New Approach to Improving Education and Training Services for Tertiary Students with Disabilities: Chapter 3 - Report on Surveys of Teaching and Disability Staff

The development of new teaching technologies and communication media during the 1980s and 1990s has enabled possibilities for educators to provide more flexible and interesting learning experiences for their students (general reference here). There is also a wide range of students from non-traditional backgrounds who have gained particular benefit from these innovations. Perhaps those who stand to benefit most are students with disabilities and chronic health conditions. These students have traditionally faced considerable barriers and experienced ongoing disadvantages in the post-secondary education sector (Accommodations on line article). It has already been found that the general student population has benefited in many ways from the these new approaches to teaching and learning (Brown, 2000; Devlin, 2000; Lundin, 1993; Olive, 1998). With some important qualifications in such areas as the accessibility of some Internet resources, these findings have been initially confirmed in the studies and reports that have considered the impact of these teaching approaches on the learning experiences of students with disabilities (Edwards, 1999, Stahl & Branaman, 2000; Doyle & Robson, 2002).

Various studies have investigated the attitudes of teaching staff to the new directions in the design and implementation of tertiary courses. However, no studies have considered in detail the viewpoints that teaching staff have towards the implications that these innovations might have for the provision of disability supports and for the learning experiences of students with disabilities. The institutional consideration of disability matters in the design of flexible course delivery is a crucial one for disability service providers. These more adaptive and accommodating methods of teaching and training have a great potential to create learning environments which can include the diversity of student needs. However, if disability issues are not specifically considered and addressed through such means as course design and compliance of IT with disability standards, then FTL might become yet another way in which students with disabilities will be marginalised and excluded from the mainstream of student life (Edwards, 1999).

To gain some basic understanding of this topic the current project collected information from three different sources - students with disabilities, teaching staff, and disability services staff. A basic overview of the views and experiences of students with disabilities was collected through the review of relevant literature on this topic. The project collected information from teaching staff and disability services staff from both the university and the TAFE sectors. Given that the views of teaching staff are central to issues of course design and delivery, the focus of the teaching staff surveys was on the identification of resource barriers and concerns that prevented staff from including inclusivity and accessibility factors in the way they taught their courses. The survey of disability services staff focused on the issue of meeting disability needs from the service provider perspective. The main interest here was on how disability needs were viewed and subsequently addressed by the disability service staff.

With basic information on FTL from these three complementary perspectives it was expected that clearer understanding of the issues surrounding FTL and disability could be gained. This, in turn, would inform the development of various types of resources and activities to further promote the potential for innovation in disability service provision in tertiary settings. Figure 1 sets out the basic structure of the study and shows how the information collected during the literature review and data gathering phases fed into the development of resources and activities for the various key stakeholders.

Procedure

Nine institutions participated in the survey of teaching staff. These were The University of Western Australia (UWA), Edith Cowan University (ECU), Murdoch University (MU), Midland College of TAFE, South East Metropolitan College of TAFE, West Coast College of TAFE, Great Southern College of TAFE, South East Metropolitan College of TAFE, Karratha College of TAFE.

The Teaching Staff Survey

The literature review process helped to identify several previous questionnaires and survey forms that were used to develop the draft survey for teaching staff. This draft went through several phases of piloting and editing before the final version was developed. A total of 3,000 teaching staff from Western Australian universities and TAFE colleges were sent survey forms through internal mail via their institutional disability office. Staff names and addresses were obtained through the human resources section of the various institutions. All survey forms had a covering letter from either the Managing Director, Vice Chancellor, or Deputy Vice Chancellor of the particular institution encouraging their staff to participate in the survey. Survey forms were to be returned to the particular institution’s disability office. Follow-up reminders were sent out by most participating institutions through internal staff members e-mail lists.

Only permanent full-time or part-time teaching staff were asked to participate in the survey. However, a small percentage of casual staff members (2%) did complete the survey and these were also included in the results. Of the total number of potential respondents (3000), 579 returned questionnaires which represents a response rate of 19.30%.

The Disability Staff Survey

The survey for disability staff was developed and piloted on two disability staff from the university sector and one disability officer from the TAFE sector. The form was sent out via e-mail through the AUS-TED e-mail discussion list which is the main electronic discussion forum for disability officers in tertiary education and training institutions in Australia. The list has daily communications passing between disability officers and is used on a regular basis to conduct surveys and to publicise research projects. The list has a membership of approximately 100 disability officers across the country. Thirty-two completed survey forms were returned by disability staff.

The Survey Forms

There were two basic areas of interest that most of the survey items on the teaching staff forms focused on (see Appendix A). The first was the identification of the perceived benefits and barriers faced by teaching staff in adopting FTL methods. The second was the connections and considerations that teachers and lecturers made between programme design and delivery and their impact on the functioning of students with disabilities. In addition to this, basic demographic information was collected concerning the respondents’ teaching institution, employment status and teaching experience. The teaching staff survey concentrated on staff’s views and awareness of how disability and flexible teaching and leaning issues were connected. FTL was defined as "the provision of a teaching and learning environment that supports a range of access methods and different learning modes to optimise the learning opportunities of students". The disability services staff survey focused on how staff applied flexible service delivery concepts in comparison to the other models of service provision that are currently used. Again, items were included in the survey that elicited information on both the benefits and barriers to using these approaches.

Teaching Staff Survey Results

Demographics

The response rate of 19.3% means that the results cannot interpreted as a close representation of the views of teaching staff on the issue of flexible teaching and disability. However, the substantial number of surveys collected in the study provide a starting point for drawing general conclusions about this important topic. While the responses tend to favour views that are already supportive of the flexible delivery of courses, the survey produced many useful findings on issues such as the awareness among teaching staff of disability matters and the impact of delivery method on the functional problems faced by these students. A considerable proportion of participants were not inclined to pursue further opportunities for FTL methods. The analysis of these responses also provided some data on what views and barriers were stopping teaching staff from utilising these methods more consistently. Of the 579 teaching staff who returned completed surveys 417 (72%), were from universities and 162 (28%), were from TAFE colleges. The great majority of these staff were full-time teachers, and had extensive teaching backgrounds with 81% having taught for more than five years and only 8% of respondents having less than three years of teaching experience.

Table 13: Teaching status

Flexible Teaching and Learning

The majority of teaching staff (67%) reported that they would like to have more opportunity for FTL in their course delivery. Of those who responded negatively 133 (70%) said they did not want to go to more flexible options because they felt that the current options provided adequate flexible opportunities. Only 14% of those who did not want more FTL gave other reasons such as class size or lack of time for preparing materials as reasons for not adopting more FTL methods.

Table 14: Barriers to adopting FTL methods

Those staff who wanted more opportunity for FTL were asked what factors were preventing them from adopting more flexible teaching methods. Lack of resources and the fact that FTL was not always suitable for a particular type of course accounted for the majority of reasons (Table 14). The survey participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a number of statements on how their teaching methods, and FTL in general, might impact on students with disabilities. The results are presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Attitudes towards FTL and disability

The survey participants were asked to rate the importance of a range of factors that may inhibit teaching staff from adopting more FTL methods. The results are presented in Table 16. Participants were also asked if there were any other factors, other than those presented, that might inhibit or constrain them from adopting more flexible methods of teaching. No additional factors were offered.

Table 16: Inhibiting or constraining factors for adopting FTL methods

The barriers to implementing FTL were further analysed in terms of those staff who supported it and those who were not wanting to adopt FTL methods. Table 17 presents some of the more interesting results from this analysis.

Table 17 : Barriers for FTL supportive and non-supportive respondents

Participants were also questioned about the expected outcomes of adopting more flexible methods of teaching and learning (Table 18). Various outcomes for students with disabilities, the general student population, and teaching staff were included in the set of options presented. The options presented to respondents came from the piloting phase of the survey development and also from previous research (Edwards, 1999). Some individual respondents included additional written comments about particular outcomes of adopting more FTL methods. Each of these additional comments are listed in Table 19.

Table 18: Likelihood of various outcomes of adopting FTL methods

The additional comments recorded in Table 19 include views that are very mixed in their view of FTL methods and the outcomes they might result in for both students and teachers. They do, however, show how contentious and important this issue is for many teachers who are faced with increasing demands and expectations from students and administrators.

Table 19: additional comments on outcomes of FTL

University and TAFE lecturer responses

Neither the teaching experience not the employment status of participants was related to whether they wanted more opportunity to adopt FTL methods in their courses. Neither was there a difference between universities and TAFE colleges in the wish of teachers to use FTL methods. About the same proportion of TAFE and university lecturers (48% and 50% respectively) felt that their usual methods of course delivery might present difficulties for students with physical difficulties. Both TAFE and University lecturers generally felt that teachers also need to take a major role in providing support to students with disabilities.

There were similar levels of concern between university and TAFE lecturers over the impact that such factors as class size, time constraints, and technical and funding support would have on adopting more FTL methods. However, more TAFE staff (34%) than university staff (27%) felt that a lack of professional development, training and support would inhibit them from adopting FTL approaches. On the important issues of lecture attendance, similar small proportions of both TAFE (16%) and University (18%) staff felt that the use of FTL approaches would result in drop off in a the numbers of students attending lectures.

Adopting FTL methods

A majority of lecturers (63%) who wanted more opportunity to use FTL methods thought that their teaching methods catered well for most students with disabilities. More than half (51%) of all those lecturers who did not want to use more FTL methods thought that their teaching did not cater well for students with disabilities. Three quarters of lecturers who supported more FTL felt that they also had a role in providing academic support to students with disabilities, while a somewhat smaller proportion (65%) of those who were not supportive of using FTL felt the same way. Those who would use more FTL were also more likely to change their teaching and learning methods if they knew how they might better accommodate students with disabilities. Table 20 compares staff who support a move to FTL to those who do not in their outcomes expectations for various FTL issues.

Table 20: Responses of supportive/non-supportive staff for positive & negative FTL outcomes

More than a third of staff who were supportive of greater use of FTL felt that the lack of professional development, training and support were inhibiting factors in this direction. In contrast, less than a quarter of non-supportive lecturers felt that professional development in the use and application of FTL methods was a factor. This pattern of response was also seen in the attitudes of these two groups towards the restrictions placed on teachers by the learning environments and spaces. Those who supported FTL approaches felt they were more hampered by physical classroom restrictions.

Disability Staff Survey Results

Disability staff participants were asked a number of questions on issues related to FTL (FTL) and the impact that this has on their support needs and functional coping with course demands. There are several ways of tackling the issues that students with disabilities encounter in the course of their studies and training programmes. In this survey disability staff participants were asked to indicate the approach they take when students with disabilities have problems accessing course materials or lecture content. The following table presents their responses.

Table 21: Disability service approach

Disability staff participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a number of statements related to the ways that students’ needs are addressed and accommodated. Table 22 presents the responses of the survey participants to this issue.

Table 22: Responses to various statements on service provision

There are many means by which government bodies, education institutions and disability officers can support more systemic ways of dealing with the needs of students with disabilities. Disability staff participants were asked to indicate whether they felt various factors such as government funding approaches, institutional policies, professional culture and personal preferences for providing services supported a systematic approach to addressing the education training needs of these students. Table 23 presents the participants’ responses to this question.

Table 23: Key factors that impact on service provision

Disability staff survey participants were presented with the hypothetical situation that they had substantially more resources to address the problems faced by students in accessing the content of their education or training programmes. They were then given three choices as to how those resources might be expended. Knowing how staff would allocate additional funds and other resources gives an idea of where they think the service priorities and the directions that service provision might be heading. Table 24 presents the responses of disability staff to this situation.

Table 24: Resource allocation options

Students with disabilities encounter a wide range of learning environments in tertiary education settings. These include variations in physical environments such as lecture theatres and class rooms, informational environments such as computer laboratories and lecture, and interactive environments such as tutorials and practical laboratories. Their particular disabilities and medical conditions also result in a great variety of functional difficulties. Disability officer participants were asked to indicate which of two approaches – flexible programme delivery or individual supports – would be the more suitable for addressing a number of very common functional problems that students encounter Table 25 presents a summary of their responses to this issue.

Table 25: Preferred approach for addressing common functional difficulties.

Out of a total of 32 respondents, 26 either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that FTL is the best way of meeting the needs of students. The responses of these 26 FTL supportive disability staff were further analysed in terms of their responses to the survey question on key factors that encourage a more systemic approach to disability service delivery These responses are presented in Table 26.

Table 26: Responses of FTL-supportive disability staff to key factors that could encourage FTL within their institutions

The literature review and survey results provided three sources of information that form the basis of the following discussion. This multi-focused approach gives a broad overview on the views and practices of the key stakeholders involved in the provision of education and training programmes and support services for students with disabilities and provides a basis for the development of resources that might assist in raising awareness of this issue. The following discussion will be based on the literature review findings that students with disabilities stand to gain considerable benefits from the development and use of flexible and accessible methods of providing education, training and learning opportunities. This is not to dismiss the very real possibility, however, that students with particular types of disability are in a very vulnerable position when these methods are not implemented in accessible or inclusive ways.

Discussion of Teaching Staff Survey Results

The low return rate of completed survey forms means that the survey findings cannot be interpreted as a accurate representation of tertiary teaching staff views on FTL (FTL) and its impact on disability matters. However, the large number of participants in the survey does mean that the results provide a starting point for considering teaching staff’s views on these issues. While most respondents seemed to be generally in support of FTL, there was also a considerable number of staff who were not wanting to adopt more flexible methods of providing their courses. So it seems reasonable to conclude that there is at least a range of views on a number of issues represented in the results. The survey results also provide a range of opinions on questions that allow the development of resources that can provide information and support in the area of FTL and disability.

Many more returned surveys were received from university teaching staff members than from their counterparts in the TAFE sector. Only 28% of survey forms were completed and retuned by TAFE staff whereas 72% were returned by university staff. The numbers of forms actually sent to TAFE staff was 41% of the total of 2,900 surveys mailed out. The proportion of part-time staff involved in the survey was only 9% of the total. However, it was felt that the key decision makers in this area of course design and delivery would be more likely to be full-time staff, and their majority representation was felt to be helpful for the development of useful and practical resources on this issue. The great majority of participants had extensive teaching background with 81% having taught for more than five years and only 8% of respondents having less than three years teaching experience. This also means that the results are very meaningful in terms of the experience and teaching background of the participants.

Flexible Teaching and Learning

As mentioned, the majority of teaching staff surveyed reported that they would like to have more opportunity for FTL in their course delivery. This does not mean that this view is representative of tertiary teaching staff in this State. Of those who supported FTL, there was a strong indication that they also wanted to move further in this direction. The main barriers to this development were resource factors such as the lack of technical support and the lack of funding and committed resources. It was also felt that there were courses where FTL was just not a suitable option. This may indicate that many staff have a particular understanding of what flexible delivery options might be available in courses where practical field work is more common or where the electronic delivery of information is more difficult to structure into the design of a programme.

The majority of those who did not want to go to more flexible options felt that the current ways in which they presented the course provided adequate flexible opportunities. There is evidence from previous research (Edwards, 1990) that teaching staff are not aware of the needs of students with disabilities when they consider the design and delivery methods to be used in developing their courses and programmes. This poses the question of whether further knowledge about the benefits of flexible delivery for students with disabilities and other diversity groups might influence the views of teaching staff who are not otherwise supportive of FTL. This possibility is also supported by the finding that only a small minority of these staff (14%) gave other reasons such as class size or lack of time for preparing materials as reasons for not adopting FTL methods.

It is important that teaching staff see the general benefits and possible disadvantages that FTL presents for students with disabilities and other students. The responses of survey participants to a number of statements on how their teaching methods impact on students with disabilities provide some very interesting information. The large majority of respondents acknowledge that they have an important role to play in accommodating the needs of students with disabilities and they feel that their teaching methods cater well for these students. However, many staff also feel unsure about how their teaching methods might impact on physical disabilities such as those resulting in writing management problems. It is also interesting to note that almost three quarters of respondents would change their FTL methods if they were provided with information on how students might benefit from a more accessible approach to teaching.

Inhibiting factors

The main inhibiting factors for the utilization of FTL methods amongst teaching staff were constraints on time to create flexible materials, lack of necessary equipment/resources, lack of funding to implement strategies, availability of technical support and class size. Respondents were not particularly concerned about the security of academic materials, or about intellectual property/copyright. This indicates that it is not the philosophical issues or attitudinal factors that that inhibit the move to implementing FTL methods. Rather, it is the more pragmatic issues such as funding and resources and the lack of time that are the most important determinants. The responses also suggest that teaching staff may not be aware of the personal benefits that can also be a consequence of adopting FTL methods in terms of time efficiencies and the capacity to control the on-line availability of information.

The findings here on factors that inhibit teachers from taking up or expanding FTL options confirm the findings from many previous studies that it is the resource implications of these approaches that most concern teachers and lecturing staff. Without a clearer picture about how the needs of students with disabilities can fit into the overall picture of delivering education and training programmes, it is unlikely that educators and course designers will consider disability issues when they are structuring and planning courses for tertiary students. This is particularly true if these staff, even those with the best of intentions, view disability issues as peripheral to the mainstream issues of learning and access. When this is the case disability access is seen to be an issue that requires substantial additional resources that come on top of the already significant workload that is necessary when the delivery method of a course is changed.

Perceived outcomes of FTL methods

What are the outcomes that teaching staff see as following on from the adoption and implementation of FTL methods? The survey presented various options on outcomes for students with disabilities, the general student population and teaching staff. The great majority of respondents (84%) felt that it was likely or highly likely that FTL methods would result in a more inclusive learning experience for all students. This is an important finding and it suggests a way to inject the issue of disability access into the whole question of delivery and design of programmes. Interestingly, the respondents also saw FTL opportunities as providing a more satisfying teaching experience for staff. A majority of staff (69%) reported that FTL opens up other options for using lecture time and that this would be a positive outcome for them in adopting FTL methods. It needs to be said, however, that these views come from a majority of respondents that already support FTL methods in their teaching and these views cannot be generalized to the greater population of tertiary teaching staff in this state. They do indicate that many staff see considerable personal benefits of FTL in their professional role. The issue of loss of intellectual property and copyright was also seen to be an unlikely outcome of FTL approaches by most respondents (66%).

Perhaps the most common issue that concerns lecturers about the provision of course content in flexible forms is the effect this may have on student attendance in the lecture and teaching venues. Almost half of the respondents (48%) felt that it was likely or highly likely that there would be a drop off in attendance at lectures and classes. This clearly remains a considerable concern for teachers and needs to be addressed in some way. Lectures times, tutorials, and other face-to-face settings still provide a major part of the feedback that lecturers need to assess the level of enthusiasm and interest of students in the programmes they are teaching. If more traditional presentation methods are supplemented with the delivery of content and learning experiences on-line and electronically, then students may take the option of not attending classes. In the present survey 37% of staff felt that FTL would actually result in less communication between staff and students. There was also a concern (44%) that likely or highly likely outcomes would be that less student-to-student interaction would occur and that this would therefore have an impact of informal peer group learning and the general social communication between students before and after classes These issues are important ones and need to be considered by those who wish to promote FTL opportunities and support teaching staff in their uptake of these approaches.

A large majority of respondents saw the benefits of FTL in individual learning styles and in enabling a more effective learning experience for students with disabilities. However, there was a sizable minority who felt that students’ skills in note taking and listening would decrease due to the increased access to recorded information and lecture content. A number of additional comments were provided by respondents on the likely outcomes of FTL methods. These comments were very mixed in their view of FTL methods and the outcomes that they might result in for both students and teachers. They do, however, show how contentious and important this issue is for teachers and lecturing staff who need to meet increasing demands and expectations from students and administrators and the wider community.

University and TAFE lecturer responses

There were no appreciable differences in the response patterns between the TAFE an Uni staff on many of the survey questions. There was no significant difference in the demographics of the groups, either in teaching experience or employment status of participants. There was no difference in the proportion of staff from either sector in their attitude towards using FTL methods. About the same proportion of TAFE and university lecturers (48% and 50% respectively) felt that their usual methods of course delivery might present difficulties for students with physical difficulties. Both TAFE and University lecturers generally felt that teachers also need to take a major role in providing support to students with disabilities.

In terms of the FTL issues that were of concern to teaching staff, there were similar responses between university and TAFE lecturers over the impact that such factors as class size, time constraints, and technical and funding support would have on adopting more FTL methods. There was a greater indication from TAFE respondents, however, that a lack of professional development, training and support would inhibit them from adopting FTL approaches. It seems that TAFE staff are more concerned that if they increased FTL opportunities, they may not have the technical and professional support, either in terms of IT support or in-house training, to successfully implement FTL programme in the long-term. Staff from both sectors had similar levels of concern over some of the possible outcomes of FTL such as drop off in lecture attendance and communication between staff and students.

Adopting FTL methods to assist students with disabilities

A majority of lecturers thought that their ways of providing learning opportunities, information and content catered well for most students with disabilities. But when asked about specific issues such as writing management problems experienced by students far fewer respondents were confident that their methods assisted students with those types of functional problems. This seems to indicate that lecturers may assume that their delivery approach is suitable to students with various disabilities and medical conditions when this may not necessarily be the case. This is evidenced in the finding that more than half (51%) of all those lecturers who did not want to use more FTL methods thought that their teaching did not cater well for students with disabilities. It is important to note that the large majority of those lecturers who supported more FTL as well as those who did not felt that they also had a major role to play in providing academic support to students with disabilities.

The responses to prompts about changing teaching and learning methods clearly indicated that staff were willing to change their practices and course design if they knew that these changes would assist students with disabilities. It is clear, however, that most lecturers either have not considered this issue or are not clear about what delivery changes might be appropriate to support these students.

Differences between FTL supportive and non-supportive respondents

An analysis of the difference in responses between FTL supportive and non-supportive staff showed a clear disparity between the two groups on the perceived outcomes of FTL methods. For all the positive outcomes such as "a more inclusive learning experience for all students" and "a more satisfying teaching experience for staff" FTL supportive staff had a much higher expectation that the outcome would occur. The non-supporters had a higher expectation that negative outcomes such as "students listening and note-taking skills will decrease" and "less student to student interaction" would be more likely to occur. These difference give an indication that the promotion of flexible teaching methods may need to take a more subtle and differentiated approach to answering the concerns of lecturers depending on their basic stance towards innovative teaching approaches.

Those who are not supportive may need to have their concerns over negative outcomes directly addressed, and the design of FTL programmes needs to reduce as far as possible these possible negative consequences. On the other hand, with staff who were supportive of greater use of FTL, it is the perceived lack of technical support and professional development in this area that is seen as the major inhibiting factors to adopting FTL methods. Clearly if teachers are wanting to take up and use various technologies to increase the flexibility and accessibility of their courses, they will need to be more familiar with those technologies and have confidence in those technologies to deliver. In contrast, lecturers who rely more on didactic, "chalk and talk" methods will not have such concerns. This issue also appeared in the attitudes of these two groups towards the restrictions placed on teachers by the learning environments and spaces. Those who supported FTL approaches felt they were more hampered by physical classroom restrictions.

There was a consistent difference between FTL supportive and non-supportive staff in their assessment of the importance of the role various factors played in inhibiting their use of FTL methods. As would be expected, non-supportive staff saw factors such as class size, perceived lack of technical support, funding issues, and time constraints as more problematic than their FTL supportive colleagues. Neither group felt there were particular problems associated with the issues of intellectual property, copyright or security of academic information in the context of FTL.

Discussion of Disability Staff Survey Results

Statistics on the total number of disability officers working in tertiary education in Australia were not collected for this project. Given that there are 38 universities and many more TAFE colleges the number of returned survey forms would probably represent approximately 20-30% of the total number of full-time disability officers working in this field. However, the results do give a general indication of the views of disability services staff on the issue of service delivery in the area of academic support needs and FTL issues.

Approaches to service provision

There are several very interesting findings that came out of the survey of disability services staff. On the question of what approach to service provision do disability services staff take when students with disabilities need academic or learning support, it was found that individual supports and individual negotiation with teachers and lecturers are the most common methods of dealing with the needs of students. The "Individual supports" approach to meeting learning needs includes supports such as note taking, individual transcription and personal tutoring. This approach iss frequently or almost always employed by 71% of respondents. The approach of negotiating with lecturers for the needs of specific students is frequently or almost always employed 61% of the time. The least common approach taken to meeting the learning needs of students is increasing the flexibility of the method of delivering the course. Only 32% of disability staff frequently or almost always employ this approach. This confirms the literature review findings that the "support model" approach of addressing disability needs by providing supports to individual students is still the dominant model adopted by disability services in tertiary institutions.

Student needs and disclosure

These findings contrast sharply with the respondents’ views on what is the best way to actually meet the typical education/training needs of most students with disabilities. The survey found that 84% of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that the students’ learning needs could best be met through more flexible delivery of education and training programmes. Respondents were equally split over the question of the efficient use of disability funds to address learning needs. Only the minority of disability staff (43%) felt that the individual targeting of needs was a very cost efficient way to deliver services, and 57% were either unsure or disagreed with the proposition. This is a very surprising finding given that the great majority of disability services resources, in terms of time and money, are spent on providing individual supports for students.

The support model of providing individualized supports for learning needs requires that students disclose their disability on several occasions in order to receive those supports. Disclosure often occurs in written form on enrolment forms, disability service registration forms and in application for specific supports. As well as written disclosure, verbal notification of disability and request for support is also often required. Verbal disclosure will sometimes be required by the lecturing staff, administrative personal, academic advisers and disability service staff, and often this has to be done several times for each course and for each term, semester or year that the learning supports are needed. Disclosure is essential for services and accommodations to be provided when the support model of service provision is used. Although this is currently the dominant model, 42% of respondents felt that

the needs of students with disabilities should generally be met without any requirement for disclosure of disability or medical condition. A further 28% were unsure and this left a small minority of 30% supporting the current requirement for disclosure.

In the process of meeting the demands of their courses, students with disabilities encounter a wide range of learning environments in tertiary education settings. Their particular disabilities and medical conditions interact with these environments and result in a great variety of functional difficulties. The survey participants were asked to indicate which of two approaches – flexible programme delivery or individual supports – would be the most suitable for addressing a number of very common functional problems that students encounter in many learning situations. The survey findings present a mixed set of results, with FTL being preferred for some functional problems and the more individual support approach being preferred for others. In general, it seems that disability staff prefer to manage on an individual basis those disabilities that have a more serious impact on the learning situation. These include sensory impairments, blindness and deafness. This pattern of responses seems to support the proposition that the majority of needs of students with disabilities can be met through the mainstreaming of flexibility and accessibility considerations while the higher level of needs of students such as deaf or blind students are best catered for through more individualised programmes of support.

Functional impact and FTL

The types of disabilities and medical conditions that tertiary students report cover a very wide range and differ greatly in degree of severity (Andrews, 1994). These conditions also impact on students’ functioning and learning experiences in a multitude of ways. However, because learning environments often require a relatively restricted range of behavioural capacities, such as sitting, fine motor manipulation, note taking and listening, student with disabilities often experience similar functional demands and problems even though their conditions vary widely (Edwards, 1999). The disability staff responses in this survey supported these previous findings with 82% of survey respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that students with different types of disabilities often have the same support needs. Given this response it is not surprising that the great majority of respondents (86%) also agree or agree strongly that students with different types of disabilities often require the same types of support services. These findings suggest that disability staff recognise the value of FTL as a way of providing services to students with disabilities and that this approach has the potential to meet the most commonly reported types of difficulties that students encounter in education and training settings. However, it is also clear that disability services staff are not operating out of an FTL approach on a daily basis in the addressing the needs of their students.

Factors influencing service provision

From the data on disability service staffs’ preferred, as against their actual, model of meeting learning and education needs, there seems a be a substantial gap between what the disability services staff see as the most effective means of providing services and the current operational model that they employ at the micro-level of assisting students. It is interesting to consider what issues might influence disability officers’ decision to adopt the individual support model as opposed to a more systemic method of the learning barriers that face students with disabilities. To explore this issue the survey asked about macro-level factors that might impact on whether more systematic approaches to dealing with students’ needs were actually supported within their institution and some very interesting responses were received for this question.

The great majority of responses indicated that many key factors that influence the type of approach taken to provide services did not support systematic ways, such as FTL methods, of addressing students needs. These factors included the tertiary institution’s disability action plan and disability policy, the culture of the disability officers’ professional environment, and the disability officer’s own current method of service provision. The responses of participants who either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that FTL is the best way of meeting the needs of students (81%) was further analysed to see if they also felt there was a lack of structural supports that might encourage a more systemic approach to disability service delivery. Predictably their ratings of factors were even more pronounced and it was clear from their pattern of responses that they felt there to be little very institutional or professional support for adopting FTL approaches to meet students’ learning needs.

Interestingly, most respondents felt that the funding approach of both their own institution and the relevant commonwealth department did support a more systemic approach to service provision. This may be because, in the past, funding by governments and institutions for disability supports has not been provided on an individual basis. Disability staff have usually been given considerable discretion in how and where funds are to be spent to support students. In any event, it seems that the issue of funding is not seen by disability staff as the main determinant in what type of service provision model they use in addressing students’ learning needs. Contrary to the actual findings on the preferences of students with disabilities in this area, disability officers generally believed (71%) that the students’ own preferred approaches to having their learning needs met did not support FTL methods.

Funding and resource allocation

Disability staff survey participants were asked about their preferences for allocating additional resources. Knowing how staff would allocate additional funds and other resources gives an idea of where they think the service priorities and the directions that service provision might be heading. The limited set of funds, personnel and other resources available to tertiary disability services means that crucial decisions need to be made about the allocation of time and monies to the various demands that are made upon these areas. With the ever increasing numbers of students with disabilities and the demand for support services increase, it is important that disability service staff find more efficient ways of addressing these demands and prioritise their service objectives and appropriate their limited resources on that basis.

In providing disability services for the academic, learning and training needs of students with disabilities, there have traditionally been two areas where most resources have been allocated to provide support to students. The first has been the provision of individual supports such as note-taking, study skills advice, personal tutoring, transcriptions services and negotiating for individual accommodations. The second has been the provision of assistive technology to individual students to enable them to access information, course content and materials in a format that they prefer. The survey findings show that the majority of respondents (69%) would allocate additional resources to the area of staff development on flexible delivery methods and disability. This is an important finding and it gives some idea of the priority that disability services staff place on this topic.

The basic findings from the survey of teaching staff in this study indicate that the general move towards more innovative and FTL methods has not specifically been connected with the possible benefits or drawbacks that these changes hold for students with disabilities. From the review of literature it is clear that these developments in teaching methods offer many advantages over traditional ways of providing supports to higher education students with disabilities. However, traditional methods of delivering courses are still the common and more systematic, and targeted strategies will be required to ensure that the move to flexible delivery is inclusive of students with disabilities.

The experience of students involved in campus-based courses seems to be that they want to retain traditional campus-based delivery methods. This is understandable when one considers the isolating effects that disability can have on individuals. It is interesting to note that 'flexible programme delivery' and other similar terms, when associated with disability, are often thought of in the context of providing external courses or accessing information electronically. Students with chronic pain, writing management problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, mental illness or other chronic medical conditions form the majority of students with disabilities and they need flexibility options that address their needs on-campus as well as off. The problem for these students is not so much in getting to the campus but in accessing the relevant information once they are on-campus and in their classes. Being physically present on-campus as part of the university community may be even more important for students with disabilities than it is for the general student population. Disability and long-term illness is often a very isolating experience in itself, and the last thing that students in these situations need is another layer of isolation. This does not mean that access by correspondence or electronic media to course materials or library resources is not an important option. It simply means that the mechanisms of flexible delivery should be seen as part of the repertoire of supports that students with disabilities could access to supplement, rather than replace, their on-campus activities.

One of the issues needing further clarification that was raised in this study was the attitude of students themselves towards individualised supports versus a more mainstreamed FTL approach to disability service provision. It seems that students with disabilities find the more flexible methods of gaining access to course content preferable to the traditional support systems that disability offices typically provide once they have had experience of these more innovative ways of getting access to course content and materials. Disability staff, however, feel that students with specific needs expect more individualised addressing of those needs when they meet to discuss supports need in a face-to–face situation or when specific solutions to access problems are needed. This means that students themselves may need to be provided with information on how FTL can address their learning needs and how disability staff can assist them through more systemic approaches to service provision.

The possibilities of more flexible approaches are clearly seen with the innovative approach known as UDL. It appears 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. There have been several studies that have evaluated UDL and its impact on the learning of students with very positive results. The published literature on UDL strongly suggests that this approach can help all students to select an 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. There are also significant benefits for teaching staff from the adaptation of UDL principles to the design and delivery of education and training programmes. However, further evaluations will need to be carried out in the Australian tertiary context before these positive findings can be generalized to local settings.

Some of the papers reviewed concluded 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 significant extent be catered for through the application of the several core principles of flexibility and accessibility. It should be emphasised however, that students with disabilities may see flexibility as a combination of traditional course delivery with more flexible supplementary means of gaining access to programme materials and information. Hence, FTL is not to be equated with e-learning, distance education or on-line learning methods which simply replace conventional lecture or class–based learning with electronically delivery methods. The results from the teachers’ survey indicate that this understanding of FTL, as supplementing the current more conventional methods of teaching, can allay some of the concerns that were expressed in such areas as communicating with students and the possibility of drop off in attendance levels.

The results from the teaching staffs’ survey show that FTL methods such as UDL are best promoted within the context of quality in teaching and in the benefits that can result from such approaches for all students. Teachers feel they have a part to play in ensuring access and participation for students with disabilities but they are unsure about what to do to provide this support when no individual student case is disclosed to them. They are also prepared to take on innovative teaching methods when they can see the benefits for the general population of students. It is within this more inclusive context that FTL may be successfully promoted rather than as "special supports" that need to be adopted for individual students, as has previously been the case with the promotion of strategies to assist students with disability.

The study has also pointed to some drawbacks in FTL that have not been emphasised before in the literature dealing with disability and FTL. It is well known that access to materials presented via electronic information and communications technology can be very problematic for some groups of students with disabilities. The findings from the survey of teachers also found that that more general impact of FTL on students with disabilities with particular disabilities is not considered in the design of the course and in the presentation of things such as multimedia materials or on-line recordings. Disability services have an important role in assisting teaching staff to develop flexible teaching methods and materials that are accessible and inclusive of this group of students. The great variety of developments currently taking place in the area of flexible course delivery within many tertiary education institutions means that there is considerable variation in those programmes that might be considered as flexible. While the lecturing staff own education, training and teaching objectives will understandably result in a great variety of learning experiences, there needs to be some basic level of convention on the means by which those objectives are mediated through the delivery of the programme. The findings indicate clearly that both students and staff recognise the potential benefits that will flow on to them from flexible delivery methods. There appears to the promise of substantial benefits in teaching and learning opportunities and in the efficient delivery of supports to students with disabilities through these new methods. There are also significant potential drawbacks facing both students and academic staff that will need to be addressed if the move to more accessible education opportunities is to be successfully negotiated.

The results suggest that disability services heavily favour the adoption and use of more systematic and design-based methods to meet the learning needs of tertiary students with disabilities. They see the commonality in the functional barriers that students encounter in the classroom, lecture room, computer and science laboratory and feel that the majority of these needs can best be met through the delivery of course and programmes that employ FTL methodologies. However, they also recognise that there are students with some types of disabilities and medical conditions that do require specific and individualized supports and that the needs of these students cannot be adequately catered for through FTL methods. The strong support of disability staff for more systemic and accessible service provision was clearly indicated in the options they chose for the allocation of additional resources. Disability staff are currently required to service ever increasing numbers of student with increasingly significant levels of disability and the allocation of resources is becoming an ever more important issue in responding to the needs of these students. That such a heavy weighting should be placed on the allocation of additional resources to raising the awareness and utilisation of FTL methods is indicative of the importance that staff in this area place on more efficient and effective ways of meeting the demand for services.

The key issue identified through the survey findings is that, while disability staff recognise the potential benefits of flexible and inclusive teaching methods, they also feel that their institutional plans, policies and service delivery culture in which they operate do not support the move to these more innovative options for addressing the learning needs of students with disabilities. Many of the disability policies, strategic plans and disability policies that are currently in effect in tertiary institutions were developed and endorsed during the early to mid 1990s. While the importance of a mainstream approach to physical access has been recognised for a considerable period, it seems that the value of a more systemic approach to academic, learning and training needs has only more recently come to the fore within disability and student equity services.

The disability survey phase of this study gave a general indication of the attitudes of operational staff to such issues as the effective and efficient use of funds, a more systemic approach to service provision, the implementation of an inclusive model of disability support provision, and the barriers that might be encountered in implementing such approaches. Further research is needed to investigate these matters and to see how they can be further supported by governments, institutions and professional groups. There are also well known disadvantages of FTL in that it can have a significant negative impact of the participation and access of student with various sensory impairments, particularly when internet-based resources are not designed to ensure disability access. These matters also need to be investigated within the context of the dramatically increased use of flexible delivery by education and training institutions and the numbers of important innovations that are happening in this field.

There are a number of innovations currently proceeding both in Australia and overseas that are directly targeted at enabling greater access to course materials and lecture-based information. These new approaches offer a better quality of service to students that does not require disclosure. They also open up further opportunities for the general population of students. It is within this context that the great potential of FTL methods can be fully exploited for the benefit of all students. Disability supports have often been seen as an additional burden on teaching staff and not as an opportunity for improving the quality of teaching for all students. In the end it is this incentive, that of improving the quality of the learning experience of all students, that will be the most important factor in the take up of FTL. As this movement expands and becomes more widespread, disability staff will need to ensure that the disadvantages that often accompany electronic forms of information delivery do not become another source of disadvantage for tertiary students with disabilities.