrolled in online courses at three private universities located at different geographical regions in the United States. Six hundred sixty-seven students completed the Revised Scale of Transactional Distance developed by Paul, Swart, Zhang, and MacLeod and a modified version of Dixson’s Online Student Engagement scale during spring 2016 semester. Results indicate students experienced a relatively high level of engagement and a moderate level of transactional distance. Respondents perceived outcomes such as satisfaction, progression, and learning very positively. There were significant differences in responses based on gender and college standing. Student engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes were moderately correlated, and researchers confirmed transactional distance is a valid predictor of student engagement.
Article
Full-text available
Unfavorable attitudes or stigma toward people with disabilities are invisible barriers that contribute to social inequities such as disparities in higher education enrollment and degree completion. Additionally, disability models, or underlying beliefs about whether disability is a problem inherent in individual biology (medical model) or a social construction (social model), are previously unexamined factors that may contribute to disability attitudes in higher education and beyond. We compared disability models and attitudes in college students with and without disabilities. Further, we examined the role of disability models and demographics in predicting attitudes about disability. Undergraduates at a public university (n = 1,762) completed survey measures of the variables described previously. As predicted, students with disabilities held significantly more favorable attitudes toward people with disabilities, lower medical model beliefs, and higher social model beliefs than students without disabilities. A regression revealed that lower medical model and greater social model beliefs predicted favorable attitudes toward people with disabilities above and beyond demographics. Analyses indicated that disability model beliefs completely mediated differences in attitudes toward disability between students with and without disability, controlling for demographic factors. This is the first study to demonstrate that people with disabilities have different models of disability compared with people without disabilities and that disability models predict disability attitudes. Results suggest that students with disabilities experience a cultural mismatch in higher education regarding disability models and attitudes. Increasing disability representation from a social model perspective in higher education may improve cultural fit and education outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
Background In Higher Education, inclusion and the enhancement of equality of opportunities and practices appeal as imperative, in most Western societies’ laws. Inclusive education literature, however, reveals that despite inclusion’s strong advocacy, delivery remains problematic, as beyond the surface of institutional policy, the reality of university life for students with disabilities may be one of continued exclusion and barriers to learning. Furthermore, in many countries, including Greece, the voices of students with disabilities appear significantly under-represented, not only in policy-making processes and practices, but also in the area of research. Purpose In the light of the above, this paper aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of 32 students with disabilities on: education in Higher Education Institutions in Greece, the impending transition to paid employment and future aspirations. Method The paper is based on a qualitative study where data were collected through semi-structured interviews with university students with disabilities. Data were analysed according to the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Findings Complex and rich accounts divulged specific issues, such as physical access and access to academic knowledge, quality of available support, interactions with tutors and fellow students, as well as perceived factors that may hinder the transition into the labour market. The results of the study also confirmed that students with disabilities are capable of asserting their needs, challenging institutional discrimination issues and proposing more inclusive alternatives. Conclusion The findings indicate the need for reconsidering and refining institutional policies and practices in relation to issues of disability and education.
Article
Building interpersonal connections in asynchronous online learning is important, but it is harder to achieve compared to face-to-face learning experiences due to its mostly text-based nature. Facebook is a popular social media platform and has been used as an outside-class communication space in formal learning contexts to supplement cognitive and affective aspects of learning. In this study, we used Facebook groups as supplemental social spaces in two asynchronous online master’s-level courses to understand if it impacted students’ perceptions of social presence (i.e., copresence, immediacy, and intimacy), learning interaction with faculty and peers, as well as sociability of the online learning environment. The results indicated that students felt more positively about social presence and learning interactions with other classmates and their instructor and perceived the course as having more sociability after they joined the class Facebook group. Findings have implications for supporting social impression formation in online learning.
Article
Acknowledging the importance of teacher–student relationship for effective learning experiences, the present study examined the role of teacher self-disclosure and social presence in online education. An online survey was conducted from a sample of 262 undergraduate students with online class experiences. The findings suggest that students’ perception toward teacher self-disclosure increased students’ feeling of social presence about their teacher. Then, social presence in turn led to teacher–student relationship satisfaction, which ultimately increased perceived knowledge gain. Importantly, the association between teacher self-disclosure and teacher–student relationship satisfaction was mediated by social presence.