DANCING BETWEEN DISCIPLINES: INCLUSION OF DISABILITY AND ADULT LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION By 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 1 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. 2 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 3 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 4 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 “… 5 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 6 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 7 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