9 Accessibility and The First Year University Experience of Students with Disabilities: Current Trends, Achievements, and Concerns

Frederic Fovet

Exploration of the Professional Context Surrounding the Survey Exercise

This chapter must draw from the current context to fully highlight, showcase, and analyze the results of the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey (See Chapter 2 of this volume).  Below I present a few trends in the current professional dialogue and best practices around accessibility in general, and accessibility in the tertiary sector specifically, which must be considered as a backdrop to the survey results.  The term ‘tertiary sector’ will be used as it is more widely recognized by an international readership to include all post-secondary programs and institutions broadly.  It will be used interchangeably with the term ‘post-secondary’ more often used in the North American context.  This section offers a snapshot of the wider horizons within which the survey took place; these concerns are not limited to first year student experiences but have a considerable impact on them.

A Fragmented Geo-Social Landscape

It is challenging to consider the experiences of first year Canadian undergraduate students in the tertiary sector across Canada when this reality is fragmented, and reflects varying legislative realities, widely differing funding models, and best practices that are not standardized (NEADS, 2018).  The Federal model, and the positioning of education firmly within the Provincial mandate, means that unlike what is observed in many other Global North jurisdictions, the post-secondary experiences of first year students – particularly those with disabilities – can vary widely from province to province, and across the territories (Lau et al., 2020).

Not only do legislative provisions for the inclusion of students with disabilities vary across these geo-political landscapes, but so does mindset and culture, particularly as it relates to the conceptualization of disability (Beaudry, 2024).  Provinces which have seen early colonial settlement have approaches to diversity and accessibility which diametrically differ from provinces in the West of Canada where mindsets are progressive, but the legislative and societal experiences with student diversity are much more recent (DeWeil, 2005; Mohler, 2023). And of course, one must acknowledge as a backdrop to these discrepancies, varying approaches to reconciliation, and the uneven acknowledgement and recognition of Indigenous perceptions of, approaches to, and frameworks for disability (Brock University, 2023). This further disrupts the national discourse on the experiences of first year undergraduate students with disabilities.

Divergent and Contradictory Funding Models

While there are some funding provisions that are Federal in relation to financial support available to students with disabilities in undergraduate programs across the country, much of the funding available to assist these learners is nonetheless framed, delivered, and regulated by Provincial governments or the administrations of Territories (Salvino et al., 2022). This divergence in funding models for students with disabilities makes drawing a consistent picture of the experiences of first year students with disabilities challenging, and overly simplistic. Many aspects of these first-year experiences are closely linked to the availability, size, conditions and ease of funding for accommodations and retrofitting, as well as support outside the classroom itself (Towle, 2015; Prince, 2019).  It is a reality which may impact the future approaches to creating and maintaining accessible learning environments as well as the results of the survey but may not be immediately apparent in its analysis.

A Changing Construction of Diversity

Any effort to analyze and draw from the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey must inherently involve a wider reflection around the evolving definition of terminology in this area (Harpur et al., 2023).  The notion of disability has evolved rapidly within the last decade to now include a wide range of impairments, far beyond physical disabilities (Mapou, 2022).  A quarter of students seeking accessibility support in Canadian universities will typically be affected by mental health issues (Solis Garcia, 2024).  A third will be registered because of learning disabilities.  Many can be registered for challenges that fluctuate throughout their degree (Harrison, 2015).

There is also growing awareness that when the post-secondary sector discusses students with disabilities, these reflections must necessarily include students who are experiencing barriers in access to learning but (1) may not perceive themselves as having a disability, (2) may not have in their possession diagnostic information which would allow them to access disability service provisions, or (3) may have personal or cultural fears around the process of disclosure.

Not only is the definition of disability in a constant state of flux, but the terminology around diversity also evolves rapidly in higher education (Tang et al., 2024).  Thus far there has been a tendency to restrict the notion of learner diversity to concepts of disability and impairment.  The conceptualization of diversity has evolved radically, and the term now is more prominently associated with racialization, ethnicity, cultural or linguistic diversity, or even sexual and gender identity (Sweet, 2023; Zhao et al., 2024).

Rapidly Evolving Provincial Accessibility Frameworks

The framework for managing disability within the tertiary sector is evolving rapidly but in diverging ways across provinces and territories.  Ontario has already created accessibility legislation which now shapes and frames provisions for students with disabilities (King’s Western, 2024; Maeve, 2024); In 2017, Nova Scotia became a further province in Canada to enact accessibility legislation (Trufla Technologies, 2023); it is thought that British Columbia might follow suit soon (Sully & Berger, 2022).  There are signs within these legislative efforts that Provincial governments seek to not only widen their human rights approach to the inclusion of students with disabilities, but that they are also seeking to implement aspects of the social model of disability (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2024).  The social model conceptualizes disability not as an inherent personal characteristic, but more as the clash between individual embodiments and designs of spaces, products, and experiences that are not considering the broad diversity of users (Adam & Koutsoklenis, 2023; Shakespeare, 2006). Other provinces continue to prioritize and promote a bio-medical approach to disability (Strauss et al, 2023), which is seen by some as a deficit model (Clark, 2023).

Emergence of Radically Divergent Provisions

The survey itself relates mostly to conventional approaches to the inclusion of students with disabilities.  It focuses mostly on disability service provision.  It is important to note, however, that the field of accessibility and inclusion has undertaken a rapid transformation over the last decade in most Global North jurisdictions, and a shift towards practices that more readily adhere to the social model of disability.  Global North in this chapter will be used to refer to countries who position themselves as having entered a post-industrialist phase.  This shift has meant a growing degree of frustration and criticism towards traditional retrofitting practices, such as legal accommodations.  Though these reasonable accommodations represent a historic heritage that is important, and a human rights safety net that avoids the worse occurrences of discrimination against students with disabilities, there is now a thirst in the post-secondary sector for more whole class, proactive, non-stigmatizing practices that align more specifically with the social model of disability (Lo Giudice, 2016).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in particular has begun gaining momentum as a design-based approach which accepts learner diversity as a given, and support instructors in creating learning environments that are inclusive from the get-go, thanks to the injection of flexibility and choice, and no longer require individual retrofitting after the fact (Seok et al., 2018).  UDL is increasingly being considered within the Canadian post-secondary sector (Courts et al., 2023). First year students may currently be exposed to classes within which UDL is offered and this may radically alter their first-year experience (Black et al., 2015; Fovet, 2020).  This means that the daily reality of students with disabilities may vary considerably from course to course, and program to program.  Their experiences of inclusive measures may range from traditional accommodations arranged solely through accessibility services to UDL classroom and assessment practices entirely set up by faculty themselves (Paterson et al., 2022).

Overview of the Literature as it Relates to the Survey Focus

This literature review is brief.  It hopes not to distract from the analysis of the survey itself.  There are, however, some key developments in scientific literature and current research that must be briefly mentioned so they can be kept in mind when examining the survey outcomes.

Ongoing Marginalization of Students with Disabilities

Despite the existence of Provincial legislation on accessibility and of a constitutional Federal instrument such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is still growing concern within the literature that many students with disabilities are still stigmatized, marginalized, and discriminated against (Lopez-Gavira et al., 2021).  There is sometimes resistance to accommodations from faculty (Ryder & Norwich, 2019); there is a perpetuated myth that accommodation affects academic integrity and impacts efforts towards excellence (Nieminen, 2023); there are occasional reports in the provision of disability services such as delays, bottlenecks, and challenges with access to diagnostic assessment (Toutain, 2019).  The issue of stigmatization through the process that leads to accommodations is also evidenced in research (Brewer et al., 2023).  There is evidence that micro-aggressions against students with disabilities also continue within campus culture (Fox et al., 2022; Ostrowski, 2016).  Some programs may have full courseload requirements and completion timelines that also deter students with disabilities from applying (Grimes et al., 2019).

Broad Widening of the Notion of Diverse Learner

The literature on inclusion and accessibility is increasingly widening the conceptualization of learner diversity to include a broad range of students who may be marginalized or have minority experiences (Mugo & Puplampu, 2022).  It is no longer focused on disability and impairment (Michalski et al., 2017). This can be both helpful in promoting the needs of students with disabilities and offering broader momentum and support (Strnadová et al., 2015; Tamtik & Guenter, 2020).  It also can be detrimental to the interests of first year undergraduate students in the sense that it drowns their specific concerns within broader, less immediately concrete, concerns around social justice and inclusion that do not always highlight the very specific demands that accessibility represents in teaching and learning, in terms of norms, criteria, and protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Wolbring & Lillywhite, 2021).  The ongoing debate in relation to the very definition of learner diversity will necessarily have impact on the current experiences of first year students; it is a climate within which these students are alternatively considered or excluded, within a wider higher education reflection on the composition of the student body, the lack of fit between conventional practices and emerging student demographics, and the pressing need for reform and awareness (Heffernan, 2023).

Strain on Support Services

A theme which is beginning to be documented in the literature and is certainly very present in news and current events, is the growing strain on accessibility services.  The demographics are changing so rapidly that most disability service providers find it difficult to keep up with the dramatic increase in service requests (Borkin, 2023).  These services are increasingly finding it challenging to retain and hire staff, within working conditions are seen as challenging and overly onerous (Tagami, 2023).  Waiting lists increase; bottle necks occur in intakes and follow-up; and students may find it even more difficult to access services and accommodations within a single semester.  This affects first-year experiences the most as students with disabilities may be dependent on these services but may not be able to access them seamlessly and rapidly (Dresssler, 2023).

Emergence of Universal Design for Learning as a Framework for Accessibility in Teaching and Learning

There is increasing use of UDL in the Canadian post-secondary sector.  This has meant more individual initiatives led by specific instructors (Kumar & Wideman, 2014), a growing number of communities of practice (Galvin & Geron, 2021), and an encouraging volume of research initiatives, many of them action-research based (UNB, 2013).  UDL first began appearing in the humanities and arts (Glass et al., 2013) but has now spread to most undergraduate disciplines.  This has meant a more elaborate, mature, and nuanced reflection as to what UDL might look like in a variety of learning spaces: experiential environments, language and science labs, professional and field placements, online and hybrid settings, and arts studios (Sukhai et al., 2014).  The discourse around UDL in undergraduate courses (Kumar & Wideman, 2014) has also widened from simply challenging the conventional lecture format, to now encompassing a rethink of all assessment formats, and a broad engagement with the way learning outcomes must connect with students’ lived experiences must be integrated into course objectives (Fovet, 2020; Qu & Cross, 2024; Kirsch et al., 2024).

Mounting Relevance of EDI within the Otherwise Neoliberal Higher Education Landscape

Recent societal changes focusing on social justice have heightened the urgency for rapid progress in higher education towards equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) (Baker & Vasseur, 2021; Marom, 2023).  This has meant specific hiring targets across faculty and staff, focused attention around admissions, increased specific programming, and the implementation of wide EDI mandates across strategic plans and mission statements (Tamtik & Guenter, 2020). There is also, on the other hand, a degree of suspicion and scrutiny in relation to the possible weight of neoliberal objectives and goals within this rapid post-secondary momentum for EDI (Spence, 2021).  Many will argue that social justice objectives are currently seen as a marketing mechanism, that mostly aims to position campuses competitively within an increasingly shrinking landscape (MacKenzie et al., 2023; Rice et al., 2023).  It is difficult to gauge the authenticity of higher education EDI initiatives when there is clear evidence EDI is analyzed by most post-secondary institutions as a branding exercise (Douglas, 2022; Henry et al., 2017).  Many will assert that, ironically, EDI values are being used in marketing strategies to encourage applications from a broad range of first year students, but that few hands-on practices that support the inclusion of these students exist or are developed (Bhopal, 2023).  It may be a case of discourse, being more developed than the actual reality in the field, and the discrepancy between the two is increasingly problematic (Al Shaibah, 2023).

Impact of the FYE and SIT Survey

This section of the chapter examines in detail the main outcomes of the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey as they relate to the first-year experiences of undergraduate students with disabilities.

Lack of Data Collection around First-Year Experience for Students with Disabilities

The FYE and SIT Survey reveals an ongoing issue in relation to the inclusion of students with disabilities in the tertiary sector. It highlights the fact that there is a paucity when it comes to data pertaining to the experiences, perceptions, and lived realities of first year students with disabilities. While accessibility services collect data in relation to quality assurance within the formal parameters of the disability services provision model, in general, there is no data collection being carried out more widely regarding the first-year campus experiences of students with disabilities. There are crucial differences that appear within this dichotomy.

Many students with disabilities may not be accessing accessibility services because of fear of stigma; many students with disabilities may have insufficient diagnostic information to be able to register with these services; some of these learners may only sporadically approach and rely on accessibility services and work strategically from a strength-based approach in many of their courses until they come across a course that creates new barriers and compels them to make contact again with support services. Therefore, it is clear that surveys administered to students with disabilities by accessibility services for the purpose of quality assurance, only capture a minority of the students who have this lived experience.  Many do not formally use these services and will therefore not be surveyed at any point in their academic career, although the very fact they do not seek support may be very telling of their first-year experiences.

Absence of Specific Programming

Absence of specific programming is a striking outcome in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey.  There is indeed an argument that awareness of disability and accessibility cannot grow among the student population unless it is specifically tackled as part of programming.  There have been efforts in some provinces for non-credit Accessibility 101 courses to be integrated into the onboarding of first year undergraduate students.  In a province like Ontario, it is felt that such non-credit programming is essential to secure the implementation of the Provincial accessibility legislation, which is more rigorous than in other provinces and territories.

The creation of such accessibility specific programming, however, has been the exception, rather than the norm.  On many campuses, there remains a striking contradiction, where fresher programs stress the importance of inclusion, but provide very little tangible and significant tools or learning opportunities to the student population at large.  Many inclusion and accessibility initiatives can therefore appear as wishful thinking, in a case where values are identified, but little strategic support is offered to genuinely embed these values through training and development.  This very much reflects the situation faculty also find themselves in, where they are under a duty to include students with disabilities, but may not be offered, or attend, the training or professional development necessary to achieve this goal (Sanderson et al., 2022).

Ongoing Dichotomy between Accessibility and EDI

It becomes obvious through the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey that the accessibility of first year students with disabilities is still seen as distinct from other concerns and priorities broadly termed as EDI related.   When the EDI movement started being more pressing and urgent in the tertiary sector, there was much hope within the disability movement that it would fuel the momentum for accessibility and for the inclusion of students with disabilities.  A few years in it is clear this is not the case, and that EDI and accessibility are seen as distinct – sometimes even competing – preoccupations, and that accessibility is rarely included in the broader EDI agenda of many campuses.  While EDI now garners increasingly significant funding, accessibility has not benefitted, for the most part, from these new funding provisions for social justice. This therefore negatively impacts first-year experiences of students with disabilities, when they see their need treated differently than identifiable broader EDI priorities and agenda objectives.

Awareness of Mental Health Issues

There is growing awareness across the tertiary sector around mental health and mental health issues (Holmes & Silvestri, 2015; Jaworska et al., 2016); it is therefore not surprising that this theme appears so strongly through the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey.  The importance of this theme is immediately palpable but there is clearly a need for further data, beyond the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey, to examine with more precision the extent to which: (i) students with mental health issues actually identify as having a disability and make formal contact with accessibility services, (ii) these students receive what they consider to be appropriate support services, and (iii) these students feel that the tertiary sector is an environment that caters for their needs and are committed to remaining in higher education for the remainder of their degree.

There will be a need for further research on the lived experiences of first year Canadian undergraduates, to establish whether these mental health concerns are more prominent in the undergraduate population, and perhaps even in first year undergraduates, than in the general student population, as they transition into this environment which is new to them and possesses its specific challenges. If this were the case, it would call for the creation of innovative and creative programming, specifically addressing these first-year needs. There will also be a need for researchers to examine whether the inherent characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the tertiary sector in fact cause mental health issues for first year undergraduate students, rather than simply exacerbate existing issues.  This would call on a wider reflection from tertiary sectors as to their responsibility to trigger change in, not just the mindset and culture, but also the pedagogical practices of campuses, with initiatives such as the implementation of UDL, specific training for faculty, and staff, and a move away from classroom practices that are seen as triggering mental health issues.

Issue of Transition

The 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey stresses ongoing issues around transition, for first year undergraduate students.  The literature has long revealed the significant challenges that students with disabilities face when transitioning from the K-12 sector to the post-secondary landscape (Stodden et al., 2003).  Some of the key issues are: (i) shift from a teacher-led support model to a student-driven service delivery model, (ii) divergence in assistive technology tools used in both sectors, requiring retraining and new purchases, (iii) adaptation issues to a service provision model that is bureaucratic, slow, and fairly rigid (McBurney et al., 2017).  The survey highlights the need for specific programming and service provisions that might tackle these ongoing issues.  There have been examples, in the literature, of innovative and creative transition programs that cater to the needs of students with specific diagnoses.  These projects are often limited in duration, benefitting from funding envelopes that are not sustainable and onerous on support staff; they are also not universal in the sense that they are rarely open to all students with disabilities. There is a call for action that emerges from the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey to tackle the transition needs of students with disabilities in a way that is sustainable, universal, effective, and cost-conscious.

Lack of Student Voice and Agency in the Management of Disability

A theme which appears significantly in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey is the perceived lack of student voice or agency of individuals with disabilities in the management of disability service provisions and accessibility services.  While the literature stresses the need for the continuing and meaningful involvement of students with disabilities in the management and shaping of disability services in higher education – with the now familiar Civil Rights movement slogan, ‘nothing about us without us’, often cited, there is little evidence of this occurring at present across Canadian campuses, and it is apparent in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey that this remains a concern for first year undergraduates.

There has been a growing trend in Canadian higher education for the creation, and use of student advisory groups associated with accessibility services.  The effectiveness and meaningful adoption of this practice, however, must be the subject of ongoing scrutiny.  One issue is that service users who are seen as ‘non-problematic’, compliant, or prone to providing satisfactory feedback are often explicitly chosen to sit on these committees, thereby implicitly reducing their actual relevance.  There is evidence across the country that students who are racialized, Indigenous, or who challenge the lack of attention to intersectionality in disability service provisions may be intentionally kept away from student advisory committees, and sometimes even discouraged from establishing an ongoing relationship with these services (Nolan, 2022).

There have also been issues around the lack of budgetary transparency with the student body in relation to the budget allocations of accessibility services, the use of Provincial envelopes specifically targeting inclusion, and even the extent to which student service levies are at times directed towards other priorities of the central administration of campuses (Sobat, 2016).  It is important to note that accessibility services across Canada, are typically funded solely from student services contributions (Chiwandire & Vincent, 2019); as such there should be a need for campuses to be more transparent in relation to the use of these funds, and to the ways the budgets of accessibility services are set annually in terms of priority, growth, and sustainable development.

Ongoing Tension Surrounding Intersectionality

One of the key observations that can be made when examining the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey and more broadly the EDI-related issues in post-secondary is the fact that intersectionality remains misunderstood, underreported, or ignored within the experiences of first year undergraduates.  There needs to be more understanding and appreciation of the fact that students with disabilities may have multiple minority or marginalized lived experiences that go beyond their actual impairment.  It is difficult for the survey to broadly, and accurately reflect the importance of intersectionality and individuals’ multiple simultaneous minority experiences, when the sector itself rarely recognizes the importance of this phenomenon and its impact on students’ experiences – particularly first year students’ trajectories.

Gains and Opportunities

While the exploration and analysis of the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey inherently leads to calls for actions and recommendations for improvement, it is also important to celebrate the gains and opportunities which appear in the data it contains.

It is undebatable that significant gains have been made across Canadian campuses in terms of the representation, pride, voice, and inclusion of students with disabilities. Particularly, when it comes to the experiences of first year undergraduates who are transitioning to the post-secondary sector.  There is an argument to be made that the growing representation of students with disabilities in the survey itself is a testament to more inclusive practices, an erosion of stigma, a decrease in fear of disclosure, and positive outcomes of specific support services.  The literature supports the assertion that significant gains have been made in the last decade in the admission of students with disabilities, their retention, their satisfaction with campus experiences, and their eventual employability (Getzel, 2008; Vornholt, et al., 2017; Mogaji & Nguyen, 2022).

The fact that specific feedback is collected by the Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey is a testament that students with disabilities now count significantly as a voice across campuses, that they are recognized as a population with specific needs that must be proactively identified, and that the rest of the student population must collectively be made aware of the need for inclusion.

Efforts surrounding funding of services for students with disabilities continue to increase and, while this chapter has highlighted the complexity and fragmentation of these funding efforts, it must also be recognized that the level of funding for inclusion continues to increase steadily across Canada.  The Federal and Provincial governments are increasingly aware of the needs of diverse learners and of the urgency of transformation in teaching and learning to integrate these learners seamlessly and guarantee their success in higher education (Government of Canada, 2022).  The growing voice of students with disabilities in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey is a testament to the success of some of these funding initiatives.

The number of survey questions related to EDIA in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey is also evidence of the post-secondary sector’s rapid change in mindset and of its growing awareness around diversity.  This reflects rapid societal changes which have taken place in recent years: the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) debates, have all triggered rapid changes in Canadian society that in turn change the culture of the post-secondary sector (Fox et al., 2023; Petit-McClure & Stinson, 2019).

Recommendations

Recommendations, based on an analysis of the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey, are two-fold.  While some pertain to the future evolution of the survey; others relate to the field itself.

Future installments of the Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey will clearly need to scan more broadly the experiences of students who experience barriers to learning but who do not necessarily identify as having a disability, as the conceptualization of disability itself evolves in tertiary education.  It will also need to record and explore first year students’ exposure with alternative models for inclusion, such as UDL.  There is at present a considerable paucity of data in relation to initiatives such as UDL implementation or the adoption of differentiated instruction.  It would be very helpful for the field if first year student experiences were able to yield hard data concerning the spread of such transformative pedagogical approaches to inclusion, as little of it can be ascertained systematically from the faculty perspective. Lastly, future versions of the survey will need to offer first year students’ wider opportunity to report experiences of intersectionality, as it relates to experiences of disability.  The experiences of students have been exceedingly viewed in a siloed way that reflects the existing artificial division of student services along clean administrative boundaries, rather than the organic way students themselves might represent these lived experiences of marginalization.

The most pressing recommendations from the field that emerge from the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey relate to the need for specific programming that supports the inclusion of students with disabilities.  There is also a growing urgency around the creation of transition programs for students with disabilities that are evidence-based, effective, and transferable across the sector.  One final urgent recommendation relates to the ability of the sector to clearly establish outcome-based retention evidence.  The survey serves a noble purpose, but more broadly it will become massively important to be able to quantify the number of students who do not remain in the sector until the end of their first year, and the reasons why they may have left their programs.

Remaining Concerns

There are themes and concerns which are not directly highlighted in the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey, but that are immediately tangible below the surface of the data showcased, or that appear as logical outcomes of the reflection it triggers.  Below are three important themes that call for further investigation and that should be specifically included in future versions of the Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey.

Accessibility Issues Related to Admissions

The Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey highlights some of the issues which shape and frame the experiences of first year undergraduate students with disabilities.  However, thus far it does not examine or reflect issues which may be persisting regarding admissions processes that precede, but also taint, these experiences.  The literature indicates that many issues of stigma, discrimination, and bias are still present and perpetuated within the admissions process of many programs across Canada (Gertsman et al., 2023; Trunk et al., 2020).  It will be important in the future to collect first year students’ experiences of these challenges.  This is particularly important as the experiences of students who are perhaps “put off” by the admissions processes themselves, are challenging to record or track. Having explicit and express feedback from students who persevered through admissions processes that were potentially not optimal, empowering, or even hospitable to students with disabilities, would offer us at least a piece of the puzzle when it comes to this challenging, pervasive, yet underreported phenomenon.

Challenges Related to Documenting User Experience

Industry is immediately and readily focused on the notion of user-experience (UX) when it considers accessibility (Aizpurua et al., 2016; Abdelrazek, 2023).  UX has not been explored or adopted quite as seamlessly in the field of education.  There is resistance to considering learners as users. Some of that push back is grounded in fears that the neoliberal model is dangerously reshaping the post-secondary sector, and there is tangible fear that the notion of user is linked to that of customer. There is wider and deeper unrest among educators about the notion of ethnographic exploration of the learner voice as that of a user.  Although ethnographic models that examine and analyze UX are generally seeking to change practices and create innovative ways to serve this user, it can be argued that education sees the notion of transforming design to suit learner preferences as precariously risky. Beyond tools such as the Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey, there is a pressing need for a change in mindset when it comes to the use of UX as a tool for reform in HE.

Absence of Specific Data Related to the Impact of COVID Pandemic on the Experiences of First year Students with Disabilities

The 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey encouragingly contains a few questions that relate to the pandemic and the post-pandemic landscape.  It is characteristic that just two years out of the COVID-19, very little data is available to the field as to how the pandemic, and the changes to teaching and learning that have occurred during the online pivot, continue to have repercussions on the experiences of students who accessed the post-secondary sector in the post-pandemic era.  Faculty and service providers have changed their practices; they are still carrying the stress and concerns that emerged during the lockdown; there are complex processes at play as campuses readapt to what most see as a drastically transformed landscape that is far from the ‘old normal’.  This will have nuanced, inconspicuous, but sharp effects on first year undergraduate experiences for years to come, and this impact will need to be gauged by future versions of the 2023 Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey.  Students with disabilities are evidenced to have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and the online pivot and this gap has not yet been filled (Hope, 2022; Rußmann et al., 2023).

Lack of Awareness in Relation to International Students and their Experiences with Accessibility

There is still a striking paucity of data when it comes to the experiences of higher education international students with disabilities (Clarke, 2023).  It is not surprising therefore, that the Pan-Canadian FYE and SIT Programs Survey has not thus far been able to capture these experiences, or to focus on this theme.  It will become increasingly important, however, for the tertiary sector to explicitly problematize this issue as a key concern and an area for immediate improvement. Indeed, the literature shows that the experiences of international students with disabilities in the post-secondary sector are significantly different than those of home students. Not only do they not have the same understanding of disability, but they are frequently battling significant cultural fears and negative perceptions around the stigmatization which might happen during disclosure.  International students with disabilities also suffer from much greater financial precarity and do not have access to Federal or Provincial funding in relation to their impairment.  Their experiences are likely to be much more challenging than those of home first year students and this may have a very tangible impact on retention and transition to year-two.

References

Adam, S., & Koutsoklenis, A. (2023) Who needs the social model of disability?  Frontiers in Sociology, 8.  https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1305301

Abdelrazek, M. (2023, December 8) Embracing Accessibility in UX Design: Beyond Compliance to Inclusion.  Medium.  https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/embracing-accessibility-in-ux-design-beyond-compliance-to-inclusion-d60a5bb2b091

Aizpurua, A., Harper, S., & Vigo, M. (2016) Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91, 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008.

Al Shaibah, A. (2023). EDI leadership and change agency in Canadian academe: An analysis of democratic discourses of senior leaders. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 55(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2023.0004

Baker, J., & Vasseur, L. (2021). Inclusion, diversity, equity & accessibility (IDEA): Good practices for researchers. Canadian Commission for UNESCO. https://brocku.ca/unesco-chair/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/ReflectionPaperIDEA.pdf

Beaudry, J-S. (2024) Ableism’s new clothes: Achievements and challenges for disability rights in Canada.  University of Toronto Law Journal, 74(1), 1-40.  https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/utlj-2022-0082

Bhopal, K. (2023). ‘We can talk the talk, but we’re not allowed to walk the walk’: The role of equality and diversity staff in higher education institutions in England. Higher Education, 85(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00835-7

Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2015). Universal design for learning and Instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v25i2.7723

Borkin, H. (2023) Disability staff are overwhelmed and exhausted.  WonkHE. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/disability-staff-are-overwhelmed-and-exhausted/

Brewer, G., Urwin, E., & Witham, B. (2023) Disabled student experiences of Higher Education. Disability & Society.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2263633

Brock University (2023) Forming the Circle.  2023 Gathering on Indigeneity, Neurodevelopmental Disabilities & Mental Health. https://brocku.ca/thomson             lab/wpcontent/uploads/sites/209/Forming-the-Circle-Indigeneity-Neurodevelopmental-Disability-Mental-Health-Sept-2023-1.pdf

Chiwandire, D., & Vincent, L. (2019). Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities. African Journal of Disability, 8, 336. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.336

Clark, H. (2023) Defining Disability: Reviewing the Construct of Special Education. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education\ Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 14 (2).  https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/76457/57141

Clarke, K. (2023). International Graduate Students’ Mental Health Diagnoses, Challenges, and Support: A Descriptive Comparison to their Non-International Graduate Student Peers. Journal of International Students, 13(3), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v13i3.3148

Courts, R., Chatoor, K., Pichette, J., Okojie, O., & Tishcoff, R. (2023). HEQCO’s Dialogues on Universal Design for Learning: Finding Common Ground and Key Recommendations from the Sector. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.  https://heqco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HEQCOs-Dialogues-on-Universal-Design-for-Learning-UDL-2.pdf

DeWeil, B. (2005) A Comparison of North-South and West-East Differences in Political Attitudes in Canada. The Northern Review, 25/26, 71–80. https://thenorthernreview.ca/index.php/nr/article/download/153/147/438

Douglas, D. D. (2022). Access denied: Safe/guarding the university as white property. In S. Thobani (Ed.), Coloniality and racial (in)justice in the university: Counting for nothing? (pp. 245–265). University of Toronto Press. http://books.scholarsportal.info/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks7/upress7/2021-12-09/1/9781487505332

Dressler, H. (2023) Canadian universities’ disability policies are inadequate.  NB Media Coop. https://nbmediacoop.org/2023/01/10/commentary-canadian-universities-disability-policies-are-inadequate/

Fox, M. F. J., Kandiko Howson, C., & Kingsbury, M. (2023). Equity, diversity, and inclusion – does social justice from the top trickle down? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(6), 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2188178

Fox, A., Hedayet, M., Mansour, K.E., Kommers, S., & Wells, R. (2022). College Students with Disabilities Experiences with Financial, Social, and Emotional Costs on Campus in the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1966758

Fovet, F. (2020). Universal design for learning as a tool for inclusion in the higher education classroom: Tips for the next decade of implementation. Education Journal. 9(6), 163–172. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20200906.13

Galvin, T., & Geron, M. (2021) Building a community of practice across an institution: how to embed UDL through the Plus One Approach between an academic and academic developer. in F. Fovet, Handbook of Research on Applying Universal Design for Learning Across Disciplines: Concepts, Case Studies, and Practical Implementation. IGI. Global, pp. 323-344. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7106-4.ch017

Gertsman, S., Dini, Y., Wilton, D., & Neilson, S. (2023) Tackling barriers in Canadian medical school admissions for students with disabilities.  CMAJ, 195 (44) E1512-E1516; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230734

Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the Persistence and Retention of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: Incorporating Key Strategies and Supports on Campus. Exceptionality, 16(4), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830802412216

Glass, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2013) Universal Design for Learning and the Arts.  Harvard Educational Review, 83 (1),  98–119. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.83.1.33102p26478p54pw

Government of Canada (2022) Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/disability-inclusion-action-plan/action-plan-2022.html

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2024) Access. Inclusion. Equality. Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. Children, Seniors and Social Development https://www.gov.nl.ca/cssd/disabilities/dpo-access-inclusion-equality-intro/

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2019). University Student Perspectives on Institutional Non-disclosure of Disability and Learning Challenges: Reasons for Staying Invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507

Harpur, P., & Szucs, B. (2023). Using the new disability human rights paradigm to create higher education leadership opportunities. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 23(1-2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231169668

Harrison, E. (2015). Episodic Disabilities and Post-Secondary Education in Canada: A Review of the Literature. The Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, 1-42.

Heffernan, T. (2023). Failing at the basics: disabled university students’ views on enhancing classroom inclusion. Oxford Review of Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2281314

Henry, F., Dua, E., James, C. E., Kobayashi, A., Li, P., Ramos, H., & Smith, M. S. (2017). The equity myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian universities. University of British Columbia Press. http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=/ebooks/ebooks3/upress/2017-07-24/1/9780774834902

Holmes, A., & Silvestri, R. (2015). Rates of Mental Illness and Associated Academic Impacts in Ontario’s College Students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31(1), 27-46. doi:10.1177/0829573515601396.

Hope, J. (2022), Research shows impact of COVID-19 on students with disabilities, other groups. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 27, 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dhe.31205

Jaworska, N., De Somma, E., Fonseka, B., Heck, E., & MacQueen, G. M. (2016). Mental Health Services for Students at Postsecondary Institutions: A National Survey. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(12), 766-775. doi:10.1177/0706743716640752.

King’s Western University (2024) Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Accessibility. https://www.kings.uwo.ca/about-kings/facts-and-information/administrative-departments/hr/accessibility/aoda/

Kirsch, B. A., Bryan, T., & Hoferer, D. (2024). Implementing Universal Design for Learning in the Higher Education Science Classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 53(2), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2024.2316939

Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125-147.

Lau, S-T., Nirmalanathan, K., Khan, M., Gauthier, C., Maisel, J., Novak, A. (2020). A Canadian Roadmap for Accessibility Standards. Canadian Standards Association. https://www.csagroup.org/article/research/a-canadian-roadmap-for-accessibility-standards/

Lo Giudice, J. A. (2016), Restructure, reframe DS offices by implementing disability studies concepts. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 22, 1–5. doi:10.1002/dhe.30245.

Lopez-Gavira, R., Moriña, A., & Morgado, B. (2021). Challenges to Inclusive Education at the University: The Perspective of Students and Disability Support Service Staff. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 3 (3), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2019.1578198

MacKenzie, M., Sensoy, Ö., Johnson, G. F., Sinclair, N., & Weldon, L. (2023). How universities gaslight EDI&I initiatives: Mapping institutional resistance to structural change. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2023v19n1a1303

Maeve, E. (2024) One year before the province’s accessibility deadline, how far does U of T have to go?  The Varsity.  https://thevarsity.ca/2024/01/15/one-year-before-the-provinces-accessibility-deadline-how-far-does-u-of-t-have-to-go/

Mapou, R.L. (2022) Have We Loosened the Definition of Disability? The Effects of Changes in the Law and Its Interpretation on Clinical Practice. Psychological Injury and Law, 15, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-022-09459-9

Marom, L. (2023). Resistance, Performativity, and Fragmentation: The Relational Arena of EDI/D in Canadian Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 46(4), 1083–1114. https://doi.org/10.53967/cje-rce.6071

McBurney, H., Eaton, S.E. & Torunski, E. (2017). A meta-analysis of tools to assist students with disabilities through the transition from high school to post-secondary learning environments. Werklund School of Education Working Papers #2017-002. University of Calgary.

Michalski, J., Cunningham, T., & Henry, J. (2017). The Diversity Challenge for Higher Education in Canada: The Prospects and Challenges of Increased Access and Student Success. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. 1(39), 66-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55671/0160-4341.1011

Mogaji, E., & Nguyen, N. P. (2022). Enhancing the work placement experience of students with disabilities. Industry and Higher Education, 36(6), 768-783. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222221122958

Mohler, E. (2023) State of the Schools Report. Report on the State of Canadian Post-Secondary Education and Accessibility. Seeking Equitable, Attainable, and Accessible Learning Through Advocacy Efforts. NEADS

Mugo, S., & Puplampu, K.P. (2022) Beyond tokenism and objectivity: theoretical reflections on a transformative equity, diversity, and inclusion agenda for higher education in Canada. SN Social Sciences, 2, 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00509-2

NEADS (2018). Landscape of Accessibility and Accommodation in Post-Secondary Education for Students with Disabilities.  https://www.neads.ca/en/about/media/AccessibilityandAccommodation%202018-5landscapereport.pdf

Nieminen, J. H. (2023). Unveiling Ableism and Disablism in Assessment: A Critical Analysis of Disabled Students’ Experiences of Assessment and Assessment Accommodations. Higher Education, 85(3), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00857-1

Nolan, S. L. (2022). The compounded burden of being a black and disabled student during the age of COVID-19. Disability & Society, 37(1), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1916889

Ostrowski, C. P. (2016). Improving access to accommodations: Reducing political and institutional barriers for Canadian postsecondary students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(1), 15-25.

Paterson, J., Friend, J., Bonisteel, M., & Brar, R. (2022). Universal design for learning: Inspiring equity and inclusion in higher education. eCampusOntario. https://vlslibrary.ecampusontario.ca/item-details/#/faef27e7-0ba3-485a-b848-c263735d5433?k=udl&itemTypes=6&itemTypes=12&sortCol=2&increasePopularSearch=true

Petit-McClure, S. H., & Stinson, C. (2019). Disrupting Dis/Abilization: A Critical Exploration of Research Methods to Combat White Supremacy and Ableism in Education. Intersections: Critical Issues in Education, 3(2). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/intersections/vol3/iss2/4.

Prince M. J. (2019). Common differences: The universalism of disability and unevenness. In Prince M. J. (Ed.), Universality and social policy in Canada (pp. 121–137). University of Toronto Press.

Qu, X., & Cross, B. (2024) UDL for inclusive higher education—What makes group work effective for diverse international students in UK? International Journal of Educational Research, 123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102277

Rice, C., Harrison, E., Giddings, C., Chivers, S., Meerai, S., & Zitzelsberger, H. (2023). Episodic Disability in the Neoliberal University: Stories from the Canadian Context. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(5), 1725–1740. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13009.

Rußmann, M., Netz, N. & Lörz, M. (2023) Dropout intent of students with disabilities. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01111-y

Ryder, D., & Norwich, B. (2019). UK Higher Education Lecturers’ Perspectives of Dyslexia, Dyslexic Students and Related Disability Provision. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(3), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12438

Salvino, C., Spencer, C., Filipe, A. M., & Lach, L. M. (2022). Mapping of Financial Support Programs for Children With Neurodisabilities Across Canada: Barriers and Discrepancies Within a Patchwork System. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(3), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211066776

Sanderson, N. C., Kessel, S., & Chen, W. (2022). What do faculty members know about universal design and digital accessibility? A qualitative study in computer science and engineering disciplines. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21(2), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00875-x

Seok, S., DaCosta, B. and Hodges, R. (2018) A systematic review of empirically based universal design for learning: Implementation and effectiveness of universal design in education for students with and without disabilities at the postsecondary level. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 171–189. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.65014

Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability, in: L. J. Davis (Ed.) The Disability Studies Reader, 2nd Edn., Routledge, 197–204.

Sobat, E. (2016, September 1) Skimming your student fees. McGill Daily. https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2016/09/skimming-your-student-fees/

Solís García, P., Real Castelao, S., & Barreiro-Collazo, A. (2024). Trends and Challenges in the Mental Health of University Students with Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Behavioral Sciences, 14(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14020111

Spence, A. (2021). The responsive diversity worker: Emotional labour in academia. The  Canadian Society for Study of Practical, 7. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/csspe/vol7/1/3

Stodden, R. A., Conway, M. A., & Chang, K. B. (2003). Findings from the study of transition, technology and postsecondary supports for youth with disabilities: Implications for secondary school educators. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 29-44.https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340301800403

Strnadová, I., Hájková, V., & Květoňová, L. (2015). Voices of university students with disabilities: Inclusive education on the tertiary level—A reality or a distant dream? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(10), 1080–1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1037868

Straus, E. J., Brown, H., Teachman, G., & Howard, F. (2023). Transforming normative, ableist, and biomedical orientations to living well and quality of life in nursing: Reimagining what a ventilated body can do. Nursing Inquiry, 30, e12554. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12554

Sukhai, M.A., Mohler, C., Doyle, T., Carson, E., Nieder, C., Levy-Pinto, D., Duffett, E., &

Smith F. (2014). Creating an accessible science laboratory environment for students with disabilities. Council of Ontario Universities. www.accessiblecampus.ca.

Sully, C., & Berger, R. (2022) New Accessibility Requirements for the B.C. Public Sector. Employment Law Blog.  https://www.lawsonlundell.com/labour-and-employment-law-blog/new-accessibility-requirements-for-the-bc-public-sector

Sweet, S.F. (2023). Leading Transformational Change in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Higher Education. In G. Jean-Marie, and  H. Tran (Ed.) Leadership in Turbulent Times (Studies in Educational Administration), Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-494-420231002

Tagami, M. (2023) UC disability services understaffed, students say.  Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/college-beat/2023/05/university-of-california-disability/

Tamtik, M., & Guenter, M. (2020). Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in Canadian universities—How far have we come? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066634ar

Tang, E.S.Y., Griffiths, A., & Welch, G.F. (2014) The Impact of Three Key Paradigm Shifts on Disability, Inclusion, and Autism in Higher Education in England: An Integrative Review. Trends in Higher Education, 3(1), 122-141. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3010007

Toutain, C. (2019). Barriers to Accommodations for Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: A Literature Review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32 (3), 297–310.  https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1236832

Towle, H. (2015) Disability and Inclusion in Canadian Education Policy, Procedure, and Practice. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2015/07/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf

Trufla Technologies (2023) A provincial guide to accessibility laws in Canada. https://www.trufla.com/blog/a-provincial-guide-to-accessibility-laws-in-canada/

Trunk, D.J., Russo, C., & Trammell, J. (2020) Disability Stigma on Campuses: Helping Students with Psychiatric Impairments to Succeed. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 115-128

University of New Brunswick [UNB] (2013) Universal Design for Learning Action Research. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/UDLActionResearch.pdf

Vornholt, K., Villotti, P., Muschalla, B., Bauer, J., Colella, A., Zijlstra, F., … Corbière, M.(2018). Disability and employment – overview and highlights. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1387536 .

Wolbring, G., & Lillywhite, A. (2021) Equity/Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in Universities: The Case of Disabled People. Societies, 11(2),49. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020049

Zhao, X., Wider, W., Jiang, L., Ashraf Fauzi, M., Cloyd, J., Tanucan, J., Lin, J., Naces Udang, L. (2024) Transforming higher education institutions through EDI leadership: A bibliometric exploration. Heliyon, 10 (4).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26241