Can we find the missing piece?
A survey of students who have received the
Disabled Students’ Allowances [DSAs]
Deb Viney, E.A. Draffan, Sue Wilkinson
Background to the Survey
• Quality assurance of processes and administration.
• No national evaluation of students’ experiences with the
equipment and human support.
• 2005 - 06 telephone survey, 455 students with dyslexia.
• Dec 2011 to March 2012 on-line survey, 841 respondents
with a wide range of impairments who have claimed the
2
DSAs since 2007.
The 2005 Survey
• Only students with dyslexia (n = 455) and based on one
supplier’s database; 90% of participants were satisfied or
very satisfied with the hardware and the software that they
received.
• 48.6% of participants had received training and of those
86.3% were satisfied with the training received.
• Majority who declined felt they were competent IT users.
• Did they make the most of the equipment and support?
2012 Online Questionnaire
? The forms of support (equipment, hardware, software,
helpers and travel etc.) recommended
? Frequency of use
? Levels of satisfaction
Students provided comments:
Favourite AT? What would they have liked? Support? How
helpful? Finally “The DSAs funding enabled me to …”
Participants
• Twice as many women as men (66% and 32% respectively)
Note: 60% of HE students are female
•
•
•
•
Level of study
76.1% Under-graduates
10.8 % Post-graduates
(13.1% did not respond to this question)
Respondents’ Impairments
3.6% 3.5%
specific learning
differences
8.8%
medical condition
3.8%
10.1%
mental health
mobility
62.7%
12.7%
VI
Aspergers
16.3%
HI
Other
6
Comparisons with National Data 1
ECU 2010
UG Degree
ECU 2010
Other UG
ECU 2010
PG
2012 SURVEY
respondents
Visual impairment/ Blind
2.40%
2.40%
2.90%
3.80%
Hearing impairment/ Deaf
7.10%
7.10%
6.00%
3.50%
Mobility impairment
5.20%
5.20%
4.60%
10.10%
Personal Care
0.30%
0.30%
0.20%
N/A
7
Mental health issue
6.10%
6.10%
5.60%
12.70%
Comparisons with National Data 2
ECU 2010
ECU 2010
UG Degree Other UG
Unseen condition
ECU 2010
PG
2012 SURVEY
respondents
14.80%
18.90%
23.30%
16.30%
Multiple impairments
5.20%
5.80%
4.90%
N/A
Autism Spectrum Disorder
1.40%
0.80%
0.70%
3.60%
55.00%
42.70%
40.20%
62.50%
Specific Learning Differences
8
Other conditions
9.20%
10.60%
11.80%
8.80%
Impairment first identified …
13.6%
3%
During HE
29.1%
During FE
4.2%
After 11 yrs & before FE
After 5 yrs and before 10
yrs
Under 4 yrs
11.9%
from birth
17.6%
20.6%
question not answered by
respondent
9
Percentage
Hardware Recommended & Usefulness
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
recommended
useful
Percentage
Software Recommended & Usefulness
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
recommended
useful
Percentage
Frequency of Use
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
hardware
software
85% of respondents had not used AT prior to their
DSAs assessment
Way Hardware supported studies
Suggested responses
assisted with organisation
help keep up
easier access to info
help with learning
work faster
0
20
40
Percentage
60
80
Way Software supported studies
convenience
Suggested responses
easier access to materials
concentration
improved organisation
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage
60
70
80
Favourite piece of AT hardware?
Laptop
53.2%
Digital Voice Recorder
17.6%
Printer/Scanner/Copier
8.9%
Desktop PC
3.7%
Chair
1.5%
Handheld Dictionary
1.2%
Themes from commentary
Reasons for favourite piece of hardware
comfort
access to course materials
reduced stress & able to keep up
able to work at home
portable
storage
convenience
0
5
10
15
Percentage
20
25
35
AT training offered
31.9
•
Percentage
30
24.8
25
20
15
13
8.8
10
5
% offered
this type of
training
0
IT trainer in
student's home
Training from
Equipment
supplier on
delivery
Specialist IT
trainer on
campus
Member of
disability team on
campus
Training
• 60.2% of respondents took up the
training.
• Only 24.7% of those who took up training
took up all of the hours recommended
• 16.6% felt they would benefit from more
hours of training
Reasons for not accepting Training
Felt had no need for training
18%
24.5%
Felt could figure it out
themselves
Time not convenient
3%
6.7%
Felt had no time for training
Block training not beneficial
5.9%
19.6%
8.3%
9.1%
Training out of context not
helpful
Offered wrong form of training
Other
Helpfulness of AT Training
60
54.4
50
Percentage
40
30
25.7
20
10
5.5
3.2
0
Very Helpful
Quite Helpful
Not Helpful
Not at all Helpful
How could the AT training be better?
27.2%
35.9%
reminder sessions each
academic year
shorter sessions more
regularly
one off training session
17.2%
10.9%
drop in facility
Support workers - NMH
• 60.6% were recommended 1:1 support and did access it
• 16.2% were recommended 1:1 support but did not access it
Why did some students not take up the support?
• 7.4% felt recommendation was not necessary and did not need
support
• 4.3% did not feel it was the right recommendation for them
• 4.6% stated the support was not available at times they needed it
Was AT used in 1:1 support
sessions?
Percentage
80
60
44.4%
40
23.2%
20
11.6%
12.6%
All the time
Frequently
0
Occasionally
Not at all
When asked whether they would like their AT training and their
1:1 sessions integrated…
55.2% said yes
41.1% said no
3.7% did not respond
23
Use of AT within support sessions
Fewer than 25% of support workers
(e.g. dyslexia tutors, mentors) used
Assistive Technology within their
sessions more than occasionally.
Impact of DSA on Studies
When asked to complete the sentence
“The DSAs enabled me to….”
respondents’ comments were classified
as:
87.6% positive
3.3%
neutral
2.7%
negative
25
“The DSAs funding enabled me to …”
Row 244 [positive]
“… Study my way; By doing so it has allowed me to shape
my life the way I wanted it by helping me follow a dream
which seemed unrealistic: completing a degree in my
chosen field. People around me thought I would not be
able to do it due to my condition but the DSAs funding
gave me the necessary support to overcome the barriers
in my environment. Thanks to the DSAs funding I will be
holding my dream job as soon as I will finish hopefully;
which means the world to me as I will no longer rely on
benefits earn a decent salary and become financially
independent.”
[ female, FT UG, Year 3, chronic medical]
26
“The DSAs funding enabled me to …”
Row 612 [mixed]
“… 1) better my degree despite the year long delay i
experienced with no support or help the funding and
equipment helped me to finish my degree and took a huge
weight off my shoulders which i couldnt possibly describe.
2) address my thoughts and to access complex degree
concepts
3) in a nut shell without it i would not be in uni and probably
selling myself to make ends meet and in a nightmarish
situation of selling crack and doing degrading manual labor
for the rest of my unqualified dyslexic life”.
[bold added, male, FT UG, Year 2, SpLDs]
27
“The DSAs funding enabled me to …”
Row 410 [negative]
“… to waste my time with endless surveys and not told me
what i need to do to get the ball roling on this i am still
waitting while all my class mate are sailling on by and i
am just sitting the lost”.
[male, FT UG, Year 2, SpLDs]
Row 271 [negative]
“… Have to worry about my studies as well as worrying
about chasing them up a couple of times a week for
something that should have been done months ago.”
[female, FT UG, Year 1, SpLDs]
28
Recommendations
• Continue to encourage Needs Assessments as early as
possible. Needs Assessors may need to listen to students’
views more carefully – especially regarding support workers
and specialist software.
• Focus on the marketing of the AT training and encourage
more students to engage with training.
• Offer more flexible training, especially outside office hours for
those with heavy workloads, placements, etc..
• Consider a more targeted approach to AT training?
More Recommendations
• Work on ways to repair / replace broken equipment more
rapidly.
• Speed up the DSAs process for students on one year courses.
• Many students struggle to pay for consumables when they are
struggling with food and rent. Some funding bodies provide an
allowance up front – receipts to be received later.
• Increase awareness of AT in the wider community
References
Draffan, E.A., Evans, D.G & Blenkhorn. P. (2007) 'Use
of assistive technology by students with dyslexia in
post-secondary education', Disability and
Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2:2, p. 105 – 116
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17483100601178492
Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) (2010)
“Equality in higher education: Statistical report 2010”
www.ecu.ac.uk/publications
Thank you
Deb Viney - SOAS Diversity Advisor and was head of the Disability
Service at the University of Southampton from 1997 – 2006. She is also a
Director of NADP.
E.A. Draffan - Research Fellow, Electronics and Computer Science
department at Southampton and was previously the Access Centre
Manager at University of Sussex. She was part of the research team
which produced the 2005 survey of dyslexic students.
Sue Wilkinson Researcher and Senior Needs Assessor in the
Assessment Centre at Cardiff Metropolitan University.
Please contact us via diversity@soas.ac.uk