Accessibility project 2024

Contrary to common concerns, there is no systematic evidence that lecture capture leads to lower attendance! Although research on this topic varies in conclusions and methodologies, a consistent finding emerges: lecture capture has little to no impact on student attendance nor academic achievement, and the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Literature reviews by Witthaus & Robinson (2015) and Banerjee (2021), support this conclusion. They highlight that the real focus should be on maximizing the effectiveness of lecture capture, rather than questioning its use. By emphasizing best practices, we can transform lecture capture into a powerful educational tool that enhances learning outcomes.

Moreover, the vast majority of students use lecture recordings as a supplementary resource, not a replacement for in-person classes (Leadbeater et al., 2013). This usage pattern underscores the value of lecture capture in reinforcing and complementing traditional learning.

To fully realize these benefits, it is suggested that lecturers should clearly communicate the advantages and potential drawbacks of lecture capture. Providing explicit guidance on how to effectively engage with lecture recordings can help students avoid the potential negative effects (Leadbeater et al., 2013).

The current system of only providing adjustments to students on a case-by-case basis using a Student Support Plan (SSP) is not fit for purpose.

The increase in the number of students with disclosed disabilities at Newcastle University indicates that we must consider a different approach. The numbers speak for themselves: the number of students with disclosed disabilities in 2010/11 was 1,075, the count has nearly quadrupled to 4,114 in 2023/24, and more than doubled since 2017/18.

This explosive growth highlights a critical issue: the case-by-case method is overwhelmed and unsustainable. Disabled students deserve a system that proactively supports their needs rather than one that reacts slowly and inconsistently. The current approach often leaves students without essential adjustments, violating their rights under The Equality Act (2010), causing unnecessary stress and hindering their academic performance. It also places an unnecessary time burden on module leaders through the expectation that they will read through each SSP they are sent and implement each adjustment individually.

There is a strong evidence base that implementing universal design for learning (UDL) principles can address this problem effectively. UDL emphasizes flexible learning environments that accommodate diverse learning styles and needs from the outset, benefiting all students—not just those with disabilities. By embedding accessibility into the very fabric of educational practices, equitable access to learning opportunities for everyone can be ensured.

Under a UDL framework, many common adjustments would be provided by default, significantly reducing the workload associated with individual SSPs. This proactive approach allows educators to focus their efforts on more specific and uncommon adjustments that truly require individualized attention. SSPs would still play a crucial role in addressing unique needs, but their scope and complexity would be significantly streamlined.

It is incorrect to assume that students will disclose their disability to anybody at the university nor that they will subsequently receive an appropriate SSP.

There are several reasons why a student may not disclose their disability, including the fear of stigmatization, discrimination, or not being taken seriously. In addition to this, some may not even know their condition qualifies as a disability or may not have an accurate diagnosis. This can leave students struggling without the support they genuinely need which can affect their academic performance and well-being. To highlight these points, consider the following quotes from students at a UK university where Eccles et al. (2018) conducted focus groups on the issue of disability disclosure:

Even when a student has disclosed their disability, the current system is not especially effective for devising and implementing SSPs. It is slow, bureaucratic, and not capable of giving students timely access to the changes they need to make learning feasible. Additionally, there is little to no guarantee that the alterations provided will be consistent.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an effective solution to this problem (Schreuer & Sachs 2014). UDL is an educational framework based on the needs of various learners that is in place beforehand, placing less importance on disclosures and SSPs.

Teaching under a UDL framework would a priori include some of the most common adjustments required, such as providing lecture notes in advance and creating course materials in an accessible format. This lessens the need for individual disclosures and ensures that the students who do require very specific individual adjustments can have them provided efficiently. More tailor-made SSPs will still prove necessary for those uncommon needs, but the system would be more efficient and not scattergun, providing timelier and more focused support.

Furthermore, relying less on individual disclosure can lead to a more inclusive and supportive campus culture. Students can be supported without the worry of shame or the burden of proof that they are "disabled enough" to need accommodations. This shift isn't only of benefit to students with disabilities, but it improves the learning environment for all.

A proactive, inclusive approach through UDL helps to ensure success for each student and lessens the workload of module leaders. This shift to inclusive teaching practices is urgently needed and has been advocated for in the literature for a long time, yet evidence shows it is not being done. To quote Morina (2024),

“More than 20 years have passed since Stage & Milne's study (1996), yet the results are similar to those reported by the two most recent articles included in this systematic review (Grimes et al. 2020; Vergunst & Swartz 2022). This finding both surprises and concerns us, and prompts us to ask: have universities made so little progress over the years?”.

The belief that adjustments provide an advantage to disabled students is a common misconception. Reasonable adjustments are designed to level the playing field, not to give any student an upper hand. They are essential for ensuring equitable access to education, allowing all students to demonstrate their abilities and knowledge under fair conditions. (Equality Act 2010, s.20)

Reasonable adjustments, such as extended time for exams or alternative assessment methods, are necessary to accommodate the diverse needs of students with disabilities. These measures do not compromise academic standards; instead, they uphold the integrity of the assessment process by mitigating barriers that may otherwise impede the demonstration of a disabled student's true capabilities. (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2014)

Indeed, Vidal Rodeiro & Macinska (2022) found that even when accounting for group differences (e.g., socio-economic status) that could affect performance, students who received accommodations for high-stakes examinations (GCSE exams in the UK) performed similarly to or slightly worse than students without accommodations. This highlights that reasonable adjustments in fact equalize educational attainment and opportunity across disabled and non-disabled students, rather than providing an unfair advantage.

While some studies suggest that handwriting may enhance memory retention for certain tasks, this perspective fails to consider the diverse needs and abilities of all students, particularly those with disabilities.

Students with disabilities, such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, autism, ADHD, and various physical impairments, can face significant challenges with handwriting. For these students, the act of writing by hand can be a barrier to effective learning. Dysgraphia, for instance, affects fine motor skills and handwriting fluency, making it difficult for students to take notes quickly and legibly. Similarly, students with dyslexia may struggle with the speed and accuracy required for handwriting, while those with ADHD or autism might find it hard to concentrate on both listening and writing simultaneously.

Many students find it useful to engage with lecture material by reviewing lecture notes prior to the class. By familiarizing themselves with the content in advance, they can use the lecture to consolidate, confirm, and expand their understanding (Bui & Myerson, 2014). This pre-lecture preparation can be particularly beneficial for students who need more time to process information or who benefit from a structured approach to learning and is especially useful in complex and cognitively demanding subjects such as mathematics. Prior access to materials containing lecture content can significantly enhance comprehension and retention, particularly for students whose disability may affect their processing speed and working memory.

Another important consideration is the use of "gappy notes", i.e., lecture notes that intentionally leave out proofs, examples, or key details for students to fill in during the lecture. While this approach might be intended to encourage active engagement, and some students find them very useful, it can be particularly challenging for students with disabilities if an alternative version with no gaps is not provided. For example, students with processing difficulties or attention disorders may struggle to fill in these gaps accurately and quickly, leading to incomplete or incorrect notes.