New Approach to Improving Education and Training Services for Tertiary Students with Disabilities - Chapter 2: Review of Literature

This review of literature on disability and programme delivery has included reports, scientific studies, surveys and resource books that specifically concern disability or equity issues within the context of FTL frameworks. The field of innovative teaching practices and methods of programme delivery is itself huge and this review did not attempt to speculate on how the findings in that area might relate to the issue of disability support. The focus was on the relatively small body of literature that deals specifically with flexible learning in the context of disability.

Most studies on the impact of innovative teaching practices on learning and education experiences find that there are considerable benefits in many important areas for the general student population (Dougiamas, 2000; Stickels & Neil, 1998; Voysey, 1998). In general this will also be the case for tertiary students with disabilities. Many studies have shown how students gain from independent learning processes, flexible approaches to course content delivery and from the adaptation of new technologies to create innovative settings. It has been recognised for some time that students with disabilities also benefit from such advances. At the Pathways II Conference in Brisbane in 1995 the then head of the equity division of the Commonwealth Department of Education made the statement (Gallagher 1995, p.66) that innovative teaching services will,

provide open-ended access … to tertiary study, and also bring increased flexibility to tertiary education provision on campus. Participants will be able to study broadly at the time, place and pace of their choice.

From this basic position, the current review has focused specifically on disability related literature in this field and in particular on the development of a new approach called Universal Design for Learning (UDL) or Universal Instructional Design. The review takes a thematic approach to presenting its findings on disability and innovative teaching methods. These key themes are:

• contextual issues;
• the experiences of students with disabilities;
• the experiences of teaching staff;
• Universal Design for Learning and disability.

Before looking more closely at the review findings, some definitions of commonly used terms in this field are presented.

Flexible teaching and learning (FTL) is an umbrella term that relates to the range of provisions that create alternative learning environments for students. FTL provides a wide range of different access opportunities and teaching modes through which students may exercise choice. FTL includes the expert shaping of learning environments within a particular course or programme of study, specifically designed to optimise the learning opportunities of the students. In certain situations this will enable students to select their most appropriate form of access and/or learning mode with respect to a particular programme of study, thus increasing learners’ access to, and control over, their learning environment. FTL is the generic term used in this paper to refer to any methods of flexible programme delivery.

Flexible programme delivery (FPD) is a way of providing education programmes that uses a variety of learning environments that respond to the needs of a diverse student population. The flexibility aspect can refer to the guiding philosophy, the teaching style, the delivery methods and to the administrative processes that support the education or training provider.

Self-directed learning emphasises activities that encourage relatively independent access to knowledge, so that, to a large extent, students can plan their workload, adjust their learning pace, monitor their progress, and evaluate their own performance. This need not imply any lessening of academic standards since the learning is still subject to guidance and assessment by teachers.

Equity means fairness, or justice for students within the context of their rights to have equal access to the benefits that are provided by the education/training institution. In the tertiary sector the term "equity" often has connotations of discrimination in entry requirements and to the lack of access to education by certain groups within society. Equity basically means treating students fairly. Fair treatment, however, is not necessarily equal treatment.

Inclusivity is usually concerned with teaching practices that facilitate the best education outcomes for all students, regardless of factors such as gender, race, disability, sexuality, socio-economic status and cultural background. The term can also refer more specifically to the inclusive use of language and an awareness of cultural diversity.

Diversity refers to the varied characteristics which make one individual or group different from another, and which allows that individual or group to make unique contributions to a larger organization or community.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a philosophy of education that aims to design and deliver education services and learning environments that are accessible and that accommodate a range of functional capabilities of students. UDL reduces the need for specific kinds of individualised services or remedial supports by connecting the quality of the education programme with a capacity to be accessible, equitable and accommodating to diverse student needs. UDL is achieved by means of flexible curricula materials and activities that provide alternatives for students with differing abilities. These alternatives are built into the instructional design and operating systems of education materials. They are not simply added on.

The number of students officially notifying their tertiary or training institution of their disability is increasing and will continue to increase. In an examination of the future issues and trends for students with disabilities, Johnson (2000) has identified an increase over the next 8-10 years of around 30% in the number of students with severe or profound disabilities who may access post secondary education and training. This increase will be substantially higher for mild and moderate levels of disabilities which form the bulk of the numbers of students currently notifying their institutions that they have a disability. Johnson suggests that this trend, combined with the current pressure on existing resources in the area, will force disability services to "examine practices to ensure that we are making the best of what we have". Johnson also acknowledges that it is important to ensure that courses and programs are being developed and delivered in the most flexible and inclusive manner. Reid (1999) also points to the need for FTL practices as a way of providing quality education in terms of best practice and improved learning opportunities for students with equity needs. In a discussion of learner-centred approaches to teaching, Reid (1999, p.93) concludes that to equip students for lifelong learning and to cater to their diverse needs "tertiary education programs must shift from teacher-dominated instruction to self-directed and distributed learning".

Another important issue that sets the context for this review is that of the legislative and policy framework that governs the broad operational objectives of disability programmes within the tertiary sector. Stickels and Radloff (1996) have suggested that institutions are legally obliged to adjust programme delivery methods, methods of assessment and access to the learning environment to the needs of students with disabilities and medical conditions. These obligations are pointed out in both state and federal disability legislation. As long ago as 1993 the Federal Disability Discrimination Commissioner stated that, "it is the responsibility of the education institution to demonstrate 'unjustifiable hardship', not the responsibility of the person with a disability to prove it isn't" (Hastings, 1993). Hastings added that teachers will need to examine their methods of teaching and assessment, and the institution as a whole will need to develop policies and strategies which respond as creatively as possible to students with good minds, enthusiasm, vision, life plans and special needs.

Government legislation makes it clear that universities have an obligation to provide flexible and accommodating services at the point of delivery, and that these obligations come prior to the requirements for backup support services. While the current support model has provided an adequate level of support to many students, it does not address the needs of those who do not disclose or those who encounter problems directly at the point of delivery of the course. The support model is the dominant approach to providing disability services at tertiary education institutions in Australia (Edwards, 1999, 2000). This is a model of service delivery that deals with the provision of individual supports to students with disabilities. Although it will always have an important contribution to make, Edwards (1999) points out that the support approach to service provision has some major flaws and that the support model needs to be supplemented by more systemic ways of meeting reviewed the educational and training needs of tertiary students with disabilities.

Hartley and Young (2000) sound a cautionary note as to the promise that flexible learning might hold for students with disabilities. They state that flexible learning does present an enabling vision for the delivery of disability services, however, they also note that new learning environments can bring with them new types of barriers that result in unexpected disadvantages for students with disabilities. Regarding these new barriers they ask, (2000, pg 104),

Can the enabling vision be realised in relation to participation and successful outcomes for students with disabilities through flexible learning? Or have one set of barriers simply been exchanged for another.

Gollin and Kies (1999) have also expressed concern over the possible problems that innovative technologies might hold for equity groups. They point out that large populations of student with equity needs present a challenge to the traditional education practices of tertiary institutions. But, they say, "teaching with CIT [Communications and Information Technology] magnifies the education problems faced by such students". They continue, "Solutions require us to think holistically about student needs and learning styles, and the education opportunities we put online" (1999, p.111). There is a need then to ensure that technological aspects to education programme delivery do not become another source of disadvantage for students with disabilities that results in some functional impact on their ability to use information technologies.

Several authors have pointed out that innovative teaching methods within an inclusive and holistic approach to learning do possess many advantages (Boden, 1999; Edwards, 1999; Doyle & Robson, 2002; O’Connor, 1991). This approach has the potential to greatly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of disability services in higher education. It does this from a perspective that meets the legislative obligations for service provision to be accessible and flexible at the point of delivery. This approach to improving disability services has seldom been taken, and it is hoped that this will be an innovative outlook on the ways that these services can operate in the future. In the disability field in education, this inclusive approach is also called Universal Design for learning (UDL) or universal instructional design. This topic will be dealt with more fully in a later section of the review.

All students need quality teaching to perform at their optimal level as learners. Quality learning emphasises learning for understanding and the development of analytical thinking, problem solving and professional communication skills. As student numbers rise and staff workloads increase it will become more difficult to maintain the level of quality teaching to students, and these changes may have a particular impact the learning experiences of students with disabilities (Stickels & Radloff, 1996). Stickels and Radloff (1996) argue that one reason for this is that the learning needs of students with disabilities and medical conditions may be more dependent on the quality of teaching and of the learning environment than the general population of students. They state that all students wish to experience good teaching and that this is difficult to provide unless the method of delivering a particular course is carefully design and implemented. The authors conclude that accommodating the needs of students with disabilities and improving their learning experiences can best be accomplished through the provision of quality teaching practices that include a focus on flexibility and ease of access which will in the end benefit all students.

The problems that students with disabilities encounter in attempting their course work and study demands can have a substantial impact on whether they finish. In a study of the retention and success rates of equity students, Mclean, Hartley, McDonald & Mc Donald, (1999) found that course structure can have a substantial impact on the experiences of students with disabilities. While the authors found no differences between students with disabilities and other equity students on a range of more general factors, they did find differences between these two groups with regard to such programme delivery related factors as the level of programme suitability, difficulty, academic support and study stress. Almost one third of the total of 94 students with disabilities surveyed responded that the "suitability" in the way the programme was taught was of moderate or considerable importance in their decision to leave the course. Other factors are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Reasons for withdrawing from course

With regard to the matter of level of accessibility of course materials, McLean et al found that more than 50% of respondents said that their learning needs were not very well or even moderately supported by their institution.

The basic method of course delivery, and the subsequent need for individual supports, can also influence the enrolment choices of students with disabilities. O'Connor and Hartley (1993) conducted a study to determine the factors that encouraged and hindered students with a disability from accessing tertiary courses. Students and disability advisers from universities and TAFE Colleges were surveyed. A key finding identified by disability advisers was that the choice of courses was more limited for students with a disability because of their particular needs to access course information. These particular needs were in turn related to the availability and type of support programmes offered by the institutions. Recommendations of the study included the introduction and utilisation of alternative or flexible modes of teaching and learning and information dissemination, first to let students know how courses are delivered, and second to allow students access to a wider choice of education programs.

Edwards (1999) conducted a survey of the experiences of students with disabilities and the impact of their disability or medical condition on the ability to cope with the academic demands of courses. Students reported a range of disabilities with varying degrees of impact on their study and abilities to cope. The majority of students reported that the most difficult style of programme delivery to cope with was the traditional delivery mode of didactic "chalk and talk" lecture style, with no flexibility in information access. Students reported numerous problems with courses delivered in this inflexible mode. The problems most highly rated were difficulties with mental and physical fatigue, concentration in lectures and tutorials, note-taking in lectures and laboratories, and lack of lecture/reading notes.

Students attending lectures using traditional delivery methods, reported that most aspects of the programme created difficulties for their carrying out various activities. These difficulties were generally related to the type of disability. The components of a course that generated a low level of difficulty for all students were the quality of lecture handouts, oral presentation of material, use of equipment, lecturer availability and obtaining general assistance. The following suggestions for alleviating these problems were made by students: making high-quality lecture and backup notes available, accessing material in their own time, increased awareness by academic staff, improved support equipment, audio-taped lectures and a policy that lecture notes should be made available to students. In considering delivery methods and their functional impact on students, Edwards found that the type of delivery method impacted on a broad cross section of disability types. Computer-based components were regarded as having the least deleterious impact on the student (Table 2).

Table 2: Disability and level of impact on various types of disability

Edwards asked about the impact of their disability or medical condition on the students’ ability to cope with the academic demands of their course. The following table (table 3) shows that a broad range of severity of disability was represented by the student respondents. Most students indicated that their disability had a moderate or severe level of impact on their ability to cope.

Table 3: Overall impact of disability on ability to cope with course

Students were presented with a range of course delivery types ranging from very flexible methods, e.g. the provision of skeleton notes and on-line access to course content, to very inflexible methods, e.g. just a verbal presentation of information. The large majority of students nominated inflexible methods of programme delivery, such as didactic "chalk and talk" methods, as the most difficult to cope with. Edwards asked students to indicate what were the most common types of difficulties related to their disability or medical condition that they encountered in inflexible courses. There were several basic areas that were problematic for students in attempting this type of course (table 4).

Table 4: Problems encountered with inflexible delivery methods

Lectures are still, in most undergraduate courses, the main method for imparting information to students. In attending lectures students need to carry out physical and intellectual activities to access and record the information that is presented by the lecturer. In his study Edwards (1999) asked students with disabilities to rate their difficulty in carrying out various activities when attending lectures for courses that used traditional delivery methods (Table 5). The level and type of disability was not related to the level of difficulty of the rated activities. His means that students with disabilities were experiencing common difficulties irrespective of disability.

Table 5: Level of difficulty experienced in lectures

Students were asked to rate the difficulty of carrying out various activities when attending standard tutorials and problem-solving workshops. The results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Level of difficulty experienced in tutorials

Students gave some suggestions for alleviating these problems. These were as follows:

• making lectures notes available
• easily obtaining backup notes for tutorials/lectures
• access material in own time
• increased awareness (academic staff)
• better support equipment
• better quality notes
• audio-taped lectures
• policy that notes should be made available to students

Edwards (1999) also investigated which course delivery methods presented the least difficulties for students with disability. All but one student chose delivery types that had employed traditional lecture styles with high flexibility in information access. Only one student preferred a non-traditional type of delivery where the whole course was presented solely on the Internet. The characteristics of the most preferred delivery method included:

• standard lectures (oral presentation of material, demonstrations, use of teaching aids, e.g. overhead, video)
• tutorials
• main points of lecture notes provided
• copies of overheads
• lectures audio-taped (may be available on Internet)
• some or full lecture notes be available on Internet.

The reasons given for preferring the above methods of course delivery were that it allows greater concentration on understanding the material with less pressure to write notes. The methods also allow for pre-reading and learning at one's own pace. Almost all students wanted to retain the traditional lecture and tutorial format because this allowed the opportunity for interaction, greater comprehension of the course content and for socialising and peer-group learning. Edwards found that most students preferred the combination of the traditional lecture and tutorial format with the more flexible delivery modes because this added the benefits of flexibility with the chance for class interaction, greater comprehension of the course content, and socialising and peer group learning. Almost all of the surveyed students felt that the traditional forms of course delivery should be supplemented with flexible delivery methods and designed according to inclusive teaching and learning principles.

These experiences and delivery preferences of students with disabilities seem to match the preferences of the general student quite closely. Several studies of tertiary student populations (Gollin and Kies, 1999; Farrell & Armstrong; 1998; Lee, Budd, Doornbusch, & Fyfe, 2000) that investigated students’ opinions and experiences of FTL approaches confirm that the benefits of these programmes are very similar for both students with disabilities and the general population of students. For example, the learning experiences of students with disabilities that were found in the Edwards study closely reflect those of a survey of general students by Stone (1997). The survey found that most students reported positive experiences of FTL because it :

• provided concise lecture materials
• allowed more timetable flexibility
• gave greater support and guidance for those who preferred self learning
• presented the opportunity for more structure and direction in the course content
• allowed greater flexibility in how course material is made available enabling the student to chose their level of involvement in formal lecture and tutorial classes

Many of these benefits to non-disabled students were also reported in the Edward’s study (1999) and the experiences of both these students and those with disabilities reflect the positive influence that flexible and accessible modes of teaching and course design can have on student learning.

International Innovations - Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

One approach that has attracted considerable international attention is that that of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). In general terms universal design is an approach towards the planning and design of services, products, and environments that maximises useability and accessibility for everyone. This model has now been applied to the area education and training services. Bowe (2000) states that the concept of universal design first arose when the design of the built environment took the idea of ‘accessibility’ (with its connotation of disability and government regulated building codes) and presented it as appealing to all. The concept quickly moved to products and, more recently, to services including education. The Assistive Technology Act in the USA (1998) defines the term in the following way:

Universal Design means a concept or philosophy for designing and delivering products and services that are useable by people with the widest range of functional capabilities. This includes products and services that are directly useable (without requiring assistive technology) and…those that are made useable with assistive technologies.

It is with the possibilities offered by UDL and more flexible teaching practices that many potential benefits are opened up for students with disabilities (Stahl & Branaman, 2000). Flexibility in teaching and learning means that the education approach uses a variety of student-centred teaching methods, resources and flexible administrative practices that respond to the needs of a diverse student population, and enable them to achieve vocational and professional qualifications and the goals of a university education (Hartley &Young, 2000). Under this general approach towards delivering education programmes, UDL provides some specific principles on how course design can cater for diverse needs (Bowe, 2000). Universal design operates on some basic principles that have been reinterpreted by Bowe (2000) so that they can be applied to any education setting. These principles are outlined in the Table 7.

Bowe recommends that UDL curricula and materials should be designed and implemented to enable the education programme to (after Bowe, 2000):

• offer multiple ways for students to interact with and respond to curricula and materials to accommodate those with different learning styles;
• present information in different ways. Anything written or otherwise offered visually is also spoken aloud, and visa versa. Computers provide easy and rapid ways to customise how information is presented. Preparing curricula materials, handouts etc., on disk and making those available to students so they can make large print versions, use screen readers etc.
• ensure course materials and equipment are compatible with the functional and technological resources available to the great majority of students.
• provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate competency and knowledge;
• ensure web pages comply with the World Wide Web Consortium access guidelines.

Table 7 : The principles of Universal Design

Bowe (2000) has noted that the principles place responsibility for making curricula, materials and environments accessible to and useable by all students, staff and the general public who access the institution. Where possible, the provision of education – facilities, services, equipment and teaching - should be designed/developed in the first instance to be accessible and useable for all without the need for assistive technology, or at minimum accessible and useable with assistive technology. Table 8 presents a comparison on a number of key issues between the UDL approach and the Assistive Technology approach to providing access to education programmes.

Table 8 (after Bowe, 2000): Comparison of UDL and Assistive technology approaches

Bowe (2000, 10) states that,

Universal design in education tells educators to prepare, in advance, for … very different learning needs and, to the extent feasible, design and delivery instruction so as to meet those needs.

He also makes the point that, by designing accessible methods of delivery of courses from the outset, educators can contain costs and more easily market courses through electronic means. UDL recognises that it is much more expensive to alter courses after they are developed or put in supports such as textbooks changed to different formats. Often these costs are hidden and known only to disability staff.

Applications of UDL

Legislation to accommodate student minority groups has been in effect in the USA for more than thirty years, and several innovative education philosophies and methods have come out of this social justice background. Concurrent with the elimination of inequitable barriers to access for prospective students, there has been a recognition that the increase in diversity has identified a need for increasing and broadening the ways in which education is delivered (Green, 1989). Green noted that in the USA the emphasis to date has been on assisting minorities to adapt to the existing norms and traditional practices of education and training institutions. He proposes a different approach and says that how we teach should be changed to reflect a diverse student population and a pluralistic society. The Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training in the USA found that, globally, there has been a progression from an elite system of tertiary education to an accessible system of education for a much larger proportion of the general population. This movement has also been seen in attempts to increase the enrolments of disadvantaged groups such as students with disabilities. Although the equity initiatives of these countries differ, most are aiming to achieve representative proportions of diverse student bodies, reflecting the proportions of those groups within the diverse community populations that they come from. This broader context has meant that innovation such as UDL has been quickly taken up by many educators and applied in a number of different learning settings.

Rose and Meyer (2000a) applied the principles of UDL in high school classrooms which included students with disabilities. The authors found that all students benefited from the inclusion of UDL in the way that various subject areas were taught. They made particular note of the potential of UDL for developing new means and methods for teaching stating that (2000a, p.39),

Applied to instruction, the principles of universal design can guide the development of education tools to accommodate the diverse needs of all learners, including those with disabilities.

In terms of its potential for meeting a great variety of individual needs, the authors conclude that (2000a, p.43),

UDL offers multiple means of representation, expression and engagement to adjust to the needs of all students, including those with learning disabilities, visual and auditory impairments, physical disabilities and diverse learning preferences as reflected by the Boston Globe's student writers. A working knowledge of the brain systems discussed here facilitates the design and appropriate use of UDL curricula and technology.

In a study of students with high support needs, Rose, Sethuraman, and Meo (2000) found that UDL can address many students with severe levels of functional disabilities. They state that that many students with disability and health problems encounter general functional difficulties in learning settings. They also found that students with very high levels of individual support needs can benefit from UDL approaches. They recommend that the adoption of the UDL approach to designing learning environments has the potential to meet many of the needs of these students. They make the statement (2000, p.57) that, "UDL provides educators with a framework to customize learning goals and assemble curriculum materials that are appropriate for all learners" (emphasis in the original).

The special-needs approach to disability has been criticized for being a short-term strategy that faces major challenges. Commenting on the situation in the Canadian tertiary sector, Bickenbach (1998) noted that the needs of people with disabilities are often seen to compete with the needs, wants and rights of the rest of the population and that they are, consequently, regarded as just another set of partisan demands on teaching staff. Birkenbach proposes that the concept of ‘universal design’ overcomes this problem and, if implemented, has long-term potential to address the needs of students with disabilities within the greater context of quality, accessibility and best practice.

Stahl and Branaman (2000, ¶16) make the point that the universal design approach to education must be proactively pursued. They point out that, "As colleges and universities increase their reliance on online offerings, Universal Design features should be built in". Stahl and Branaman note that this universal design presence in education programmes will require collaboration between teaching staff, course designers, disability officers and policy makers. In conclusion, Stahl and Branaman, 2000, ¶17) state,

"As the flexibility of online materials expands and the speed of its delivery increases, the potential for providing students with automatic accommodations becomes more and more of a reality. With increased awareness and careful planning everyone - the colleges and universities, the publishers, and most significantly, the students - will gain."

Meyer and O'Neill (2000) identified some cost advantages of UDL applications over present support practices of providing disability supports to individual students. The traditional methods of brailing or taping of texts and provision of note-takers, interpreters and transcribers are costly. These supports require considerable organisation and are often delivered after the point of delivery of the lecture or lab. The authors note that the UDL approach looks at how educators generally prepare lectures, class notes, laboratory books and other materials. Typically these are prepared on computers and so there is a readily accessible means for providing alternative access to information. Provision on disk to students who are blind, vision impaired or have difficulty note-taking enables this material to be spoken, printed in Braille or manipulated on computer to change font size or colour for reading or printing. Planning in advance makes the course available for more students at the time of delivery for very little cost.

The interest in UDL in the USA reflects the general interest in flexible course delivery that is a feature of college programmes in that country. The basic premise of UDL is that a curriculum should include alternatives that make the learning in it accessible and applicable to students with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities and disabilities. As Rose and Meyer (2000, p.68) put it,

The ‘universal’ in UDL does not imply a single solution for everyone, but rather it underscores the need for inherently flexible, customisable content, assignments, and activities.

To date, most of the papers promoting UDL principles focus heavily on issue of the flexibility principle of Universal Design (Meyer & O'Neill, 2000; Rose & Meyer, 2000a&b; Rose et al, 2000; Stahl and Branaman, 2000). The key reason for this is that flexibility of access is vital for dealing with:

i) the differences between learners in individual learning styles and means of accessing the learning experiences and information of a course;

ii) with the need for teachers to employ different instructional media and techniques to best convey the content of their courses.

Other international initiatives

There are many approaches to providing academic support to students with disabilities that have been implemented in other countries. In the United Kingdom some new approaches to course flexibility have been developed through institutions such as the Open University (Dundas, 1994). This organisation is regarded as a leading provider of flexible programs for students with disabilities. The Open University operates using distance education methods supported by tutorial assistance and residential components to courses. The advantages of this model are that it combines new methods of delivering courses with high levels of traditional support services to ensure individual needs are being assessed and met. Special services provided by the Open University for students with disabilities include:

• the full range of disability services which are made available on a decentralised basis;
• tutorial services utilising a variety of modes: face-to-face contact, telephone, print, email, provision of preparatory courses;
• special learning materials;
• audio cassette version of printed course materials, enlarged print formats, transcripts of lectures, and subtitled course videos;
• special examination arrangements;
• loan of special equipment.

In New Zealand, the University of Waikato has developed an interesting programme of FTL incorporating supports for students with disabilities. The Disability Support Service is responsible for delivering a unique and inclusive programme of FTL to students with disabilities or "individual differences". Haines and Molenaar (2000) have been instrumental in setting up the programme and have identified in their findings the following benefits to students and advocate that;

• students become actively involved in developing their own learning strategies;
• students take ownership of their learning, gaining confidence in their ability to learn;
• students that are confident in their abilities to learn and comfortable with their individual differences "will assist in facilitating the development of FTL practices within the university".

These views are supported by Dowdy and Osborne (Dowdy, 2000), who suggest that students who see themselves primarily as a student rather than as a person with a disability are more likely to succeed as student and successfully mange their course and learning needs. The authors propose that these students have higher self-esteem because they refuse to passively accept that they always need to accommodate their goals and their preferred way of doing things to the constraints of their disability.

In Canada, Thomas and Thomas (1991) edited a directory of college facilities for students with disabilities and they noted that most services were focused on providing support services to students on an individual basis. They recommended a more mainstream type approach to dealing with issues such as the need for alternative formats. They recognised that inclusive practice and FTL offers the opportunity to create a range of different access opportunities and learning environments for all students but particularly students with disabilities and chronic medical conditions. They concluded that these approaches can enable students to select their most appropriate form of access and/or learning mode in a particular course of study, thus increasing learners' access to, and control over, their learning environment. Allowing a more FTL environment will free up valuable resources and allow them to be directed and used in the most appropriate manner.

Another Canadian initiative called the Liberated Learning Project has been undertaken by Saint Mary's University in Halifax. The projects’ mission is to create and foster a learning environment free of barriers, where all students have equal access to information. The projects objectives are to develop and test multiple applications of speech recognition in university classrooms in a number of countries. Through this application of speech recognition in tertiary settings, the project hopes to attain a high level of accuracy in the real time conversion of speech to text. The co-ordinators hope to demonstrate that speech recognition is preferred and has advantages over conventional classroom note-taking for some students with disabilities. It is also expected that non-disabled students will report positive uses of speech recognition in the classroom. The project will assess the use of speech recognition and lecture notes generated from speech recognition as an alternative to traditional classroom note taking. There are several project partners involved in the Liberated Learning Project. They include Deafax, which is a UK community-based centre for innovations in CIT for deaf and hearing impaired people, Stanford University, the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Ryerson University, in Toronto, University College of Cape Breton, the Alexander Graham Bell Institute, Durham College and the Ontario Institute of Technology (OIT) in Canada.

Some Australian Initiatives

Over the past decade, Australian universities have witnessed an expansion in the variety of teaching and learning methods used to deliver education programmes. As is the case with all students, these innovations have had an impact on the learning experiences of students with disabilities. Student with disabilities have benefited from these innovations wherever they result in greater flexibility and mainstreaming of access provision. A report on equity innovations (NBEET, 1996) noted that institutions that had mainstreamed equity concerns also provided better practical incorporation of new programs and services. In these institutions, equity has become a part of the way they plan and implement their quality teaching and learning programs. The practice of ‘mainstreaming’ equity issues concerned with student learning has resulted in education programmes that are more flexible and accessible.

Dundas (1994) reported that the majority of students with a disability were enrolled in traditional academic programs on campus, and that each institution was offering much the same range of support services including note takers, audiotapes, computer-based methods for turning text into sound and sound into text, scanning and brailing, TTY, telephones, building modifications to improve access, personal carers, and assistance in the library for searching catalogues and photocopying. Although there is an awareness of FTL issues in most tertiary institutions across Australia, disability services still rely on individualised support approaches to addressing the needs of students and do not utilise whatever FTL systems that may in placer.

On a local level, individual institutions, departments and teaching staff are offering a range of FTL practices, including computer-based learning and video presentations, and access to course material on the Internet. However, support services for students with disabilities and medical conditions is still heavily utilised, with little emphasis on the development of flexible delivery formats. More recently however, there have been several initiatives that take a different approach to service provision in this area. The Liberated Learning Project mentioned earlier has several partners involved in the project in Australia. These include the University of the Gold Coast, Murdoch University and the Perth Central College of TAFE. The Project is a unique application of speech recognition technology as a method for assisting students with disabilities in the university classroom.

In these trials lectures are transcribed in real time using automated speech recognition and projected to the class, enabling students to "see" the lecture. After the lecture, comprehensive, software-generated notes are provided in a variety of formats. During lectures the teacher uses a wireless microphone ‘connected’ to a robust computer system running speech recognition software modified for classroom use. The text of the lecture is displayed via a projector to the class in real time so students can simultaneously see and hear the lecture as it is delivered. All students have access to comprehensive lecture notes in a variety of formats. The project has not yet been evaluated but promises many new opportunities to students and staff.

The disability programme at the University of Western Australia has been utilising a more systemic approach to meeting the learning needs of students with disabilities for the past three years (Edwards, 1999; 2000). This focus has been made possible because of the teaching and learning initiatives taken by the University which include the automatic digital recording of audio and visual information presented in lectures and making those recording available on-line. A majority of the University’s main undergraduate teaching venues have automated recording facilities and this has resulted in a dramatic reduction for requests from students with disabilities for note taking and transcription supports. This system, called the "iLecture" system is now being expanded to other institutions.

The Orange campus of TAFE in New South Wales is also undertaking an initiative that is based on the principles of UDL. The programme consists of several components: designing a template for print and web-based resources, training content developers in UDL, redesigning several subjects using UDL principles, and trialling this approach with students and teachers who use assistive technologies. The project is planning to work towards a policy where UDL is institutionally endorsed as the basis for all learning opportunities offered. The approach is promoted on the basis that 'it is good for everyone' as opposed to its being a disability issue.

All of the national and international initiatives in developing more systemic means of addressing the learning needs of students with disabilities are in their formative stages and have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. Although there is an awareness of the possible benefits of FTL issues among many disability services staff in many tertiary institutions, the use of these methods does not seem to have been widely applied or utilised as a major means for meeting students’ learning needs. The greater use of systemic approaches to delivering disability services will depend on a wider level of awareness and support for these types of innovations and for evidence that they can provide a more equitable, effective and efficient means of meeting the learning needs of these students.

Disability and quality in education

Much has been done in the Australian tertiary education to address equity issues and access for students with disabilities to education. Most significantly, the government in 1990 released a policy document titled A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education That's Within Everyone's Reach (Department of Employment, Education, and Training, 1990). This policy pledged a national commitment to address access issues for education and has been the stimulus for the advancement of a more inclusive higher education system. The move to shift to more inclusive higher education services is supported by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) formulated and legislated in 1992. The Act (states that:

it is unlawful for an education authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of the student's disability or a disability of any of the student's associates, by denying the student access or limiting the student's access, to any benefit provided by the education authority.

The National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1996) noted that the higher education authorities that have made the move to equity mainstreaming throughout faculties and departments, compared with single centralised units, have achieved conceptual and practical incorporation of new programs. In these institutions, equity has become a part of the way they plan and implement their quality teaching and learning programs. The practice of ‘mainstreaming’ equity ensures that University processes and procedures are flexible and accessible to all students.

The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education suggests that the ‘normalisation’ of disability implies that universities should be encouraged to generate a culture and environment where disability is not regarded as a problem but as an opportunity for improving the quality of education services. Adopting these methods in the future of higher education will develop best practice for both students and staff. The pursuit of quality in the students’ learning experience is a value that all educators should strive for. Franklin et al (1995) have made the point that quality in learning should take account of the needs of a variety of students’ perspectives, and this means that quality in education should be an inclusive and equitable approach that caters for all students. Nightingale and O'Neil (1994) suggest that in looking for a meaningful definition of quality in learning in higher education, we should be looking at education as a transformative process that involves a change in roles of the student and the teacher. The authors state that it should be assumed that quality is part of a continuous improvement process.

According to Parker (1999), FTL benefits all students, not just students with disabilities, because effective teaching for students with disabilities is likely to represent good practice for all students. The implications of adopting FTL techniques are substantial for all students, however, a significant benefit of these techniques is the outcomes it will have for students with a disability or chronic medical condition. Parker mentions that these methods can create greater access to education for all students and especially those from minority groups. Parker makes the point that the pursuit of quality and best practice does not mean ‘trying to be all things to all students’ but rather aiming to provide the most inclusive teaching and learning experience for the benefit to all students.

There are many examples in the literature on FTL where the provision of quality education programmes include characteristics like flexibility. Baron and Thiele (1995) conducted a two year longitudinal study of flexible learning in a South Australian TAFE College which reports on the shared responses of non-disabled students and staff. The authors found that respondents reported several advantages to a more flexible system of teaching and learning including increased progression rates, increased independence for learners and increased co-operation between teachers and support staff. Staff and students alike expressed a preference for allowing students the opportunity to decide their most appropriate study option, either traditional teaching in tutorial form or a more flexible format. The authors acknowledge that, in order to adopt FTL practices, staff are required to make a significant role change from authorities in a relatively narrow teaching sense to resourceful facilitators of learning in courses of study. As a consequence, the findings from the study suggest that a programme of ongoing staff development would fit the ideal of the flexible worker and lifelong learner.

However, quality in the students’ learning experience can also be negatively affected by flexible delivery methods such as the on-line provision of learning materials and course components. Houweling (1999) argues that to access on-line education the user must have access to the Internet, and this is where the problem begins. This dilemma was also recognised in a report by West (1998), highlighting concern that a move to computer-based learning materials might disadvantage people who do not have access to computers, or a high degree of familiarity with computers, especially older people.

Table 9: Benefits of FTL methods

A more negative aspect of flexible programme delivery, specifically distance mode education, was identified by Johnston and Challis (1994) as a lack of opportunity for students to discover knowledge by a process of discussion and interaction with a group of scholars. The findings from this study suggest that the best formula for higher education teaching and learning is using the flexible techniques of distance education in a face-to-face "on-campus" mode. These findings support those of Edwards (1999) who found that students with a disability or chronic medical condition identified their greatest preference as face-to-face contact with peers and lecturers, supported by materials that were developed with teaching and learning principles and delivered through a flexible mode. Table 9 summarises the benefits for students undertaking their education in an environment of FTL.

In an article on learning to teach in higher education, Ramsden (1992) argues that teachers may see themselves as transmitters of information, thereby reflecting the wider expectation, as opposed to that of transformers of students' learning. The teacher is portrayed in one of three roles - the manager of the learning environment, the facilitator of learning, and the spoon-feeder role. The model(s) out of which the teacher operates will have implications for the learning experiences, which proceed in the classroom. Ramsden (1992) indicates that deep, surface, and achievement-oriented learning styles in students will be reinforced or enhanced by the types of assessments used by the lecturer, the relationship which develops between the lecturer and the students, and the content of the curriculum. For example, a high content curriculum, with expectations of a passive student role is likely to lead to surface, short-lived learning, whilst a problem based curriculum, which involves critical questioning and analysis, will lead to a deep learning outcome.

Regarding the issue of the roles and expectations of the teacher and the student, Franklin and Roche (1995) identified a fundamental dilemma. Students need to have control over their learning in order to promote quality deep learning but this is opposed by a fear of relinquishing control of a process for which teachers are, traditionally, held responsible. In order to help students take responsibility for their own learning, Jeppesen, H. Laursen, P.F.,O’Neil, M. (1994) indicate the role of the lecturer as that of facilitator, mentor and consultant to the student's learning. The lecturer takes on the role of resource and guide. Within such a role, the lecturer is required to take on a reflective practitioner role, which involves movement within the action research cycle. In such a role, the lecturer, working towards continuous improvement, would integrate evaluation and reflection as critical components of his or her work.

In a study into the views on the experiences of academics in a FTL environment, Willmot and McLean (1994) reported that students’ and academics’ perceptions of flexible learning tended to be very similar. Both agreed that in order to adopt flexible approaches there must be student-teacher interaction and teachers should be the ones to determine appropriate levels and types of guidance. Academics believed that teachers have an important role in assessing students' willingness and capacity to accept the responsibility for their own learning, and that this option would not be a cost cutting strategy. That is, in order to motivate and encourage students to become responsible for their own learning there must be a degree of teacher-student interaction where discussion and discovery occur, thus engendering motivation. Teacher contact should not be diminished but used more effectively than just courseware transfer.

In another study on FTL, Johnston and Challis (1994) studied six academics who moved from teaching a Master’s degree in a traditional face-to-face tutorial format, to one in which they also taught the same programme in a distance mode. Teaching the distance mode of the unit was less satisfactory for academics than teaching the traditional face-to-face mode because of the lack of contact with the students and the inability to get to know the students individually. In terms of content, however, the academics agreed unanimously that the students studying in the distance mode were offered a far greater amount and higher quality information than those studying in the traditional mode. Furthermore, the distance students received the whole course without needing to attend every session, and thus had both a complete and permanent record of the content. The academics also noted that the need to develop written notes had led to the sharing with students of more detailed and up-to-date information.

The study conducted by Edwards (1999) looked at the impact of FTL for students with disabilities on teaching staff. None of the staff had changed any process in their basic method of delivery to improve access for students with disabilities. Edwards reported that most staff agreed that didactic lectures would have the most deleterious impact on students with various disabilities and chronic medical conditions, and computer-based components of course delivery the least impact of all methods of course delivery. However, when asked about making changes to their teaching practices to accommodate students, most staff indicated they were unlikely to put any form of their materials on the internet. The primary reason was the cost in terms of time and resources. Edwards found that all staff had encountered students with some form of disability and their response to the needs of these students was always to make an individual arrangement to accommodate them. When asked about developing new and more flexible approaches to teaching and learning, all staff were concerned about quality teaching and learning practices, and not just with equity issues. A common reason was the desire to explore innovative teaching practices so that content could be communicated in a variety of ways. Some staff mentioned that their main focus was to improve the quality of the learning experience for students while others felt that their subject area was not particularly suitable for presentation via computer or web-based methods. With respect to the benefits to staff offering their courses in a more inclusive teaching and learning format, staff commonly mentioned that it would help to meet their teaching objectives, improve the quality of their teaching and provide a better learning experience for students.

When asked what changes could be made to programme delivery to provide better access to the course content and learning activities for students with a chronic medical condition or a disability (Edwards, 1999). Many staff indicated the Internet as a possible alternative mode of course delivery for nearly every aspect of the course. Another common suggestion was to include in the course outline a section on equity, and several staff mentioned that this would be a good way to encourage disclosure of disability so that accommodations could be more systematically provided in a proactive way. When staff were asked about the benefits for students of increased flexibility in delivery, the following advantages were provided: more independent learning, improved discussion and increased range of learning opportunities available to all students. The following disadvantages of more flexible delivery alternatives were also given: drop in lecture attendance, reducing the responsibility of students, reducing the opportunity for active learning.

A study conducted on university professors pioneering the integration of assistive technology and related content into their courses in Las Vegas identified a shift in the thinking and philosophy of the professors (Babbitt, 1998). The professors concluded unanimously that as a result of their experiences, they were more aware of the bigger picture and how their course relates to the world now and in the future. They also reported that they were more aware of the state of the world they were sending their students into and the needs and demands of the public their graduates will serve. FTL broadens awareness and generates community links, bringing teaching to the present and making learning more relevant for students and staff alike (Babbitt, 1998).

The above studies appear to suggest that while most staff support the concept of increasing FTL practices, in reality there are many barriers to the practice of flexible programme delivery. The Edwards (1999) study found that staff regarded an inclusive approach to teaching and learning as time consuming, costly to set up, with increased workloads to maintain the system, with a subsequent lack of control of access to course content. In support of these, McNaught (2000) has outlined particular concerns for teaching staff with regard to the use of technology in FTL in higher education as:

• coherence of policy across all levels of institutional operations and specific policies which impact on flexible learning within institutions;
• intellectual property, particularly the role of copyright in online environments;
• leadership and institutional culture;
• professional development and training;
• staff recognition and rewards;
• motivation for individuals to implement and use FTL;
• specific resource issues related to funding for maintenance or updating of materials;
• staff time release and support staff.

The study also considered the general benefits for all students that would follow from increased flexibility in delivery. Several disadvantages of more flexible delivery alternatives were also mentioned. These comments are presented in the following table.

Table 10: Advantages and disadvantages of flexible programme delivery for all students

Edwards looked at the benefits and disadvantages for teaching staff of FTL methods. The teaching staff felt that there were advantages but also some considerable drawbacks to delivering their courses by more flexible means. Table 11 presents these comments.

Table 11: Advantage and disadvantages of FPD for teaching staff

Edwards also asked teaching staff what changes could be made to the programme delivery method to provide better access to students with disabilities to the course content and learning activities. This was in addition to the accommodations that could be made on an individual basis. The following table outlines the suggestions provided.

Table 12: Suggestions for altering delivery method to meet disability needs

* the buddy system is where a suitable student is teamed up with a student to provide peer support and advice

One common suggestion that was unrelated to the course structure was to include in the course outline a section on equity. Several interviewees mentioned that this would be a good way to encourage disclosure of disability so that accommodations could be more systematically provided in a pro-active way.

In an earlier study of teaching and learning issues for students with disabilities, Silver and Bourke (1998) found that the main barriers for implementing FTL strategies were:

• time required to introduce and implement the techniques;
• staff attitudes to implementing such techniques thus creating the need for a shift in teaching culture;
• staff training in inclusive FTL practices;
• a loss of the sense of academic freedom to choose to teach in the particular form they desire.

Stickels and Radloff (1996) identified a number of factors that impacted negatively on the capacity of teaching staff to explore more innovative options in their teaching methods. These were:

• limited human and material resources
• large class sizes
• work overload for staff and students
• requirement to do 'more with less'
• mismatched expectations between staff and students

It is beyond the scope of this review to identify and describe individual technologies and components that can assist in removing barriers and implementing FTL techniques, however some broad strategies and innovations will be discussed.

Dundas (1995) noted that there is considerable inertia amongst staff regarding changing from traditional teaching methods to a learner-centred approach. One suggestion is that a cultural shift in the direction of FTL could be promoted through the quality assurance movement by making staff development for the teaching function, an explicit quality assurance criterion (NBEET, 1994). Staff development and human resources are an important component of a successful transition to FTL, as are resource support, incentive schemes for best practice, student involvement, and a shift in culture that supports creative attitudes to course development and teaching. Inclusive FTL is not a static pathway and will have different roads for different institutions and staff within the institutions and students. Allowing individualism within an institution will lead to greater teaching and learning for all.

In her 1999 report, Barrett outlined some very useful and basic strategies for removing barriers and making education more inclusive. Prior to a university course being offered to students, Barrett suggests that course materials and booklists should always be prepared in electronic format where possible and should be available prior to commencement, to allow students time to become familiar with course content. Students’ anxiety may be minimised with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with equipment, laboratories and workshops prior to course commencement, and students themselves should have direct input to negotiate the format of education they require. Barrett recommends the following strategies be used during the delivery of course content, to facilitate FTL.

• students should be directed to key points in their reading by providing chapter outlines and self directed learning tasks
• a variety of teaching methods and presentation styles should be used, in plain English to minimise complex communication
• teachers should interact with students and rephrase information if necessary
• avoid digressing from the topic and use concrete examples as demonstrations
• supply students with key points and assignment details in hard copy
• read aloud all transparencies and blackboard/whiteboard work
• be flexible to genuine individual needs with regard to assignment deadlines
• ask if assistance is required and be alert to students needs.

Ratynyeke (1999) proposed that an incentive for lecturers to produce good quality, inclusive flexible teaching materials would come with the implementation of a recommendation of the Teaching and Learning Committee to recognise excellence in inclusivity in teaching and learning. They proposed an award available for three to five years, after which the criteria for teaching would become part of the criteria for all Excellence in Teaching Awards. Nunan (1996) supports this approach and suggests that flexible learning would be facilitated where reward systems and measures of productivity are changed to account for skills and energies directed towards establishing teaching and learning environments. In addition, student learning interactions and outcomes are judged to be superior to other approaches. The author argued that although this would be a complex matter, financial support and recognition of the production of resources, and development of support mechanisms accompanying the design of FTL environments would increase the likelihood of a shift in this direction.

Taylor (1996) recognise that FTL have a great future in the provision of higher education, however, some leadership needs to be established and the thrust forward must continue in a cohesive manner. There is currently concern that FTL is developing in a "piecemeal fashion" and although there is no desire to restrict innovations in teaching and learning there is a need for it to move together under a unified technology that will make access much easier for students. However, while the face-to-face environment is appreciated and irreplaceable, and the enthusiasm of a teacher can never be replaced, it could be better used more sparingly.

Devlin (2000) also recognises the enormous potential for FTL to facilitate access to education for students with a disability. She suggests that in the longer term, FTL may offer real reductions in costs and improvement in service delivery. During the initial phase of implementing FTL practices, it would be appropriate to assume that the costs in time and energy would be substantial. This would include preparation of courseware by teaching staff, and development of alternative formats. The personnel within staff training, human resources, technical support, and other areas will all be required to support the shift to FTL. An effort should be made to minimise costs in terms of time and energy. The resources needed to facilitate a shift to FTL include technology, hardware, and human resources. A conscious institution-wide shift to FTL would facilitate a more organised allocation and ultimately a more concentrated and focussed effort of resources.

The National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1995) further emphasise that at any given level of funding, we suggest that the quality of the service provided to students can be raised by wider and more effective use of FTL. Relatively small changes in the nature of funding, in the shape of the money would suffice. Lundin (1993) also agrees that funding need not be a major issue in the initial shift to FTL. The authors concludes that for every case of FTL, far more can be done in terms of students gaining access to a greater range of subject offerings, and that the cost is always less per student for the student and the institution, and equivalent to conventional teaching. For examples, a study conducted at San Jose State University identifies the process of installing and implementing accessible workstations throughout the University. Christierson 1998) outline the importance of identifying legal and budgetary constraints, applying standards to meet diverse disability needs and obtaining technical help to install and maintain correct hardware and software.

This review of literature has focused on the issue of FTL and the learning needs of students with disability. The general move towards more innovative and FTL methods has been associated with the benefits that these changes hold for students with disabilities. It seems reasonable to conclude that students with disabilities will share in many of the benefits that these methods offer to the general population of students. However, there are some areas, such as technological access, that remain as potential areas of disadvantage for some disability groups.

The possibilities of more flexible approaches are most clearly seen with the application of the concepts and principles of universal design to education settings. It seems that this theoretical framework for looking at issues of diversity, difference and individual need has the capacity to address these matters within a context of quality and better accessibility and servicing for all students. Several authors suggest that this can enable students to select their most appropriate form of access and/or learning mode in a particular course of study, thus increasing learners' access to, and control over, their learning environment. Overall, these developments offer many advantages over traditional ways of providing supports to higher education students with disabilities. However, traditional methods still dominate and systematic and targeted strategies are required to assist the move to flexible delivery to be inclusive of students with disabilities.

Many of the papers reviewed suggested that, where there was a focus was on providing flexible learning environments, the needs of students with disabilities were largely met without the need for special support or individual arrangements. The particular access needs of students with disabilities (and of other equity students) can be to a large extent catered for through the application of the several core principles of flexibility and accessibility. It also seems that students with disabilities find these more flexible methods of gaining access to course content preferable to the traditional support systems that disability offices typically provide. Again, further research is needed to confirm these findings.