Creating accessible course or programme design and structure for disabled students.

2. Reflecting on practice

Equality of opportunity demands that the values and purposes of academic programmes should be, as far as possible, equally available to disabled students.

The design features which are likely to be included can be illustrated in the following example:

Aspects of subject benchmark statements or the incorporation of benchmark statements into the more detailed content of course specifications may, without explicit direction towards flexible application, give rise to the exclusion of some students. For example, the Health Studies benchmark statement says,

‘The assessment strategies should include some or all of the following:
● A range of written and oral presentations, such as seminar presentations, essays
● Examinations, seen or unseen, or open book
● Case studies
● Use of reflective diaries, critiques or portfolios
● Practical-based, project-based or work experience reports
● Computer based assessments
● Dissertations and independent study.’

If the suggested oral presentations are regarded as highly desirable transferable skills and thereafter interpreted by course presenters as non-negotiable course requirements, then a disabled student unable to do an oral presentation for a reason related to their impairment may be subject to ad hoc consideration. Alternatively the same student may have accessed the statement in advance, and dismissed the course as unattainable. This example illustrates the desirability of considering the scope for flexibility at design stage, and ensuring that statements of specifications, which are often the basis of course descriptions, minimise the likelihood of unintended rigidity of interpretation, to the needless disadvantage of disabled future students.

A compulsory course for all Honours Law students includes in its specification Course Aims, Learning Outcomes, Skills Components and Course-work and Examinations. Under the heading of Skills Components, it includes ‘Communication: Preparation of presentation and delivery of presentation’. Under Course-work and Examinations, it says, ‘The coursework consists of attendance at all lectures and tutorials, as well as the completion of two assignments.’ The course designers never intended that students without speech or students whose attendance would be interrupted periodically would be unable to complete the course, and therefore the honours degree.

A programme of study, which is flexible in its design, will almost by definition be more accessible to more students, although what scope there is for flexibility will clearly vary from course to course. There are several ways in which a programme can incorporate a degree of flexibility. In listing these, it is recognised that there may be sound arguments, linked perhaps to strain on administrative or financial resources, against flexible provision as the norm. Yet students have many reasons for wanting or needing flexibility, crucial for some as well as helpful to many. Students who work to finance study, who have family commitments or problems, who are sometimes ill, as well as disabled students, are among those who can benefit from a programme of study incorporating substantial choices within it.

● There can be flexibility about attendance at time-tabled classes, and students can be helped to take advantage of this flexibility where it is available by being directed to alternative sources of learning, such as library materials or web-sites.
● There can be flexibility over pace of delivery, either of the whole programme of study, or of individual modules or credits. In the first case, students might be able to choose to study part-time or full-time, or a mixture of both, at different times of their course. In the second case, students could either complete all aspects of a module or credit as it is scheduled, or perhaps postpone some elements of it, such as parts of the assessment or a placement, for completion at a later date. Many students leave University to become part-time employees, a fact which recommends the possibility of part-time placements as well as study.
● There can be choice of elements within programmes of study, and ease of movement between such elements.
● There can be flexibility over method of delivery (e.g. learning packages, use of e-mail.)
● There can be flexibility over ways of demonstrating competence related to defined course objectives. This can mean making available to, or developing with, students a variety of ways of demonstrating programme specific learning.

Many disabled people do not consider that they are ill. However, for students who are ill, whether or not they are disabled, occasional spells in hospital or at home can be necessary. When this happens, it is very reassuring for students to know that they will be able to return to the programme when they are well enough. Most institutions of higher education are able to make arrangements to help a student who becomes unexpectedly ill to catch up when it is possible for them to do so. Building this possibility into programmes from the start can minimise students’ concern about having to argue a special case, thereby making the course or programme more attractive to students who know in advance that their attendance is likely to be interrupted.

Timetables which demand a high level of attendance may be difficult for many students including those who, for example, have reduced stamina, who have intermittent mental health difficulties or who rely on lip-reading. In courses which have an emphasis on the acquisition of practical skills, there may be no straightforward alternative to attendance. However, although a field trip, for example, might cover ground deemed to be essential for the course, consideration can be given to whether the learning aims could be achieved in an alternative way. Must the student be physically present, or would a video of the field trip be a satisfactory alternative? A similar question can be posed of laboratory or workshop activity. Is it crucial for students to be physically present and actually doing the tasks, or would observation, perhaps through video, be sufficient?

These are key matters of principle, which, if not considered and stated with clarity at course design and specification stage can leave academics in disagreement with each other, opening the way to unintended interpretations of scope for alternatives.

Some disabled students may identify a programme module or single subject which would be unduly difficult. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) case of Guckenberger versus Boston University provides a useful illustration. The student, Elizabeth Guckenberger, had a learning disability which led her to argue that the requirement to undertake a foreign language as part of the liberal arts curriculum, should, in her case, be waived. The judge required the academic staff of the College of Arts and Sciences to deliberate and explain why the foreign language requirement was essential to the academic standards of the liberal arts curriculum. They took the view that in the context of an institution with the goal of multiculturalism and a belief in the educational gain of studying a foreign language, allowing a student not to undertake study of the foreign language would lower academic standards and require substantial programme alteration. The Court decided that,

“If the institution submits undisputed facts demonstrating that the relevant officials within the institution considered alternative means, their feasibility, cost and effect on the academic program, and came to a rationally justifiable conclusion that the available alternatives would result either in lowering academic standards or requiring substantial program alteration, the court could rule as a matter of law that the institution had met its duty of seeking reasonable accommodation.”

While the case falls under American and not UK law, the principles which it raises are relevant here and not only for reasons to do with institutions’ desire for legal compliance. It raises clearly the question of approaches to the circumstance of a disabled student being unable to do, or being unable to do as well as peers who are not disabled, a substantial course element. The case illustrates the necessity for decisions to be taken about the justifications for making and failing to make adjustments to the composition of curricula. All institutions are doubtless able to provide examples of such adjustments.

A profoundly deaf student undertaking an engineering degree is unable to produce reports on practical work to the standard expected, as his written English reflects the word order of British Sign Language. As an alternative to one of two first year electives, where students may choose to study one of many courses on offer outwith the Engineering Faculty, the department creates an elective in report writing for the student, in acknowledgment of the difficulties and of the importance of the skill in working life.

A Business Faculty subject, Marketing, is offered to Arts and Social Studies Faculty students. It is an extremely popular subject, and in order to keep student numbers at manageable levels, there is a regulation that Arts students may only take Marketing with the less fully subscribed Modern Languages programme. The rule is waived for a dyslexic student whose particular difficulties are such as to render the study of a modern language, with its emphasis on accuracy of the written language, extremely difficult, if not impossible.

And it is likely that many institutions can provide their own examples of cases which leave room for debate and disagreement.

The teaching of a modern language in a particular institution carries equal emphasis on speaking, writing, listening and reading. A disabled applicant who is without speech wishes to do a degree in a modern language involving writing, listening and reading, but not speaking. The department is unsure about whether the investment of time in the reorganisation of the course, as well as the negotiation of Faculty approval for the revised degree, is within its capability to provide.

The issue raised in the last example is the desirability of broaching at the point of course design and specification the question of what can be done if any student is or becomes unable to undertake certain elements of a course or programme. Flexible study pathways and parallel courses which involve significantly different course demands can benefit students who for many different reasons would be unable to complete a course or programme specified in a particular way.

A Speech and Language Therapy student whose hearing impairment is likely to reduce over time the extent to which he will be able to diagnose disorders in patients’ voice and speech accurately switches to a Health Studies degree course, carrying all credits already attained in Speech and Language Therapy.
A course of teacher education is offered on a full time and part time basis. A

While these are examples of disabled students who can benefit from flexibility in programme design, clearly no extra or special arrangements would have to be made where programmes were designed with flexibility possible for all students. It is obviously reassuring for students who might need such flexibility to know in advance of embarking on the course about alternative options on offer. The following quotation from a department which has self-critically audited its accessibility for disabled students illustrates the positive and wider benefits of exploring the scope for building in choice and flexibility:

‘The curriculum consists of ideas, structures and actions which can come to be seen as wholly natural, pre–ordained, when they are actually constructs which can be assumed to be immovable. Unpacking the curriculum and the assumptions it is founded on enables what has been termed the ‘conspiracy of the normal’ to be seen and new and different choices made relating to the development of effective teaching and learning strategies.’

Next page

Top of Page

Teachability Home Page