Dancing Between Disciplines: Inclusion of Disability and Adult Learning in Higher Education

Home , Special education

DANCING BETWEEN DISCIPLINES: INCLUSION OF DISABILITY AND ADULT LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ANDREA HORGAN

Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)

submitted to Dr. Nanci Langford

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

December 2012

Abstract

Stretching beyond traditional approaches to disability that historically has dominated

Western post‐secondary educational realms, this paper aims to lay out a new model of inclusive education for higher education institutions. With the increase in diverse learners entering higher education, there is a need now more than ever to combat oppressive frameworks and open up novel ideas to promote inclusion. Combining concepts and methods from the social model of disability, adult learning theories, and universal instructional design models, a transdisciplinary approach to considering an inclusive model that offers a sense of belonging for all students is possible. Drawing from existing research, this article describes this inclusive model and provides recommendations and next steps for successful implementation.

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Disability Defined 4

Current Situation 7

Inclusive Education 9

Adult Learning Theories 11

Universal Design/Universal Instructional Design 13

Social Model of Disability 15

Proposed Model of Inclusion in Higher Ed. 15

Recommendations 18

Next Steps 19

Conclusion 19

References 21

Introduction:

In an ever‐changing, diverse educational landscape, questions of belonging remain in flux. Adult learners are immersed in the net of tradition currently thriving at post‐secondary education institutions, which does not effectively address current issues entrenched in history and culture. There is a lack of full inclusion in higher education, as diverse learners, including

those living with disabilities, face socially constructed barriers to belonging. There is a sense of urgency in the cry for a learning environment that both accepts and embraces all learners. The means to achieving the goal of an inclusive education model in higher education lies in the

intertwining of methods and concepts pulled and melded together from various theories rooted in different disciplines. Transdisciplinarity is at the heart of such a model of inclusion in higher education. Through the exploration of the Social Model of Disability, Adult Learning

Theories and Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), a model for inclusion in higher education is

constructed and proposed. These three theoretical platforms inform a theoretical model for

Inclusion in higher education.

Disability Defined:

Students living with disabilities comprise a valuable portion of the population in higher education. In North America, between 5% and 11% of students attending postsecondary education institutions live with a disability (Fossey, 2005, p.1). The International Classification

of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines disability as “… an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions… Disability is the interaction

between individuals with a health condition (e.g. cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and depression) and personal and environmental factors (e.g. negative attitudes, inaccessible transportation and public buildings, and limited social supports)…” (WHO, 2011, p.7).

Definitions of disability are dependent on which model of disability is being drawn upon.

There are essentially two dominant models for understanding disability; the medical model, and the social model. The medical model of disability is a perspective of disability that locates disability within the individual, identifying disability as a biological trait; a problem that requires a cure (Areheart, 2008, p.186). With this particular model of disability, the focus is on the

individual and finding ways of overcoming the disability (p.186). The medicalization of disability

was bred from the eugenics movement covering the 19th and early 20th Century. The eugenics movement attempted to attribute diagnostic criteria for normal versus abnormal people, and flickered from the wick of belief that the problems in society were caused by human defects

(Snyder & Mitchell, 2006, p.69‐70). The science behind eugenics can be described as having been “…devoted to the designation of pathology as a transmissible characteristic of human biology…” (p.70). Individuals deemed ‘feebleminded’ or ‘idiots’ included people with any type of disability, as two categories of ‘mentalities’ prevailed; either normal or feeble‐minded (p.76).

From such a degrading stance, disabilities were reduced to what Snyder & Mitchell (2006) refer to as “the status of stigmata.”(p.78). The stigma associated with people living with disabilities likely has its roots firmly implanted in fear; fear of being associated with someone who is

‘different’ (Davis, 2006, p.148). The isolation or exclusion of people with disabilities may be due to a belief that in doing so, the problem that disabilities appear to present can be isolated and ignored (p.149). In terms of changing a faltering or archaic system, stigma works to uphold “…

the existing social hierarchy…” (p.150). It is only with an elimination of the need to “legitimize” social exclusion and segregation that stigma will no longer exist (p.150). From an inclusive standpoint, when people identify the benefits of ‐ or even the necessity of seeing ‐ the commonalities between people with disabilities rather than focusing on the differences, stigma

will start to disappear (p.150). However, differences need to be met with acceptance and

celebration of diversity to truly present an inclusive place to learn and exist (Goodley, 2011, p.151).

The cultural implications of the medical model, which reflects the established norms governing disability in North America, play a significant role in understanding how the higher education system operates (p.185). It is this particular framework that is currently still operating in higher education institutions across North America and which arguably needs a major facelift to provide a truly inclusive environment in which all students can feel a sense of

belonging.

The social model of disability focuses on how society is or can be disabling. There is a

distinction between impairment and disability, viewing disability as a “… social creation ‐ a relationship between people with impairment and a disabling society…” (Davis, 2006, p.198).

This particular model which sees disability as socially constructed finds its roots in the Disability

Movement and Disability Studies; a multidisciplinary field patched together from social sciences, humanities, and rehabilitation sciences (Derby, 2012, p.1). As a response to the oppression faced by people living with disabilities, the Disability Movement centered on a shift from organizations operating for people with disabilities to organizations controlled by

individuals with disabilities (Dowse, 2001, p.127). The goal of this particular movement was to help improve the quality of life, as well as promote inclusion in society, for people with disabilities (p.127). The social model of disabilities erupted out of this era and new consciousness. Stemming from the collaboration of disabled academics, who expanded on the

declaration made by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) that “it is

society which disables physically impaired people” (p.127), the social model of disability found

its roots. The Disability Movement, and the social model of disability which was birthed by this social movement, gave voice to the vast number of people facing oppression due to disability‐ related issues (p.128).

Current Situation:

At present, Western society higher education institutions are being stretched beyond what their traditional walls are capable of withstanding, and desperately are in need of a renovation to the foundation upon which the system has been standing since the eugenics movement. The traditional system includes a coordination of accommodating students with disabilities with a focus on academic supports revolving around instruction and assessment

(Scott, et. al, 2003, p.369). This format requires that students self‐identify, produce medical documentation as proof of disability to a Disability Services office within the institution, plan accommodations with a staff personnel, and then wait for accommodations to be set (p.370).

The medical model of disability can be identified within this system of medicalized documentation, classification of disability status, and individualized accommodation planning.

Titchkosky (2006) addresses the existence of the medical model of disability at work within

Post‐Secondary institutions, stating “My university, like many others, has applied programs … in

which learning disabilities are discussed as ‘problems’ to be remedied…” (p.131). The author draws attention to the cultural representation of disability as an individual problem that is in need of a cure (p.131). Areheart (2008) supports the notion that the medical model of disability is alive and in dominant mode within society, claiming that the model is “… firmly ensconced in our culture’s collective consciousness…”(p.183).

This mode of viewing disability as a personal problem is no longer feasible in a climate where increasing numbers of students with disabilities are entering post‐secondary education, with an increase in diverse learners in general. There has been a reported increase in the percentage of students self‐identifying with a disability from 2.3% in 1978 to 9% in the year

2000 (Schmitt, et. al, 2012, p.229). It is no longer realistic nor desirable that locations of higher education use a finger‐pointing perspective to manage, let alone educate, a population that has

outgrown the previously oppressed generations of post‐secondary learners. Scott (2003) identifies this increasing population and illustrates the need for a change in paradigm of instruction to promote access for students with disabilities (p.369). Between 5‐11% of students enrolled in post‐secondary education in North America live with a disability, and the number is

only growing (Fossey, 2005, p.23). With increasing numbers of diverse learners entering the arena of higher education, the time has come for structures of oppression to be torn down and the construction of new inclusive and empowering environments. Fuller (2004) extends this

need for a new way of functioning in higher education, eluding to the requirement for a new model of inclusion in which disability breaks out of the confines of student services and trumpets through the doors of mainstream learning and teaching (p.305). Goodley (2011) emphasizes the importance of schools placing a focus on diversity, declaring “…diversity is the

starting point for schools… (p.151). The question remains, what does a new framework to consider the growing number of diverse learners in higher education look like?

Inclusive Education:

With the widening of a diverse student population ‐ including an increase in students with disabilities ‐ post‐secondary education needs more than a simple tweaking to create an inclusive learning environment. An entirely new model of inclusion is rallying forward to fit the times. Nicolescu (unknown) makes mention of a “disorientation of education in today’s world”

(p.1). He describes how a new culture can be cultivated through the existence of a new kind of education; one which “… takes into account all the dimensions of the human being…” (p.4). This type of culture leans on full integration as its source, wherein “… ideas from one discipline are

so absorbed into the other that some new synthesis emerges… (p.16). Transdisciplinarity can be

understood as a means of integration of two or more disciplines, in which new knowledge is

created (Strober, 2011, p.16). With a transdisciplinary approach, the notion of learning to live

together with one another can be possible though “… open unity and complex plurality…” (p.5).

This integrative approach to cultivating community in an education setting respects that it is only though taking a holistic approach to human beings that the 21st century can “reconcile effectiveness and affectivity”(p.6). Nicolescu points to the significance of creating places that promote the transdisciplinary approach to education and secures its development (p.6). I argue that for a climate of inclusivity to exist in higher education, a new model of inclusion is necessary – one in which the institution provides spaces and places for this to occur – with a complete change in attitude and perspective leading the way.

Inclusion in education is grounded in the means for equitable opportunities for all learners to participate in their education (Goodley, 2011, p.141). Slee (2001) reiterates the notion that all learners are the focus of Inclusive education, claiming “Inclusive education is about all students” (p.168). Goodley (2011) argues that the goal of inclusive education is to

“…seek changes in line with conflict approaches to sociology, demanding educators to rethink education and disability…” (p.141). Inclusive education historically is enmeshed in human rights, aiming to provide access to an otherwise disabling environment (p.142). The recognition of disability as a civil right provides a way for people with disabilities to have access to classrooms (Davis, 2006, p.126). The Salamanca Statement from UNESCO (Lindsay, 2003) exemplifies the rights foundation of inclusion, as does the UN Human Rights Declaration on

Education, which states “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace”

(United Nations, 2012, Article 26). Part one of Article 26 focuses on the right of any person to

participate in education, stating “Everyone has the right to education” (Article 26). Certainly the language expressed in this declaration makes room for disability alongside learners of varying race, gender and social class. However, literature on disabilities and political‐cultural oppression and inclusion remains eerily absent (Slee, 2001, p168). Fuller (2004) highlights the

vacancy of voice from students with disabilities participating in higher education pursuits, describing how “… the voice of the disabled students themselves has hardly been heard…”

(p.303). It has been my personal experience as a Disability Advisor at a mid‐sized University in

Ontario, Canada, that students report feeling alone, isolated, stigmatized and misunderstood by

the University culture itself. One ground‐breaking initiative which recently surfaced consists of

a student run group named ‘InvisAbilities’, which provides advocacy and support for students with hidden, chronic illnesses. Originally based out of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario,

this group now has chapters located across the Country in ten different post‐secondary

institutions, including the school where I work (InvisAbilities, 2012). Clearly, the rapid spread of this group demonstrates the need for students with such disabilities to be recognized and supported in higher education.

Therefore, although there are increasing numbers of learners with disabilities entering

post‐secondary education, there still remains a lingering question about the degree to which they belong (Goodley, 2011, p.142), and how to foster a sense of belonging.

Models Toward Inclusion:

Adult Learning Theories

In exploring an Inclusive model for higher education, it is important to examine adult learning theories, as the learners in post‐secondary education are primarily adults. A few variations of adult learning theory demonstrate elements that play a role in supporting inclusion in higher education. One critical piece to understanding adult education is summed up in andragogy, defined as the art and science of helping adults learn (Merriam, 2001, p.5).

One of the assumptions underpinning andragogy, the roots of which are firmly planted in humanistic philosophy, is that adult learners have an independent self‐concept, which requires a classroom fit for adults, both physically and psychologically (p.5). The climate for learning

would thus help the learner feel “accepted, respected, and supported” (p.5). In addition, the classroom environment would promote a “…spirit of mutuality between teachers and students…”(p.5). However, despite the relevant value of creating a climate of respect, acceptance and support, there are limitations to andragogy being the key to an inclusive

education model. Andragogy focuses on the individual learner, but leaves out an important communitarian aspect which is crucial to some cultures, and thus, to creating a truly inclusive learning environment. Tisdell (1995) draws attention to this gap, citing “… there are limitations to how andragogy would contribute to creating an inclusive learning environment (p.49). To account for the missing piece, Merriam (2008) illustrates more emergent, holistic theories of adult learning which attempt to take into account contextual significance ‐ that learning and thinking are social activities (p.94 ). Merriam (2008) emphasizes the shift in thinking in adult learning theory toward the significance of context and culture, stating “The historic and socio‐

cultural context of adult learning is recognized as a key component in understanding the nature of adult learning” (p.94). Layered on top of the addition of the socio‐cultural awareness within adult learning theory, Amstutz (1999) examines types of learning that take into account varying perspectives and learning to actually change beliefs (p.24). A probe into types of knowledge, including the questioning of whose knowledge is validated as opposed to excluded, illustrates the construction of knowledge and its variance within adult learning theories. Liberatory learning theories offer an invitation into the history and context of the learners (p.19). These types of adult learning theories draw forth a discursive approach to difference, encouraging students to “…critically examine the values, beliefs, and assumptions they may have uncritically assimilated from the dominant culture… (p.19). Amstutz (1999) highlights some key strategies

to accomplish this goal of encouraging ‘holistic and integrative views’, which ultimately leads to

the opportunity for a more inclusive climate for learning. Particular to adult educators, such

strategies include assisting learners to realize they can create knowledge, addressing social injustices that exist in higher education institutions, using a variety of instructional methods,

participating in cooperative learning, and providing supportive learning environments (p.26‐28).

The learning space needs to be physically and psychologically supportive, which leads to a safe place to learn (p.28).

The attention to differences in perspective, background, and context within the learning environment can be instrumental in providing inclusive space for learners in higher education, where they feel validated, accepted, and safe.

Universal Design/Universal Instructional Design

A recent development in education which impacts inclusion, learning and disability is

Universal Design (UD). Universal Design can be defined as “… the design of product and environments to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible…” (Scott, 2003, p.371).

Universal design acknowledges diversity amoung people, and takes a proactive approach to a

variety of needs. UD has its grounding in the discipline of architecture. The intentionality of UD allows for opportunity to design instruction, at the post‐secondary level, that is ‘useable’ by all students, which complements and adds abundance to accommodations required by specific students. The application of the principles of UD to instruction in higher education can provide the means for addressing disability and diversity of learner needs in what Scott (2003) describes as “... a proactive way that both protects the integrity of the course and promotes learning for

a broader range of students…”(p.372). Universal Instructional Design (UID) is a branch of UD that focuses on a universal design concept for post‐secondary educational environments (Silver,

1998, p.47). The notion of UID follows a pathway where overall instructional design takes into account what would otherwise be instructional accommodations requested by individual

students (p.47). This would drastically reduce, if not cut out entirely, the need for disability support services within higher educational settings (Silver, 1998, 371). There are nine principles aligned with UID, which, together, holds “…great potential for expanding inclusive teaching practices in higher education… (Scott, 2003, p.377). Two UID principles in particular mesh with elements of newer adult learning theories; Principle 8 – a community of learners, and Principle

9 – instructional climate. Principle 8 rests on the value of community, wherein the instructional climate fosters communication and interaction between not only students, but between students and faculty (p.376). Principle 9 relies on inclusive instructional design, in which the

expectations for all students are high (p.376).

A complete transformation of culture within the post‐secondary education setting is necessary to ensure inclusivity. The role of the power dynamics and influence of administration and faculty in helping to support and encourage this culture of inclusivity is illustrated by Silver

(1998), who espouses “Higher education administrators and faculty need to develop mission statements that include diverse learners as members of the educational community”, and further goes on to state “If administrators and faculty perceive curricular reform in higher education as one that is inclusive, then students with disabilities will no longer be secondary or

invisible to the system at large” (p.50). Silver (1998) depicts the significance of accepting students with diverse needs, suggesting “Acceptance of students with diverse learning needs

must be part of the transformation in order for UID to be successful…” (p.50). Certainly, a shift in paradigm is needed to accomplish a fully inclusive culture for adult learners in higher education.

Social Model of Disability:

In its most authentic state, the social model of disability supports inclusion in higher education. The goal of this model of disability is to remove disabling barriers created by social and cultural institutions (Terzi, 2004, p.143). The relevance of inclusivity in higher education is tied into the goal of this model to address issues of marginalization, discrimination and

oppression, which are created by and exist in social and cultural institutions (p.143).

Furthermore, Terzi (2004) articulates the social model of disability’s call for inclusion for people with disabilities, claiming “… the social model argues for the full inclusion of disabled people in

society and for their complete acceptance as citizens with equal entitlements, rights and responsibilities… (p.143‐144). As there are increasing numbers of learners with disabilities entering post‐secondary education institutions, this goal is relevant for higher education. Terzi

(2004) argues that rather than ignoring differences, the social model promotes the recognition and celebration of differences, which contribute to an inclusive environment (p.154). The importance of creating a culture in which barriers to participation are perceived as a social and cultural responsibility is essential to developing an inclusive learning space.

Proposed Model of Inclusion in Higher Education:

Blending elements from the social model of disability, adult learning theories, and

Universal Design and UID, a new framework for viewing and creating inclusivity in higher

education can be brought forth. Values drawn out from these three models fall under the umbrella of inclusion, providing a way for the diverse student population to belong.

Intentionally planning for the inclusion of all learners when designing curriculum and considering pedagogy has the capacity to open up a place of belonging for all students.

Shifting to a more inclusive pedagogy and curriculum are amoung the primary ingredients needed for creating an inclusive learning sphere in higher education. The need for a shift in actual instruction and teaching delivery methods is highlighted by Scott (2003), who proclaims “Faculty have expertise in content, not pedagogy” (p.373). Pedagogy can be

understood as both the art and science of teaching, the relationship between theory and practice in teaching, and the interaction between teachers, students, the learning environment, and learning activities (Hall, et.al., 2008, p.35). Curriculum can be defined as the content of the course as well as how it is taught – the management of the learning and the learning environment (Harden, 2001, p.335). Through the interweaving of a disability studies perspective into the curriculum, institutions of higher learning can provide inclusivity (Goodley,

2011, p.152). The process of delving deeper into exploring and understanding the social

realities which influence the learners and teachers lives would allow for the “…unveiling (of) a

world of oppression and then developing a pedagogy for liberation…” (p.154). It is critical in this teaching and learning environment to treat everyone equally, though not the same (p.153).

Critical reflection is another aspect to curriculum that can aid in inclusivity for all learners.

Merriam (2008) lists strategies which encourage inclusive learning, including critical reflection

(p.97). By encouraging learners and teachers to engage in critical reflection, opportunities for insights about cultural impact on the personal can emerge. Tisdell (1995) illustrates the

concept of a diverse student group not only affecting classroom dynamics, but the notion that these dynamics become magnified when the curriculum is situated around the “… structural privilege and oppression…”(p.57). Pedagogy, curriculum and environment are involved in a circular relationship, in which one impacts the other. The opportunity to take an up close

examination of the realities that live and breathe within the learning environment, entrenched in pedagogy and curriculum, needs to take a front seat priority when it comes to fostering inclusiveness in higher education.

A change in attitude within the post‐secondary education setting is a prerequisite to

promoting an inclusive learning environment. Scott (2003) asserts the need for integration in a

learning environment immersed in diversity, stating “… the functional integration of strategies and methods to address diverse student needs…” (p.374). It is an integrative approach that makes the difference between accommodations for particular learners to intentionally “…

planning for student diversity as the norm…” (p.374). Collaboration amoung staff, faculty and students is at the heart of this integrative stance (p.371). A shift in attitude within the entire institutional system is mandatory in creating inclusion in higher education. Goodley (2011) outlines a model of community and education which posits well‐ being at the centre of significance (p.150). The emphasis with this model of community lies in respect, acceptance, and understanding of difference, as well as a focus on how inclusion in social life is paramount

(p.150). The underpinnings of this model must hold fast to values of inclusive education, which

Goodley (2011) describes as social justice, recognition and solidarity (p.150). There is a similar emphasis in the considerations given by Silver (1998), who pleads on behalf of UID and the necessity for acceptance of learners with diverse needs (p.50). Goodley (2011) points to the

significance of caring pedagogies, in which there is an acceptance and a facilitation of

“’becomings’ rather than beings” (p.151). With this newfound focus on curriculum, pedagogy and attitudinal shift, an inclusive learning community is possible within higher education.

Recommendations:

Recommendations for considering a new model of inclusion in higher education take into account the need for faculty development and training and community development strategies. Silver (1998) supports the idea that faculties need to be trained in strategies to implement UID (p.50). Barriers to inclusion utilizing elements of UID include the lack of training required to be a professor (p.49). Thus, there is a demand for training on inclusive pedagogical methods and curriculum for instructors in higher education (p.49). To foster inclusive community within higher education, instructors are encouraged to teach with courage and with love (Amstrutz,1999, p.27‐29). Rather than simply ignoring sexism, racism, disablism, and other

forms of oppression and discrimination, teachers need to actively acknowledge and share

examples with learners. The result of reconstructing knowledge in this sense is seen in the

interconnectedness of a diverse group of learners, and awareness of other perspectives, joined together in a shared goal of social justice (p.27). One goal of higher education professors ‐ which is not typically or consciously addressed culturally within academic institutions of higher learning, should be to teach with love. Parallel to Goodley’s (2011) positioning on the significance of caring pedagogies, Amstrutz (1999) confronts adult educators with the significant value of love in fostering an inclusive environment, claiming “Adult educators need to develop a vision that recognizes caring as important as doing – that caring is a form of action… Building a more positive, inclusive society requires passion, love and a variety of

actions…” (p.29). Essential elements of demonstrating love include teachers practicing patience with learners who are not aware of embedded perspectives resting within them, as well as laying their ideologies bare (p.29). Through teaching with love, trust can be built – which is another key piece to cultivating a learning climate of inclusivity.

Next Steps:

The next steps to promoting such an inclusive model for higher education involves pilot projects in which post‐secondary institutions implement strategies informed by UID, more recent variations of adult learning theories, and elicited under the guiding light of the social model of disability. Faculty need to be educated in awareness of inclusive best practices as

well as methods for implementing such practices. Encouraging student groups that focus on

providing support for students living with disabilities and educating the post‐secondary

community about the realities of living with disability will work to impact and change the

culture of the institution. Further research studies which announce the voices of students with disabilities and their experiences in higher education would likely provide a sounding board for ironing out and adapting a new model of inclusion that works to find a home for all students.

Conclusion:

Marching up from the roots of oppression, diverse learners in higher education are ready for a paradigm shift to occur; one which will acknowledge and examine the very roots upon which the institution of higher learning has been resting for too many years. Indeed, the percentage of diverse learners entering post‐secondary education disrupts the traditional

structures which bar inclusivity for many students. A new inclusive model is a response to this need, with attitudinal, pedagogical and curricular changes situated at the source of change, with transdisciplinarity weaving together the necessary elements for the creation of a fully inclusive model of post‐secondary education. Different theoretical models influence this new inclusive model; the social model of disability, adult learning theory, and universal instructional design. The intermingling of methods and concepts from these various theories result in a model for inclusion that promotes a sense of belonging for all students participating in higher education.

References

Amstutz, D. (1999). Adult Learning: Moving Toward More Inclusive Theories and Practices. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 82, 19‐32.

Areheart, B. (2008). When disability Isn’t “Just Right”: Entrenchment of the Medical Model of Disability and the Goldilocks Dilemma. Indiana Law Journal, 83(1), 181‐232.

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (1996). Exploring the Divide. United Kingdom: The Disability Press.

Davis, L. (2006). The Disability Studies Reader (2nd Ed.) Newy York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Derby, J. (2012). Art Education and Disability Studies. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(1). Retrieved from: http://dsq‐sds.org/article/view/3027/3054

Dowse, L. (2001). Contesting Practices, Challenging Codes: Self‐advocacy, Disability Politics and the Social Model. Disability & Society, 16(1), 123‐141.

Fossey, M.E., et. al. (2005). Development and validation of the Accessibility Of Campus Computing For Students With Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 23-33. Goodley, D. (2011). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE.

Hall, K., et. al. (2008). Pedagogy and Practice: Culture and Identities. United Kingdom: The Open University. Retreived from: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qkW0uPu61egC&oi=fnd&pg=PA28&dq=Pedagogy +%2B+defining&ots=jt_xJ7b_yP&sig=Clz9s0WhPqwbBao8Yk6nie7hpJc#v=onepage&q=Pedagog y%20%2B%20defining&f=false

Harden, R. (2001). The Learning Environment and the Curriculum. Medical Teacher, 23(4), 335‐ 336.

Human Rights Code of Ontario. (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.e‐ laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm#BK19

InvisAbilities. (2012). Retreived from: http://invisabilities.org/

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive Education: A Critical Perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3‐12.

Nicolescu, B. (date unknown). The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.learndev.org/dl/nicolescu_f.pdf.

Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and Self‐Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3‐13.

Merriam, S. (2008). Adult Learning Theory for the Twenty‐First Century. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 93‐98.

Repko, A., et al. (2012). Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research. United States: Sage Publications Inc.

Schmitt, A., et. al. (2012). Use of Reading Pen Assistive Technology to Accommodate Post‐ Secondary Students with Reading Disabilities. Assistive Technology, 24(4), p.229‐239.

Scott, S., et. al. (2003). Universal Design for Instruction: A New Paradigm for Adult Instruction in Postsecondary Education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369‐379.

Silver, P., etc. al. (1998). Universal instructional Design in Higher Education: An Approach for Inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47‐51.

Slee, R. (2001). Social Justice and the Changing Directions in Educational Research: The Case of Inclusive Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167‐177.

Snyder, S., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Strober, M. (2011). Interdisciplinary Conversations: Challenging Habits of Thought. CA: Stanford University Press.

Terzi, L. (2004). The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21(2), 141‐157.

Tisdell, E. (1995). Creating Inclusive Adult Learning Environments: Insights from Multicultural Education and Feminist Pedagogy. Ohio: Center on Education and Training for Employment.

Titchkosky, T. (2006). Disability, Self, and Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

United Nations. (2012). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). World Report on Disability. Retrieved from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01_eng.pdf