Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training

Background

Gina was a school-leaver with a severe hearing impairment who was undertaking study in a social sciences faculty. She was a lip-reader and was able to speak, but others found her hard to understand.

Gina was fiercely independent, tough, very aware of her rights, and wanted to be treated in exactly the same way as other students.

Resources used

Gina was referred to the disability office of the university but she resisted seeking assistance because she wanted to manage by herself. However, she finally agreed to accept the assistance of a note-taker provided and paid for by the university.

Interaction with Gina

The coordinator first became aware of Gina when she asked for an interview after missing selection for the course on the basis of her tertiary entrance score. Gina presented herself for consideration under the special entry provisions of the university and after assessment was accepted into the course.

The coordinator spent time with Gina discussing the work requirements for the course. Gina's background knowledge and range of experience needed to be broadened and the coordinator identified with her which areas required her special attention.

He assisted Gina with additional resources, with advice on how to use the library and how to locate appropriate resources herself and also spent time with Gina working on improving her writing skills. Gina also needed help with the presentation of her work.

Assessment

No modifications were necessary for Gina. She was able to meet all course requirements and to complete work on time.

Problems identified

The coordinator commented that there was no coordination of approaches across the university towards students with a disability. Support provision was ad hoc; some departments were flexible while others simply treated all students the same. Gina had done two subjects in a different faculty and had failed one but passed the other. The coordinator considered that this was not a reflection of Gina's capacity, but rather of the flexibility of the two subject teachers, one being supportive and the other not.

Reasons for Gina's success

The reasons for Gina’s success were many, but mainly involved aspects of her own personality and the attitudes of the teachers with whom she was working. The reasons are outlined in the following list:

• Gina's attitude and motivation were a factor in her success. She was a battler and was intent on achieving in the same way as other students.
• The department in which Gina did the majority of her subjects was a tightly knit group of eight staff who worked as a team.
• They were located close together physically in a large, open-plan office, making communication easy.
• The staff were accessible to the students because they were located in a single office and similarly the staff had good access to the students.
• Most of the subjects of the courses were delivered by the same department (out of 23 subjects all but a few were taught by the department) so approaches were coordinated and staff were in close contact with each other.
• There was a strong collegial attitude towards supporting students with a disability and there were high numbers of students with a disability enrolled in courses.
• It was a serious consideration of the staff that students with a disability were there to pass courses and were potential members of the workforce, and there was a consensus on the part of staff in the caring approach taken towards all students.

The coordinator commented that:

• The success rate with students like Gina would not be as high without this kind of unity of approach amongst the staff. The good-will of staff and the general culture of the department was an important factor.
• Attitudes towards exams form a kind of dividing line between departments or subjects that are prepared to be flexible and those that are not.
• In rigid subject areas, exams follow traditional patterns and there is a heavy emphasis on exam success. Exams were used in the coordinator's department but the emphasis on them was not over-riding, and flexible modes, such as open-book exams or ‘seen’ exams, were used.
• The course was competency-based, so it was possible to bring all students up to the required standard. Some students just needed more time to get there.

Additional comments/observations from the coordinator

The coordinator made other observations relating to working with students with disabilities at university. He observed that:

• for students like Gina, who had had an educationally disadvantaged background, it would have been useful to have had written information to assist with presentation of work;
• working with students with a disability was demanding in terms of time;

• that entry criteria were an important issue for students like Gina; where entry was by tertiary entrance score alone, many students with a disability were disadvan

Background

Tracey was a 19 year-old student with a hearing impairment who was undertaking study in an education faculty. She could speak but others found her a little hard to understand. She both lip-read and used Auslan. She used an interpreter in on-campus lectures but not in the practicum.

Resources used

Tracey was provided with a support person in the first practicum. In subsequent practicums she did not use additional resources.

Interaction with Tracey

First practicum

A modelled lesson was observed by students during the first practicum and one of the requirements was that students wrote comments on the right hand side of the page, in response to questions on the left hand page, as they observed. Tracey had difficulty with this because she could not lip-read and write at the same time. Consequently the support person made notes herself during the session and afterwards she discussed the session with Tracey who then answered the questions on the page.

The coordinator encouraged Tracey to develop the use of her eyes in class to convey messages and express her feelings.

Third practicum

For the four-week practicum Tracey was placed within the broad suburban area as she had requested. The school proved to be in a ‘difficult’ subsection of that area. Due to a communication breakdown the class teacher was not aware of Tracey’s disability until Tracey appeared in the classroom. The teacher was totally unprepared, but during the practicum she was able to work with Tracey and the university-based teacher-educator to assist development, provide feedback and assess development.

Tracey was failed for this practicum because it was judged that she was not engaging the students in quality learning interactions and relied frequently on an instructor mode of teaching. A supplementary practicum was prescribed and discussion ensued about the ‘reasonable accommodation’ of placing Tracey in a school with hearing impaired students, where there was an awareness of this disability.

Two options were considered: one was placement in a class with hearing impaired students and a teacher with specialist qualifications for teaching hearing impaired and deaf students; the second was in a more complex class setting which included hearing impaired students and which also had a hearing impaired support person. Contextual factors in the school, including numbers of children in each class, staffing resources and the complexities of the two class programs were taken into account in discussions between the school principal, coordinator, field experience person and teachers.

The final arrangement was that Tracey would teach in that school, with four days a week in the class with hearing impaired students and a qualified teacher of the deaf, and one day a week in the class of younger children with a teacher and the hearing impaired support person. This arrangement worked well and Tracey passed the practicum.

Problems identified

Due to her disability Tracey had not developed the same linguistic and conceptual framework as hearing students. Her written work was judged to be borderline; her capacity to record her ideas was poor. Whilst it was considered possible that this was not an accurate reflection of her ability, it posed a serious problem to her successful completion of the course. The coordinator commented that specialised support in teaching and tutoring was not available and was being sought by deaf students and staff to compensate for this common difficulty of hearing impaired students.

Coordinator comments/observations

During the course, students with disabilities who had worked with a support person in the practicum were asked to list the qualities needed in a support person. Tracey noted that of great importance is a sense of humour. She praised her own support person in the first practicum, who she felt acted like a friend and was someone who could understand her needs and observe things that she could not.

Tracey experienced a crisis of confidence on the Monday morning of the last week of the supplementary practicum after she had reviewed her work, considered supervisors’ feedback and planned for the week. The principal rang the coordinator at 9.00am and said that Tracey was upset and was unable to go into the class. By the time the coordinator was able to speak with Tracey at 11.00am, she had talked about her concerns with the class teacher, calmed down and was carrying on with her teaching. She told the coordinator that she had suddenly felt that she could not do what she believed was required. The coordinator noted that many students register feelings of this kind, not only students with a disability.

Documentation of strategies

A record was kept of the strategies used in accommodating Tracey. The documentation consisted of:

• informal notes made by the coordinator in discussions with the student about placement needs;
• notes of the needs identified with the student during discussions of developmental guidelines and assessment frameworks;
• communications with the student, principal, and class teacher outlining program adjustments, and providing for negotiation and further discussion during the practicum;
• university-based supervisor’s notes from observation and discussion with the student regarding class placement, including references to developing teaching skills and strategies, e.g. class arrangements and strategies for visual monitoring which may compensate for the reduction in aural cues;
• university-based supervisor’s advice and encouragement to the student to discuss her knowledge with the class teacher and to discuss any strategies which she considers may assist her teaching;
• records of interviews with the student conducted during her research project which focussed on working with the support person in the first practicum;
• records of attitudes of other students and of professionals in school settings as perceived by students with disabilities.

Background

Rona was undertaking study in an economics and business management faculty. She was a school leaver and was deaf. She did not lip-read and communicated by Auslan. She did not speak. She was a keen, well-adjusted student of above average intellectual ability who mixed well with the other students.

Rona gained access to the course through the special consideration provision of the state tertiary admission system. Her score was minimally below the required one.

Resources used

An Auslan interpreter and note-takers were provided for Rona through the disability office of the university. These were funded by the university.

Interaction with Rona

The lecturer quickly observed that Rona's English reading and writing skills were poor. Good reading and writing skills were essential for successful completion of the course. Ascertaining that Rona’s poor English skills were due to the fact that English was not her first language, the lecturer arranged for her to join ESL classes. This extra tuition proved successful and there was a huge improvement in Rona's reading, writing and comprehension.

The lecturer made sure that he spoke slowly and carefully in class to ensure that Rona's interpreter was able to translate everything. When asked whether he felt this disadvantaged the other students the lecturer expressed the view that all students benefited from clear and careful speech, particularly NESB students. He also ensured that he was facing the class when speaking, and was careful to use the board to emphasise new terms and concepts.

The lecturer attended some classes in Auslan to help him understand the capacity of Auslan to express the concepts in the course, and to get a feeling for some of Rona's learning experience.

As course coordinator the lecturer spoke to staff who would be teaching Rona before she began new courses so that they were aware of her needs.

Assessment

The course assessment involved a significant group-work component, including group assignments. This group sharing of tasks benefited Rona who had high intellectual capacity but poor writing skills. Group-work involved group members negotiating how the project would proceed, allocating tasks and deciding when they would meet. Rona's group also needed to consider the availability of Rona's interpreter. This was a good learning experience for the students.

The lecturer allowed Rona extra time for exams and Rona's interpreter was allowed to read the exam questions to her at the beginning of the exam to explain some of the more complex subject-specific concepts and terms in the questions and to ensure that Rona understood fully what was required by each question.

Rona's writing, although it improved greatly during the course, was still a source of concern. The lecturer ensured that it was the content of her work rather than the grammatical facility that was assessed: he looked for evidence that Rona had grasped the ideas and concepts, not how well she expressed herself. The lecturer commented that Rona’s writing skills were not an indication of her overall capacity and he believed they would continue to improve, especially once she was working in the field after graduation.

Problems identified

The lecturer commented that the lighting in the rooms was bad, making it hard for Rona to see her interpreter. This also caused difficulties for another student who had a visual impairment.

Reasons for Rona's success

Rona had the intellectual capacity and confidence to complete the course. She participated fully in all class activities, including discussion. The lecturer ensured that her interpreter had full access to all discussions.

Lecturer comments/observations

The lecturer always ensured that students were informed at introductory lectures and at general information sessions about support arrangements for students with a disability.

When asked about how he felt about putting in extra time with Rona, the lecturer said it was not an issue, and that other students without disabilities required more time than Rona. He asked ‘What is 'disability' anyway?’ He stated that he felt it was part of his professional responsibility to be flexible and imaginative in his teaching delivery and to accommodate the needs of all students who have qualified to be in his course. He did not see the extra commitment as an issue that should be addressed in staff loads.

The lecturer suggested that it was his experience with NESB students and fellow employees that had made him aware of the kinds of strategies that could be used to facilitate learning for all students. When asked why he made the commitment he said it was just the way he felt about teaching; it was his personal philosophy. He had always been flexible in his approach to the needs of students facing various obstacles to learning.

The lecturer said that he felt that his university had a good culture of awareness of issues such as disability and that most of the staff were ‘pretty good’. He expressed surprise that some staff had attitudes that were not as positive as his own.

The lecturer felt that the class benefited from Rona’s presence as most of them had not experienced working with someone with a hearing-impairment before.

Background

Carl was in his 40s and was a student with a hearing impairment and mobility impairment caused by polio. He was undertaking study in a social sciences faculty. Carl lip-read but was able to speak, and he could read and write well. He was able to walk, but very slowly.

Carl was not aware of the availability of support for students with a disability in universities, although the student counsellor in the faculty had notified students during orientation. He was used to managing by himself and he did not feel that he needed separate supports, as long as lecturers spoke clearly and slowly and faced him when they spoke. He was confident about speaking up for himself when necessary.

Resources used

Carl did not use any additional resources.

Interaction with Carl

The lecturer was not aware of Carl’s hearing impairment until three weeks into the course when Carl asked the lecturer not to talk when he turned to the board because he could not see his mouth.

The lecturer modified his teaching style with Carl in mind, and undertook a series of strategies to assist him. The lecturer, for example:

• consciously spoke more slowly, faced the class, and did not move around the class as much as he liked to do to the extent of placing a table in front of the class so that he could anchor himself to it in an attempt to address his inclination to move around;
• wrote up his blackboard before class so that he did not have to write on the board and talk at the same time with his back to the class;
• coordinated his blackboard use, overheads and summaries to ensure clarity and repetition for Carl's benefit, but he noted that it also benefited others in the class;
• built into his lectures a lot of repetition, rephrasing points, and frequent summarising;
• made conscious use of markers (such as firstly, secondly, finally) to make the development and shape of the arguments clear;
• gave brief lecture notes to Carl containing a framework and main points, against which Carl could write during the class;
  assisted Carl in getting disability parking permits for visits to other campuses when necessary.

Problems identified

The lecturer was not fully aware of legislation or university disability policy and indicated that he had been most concerned about whether it was right or fair to give extra notes to some students as this might be viewed as giving them unfair advantage. He was not aware, either, of the range of services available within the university for students with a disability.

Lecturer comments/observations

The lecturer made the point that due to the nature of his course many of his students faced a number of forms of disadvantage and difficulty, particularly the women. He mentioned domestic violence, living in refuges, having restraining orders on husbands, losing time through incarceration, coming from distant places and speaking English as a second language. He was in the habit of being flexible about these kinds of difficulties and he saw the flexibility required in accommodating disability as an extension of this.

He was aware that what he did in the classroom with Carl in mind also benefited other students in the class and simply amounted to good teaching practice

Background

Diane was undertaking study in a humanities faculty. She was 19 and had a severe hearing impairment. She did not lip-read or speak and communicated using Auslan.

The course involved lectures, tutorials and screenings of films. The films were shown on the same day each week and were available from the university library for borrowing or viewing.

Resources used

Diane had an interpreter and a note-taker at every lecture.

Interaction with Diane

It happened that the first session of the course was a film screening. The first the lecturer knew of Diane's presence in the course was when her interpreter appeared and introduced himself as ‘the interpreter’. The lecturer had no prior knowledge concerning Diane.

The interpreter pointed out that he needed a break in the film because he could not sign for the full duration of the film. He also said that he would need lights on so that Diane could see him, and that ideally he needed a standard lamp. As the lecturer had had no warning he felt stressed and found the situation difficult.

There were 100 students present. The lecturer did not agree to stop the film because without prior warning he had not identified an appropriate place to make a break, but he did agree to having the front row of lights left on. He noted, though, that this detracted from the viewing for everyone, including Diane, because it made the film appear fuzzy.

The lecturer suggested to Diane and her interpreter that Diane should view the film privately each week in the university library. Diane initially expressed concern about being different from the other students but the lecturer pointed out that half of the students in the course made their own arrangements to view the film.

The lecturer commented that because Diane always had an interpreter and notetaker he did not have to make any modifications to his lecture.

The lecturer had Diane for some of her tutorials. The lecturer said Diane did not interact in tutorials. It was not apparent to the lecturer why this was so as the interpreter was there and also the note-taker, who often joined in. The lecturer did not make efforts to draw Diane into the conversation in case she preferred not to participate. It was clear that the interpreter was fully involved as he would often ask for clarification. The lecturer felt that there were no obstacles to Diane's participation and he did not want to make Diane feel self-conscious. He mentioned another hearing impaired student he had taught who had difficulty with his speech, and this made him feel that he should not put pressure on Diane.

Problems identified

The lecturer made the point that Diane had already been on campus for a semester, so there was no excuse for the lack of warning about Diane's attendance in his course. He was not provided with any information about Diane, or any information about ways in which he could support Diane. He had no knowledge of how to accommodate the needs of a hearing impaired student or the strategies he could employ to assist Diane's interpreter in his role.

The university library refused to make a permanent booking for Diane to view the film. Diane and her interpreter were forced to arrive early in the morning each week to ensure that they would get the film and a viewing room. When the lecturer rang and tried to arrange a permanent booking for Diane he was told that it would disadvantage the other students if someone had a permanent booking. He did not pursue this.

The lecturer commented on a suggestion from the disability office of his university which he felt was inappropriate. It was suggested that he choose films for the course on the basis of their availability in sub-titled form. He felt that this showed a lack of awareness about how courses are structured and commented that films are not interchangeable and that, given the aims of the course, it was inappropriate to make this a criterion for the selection of films. He also expressed concern about disadvantaging the whole group on behalf of Diane (e.g. having the lights on in the film).

The lecturer believed that even with an interpreter Diane was disadvantaged in her appreciation of the films because she was not able to hear the intonation of the speech, or the music and other sound effects. But the subject was a compulsory one and he commented that it would be possible for a hearing impaired student to structure their course to minimise the effect of the disability by focusing on visual aspects of film.

Assessment

Assessment was by two essays. Diane did not have any trouble fulfilling this requirement and did not require any extra consideration. The lecturer did not observe that Diane had any difficulty with her writing.

Lecturer comments/observations

The lecturer felt that having Diane in the group raised the awareness of the other students, particularly with regard to seating arrangements. The lecturer was careful to arrange the group so that Diane and her interpreter were always suitably positioned.

Sophia was 19 years old and undertaking study in a fine arts faculty. She was profoundly hearing impaired. She lip read and spoke, but others had some difficulty understanding her. She was from a NESB background Sophia seemed reluctant to acknowledge her hearing impairment and did not tell others.

Resources used

Sophia used notetakers arranged and paid for by the disability office of the university.

Interaction with Sophia

Sophia was introduced to the lecturer by the Department of Social Security before enrolling in the course and was accepted into the course after special entry provision procedures were followed.

Sophia made it clear to the lecturer that she felt unhappy in class. She was particularly troubled because she felt that the international students in the class stared at her. Sophia was socially isolated. Other students avoided her because they did not know how to approach her, and because they had difficulty in understanding her. The disability office arranged a buddy tutor for Sophia in an attempt to address this. This arrangement had some success and increased Sophia's interaction with her peers.

Problems identified

Sophia's level of motivation was not high. She had chosen to do the course full-time so that she would not feel different from the other students. However, in the lecturer's opinion she was not prepared for full-time study, either in her attitude or skill level. The lecturer felt that part-time study might have made it easier for her because she would have had more time to adjust to the demands of being a student and would have had more time to work on her areas of weakness.

Reasons for unsuccessful outcome

The lecturer felt that Sophia had not been ready for full-time tertiary study; she needed more time to allow the concepts to solidify. Sophia was not highly motivated and appeared to have been pressured by others to do the course.

The lecturer felt that Sophia needed some help to come to terms with her disability and that this was somehow complicated by her cultural background. This unease with herself had been an obstacle to her successful participation in the course.