Creating, Resisting or Neglecting Change: Exploring the Complexities of Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent teaching and learning scholarship has documented the importance of uncovering and removing barriers to learning experienced by students with disabilities (e.g., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). At the same time, in Ontario, new legislation is making this issue especially pronounced. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA, 2005), mandates universal access for persons with disabilities, requiring the removal of barriers to their full participation in all aspects of society, including higher education. This article reports on the first phase of a larger project designed to collect qualitative data about the effects of the AODA legislation on the teaching and learning environment at one University. Building on previous work that investigates students with disabilities’ experiences of tertiary learning (e.g., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006), it reports on the results of semistructured interviews that explored the ways in which students with and without disabilities, instructors, administrators, and staff perceive the relative accessibility and inclusiveness of teaching and learning at this institution, with an eye to ultimately enhancing learning for all students. Results from this first phase suggest a number of areas in which both barriers to and facilitators of educational accessibility exist at the study University, including: attitudes; knowledge; disciplinary features; pedagogical choices; and, institutional practices. We suggest that these findings may be of relevance to others in different constituencies and contexts, and provide recommendations for enacting change related to teaching and learning accessibility and thereby improving the student learning experience. L’avancement récent des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage a permis de documenter l’importance de dévoiler et de surmonter les obstacles à l’apprentissage des étudiants ayant des incapacités (p. ex., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). En même temps, en Ontario, une nouvelle loi rend ce problème particulièrement évident. La Loi de 2005 sur l’accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées de l’Ontario (LAPHO, 2005), rend obligatoire l’accès universel pour ces personnes, ce qui nécessite l’élimination des obstacles à leur pleine participation à tous les aspects de la société, y compris à l’éducation supérieure. Le présent article traite de la première phase d’un grand projet visant à recueillir des données qualitatives sur les effets de la LAPHO sur le milieu d’enseignement et d’apprentissage dans une université. Les auteurs s’inspirent des études antérieures auprès des étudiants handicapés afin d’étudier leur expérience de l’apprentissage dans un établissement d’enseignement supérieur (p. ex., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006). L’article rapporte les résultats d’entrevues semi-structurées concernant la perception qu’ont les étudiants handicapés, les autres étudiants, les professeurs, les administrateurs et le personnel de l’accessibilité relative et du caractère inclusif de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage dans cet établissement. L’objectif est d’améliorer l’apprentissage de tous les étudiants. Les résultats de cette première phase révèlent plusieurs domaines où il existe à la fois des obstacles et des éléments facilitant l’accessibilité aux études dans l’université qui participe à la recherche : les attitudes, les connaissances; les caractéristiques de la discipline; les choix pédagogiques et les pratiques institutionnelles. Les auteurs suggèrent que ces résultats sont pertinents pour différents contextes et institutions. Ils formulent des recommandations afin de procéder à des changements liés à l’accessibilité à l’enseignement et à l’apprentissage et ainsi améliorer l’apprentissage des étudiants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".