Transcript Slide 1

EQUALITY &
DIVERSITY
A Case study exploring the experiences of a Deaf Social Work student at Staffordshire University
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
•Equality and Diversity: Current Government confirms need to attract higher numbers of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds, subject to Lord Browne’s findings on HE funding (HM Government, 2010);
University acknowledges need to proactively meet the needs of disabled students (Staffordshire University,
2009)
•Disabled students now considered in the Widening Participation Agenda (DIUS 2009; Morris, 2006)
•Number of Deaf students in Higher Education is increasing (Morris, 2006; Lang, 2002)
•Deafness in itself does not adversely affect academic attainment (Richardson 2001; Richardson et al.,
2000) and yet research shows that Deaf students may fall behind in various aspects of HE experience
(Long et al, 2007; Marschark et al, 2006). This impacts on retention and attrition rates (Hirsch &
Lagnado, 2010; Lukomski, 2007)
•This case study examined the experiences of a Deaf post-graduate social work student at Staffordshire
University. Whilst there are significant issues around Deaf social work students and work placements, and
issues related to admissions, it focused on the experiences once enrolled and undertaking academic aspects of
the course.
N.B The author uses the conventional capital ‘D’ as in ‘Deaf’ to denote those who consider themselves part of a
cultural & linguistic minority, using British Sign Language as a first language.
POLICY & LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Whilst the author supports the cultural/linguistic model of Deafness, the current policy/legislation relating
to the support of Deaf students is within a ‘Disability’ framework:
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 (as amended by SENDA 2001, DDA 2005 & DDA 1995
(Amendment)(Further and Higher Education) Regulations 2006)
EQUALITY ACT 2010
THE DEARING REPORT 1997; HEFCE REPORT 1999; Widening Participation Agenda
STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY SINGLE EQUALITY SCHEME & EQUAL ACTION PLAN 2009-2012
LITERATURE REVIEW
Deaf students in HE received little empirical attention: research tends to focus on childhood education
(Hyde et al., 2009; Levinger & Ronen, 2008); what research there is tends to focus on barriers for Deaf
students rather than solutions (Lang, 2002). However, a review of a range of primary & secondary resources
found via social science & education databases and snowballing, reveals key themes:
CONTEMPORARY FACTORS
Disabled/ Deaf people in the social work profession: under-represented yet increasingly welcomed in order
to reflect more accurately the positives of diversity the profession espouses and to break “them” and “us”
barriers (Oliver & Sapey, 2006; Wray et al, 2005; Crawshaw, 2002). Social Science courses popular amongst
Deaf students (Ridgley, 2010; Richardson, 2001)
Structural / financial constraints: a range of structural constraints and resource issues create barriers for
Deaf students (Mason & Smith, 2007; Marschark et al, 2006)
Arguments for radical change / transformational practice: Numerous calls for transformational change:
conceptualising Deaf students within a cultural/ linguistic model rather than via ‘disability’ services as
present (Hyde et al, 2009; SWAP, 2007; Morris, 2006; Komesaroff, 2005; Waterfield & West, 2005)
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES: ACCESSING THE CURRICULUM
Communication and participation: Communication the major barrier, not intellect or academic ability; few
academic staff have required language skills, results in less direct communication; Deaf students miss out on
much incidental learning acquired through communication with peers; difficulties with video material (Hyde
et al, 2009; Long et al., 2007; Mason & Smith, 2007; Morris, 2006; SCIPS, 2005; Lang, 2002)
Lack of deaf awareness: amongst academic staff and assumptions that responsibilities for adjustments and
support are the remit of Disability Support Services alone(Hirsch & Lagdano, 2010; Hyde et al, 2009;
Komesaroff, 2005; Lang, 2002)
Use of interpreters: essential support service enabling access but not unproblematic & of major concern
amongst Deaf students. Concerns include: lack of immediacy, poor quality and inaccurate representation,
lack of content/subject knowledge, not receiving all information but tutor assumption that will be (Hyde et
al, 2009; Marschark et al, 2006; Napier & Barker, 2004; Crawshaw, 2002; Lang, 2002; Richardson, 2001)
Groupwork: viewed as an important learning strategy but very difficult for Deaf students even with
interpreters (Staffs University DSC, 2009; Long et al., 2007; Morris, 2006; SCIPS, 2005)
Assessment: Deaf students disadvantaged where assessed in second language (English) but concerns exist
regarding professional standards (Morris, 2006; Crawshaw, 2002).
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES: NON-ACADEMIC
Physical environment: problematic; less positive experience with general university services.
Loneliness & social isolation: Deaf students experience higher levels ; have fewer social networks and do
not feel part of “University Family” but rather stand out as “the Deaf one”. (DIUS, 2009; Hyde et al, 2009;)
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IN HE: USEFUL STRATEGIES
Enhancing communication: via provision of materials in advance, increased numbers of Deaf and BSL using
staff, use of notetakers /interpreters and increased Deaf awareness amongst academics all successful
strategies. Enabling direct communication between student and tutor particularly valued (Hyde et al, 2009;
SWAP, 2007; Cavanagh & Dickinson, 2006; Lang, 2002; Weglarz et al, 1998)
E-learning: VLE highly valued by Deaf students as they improve the quality of staff/peer interaction;
Materials can be streamed into BSL (Hyde et al, 2009; Staffs University DSC, 2009; Long et al., 2007; Mason
& Smith, 2007; Morris, 2006; SCIPS, 2005)
Assessment in BSL: enabling students to demonstrate competence in a variety of ways seen as an indicator
of inclusive teaching; this includes enabling Deaf students to be assessed in BSL, which currently happens
on social work courses in other universities. Additional time to complete assessments also valued by Deaf
students (Staffordshire University DSC, 2009; SWAP, 2007; Morris, 2006; Crawshaw, 2002)
Liaison between student, academics & support services: good liaison based on concept of shared
responsibility proves essential. Deaf students should be included in planning discussions around
adjustments (Staffordshire University DSC, 2009; SWAP, 2007; Morris, 2006; Wray et al., 2005)
Recognition of cultural model of deafness: Some universities provide support which reflects a cultural/
linguistic model of Deafness. This promotes a reduction in power imbalances, inclusive practice and an
effective commitment to communication. Teaching seeks to be relevant to a visual experience of the world
and not based on Hearing Culture alone. Support can be gained from other institutions. However, change is
required beyond the institution as current policy and legislation enabling access to support is “disability”
based (University of Wolverhampton, 2010; Sheffield Hallam University, 2010; Disability Services Keele
University, 2010; Mason & Smith, 2007; Marschark et al., 2006; Morris, 2006; Komesaroff, 2005; SCIPS,
2005; Lang, 2002; Richardson et al., 2000)
Owing to time constraints, the research took a small
Strategies to enhance learning and teaching practice
scale case study approach; this is useful for exploring specific issues in Social Work and Education (Shuttleworth, 2008; Payne et al 2007).
It
Individual
involved :
•Face to face interview with the Deaf student participant
•Face to face interview with an academic tutor who has taught the Deaf student
•Email interview with a University Equality and Diversity Officer
The face to face interviews:
•Drew on the literature review and took the form of “Topic Lists”; this enabled the researcher to follow up on participant statements and probe responses for further information (Bell, 2005)
•Involved participants with whom the researcher had personal contact and took place at a location and time convenient with the participant to ensure positive response and participation (Bell, 2005)
The interview with the Deaf student was in British Sign Language:
•Use of preferred language ensures reliable contact and responses and eliminates risks inherent in written questionnaires for Deaf students (Levinger & Ronen, 2008)
•Enhances participant/researcher trust (Levinger & Ronen, 2008)
•Recognises and values Deaf Culture and therefore accords with social work ethics and value base (Levinger & Ronen, 2008; Payne et al., 2007; Komesaroff, 2005)
Research concerned student’s experience of the social world (in this case HE) and is thus qualitative in nature. Written consent gained from the face to face interview participants & ethics form completed.
LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
STRENGTHS OF THIS APPROACH
•Case Study cannot be generalized to fit the
experience of all disabled students nor even all Deaf
students; Deaf students are a heterogeneous group.
However, as there is currently only one Deaf student
within the Department, this study does represent the
experience of the total number of Deaf students
•Allows in depth analysis from
rich data
•Enables exploration of unique
phenomena
•Open to new ideas coming
from data and research
participants’ realistic
responses
•May be transferable between
contexts different settings and
(Shuttleworth, 2008; Komesaroff, 2005)
•Risk of ethnocentric bias: the author is Hearing, but
carried out research in relation to Deaf students.
Other Deaf students could have been involved in
planning the study, but limited time precluded this
(Levinger & Ronen, 2008; Richardson et al. 2000)
•Time limitations resulted in use of unpiloted data
gathering materials, which is not good research
practice (Bell, 2005)
•Interviews were not audio / video recorded: notes
were taken by the author. This may have resulted in
inaccuracies owing to “memory decay” (Levinger &
Ronen, 2008; Murphy-Black, 2006)
•Risk of researcher bias, including ‘confirmation bias’
owing to researcher’s significant experience working
with Deaf people (Levinger & Ronen, 2008; Thompson,
(Shuttleworth, 2008; Payne et al.,
2007;Thompson, 2005)
2005)
Echo the literature Review
[the Disability Support Assessor] said to me
Deaf Students are the most expensive
...he asked me a lot about how much I
could hear..but that’s got nothing to do
with it, I sign....
TUTOR
RESPONSES
Key themes echoed:
•Systematic & Financial Constraints
•Reduced access to General nonacademic services and Social Isolation
•Support provided under ‘disability’
umbrella
•Difficulties with Group work
•Issues with interpreters
•Useful strategies: information in
advance, direct communication, liaison
and involvement, online social
networks, cultural model of deafness
...the systems were too
bureaucratic...a number of
funding streams...funding
shouldn’t be an issue...
...don’t use other services... don’t think I
ever will...one, its a one off course, two the
interpreters are there for lectures, when
gone, I’m on my own... so may as well go
home..
I was wary of using the library because
[there is a barrier].. you need to talk to get
through the barrier for the car park... when
I arrived I had a problem with the barrier
I don’t like groupwork, that’s the worst bit
of university... [I] feel that groupwork
makes me look less able... I don’t like it, but
in social work, that’s reality
[the tutor] was very good...all material
[was] emailed to [interpreter] agency..
I think something like an [online social
network] would be useful for Deaf students
I’m not sure if the lecturers are aware that
some interpreters are crap... I can’t say,
she’s crap! ... the jargon can be too much
for them...
...my first issue was very
personal...my concern was
I didn’t use BSL
Key areas of contrast:
•Didn’t experience lack of responsibility
amongst academic staff
•No preference for assessment in
BSL
•Limited use of e-learning by student
•Social Isolation ???
I found direct communication with the
tutor useful... if there is no interpreter
there he sees more of who I am
.. the straightforward answer is
everyone [is responsible for
making reasonable
adjustments]...we should all
make an effort to make things
right
...it is important to ensure all
people in academia understand
what is required of them, where
to go for help
I haven’t used [Blackboard] much...I didn’t
use other online materials
...there are other students
who are less integrated than
[this student]
...two [interpreters] are brilliant, a lot not
really good enough for me...
[other students] sit everywhere else, leave
me to sit on my own...only one [other
student] will sit with me... he has
experience of working with interpreters...
[the tutor asked] is there anything else you
want...[the tutor] and [admin staff
member] took responsibility... they were
really helpful...
...handouts for the
interpreters were made
available before the day..
I always miss some information [when
using interpreters]
...I felt the interpreters were
giving full access...
Contrast with the
literature Review
...my relationship with [the
student] is solely based on
communicating directly
with her
..under ‘disability’ you don’t get an
interpreter at lunch time, but if recognised
as cultural need interpreter would be there
from moment I arrived to the moment I left
Departmental
•Deaf Awareness for academic staff and students
•Review of systems for facilitating support
•Review of curriculum materials from Deaf perspective involving Deaf
people
Institutional
•Commitment to increasing the number of Deaf staff and Deaf students*
•Changes to the physical environment and ongoing accessibility
assessment of non-academic services*
•Liaison with other Universities with larger Deaf student numbers for
evidence of best practice
•Further consideration to conceptualisation of Deaf students as a
linguistic minority rather than “disabled”
*It is important to note that some of these institutional strategies are already included
in the University Equality Action Plan.
RESULTS / ANALYSIS
STUDENT RESPONSES
•Familiarisation with the range of advisory resources & guidance on
responsibilities
•Anticipatory adjustments
•Ensuring course materials are available in advance
•Having direct communication with all students whenever possible
•Forming good working relationships with support services
•Exploring online/ VLE resources not only for formal teaching but to
facilitate peer communication, incidental learning and social networking
•Further research into accessible group work strategies
•Enabling students to demonstrate competence in a variety of ways
•Recognising the positive contribution Deaf students make to teaching
and learning by adopting a model which affirms a Deaf cultural identity
I’d prefer written [assessment]... my
English is good for me to enjoy the written
work...
REFERENCES
Bell, J. (2005) Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. 4th ed. Maidenhead : Open University Press.
Cavanagh, S. & Dickinson, Y. (2006) Disability Legislation: Practical Guidance for Academics. London: The Higher Education Academy & Equality Challenge Unit.
Centre for the Integration of Research, Learning and Teaching (2005) “Learning-through-Diversity Developmental Framework. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.cirtl.net/pillars/learning_through_diversity Accessed: 20 July 2010
Crawshaw, M. (2002) “Disabled people’s access to social work education – ways and means of promoting environmental change”. Social Work Education. 21(5): 503-514.
Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (2009) Disabled Students and Higher Education. London: Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills.
Disability Services, Keele University (2010) “Advice for students who are D/deaf/hard of hearing” [Online] Available from:
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/aa/class/disabilityservices/index.ntml Accessed: 18 June 2010.
Equality Challenge Unit (2010) “Equality Act 2010: Implications for higher education institutions” [Online] Available from: www.ecu.ac.uk Accessed: 17 June 2010.
Harvey, S (2010) Fingerspelling Clipart [Online] Available from: http://www.british-sign.co.uk. Accessed: 18 June 2010
Hirsch, A. & Lagnado, A. (2010) “Victims of the ‘tick-box’ approach: Increasing numbers of disabled students are dropping out. What are universities doing wrong?” The Guardian. 25
May. p6.
HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for government. London: Cabinet Office.
Hyde, M, Punch, R., Power, D., Hartley, J., Neale, J. & Brennan, L. (2009) “The experiences of deaf and hard of hearing students at a Queensland University: 1985-2005”. Higher
Education Research & Development. 28 (1):85-98.
Komesaroff, L. (2005) “Category politics: deaf students’ inclusion in the ‘hearing university’”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 9 (4):389-403.
Lang, H.G. (2002) “Higher Education for Deaf Students: Research Priorities in the New Millennium”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 7 (4): 267-280.
Leeds University Equality Service (2010) “Information for students who are deaf or hard of hearing” [Online] Available from:
http://www.equality.leeds.ac.uk/dis_serv/staff/academic/It/deaf Accessed: 18 June 2010.
Levinger, M. & Ronen, T. (2008) “Is it Really Clear? Adapting Research Tools for the Needs of the Deaf Population”. Journal of Social Work. 8 (4):399-430.
Long, G., Vignare, K., Rappold, R. & Mallory, J. (2007) “Access to Communication for Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing and ESL Students in Blended Learning Courses”. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8 (3): 1-13.
Lukomski, J. (2007) “Deaf College Students’ Perceptions of Their Social-Emotional Adjustment”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 12 (4):486-494.
Marschark, M., Leigh, G., Sapere, P., Burnham, D., Convertino, C., Stinson, M., Knoors, H., Vervloed, M & Noble, W. (2006) “Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives
for Deaf Students’ Classroom Learning”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 11 (4): 421-437.
Mason, T.V. & Smith, A. (2007) “Resources, Ancillary Services and Classroom Instruction: Thoughts of a Deaf-blind social work student and her teacher” Journal of Social Work in
Disability and Rehabilitation. 6 (1/2) 53-65.
Morris, W. (2006) “Learning, Teaching and Assessment with Deaf Students”. Discourse. 6(1):145-173.
Murphy-Black, T. (2006) “Using questionnaires”; in Gerrish, K. and Lacey, A. (eds) The research process in nursing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Napier, J. & Barker, R. (2004) “Accessing University Education: Perceptions, Preferences, and Expectations for Interpreting by Deaf Students”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education. 9(2):228-238.
Oliver, M. & Sapey, B. (2006) Social Work with Disabled People 3rd Edition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Payne, S., Field, D., Rolls, L., Hawker, S. & Kerr, C. (2007) “Case Study research methods in end of life care: reflections on three studies”. Journal of Advanced Nursing.58(3): 236
Richardson, J.T.E. (2001) “The Representation and Attainment of Students with a Hearing Loss in Higher Education”. Studies in Higher Education.26 (2): 183-204.
Richardson, J.T.E., MacLeod-Gallinger, J., McKee, B. & Long, G. (2000) “Approaches to Studying in Deaf and Hearing Students in Higher Education”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education. 5 (2):156-173.
Ridgley, C. (2010) Equality and Diversity Report 2008 – 2009. Staffordshire: Staffordshire University.
SCIPS (2005) “Hearing Impairments” [Online] Available from: http://www.scips.worc.ac.uk/uk/disabilities/hearing_impairment.html Accessed: 17 June 2010
SCIPS (2005) “Social Work and Students with Hearing Impairments” Available from: http://www.scips.worc.ac.uk/subjects_and_disabilities/socwork/sw_hi.html Accessed: 17 June
2010
Sheffield Hallam University (2010) “Deaf students at Sheffield Hallam University” [Online] Available from:
http://www.shu.ac.uk/services/sls/support/disability/specific/deaf/index.html Accessed: 18 June 2010.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008) “Case Study Research Design” [Online] Available from: http://www.experiment-resources.com/case-study-research-design.html Accessed: 3 June 2010.
Staffordshire University (2010) “Disability Support” [Online] Available from: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/courses_and_study/disabled_students/disability_support/ Accessed: 18 June
2010.
Staffordshire University Disabled Students Centre (2009) Working with Disabled Students – Guidance for Academic Staff. Staffordshire: Staffordshire University.
SWAP The Higher Education Academy (2007) “Supporting inclusive learning and teaching” [Online] Available from: http://www.swap.ac.uk Accessed: 25 June 2010.
Thompson, L. (2005) “Research and Methodology” [Lecture Handout] Basics in Research and Methodology.PQ Care Management Research Module. Staffordshire University, Brindley
Building , Room BG, 22nd April.
University of Wolverhampton (2010) “Support for Deaf Students” [Online] Available from: http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=20763 Accessed: 18 June 2010.
Waterfield, J. & West, B. (2005) “Staff-Student Partnership for Assessment Change and Evaluation (SPACE) Project. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=10494 Accessed: 20 July 2010
Weglarz, S., Brown-Kurz, K. & Moehring, R. (1998) Support Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students and the Role of Deaf Professionals in Higher Education. Overland Park:
Johnson County Community College.
Wray, J., Fell, B., Stanley, N., Manthorpe, J & Coyne, E. (2005) Best Practice Guide: disabled social work students and placements. Hull: The University of Hull.