21
ENHANCING THE QUALITY AND OUTCOMES OF DISABLED STUDENTS’ LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
FINAL REPORT
BACKGROUND
Widening access and promoting equality in higher education: implications for disabled students Over the past two decades, higher education has transformed from an elite to a mass system, with a significant reduction in per capita funding. At the same time, new public management has grown in influence, reflected in regimes of accountability such as the Research Assessment Exercise and Teaching Quality Assessment. For example, the Quality Assurance Agency’s Code of Practice for Students with Disabilities, published in 1999, specified twenty one precepts of good practice concerning all aspects of activity which institutions must adhere to and which may be subjected to external inspection. Subsequently, a raft of equalities legislation was passed, opening up university processes to much closer scrutiny. Universities are required to return information to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) on the number of disabled students in specific categories and, for the purposes of establishing the level of premium funding paid to an institution, the number of Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) recipients. Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), implemented in 2002, requires institutions to avoid discriminatory practices, and the Disability Equality Duty, which came into effect in December 2006 under the terms of the Disability Act, requires institutions to publish disability equality schemes which chart progress over time.
The DDA has far-reaching implications in terms of its requirement for reasonable adjustments to be made to the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, but a number of uncertainties remain, not least in deciding what counts as a ‘reasonable’ adjustment. There are also uncertainties about who is covered by the DDA and how severe the condition has to be before the person receives legislative protection. It is clear, therefore, that whilst there are significant new requirements on universities to demonstrate fair treatment of disabled students, there continues to be much room for institutional discretion and the likelihood of variation in practice.
Support for teaching, learning and assessment in higher education Since the mid-1980s, there have been major changes in the nature and mode of operation of higher education in the UK, with major repercussions for learning support, assessment and wider institutional ethos. Whilst the abolition of the binary line was intended to produce greater uniformity between institutions, it appeared that marked differences remained between the academic culture of the pre-92 universities, emphasising the acquisition of knowledge in traditionally defined subject areas, and the post-92 universities, where the acquisition of vocational knowledge and transferable skills was given greater priority. Bennett et al. (1999) noted that attempts to introduce the teaching of core skills into pre-92 universities were met with considerable resistance, since these were seen as alien to the traditional knowledge-based culture (Dunne et al., 1997). There were also major differences between traditional and new universities with regard to the provision of learning support. Wolfendale and Corbett (1997) noted that new universities and FE colleges were far more used to teaching non-traditional students than pre-92 universities. Whereas traditional universities had to establish learning support services to meet the needs of the expanded student population, these were often already in place in new universities and FE colleges.
Compared with teaching, assessment practices have arguably been even slower to change. Writing in relation to schools, Simpson (2005) has argued that assessment is regarded as a process which is largely separate from teaching and learning, requiring systems developed by technicians and measurement experts to judge accurately and reliably the learning outcomes achieved in relation to pre-determined knowledge or skills. Assessment remains focused on the learning achieved by the individual student, with little attention to the social context in which learning takes place. Similararguments apply to higher education, where the standard forms of examination and written assignment have remained largely unchanged for many decades, despite an on-going focus in development and research work on how to improve assessment technologies (Elton, 2004). Leathwood (2005) and Morley (2003) note that some attempts to modernise assessment in higher education, such as a new focus on student self-assessment and criterion-referenced assessment, which may have their roots in student empowerment narratives (Broadfoot, 1999), may in practice be experienced as new forms of regulation and surveillance by students and staff, and may do little to challenge structural inequalities in assessment systems.
In response to the requirements of the DDA that reasonable adjustments be made to assessment, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has funded a number of development projects on inclusive assessment practices, such as the SPACE project (Staff-Student Partnership for Assessment Change and Evaluation) at the University of Plymouth. However, such developments have not been without their critics. Sharp and Earle (2000), for example, have argued that the idea of compensation for disabled students is highly questionable. Alternative assessments, they maintain, are only acceptable if they are genuinely equivalent in terms of the skills and knowledge they test, and if this is the case, then all students should be allowed access to adjustments, which might include extra time, the use of enhanced grammar and spell checkers and sheltered conditions. Similarly, the justifications for the use of typical forms of assessment, such as three hour examinations, should be examined much more critically, with a view to establishing whether the knowledge and skills required to succeed in such an activity are intrinsic to the requirements of the course which is being assessed. The
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
22
higher education establishment has defended the need for clear qualification criteria based on disability status in order to determine which students should be entitled to alternative forms of assessment. The implications of enforcing a binary divide between disabled and non-disabled students are considered below.
OBJECTIVES
The main aim of the study was to understand how disabled students’ academic performance and experience of teaching, learning and assessment varies by disability, subject studied and by type of institution, how this experience develops during their course and how their learning outcomes compare with those of non-disabled students. Specific objectives, and the element of the research which addressed each objective, are summarised below:
6. Analyse and contrast disabled students’ experiences of barriers and opportunities in teaching, learning and assessment in four selected universities (student survey).
7. Examine the relationship between the quality of learning of disabled students and the learning environments provided by specific departments in four selected universities (institutional case studies and case studies of individual disabled students).
8. Analyse the extent to which disabled students’ learning outcomes differ from those of non-disabled students. (analysis of institutional level aggregated data and case studies of individual disabled students).
9. Document and analyse selected teaching staff understandings of and changes to their teaching, learning and assessment strategies in the light of the legal requirement to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ (case studies of individual disabled students).
10. Promote, disseminate and embed the findings from the project effectively through communication with the academic, educational development, learning support and disability communities (range of dissemination and professional development activities).
Broadly, the central aim and specific objectives of the research have been achieved. However, inevitably in a project of this size and duration, some new interests have emerged. For example, the institutional case studies revealed particular tensions between equalities and managerialism, leading to an expansion of the policy dimension of the study (Riddell et al., 2007). In addition, a focus on educational transitions and their links with identity formation emerged during the course of the research (Weedon and Riddell, forthcoming). Finally, an important theme emerging as the research progressed was the issue of fitness to practise standards imposed by particular professional bodies, and their impact on university experiences, labour market transitions and individual student identity.
METHODS
Policy and statistical analysis In the background section (above), an overview is provided of legislative and policy pressures on the higher education system in relation to widening access and providing fair treatment for disabled students. An additional analysis of HESA statistics was conducted to investigate the extent to which these initiatives had been successful in terms of participation rates of disabled students in higher education over time. The nature of student reported disabilities, using UCAS categories of impairment, was also conducted.
Aggregated data were gathered from each institution on the degree outcomes of graduating disabled students compared with those of other graduates. Data were not available for University 4, although from 2008, in order to comply with the Disability Equality Duty, this University will be publishing the degree outcomes of disabled and non-disabled students.
Institutional case studies Statistics relating to a range of demographic variables were gathered from the four institutions and institutional documents on widening access and provision for disabled students were gathered and analysed. In order to interpret these data, a total of 28 key informant interviews were carried out: 10 in University 1, 6 in University 2, 7 in University 3 and 5 in University 4. Of these, 10 were senior managers, either deans, head of schools or responsible for teaching and learning; 9 were senior support staff such as librarians, IT or estates and accommodation; 2 were involved with student services but with an additional remit for disabled students; and 6 were involved with services for disabled students. To retain confidentiality in the analysis of this work (Riddell et al., 2007), each respondent was only identified by their institution andtheir role as either senior manager (SM), senior support (SUP) or disability support (DIS).
Survey In spring 2004, with assistance from the University Registry in each institution, a survey was conducted of all disabled undergraduate students in the four selected universities. The questionnaire was developed specifically for the survey in consultation with an expert from the Open University. It drew on already developed learning, teaching and assessment
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
23
questionnaires, but had additional questions with the aim of capturing the experiences of disabled students. A total of 2,572 questionnaires were sent out and 1,171 were returned. The overall survey return rate was 45%, with some variation between the different institutions. Forty percent of respondents were male; 60% were female and 70% of the sample were aged 25 or below.
At University 3, for purposes of comparison, the questionnaire was administered to a 10% sample of non-disabled students (n=272) and a 40% response rate was achieved.
An additional analysis was conducted of the responses of dyslexic students, since these represented by far the largest group and were identified by lecturers as posing particular challenges in terms of adjustments to pedagogical and assessment practices (Weedon and Riddell, 2007). In total, 602 dyslexic students were included in this analysis. Responses are summarised in the Annex.
Individual student case studies We initially hoped to be able to track 48 disabled students throughout the course of their studies. However, some difficulties arose in contacting disabled students in some institutions as a result of confidentiality issues, and there was also some attrition of students who initially agreed to participate in the study but then dropped out as a result of work and social pressures. Three years’ data were obtained for 31 students (see Table 7 for data summary). The distribution across the institutions was as follows:
University 1 (Scottish ancient university): 14 University 2 (English pre-92 university): 4 University 3 (English post-92 university): 8 University 4 (English post-92 university): 5
RESULTS
Statistical analysis: participation and nature of student difficultiesTable 1 shows that an overall increase in student numbers has been accompanied by a rise in disabled students. The statistics in Tables 1 and 2 are based on HES www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student).
Table 1. A comparison of total numbers of students in higher education and those with a known disability (first degree programmes)
ar mber of students ackets FT)
mber of disabled students rcentage
94 - 95 3011 (273586) 162 (9719) 5%04-05 9150 (320865) 085 (22890) %
The composition of the group has also changed with a considerable rise in the numbers of students with dyslexia now entering higher education (Table 2). In 1994/95 15% of first degree disabled students were known to be dyslexic; in 2004/05 the proportion had risen to 50%; over the same period of time those in the category ‘unseen disability’ decreased considerably (see Table 2); if only full-time students are included this figure rises to 54%. These changes may be attributed to three main factors: earlier identification in the school population, support through the Disabled Student Allowance (DSA) and the increase in mature students through widening access policies (National Working Party on Dyslexia in Higher Education, 1999). It is also likely that some students who were previously included in the ‘unseen’ disability’ category have been reclassified as dyslexic.
Table 2. Categories of disability used by HESA and percentages of first-degree disabled undergraduates as a percentage of total numbers of disabled students 1994/95 and 2004-05
pe of disability 94-95: First degree (in brackonly)
04/05 First degree ackets FT only)
slexia % (16%) % (54%) nd/partially sighted % (4%) 4% (2.4%) af/hard of hearing % (6%) % (3.7%)
heelchair/mobility difficulties % (4%) 8% (2.5%) rsonal care support % (0.2%) % (0.1%)
ental health difficulties % (1.2%) 6% (4%) unseen disability % (57%) % (17%)
ultiple disabilities % (3.3%) 5% (4.8%) her disability % (9%) .5% (10%) tistic spectrum disorder 7% (0.8%)
Statistical analysis: degree outcomes of disabled students compared with the wider student body
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
24
Earlier analysis of HESA statistics showed that disabled students were slightly less likely to gain first and upper second class degrees and slightly more like to gain third class degrees than non-disabled students (Riddell et al., 2005).
The outcomes from the earlier study still holds for students in Universities 1 and 3. They have poorer outcomes than non-disabled students in the same institution; however, students in University 2 do better in terms of First Class honours degrees, slightly worse in terms of Upper Seconds but overall the non-disabled/disabled results are quite similar. The trends in intakes from 2001-02 to 2004-05 in University 2 suggests that disabled students are now more likely to complete the course and to achieve better results than they did in the past.
Disabled students in Universities 1 and 3 are more likely than non-disabled students to complete their course; in University 2 there are now no such differences. The data for the case study students suggest that in University 1 and 2 dyslexic students do well. In University 3 this less clear cut as one dyslexic student withdrew. However, generally the dyslexic students were well supported and in receipt of DSA which allowed them to access a range of support. This would suggest that support for dyslexic students has improved since the introduction of the new legislation. However, there is an indication that students with other, unseen impairments do not do as well as non-disabled students. More detailed analysis of completion rates and outcomes by impairment at institutional level may allow for more targeted support of students with other, unseen impairments who may be more reluctant to contact the disability services. In addition, cross-variable analysis including factors such as social class and disability may show that more effective support is required for particular groups of students.
Institutional case studies
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
25
The table below summarises the characteristics of the four institutions which participated in the study, which vary greatly in terms of their size, history and curriculum.
� There are significant differences in the proportion of students from less socially advantaged backgrounds. University 1 has by far the most socially advantaged intake.
� There are also differences in the proportion of students disclosing a disability to the institution.
� In all case study institutions, students with a diagnosis of dyslexia represent by far the largest group.
Table 3 Key characteristics of the four institutions of under-gradutrants
udent Population
stitution pe of institutio
ung
from sthools
low participatghbour-hood
from soss IIIM, IV a
in receiptSA
disclosability03-04*
iversity 1 e-92 85 40.3%
.7 9 .8 8 %*
iversity 2 e-92 55
65.2%
.7 .2 .0 3%
iversity 3 st-92 35 65.3%
.2 .5 .1 2 %
iversity 4 st-92 20 40.8%
.6 .2 .2 2 3% 2002-03
* based on the institutions’ own figures
Table 4. Number of students who have disclosed a disability to the institution by type of disability (UCAS categories) (2003-04)
pairment/learning disability iversity 1 iversity 2 iversity 3 iversity 4 slexia 7 % 1 % 7 % 6* %heelchair/mobility impaired % % % %seen impairment (e.g. asthma) 1 % 5 % 0 % %her impairment (specified) 8 % % 4 %nd/partially sighted % % % %rsonal care % 3% %
ultiple impairments % % % %af/hard of hearing % % % %
ental health difficulty % % % %disability not listed below
tails/not known % %
tal disabled 69 % 9 % 08 3** 9 3%
* students classified as having learning difficulties and dyslexia ** calculated as a percentage of the number of all undergraduate students including part- time students
All of the institutions provide specialised disability support; however, only two of the institutions – Universities 1 and 2– specifically mentioned dyslexia tutors (Table 5 below).
Table 5: Institutional support for disabled students stitution pe of support iversity 1 sability Office, with 6 members of staff, one administrator, includes 2 dysle
ecialists iversity 2 pport network includes Disability Service and a specialist language and learn
pport unit iversity 3 sability Office, 2 full-time advisers, part-time administrator. iversity 4 sability Service Office, 5 part-time advisors, 2 with responsibility for deaf and me
alth
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
26
Key themes emerging from the institutional case studies, reported more fully in Riddell et al., 2007, are summarised below.
Disabled students and the widening access agenda In the two pre-92 universities, disabled students were only loosely associated with the widening access agenda, and in University 1 a particularly strong focus was on students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds at least in part as a result of Funding Council pressure. In University 4, including students from low participation neighbourhoods was a major focus of activity because this was seen as an institutional strength. Only in University 3, a new university with a relativelyadvantaged social profile, were disabled students seen as being at the forefront of the widening access agenda.
The impact of quality assurance The quality assurance regime was resented by some staff in the two pre-92 institutions, and was characterised as encouraging routine compliance or, alternatively, as an example of unwanted intrusion by the Funding Council on the university’s autonomy. The RAE was seen in the two pre-92 universities as a major policy driver, focusing staff attention on research with the implication that they had less time and energy for supporting individual students. In University 4, the focus was on the drive to improve retention rates, and this was having an impact on admissions policy, with less tolerance for students who might fail to complete the programme.
The DDA and reasonable adjustments to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment All respondents recognised the significance of the Disability Discrimination Act as providing a major impulse to action. Relatively little was said about adjustments to the curriculum, with one institution participating in the Teachability programme, albeit with varied engagement across the university. (Teachability includes assessment tools to be used by academic staff in order to identify the extent to which their teaching and assessment practices are accessible. Suggestions are made for reasonable adjustments to teaching, learning and assessment practices in line with DDA requirements). Respondents in all four institutions were concerned about compromising academic standards, particularly in relation to students with dyslexia.
Relationship between the managerialist and equalities agenda The extensive use of equality audit appears to have had some success in improving the position of disabled students. All institutions saw the DDA as a major shaping influence, and no institution wished to be found in breach of the legislation and publicly shamed through a court case. The downside was that respondents spoke of their fears of frivolous complaints being made, and were anxious about the amount of time they might have to expend in dealing with such cases.
Survey Comparison of disabled and non-disabled students showed that, in general, disabled students experienced greater difficulties with some aspects of university work, although there were specific areas where this did not appear to be the case (see table below). As noted above, the majority of disabled students in higher education have a diagnosis of dyslexia, and this probably accounts for the fact that disabled students report fewer difficulties with oral work and group presentations than non-disabled students.
Table 6. Learning, Teaching and Assessment Experiences of Disabled and Non-Disabled Students
ree/Strongly agree Disabled Non-disabled eas in which disabled studeve greater difficulty (10% + poference) have had physical difficulties wtingave had difficulty with literacy skiave had difficulty in taking notes ave had difficulties with the amo
time required to complsignments
easy to know the standardsrk expected
eas in which non-disabled studeve greater difficulty (5% + poference)
have had difficulties wrticipation in group work
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
27
have had difficulties with oesentations
To investigate more closely the experiences of the largest group of disabled students with a shared impairment, and to make comparisons across the four institutions, an additional analysis was conducted of students with a diagnosis of dyslexia. The following findings emerged:
� Dyslexic students in these four institutions indicated that they were generally satisfied with the disability support provided and also that they all experienced similar types of literacy-related difficulties. The two older institutionsemphasised dyslexia support to a greater extent (as evidenced in their organisation of the disability support (see Table 5).
� Certain types of support were becoming mainstreamed across the institutions (e.g. extra time in exams).
� In all institutions barriers remained, for example, students reported difficulties in accessing lecture notes.
� Students perceived the support they were being offered somewhat differently. Students in University 4, the least socially advantaged institution with the least dedicated provision for students with a diagnosis of dyslexia, reported poorer access to some support such as lecture notes in advance. These students indicated that they felt that lecturers were at times uncooperative.
� Students in University 1 were the most critical of the support they were given by lecturers, in spite of the fact that aspects of their general level support seemed to be greater than those in University 4.
� Lecturers in University 1 might indeed have a greater focus on research than teaching and therefore less time for student support. On the other hand, greater student dissatisfaction might reflect either heightened or reduced student expectations. Students in University 1, who tended to come from more socially advantaged backgrounds, were more likely to have received a diagnosis of dyslexia, and additional support, at school. Students at University 4, from less advantaged backgrounds, were less likely to have been diagnosed at school, and might therefore have lower expectations of extensive support at university.
Individual student case studies Table 7 provides details of the thirty one student case studies and a summary of findings in relation to some key dimensions of their experience. In the following sections, we summarise findings in relation to particular themes which emerged from the research and which have been written up as published papers.
Students’ and lecturers’ views of reasonable adjustments in teaching, learning and assessment � Healey et al. (2006; 2008) and Fuller et al. (2004a, 2004b) summarise findings in relation to students’ perceptions of reasonable adjustments in teaching, learning and assessment. The experiences of students with a diagnosis of dyslexia is discussed in Riddell and Weedon (2006). The following broad findings emerged from the student case studies:
� The majority of adjustments were formulaic, e.g. provision of a laptop, lecture notes and extra time in examinations for students with a diagnosis of dyslexia. Little account tended to be taken of the precise nature of the individual student’s difficulty or the severity of their condition.
� Particularly in some disciplines, e.g. Geography, there was evidence of a willingness to make adjustments to pedagogy to accommodate different students’ needs, e.g. the use of ‘virtual’ fieldtrips for students with physical impairments. There was very little evidence of any move towards adjustments in modes of assessment, to allow students with a range of impairments to demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes in different ways.
� Many students were happy with the adjustments which were made, but many were unhappy about having to accept the label of disability which accompanied a request for an adjustment.
� Students found they had to engage in multiple negotiations with different lecturers to ensure that agreements on reasonable adjustments were understood by all.
� Even in the same subject, there were major differences in lecturers’ willingness to make adjustments and the inclusiveness of their teaching style.
� There were also concerns about disclosure of information about a student’s impairment without their permission.
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
28
� Students with invisible disabilities, particularly those with fluctuating conditions such as mental health difficulties, were least satisfied with the adjustments made.
� Students with multiple difficulties, e.g. mental health difficulties, social and financial difficulties were least satisfied with their university experiences and were least likely to complete their courses.
� Most lecturers were supportive of disabled students and the broad principle of making adjustments to the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. However, there was uncertainty about what counted as a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and the extent to which allowances should be made in marking assignments, for example, whether students with a diagnosis of dyslexia should be penalised for errors in spelling, grammar and structure.
� Linked to the above, there were concerns about standards and fairness, for example, some lecturers felt it was potentially unfair to make adjustments for students with a diagnosis of dyslexia, but not for students for whom English was their second or third language.
� Thinking about inclusive educational practice, i.e. offering a range of approaches to teaching, learning and assessment to meet a wide range of learner styles, was at an early stage in all institutions.
� There were marked institutional differences in awareness of the Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching in Higher Education, which addresses inclusive educational practices. The contrast was most marked between University 1, where most staff had not heard of it and believed it was not an institutional priority, and University 3, where it was prioritised bymanagement.
� Overall, the research concluded that universities should place more emphasis on developing inclusive curricula, incorporating principles of universal design. This would obviate the need to certify students as disabled, would go a long way to resolving the dyslexia controversy and would remove the need for lecturers to make numerous ad hoc adjustments. Some students, however, would continue to need very specific and individualised adjustments.
Issues in particular disciplines: the case of fitness to practise standards Earlier research (Riddell et al., 2005) demonstrated that disabled students are most likely to be found in creative arts and design subjects, and least likely to be found in vocational subjects linked to professions with fitness to practise standards. The research therefore looked closely at students’ experiences in such areas, using Education as a specific example. The following findings emerged:
� The Nursing and Midwifery Council, which regulates the nursing profession in England, Wales and Scotland, maintains that nurses must be of ‘good health and good character’ and operates fitness testing at the point of registration. Entry to teaching, medicine and social work are similarly controlled by regulatory bodies, although the standards are framed differently in the various professional arenas and applied differently in different jurisdictions of the UK.
� The General Teaching Council for Scotland was established in 1965 to regulate the teaching profession and fitness to practise standards were formalized in regulations introduced in 1993. Applicants for teacher training had to satisfy the medical practitioner for the particular institution that they were ‘medically fit to teach’.
� Following a consultation in 2004, it was decided to remove the fitness to practise standards on the grounds that they were anachronistic and ineffective in identifying individuals who might pose a risk to children. Instead, entrants to teaching were required to conform with professional standards specified by the GTCS, with reasonable adjustments for disabled teachers.
� Case studies of students with invisible impairments studying Education in Scotland demonstrated that, whilst they were prepared to identify themselves as disabled within the university in order to benefit from reasonable adjustments, on placement they often chose not to disclose because of the discriminatory attitudes they encountered amongst practising teachers.
� Most teachers, and some university lecturers, believed that fitness to practise standards still applied to teaching in Scotland, and some practising teachers expressed the view that a students with a diagnosis of dyslexia would be unable to teach effectively.
� There was confusion between the university department and the placement provider with regard to the locus of responsibility for making the reasonable adjustment, particularly if there were any financial implications.
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
29
� Education students who had disclosed a disability whilst at university generally chose not to disclose when moving into employment, since they felt that the risk of discrimination was likely to outweigh the benefit of possibly securing a reasonable adjustment.
Disabled students and educational transitions � Within the context of the learning society and globalisation, citizens are expected to engage in learning throughout the life course (Scottish Executive, 2003, Field, 2006; Weedon and Riddell, 2008 forthcoming), and negotiating transitions into and out of the education system is clearly of vital importance. � All students have to deal with potentially difficult transitions, but longitudinal data gathered during this project indicate that some disabled students experience more transitions or find the transitions harder to cope with as a result of social, academic and identity challenges.
� Over recent years, U.K. universities have had to pay serious attention to student support issues, including those associated with transition as a result of greater diversity within the student population. However, there is a need for an even greater focus on the social and emotional aspects of learning.
Disability and identity � Disability as a social category must be seen as a transitional status, varying between contexts and at different points in an individual’s biography.
� Longitudinal case study data showed that some students, particularly those with visible impairments, come to university with disability as part of their pre-established identity. Some students adopt disability as part of their identity,albeit reluctantly, during their time at university in order to obtain reasonable adjustments. Many students discard disabilityas a component of their identity when they leave university, in order to avoid discrimination in the labour market.
ACTIVITIES
� A dissemination conference was held in Edinburgh on October 24th 2007.
� Sheila Riddell contributed to the ESRC-funded seminar series on learning transitions organised by Kathryn Ecclestone, University of Nottingham, 28th October 2006.
� Elisabet Weedon and Mary Fuller gave presentations at two ESRC TLRP Annual Conferences.
� Elisabet Weedon delivered two papers to the annual conference of the Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning.
� Mick Healey was invited to give keynote presentations related to the project in New Zealand and the UK.
� Jan Georgeson has been invited to contribute a paper on disability, identity and institutional structures to a symposium on Cultural Historical Theory and Higher Education convened by Gordon Wells at the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research Conference in San Diego in September 2008
� Alan Hurst was invited to deliver keynote presentations at international conferences in Leeds, Lund (Sweden), Svedlice (Poland), Oslo (Norway).
OUTPUTS
Among the key publications from the project, including a Routledge book, are the following:
Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A. and Hall, T. (2004) ‘Barriers to learning: A systematic study of the experiences of disabled students in higher education’ Studies in Higher Education, 29, 3, 303-318.
Fuller, M., Healey, M. and Bradley, A. (2004) ‘Incorporating disabled students within an inclusive higher education environment’ Disability and Society, 19, 5, 455-468.
Fuller, M., Georgeson, J. Healey, M., Hurst, A., Riddell, S., Roberts, H. and Weedon, E. (2008 forthcoming) Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students’ Learning in Higher Education London: Routledge.
Healey M., Fuller M., Bradley A., and Hall T. (2006) Listening to students: the experiences of disabled students of learning at university, in Adams, M. and Brown, S. (Eds) Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher Education: Developing Curricula forDisabled Students. London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp.32-43.
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
30
Healey, M., Roberts, H., Fuller, M., Georgeson, J. Hurst, A., Kelly, K., Riddell, S. and Weedon, E. (2008) ‘Reasonable adjustments and disabled students’ experiences of learning, teaching and assessment’ TLA Interchange 2www.tla.ed.ac.uk/interchange.
Hurst, A. (2007) ‘Students with disabilities in HE in the twenty first century’ In Barnes, L. et al. (eds.) Deaf Students in Higher Education Coleford, Glos: Douglas McLean.
Hurst, A. (forthcoming) ‘Neurodiversity, Disability and Legislation’ in Pollak, D. (ed.) Neurodiversity in Higher EducationChichester: Wily.
Riddell, S., Weedon, E. Fuller, M., Healey, M., Hurst, A., Kelly, K. and Piggott, L., (2007) ‘Managerialism and equalities: tensions within widening access policies for disabled students in UK universities’, Higher Education, 54, 4, 615-628.
Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2007) ‘To those who have shall be given?’ Differing expectations of support among dyslexic students’ in Osborne, M., Houston, M. and Toman, N. (eds) The Pedagogy of Lifelong Learning London: Routledge
Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2008 forthcoming) ‘Disabled students and transitions in higher education’ in Ecclestone, K. (ed) in Lost in Transition: Change and Becoming Through Education and the Lifecourse London: Routledge.
IMPACTS
� Mary Fuller and Alan Hurst were invited to be members of the Advisory group for the Disability Quality Assurance Agency’s revision of the Code of Practice Section 3 ‘Students with Disabilities’ in 2008. � Sheila Riddell was invited to join the Disability Rights Commission’s expert panel reviewing fitness to practise standards in teaching, social work and nursing, which reported in September 2007. � Alan Hurst was a member of HEFCE’s Disability Policy Review, 1997-2007.
FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES
� The development and limits of inclusive curricula in higher education.
� The experiences and outcomes of disabled graduates in the labour market.
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
31
References Bennett, N., Dunne, E. and Carre, C. (1999) ‘Patterns of core and generic skills in higher education,
Higher Education, 37, 1, 71-93.
Broadfoot, P. (1999) Empowerment or performativity? English assessment policy in the late twentieth century. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex, 2-5 September.
Dunne, E. Bennett, N. and Carre, C. (1997) ‘Higher education: Core skills in a learning society’ Journal of Education Policy 12, 6, 511-525.
Elton, L. (2004) ‘A challenge to established assessment practice’ Higher EducationQuarterly 58, 1, 43-62.
Field, J. (2006) Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Stoke onTrent: Trentham
Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A. and Hall, T. (2004) ‘Barriers to learning: A systematic study of the experiences of disabled students in higher education’ Studies in Higher Education, 29, 3, 303-318.
Fuller, M., Healey, M. and Bradley, A. (2004) ‘Incorporating disabled students within an inclusive higher education environment’ Disability and Society, 19, 5, 455-468.
Fuller, M., Georgeson, J. Healey, M., Hurst, A., Riddell, S., Roberts, H. and Weedon,
E. (2008 forthcoming) Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students’ Learning in Higher Education London: Routledge.
Healey M., Fuller M., Bradley A., and Hall T. (2006) ‘Listening to students: the experiences of disabled students of learning at university’ in Adams, M. and Brown, S. (Eds) Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher Education: Developing Curricula for Disabled Students London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp.32-43.
Healey, M., Roberts, H., Fuller, M., Georgeson, J. Hurst, A., Kelly, K., Riddell, S. and Weedon, E. (2008) ‘Reasonable adjustments and disabled students’ experiences of learning, teaching and assessment’ TLA Interchange 2 www.tla.ed.ac.uk/interchange.
Leathwood, C. (2005) Assessment policy and practice in higher education: purpose, standards and equity, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30, 3, 307-324.
Morley, L. (2003) Quality and Power in Higher Education Maidenhead: SRHE and Open University Press.
Riddell, S, Tinklin, T. and Wilson, A. (2005) Disabled Students in Higher Education London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Riddell, S, Weedon, E, Fuller, M, Healey, M, Hurst, A, Kelly, K, Piggot, L. (2007) ‘Managerialism and equalities: tensions within widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities’ Higher Education 54, 4, 615-628.
Riddell, S. and Weedon, E. (2006) ‘What counts as a reasonable adjustment? Dyslexic students and the concept of fair assessment’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 16, 1,
Scottish Executive (2003) Life Through Learning: Learning Through Life.Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/lifelong/llsm-00.asp. Accessed 25.03.07
Simpson, M. (2005) Assessment: Policy and Practice in Education Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press).
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
32
Sharp, K. and Earle, S. (2000) Assessment, disability and the problem of compensation Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25, 2, 191-199.
Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2007) ‘To those who have shall be given?’ Differing expectations of support among dyslexic students’ in Osborne, M., Houston, M. and Toman, N. (eds) The Pedagogy of Lifelong Learning London: Routledge.
Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2008 forthcoming) ‘Disabled students and transitions in higher education’ in Ecclestone, K. (ed) in Lost in Transition: Change and Becoming Through Education and the Lifecourse London: Routledge.
Wolfendale, S. & Corbett, J. (Eds.) (1996) Opening Doors: Learning Support in Higher EducationLondon: Cassell.
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
Tab
le 7
. Key
cha
ract
erist
ics/
issu
es fo
r st
uden
ts
33
Stud
ent/
Inst
/C
ours
e
Indi
vidu
al
char
acte
ristic
s/
Impa
irmen
t
Tran
sitio
ns:
Vert
ical
/H
oriz
onta
l
Tran
sitio
ns:
Iden
tity
Iden
tity
DSA
/ D
DA
aw
aren
ess
Rea
sona
ble
Adj
ustm
ents
T
& L
exp
erie
nce
Enga
gem
ent w
ith
inst
itutio
n So
cial
exp
erie
nce
Out
com
e
Jean
ED
Bed
U. 1
Mat
ure
(ear
ly 3
0s),
Wor
king
cla
ss,
Dys
lexi
a, id
entif
ied
on e
ntry
(med
ical
)
Col
lege
(SW
AP
A
cces
s) to
U
nive
rsity
; M
othe
r - s
tude
nt
From
wife
and
m
othe
r to
stud
ent t
each
er;
stru
ggle
d w
ith
dysl
exia
iden
tity
Stru
ggle
d to
co
me
to te
rms
with
dys
lexi
a;
didn
’t se
e he
rsel
f as
dis
able
d
DS
A: c
ompu
ter
softw
are
and
a sc
anni
ng p
en
whi
ch w
as n
ot
usef
ul; l
imite
d D
DA
aw
aren
ess
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sG
ood;
but
di
fficu
lties
with
di
sclo
sure
on
plac
emen
t
Aca
dem
ic s
taff
supp
ortiv
e; D
O s
een
as p
atro
nisi
ng
Mar
ried
with
fam
ily
but m
uch
info
rmal
co
ntac
t with
oth
er
stud
ents
Firs
t;pr
obat
ione
r pl
ace
in
scho
ol
Lesl
ey
BE
d E
D
U. 1
Mat
ure
(late
20s
); m
iddl
e cl
ass,
M
ultip
le: m
obili
ty;
hear
ing;
‘dys
lexi
a’
– no
form
al
diag
nosi
s
Pro
blem
s w
ith
med
ical
(hea
ring)
; but
ac
cept
ed: A
le
vels
Wor
k to
un
iver
sity
; wife
at
hom
e –
stud
ent
Em
ploy
ee to
st
uden
tE
mph
asis
ed h
er
impa
irmen
ts to
en
sure
sup
port
DS
A: l
apto
p,
note
take
r (1st
year
), tra
vel
allo
wan
ce;
know
ledg
e of
D
DA
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s; e
xam
on
com
pute
r in
sepa
rate
room
;
Crit
ical
; esp
ecia
lly
in te
rms
of b
eing
ab
le to
join
in
certa
in g
roup
ac
tiviti
es +
PE
; pr
oble
ms
on
plac
emen
t
Felt
that
sta
ff an
d D
O
did
not f
ully
resp
ond
to h
er n
eeds
; di
fficu
lties
get
ting
in
touc
h w
ith D
O a
t tim
es; s
taff
ques
tione
d he
r su
itabi
lity
as a
teac
her
Mar
ried;
foun
d it
diffi
cult
to e
ngag
e w
ith o
ther
stu
dent
s;
grou
pwor
k w
as
diffi
cult
Year
out
end
of
yea
r 3;
preg
nant
And
rew
ED
Bed
U. 1
18-2
5; w
orki
ng
clas
s; m
othe
r di
sabl
ed &
wid
ow
Mob
ility
(Cer
ebra
l P
alsy
); U
nsee
n:
Ast
hma;
from
birt
h
Col
lege
(HN
C) t
o un
iver
sity
; Son
of
dis
able
d m
othe
r – s
tude
nt
To s
tude
nt –
th
en p
rofe
ssio
nal
teac
her;
stru
ggle
w
ith ‘d
isab
led’
id
entit
y
Did
not
see
hi
mse
lf as
di
sabl
ed; d
id n
ot
wan
t to
be
treat
eddi
ffere
ntly
(h
ence
no
cont
act w
ith D
O
at fi
rst)
DS
A b
ut n
o co
ntac
t with
DO
un
til e
nd y
ear 2
(c
ompu
ter f
rom
co
llege
); lim
ited
DD
A a
war
enes
s
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s fro
m y
ear
3 on
; did
not
w
ant e
xtra
tim
e fo
r ass
ignm
ents
Goo
d an
d st
aff
supp
ortiv
e;pr
oble
ms
on o
ne
plac
emen
t –
dom
estic
issu
es
Aca
dem
ic s
taff
supp
ortiv
e; fi
rst
expe
rienc
e of
DO
ne
gativ
e –
but t
hen
good
Live
d at
hom
e; b
ut
good
gro
up o
f fri
ends
at u
ni a
nd
hom
e
2:2
prob
atio
ner
plac
e in
sc
hool
Fred
ED
Com
m
Ed
U. 1
18-2
5; M
iddl
e cl
ass;
Dys
lexi
a;
iden
tifie
d at
age
9/
10 –
in th
e fa
mily
; m
uch
supp
ort a
t sc
hool
Pub
licsc
hool
/gap
yea
r to
uni
vers
ity;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Lim
ited
iden
tity
trans
ition
?Fr
iend
s fro
m o
ld
setti
ng; r
ugby
pl
ayin
g, n
ot
carr
ying
on
with
in v
ocat
ion
qual
ified
to d
o
No
prob
lem
in
disc
losi
ng h
is
dysl
exia
; did
not
fe
el h
e w
as
disa
bled
but
for
som
e dy
slex
ia
was
dis
ablin
g
DS
A: c
ompu
ter
& s
oftw
are;
lim
ited
DD
A
awar
enes
s
Ent
itled
to e
xtra
tim
e in
exa
ms
– bu
t virt
ually
no
tradi
tiona
l exa
ms
on c
ours
e.
Goo
d ov
eral
l but
in
itial
ly c
ritic
al o
f la
ck o
f tut
oria
ls.
Pla
cem
ents
goo
d,
disc
losu
re n
ot a
n is
sue
Goo
d, s
taff
seen
as
supp
ortiv
e; n
o ne
ed to
co
ntac
t DO
afte
r ini
tial
cont
act.
Sm
all
depa
rtmen
t
Sha
red
flat w
ith
frien
ds, r
ugby
mai
n fo
cus
for
soci
alis
ing;
muc
h he
lp, e
.g.
proo
fread
ing
from
gi
rlfrie
nd
2:2;
not
in
tend
ing
stay
in
Com
m E
d.A
imin
g fo
r m
ore
prac
tical
w
ork
Eua
n
ED
Ast
roph
ysic
s U. 1
18-2
5; M
iddl
e cl
ass;
Men
tal H
ealth
; id
entif
ied
at s
choo
l (s
pent
5th/6
th y
ear
mos
tly a
t hom
e –
with
wor
k fro
m
scho
ol)
Did
not
dis
clos
e in
itial
ly s
o st
arte
d 3
times
;C
omp
scho
ol/h
ome
educ
atio
n to
un
iver
sity
; son
at
hom
e –
stud
ent
Stro
ng fo
cus
on
bein
g an
in
depe
nden
tst
uden
t; fo
cus
on
skill
s of
a
stud
ent
Stru
ggle
d w
ith
disc
losu
re; s
aw
MH
as
a di
sabi
lity
but f
elt
othe
rs w
ould
not
DS
A:
lapt
op, P
A
to a
ccom
pany
to
lect
ures
(initi
ally
); tu
tor
supp
ort
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sS
trugg
led
to w
ork
out h
ow to
tack
le
his
stud
ies;
lim
ited
supp
ort f
rom
ac
adem
ic s
taff;
qu
estio
ned
use
of
lect
ures
; stro
ng
emph
asis
on
tradi
tiona
l exa
ms
Diff
icul
ties
appr
oach
ing
DoS
and
to
eng
age
with
ac
adem
ic s
taff.
Live
d at
hom
e, w
ell
supp
orte
d by
fa
mily
; foc
al p
oint
at
uni
= C
hapl
ainc
y
Faile
d ex
ams
end
of y
ear 3
; no
t allo
wed
to
prog
ress
into
ye
ar 4
; will
get
O
rd. i
f su
cces
sful
; ha
s ha
d jo
b in
terv
iew
s fo
r IT
wor
k K
athr
yn
ED
Che
mis
try
(5 y
ears
)
U. 1
18-2
5; m
iddl
e cl
ass;
Uns
een:
Dia
bete
s;
diag
nose
d w
hen
youn
g
Irish
com
p ed
ucat
ion
to
univ
ersi
ty;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Did
not
see
he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
or a
s re
q’g
any
spec
ial
arra
ngem
ents
; le
arnt
to li
ve w
ith
diab
etes
No
DS
A;
disc
lose
d on
ap
plic
atio
n fo
rm
Non
e; b
ut D
oS/
acad
emic
sta
ff ve
ry s
uppo
rtive
w
hen
ill
Goo
d; re
ally
en
thus
iast
ic a
bout
le
arni
ng a
nd h
er
degr
ee;
Year
out
in S
pain
su
cces
sful
Ver
y go
od c
onta
ct
with
DoS
and
oth
er
staf
f
Sha
red
flat f
rom
st
art;
flatm
ates
v
supp
ortiv
e; s
hare
d fla
t in
Spa
in a
nd
stay
ed a
way
from
E
rasm
us s
tude
nts
On
track
to
com
plet
e in
fiv
e ye
ar
degr
ee
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
Tere
sa
ED
Bio
scie
nce
U.1
18-2
5 bu
t see
s he
rsel
f as
mat
ure
stud
ent;
Oth
er:
Epi
leps
y; h
ad
seiz
ure
whe
n yo
ung
but e
pile
psy
not c
onfir
med
unt
il 18
; und
iscl
osed
M
H
Wor
king
to
univ
ersi
ty;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Doe
s no
t lik
e la
bel ‘
disa
bled
’ –
but s
ees
that
as
her p
robl
em w
ith
acce
ptin
gdi
sabl
ed p
eopl
e
Did
not
con
tact
D
O in
itial
ly, d
id
at e
nd o
f yea
r 2;
got D
SA
: co
mpu
ter,
reco
rdin
g eq
uipm
ent &
bo
ok a
llow
ance
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s (w
hen
seen
DO
); se
para
te ro
om –
di
dn’t
like
it.
Rea
lly e
njoy
ed th
e co
urse
but
had
se
rious
pro
blem
s w
ith a
ttend
ance
du
e to
mig
rain
es
(par
t of e
pile
psy)
; an
d in
com
plet
ing
asse
ssm
ents
; als
o af
fect
ed b
y un
disc
lose
dde
pres
sion
Goo
d su
ppor
t fro
m
DoS
who
trie
d ha
rd to
su
ppor
t her
and
sta
y in
touc
h w
hen
she
was
not
in c
lass
In H
alls
1st y
ear,
then
sha
red
flat;
desc
ribed
her
self
as a
mat
ure
stud
ent w
ho h
ad
little
in c
omm
on
with
you
ng
stud
ents
but
had
a
smal
l gro
up o
f cl
ose
frien
ds
Yea
r out
afte
r 2nd
yea
r; re
turn
ed in
to
3rd y
ear;
drop
ped
out;
coul
d no
t kee
p up
with
de
man
ds;
wou
ld li
ke to
st
udy
p-t b
ut
finan
ces
don’
t al
low
Fi
ona
ED
BS
c Zo
olog
y
U. 1
18-2
5; w
orki
ng
clas
s (fa
rmin
g)
Oth
er: H
eart
cond
ition
; dan
ger i
n la
b if
she
cut
hers
elf a
s m
edic
ine
redu
ces
bloo
d’s
abili
ty to
clo
t; fro
m
birth
, had
two
big
oper
atio
ns w
hils
t at
prim
ary
scho
ol
Com
p sc
hool
to
univ
ersi
ty;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g;R
ecei
ves
mea
ns
test
edbu
rsar
y
Did
not
see
he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
but
had
no
diff
icul
ties
with
kno
win
g ab
out h
er
cond
ition
No
DS
A;
how
ever
, co
ntac
ted
DO
ab
out p
oss.
D
ysle
xia
in y
ear
3; n
egat
ive
expe
rienc
e
Non
eG
ener
ally
pos
itive
but f
elt f
eedb
ack
poor
ear
ly in
co
urse
; dis
serta
tion
was
hig
h po
int
Aca
dem
ic s
taff
wer
e ap
proa
chab
le; l
ittle
co
ntac
t with
DoS
but
di
d no
t fee
l she
ne
eded
it
Hal
ls 1
st y
ear;
then
sh
ared
flat
with
fri
ends
; goo
d ci
rcle
of
frie
nds
hom
e an
d un
i
2:1;
wor
king
in
rese
arch
lab
(whe
re s
he
did
diss
erta
tion
(test
ing
to s
ee
if sh
e w
ants
to
cont
inue
to
PhD
)
Ann
e
ED
Eng
lish
Lit &
His
tory
U.1
18-2
5; m
iddl
e cl
ass;
Oth
er: D
yspr
axia
; di
agno
sed
whi
lst a
t sc
hool
Pub
licsc
hool
/gap
yea
r to
uni
vers
ity;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Doe
s no
t wan
t to
desc
ribe
hers
elf
as d
isab
led
– to
o m
uch
stig
ma;
w
ants
‘nor
mal
lif
e’
DS
A; c
ompu
ter +
so
ftwar
e;
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s,ex
tens
ions
on
cour
sew
ork
until
ye
ar 3
‘exa
m
essa
y’;
com
men
ted
on
‘leni
ency
with
sp
ellin
g’ a
dvic
e on
LP
– s
pelli
ng
not o
ne o
f her
pr
oble
ms
Gen
eral
ly p
ositi
ve
but f
elt t
hat t
here
w
as a
lack
of
cont
act t
ime
in
year
s 3
& 4
; w
ante
d cl
ear s
teer
fro
m le
ctur
er in
se
min
ars;
mix
ed
feel
ings
abo
ut
grou
pwor
k;
emph
asis
on
essa
y/ex
am
asse
ssm
ents
Eng
lish
Lit s
taff
seen
as
mor
e ap
proa
chab
le th
an
His
tory
Hal
ls 1
st y
ear t
hen
shar
ed fl
at;
prob
lem
atic
in y
ear
2 bu
t cha
nged
and
fo
und
good
gro
up
of fr
iend
s; h
er
dysp
raxi
a m
eant
sh
e ha
d to
wor
k ha
rd =
impa
cted
on
soci
al li
fe
Hop
es fo
r 2:1
, pr
essu
re fr
om
pare
nts
to g
et
at le
ast 2
:1.
Got
a 2
:1 b
ut
is g
radu
atin
g la
te –
Nov
- in
ab
sent
ia
Mic
helle
ED
His
tory
U. 1
18-2
5; w
orki
ng
clas
s bu
t not
st
raig
ht fr
om s
choo
l O
ther
: pro
blem
with
ha
nd; d
iagn
osis
not
cl
ear,
doct
or
thou
ght
arth
ritis
/rheu
mat
ism
as
ther
e w
as
fam
ily h
isto
ry (a
lso
men
tione
d M
E
whi
lst a
t sch
ool)
Col
lege
(Hig
hers
) to
univ
ersi
ty;
daug
hter
at
hom
e –
stud
ent
Con
side
red
hers
elf t
o be
‘s
light
ly
disa
bled
’; be
ing
labe
lled
did
not
wor
ry h
er a
s it
help
ed h
er g
et
extra
tim
e in
ex
ams
No
DS
A (n
ot
sure
how
to
clai
m);
appr
oach
ed D
O
beca
use
of
writ
ing
diffi
culti
es
in le
ctur
es a
nd
exam
s
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sS
uppo
rt fro
m w
ithin
th
e de
partm
ent
varie
d w
ith s
ome
prov
idin
g ex
celle
nt
feed
back
and
ot
hers
not
en
gagi
ng w
ith
stud
ents
Mic
helle
’s m
ain
enga
gem
ent w
as
thro
ugh
stud
ent
polit
ics.
Des
crib
ed
hers
elf a
s a
very
so
ciab
le p
erso
n
Live
d at
hom
e ex
cept
for 3
rd y
ear
whe
n sh
e m
oved
in
to a
sha
red
flat.
Hop
ed fo
r a
2:1;
cons
ider
edgo
ing
into
te
achi
ng(P
GD
E);
got
Th
ird
Kar
rie
ED
Mod
ern
lang
uage
s:S
pani
sh
18-2
5; w
orki
ng
clas
s;W
heel
chai
r use
r: C
ereb
ral P
alsy
Com
p sc
hool
to
univ
ersi
ty;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g du
ring
wee
k; d
augh
ter
Des
crib
edhe
rsel
f as
disa
bled
; but
un
iver
sity
ex
perie
nce
DS
A: C
ompu
ter,
PA
, not
e-ta
ker;
spec
ial
acco
mm
odat
ion
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s;P
robl
ems
whe
n no
te-ta
ker n
ot
able
to
Exc
elle
nt s
uppo
rt fro
m d
epar
tmen
t &
DO
; sta
ff de
scrib
ed
her a
s la
id b
ack
and
able
to e
xpre
ss
Took
full
part
in a
ll te
achi
ng a
ctiv
ities
G
ood
rapp
ort w
ith
othe
r stu
dent
s bu
t lim
ited
cont
act
outs
ide
clas
s;
supp
ort n
eeds
3; a
ccep
ted
to
do a
PG
DE
at
a di
ffere
nt
inst
itutio
n
34
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
U. 1
at
hom
e at
w
eeke
nds
conf
irmed
her
id
entit
y as
‘not
m
enta
llyde
ficie
nt’
spea
k/w
rite
lang
uage
her n
eeds
; Yea
r ab
road
goo
d bu
t on
ly p
ossi
ble
due
to fa
ther
taki
ng
year
out
from
wor
k
mea
nt s
he w
ent
hom
e at
wee
kend
s
Dav
id
ED
Env
ironm
enta
l Geo
-sc
ienc
e
U. 1
18-2
5; m
iddl
e cl
ass;
Mul
tiple
: cys
tic
fibro
sis,
dia
bete
s,
epile
psy;
had
op
erat
ion
to
rem
ove
brai
n tu
mou
r in
year
3
Com
p. s
choo
l to
univ
ersi
ty;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Acc
epts
his
impa
irmen
t but
di
d no
t wan
t la
belle
ddi
sabl
ed.
Acc
epts
that
he
had
may
be
unde
rpla
yed
impa
ct o
f his
im
pairm
ent
No
DS
A; c
onta
ct
with
DO
end
2nd
year
Ext
ra ti
me,
se
para
te ro
om
for e
xam
(3rd
year
)
Sta
ff su
ppor
tive
but
Dav
id te
nded
to
blam
e hi
mse
lf fo
r no
t wor
king
har
d en
ough
Avo
ided
eng
agin
g w
ith s
taff
over
di
sabi
lity
issu
es b
ut
regr
ets
it at
the
end.
W
ishe
d th
at D
O h
ad a
m
ore
proa
ctiv
e ap
proa
ch w
ith
stud
ents
like
him
self
as h
e w
as re
luct
ant t
o m
ake
cont
act
Mai
n fo
cus
of
soci
alis
ing
is b
ike
club
(was
pre
side
nt
of c
lub)
; did
a lo
t of
cycl
ing
to s
tay
fit
Not
allo
wed
to
prog
ress
to
hono
urs
year
; ge
tting
ordi
nary
de
gree
–
awai
ting
resu
lts; c
ame
back
(afte
r op)
to
com
plet
e se
mes
ter 2
of
3rd y
ear;
wor
king
te
mpo
rary
–
inte
ndin
g to
go
into
Lan
d M
anag
emen
tC
onse
rvat
ion
(trai
n on
job)
R
ebec
ca
ED
Arc
hi-
Tect
ure
U. 1
18-2
5; m
iddl
e cl
ass;
Dys
lexi
a;
diag
nose
d ea
rly,
mot
her
inst
rum
enta
l in
ensu
ring
supp
ort a
t sc
hool
and
als
o at
ho
me
Gra
mm
ar S
choo
l to
uni
vers
ity;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g. C
ours
e se
lect
edbe
caus
e of
dy
slex
ia
From
dau
ghte
r to
stu
dent
; tra
nsiti
on to
pr
ofes
sion
alid
entit
y
Did
not
see
he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
;dy
slex
ia b
oth
nega
tive
&
posi
tive.
Arc
hite
ctur
ech
osen
bec
ause
of
dys
lexi
a
DS
A: c
ompu
ter,
softw
are,
ph
otoc
opyi
ng,
dysl
exia
tuto
r; pr
oofre
ader
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sS
taff
very
su
ppor
tive;
depa
rtmen
t sm
all
and
good
con
tact
be
twee
n st
aff &
st
uden
ts, s
taff
appr
oach
able
;te
achi
ng v
arie
d an
d w
ide
rang
e of
as
sess
men
ts
Con
tact
ed D
O a
fter
star
ting
cour
se
Ver
y so
ciab
le m
any
frien
ds h
ome
and
uni;
fam
ily a
nd
chur
ch v
ery
impo
rtant
2:1;
Goi
ng o
n to
the
seco
nd
part
of
Arc
hite
ctur
equ
alifi
catio
n(E
d or
M
anch
este
r)
Jam
es
ED
Geo
-gr
aphy
U. 1
18-2
5; m
iddl
e cl
ass;
Dys
lexi
a;
diag
nose
d ea
rly,
olde
r bro
ther
dy
slex
ic
Pub
licsc
hool
/gap
yea
r to
uni
vers
ity;
inde
pend
ent
livin
g
Did
not
con
side
r hi
mse
lf di
sabl
ed
but n
ot w
orrie
d ab
out t
ellin
g pe
ople
abo
ut h
is
dysl
exia
(nee
d’s
basi
s)
DS
A: c
ompu
ter,
softw
are,
ph
otoc
opyi
ng
allo
wan
ce;
proo
fread
er in
fin
al y
ear f
or
diss
erta
tion
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sS
uppo
rt of
fere
d by
st
aff i
n de
pt. g
ood
if yo
u ap
proa
ched
th
em; T
& L
OK
but
fe
lt th
ere
was
not
en
ough
con
tact
tim
e
Con
tact
DO
afte
r st
artin
g co
urse
, in
itial
ly th
ough
t his
dy
slex
ia w
as to
o m
ild
to w
arra
nt s
uppo
rt
Ver
y in
volv
ed in
vo
lunt
ary
wor
k,
both
dur
ing
term
tim
e an
d al
so in
ho
liday
s (p
roje
ct in
M
exic
o)
Firs
t; st
arte
d tra
inin
g on
Te
ach
Firs
t pr
ogra
mm
e Ju
ne 2
007
Car
a
Edu
catio
nst
udie
sm
ajor
, geo
-gr
aphy
m
inor
U. 2
18-2
5, lo
wer
mid
dle
clas
s, d
ysle
xia,
di
agno
sed
afte
r le
avin
g si
xth
form
, de
pres
sion
diag
nose
d du
ring
sixt
h fo
rm, o
nly
dysl
exia
dec
lare
d to
inst
itutio
n
Non
e;co
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol, w
ent t
o w
ork
in a
su
perm
arke
taf
ter A
’ lev
els,
de
cide
d to
com
e to
uni
vers
ity to
be
tter h
er
empl
oym
ent
pros
pect
s
Ver
y w
ary
of
disc
losi
ngde
pres
sion
, had
se
vera
l bad
ex
perie
nces
th
roug
h si
x fo
rm,
from
bot
h te
ache
rs a
nd
frien
ds
DS
A: c
ompu
ter,
softw
are,
dy
slex
ia tu
tor
(not
arr
ange
d un
til th
e en
d of
ye
ar tw
o), s
ome
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
D
DA
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sH
as e
njoy
ed
univ
ersi
ty b
ut d
oes
not f
eel s
he h
as
been
abl
e to
sho
w
her f
ull p
oten
tial
due
to p
anic
at
tack
s in
exa
ms,
w
ould
hav
e be
nefit
ed fr
om
alte
rnat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
Som
e st
aff m
ore
supp
ortiv
e th
an
othe
rs.
Did
not
feel
ve
ry s
uppo
rted
by
disa
bilit
y of
fice.
Firs
t D
O v
ery
good
, lef
t in
year
3, r
epla
cem
ent
not v
ery
good
Live
d in
hal
ls a
ll th
roug
h un
i, go
t in
volv
ed in
lots
of
soci
etie
s an
d w
as a
co
urse
rep
2:1,
hop
ing
to
purs
ue a
st
age
care
er,
had
lots
of
expe
rienc
e be
fore
uni
35
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
Cas
sie
Crim
inol
ogy
- cha
nged
fro
m P
sych
-ol
ogy
at
star
t of y
ear
2 U. 2
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
dys
lexi
a,
diag
nose
d du
ring
A’ l
evel
s af
ter
reco
gnis
ing
her
own
prob
lem
s du
ring
a le
ctur
e on
dy
slex
ia
Non
e,co
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol, c
ame
stra
ight
from
si
xth
form
Gla
d of
dys
lexi
a di
agno
sis,
alw
ays
thou
ght
she
was
stu
pid.
Fi
nds
it ha
rd to
as
k fo
r hel
p as
sh
e is
so
used
to
tryin
g to
hid
e he
r di
fficu
lties
DS
A: c
ompu
ter,
dysl
exia
tuto
r (w
hich
the
univ
ersi
ty d
id n
ot
let h
er k
now
she
co
uld
have
), ha
s fo
und
out s
he
shou
ld h
ave
had
mor
e fin
anci
al
supp
ort t
han
she
acce
ssed
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
sE
njoy
ed h
er
cour
se, g
lad
she
chan
ged
cour
se.
Som
e tu
tors
ver
y he
lpfu
l, so
me
not
help
ful a
t all
Ver
y di
sapp
oint
ed
with
the
disa
bilit
y of
fice
for a
num
ber o
f re
ason
s. F
ound
sta
ff in
her
sch
ool o
ffice
ve
ry h
elpf
ul
Live
d in
hal
ls
thro
ugho
ut
univ
ersi
ty,
volu
ntee
red
in
year
s on
e an
d tw
o,
join
ed a
soc
iety
an
d be
cam
e co
urse
rep
in y
ear
thre
e, w
ishe
d sh
e ha
d do
ne b
oth
soon
er
2:1,
goi
ng
trave
lling
for a
ye
ar
Cha
rity
His
tory
U.2
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
dys
prax
ia,
diag
nose
d ag
ed 7
, w
as re
cogn
ised
by
her m
othe
r, w
ho is
a
teac
her
Non
e, p
ublic
sc
hool
, cam
e st
raig
ht to
un
iver
sity
Doe
sn’t
see
dysp
raxi
a as
a
disa
bilit
y, n
ot
wor
ried
abou
t di
sclo
sing
but
pe
ople
don
’t te
nd to
un
ders
tand
and
th
ink
it is
a ty
pe
of d
ysle
xia
DS
A: d
oesn
’t ge
t an
y, is
wro
ng in
ca
se s
tudy
! Not
m
uch
know
ledg
e of
DD
A
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s. F
eels
sh
e w
ould
be
nefit
from
no
tes
in a
dvan
ce
but t
hese
are
not
of
ten
prov
ided
Enj
oyed
her
co
urse
, ten
ded
to
choo
se m
odul
es
with
tuto
rs s
he g
ot
on w
ell w
ith.
Ple
nty
of c
hoic
e of
m
odul
es
Sen
t inf
o ab
out
dysl
exia
dro
p-in
s, b
ut
didn
’t go
bec
ause
di
dn’t
rega
rd h
erse
lf as
dys
lexi
c
Live
d in
hal
ls th
en
a st
uden
t hou
se.
Invo
lved
in lo
ts o
f so
ciet
ies
in fi
rst
year
and
act
iviti
es
thro
ugh
the
chap
el
2:2
Cor
inne
Psy
chol
ogy
in Edu
catio
n
U. 2
18-2
5, h
earin
g lo
ss
from
birt
h N
one,
com
preh
ensi
vesc
hool
and
a g
ap
year
to w
ork
befo
re u
nive
rsity
No
cont
actw
ith
disa
bilit
y of
fice-
re
gard
ed h
erse
lf as
‘ no
t tha
t di
sabl
ed’,
even
th
ough
her
he
arin
g lo
ss w
as
quite
sig
nific
ant
No
DS
A, h
as
neve
r bee
n su
gges
ted
to h
er
that
she
may
be
elig
ible
, kno
ws
abou
t DD
A
thro
ugh
wor
king
w
ith d
isab
led
child
ren
Non
eE
njoy
ed h
er
cour
se, v
ery
capa
ble
stud
ent,
finds
not
e ta
king
ch
alle
ngin
g as
she
re
lies
on li
p re
adin
g an
d ca
nnot
lip
read
an
d w
rite
at th
e sa
me
time
No
cont
act f
rom
di
sabi
lity
offic
e.
Indi
vidu
al tu
tors
he
lpfu
l- tri
ed to
re
mem
ber t
o fa
ce th
e cl
ass
whe
n ta
lkin
g
Com
mut
es fr
om
hom
e, c
hoos
e un
i so
she
cou
ld d
o th
is a
nd k
eep
her
part-
time
job.
Live
d w
ith m
othe
r in
yea
r one
then
m
oved
in w
ith
partn
er.
Has
room
in
hal
ls in
cas
e sh
e w
ants
to s
tay
over
with
drew
Dar
ren
IT a
nd
mul
ti-m
edia
U. 3
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
dys
lexi
a,
diag
nose
d in
pr
imar
y sc
hool
Non
e,co
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol, c
ame
stra
ight
to
univ
ersi
ty
Did
not
see
hi
mse
lf as
di
sabl
ed.
Hap
py
to d
iscl
ose
his
dysl
exia
, fel
t he
had
deve
lope
d go
od c
opin
g st
rate
gies
ove
r th
e ye
ars
so it
di
d no
t wor
ry h
im
too
muc
h
DS
A: c
ompu
ter,
cons
umab
le a
nd
book
allo
wan
ce
and
extra
stu
dy
skill
s tu
ition
du
ring
year
one
. N
o kn
owle
dge
of
DD
A
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s an
d us
e of
a c
ompu
ter i
n a
sepa
rate
room
, au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n fo
r co
urse
wor
k
Enj
oyed
his
cou
rse,
w
ould
hav
e lik
ed to
be
abl
e to
do
mor
e m
ultim
edia
, diff
icul
t as
it is
hea
vy w
ith
pre-
requ
isite
s he
di
d no
t hav
e th
e m
odul
e al
low
ance
to
take
Got
on
wel
l with
tu
tors
, dis
abili
ty o
ffice
al
way
s ar
rang
ed h
is
com
pute
r and
ext
ra
time
for e
xam
s.W
ould
like
mor
e no
tice
of e
xam
dat
es
so h
e ca
n pl
an
revi
sion
. H
ad a
lette
r fro
m s
tude
nt re
cord
s sa
ying
he
did
not
have
the
right
m
odul
es to
gra
duat
e th
ree
mon
ths
befo
re
end
of c
ours
e, s
orte
d no
w b
ut s
tress
ful
Sta
yed
livin
g at
ho
me
and
com
mut
ed to
uni
, ke
pt h
is p
art-t
ime
job
at h
is o
ld
scho
ol u
ntil
year
th
ree.
Has
frie
nds
at b
oth
uni a
nd
hom
e. M
anag
ed to
ge
t thr
ough
uni
w
ithou
t a s
tude
nt
loan
thro
ugh
livin
g at
hom
e an
d w
orki
ng
2:1 36
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
Dun
can
Com
putin
g
U. 3
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
dys
lexi
a,
diag
nose
d du
ring
GC
SE
s
Non
e,co
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol, c
ame
stra
ight
to
univ
ersi
ty
Did
n’ts
eehi
mse
lf as
di
sabl
ed b
ut
didn
’t m
ind
the
labe
l, gl
ad o
f the
su
ppor
t he
has
had
sinc
e di
agno
sis
DS
A: c
ompu
ter
and
dysl
exia
tu
tor,
thou
gh h
e st
oppe
d us
ing
her a
fter h
er
advi
ce n
early
co
st h
im g
rade
s.Li
mite
dkn
owle
dge
of
DD
A
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s,au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n fo
r co
urse
wor
k
Enj
oyed
his
cou
rse,
de
velo
ped
new
ac
adem
ic in
tere
sts
thro
ugh
univ
ersi
ty,
got o
n w
ell w
ith h
is
tuto
rs
Felt
very
let d
own
by
dysl
exia
tuto
r, no
w
has
wor
k ch
ecke
d by
fri
ends
. D
isab
ility
of
fice
help
ful
othe
rwis
e, a
s ar
e tu
tors
Live
d in
lodg
ings
th
roug
hout
uni
, with
a
frien
d th
e fir
st
year
and
fore
ign
stud
ents
the
follo
win
g ye
ars,
got
on
wel
l with
the
fam
ily h
e lo
dged
w
ith.
Ver
y ac
tive
as c
ours
e re
p an
d on
RA
G c
omm
ittee
, w
ide
grou
p of
fri
ends
from
bot
h un
i and
par
t-tim
e jo
b in
tow
n
Ord
inar
y B
Sc,
if
furth
er w
ork
subm
itted
may
up
grad
e to
ho
nour
s
Daw
n
Geo
grap
hy
U. 3
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
mul
tiple
im
pairm
ents
No
prob
lem
from
un
iver
sity
but
sh
e ne
eded
to
ensu
reap
prop
riate
loca
l m
edic
al c
are.
M
ajor
pub
lic
scho
ol, c
ame
stra
ight
to
univ
ersi
ty
Did
not
see
he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
, tho
ugh
man
y th
ings
she
co
uld
not d
o du
e to
her
hea
lth
prob
lem
s
DS
A: h
ad h
er
own
com
pute
r so
used
allo
wan
ce
to b
uy s
oftw
are,
as
sess
ed a
s el
igib
le fo
r a n
ote
take
r but
did
n’t
feel
she
nee
ded
one
as s
he
wor
ks a
s a
note
ta
ker h
erse
lf.Li
mite
dkn
owle
dge
of
DD
A
Ext
ra ti
me
for
exam
s,au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n fo
r co
urse
wor
k,sm
all r
oom
for
pres
enta
tions
Enj
oyed
her
cou
rse
and
foun
d tu
tors
he
lpfu
l, th
ough
fo
und
one
asse
ssm
ent
uncl
ear a
nd w
as
not h
appy
with
the
supp
ort f
rom
her
tu
tor i
n th
is m
odul
e
Mor
e in
volv
ed w
ith
disa
bilit
y of
fice
thro
ugh
her j
ob th
an
thro
ugh
her d
isab
ility
st
atus
Live
d in
hal
ls th
en
stud
ent h
ouse
, so
me
prob
lem
s w
ith
acco
mm
odat
ion.
Mos
tly s
ocia
lises
th
roug
h th
e ch
apel
an
d w
ith c
lient
s sh
e no
te ta
kes
for.
Lung
impa
irmen
t pr
eclu
ded
man
y ac
tiviti
es
2:1
Dio
nne
Prim
ary
Edu
catio
n
U. 3
18-2
5, C
rohn
’s
Dis
ease
Non
e, G
irls’
gr
amm
ar s
choo
l, st
arte
d a
nurs
ing
cour
se b
ut h
ad
to le
ave
due
to
perio
d of
illn
ess,
w
orke
d fo
r 6
mon
ths
befo
re
star
ting
teac
hing
de
gree
Was
uns
ure
if sh
e cl
asse
d he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
. Fe
lt he
r im
pairm
ent
impa
cted
on
her
iden
tity
as s
he
felt
so d
iffer
ent
whe
n ill
, bot
h ph
ysic
ally
and
em
otio
nally
No
DS
A, o
nly
hear
d of
the
DD
A in
pas
sing
Had
bee
n w
ell a
t un
iver
sity
so
not
real
ly a
n is
sue,
bu
t tut
ors
save
d no
tes
for h
er if
sh
e ha
s to
mis
s an
y te
achi
ng fo
r ho
spita
lap
poin
tmen
ts
Enj
oyed
her
cl
asse
s, h
ad s
ome
troub
le w
ith m
aths
as
sess
men
ts, a
s ha
ve th
e w
hole
cl
ass,
thou
ght
assi
gnm
ent
desc
riptio
ns c
ould
be
cle
arer
No
cont
act w
ith
disa
bilit
y of
fice
desp
ite d
iscl
osin
g on
ap
plic
atio
n fo
rm.
Had
sp
oken
to h
er y
ear
lead
er, w
ho w
as v
ery
supp
ortiv
e an
d as
sure
d he
r the
y ca
n w
ork
out s
trate
gies
sh
ould
she
nee
d tim
e ou
t for
illn
ess
Sta
yed
livin
g at
ho
me
and
com
mut
ed, s
o th
at
she
coul
d st
ay w
ith
her l
ocal
hos
pita
l.H
ad a
goo
d bu
nch
of fr
iend
s at
uni
an
d of
ten
stay
ed
over
to s
ocia
lise
2:2
BE
d P
rimar
y
Der
mot
Com
putin
g
U. 3
18-2
5, e
pile
psy
Non
e,co
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol a
nd N
VQ
Did
not
see
hi
mse
lf as
di
sabl
ed a
s hi
s co
nditi
on c
omes
an
d go
es.
Not
w
orrie
d ab
out
disc
losi
ng b
ut
wou
ld li
ke it
if it
w
ere
labe
lled
in
a di
ffere
nt w
ay
DS
A: l
apto
p,
voic
e re
cord
er,
mon
ey to
war
ds
inte
rnet
at h
ome,
no
te ta
ker.
Mai
nly
unde
rsto
od D
DA
in
rela
tion
to
wor
k
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s an
d au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n on
as
sign
men
ts
Der
mot
enj
oyed
his
co
urse
but
had
a
perio
d of
illn
ess,
w
hich
left
him
ver
y fa
r beh
ind
in h
is
stud
ies.
He
left
the
univ
ersi
ty n
ot lo
ng
afte
r thi
s
Foun
d di
sabi
lity
offic
e ve
ry h
elpf
ul, a
s w
ere
all h
is tu
tors
Live
s at
hom
e an
d co
mm
utes
, rel
ies
on p
ublic
tran
spor
t an
d hi
s pa
rent
s fo
r lif
ts, h
as a
goo
d so
cial
life
and
is o
n a
univ
ersi
ty s
ports
te
am
With
draw
n in
05
/06
(Yea
r 2)
for f
ull t
ime
empl
oym
ent
37
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
38
Dal
ia
Mul
timed
ia
U. 3
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
whe
elch
air
user
Was
acc
epte
d at
an
othe
run
iver
sity
but
ha
d no
sup
port
in fi
ndin
g ac
cess
ible
ac
com
mod
atio
nso
re-a
pplie
d to
co
me
here
.A
ttend
edco
mpr
ehen
sive
scho
ol, w
ent t
o si
xth
form
co
llege
a y
ear
early
due
to
acce
ss is
sues
at
her s
choo
l
See
s he
rsel
f as
disa
bled
but
do
esn’
t thi
nk th
is
shou
ld s
top
her
from
doi
ng
anyt
hing
she
w
ants
, ver
y po
litic
ally
aw
are
in te
rms
of
disa
bilit
y
DS
A: c
ompu
ter
and
softw
are,
ha
s ha
d a
lot o
f tro
uble
tryi
ng to
ge
t sup
port
from
LE
A a
fter i
nitia
l as
sess
men
t.G
ood
know
ledg
e of
DD
A
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s an
d au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n on
as
sign
men
ts
Tuto
rs h
ave
been
he
lpfu
l, bu
t she
had
to
dro
p a
core
m
odul
e as
the
lift
brok
e an
d sh
e co
uldn
’t ge
t to
the
clas
sroo
m a
nd n
o al
tern
ativ
e te
achi
ng
was
offe
red
Has
had
lots
of
troub
le in
term
s of
ac
cess
ibili
ty, i
n bo
th
halls
and
get
ting
to
lect
ures
whe
n lif
ts
brea
k. H
ad n
ot fe
lt w
ell s
uppo
rted
in
eith
er o
f the
se a
reas
Live
d in
hal
ls th
en
a st
uden
t hou
se.
Ver
y ac
tive
in
term
s of
bot
h sp
orts
and
the
SU
, bi
g gr
oup
of fr
iend
s
Not
yet
gr
adua
ted
– be
lieve
d on
sa
bbat
ical
with
SU
Dai
sy
Her
itage
and
tour
ism
m
anag
e-m
ent
U. 3
18-2
5, m
iddl
e cl
ass,
vis
ual
impa
irmen
t,dy
slex
ia a
nd
dysp
raxi
a. V
isua
l im
pairm
ent f
rom
bi
rth, o
ther
s di
agno
sed
at
scho
ol, n
ot s
ure
exac
tly w
hen
Non
e, c
ame
stra
ight
from
si
xth
form
Did
n’tm
ind
bein
g de
scrib
ed
as a
dis
able
d st
uden
t but
did
n’t
thin
k of
her
self
as d
isab
led.
B
elie
ved
ever
yone
has
ra
nge
of th
ings
th
ey c
an a
nd
cann
ot d
o
DS
A: l
apto
p,
note
take
rs,
dysl
exia
tuto
r.
Gen
eral
un
ders
tand
ing
of
DD
A a
s an
ti-di
scrim
inat
ion
legi
slat
ion
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s an
d au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n fo
r as
sign
men
ts
Enj
oyed
her
co
urse
, par
ticul
arly
he
r maj
or, w
ould
pr
obab
ly h
ave
chos
en a
diff
eren
t m
inor
with
hi
ndsi
ght.
Tut
ors
gene
rally
hel
pful
, on
e in
par
ticul
ar
very
sup
porti
ve.
Foun
d he
r wee
k of
fie
ldw
ork
for a
m
odul
e ha
rd
with
out a
not
e ta
ker.
Had
trou
ble
with
som
e as
sess
men
ts a
nd
has
had
to h
ave
her n
ote
take
r do
mos
t of o
ne fo
r her
Lots
of c
onta
ct w
ith
disa
bilit
y of
fice,
pro
-ac
tive
in a
rran
ging
su
ppor
t for
her
self
but
slig
htly
ann
oyed
that
sh
e ha
d to
do
so
muc
h he
rsel
f Usi
ng
the
libra
ry v
ery
diffi
cult
due
to h
er
impa
irmen
t
Live
d in
hal
ls th
en
a st
uden
t hou
se,
soci
alis
ed a
lot
thro
ugh
her c
ours
e
2:2
Her
itage
M
anag
emen
tan
d To
uris
m
man
agem
ent
Dav
ina
Hos
pita
lity
man
age-
men
t with
sp
orts
tour
ism
man
age-
men
t
U. 3
18-2
5, d
ysle
xia
Mid
dle
clas
s,P
ublic
sch
ool
Non
e, c
ame
stra
ight
from
si
xth
form
.
Des
crib
edhe
rsel
f as
havi
ng
a le
arni
ng
prob
lem
rath
er
than
a d
iabi
lity,
pr
oud
of h
er
dysl
exia
, thi
nks
it m
akes
her
a
bette
r per
son
DS
A: y
es b
ut
uncl
ear w
hat i
t pa
ys fo
r. L
ittle
kn
owle
dge
of
DD
A.
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s an
d au
tom
atic
exte
nsio
n fo
r as
sign
men
ts
Love
d he
r cou
rse,
pa
rticu
larly
enj
oys
the
prac
tical
el
emen
t, en
joye
d he
r yea
r pla
cem
ent
abro
ad
Had
foun
d ev
eryo
ne
very
sup
porti
ve a
nd
help
ful
Live
d in
hal
ls th
en
a st
uden
t hou
se,
play
s on
a
univ
ersi
ty s
ports
te
am
With
draw
n se
mes
ter 2
07
/08
(Yea
r 3)
Bar
ry
BA
Cer
am-
ics
Mat
ure
(ear
ly 4
0s).
wor
king
cla
ss,
dysl
exia
iden
tifie
d du
ring
first
yea
r
Non
e; n
ight
cl
asse
s in
ce
ram
ics;
left
wor
k th
roug
h
Lack
edco
nfid
ence
-low
be
caus
e of
re
med
ial l
abel
at
DS
A: c
ompu
ter.
Ace
tate
s,S
ome
DD
A
awar
enes
s fro
m
Per
sona
ldy
slex
ia tu
tor;
stic
kers
on
essa
ys.
Enj
oyed
mos
t as
pect
s bu
t fin
ds it
ha
rd to
join
in
disc
ussi
ons
Sup
port
from
dys
lexi
a tu
tor w
as g
ood
but
subj
ect s
taff
didn
’t ha
ve a
nyth
ing
to d
o
Live
d w
ith p
aren
ts
whe
n ill
, but
live
d al
one;
out
side
in
tere
sts
(mar
tial
Rep
eate
dye
ar; n
ot y
et
com
plet
ed;
expe
cted
to
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC
U. 4
illne
ss a
nd
appl
ied
to U
.4
Illne
ssdi
agno
sed
durin
g co
urse
bu
t not
dis
clos
ed
scho
ol; d
ysle
xia
com
poun
ded
with
illn
esse
s
job
(sec
ure
hosp
ital)
(no
exam
s on
co
urse
so
time
not a
n is
sue)
with
dys
lexi
a su
ppor
t ar
ts, v
olun
teer
ing
at s
choo
ls)
finis
h in
200
8
Ben
BS
c C
omp-
uter
Gam
es
Dev
elop
-m
ent
U. 4
18-2
5.M
iddl
e cl
ass.
D
ysle
xia.
Iden
tifie
d
by a
unt –
but
pr
imar
y sc
hool
, on
ly a
ccep
ted
this
on
ce i
ndep
ende
nt
asse
ssm
ent (
Bat
h)
carr
ied
out
Cho
se c
ours
e fir
st, t
hen
attra
cted
to
UC
Lan
afte
r “F
lyin
g S
tart”
pr
og. (
+ di
stan
ce
from
hom
e!)
Saw
him
self
as a
‘b
orde
rline
dysl
exic
’. A
ccep
tanc
e of
&
insi
ght i
nto
his
parti
cula
rdy
slex
ic
diffi
culti
es –
(co-
ordi
natio
n,m
emor
y,
spel
ling)
but
re
cogn
ises
stre
ngth
s to
o
DS
A: n
ot a
pplie
d fo
r
DD
A k
now
ledg
e no
t exp
licit
but
good
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
ne
ed to
get
as
sess
ed a
s D
ysle
xic
to b
e ab
le to
get
re
ason
able
adju
stm
ents
Dys
lexi
c al
ert
stic
kers
for
writ
ten
wor
k (in
c ex
ams)
. Ext
ra
time
for e
xam
s bu
t not
co
urse
wor
k
Goo
d. F
irst y
ear
that
cou
rse
has
run.
Mos
t exa
ms
on c
ompu
ter.
Had
de
vise
d ow
n st
rate
gies
to “g
et
roun
d” d
iffic
ultie
s w
ith
mem
ory/
read
ing/
sp
ellin
g. O
ften
rece
ived
not
es in
ad
vanc
e (p
oste
d on
web
)
Wel
l sup
porte
d. A
ble
to a
ppro
ach
teac
hing
st
aff f
or h
elp
– th
ough
th
is is
gen
eral
hel
p no
t dis
abili
ty-r
elat
ed
help
. Fel
t his
cou
rse
was
wel
l sui
ted
to h
is
patte
rn o
f stre
ngth
s an
d w
eakn
esse
s
Live
d in
sha
red
hous
e w
ith m
ates
. E
njoy
ed b
eing
par
t of
gro
up –
incl
udin
g w
hen
wor
king
. Te
ased
for h
is
spel
ling
but n
ot
both
ered
by
this
–
‘Eve
ryon
e’s
teas
ed
for s
omet
hing
!’
Upp
er s
econ
d
Bel
la
BA
Hon
s A
ctin
g
U. 4
18-2
5W
orki
ng c
lass
D
ysle
xia.
Iden
tifie
d so
me
time
at
scho
ol.
Rea
sses
sed
on
entry
BTe
c N
at D
ip in
P
erfo
rmin
g A
rts
in c
olle
ge. T
hen
gap
year
in
Am
eric
a
Acc
epte
dth
atsh
e ha
d di
fficu
lties
with
re
adin
g sp
ellin
g an
d m
emor
y bu
t w
ould
pre
fer i
f pe
ople
did
n’t u
se
this
to a
ffect
de
cisi
ons
abou
t as
sign
ing
task
s to
her
DS
A: c
ompu
ter
(but
it a
rriv
ed
late
). D
DA
aw
aren
ess
very
ha
zy
Som
etim
esgi
ven
note
s du
ring/
afte
rle
ctur
e (m
ore
so
as c
ours
e pr
ogre
ssed
)P
erso
nal t
utor
on
ce a
wee
k
Gen
eral
ly g
ood
but
diffi
culti
es w
ith
sigh
t rea
ding
&
lear
ning
scr
ipts
(p
oor m
emor
y).
Cou
rse
has
no
writ
ten
exam
s
Aca
dem
ic s
taff
gene
rally
sup
porti
ve
but s
he fe
lt sh
e so
met
imes
mis
sed
out o
n bi
g pa
rts
beca
use
of h
er
dysl
exia
Live
d in
sha
red
acco
mm
odat
ion
with
oth
er s
tude
nts.
S
tude
nt re
p in
fina
l ye
ar
Low
er s
econ
d
Bra
ndon
BS
c C
omp-
uter
-aid
eden
gine
-ee
ring
U. 4
18-2
5. S
kille
d w
orki
ng c
lass
. D
ysle
xia
iden
tifie
d at
age
6
FE c
olle
ge th
en
Rus
sell
Gro
up
uni b
ut le
ft –
cour
se d
idn’
t sui
t
Pra
gmat
ic(b
utcy
nica
l) ab
out
disa
bled
labe
l bu
t cle
arly
saw
hi
mse
lf as
so
meo
ne w
ith
read
ing/
writ
ing
diffi
culti
es
DS
A –
com
pute
r fro
m p
revi
ous
uni.
DD
A
know
ledg
e sk
etch
y
Ext
ra ti
me
in
exam
s (in
a
sepa
rate
room
); su
ppor
t tut
or;
flexi
bilit
y w
ith
subm
issi
on o
f as
sign
men
ts(ti
min
g, d
ysle
xia-
aler
t lab
els)
.
Gen
eral
ly p
ositi
ve.
Stil
l fou
nd re
adin
g ph
ysic
ally
ex
haus
ting.
Han
dout
s us
eful
(n
ote-
taki
ngdi
fficu
lt)
Som
e ac
adem
ic s
taff
supp
ortiv
e, o
ther
s m
ore
diffi
cult
to
enga
ge w
ith, n
ot
sym
path
etic
/und
erst
and
ing
Live
d on
his
ow
n.
Sm
all g
roup
of
supp
ortiv
e fri
ends
; sp
ent w
eeke
nds
away
on
stea
m
engi
ne w
ork
Rep
eate
dye
ar s
o no
t fin
ishi
ng ti
ll 20
08
Bill
y
BA
(hon
s)
Mul
timed
ia&
Son
ic
Arts
U. 4
30s.
Wor
king
cla
ss
– pa
rent
s dr
ug
addi
cts.
Mob
ility
im
paire
d(p
rost
hetic
leg,
da
mag
ed h
ands
). In
jurie
s oc
curr
ed a
s a
resu
lt of
dru
g ad
dict
ion
15 y
ears
of
hero
in a
ddic
tion
(now
reco
verin
g - n
ot d
ecla
red)
. H
ad tr
ied
to g
et
on m
usic
co
urse
s in
FE
co
llege
but
un
succ
essf
ul
Acc
epte
dhi
sm
obili
ty
limita
tions
and
hi
s st
atus
as
an
ex-u
ser.
Pre
ferr
ed to
be
inde
pend
ent –
di
dn’t
like
to b
e di
ffere
nt –
foun
d th
e la
bel o
f di
sabl
ed‘a
mus
ing’
DLA
& D
SA
(h
elp
with
buy
ing
com
pute
r,ph
otoc
opyi
ng,
ink
cartr
idge
s vi
a di
sabi
lity
offic
e –
didn
’t no
w th
is
was
DS
A)
No
know
ledg
e of
D
DA
Som
ene
gotia
tions
ove
r fie
ldw
ork
– us
ing
bike
to g
et to
si
tes,
hel
p w
ith
carr
ying
eq
uipm
ent i
n th
e be
ginn
ing.
Oth
erw
ise
no
adju
stm
ents
need
ed
Gen
eral
ly p
ositi
ve
– pr
oble
ms
with
on
e le
ctur
er w
ho
mad
e no
co
nces
sion
s to
kn
owle
dge
of
stud
ents
but
sam
e fo
r all
stud
ents
–
not d
isab
ility
re
late
d
Had
foun
d st
aff –
ac
adem
ic a
nd li
brar
y,
stor
es –
sup
porti
ve –
lik
ed th
e fa
ct th
at th
ey
treat
ed h
im th
e sa
me
as o
ther
stu
dent
s –
foun
d it
easy
to a
sk
for h
elp
whe
n he
ne
eded
it b
ut
pref
erre
d th
is to
pe
ople
mak
ing
him
a
spec
ial c
ase
Sin
gle
(now
). Li
ved
in a
flat
by
him
self
but “
Nee
ds to
be
arou
nd p
eopl
e” –
go
ing
to u
ni h
as
help
ed h
ere
– pr
evio
usly
qui
te
isol
ated
. In
volv
ed
in v
olun
tary
wor
k ar
ound
dru
g ad
dict
ion
Upp
er s
econ
d
39
To cite this output: Fuller, Mary et al (2008). Enhancing the Quality and Outcomes of Disabled Students' Learning in Higher Education: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0135. Swindon: ESRC