Role of higher education institutions in promoting peaceful

platform for education of special students

A thesis submitted to the Department of education in partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

B.ED (1.5 YEAR)

By

Asifa Luqman
Session 2021─ 2023
Supervised by: Dr. Muhammad Waseem

UNIVERSITY OF LAKKI MARWAT

1
2
A thesis submitted to the Department of education in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

B.ED (1.5 YEAR)

By
ASIFA LUQMAN
Session: 2021-2023

Supervised by: Dr. Muhammad Waseem

3
 DECLARATION
I Asifa Luqman student of B.ed (1.5 year), Session (2021-2023) hereby declare that the
material being printed in this thesis entitle “Role of higher education institutions in
promoting peaceful platform for education of special students” is my own work has not
been submitted in a whole or part for any degree at this or any University.

Asifa Luqman

4
 CERTIFICATE
It is certified that research work presented by Asifa Luqman in this thesis entitled ‘‘Role of
higher education institutions in promoting peaceful platform for education of special
students’’ was carried out under our supervision and in our opinion. It is fully satisfactory, in
scope and excellence for the degree of B.ed (1.5 year) from the Department of education,
UNIVERSITY OF LAKKI MARWAT, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA.

Supervisor: _____________

Dr. Muhammad Waseem

5
 DEDICATION

Dedicated to Allah

And his prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SAW)

Dedicated to those

Loving like flowers

Beautiful like rainbow

Fine like Fragrance

Nice like dewdrops

Gifted me love

Made me confident

Trained me at every step

My heart, Soul and

Ideal personalities

My Father and My mother

6
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All praises belong to ALLAH Almighty who bestowed upon mankind wisdom. First
of all thanks to only ALLAH Almighty, The most high, Gracious, Merciful, and the entire
source of all hidden and open knowledge who blessed me with the potential and ability to
complete this study.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my research supervisor Dr. Muhammad

Waseem for the guidance, cooperation, and encouragement that I received during conducting
this study. Thank you for your guidance, patience, and sincerity.

No acknowledgment could ever adequately express my obligations to my parents,

brothers, sister, and my all friends who have always wished for my success in life. Without
their prayers, sacrifices, and encouragements the present work would have been merely a
dream.

I especially want to thank my sincere friends, Ambreen Shabbir, and Azka Munir
who helped me a lot in thesis work.

Asifa Luqman

7
 Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................9

Chapter # 1 ...................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................10

Chapter # 2 ...................................................................................................................20

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................20

Chapter # 3 ...................................................................................................................31

METHDOLOGY .....................................................................................................31

Chapter # 4 ...................................................................................................................34

RESULT ..................................................................................................................34

Chapter # 5 ...................................................................................................................38

DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................38

Chapter # 6 ...................................................................................................................40

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................40

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................41

8
 ABSTRACT
According to research on inclusive education, even if there is a lot of support for
inclusion, there are still issues with implementation since, in spite of institutional policies,
students with disabilities may still encounter exclusion and learning obstacles in their time at
university. Taking the aforementioned into consideration, the purpose of this study is to
investigate the viewpoints and experiences of fifteen disabled students with regard to three
topics: education at Pakistani higher education institutions, the approaching shift to paid work,
and future goals. Data from semi-structured interviews with university students with
disabilities served as the foundation for the qualitative study that this research is founded on.
Guidelines for interpretative phenomenological analysis were followed for analyzing the data.
Rich and intricate narratives revealed particular problems, like physical access to academic
resources and information, the standard of the support system that is available, and
relationships with peers and tutors. The study's findings also demonstrated that disabled
students are competent to voice their concerns, confront institutional discrimination, and
suggest more inclusive options. The results show that institutional policies and practises
regarding disability and education need to be reevaluated and improved.

9
Chapter # 1

INTRODUCTION
The past two decades have marked widespread developments in higher education
(Marginson, 2016). Various studies have confirmed a rapid increase in the demand for higher
education (Giannakis & Bullivant, 2015; Mok & Neubauer, 2015; Powell & Solga, 2011; Scott,
2005). Amid various responsibilities of higher education, diversity and inclusion have been
placed at the forefront of higher education reform discussions (Moriña, 2017). While studies
confirm that the number of students with special needs in higher education has increased
(Majoko, 2018), students with special needs experience various barriers to higher education
that are as diverse as physical, difficult access to facilities, poor support or lack of facilitation
services within the university, lack of funding for additional support, difficulties or other
barriers related to rigid curriculum, inappropriate teaching and assessment methods, etc.
Hence, the implementation of inclusion principles and the practical involvement of students
with special needs in higher education remains a persistent challenge at the global, national,
and institutional level (Moriña, 2017).

The term “student with special needs” is used as the key notion in reference to the
special students in education terminology (Zabeli et al., 2020). This term includes all students
who have difficulties in the learning process and have difficulties accessing the education
system in general. Thus, within this notion, no distinction is made between diversity and
impairment which are termed “disability”. Therefore, I will use the notion “students with
special needs” to refer to students with “disabilities”.

Disability can be explained in terms of any restriction that results from an impairment
and hinders a person from performing an activity within the range considered normal for a
normal person (Heward, 2006, Hardman, Drew & Egan, 2005). According to UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 1, (2006), persons with disabilities
include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which
in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full effective participation in the society
on equal basis with others (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006)
others. In this regard, disability is seen as a socially created problem This definition focuses

10
on the elimination of barriers created by society that prevent persons with differences from
enjoying their human rights on equal basis with others in relation to education (UNESCO,
2005). Barriers that limit a person’s full participation include; negative attitude, discriminative
policies and practices, and inaccessible environments as a result of these barriers, students with
disabilities are being excluded from accessing higher education. According to findings from a
series of focused discussion groups from 12 countries carried out in late 2005 and early 2006,
access to education was one the main concerns raised by these young people (Ncube &
Macfadyen, 2006)

As a human rights and development issue, disability is not an attribute of a person, but
results from “the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and
environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal
basis with others” (United Nations, 2006). The South African disability movement and
government also approach disability from a social model perspective. Howell (2005) states
that “the response to disability in the social model is the restructuring of society for it to be
able to deal appropriately with people with impairments”. It also “enables people with
disabilities to express their situation in terms of human rights and as an issue of equality”
(Fazekas, 2017)

One of the key principles of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is
least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE requires that to the maximum extent possible
individuals with disabilities ages 3 through 21 years should be educated in the general
education setting. This legislation extends this notion to children ages birth to three years
through the practice of providing services for infants and toddler in natural environments, with
natural environments being defined as those settings within the community where same age
peers would also tend to be (e.g., home, childcare). Thus, the IDEA has provided the impetus
to educate all children in more inclusive settings. With the move toward inclusion has come
the recognition that changes must occur in schools and community settings, curriculum and
instruction, the roles of all teachers, and the manner in which teachers are prepared (Blanton
et al., 1997).

A major role of special education faculty members, in addition to delivering effective

teaching and conducting scholarly research, is providing service to the local and university

11
communities. Traditionally such activities have included serving on institution-wide and
departmental committies, participating in university governance, working with students, and
assisting with community projects (Mangrum & Strichart, 1983). However, in light of the
growing number of learning disabled students attending institutions of higher education, the
service component of special education faculty obligations should be expanded to include an
active role in facilitating the performance of these students in the collegiate setting.

Data indicate that because of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
success of public schools in educating learning disabled students, the prevalence of these
students desiring to enroll in institutions of higher education is increasing (Association for
Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities, 1982; Vogel, 1982; White et al., 1982). Many
of these students will require additional services as well as modifications of the traditional
collegiate program in order to complete their education successfully and enjoy the collegiate
lifestyle (Barbaro, 1982; Dexter, 1982; Mangrum & Strichart, 1983). If learning disabled
students do not receive the necessary appropriate services and program adaptations, their
collegiate experience may be characterized by frustration and failure (Association for Children
and Adults with Learning Disabilities, 1982; Moss & Fox, 1980). Since many higher education
administrators and faculty have limited experience with the learning disabled (Mangrum &
Strichart, 1983), the expertise of their special education colleagues could be especially helpful
in developing and imple- menting programs necessary for learning disabled students. However,
few guidelines are available to provide special education faculty members with a framework
for assisting the college community in devising and developing such programs.

Since the 1970s, efforts have been made to ensure that general educators have some
content in their preservice preparation programs related to disabilities either through modifying
existing courses or by adding special education courses to the curriculum (Strawderman &
Lindsey, 1995; Welch, 1996). The first comprehensive attempt at this was through Deans’
grants to Colleges of Education for the purpose of encouraging universities and colleges to
prepare elementary and secondary education majors to work with students with disabilities.
Next, states began to require some special education content in preservice programs for general
education, with some states requiring preservice programs for special educators to have some
general education content. The recommended content for general educators was primarily in

12
the areas of characteristics of disabilities and environmental and instructional strategies for
including children with disabilities in the general education classroom (Bricker, 1995; Odom
& McEvoy, 1990). This trend and the perpetuation of it has been based on the belief that even
when general educators have positive attitudes about including children with disabilities in
their classrooms they may lack the formal preparation to do so (Bricker, 1995; Wolery, 1997).

More recently, some universities and colleges have restructured their curricula to
provide more in-depth content and field experiences for general education students. One
example is the constructivist teacher education program at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville (Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997). The primary focus of this program is to
prepare general educators who are interested in working in inclusive settings with young
children. Students enroll in a sixteen semester hour block in their junior year with content
related to multicultural concerns and strategies for working with children with disabilities.
Field experiences duing this semester are in a variety of settings with children with and without
disabilities. The professional internship in the final year of the program is based in sites that
believe in inclusion and constructivism. Students who successfully complete the program are
eligible for elementary education certification.

Even with the addition of content and in some cases, field experiences that focus on
individuals with disabilities, researchers report that general education teachers are indequately
prepared to teach individuals with disabilities (Davern, 1999; Gettinger, Stoiber, Goetz, &
Caspe, 1999; Goodlad & Field, 1993; Wolery et al., 1993). Through comprehensive interviews
with university administrators, university faculty, public school administrators, supervising
teachers, and teacher candidates, Goodlad and Field (1993) reported that general education
teachers view themselves as poorly prepared to work with students with disabilities and that
25% of the general educators had not taken any coursework in special education. Wolery and
his colleagues (1993), in a survey of 114 general education faculty from two and four-year
higher education institutions, found that the majority of respondents at each degree level
required a course in child/human development (53%) and at the undergraduate level at least
one course in special education (61%). However, only 31% of the programs at the
undergraduate level provided a course specific to strategies for including children with
disabilities. The percentage of programs at the undergraduate level requiring field experiences

13
in inclusive settings was even smaller (17%). Parents have also reported the need for educators
to be better prepared to work with children in inclusive settings, as well as their families, and
have identified specific areas in which training is needed (Davern, 1999). Further, parents rated
professionals’ competence in providing inclusive services lower than did professionals in five
domains (Gettinger et al., 1999).

The research suggests that the practice of adding one or two courses in special
education or adding field experiences in inclusive settings has not been consistent across higher
education programs and has not resulted in adequately prepared general educators for inclusive
settings. The National Association of State Boards of Education commissioned a two-year
study in the early 1990’s to investigate the status of special education within the context of
educational reform (Welch & Sheridan, 1993). Of the thirteen operating assumptions that
evolved from this study, one indicated that to the extent that teachers are prepared to expect
two types of students (i.e., general and special education students), general education teachers
would perceive that they are incapable of teaching special education students. A second
assumption stated that many students’ needs can be met by general education teachers who are
prepared to provide instruction to meet diverse needs. The study not only highlighted that the
continued practice of general education students taking only one or two courses in special
education was not sufficient, but also that coursework and field experiences must become more
collaborative with general and The research suggests that the practice of adding one or two
courses in special education or adding field experiences in inclusive settings has not been
consistent across higher education programs and has not resulted in adequately prepared
general educators for inclusive settings.

The National Association of State Boards of Education commissioned a two-year study

in the early 1990’s to investigate the status of special education within the context of
educational reform (Welch & Sheridan, 1993). Of the thirteen operating assumptions that
evolved from this study, one indicated that to the extent that teachers are prepared to expect
two types of students (i.e., general and special education students), general education teachers
would perceive that they are incapable of teaching special education students. A second
assumption stated that many students’ needs can be met by general education teachers who are
prepared to provide instruction to meet diverse needs. The study not only highlighted that the

14
continued practice of general education students taking only one or two courses in special
education was not sufficient, but also that coursework and field experiences must become more
collaborative with general and special education students jointly enrolled in these experiences.

Perhaps the most recent and the most radical approach to preparing preservice students
for inclusive settings is to unify the higher education general and special education curricula
(Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995). Miller and Stayton (1996) have defined unified programs as
those that combine all of the recommended personnel standards from the respective general
education and special education program into a newly conceptualized curriculum. The Council
for Exceptional Children (CEC) and its Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) have supported this definition by
accepting unified models for accreditation review by the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Unified early childhood education and early
childhood special education programs that choose to go through the NCATE review process
must meet all personnel standards included in the CEC Common Core, the DEC early
childhood special education personnel standards, and the NAEYC early childhood education
personnel standards.

Alongside major changes in the universities around the world, diversity and inclusion
present both great opportunities and major challenges for institutions, states, and regions
(Smith, 2014). In recent years, the inclusion of students with special needs in higher education
has increased. According to Majoko (2018), around 10% of the students with special needs
have enrolled in higher education. The inclusion of students with special needs in higher
education has been facilitated by regulatory policy documents, inclusive physical and social
environments, innovative technologies, inclusive program design and delivery, and a shared
belief among students with special needs regarding the positive influence of higher education
in their future employment and well-being. In addition, Hadjikakou and Hartas (2008) have
shown that effective service delivery for students with special needs hinges on accurate
information on their needs, sustainability and access to resources and expertise, the existence
of an inclusive ethic, a receiving culture of higher education and, also, institutions willingness
to anticipate the needs of students, and engage responsibly in inclusive pedagogy. Hence, there
are various aspects that higher education institutions should consider to ensure the inclusion of

15
students with special needs. The education of students with special needs and the
implementation of inclusion principles remains a persistent challenge for all levels of
education, starting from pre-school to higher education (Moriña, 2017; Mortier et al., 2010;
Ypinazar & Pagliano, 2004).

For pre-university education, debates arise over whether special education or regular
(inclusive) education should be provided to students with special needs. In light of this debate,
various studies report on both the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, i.e. special
school or regular school approach (Boer et al., 2011; Miles & Singal, 2010; Mortier et al.,
2010; Ypinazar & Pagliano, 2004). Similar discussions arise regarding alternative approaches
to inclusive higher education. A general rule of thumb would indicate that if students who
received support in the pre-university education system should receive even greater support in
higher education. On the contrary, the reality of higher education meeting the needs of students
with learning difficulties is discouraging, considering the fact that this group of students
receives less support in higher education as compared to preuniversity education (Riddell &
Weedon, 2011). Studies show that students with different learning disabilities face many
barriers to higher education and this poses various challenges for the future, both for students
and the academic staff within universities (Brandt, 2011; Bunbury, 2018; Fuller et al., 2004;
Hanafin et al., 2007; Moriña, 2017; Mutanga & Walker, 2015; Ramaahlo et al., 2018; Ryan &
Struhs, 2004). Therefore, inclusion for students in higher education is considered a major issue
for universities.

While there is an abundance of research on the education of students with special needs
in the pre-university education system (see for example, Boer et al., 2011; Loreman et al.,
2014; Miles & Singal, 2010; Mortier et al., 2010; Watkins & Ebersold, 2016; Ypinazar &
Pagliano, 2004), existing research on the education of students with special needs in higher
education is recent and limited. The literature recognizes three groups of perspectives when
examining the issues related to achieving inclusive higher education, as follows: 1) inclusive
higher education as a policy problem tackling the lack of inclusive higher education policy
implementation and identifying alternatives to improving higher education prospects for
students with special needs, 2) inclusive higher education as an institutional management
problem focusing on institutional regulatory frameworks, priorities, and organizational culture

16
that influence physical and other higher education environment opportunities and challenges
for the inclusion of students with special needs, and 3) inclusive higher education as teaching
and learning problem regarding the identification and analysis of specific student learning
difficulties and barriers (for instance: curriculum design and delivery) for both students and
staff and identification of potent approaches to addressing them.

The main means of funding support for students with disabilities in higher education is
via the Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) Disabled Student Allowances
(DSA) which are paid directly to these students by the local education authorities (LEAs) as
part of the student maintenance awards. The DSA consists of three allowances directed at
funding the equipment and personal assistance needs of students with disabilities. They are
provided by central government and administered by the LEAs and have been increased every
year. The total number of awards made has almost trebled since they were introduced, from
1,497 in 1991/92 to 4,050 in 1993/94 (GB. DFE, 1995, p. 11). Access to the awards varies
considerably according to the policy and practice of the local authority to which the student
applies (Parker, 1995).

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in its coverage of education, is more limited
than many organizations campaigning for civil rights for disabled people had pressed for.
Education provision as a service is excluded from the main provisions of the Act. It does,
however, place a new statutory duty on the Higher Education Funding Councils in exercising
their functions to 'have regard to the requirements of disabled persons', and to require the
governing bodies of institutions of higher education funded by them 'to publish disability
statements' (Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Chapter 50, p. 26). This will enable the
funding councils to take a strategic role in influencing what institutions do for students with
disabilities. The HEFCE has set up a Disability subgroup to explore ways of building better
provision, and one main concern is to identify a means of recognizing the extra cost to
institutions of students with disabilities (Townend, 1997).

Brandt (2011) identifies the experiences of students with special needs in Norway in
relation to inclusive policy goals and challenges to implementing them. The study concluded
that while inclusive policy has significantly influenced students with special needs, such
attempts have to be coordinated and constant support should be provided to students within

17
institutions. In other words, an inclusive higher education policy as a detached variable cannot
be effective. Similarly, Mutanga and Walker (2015) attempted to understand productive
approaches to inclusive higher education policy, suggesting that regardless of policy
interventions, students with special needs continue to experience various barriers to higher
education. In addition, other studies suggest the need for a tailored inclusive policy framework
to guide higher education institutions during their support of students with special needs
(Ramaahlo et al., 2018).

Ryan and Struhs (2004) sought to identify students with physical or sensory disability
and examined their prospective in higher education, in general, and specific fields of study.
Furthermore, Savvidou (2011) clusters the narratives of the academic staff and their
involvements and barriers of teaching English to groups of students with physical and learning
difficulties. Moreover, Kochung (2011) has depicted additional barriers on teaching and
learning, ranging from lack of appropriate teaching methodologies used by the instructors,
negative attitudes received from academic staff and student colleagues, formal exams being at
the forefront of an assessment strategy, content-based teaching and learning is promoted,
among others. In addition, Kioko and Makoelle (2014) show various learning experiences of
students with special needs in higher education. Their study emphasizes the need to abandon
the current use of rigid curriculums and formal examination systems since it prevents inclusive
teaching and learning. Moriña (2017) argues that although constant awareness for inclusion in
higher education might have eliminated the immediate physical barriers, higher education
institutions have not been able to address problems related to lack of inclusive curricula, formal
teaching, learning, and assessment approaches, preventing a full involvement of students with
special needs. Additional studies focused on the relevance of implementing inclusive
curriculum to change attitudes to cultivate sustainable inclusion in higher education (Bunbury,
2018).

The literature confirms that students with special needs experience various barriers to
higher education that are as diverse as physical, difficult access to facilities, poor support or
lack of facilitation services within the university, lack of funding for additional support,
difficulties or other barriers related to rigid curriculum, inappropriate teaching and assessment
methods, etc. Brandt (2011) however reported that the existing literature is scattered, inhibiting

18
researchers to undertake studies that can clearly illustrate and influence the current situation in
students with special needs. Additionally, Kioko and Makoelle, (2014) have argued that the
current literature tries to deal with complex undertakings that move away from simple and
context-based problems to address the inclusion of students with special needs in higher
education. The goal of ensuring the full inclusion of students with special needs in higher
education requires a multifaceted and long-term approach set against a “quick fix” (Moriña,
2017).

19
Chapter # 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Küçükalkan et al. (2023) assessed managerial processes applied in multinational
special education institutions. The aim of this research is to evaluate and analyze the
managerial processes applied in special education institutions operated by public and private
enterprises that provide special educational needs in different countries to determine problems
and develop solution proposals with a new educational management model. The quantitative
data for the study were collected using the "Management Processes Scale in School
Management” which was created by Gregg, and the data used in the research belong to the
academic years 2020–2021. In line with the collected data, the views of 45 managers and 130
teachers across North Cyprus, Turkey, and the UK were collated. Empirical results imply that
all managerial processes are strongly related to the teachers’ perspective, and for managers’
decision-making, organization, evaluation are favorably related to effective management in all
countries.

Getzel, (2008) studied the Persistence and Retention of Students with Disabilities in Higher

Education. This article explores the key characteristics of postsecondary education programs
that help youth and young adults with disabilities persist and remain in college. Student support
factors include services that develop stronger self-determination skills, teach and support
young adults' self-management skills, expose students to assistive technology, and promote
career development by providing internships or other career-related experiences. In
conjunction with student support services there are two professional development emphases
for instructional faculty that contribute to the institutional support needed by college students
with disabilities. Students benefit when faculty have an increased awareness and knowledge
of the characteristics and needs of students with disabilities and when faculty incorporate
concepts of universal design into their instruction and curriculum.

Newman et al. (2021) studied the effect of accessing supports on higher education
persistence of students with disabilities. This study examined the effect of accessing supports
available to the general student body and disability-related supports on college perseverance
for students with disabilities. This secondary analysis of a nationally-representative

20
longitudinal dataset included a sample of approximately 2,330 college students with
disabilities who had been identified as having a disability in secondary school. Students were
included in the sample independent of their decision to disclose their disability to their college.
Evidence from propensity analyses indicated that students with disabilities who had accessed
universally-available and/or disability-related supports were significantly more likely to persist
in their 2- or 4-year college programs. Additionally, retention rates were higher for those who
had accessed universally-available supports only, such as writing and math centers, which
don’t require disclosure of a disability. Implications for higher education institutions are
discussed, including the need for professional development for all administrators and staff to
better understand how to respond to the needs of students with disabilities, with an emphasis
on the fact that the majority of students with disabilities on a campus do not self-disclose.

Hong, (2015) performed qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with
disabilities experience in higher education. Students with disabilities are increasingly enrolling
in colleges and universities. However, many institutions are still unprepared to support them
beyond the basic federal mandate of equal access and reasonable accommodations. This
qualitative study utilized a nontraditional media of reflective journaling to capture the
anecdotal experiences of 16 college students with disabilities for a 10-week period. Four major
themes emerged concerning barriers and frustrations these students encountered on a daily
basis: (a) faculty perception, (b) fit of advisors, (c) college stressors, and (d) quality of support
services. Recommendations for higher education administrators and disability personnel to
become more vigilant in improving support for this population are discussed.

Coriale et al. (2012) explored the educational experience of a social work student with
a disability. This research describes the experience of Lisa, one of the co-authors, as a student
with a disability completing a Bachelor of Social Work degree in Western Canada. This
personal narrative of the physical, relational, attitudinal, and curricular aspects of Lisa's
education identifies barriers experienced in the educational and practice environments, and
highlights strategies that assisted in addressing these barriers. The article specifically relates
Lisa's progression through the programme, including accounts of classroom and field
experiences, relationships with faculty and students, resource, policy and accommodation
issues, and the needs and human rights of a student with a disability. The narrative celebrates

21
the success of a student in an environment (the university) that many believe to be more
accommodating and supportive than other public and private organizations. Recommendations
for both educational and social work practice organizations are provided. As a co-author of the
article, Lisa was an active participant at every stage of the research and development of the
article—narrative interview, analysis, identification of themes, connection to theory and
literature, and presentation and final writing of the paper.

Zhang et al. (2018) studied Inclusive Higher Education for Students with Disabilities
in China. Inclusive higher education is a path to protect the educational rights of university
students with disabilities. University teachers‟ attitudes toward students with disabilities, and
towards their inclusion in universities, are a key factor that will affect the development of
inclusive higher education. This study used a questionnaire to explore an overall perspective
of how university teachers in China view inclusive higher education from emotional,
cognitional and conative aspects. Their responses suggest that university teachers in China
have positive emotion and cognition toward the rights of students with disabilities to receive
higher education; the teachers do, however, appear to lack motivation, relevant knowledge,
skills, and effective strategies to cope with the students‟ special needs. This suggests that
effective implementation of inclusive higher education must be supported by an effective
service center for those who have disabilities, a support network of professionals, and an
administrative support system for teachers and students.

McMahon et al. (2015) studied the augmented reality as a navigation tool to

employment opportunities for postsecondary education students with intellectual disabilities
and autism. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of location-based augmented
reality navigation compared to Google Maps and paper maps as navigation aids for students
with disabilities. The participants in this single subject study were three college students with
intellectual disability and one college student with autism spectrum disorder. The study
measured their ability to independently make navigation decisions in order to travel to
unknown business locations in a city. All students attended a postsecondary education college-
based program. Results indicated that students traveled more successfully using augmented
reality compared to Google Maps and a paper map. Conclusions are discussed in the context
of reducing barriers related to employment.

22
 Hardman & West, (2003) studied the increasing the number of special education
faculty, policy implications and future directions. The provision of a free and appropriate
public education to students with disabilities is dependent upon quality personnel, and the
availability of such personnel is dependent upon quality teacher education and related services
programs taught by university and college faculty. As suggested by Smith et al., ‘‘. . . as the
number of [higher education] faculty decreases, fewer children with disabilities can be
adequately served.’’ This article briefly reviews the history of national policy for personnel
preparation under Part D of IDEA; offers some recommendations for future directions in
federal policy that may enable our nation to live up to the promise of a free and appropriate
public education for every student with a disability; and presents a perspective on the need for
higher education to rethink current recruitment and retention approaches that influence such
policy. The authors conclude that as the repository of knowledge and expertise in the field,
higher education must develop new ways of communicating its important role to policy makers
and other stakeholders. In doing so, alliances must be formed with families and advocates to
work in partnership with the federal government, as well as state and local education agencies
to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Jdaitawi, & Kan'an, (2022) studied effectiveness of Augmented Reality on Students

with Special Disability in Higher Education. In higher education settings, students are required
to use their own devices to record attendance interact with classes through online systems and
other learning-teaching sources such as timetables, virtual learning environment. Real
opportunity to use digital technology such as augmented reality AR technology have been used
in several fields, uncovering diverse benefits regarding its usage. However, further research is
needed to understand exactly how the AR enhance students learning. Focusing on individuals
with special needs, AR is being used in higher education for the last few years to enhance
physical, cognitive, personal, and social abilities. This systematic review presented an
overview of the usage of AR technology in the special needs area in higher education literature
published between 2011 and 2020 and focused on research indexed in 8 international
databases. 36 studies were included for review. The results indicate that the majority of
research showed positive outcomes as the AR technology proved to be effective with students
with disabilities. The results also showed that AR technology was mostly used in intellectual
disability setting. Finally, the result evidenced that AR assists students in enhancing their social

23
skills, social relationships and their engagement. The results from this systematic review
provide valuable information regarding to enhance individual with special needs. Future
empirical research should ensure that all research is included, including settings, level of
students and data collection methods such as quantitative and qualitative.

Vlachou & Papananou, (2018) studied the experiences and perspectives of Greek
higher education students with disabilities In Higher Education, inclusion and the enhancement
of equality of opportunities and practices appeal as imperative, in most Western societies’ laws.
Inclusive education literature, however, reveals that despite inclusion’s strong advocacy,
delivery remains problematic, as beyond the surface of institutional policy, the reality of
university life for students with disabilities may be one of continued exclusion and barriers to
learning. Furthermore, in many countries, including Greece, the voices of students with
disabilities appear significantly under-represented, not only in policy-making processes and
practices, but also in the area of research. In the light of the above, this paper aims to explore
the experiences and perspectives of 32 students with disabilities on: education in Higher
Education Institutions in Greece, the impending transition to paid employment and future
aspirations. The paper is based on a qualitative study where data were collected through semi-
structured interviews with university students with disabilities. Data were analyzed according
to the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Complex and rich accounts
divulged specific issues, such as physical access and access to academic knowledge, quality of
available support, interactions with tutors and fellow students, as well as perceived factors that
may hinder the transition into the labor market. The results of the study also confirmed that
students with disabilities are capable of asserting their needs, challenging institutional
discrimination issues and proposing more inclusive alternatives. The findings indicate the need
for reconsidering and refining institutional policies and practices in relation to issues of
disability and education.

Helena Martins et al. (2018) studied the attitudes towards inclusion in higher education
in a Portuguese university. This research is part of a wider project designed to understand the
trajectories and experiences of students with disabilities at the University of Algarve. This
exploratory study raises questions about inclusion and discusses this concept based on the
perspectives of academic and non-academic staff. A qualitative approach was used to provide

24
an informative exploration of attitudes towards inclusive education and recommendations for
promoting best practices therein. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. We
found positive perceptions of university staff members about the inclusion of the students with
disabilities. However, more effort is needed to provide these students with opportunities to
continue their academic career in HE and to promote inclusion, personal development and
participation in social and economic life. Although inclusive education is on political and
educational agendas, the perception of disabilities as deficits prevails. The findings of this
study, therefore, reveal that changes must be implemented to effectively adopt the social and
educational model of disability.

Moriña, (2019) studied the challenges and opportunities of inclusive education in

higher education. Implementing the principles of inclusive education within higher education
can be challenging. Inclusive education was originally developed for younger students, prior
to its application within higher education. However, as more students with disabilities
successfully complete their early schooling, the need to move towards inclusive practices
within higher education has increased. The purpose of this article is to offer thoughts on
inclusive practices within higher education. The paper is organized into three sections: a
description of the current situation of inclusive education in relation to students with
disabilities in higher education; a review of the literature focused on students with disabilities
and on faculty members within higher education; and a discussion of how moving the
university towards an inclusive setting requires designing policies, strategies, processes and
actions that contribute to ensuring the success of all the students.

Mutanga, (2018) studied the inclusion of students with disabilities in South African
Higher Education. Globally, few students with disabilities progress to higher education. This
is mostly due to avoidable barriers they face as they navigate different educational structures
from lower levels. Even for those few students who make it to higher education, they continue
to face challenges. A qualitative study was carried out at the University of the Free State and
the University of Venda. Fourteen students with disabilities took part in this research that was
aimed at exploring their academic and life experiences. This article interrogates the inclusion
of students with disabilities at two South African universities. This article is timely as South
Africa has initiated the development of a national policy framework on disability in the post-

25
school education and training systems. It highlights some of the areas where inclusive policies
should pay attention in an effort to fully cater for the needs of students with disabilities.

Parker, (1998) studied the UK initiatives to promote inclusion in higher education for
students with disabilities. The inclusion in higher education of students with disabilities and
learning difficulties has become a matter of concern within the past eight years. Recent Higher
Education Funding Council initiatives to promote greater inclusion have had some success in
improving access to higher education (HE) and raising awareness across the sector of the need
to ensure full participation by students with disabilities in the learning environment once they
enter the university. Hopes that the new UK disability rights legislation would help promote
equality of access to HE were disappointed when it became apparent that the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 excluded education from its main provisions. The only requirement
affecting post-compulsory education is that institutions publish a statement on their provision
for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. These disability statements confer no
legal rights and it appeared that they would have little impact on access to HE for disabled
people. This paper reports the findings of a survey of the anticipated effects upon the higher
education sector in England of the requirement to produce disability statements. There may be
some positive effects not only upon the nature and form of information available, but also on
the provision offered in the sector.

Kochung, (2011) studied the role of higher education in promoting inclusive education.
Higher education is a process of imparting knowledge and skills to individuals and empowers
them to; participate in development, decision making and democratic process. Effective
education takes place when students are able to participate fully and benefit from that
education. Higher education in Africa has been perceived as a privilege of the few intellectuals
or the rich and therefore those with disabilities are denied accessibility. Currently less than 1%
of people with disability in Africa have access to higher education and success of this small
portion of the population is limited. Persons with disabilities are unable to access higher
education due to barriers outside the institutions and those within. Such barriers include
narrowly-defined set of legibility criteria, negative attitude, and inaccessible environments.
Inclusive education approach is instrumental in addressing these barriers in order to open
higher education for students with disabilities and all those who are currently denied access on

26
racial, ethnic, health, linguistic and cultural grounds. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the role of higher education in promoting inclusive education in African with a specific case
in Kenyan context.

Salend et al. (1985) studied roles of the special education faculty in the learning of
disabled students. Data indicate that the prevalence of learning disabled students enrolling in
institutions of higher education is increasing. Many of these students will require additional
services as well as modification of the traditional collegiate program in order to complete their
education successfully. The purpose of this article is to describe the role special education
faculty members can perform in assisting the college community in devising and delivering
programs that facilitate the adjustment and performance of learning disabled students.

Toit, (2018) design a model for facilitating the inclusion of higher education
international students with disabilities in South Africa. Higher education in South Africa is
regulated by several policies, and the obligation of increased access and participation of
persons with disabilities into higher education is recognized in legislation (Department of
Education, 1997; Department of Higher Education and Training, 2013). However, research
indicates that the proportion of students with disabilities in higher education and in study
programs abroad is still very low worldwide (Fazekas, 2017; Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2011). Study opportunities for these students in higher education
institutions abroad, including South Africa, should therefore be increased to provide equal
access and experience in an inclusive higher education environment. This study explores
possible reasons for the low engagement of South African students with disabilities in
international mobility programs and the function of key role-players in supporting international
students with disabilities studying in South Africa (incoming students) and South African
students with disabilities studying abroad (outgoing students). This study also explores the
ways by which the exchange process could be facilitated more effectively within the context
of an inclusive higher education environment. Data on the support services offered to these
students was obtained by means of questionnaires sent to the International Relations Offices
and Disability Rights Units at higher education institutions in South Africa. The study
culminated in the design of a model which specifies the roles of the various role-players in

27
supporting international students with disabilities during their pre-departure, study and return
phases.

Stayton & McCollum, (2002) assessed the general and special education. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has provided the impetus to educate all children in
more inclusive settings. With the move toward inclusion has come the recognition that changes
must occur in the manner in which teachers are prepared. Since the 1970s, efforts have been
made to ensure that general educators have some content in their preservice preparation
programs related to disabilities either through modifying existing courses or by adding special
education courses to the curriculum. However, research suggests that such practices have not
resulted in adequately prepared general educators for inclusive settings. A more recent early
childhood education trend in preparing preservice students for inclusive settings is to unify
general and special education curricula in universities/colleges. An overview of efforts toward
unification and a summary of the limited research in this area are provided. The remaining
articles in this topical section are introduced with a discussion of the need for further research
related to unification.

Küçükalkan et al. (2023) assessed managerial processes applied in multinational

special education institutions. Students with special needs experience various barriers to higher
education inclusion that are highly diverse. However, studies examining the challenges of
students with special needs in higher education are scattered and fail to address context-based
problems. The purpose of this study, thus, was to investigate the challenges and prospects that
students’ with special needs experience in Kosovo’s higher education. The study used an
analytical framework for understanding inclusive higher education as a (i) policy problem, (ii)
management problem, and (iii) teaching and learning problem. The study conducted 10
interviews with institutional management and academic staff, 2 in-depth interviews with
students with special needs within higher education, and analysed numerous policy and
programing documents at the national and institutional level. The goal of ensuring the full
inclusion of students with special needs in higher education requires a multifaceted and long-
term approach. This study contributes to the lack of literature by showing that values behind
an inclusive higher education and formal efforts towards an inclusive higher education interact
as push and pull factors that hinder the inclusive transformations in higher education. Hence,

28
findings recommend strong collaborative efforts between policy, institutional management,
and teaching and learning variables, coupled with positive values and attitudes cultivation, to
ensure the successful inclusion of students with special needs towards an inclusive higher
education environment.

Smith et al. (2017) examine the augmented reality to improve navigation skills in
postsecondary students with intellectual disability. The purpose of this study was to examine
the effects of using mobile technology to improve navigation skills in three students
with intellectual disability (ID) in a postsecondary education program. Navigation
skills included using an augmented reality iPhone app to make correct "waypoint"
decisions when traveling by foot on a university campus to target destinations. The
results indicate that all students improved their navigation skills. Findings are
discussed in the context of teaching the use of mobile technology to improve
wayfinding skills in students with ID.

Chang et al. (2005) studied the early childhood teacher preparation in special education
at 2-and 4-year institutions of higher education. The movement toward inclusion has made
educating and caring for children with disabilities an increasingly critical part of the early
education teacher's role. The goal of this paper is to describe the extent to which early
childhood teacher preparation programs are including early childhood special educationlearly
intervention content and experiences as part of their core course and practicum requirements.
A nationally representative survey of 438 chairs and directors of early childhood teacher
preparation programs revealed that while a large proportion of programs consider early
childhood special educationlearly intervention to be a part of the mission of their program, the
amount of coursework and practicum experience vary considerably by content area and level
of degree offered by the program. Implications are offered for policy and future research.

Moriña Díez et al. (2015) interviewed students with disabilities in higher

education. This research presents an analysis of how lecturers respond to students with
disabilities, the initial question being: do lecturers aid or hinder students? Findings pertain to
a broader research project being developed by a multidisciplinary team employing a non-usual
research methodology in higher education (HE) research and students with disabilities:

29
biographical-narrative methodology. The general aim is to analyse – by listening to the
students themselves – barriers and support identified as affecting access, academic
performance and overall perception of the HE experience. The present paper analyses lecturer-
centred data to focus specifically on one of the objectives of our research project: the role that
lecturers play in the inclusive education of students with disabilities. Unlike other international
research, this article explores the barriers and support differentiating between five fields of
knowledge: health sciences, experimental sciences, social sciences (law and education),
engineering and technology and humanities. Findings are organized in four topic areas: lecturer
attitudes, practices in the classroom, curricular adaptations and faculty training. Key findings
are discussed in the conclusions section, together with a discussion of contributions made by
earlier studies.

30
Chapter # 3

METHDOLOGY
Ethical Considerations

All university students with disabilities who responded to the open call invitation in the
present study. Participants were fully informed about the purpose and the aim of the study.
They were informed that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw
at any time. Finally, they were reassured that all data would be processed anonymously. In
order to ensure anonymity and confidentiality in reporting, pseudonyms have been used
throughout the article, in reference to different settings, locations and/or people and
participants.

Participants

Convenience sampling was used as the main sampling procedure. Specifically, the final sample
consisted of 3 university students with disabilities (10 females and 5 males) who responded to
the open call and reported their willingness to participate in the study. In the absence of official
statistics, it is not possible to determine the representativeness of the sample. Rather, it is the
case that the range and number of disabilities included in the study reflect the characteristics
of the students to whom the authors had access. Participants originated from 3 different Higher
Education Institutions in the South Punjab, Pakistan. The majority of the participants (11/15)
were 19–26 years old; slightly more than half (8/15) were living in the homes of their families,
while the remaining ones lived either on their own or with a partner. Just over half of the
participants (9/15) were students with physical/motor disabilities, four (4/15) were students
with hearing disabilities and the remaining two (2/15) were students with visual disabilities.
Nine (9/15) of the participants had, in the past, attended mainstream primary schools, with or
without support, while six (6/15) participants started school within the specialist education
system.

Research Instruments

31
A semi-structured interview schedule was constructed, based on previous work conducted by
Connors and Stalker (2003) and Curtin and Clarke (2005). The interview schedule was
discussed with one university students with disabilities, who did not themselves participate at
the main study. All necessary modifications were made according to the pilot participants’
suggestions and recommendations. The final instrument included three main themes. The first
theme revolved around the socio-demographic information of the study participants (e.g.
gender, age, type of disability, university and department attended, period of attendance). The
second theme concerned students’ retrospective narratives of primary and secondary education
school experiences, in mainstream and/or special schools. Finally, the third theme referred to
students’ narratives about their attendance to date in higher education institutions, their
impending transition from education to paid employment and their future aspirations. For
reasons of space and scope, the findings discussed in this paper will focus only on the third
theme. Data Collection: Interview Procedure Participants were informed about the issues
around which the interview discussion would unfold and the time they would spend
participating in the study. Personal appointments were then arranged so that the study’s
purposes could be explained and established in a relaxed, familiar and safe atmosphere. All
participants were offered the opportunity to select where they wished the interview discussion
to take place. Different places were chosen: these included participants’ flats or working
places, as well as university classrooms. The interviews were open-ended, and lasted from 40
to 90 min. All interviews were conducted in Urdu, audio-recorded and were carried out
individually, with the exception of four interviews, in which a sign language interpreter was
present.

Data Analysis

The interviews were transcribed verbatim, creating a numbered interview protocol per
participant. Whenever necessary, time, age, places or any other personal information that could
result in participants’ or any other person’s identification were altered. Data analysis
constituted 384 single-spaced pages of text, comprised of transcripts and analytic memos. The
qualitative analysis of the protocols was based on the principles of the interpretative
phenomenological analysis (Creswell 2007).

32
 Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is a qualitative research approach,
committed to the examination of how people make sense of their major life experiences (Smith,
Flowers, and Larkin 2009). IPA is concerned with understanding personal lived experience,
and thus exploring people’s relatedness to a particular event or process (phenomenon). This
approach is based on the assumption that our data can tell us something about people’s
involvement and orientation towards the world and how they make sense of this. It adopts
analytic procedures for moving from single cases to more general observations, but, quite
often, it is concerned with the detailed examination of human lived experiences. Thus, one of
our prime reasons for choosing IPA over any other qualitative approach was our intention/ aim
to explore, describe, interpret and situate the means by which our participants make sense of
their experience as students in Pakistan Higher Educational Institutions.

In the first stage of the process of analysis, the interview transcripts were read several
times in order to familiarize ourselves with the text. Once this had been established, the authors,
based on the participants’ own words, proceeded to make notes of what they considered to be
key points. Once the whole interview was analyzed, the margin notes were compiled into a list,
so as to ensure that all aspects of the interview had been covered. In the next stage, these notes
were grouped into thematic areas. This involved a gradual cyclical process of clustering,
revising and re-clustering, while creating the initial themes. The themes were further organized
into groups (sub-themes). The groups contained themes which were related to each other.
These were further organized under thematic headings (superordinate themes) (Miles and
Huberman 1994). All the themes were coded so as to ensure that every instance of each theme
that occurred in the transcript was identified. The themes from the individual interviews were
reviewed and grouped together with similar themes from other interviews, so as to form new
and extended clusters of themes. A selection of these are presented in the results section below.
As mentioned above, quotations have been anonymised and pseudonyms used where relevant.
The quotations from the data have been translated into English by the authors.

33
Chapter # 4

RESULT
Choice of Course and Accessibility Issues

With regard to their choice of course, participants brought to light a number of issues
and made reference to the people who had influenced them. It became evident that the key
criteria which guided their choices were issues such as: future prospects, job characteristics,
working conditions and job requirements, as well as a love for the subject and personal
preference. As one student put it: ‘I chose this course because I am thinking ahead. Working
as a teacher is feasible. I guess I’ll be employed straight after my graduation by the state, which
means I’ll have my maintenance problem solved’. Meanwhile, another said: ‘I think I can make
it here [the course]. It’s not that difficult’. There were, however, about a third of participants
(5/15) who could not attend the courses they had chosen because they had scored lower than
the requested grade for entrance; some felt deprived even of the option of applying for a
specific course. As one student observed, this course is not what I’ve been dreaming of. If I
had my vision, I would have been accepted on Environmental or Geology studies, but those
courses have limitations. I was rejected, so I applied for whatever was left.

Almost all the participants stated that they had to struggle with the inability of the
university to accommodate their needs and to ensure accessibility in terms of physical access,
mobility, academic knowledge and university life. Specifically, in terms of physical access,
most of the participants talked about unsuitable elevators, stairs and lighting, absence of ramps
and of wheelchair accessible toilets as well as classrooms with poor acoustics. As far as access
to academic knowledge was concerned, the majority of participants raised the issue of the
attitudes and behavior of their tutors as being one of the main obstacles that hindered their full
participation in classes. They felt that the tutors were indifferent and lacked the knowledge
concerning appropriate support. In fact, the perceived absence of meaningful support and lack
of any differentiation in terms of the content, process or product (i.e. curricular objectives,
instructional methods and/or exams), as well as unwillingness to make any modifications, were
the most frequently stated barriers to learning and participation, as these two quotations
indicate:

34
 “There is no differentiation during lectures. There is no plan. Nothing organized. No
routine of support. I actually miss 2/3 of what is being said … that’s why I use an audio-
recorder.”

“Usually when they [tutors] use PowerPoint they talk to the wall, not to us. I cannot
see them and I cannot hear them. I think they just don’t care; or some, are not aware of disability
issues.”

However, a small proportion of participants (3 out of the 15) talked about inclusive
institutions, supportive learning environments, positive behavior and good relations with
academics and staff. These participants referred to a number of structures and practices that
supported them during lectures, exam preparation and actual exams. One said,

I think it’s the policy of our university to be friendly. The classrooms are small, so I
can hear everything and I feel safe. The building is accessible. There exist toilets for persons
with disabilities, ramps and bars. Another explained, I am very satisfied with my tutors. They
examine me orally and during lectures they want me to understand everything. For instance, if
they project some notes or PowerPoint on the wall, they read everything for me. They explain
everything and I feel confident to ask for clarifications. I also ask them to let me know in
advance of what we’ll be examined on so that I can prepare on time. They give me their
personal notes too. The philosophy of the University encourages such attitudes. We completed
questionnaires evaluating each tutor and the university as a whole. Some questions asked
whether the tutors were kind, supportive and accessible.

Support Services and Networks

Participants were asked to reflect on the role that university services and support networks
have played regarding the quality of their academic life. Although a number of different
services were mentioned, the majority of participants felt that friendly relations with their
fellow students were of the most benefit. This is illustrated in the comments from two
participants quoted below:

o No one is supporting me in this course except my friends. They are my ears and my
eyes. One thing I’ll tell you, I’ve even given up attending some lectures, because I
found no reason to be in there. Neither can I understand what is being said, nor can I

35
 participate. So, after each lecture, the girls give me a ‘private’ lecture. I get their notes;
they tell me all I need to know.
o They help me. I help them too. We feel very close to each other. We gather at my flat.
They take me out for drinks and on excursions! Always! I used to have friends
previously, during my school years, but now it’s different. They can accept that I am
different.

As far as university services are concerned, participants talked about the ‘Counselling and
Psychological Support Centre’, the ‘Disability Support Centre’, the Technical Support Staff of
the University Library and some even referred to the Secretariat of the Faculties. Specifically,
the majority of participants spoke about the ‘Disability Support Centre’ services. While all the
participants proposed that such services need to be empowered so as to hold a key role in
organising support plans for students with disabilities, at the same time, their experiences from
support centres differed considerably from university to university, ranging from very negative
to very positive. This contrast is evident in the pair of quotations below:

o I won’t go; it’s useless. They could do so much, but they won’t. I bet they are short of
staff, without the power, unable to take immediate action; although they should be
powerful and responsible for all disability-related issues.
o I turn to them for whatever I need. They supply us with computers with speech
programs. We can access all the available library books. And, in general, if there is a
problem with a tutor, or with the exams or anything else, they try to sort it out.

More than half of the participants referred to the university’s support facilities such as a
‘counselling and psychological support center’, but only three said that they had visited such a
facility and five expressed the desire to visit the facility in the future, as they believed that this
might be beneficial in the process of self-awareness and problem-solving. The rest of the
participants either felt skeptical about the center’s efficacy or in doubt as to whether they
needed this type of service. For example, one commented: I saw their office and I keep saying
I want to visit it. People need to talk if they want to discover themselves. And I guess they will
advise you on how to deal with everyday challenges. Another said: Some students may need
it. I don’t. I have family and friends. Besides, I don’t think they can negotiate problems with
university authorities. Almost one third of the participants discussed the Technical Support

36
Staff of Libraries. Six participants described them as supportive, while the remaining
participants felt frustrated, disappointed and even angry for being left alone in their endeavor
to access academic resources. Finally, participating students sometimes referred to the
Secretariat of the Faculties. This area was perceived as ‘impersonal’, with personnel simply
executing their duties and nothing more: ‘They are just fine. They do their job and that’s all.
They neither support me nor do they make my life difficult’. In a few instances, however,
participants acknowledged staff as supportive and helpful: ‘They know me and they always
help me. They inform me about lectures or about fee-free programmes and seminars that I can
participate in’.

37
Chapter # 5

DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the role of higher education institutions
in promoting peaceful platform for education of special students and the challenges and
prospects that students’ with special needs experience in Pakistan’s higher education
institutions. I believe that present study highlights the role and importance of listening to the
voices of students with disabilities. This is, of course, not to say that students with disabilities
share one voice, or that, by virtue of their identity, they are best placed to produce knowledge
about themselves and about others with a similar identity (for an extensive critical approach to
the notion of ‘voice’ see: Gallacher and Gallagher 2008). We do, however, recognise that what
students with disabilities have to say about their educational experiences helps to provide a
more adequate and useful overview of the current state of affairs and can contribute to a better
understanding of the issues involved in inclusion and inclusive education (see: Cefai and
Cooper 2010; Hodge 2008; Madriaga et al. 2010).

Before moving on to discuss some of the main findings of the study, it is important to
note that the students participating in this research had managed to progress successfully
through all educational levels and, at the time the study was conducted, were attending
university. However, we have no knowledge of what students with disabilities who did not, or
could not, progress onto higher education have to say about their educational experiences in
general, and their thoughts about universities in Greece, in particular. Further, it is important
to acknowledge that the small sample size, coupled with the qualitative nature of the study,
does not allow for generalisations; nor does it enable the exploration of the way that other
factors (i.e. gender, ethnicity, type and severity of impairment, financial/social status and type
of course/department) may influence students’ perspectives and experiences. The use of a
convenience sampling method creates further limitations, in terms of representativeness and
generalisability (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016).

Despite the limitations mentioned above, this study nonetheless reveals a number of
insights about how students with disabilities experience and negotiate their attendance at
higher education institutions. One of the noteworthy aspects of the study was the wide range

38
of experiences reported by the participants, extending from very positive and satisfying to very
negative and/or exclusionary ones. On the negative side of the continuum, participants seemed
to experience anxiety with regard to their academic achievements, low levels of motivation
and quite often feelings of disengagement and failure. Whether students’ experiences are
influenced by the nature of disability and how disability impacted upon the affordances needed
and/or offered to students are issues that need to be further researched with larger samples and,
more importantly, through the use of mixed-method approaches. It seems, however, that the
culture of the Institution, as well as the level of awareness evidenced by fellow students, tutors
and the rest of the staff (technicians, librarians, secretaries) played a vital role in the formation
of positive or negative experiences.

In relation to the factors supporting or hindering the attempts of students with

disabilities to participate and access knowledge within Pakistan higher educational institutions,
the results of the study are indicative of the importance of existing supportive mechanisms and
services, or sometimes of their lack. Lack of awareness of the teaching staff concerning the
particular needs that students with disabilities have, and the absence of a comprehensive
support system, quite often resulted in the participants being confronted with the dilemma of
either having to disclose a disability in order to achieve ‘special’ arrangements, or to go on
unsupported (Gibson, 2012)

Where support was provided, it seemed limited to small-scale, add-on exam

modifications, such as note taking or the simple and inexpensive method of offering oral
exams. These findings are in congruence with previous research, which indicates that, in most
cases, whenever students with disabilities at university are provided with assistance, it has to
do mainly – if not exclusively – with final examinations (Stampoltzis and Polychronopoulou
2009). Katsikas (2010, 443) took his criticism even further, by suggesting that Greek
universities placed such an emphasis on exams that they ran the risk of being characterized as
‘exam factories’.

39
Chapter # 6

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, higher education institutions should dedicate their efforts towards
initiatives that provide more than just assuring access and mobility to students with special
needs. Institutions should commit to implementing inclusive policy and practice by ensuring
resource availability and tailored services to students with special needs. Moreover, higher
education institutions are also responsible for restructuring study programs design and
delivery. This effort will ensure the organizing of academic staff training and guarantying the
availability and application of didactic materials and other learning resources and tools towards
quality teaching and learning.

40
 REFERENCES
Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of
organisational cultures and leadership. International journal of inclusive
education, 14(4), 401-416.

Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic?. International journal

of inclusive education, 1(3), 231-242.

Belarra, I. (2014). Modernisation of Higher Education In Europe: Access, Retention and

Employability. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, (24), 291-292.

Bessant, J. (2012). ‘Measuring Up’? Assessment and students with disabilities in the modern
university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(3), 265-281.

Cefai, C., and P. Cooper. 2010. “Students without Voices: The Unheard Accounts of
Secondary School Students with Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties.”
European Journal of Special Needs Education 25 (2): 183–198.

Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special
education at 2-and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of early
intervention, 27(2), 110-124.

Connors, C., & Stalker, K. (2003). The views and experiences of disabled children and their
siblings: A positive outlook. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Coriale, L., Larson, G., & Robertson, J. (2012). Exploring the educational experience of a
social work student with a disability: A narrative. Social Work Education, 31(4), 422-
434.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Sage publications.

Curtin, M., & Clarke, G. (2005). Listening to young people with physical disabilities'
experiences of education. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 52(3), 195-214.

41
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Fuller*, M., Bradley, A., & Healey, M. (2004). Incorporating disabled students within an
inclusive higher education environment. Disability & society, 19(5), 455-468.

Gallacher, L. A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research?

Thinking throughparticipatory methods'. Childhood, 15(4), 499-516.

Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on
campus. Exceptionality, 16(4), 207-219.

Gibson, S. (2006). Beyond a ‘culture of silence’: inclusive education and the liberation of
‘voice’. Disability & Society, 21(4), 315-329.

Gibson, S. (2012). Narrative accounts of university education: Socio-cultural perspectives of

students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 27(3), 353-369.

Goode, J. (2007). ‘Managing’disability: Early experiences of university students with

disabilities. Disability & Society, 22(1), 35-48.

Gouvias, D., Katsis, A., & Limakopoulou, A. (2012). School achievement and family
background in Greece: A new exploration of an omnipresent relationship. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 22(2), 125-145.

Hadjikakou, K., Polycarpou, V., & Hadjilia, A. (2010). The experiences of students with
mobility disabilities in Cypriot higher education institutions: Listening to their
voices. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(4), 403-
426.

Hardman, M. L., & West, J. (2003). Increasing the number of special education faculty: Policy
implications and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3),
206-214.

42
Helena Martins, M., Borges, M. L., & Gonçalves, T. (2018). Attitudes towards inclusion in
higher education in a Portuguese university. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 22(5), 527-542.

Hodge, N. (2008). Evaluating Lifeworld as an emancipatory methodology. Disability &

Society, 23(1), 29-40.

Hong, B. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities
experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209-
226.

Jdaitawi, M. T., & Kan'an, A. F. (2022). A Decade of Research on the Effectiveness of

Augmented Reality on Students with Special Disability in Higher
Education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1).

Katsikas, E. S. (2010). Elements and symptoms of an ineffective higher education system:

Evidence from a Greek university. Journal of further and Higher Education, 34(3),
431-450.

Kochung, E. J. (2011). Role of higher education in promoting inclusive education: Kenyan

perspective. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 2(3), 144-149.

Küçükalkan, K., Demirok, M. S., & Avcin, M. (2023). Assessment of managerial processes
applied in multinational special education institutions. Heliyon, 9(9).

Küçükalkan, K., Demirok, M. S., & Avcin, M. (2023). Assessment of managerial processes
applied in multinational special education institutions. Heliyon, 9(9).

Larkin, M., Flowers, P., & Smith, J. A. (2021). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research. Interpretative phenomenological analysis, 1-100.

Madriaga, M. (2007). Enduring disablism: Students with dyslexia and their pathways into UK
higher education and beyond. Disability & Society, 22(4), 399-412.

43
Madriaga, M., Hanson, K., Heaton, C., Kay, H., Newitt, S., & Walker, A. (2010). Confronting
similar challenges? Disabled and non‐disabled students’ learning and assessment
experiences. Studies in higher education, 35(6), 647-658.

McMahon, D., Cihak, D. F., & Wright, R. (2015). Augmented reality as a navigation tool to
employment opportunities for postsecondary education students with intellectual
disabilities and autism. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 157-
172.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
sage.

Morina Diez, A. (2010). School memories of young people with disabilities: an analysis of
barriers and aids to inclusion. Disability & Society, 25(2), 163-175.

Moriña Díez, A., López, R. G., & Molina, V. M. (2015). Students with disabilities in higher
education: A biographical-narrative approach to the role of lecturers. Higher Education
Research & Development, 34(1), 147-159.

Moriña, A. (2019). Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and

opportunities. Postsecondary educational opportunities for students with special
education needs, 3-17.

Mutanga, O. (2018). Inclusion of students with disabilities in South African higher

education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(2),
229-242.

Newman, L. A., Madaus, J. W., Lalor, A. R., & Javitz, H. S. (2021). Effect of accessing
supports on higher education persistence of students with disabilities. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 353.

Papadopoulos, K., & Koutsoklenis, A. (2009). Reading media used by higher-education

students and graduates with visual impairments in Greece. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 103(11), 772-777.

Parker, V. (1998). UK initiatives to promote inclusion in higher education for students with
disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(2), 189-199.

44
Polat, F., Kalambouka, A., & Boyle, B. (2004). After secondary school, what? The transition
of deaf young people from school to independent living. Deafness & Education
International, 6(1), 1-19.

Psacharopoulos, G., & Tassoulas, S. (2004). Achievement at the higher education entry
examinations in Greece: A Procrustean approach. Higher education, 47(2), 241-252.

Rajohane Matshedisho, K. (2007). Access to higher education for disabled students in South
Africa: A contradictory conjuncture of benevolence, rights and the social model of
disability. Disability & Society, 22(7), 685-699.

Riddell, S. (2009). Social justice, equality and inclusion in Scottish education. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 283-296.

Roulstone, A., & Barnes, C. (Eds.). (2005). Working futures?: Disabled people, policy and
social inclusion. Policy Press.

Saiti, A., & Prokopiadou, G. (2008). The demand for higher education in Greece. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 32(3), 285-296.

Salend, S. J., Salend, S. M., & Yanok, J. (1985). Learning disabled students in higher
education: The roles of the special education faculty. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 8(1), 48-54.

Shevlin*, M., Kenny, M., & McNeela, E. (2004). Participation in higher education for students
with disabilities: an Irish perspective. Disability & Society, 19(1), 15-30.

Sianou‐Kyrgiou, E., & Tsiplakides, I. (2011). Similar performance, but different choices:
social class and higher education choice in Greece. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1),
89-102.

Smith, C. C., Cihak, D. F., Kim, B., McMahon, D. D., & Wright, R. (2017). Examining
augmented reality to improve navigation skills in postsecondary students with
intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(1), 3-11.

Stampoltzis, A., & Polychronopoulou, S. (2009). Greek university students with dyslexia: An
interview study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 307-321.

45
Stampoltzis, A., & Polychronopoulou, S. (2009). Greek university students with dyslexia: An
interview study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 307-321.

Stayton, V. D., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does
the research tell us?. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 211-218.

Stewart, J. (2004). Housing and independent living. Disabling Barriers, Enabling

Environments, 149-154.

Toit, N. D. (2018). Designing a model for facilitating the inclusion of higher education
international students with disabilities in South Africa. Social Inclusion, 6(4), 168-181.

Tomlinson, S. (2012). Ignorant yobs?: Low attainers in a global knowledge economy.

Routledge.

Vlachou, A., & Papananou, I. (2018). Experiences and perspectives of Greek higher education
students with disabilities. Educational Research, 60(2), 206-221.

Wade, J., & Dixon, J. (2006). Making a home, finding a job: investigating early housing and
employment outcomes for young people leaving care. Child & family social
work, 11(3), 199-208.

Winn, S., & Hay, I. (2009). Transition from school for youths with a disability: Issues and
challenges. Disability & Society, 24(1), 103-115.

Zhang, Y., Rosen, S., Cheng, L., & Li, J. (2018). Inclusive Higher Education for Students with
Disabilities in China: What Do the University Teachers Think?. Higher Education
Studies, 8(4), 104-115.

Zoniou-Sideri, A., E. Deropoulou-Derou, P. Karagianni, and I. Spandagou. 2006. “Inclusive

Discourse in Greece: Strong Voices, Weak Policies.” International Journal of Inclusive
Education 10 (2–3): 279–291.

Παιδείας, Υ. (2009). Ρύθμιση θεμάτων του πανεπιστημιακού και τεχνολογικού τομέα της
Ανώτατης Εκπαίδευσης και άλλες διατάξεις (Νόμος Υπ'Αριθ. 3794).

46