Perceptions of Students with Disabilities on Reasonable Accommodation at a Tertiary Education: A Case of a Rural University in Limpopo Province, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of democracy in South Africa has put initiatives to redress social injustice suffered by women and people with disabilities. Enrollment of students with disabilities at universities increases yearly, influencing an increase in buying of assistive technologies to enable a teaching and learning environment. This paper explores the perceptions of students with disabilities on the role of reasonable accommodation in terms of accessibility and facilitation of teaching and learning at the university based on the human rights approach. A pre-corvid 19 pandemic survey used a convergent parallel mixed-method design to evaluate perceptions of reasonable accommodation on the campus. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected roughly simultaneously and integrated into the interpretation of the overall results. A focus group comprised of the representatives of students with disabilities was interviewed. The surveyed population comprised all students with disabilities between the ages of 18 to 25 registered with the Disability Support Unit (DSU) of the University of Venda. The questionnaires collected reasonable accommodation perceptions and satisfaction rates from students about organizational support and training. The distributed questionnaires produced a 90% response rate. The findings highlighted that students with disabilities encountered barriers of inaccessibility to classrooms and residents. Adequate learning material is a barrier for students with visual disabilities. Institutional budget and item costs render buying assistive technologies and building new infrastructures for students with disabilities a constraint. Policy and practice in the institution remain a limitation to interfacing education and disability smoothly.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".