- Title
- Differently normal: the hidden population of higher education students living with learning challenges
- Creator
- Grimes, Susan Barbara
- Relation
- University of Newcastle Research Higher Degree Thesis
- Resource Type
- thesis
- Date
- 2019
- Description
- Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
- Description
- Introduction: Students with disabilities (SWD) are increasingly included in higher education populations as a consequence of the impact of anti-discrimination legislation and inclusion of disability as an equity group. Academic outcomes are lower for this group with significant differences in course retention and completion rates, and lower rates of employment for those who do complete. This research explores the hidden population of students with diagnoses/assessments and an impact on their learning, usually reported as ‘students with disabilities’ (SWD), who would legally be recognised in higher education institutions as eligible for support and accommodation. In this research these students were identified as those with a ‘learning challenge’. Research design and analysis: The research presented here engaged with all students within a single Australian university through an anonymous survey to explore use of support and accommodation, with emphasis on institutional disclosure and non-disclosure for SWD. The survey collected data on reasons for institutional non-disclosure and explored the perceived learning impacts of the diagnoses/assessments reported by the students. Additional detail around student-suggested improvements to the learning environment was also collected. The data collected was analysed to produce an estimation of the actual size of the SWD population; details of the characteristics of the institutionally disclosed and non-disclosed proportions of this group; the reasons given for institutional non-disclosure; the impact of stigma on non-disclosure; the perceived learning impacts of the learning challenges reported; and suggestions for improving learning at the institution. Students were engaged with the research through self-identification of diagnoses/assessments and a learning impact: this situation was termed a ‘learning challenge’. This empowered students who did not identify with the ‘disability’ label to engage with the research. The response to the research was significant with 3995 participants. This research utilises the 2821 domestic undergraduate participants, which was 13.2% of the study institution’s domestic undergraduate students: of these students, 1234 self-reported diagnoses/assessments. Of this number 994 identified a learning impact as a result of their diagnoses/assessments, as well as their institutional disclosure status. Of those identifying a learning impact, 361 students identified as institutionally disclosed and 633 identified as institutionally non-disclosed. All non-disclosed students living with a learning challenge identified their reasons for institutional non-disclosure. Results: For the first article, the domestic undergraduate participants were found to include 1234 students with diagnoses/assessments. Of the 1234 students, there were 994 students with diagnoses/assessments and an impact on learning. This learning challenge group consisted of institutionally disclosed students, n=361, and institutionally non-disclosed students, n=633. Using this data, the estimation of the SWD proportion of the population was found to be 35.2% at the lower limit, a significantly higher estimation than a proportional calculation of 19.0%. A binomial linear regression found that institutionally non-disclosed students were more likely to be those living with learning difficulties and differences (3.2 times more likely to be non-disclosed), mental health issues (3.1 times more likely to be non-disclosed), or the younger (under 25) students (twice as likely to be non-disclosed). Students with two of more diagnoses/assessments were significantly more likely to be institutionally disclosed. For the second article, the institutionally non-disclosed students, n=633, provided detail on their reasons for non-disclosure. These were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The group gave a range of reasons for non-disclosure that included a lack of knowledge of the support and accommodation available, having existing strategies for dealing with the challenge themselves, being worried that disclosure would mean different treatment by teaching staff and peers, and concern about the stigma that might result. Students living with learning difficulties and differences were more likely to have experienced support prior to their higher education and therefore more likely to give as reasons for non-disclosure that of having existing strategies. Those with mental health issues were more likely to be concerned about being treated differently by teaching staff and peers. Stigma was identified as a significant factor in institutional non-disclosure decisions. To explore further the impact of stigma, the third article used the conceptual lens of stigma mechanisms and theories at individual, situational and institutional levels for analysis of student discussion of reasons for non-disclosure. This analysis drew on the comments of the non-disclosing students living with learning challenges who explained their reasons for non-disclosure in terms of experience of stigma, n=111 of the 633 students. Internalised stigma, where students showed self-belief in the stereotypes of the diagnoses/assessments, was found to be highest amongst those living with mental health issues. These students anticipated discrimination and prejudice as a result of institutional disclosure. Students identified a range of consequences from their struggle with stigma that included poorer academic outcomes, including failing and having to repeat courses/units, reduced social support and academic help seeking, and the perception that their chosen future professions did not include people with mental health issues. Structural elements of stigma, such as qualification of disability and the process of disclosure, were found to be barriers to use of support and accommodation by students. Finally, in the fourth article, the learning impacts reported by students living with learning challenges were inductively analysed to identify key themes. Of the 994 students who were living with learning challenges, 553 described their impacts in a manner that could be coded. Analysis identified the most significant theme as that of an inability to attend learning, whether face-to-face or online. For those living with mental health issues, engagement with learning, either in the classroom or online, was difficult for reasons of decreased concentration and distractibility. Those living with learning difficulties and differences reported a mis-match between expectation and performance in terms of preferred learning strategies and common teaching strategies used at the institution. Time, in terms of time to learn, was also identified as an issue. The reported impacts illustrated the interaction of student impairment and institutional curriculum design, delivery and assessment norms to produce disability. Students suggestions for overcoming these impacts included the offering of more modularised or compressed course/units, improved support for learning, increased diversity of learning opportunities and the sharing of successful strategies from other students living with learning challenges. Conclusion: For the first time, significant numbers of institutionally non-disclosed students with learning challenges have engaged with, and provided detail around, learning in their higher education institution. Analysis of their descriptions illustrates the significant impact of stigma on the decisions made by these students to stay institutionally non-disclosed, even when course/unit failure is a result. Suggestions for improving learning highlights the importance of inclusive educational policies and practices within the higher education sector to engage with, and support to completion, this group of students. The findings of this research were surprising and offer some insights into how higher education will need to change in order to successfully accommodate increased diversity, including disability, into their burgeoning student population.
- Subject
- higher education; disclosure; learning; disability; stigma; thesis by publication
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1402483
- Identifier
- uon:35034
- Rights
- Copyright 2019 Susan Barbara Grimes
- Language
- eng
- Full Text
- Hits: 5717
- Visitors: 1989
- Downloads: 242
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | ATTACHMENT01 | Thesis | 1 MB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download | ||
| View Details Download | ATTACHMENT02 | Abstract | 182 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |