Improving Awareness of Assistive Technology Tools for Inclusive Learning Environment at UAL
Introduction
Creating an inclusive learning environment is a key priority in higher education, particularly at institutions like the University of the Arts London (UAL), which caters to a diverse student body. Fostering inclusivity ensures equitable opportunities for all students while enriching their overall learning experience. Central to this endeavor are digital accessibility tools, which empower students with disabilities to engage in educational activities on an equal footing. In recent years, universities in the UK and worldwide have increasingly prioritized the development of inclusive and accessible learning environments.
Assistive Technology (AT) plays a pivotal role in this landscape, offering critical solutions to foster inclusivity and accessibility for students with disabilities. This literature review explores the current state of AT in higher education, its impacts on students, and the challenges and opportunities that accompany its adoption.
Definition and Scope of Assistive Technology in Higher Education
Assistive Technology (AT) encompasses tools specifically designed to enhance academic outcomes and foster independence for students, including those with disabilities. As defined by the UK Government, AT includes “products or systems that support and help individuals with disabilities, restricted mobility, or other impairments to perform functions that might otherwise be difficult or impossible.”
In the context of universities, AT aims to provide equitable access to education while enhancing academic performance and student autonomy. These tools also help individuals maintain their quality of life by mitigating or compensating for the challenges posed by disabilities. Importantly, while AT primarily serves students with disabilities, it also benefits the broader student community by aligning with universal design principles.
The Role of Assistive Technology Tools in Higher Education
AT tools such as screen readers, text-to-speech software, speech recognition programs, and alternative input devices are designed to eliminate barriers to learning for students with disabilities. Research highlights their transformative potential, emphasizing their ability to foster academic success and independence. For instance, Seale (2013) notes the significant role of AT tools in enabling equitable access to educational content. Similarly, Ally (2019) underscores that these tools not only meet individual learning needs but also promote inclusive design practices that benefit all learners.
When students with learning disabilities struggle to achieve academic goals, it is essential for educators and families to understand the role of disabilities in these challenges and design targeted interventions. These interventions, often outlined in individualised education plans, frequently involve the use of AT tools to support learning objectives (Scott et al., 1998). However, barriers such as limited awareness, inadequate training, and insufficient institutional support can hinder the effective use of AT tools (Fichten et al., 2009). Overcoming these challenges requires a coordinated effort to integrate AT into the broader educational framework, ensuring that all stakeholders possess the necessary knowledge and skills to leverage these technologies.
Impact of Assistive Technology on Student Outcomes
The positive effects of AT on educational and psychosocial outcomes for students with disabilities are well-documented in the literature. McNicholl et al. (2021) highlight several key areas of impact:
- Academic Engagement: AT enables students to access course materials, take notes, and participate in class discussions more effectively.
- Psychological Benefits: By enhancing competence, adaptability, and self-esteem, AT fosters a positive psychological impact on students.
- Social Inclusion: AT facilitates social participation within the university environment, helping students build meaningful peer relationships.
- Well-being and Self-efficacy: Students with adequate AT support report higher levels of academic self-efficacy and overall well-being compared to those whose AT needs remain unmet.
Challenges in Implementing Assistive Technology
- Inadequate Training and Support
A lack of training among educators and staff is a significant barrier to effective AT implementation. For example, Bausch and Ault (2008) found that 41% of higher education teachers lacked the necessary training to use AT in their classrooms. Similarly, Sami (2016) highlights that many educators feel unprepared due to insufficient knowledge and skills, which can lead to reluctance to adopt AT tools. - Resource Limitations
Resource constraints, such as outdated equipment or software incompatibility, also pose challenges. Studies (Barfurth & Michaud, 2008; Bauer & Kenton, 2005) reveal that outdated devices discourage educators from incorporating AT into their teaching. Furthermore, insufficient technical support exacerbates these issues, making it difficult for instructors to resolve technology-related problems (Rapp, 2005). - Technological Issues
Technical failures, such as system malfunctions and connectivity issues, can disrupt learning activities. For instance, Dugstad et al. (2019) found that system errors and programming issues often lead to the rejection of AT tools. Proper planning and troubleshooting are critical to avoiding such setbacks.
Awareness and Training: Key to Effective Utilisation
Awareness and training are pivotal to the successful adoption of AT tools. Roberts et al. (2011) emphasize that educators’ understanding of accessibility tools significantly influences their ability to recommend and implement these resources. Likewise, Burgstahler (2015) advocates for professional development programs and institutional policies that promote inclusivity.
At UAL, preliminary surveys reveal a gap in staff awareness regarding available accessibility tools. This finding aligns with Ellis and Kent (2017), who attribute low awareness to the limited visibility of accessibility resources within institutional systems. Addressing this issue requires targeted interventions, including workshops, online resources, and peer-led training sessions tailored to academic and support staff.
Integrating Accessibility Tools into Learning Environments
The effective integration of AT into educational environments necessitates a multi-faceted approach. Alper and Raharinirina (2006) recommend incorporating AT tools into mainstream curricula to normalize their use and reduce stigma. Similarly, Seale (2014) highlights the importance of collaboration among faculty, IT staff, and disability services.
One promising strategy involves creating centralized platforms for accessibility resources. For example, UAL could develop a dedicated section on its SharePoint platform to host FAQs, training materials, and troubleshooting guides. This approach aligns with Kent and Ellis’s (2020) recommendation for user-friendly, easily accessible repositories of digital accessibility resources.
Measuring the Impact of Awareness Initiatives
Evaluating awareness initiatives is essential to ensure continuous improvement. Metrics such as usage statistics, feedback surveys, and student outcomes can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of training programs and resource platforms (Rowland et al., 2010). Longitudinal studies emphasize the importance of sustained engagement and iterative refinement to achieve lasting change.
Conclusion
The literature highlights the transformative impact of Assistive Technology in promoting inclusive education. At UAL, bridging gaps in staff awareness and embedding AT tools within the institution’s framework are vital steps toward improving support for students with disabilities. By adopting a holistic approach that includes professional development, centralised resources, and ongoing evaluation, UAL can lead the way in fostering inclusive learning practices and building a genuinely equitable educational environment.
References:
Ally, M. (2019). Competency Profile of the Digital and Online Teacher in Future Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2), 302-318.
Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47-64.
Bausch, M., & Ault, M. (2008). Assistive Technology Implementation Plan. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(1), 6–14.
Barfurth, M. A., & Michaud, P. (2008). Digital video technologies and classroom practices. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(3), 301–315.
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Harvard Education Press.
Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2017). Disability and New Media. Routledge.
Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M., Ferraro, V., & Wolforth, J. (2009). Accessibility of e-Learning and Computer and Information Technologies for Students with Visual Impairments in Postsecondary Education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(9), 543-557.
Kent, M., & Ellis, K. (2020). Accessible Coursework: Digital Media, Disability, and Higher Education. In The Routledge Companion to Disability and Media (pp. 358-368). Routledge.
McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, Gallagher P. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Feb;16(2):130-143. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1642395. Epub 2019 Jul 23. PMID: 31335220.
McNicholl A, Desmond D, Gallagher P. Assistive technologies, educational engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students with disabilities in higher education. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023 Jan;18(1):50-58. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1854874. Epub 2020 Dec 15. PMID: 33320728.
Rapp, W. H. (2005). Using assistive technology with students with exceptional learning needs: When does an aid become a crutch? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 193–196.
Roberts, J. B., Crittenden, L. A., & Crittenden, J. C. (2011). Students with disabilities and online learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance and services. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 242-250.
Rowland, C., Mariger, H., Siegel, P. M., & Whiting, J. (2010). Universal Design for the Digital Environment: Transforming the Institution. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(6), 14-28.
Seale, J. (2013). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. Routledge.
Seale, J. (2014). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Theory and Practice. Routledge.
University of Reading. (2024). Improving Digital Accessibility Awareness. IT News Blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/itsnews/2024/09/17/improving-digital-accessibility-awareness/
Wilkens, L., Haage, A., Lüttmann, F., & Bühler, C. R. (2021). Digital Teaching, Inclusion and Students’ Needs: Student Perspectives on Participation and Access in Higher Education. Social Inclusion, 9(3), 117-129.