Need for New Approaches
|
Challenges at Institutional Level
There is growing evidence that current approaches to inclusion in higher education are not as effective as they should be. Progress is slow; resistance to change runs deep. Many of the structures and mechanisms in place have been in existence for several decades and relate to a context that is no longer pertinent – a post-secondary setting which was selective, homogeneous, and research focused. These processes are no longer adequate for 21st century teaching and learning in the academy (Michalski et al., 2017). EDI efforts focus mainly on campus interactions outside the classroom. They have little effectiveness in transforming pedagogy. While systematic, large scale, and transformative EDI initiatives are taking place on many campuses (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019), these focus mostly on the general campus climate, services, hiring practices even, but they are rarely targeting pedagogy (Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016; Ostrowski, 2016; Pidgeon, 2016). The services that support diverse learners are fragmented (Indigenous student services, International student services, advocacy groups for racialized learners, accessibility services for students with disabilities, etc.) and this fragmentation has the effect of presenting diversity as a minority discourse when in fact, if these student groups were counted as one, campuses would come to realize that ‘diverse learners’ now represent a majority of our student population (Phillips, 2019). The silo approach to learner support therefore at present hinders any significant impact on pedagogy. Hierarchical structures also represent a considerable challenge when it comes to the transformation of pedagogy. The services that support diverse learners and that are aware of the barriers these students experience feel they do not have the necessary status to interact proactively with faculty in order to offer suggestions with regards to teaching or highlight pedagogical strategies. Accessibility services are probably the units which are most aware of the impact of pedagogy and design on the inclusion of students with disabilities, but they are also aware that that it is not their prerogative to discuss teaching and learning with faculty unless they are specifically asked for advice (Gorjipour, 2020). The services that support other diverse learners focus mostly on health and well-being, financial support, social capital, as well as study and living conditions. They are even less likely to approach faculty to discuss teaching and learning. Another key challenge at present is that a deficit model approach is adopted, as a rule, when the challenges experienced by diverse learners in the post-secondary classroom become apparent (Davis & Museus, 2019). The deficit model is very explicitly used with regards to students with disabilities in the current accommodations approach. This deficit model lens, however, is not limited to students with disabilities; it is used widely in higher education whenever a non-traditional learner expresses difficulties with conventional post-secondary pedagogy. The deficit model manifests itself in this way:
A shift away from the deficit model will be essential before faculty accept and embrace the burden of having to rethink pedagogy in depth. A further issue with the deficit model currently used in the post-secondary sector – beyond the fact that it places the burden on the student to fit in rather than on the instructor to rethink pedagogy – is that remedial interventions occurring outside the classroom stigmatize diverse learners. The process allows them to be inherently perceived as outsiders by their peers (Eccles et al., 2018). Often, these interventions also require the student to spend a considerable amount of time in distinct and separate support channels and often physically distinct locations. This could involve sessions spent with accessibility services (students sit exams in a different room, have appointments with support staff, and are required to check in frequently for alternate format, etc.), or various other support offices. This process is the equivalent of the ‘streaming’ that used to occur in the K-12 sector before legislation was passed to eradicate it (Tanggaard et al., 2015). The segregated provision of support services outside the classroom hinders the development of social capital for many of diverse learners (Bye, Muller & Oprescu, 2020). The last challenge which is identified with regards to the current post-secondary structures and their involvement in inclusion is the lack of sustainability of current practices. Because these individual remedial provisions occur outside the classroom, they place considerable pressure on student services. The percentage of non-traditional learners is increasing steadily and rapidly, and this means that student services are facing insurmountable demand for interventions that should be taking place in the classroom (Kloke, 2017). While this pressure mounts, change is rarely being triggered in the classroom itself; this is a situation and a use of resources which is not sustainable (Houghton & Fovet, 2012). It can in fact be asserted that current pedagogical practices in higher education as a whole are simply not sustainable (Fovet, 2016; Fovet, 2017): instructors feel the tension, unease rises among students who feel the classroom setting is not congenial to them, and the reliance on support outside the classroom is unmanageable. Challenges at Instructor Level There are other issues which often currently make attempts at inclusive education unmanageable from an instructor perspective. While the accommodation model – which consists of offering individual retrofitting outside the class through support services - is unmanageable, there have been thus far very few viable options offered or developed across campuses. The usual solution is differentiated instruction (Darra & Kanellopoulou, 2019). Differentiated instruction for the instructor consists of (i) assessing diverse learners as they step into the classroom, (ii) creating multiple pathways to reach the collective class objectives, and (iii) varying the composition of teams in order to avoid ability grouping and allow for optimal social capital development (Deunk, 2015). While differentiation looks appealing on paper, it is very awkward to introduce and promote in the post-secondary landscape. Many instructors indeed will argue that they do not see or interact with the learner for sufficient periods of time for them to be able to assess specific needs. Class size in higher education can be large and preclude this type of observation. In the post-secondary sector, students may also be unwilling to disclose their needs or challenges – which makes differentiated instruction all the more daunting. Importantly, even when instructors feel they have the tools to identify individual needs, the creation of multiple pathways, in a just-in time fashion during class time, seems insurmountably difficult (van Geel et al., 2019). Faculty will often admit they are content experts, not pedagogues per se, and that differentiated instruction requires a degree of savoir faire that they do not master. There is therefore a need identified currently, a need for a framework for the implementation of inclusion in the classroom that would address the complex variables this section has showcased. Video that accompanies this page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNr82-VOlGE• |