Perceiving Accessible Instruction: Disabled Students’ Voices in Postsecondary Education

• In Event: Toward Accessible, Equitable and Inclusive Education

Proposal

Purpose
Students with disabilities (SWD) represent a growing population in postsecondary education, comprising 21% of undergraduates and 11% of graduate students (GAO, 2024). Despite this, SWD tend to achieve lower academic outcomes. They experience lower graduation and attendance rates, delayed degree completion, and lower GPAs (Francis et al., 2019; Koch et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2011; Timmerman & Mulvihill, 2015). Previous research has identified barriers such as difficulty accessing accommodations, physical campus spaces, and stigma from faculty (Lyman et al., 2016; Toutain, 2019; Hong, 2015; Lightfoot et al., 2018). Additionally, inflexible course structures and policies have been reported as detrimental to SWD’s academic success (Lightfoot et al., 2018). However, there is limited exploration of SWD’s learning experiences and perceptions of accessible instruction. The current study aims to address this gap by examining the experiences of 23 disabled students at a Midwest research-intensive university, focusing on:
How do postsecondary SWD perceive their lived experiences with disability to influence their learning?
What do postsecondary SWD perceive as accessible instruction and learning in postsecondary education?
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in Disability Studies in Education (DSE) and Academic Ableism (Dolmage, 2017). Both frameworks reject deficit models of disability, recognizing that educational systems are built on the norms of able bodyminds. These theories prioritize disabled voices, positioning them as experts on their experiences with disability and accessible learning.
Data Sources
We analyzed 23 interviews previously conducted by the institution’s Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (CITL). These interviews were part of a disability awareness and inclusive teaching training series. Participants included 20 undergraduate students and 3 graduate students who identified with ADHD (N=7), anxiety and depression (N=5), chronic health disabilities (N=4), autism spectrum disorder (N=6), and one student with a specific learning disability. The sample consisted of 17 women, 5 men, and 1 non-binary individual. Eighteen participants identified as White, two as African American, three as Asian, and one as Latinx. The research team received permission from the institution’s CITL and Institutional Review Board to analyze the data.
Methods
We used reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The research team, including the lead author and four student researchers, independently reviewed the transcripts, identifying meaningful themes related to the research questions. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus coding, and the themes were refined after a thorough review to ensure alignment with the data. We applied measures of trustworthiness, including reflective memos, consensus coding, and referential adequacy (Nowell et al., 2017). An audit trail was maintained to document the analysis process.
Results
Research Question 1: How do postsecondary SWD perceive their lived experiences with disability to influence their learning?
Theme 1: Required More Executive Functioning Support
Participants reported difficulties with time management, task initiation, and persistence. ADHD participants struggled with focus, forgetfulness, and task transitions. Students with anxiety and depression faced challenges in setting deadlines, dealing with intrusive thoughts, and feeling overwhelmed. Autism participants struggled with study strategies, prioritizing information, and hyper-focusing. Chronic health disability participants dealt with brain fog and slowed thinking, while learning disability participants struggled with time management and task completion.
Theme 2: Disabled students need more time
Participants emphasized that their disabilities required additional time for academic tasks. ADHD students experienced distractions or hyperfocus, making time management difficult. Participants with anxiety and depression found that emotional states affected their productivity, and participants with autism faced additional challenges working with peers. Chronic health disabilities slowed the pace of work due to pain and fatigue. Learning disability participants also took longer to process information. Despite these needs, rigid deadlines posed significant challenges.
Theme 3: Disability-related exhaustion conflicted with rigid attendance and participation policies
Participants reported exhaustion related to their disabilities, with ADHD, anxiety, and depression participants describing mental, physical, and emotional fatigue. Autism participants found social interactions draining, while chronic health conditions led to consistent fatigue. Rigid attendance policies created barriers for students who needed flexibility due to disability-related exhaustion.
Research Question 2: What do postsecondary SWD perceive as accessible instruction and learning in postsecondary education?
Theme 4: Clarity and Ease of Access
Participants highlighted the importance of clarity in course design. Lectures should follow a clear format, with slides and notes available beforehand. Assignment expectations must be clearly communicated, with deadlines listed and large assignments broken into smaller deadlines with opportunities for feedback. Group work should involve clear role definitions. Review sessions reflecting exam formats were also seen as essential.
Theme 5: Flexibility
Flexible class policies were seen as crucial for accommodating varying student needs. Participants suggested offering alternative attendance options (e.g., Zoom or recorded lectures) and adapting assignment deadlines based on individual needs. One participant emphasized the need for instructors to be flexible and willing to troubleshoot when issues arise. Multi-modal instruction (text, audio, video) was also recommended to accommodate diverse learning preferences.
Theme 6: Disability affirming and responsive communication
Participants identified the need for disability-affirming, responsive communication. Instructors should demonstrate empathy, patience, and a willingness to communicate openly about disability-related needs. Participants appreciated instructors who did not make assumptions about their work ethic and avoided labeling disabilities negatively (e.g., “being lazy” or “trying to cheat”). Discussions about accommodations should be private, and instructors should openly state that accommodations are welcome in their classes.
Scholarly Significance
The study highlights that SWD’s learning needs are shaped by their disabilities, requiring additional support, time, and flexible policies. These needs are often incompatible with traditional course structures. Our findings align with prior research (Anderson et al., 2017; Francis et al., 2019; Van Hees et al., 2015) and underscore the necessity for accessible instruction. Participants identified key features of accessible learning, such as clarity, flexibility, and disability-affirming communication, which align with Universal Design for Learning (UDL; CAST, 2024). This study suggests that researchers should explore UDL’s implementation in postsecondary education and examine how anti-ableist pedagogies can reshape the learning experience for SWD. By centering disabled students’ voices, this research advocates for systemic changes that prioritize accessibility and inclusivity in postsecondary education.

Authors

• Shafagh Hadinezhad, University of Illinois Urbana-Champ

• Emily Tarconish, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign