Advertisement

Higher Education, Information and Communication Technologies and Students with Disabilities: An Overview of the Current Situation

  • Catherine FichtenEmail author
  • Dorit Olenik-Shemesh
  • Jennison Asuncion
  • Mary Jorgensen
  • Chetz Colwell
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides context for the issues discussed throughout the book to justify why the issue of students with disabilities using technology to support their studies in higher education continues to be both important and problematic. To do this, the chapter: (1) reviews current statistics regarding enrollment and success of students with disabilities in higher education; (2) examines the role and prevailing use of information and communication technologies in higher education; (3) considers the potential of the next wave of new ICTs; (4) illuminates with examples the many good, bad and terrible practices related to ICTs experienced by students in higher education; and (5) discusses the implications for future research and practice.

Keywords

ICT Disability Higher education Trends Predictions 

References

  1. Ableser, J., & Moore, C. (2018, September 10). Universal Design for Learning and digital accessibility: Compatible partners or a conflicted marriage? Educause Review. Resource document. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/9/universal-design-for-learning-and-digital-accessibility-compatiblepartners-or-a-conflicted-marriage#fnr2
  2. Achecker. (2011). Web accessibility checker. https://achecker.ca/checker/index.php. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  3. Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 higher education edition. Resource document. The New Media Consortium. http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
  4. Advance HE. (2018, September). Equality and higher education: Students statistical report 2018. Resource document. Advance HE. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2018/
  5. Alahmadi, T., & Drew, S. (2017). Accessibility evaluation of top-ranking university websites in world, Oceania, and Arab categories for home, admission, and course description webpages. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 21(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  6. Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., et al. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 higher education edition. Resource document. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonreport.pdf?la=en&hash=C8E8D444AF372E705FA1BF9D4FF0DD4CC6F0FDD1
  7. Arim, R. (2017, February 15). A profile of persons with disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years or older, 2012. Resource document. Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 89-654-X. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2015001-eng.pdf
  8. Asuncion, J. V., Budd, J., Fichten, C. S., Nguyen, M. N., Barile, M., & Amsel, R. (2012). Social media use by students with disabilities. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 16(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, D. (2008, March). Digital does not equal accessible. Presentation for NERCOMP (EDUCAUSE), Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  10. Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2015). Universal design for learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, D. C., & Pomerantz, J. (2017, October). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2017. Resource document. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/10/studentitstudy2017.pdf
  12. Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. In S. E. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed., pp. 31–64). Boston: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Preparing students for the knowledge economy: What school counselors need to know [special issue]. Professional School Counseling, 6(4), 228–236.Google Scholar
  14. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. Resource document. CAST. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
  15. Chmilar, L., & Anton, C. (2018). Mobile learning: Device ownership, usage, and perspectives of post-secondary students with and without disabilities. The Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities, 6, 117–126.Google Scholar
  16. Concordia University Student Hub. (n.d.). Request course packs in alternate formats. Resource document. Concordia University. https://www.concordia.ca/students/accessibility/e-text-service/requesting-course-packs-in-alternate-formats.html
  17. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1995, December 7). The principles of universal design. Version 1.1. Resource document. TRACE. http://web.archive.org/web/19991008040849/http://trace.wisc.edu/text/univdesn/ud_princ/ud_princ.html
  18. Cooper, M. (2014). Meeting the needs of disabled students in online distance education – An institutional case study from the Open University, UK. Distance Education in China, 2014(12), 18–27.Google Scholar
  19. Cravero, C. (2017). Socially responsible public procurement and set-asides: A comparative analysis of the US, Canada and the EU. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 8, 174–192.  https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v8.739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DaDeppo, L. M. (2009). Integration factors related to the academic success and intent to persist of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 122–131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00286.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220.Google Scholar
  22. Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Whang Sayson, H., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2017). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Los Angeles: Resource document. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf
  23. EDUCAUSE. (2019). Continuing to look to the horizon. Resource document. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2019/4/2019-horizon-report
  24. Feldman, D., Danieli, L., Lahav, Y., & Haimovich, S. (2007). Accessibility of the society in Israel at the beginning of the 21st century. The organization for Equality for People with Disabilities, Israeli Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  25. Ferreira, M. J., Moreira, F., Pereira, C. S., & Durão, N. (2015). The role of mobile technologies in the teaching/learning process improvement in Portugal. Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Spain, 4600–4610. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287644975_THE_ROLE_OF_MOBILE_TECHNOLOGIES_IN_THE_TEACHINGLEARNING_PROCESS_IMPROVEMENT_IN_PORTUGAL, http://repositorio.uportu.pt/jspui/bitstream/11328/1352/1/ICERI_2015_2150_vFinal.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  26. Fichten, C., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., King, L., & Harvison, M. (2019). If you can’t beat them, join them: using students’ personal mobile devices in class. Academic Matters. Resource document. Dawson College. https://www.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/academic-matters/issues/2019-02/
  27. Fichten, C., Jorgensen, M., Havel, A., King, L., Lussier, A., Asuncion, J., et al. (2018). Information and communication technologies: Views of Canadian college students and “excellent” professors. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(9), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., et al. (2001). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 7(2–3), 185–221.  https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.7.2.185.3869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J., & Scapin, R. (2014). Digital technology, learning, and postsecondary students with disabilities: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 369–379.Google Scholar
  30. Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Wolforth, J., Barile, M., Budd, J., Martiniello, N., & Amsel, R. (2012). Information and communication technology related needs of college and university students with disabilities. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 323–344.  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.18646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., et al. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241–256.Google Scholar
  32. Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., King, L., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., Asuncion, J., et al. (2018). Are you in or out? Canadian students who register for disability-related services in junior/community colleges versus those who do not. Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(1), 166–175.  https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v7n1a19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fichten, C. S., Heiman, T., Havel, A., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., & King, L. (2016). Sustainability of disability-related services in Canada – Israel: Will the real universal design please stand up? Exceptionality Education International, 26(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  34. Fichten, C. S., Nguyen, M. N., King, L., Barile, M., Havel, A., Mimouni, Z., et al. (2013). Information and communication technology profiles of college students with learning disabilities and adequate and very poor readers. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 176-188. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v2n1p176.
  35. Getzel, E. E., & Thoma, C. A. (2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the importance of self-determination in higher education settings. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808317658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gonzalez, F. (2016, December). For some, active learning can be a nightmare. Resource document. ASEE PRISM. http://www.asee-prism.org/last-word-dec-4/
  37. Government of Canada. (2018, October 22). Canadian Human Rights Commission. Resource document. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/human-rights-commission.html
  38. Greenbaum, D. (2014, September). Use text-to speech functions for better proofreading. Resource document. Lifehacker. http://lifehacker.com/use-text-to-speech-functions-for-betterproofreading-1629329673
  39. Heiman, T., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Kaspi-Tsahor, D., & Regev-Nevo, M. (2018). Proceedings of the Ed-ICT International Network Israel Symposium: In Search of New Designs. The Open University of Israel. Resource Document. Ed-ICT. http://ed-ict.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ProceedingsEd-ICTIsraelSymposium.pdf
  40. Herbert, J. T., Hong, B. S. S., Byun, S.-Y., Welsh, W., Kurz, C. A., & Atkinson, H. A. (2014). Persistence and graduation of college students seeking disability support services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
  41. Hershkovitz, A., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2017). Integrating mobile technology in higher education instruction [translation]. Academic Teaching, 6, 21–29.Google Scholar
  42. Illinois State University Media Relations. (2012, July 3). SMART Boards for visually impaired. Report: The Illinois State University Faculty-Staff Newsletter. Resource document. The Illinois State University. http://mediarelations.illinoisstate.edu/report/1213/july3/smartboards.asp
  43. Jones, B., Williams, N., & Rudinger, B. (2018). Designing and implementing an assistive technology lab for post-secondary education. Education Sciences, 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jorgensen, M., Fichten, C., King, L., & Havel, A. (2018). Proceedings of the Ed-ICT International Network Montreal Symposium: Stakeholder Perspectives. Resource document. Montréal, Québec: Adaptech Research Network. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580147
  45. Jorgensen, M., Fichten, C. S., Nguyen, M. N., Budd, J., Barile, M., Asuncion, J., et al. (2015). Employment realities of recent junior/community college and university graduates and premature leavers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Community, and Rehabilitation, 14(1). Resource document. IJDCR. http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL14_01/articles/jorgenson.shtml
  46. Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., Lamb, D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2003). Students with and without disabilities at Dawson College graduate at the same rate. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 25(2-3), 44–46.Google Scholar
  47. Jorgensen, S., Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., Lamb, D., James, C., & Barile, M. (2005). Academic performance of college students with and without disabilities: An archival study. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 39(2), 101–117.Google Scholar
  48. Kaspi-Tsahor, D., Heiman, T., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2018, October). Support the transition of people with disabilities to post-compulsory education (PCE) and from PCE to employment. Paper presented at the 4th Ed-ICT International Network Symposium, Hagen, Germany. http://ed-ict.com/workshops/hagen/programme/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  49. Kenney, M. J., Jain, N. R., Meeks, L. M., Laird-Metke, E., Hori, J., & McGough, J. D. (2016). Learning in the digital age: Assistive technology and electronic access. In L. M. Meeks & N. R. Jain (Eds.), The guide to assisting students with disabilities: Equal access in health science and professional education (pp. 119–140). New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.Google Scholar
  50. Kimball, E. W., Wells, R. S., Ostiguy, B. J., Manly, C. A., & Lauterbach, A. A. (2016). Students with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31, pp. 91–156). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Knight, W., Wessel, R. D., & Markle, L. (2018). Persistence to graduation for students with disabilities: Implications for performance-based outcomes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(4), 362–380.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116632534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lasry, N., Dugdale, M., & Charles, E. (2014). Just in time to flip your classroom. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 34–37.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4849151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lynch, M. (2018, June). My vision for the future of the assistive technology in education. Resource document. The Edvocate. https://www.theedadvocate.org/vision-future-assistive-technology-education/
  55. Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Resource document. The College Board. https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2016-full-report.pdf
  56. McGuire, J. M. (2011). Inclusive college teaching: Universal design for instruction and diverse learners. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 1(1), 38–54.  https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v1i1.80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 10–20.Google Scholar
  58. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (Ontario). (2012). Update on students with disabilities. Postsecondary Education Division of Ontario. Presentation at the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  59. National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS). (2012). Enhancing accessibility in higher education institutions: A guide for disability service providers. Resource document. NEADS. www.neads.ca/en/norc/eag/eag_en.pdf
  60. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. (2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSE 2009-3017). Resource document. National Center for Special Education Research, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/nlts2_report_2009_04_complete.pdf
  61. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Resource document. National Center for Special Education Research. http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_09_02/nlts2_report_2011_09_02_complete.pdf
  62. Policy Connect. (2018, September). Accessible virtual learning environments: Making the most of the new regulations. Resource document. Policy Connect. https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/sites/site_pc/files/report/1134/fieldreportdownload/appgatreport09-18final.pdf
  63. Rosenbaum, J. E. (2018). Disabilities and degrees: Identifying health impairments that predict lower chances of college enrollment and graduation in a nationally representative sample. Community College Review, 46(2), 145–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118762630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz, M. (2013, May 16). Settlement expands UC Berkeley library service to disabled. Library Journal. https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=settlement-expands-uc-berkeley-library-service-to-disabled. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  66. Seale, J. (2006). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seale, J. K. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Selwyn, N. (2012). Social media in higher education. In A. Gladman (Ed.), The Europa world of learning (62nd ed., pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Shaw, A., Gold, D., & Wolffe, K. (2007). Employment-related experiences of youths who are visually impaired: How are these youths faring? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (51st Ed.) (NCES 2016-014). Resource document. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570993.pdf
  71. Summers, E., & Brauner, D. (2012, November 6). Viewing the smart board on an iPad. http://support.sas.com/misc/accessibility/education/ios/smartboard.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  72. Tarawneh, H., Tarawneh, M., & Alzboun, F. (2011). Enhancing the quality of e-learning systems via multimedia learning tools. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(6), 107–111.Google Scholar
  73. Thomson, R., Fichten, C., Budd, J., Havel, A., & Asuncion, J. (2015). Blending universal design, e-learning, and information and communication technologies. In S. E. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed., pp. 275–284). Boston: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  74. Thornton, M., & Downs, S. (2010). Walking the walk: Modeling social model and universal design in the disabilities office. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 72–78.Google Scholar
  75. Treviranus, J. (2019). Learning to learn differently in higher education. Paper presented at the accesXchange Conference, Montréal, Québec.Google Scholar
  76. UCAS. (2018). Disabled students’ allowances. Resource document. UCAS. https://www.ucas.com/student-finance-england/disabled-students-allowances
  77. University of Washington. (2017). Symposium one: Effective models, frameworks, and approaches. Proceedings from the Ed-ICT International Network: Disabled students, ICT, post-compulsory education & employment: In search of new solutions. Resource document. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. http://ed-ict.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Symposium-Effective_models_frameworks_and_approaches_0.pdf
  78. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1993). Accessible design: A handbook for more universal product design. Madison, WI: Trace Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  79. Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3), 116–125.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Fichten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dorit Olenik-Shemesh
    • 2
  • Jennison Asuncion
    • 3
  • Mary Jorgensen
    • 3
  • Chetz Colwell
    • 4
  1. 1.Dawson College and McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.The Open UniversityRa’ananaIsrael
  3. 3.Adaptech Research NetworkMontrealCanada
  4. 4.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations