Challenges and self-advocacy of students with special needs at University of Ljubljana \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inclusion makes higher education accessible to people with special needs. This has increased the number of students who need additional accommodations to be successful in their studies. However, the transition to higher education presents various challenges for students with special needs. To overcome these challenges students themselves must find support. Students' self-advocacy skills, which include knowledge about their disability, their rights, and effective communication about their needs, play an important role in overcoming these challenges. Research has shown that self-advocacy skills determine the academic success of students with special needs and, later, their success in the workplace. \nThe purpose of the study is to identify academic challenges students face at Slovenian universities, how well they know their special needs and possible support and the role of self-advocacy in overcoming academic challenges, seeking help and support at university and, academic performance. We were also interested in how the challenges of students with special needs differ by gender, academic year and course of study, period of status attainment, and academic achievement. Consequently, we were also interested in what support (if any) students with special needs need to overcome their challenges in higher education. \nThe study used a descriptive and causal non-experimental research method and a quantitative and qualitative research approach. The purposive sample included students at the University of Ljubljana with the status of students with special needs in the academic year 2021/22. A total of 123 students participated and completed the questionnaire, which represents about a quarter of all students with special needs at the University of Ljubljana. \nThe results of the study show that students with special needs face certain challenges in their studies. The main challenges they face are difficulties resulting from their disability, disclosure of their disability, communication with professors about adjustments, monitoring the study process, and stigmatisation. There were also statistically significant differences in specific challenges by gender, year and course of study, type of special needs, status in primary school and average grade in studies. We also found that students frequently experienced unpleasant feelings of stress, anxiety, fear, low self-esteem, and dissatisfaction. Students also reported that their special needs influenced their choice of study. Students are well aware of their own special needs, but have greater difficulty disclosing their special needs, communicating with professors and providing accommodations. \nIt was also found that students do not use the support services available at the University of Ljubljana. However, more than half of the participating students would like additional support in their studies, especially in terms of understanding their special needs, counselling and mentoring. \n
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".