S TUDYING EXPERIENCES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITY AT THE U NIVERSITY OF Z AGREB Božena Jermen, social work student Prof. Dr. Sc. Kristina Urbanc Department of Social Work University of Zagreb Croatia [email protected]

CONTEXT: UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

 

Some of defined tasks of the Office are:



informing students and teachers; international



Constant support of NGOs as a vital resource.

l

THE RESEARCH

The main goal of the study was to explore experiences of studying at the University of Zagreb from the perspective of students with disability. We were interested in examples of good practice and our research question was focused on what was

helpful for students with disability to

continue their education on university level,

including his/her personal and environmental resources (such as family, peers, local community, university, faculty...).

T

HE RESEARCH

P

ARTICIPANTS

METHOD AND

 Students with disability in final semester of their study were recruited through a written invitation, and than through personal contact by the researcher, and were asked to join the focus group.

 The focus group method was chosen in order to explore different aspects of experiences through the perspective of students with disability, to expand our understanding of the challenges of “being a student with disability”and to develop some further steps in promoting equal opportunities in higher education at the University of Zagreb

THE SAMPLING PROCESS

   The criteria for the choice of participants: their motivation for participation, accomodation on the area of campus - students’ dormitories and their perennial experience of studying at the University of Zagreb. Having in mind the research objective, we assumed that such users would present “information-rich cases”. It is a purposive sample which consisted of 10 participants.

T wo focus groups were carried-out, one consisting of blind students and students with visual impairment (FG1, 1 male; 4 female) and the other students with experience of physical disability (FG2, 4 male; 1 female).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS WERE FOCUSED ON THE FOLLOWING

AREAS:

       Participants’ explanation of motives for HE Their experience of the very beginning of studying Class attendance, studying and exams Life on students’ campus Being informed Formal resources of help Recommandations for improvement in future

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

   A qualitative data analysis of participants’ statements was conducted by using the procedure of open coding (Mesec, 1998; Maxwell, 1996; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

Open coding procedure consisted of the following: identifying particular terms in data and labelling and grouping them around the same research questions.

Further steps included categorisation of terms, naming the categories at the more abstract level than the one they denote and analysis of their meaning.

FINDINGS: MOTIVES FOR HE NOTIONS AND CATEGORIES

Resources

 Personal resources: interests for specific area; communication skills, some personal characteristics (not quitting easily, desire for achievement and for university degree)  Quality of the vision of future life: better chances with diploma; not having chances to be employed with just HS degree at all and not feeling ready to work after HS

Barriers in a career choice

 Due to having visual impairment or being blind (natural sciences, mathematics)  Due to capacities and organisation of each single faculty (psychology)

The role of the environment

  Discouraging - teachers and family members against continuing HE Supporting – teachers from HS, encouraging and helping preparations for HE

THE BEGINNING OF STUDY



Emotional experiences

of the beginners: from feeling euphoric, challenged, adventurous to chaos, fear, feeling of being trapped; difficulties with being on your own, lack of motivation for learning    Importance of

orientation sessions

Mobility, peer help), (professional help, association for the Education of Guide Dogs and

assistive technology

in lecture attendance and

regular transportation

service Differences in

entering exams

due to inappropriate accessibility of rooms

The staff/teachers unprepared for SWD

initiatives : being irritated by explaining, telling the story from the beginning to every single teacher and taking individual  Avoiding to ask for help due to

bad formal experiences

:

CLASS ATTENDANCE, STUDYING AND EXAMS: BASED ON STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIP

Positively oriented, flexible attitude: Teachers gradually getting used to the needs of SWD; Formal experiences with SWD (Dept. Of psychology, sociology); High level of personal engagement; indiv. approach; Adjusted way and time of evaluation Discriminative attitude: Lower criteria on exams for SWD; Using defensive terminology; Unequal exam conditions – unable to cheat during written exam?

Motivated to help SWD but not informed, educated or skilled enough; Indifferent, ignoring attitude: not supportive but not discourageing

Lecture attendance

Biggest issue: finding a literature Recording lectures Assistive Technology (Perkins typewriter, electric braille notebook) Copying notes form Colleagues Lectures in e-form

Studying Learning

Assistant in lectures (who reads loudly, takes notes and helps with written assignments listening to the lecture

Exams

Option to choose written/oral exam Use of PC on exam Longer time for written essay and priorities in oral exams

Participating in social life Satisfied with accommodation and equipment of dorms Special services for SWD (laundry, carriage, 24hours available help Life in the Assistance payed by University and personal Assistance 80h/month Parking problems within the campus campus Satisfied with accessibility of cafeteria and adjusted food service Unsatisfied with the food quality

Accessibility of rooms and informations

   Mostly relying on fixed on the floor.

fellow students

: not all classrooms/toilets accessible; elevator often out of order; chairs and desks often Key role of

fellow students

in keeping SWD informed (“I cannot read information sheets from the board on the wall, and I often miss some key issues”) Extremly good/bad experiences with

stuff from students’ office

(From:”Whatever I need I feel free to drop by and aks”, “They are more than nice to me...” to: “Oh, not you, not again...what do you need this time?”)  Positive experiences on Faculty of philosophy due to

sensitive leadership

(“ Faculty of philosophy has an advantage: the vicedean has a son with disability...and before him there was a dean whose child has cerebral palsy...so they know...”)

Resources of formal help Financial support

state and city scholarships; free transportation; fondations; student service for part time work

Transportation

public transportation not fully adapted: trams, busses, small vans; NGO transportation discontinuity in financial support

University Office for SWD

percieved as very abstract, institutional, formal resource, more in a sense of an advisory board

Recommendations for the future (1)



Developing educational policy for SWD

(“I listened to the Belgian lecturer on the conference last december...there are some 14 or 17 basic prerequests to be covered in order to make HE accessible for SWD, and we have hardly covered 2 of them...We need Ministry and

University to define clear policy of education

”)



Doubts about professional competencies for SWD

(“It often happens that on some faculties SWD are getting free of some important tasks, due to their disability and they are not fully competent, according to the degree they get. It should

be reconsidered”)

Recommendations for the future (2)



Need for better cooperation and dialogue among different institutions and NGOs

“There’s more than enough work for all of them, I don’ t know why they can’t stand each other...” “They are here for us, not vice versa, and they should agree upon some things...otherwise, it happens that one notebook is skenned twice, its costs are doubled...” “The aim is to improve life and education quality for SWD, not a personal promotion...”

Recommendations for the future (3)



Institutionalisation of rights

(personal assistance; transportation, accessability, assistive technology) “It means, not depending on projects and wheather it is going to be approved or not...” “Our transport service (NGO) works till 4 p.m. And we have lectures till 6 or even 8; because of the lack of money it is not covered for the whole day.” 

To have more stable and predictable financial support for NGOs which deal with transportation for SWD

“...instead of making a big deal out of it during election campaign”

Recommendations for the future (4)



Improving the use of the National University Library

– faculty libraries better prepaired for SWD “The library on Faculty of Philosophy has very sensitive staff, and also part time help of fellow students...at the moment they see you are a SWD they will be ready to give you a hand” 

Need for staff training

- it is far more difficult for persons without visible disability “I used to explain to the librarian in the NUL that I could barely see, and she kept wondering if that was so. She does not understand. “It is different if you are a blind person, people will say to you: “Can I help you?”. But if you have glasses, they think, it’s O.K., she can see.”

Recommendations for the future (5)



Establishing boards/committees for SWD on each faculty



Improving communication with the Office for SWD



Reducing bureaucratic issues

“Most of us have diagnoses that would not be changed, still every month one has to “prove” this fact by carrying around a bunch of papers; the health insurance office is on the 1st floor, and, of course, no lift is available...”

INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT

(1)

 

Systematic approach to improve accessibility (approach, entrance, classrooms, toilets, libraries, teaching materials, traffic, information) students – developing a new tradition.

– taking institutional responsibility for institutional and individual empowerment of “non-traditional” Personal commitment of teachers (“Personal is political”) “Heart and mind approach” - only intellectual view of understanding is not enough to maintain the process of changing in a positive direction to make an important issue out of it – it takes also emotional, personal, irrational, creative levels of understanding (both sides of our brains)