ISSN 0004-0894 © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2005

Area

(2005) 37.4, 446–449

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Commentary

Disabled students’ experiences of fieldwork

Tim Hall and Mick Healey

School of Environment, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ

Email: thall@glos.ac.uk

Revised manuscript received 21 July 2005

This commentary summarizes selected findings of asurvey of disabled students in the Geography Earthand Environmental Science (GEES) subjects in sixEnglish universities (Hall

et al.

2004). It focuses ontheir experiences of barriers to learning related tofieldwork. The survey targeted disabled students atsix English universities in GEES and related subjects.Five out of the six were ‘post-1992’ universities. Thesurvey was questionnaire based and included avariety of open and closed questions that allowedthe collection of statistical information and detailedqualitative testimony from students. Students wereaccessed by working with the disability advisors,or people in equivalent posts, at each university. Allstudent responses were anonymous to the researchteam and only identifiable to disability advisorswithin each university.

While disabled students are undoubtedly under-represented in higher education in the UK (Preece1995, 88), they constitute a significant minority ofstudents. In 2003/04 5.4 per cent of undergraduatesself-assessed themselves as having a disability (NationalDisability Team 2005). However, there is reason tobelieve that many disabled students are unwilling toself-declare as disabled. The actual proportion maybe closer to 10 per cent.

Fieldwork is central to teaching and learning ingeography and cognate disciplines in higher educa-tion (QAA 2000, para. 5.8) and fulfils a number ofpedagogic functions. However, fieldwork has thepotential to exclude disabled students in a numberof ways (Nairn 1996 1999; Maguire 1998; Hall

et al.

2000 2002). Despite this, and numerous staff attemptsto include disabled students (see Hall

et al.

20002002), there have been no substantive studies that

have sought to include disabled students’ views andto explore their experiences of fieldwork. The surveyreported here sought to address this omission.

In total the survey produced 80 returns fromapproximately 250 questionnaires distributed, aresponse rate of 32 per cent. The responses weredominated by full-time, undergraduate students.Although the majority of the returns were fromstudents aged 20 and under, a significant number ofolder students responded to the survey. The studentswho responded undertook a wide variety of subjects,combinations and types of degree.

Over half of the responses indicated that their dis-ability category was dyslexia (Table 1). This reflectsthe dominance of dyslexia as the most frequentcategory amongst higher education students in theUK, though a slightly higher percentage were repre-sented in the survey than were expected. The ‘unseendisability’ category was also significant. Togetherapproximately three-quarters of the students bothin the survey and the national statistics identifiedthemselves with one or other of these two disabilitycategories.

With specific reference to fieldwork, the surveyexplored four issues:

1 Concerns about fieldwork prior to starting highereducation.

2 Impacts of disability on the student learningexperience whilst on residential fieldwork.

3 Impacts of disability on the student learning experi-ence whilst on non-residential fieldwork.

4 Impacts of disability on the student learningexperience whilst on independent fieldwork (suchas that conducted for a dissertation).

Commentary

447

Three significant themes emerged from the studentresponses to the survey:

1 The extent to which disabled students faced barriersrelating to fieldwork.

2 The nature of the barriers faced by disabled studentswith regard to fieldwork.

3 Independent fieldwork issues.

The majority of disabled students responding tothis survey did not experience barriers related tofieldwork (Table 2). Only about a quarter of respon-dents indicated that they had experienced barriersrelated to residential and non-residential fieldwork.However, this did rise to 51.7 per cent for independentfieldwork. Although 50–75 per cent of disabledstudents did not identify any barriers in relation tofieldwork, those who did report them indicated thatthey were frequently severe. This was especially thecase with regard to independent fieldwork.

The student responses to the survey indicated fourcategories of barrier with regard to fieldwork. The

challenge of physical mobility and negotiation offieldwork sites emerged strongly as an issue facedby students with a range of disabilities, includingmultiple disabilities, deafness/hearing impairmentand unseen disabilities. This issue has been recognizedin earlier literature (Maguire 1998; Nairn 1999) andclearly remains a significant issue for disabledstudents. Second, removal from familiar environmentsand support mechanisms emerged as a significantissue for a number of respondents, including thosewith mental health difficulties and unseen disabilitiessuch as diabetes. These concerns revolved aroundproblems accessing appropriate food or medicalsupplies or the effects of ‘attacks’ or severe worsen-ing of the disability whilst on fieldwork. Third,many respondents indicated that their disabilitynecessitated their making significant adjustments todaily activities to ensure their physical well-being orcomfort. These included dietary measures and care-fully planned rest or sleep regimes.

Finally, a significant number of dyslexic studentsreported problems with note taking, information

Table 1 Responses by disability category

Disability category Number* Total responses LTSN-GEES, 2001/02**

Dyslexia 41 54.6 38.1Unseen disability 14 18.6 19.4Wheelchair user/mobility difficulty 3 4.0 6.0Mental health difficulty 3 4.0 4.6Deaf/hearing impairment 1 1.3 7.3Blind/partially sighted 1 1.3 3.1Multiple disability 10 13.3 9.2Other disability 2 2.7 11.9nsi 75 100.0 100.0

* Five respondents did not identify their disability category** Based on special tabulation for LTSN from HESA statistics; 453 students identified a disability or 5.0% of the 8900 HESA registered population (the responses of 119 of these were not known or information not sought)nsi – not separately identified

Table 2 Barriers faced by disabled students with regard to fieldwork

Response A concern prior to university

Residential fieldwork Non-residential fieldwork

Independent fieldwork

Strongly agree 7 (9.1) 1 (2.0) 3 (4.5) 4 (6.7)Agree 6 (9.0) 12 (24.5) 12 (18.2) 27 (45.0)Disagree 30 (44.7) 24 (49.0) 25 (37.9) 18 (30.0)Strongly disagree 24 (35.8) 12 (24.5) 26 (39.4) 11 (18.3)

448

Commentary

gathering and large amounts of reading associatedwith fieldwork. Despite adjustments to accommodatedyslexic students, such as specially formattedhandouts, being relatively well-established practicein higher education institutions, the particular note-taking and information-gathering practices on field-work appear to remain problematic for dyslexicstudents. In addition the requirement to read whileon residential fieldwork, the volume of readingrequired and the limited time available were cited bydyslexic respondents as problematic. One respondentalso cited problems with the level of personalorganization required on residential fieldwork.

Independent fieldwork emerged as particularlyproblematic for disabled students. Over half of alldisabled students who had experience of independ-ent fieldwork (31, or 51.7 per cent) had experiencedbarriers that had affected their learning. Over half(54.9 per cent) of dyslexic students who had experi-ence of independent fieldwork had experiencedbarriers to learning. The majority of dyslexic respon-dents who had experienced barriers with independentfieldwork indicated that they normally took longerthan non-dyslexic students to complete assessments.Dissertation projects were a particular concern forthese students. Many dyslexic respondents felt thattheir needs had not been fully accommodated withregard to independent fieldwork. This was due tothe size of the dissertation, the demands of structur-ing and organizing such a significant piece of workand the range of tasks involved.

The barriers cited here by dyslexic students, oforganization, concentration and struggling againstdeadlines are issues that many non-dyslexic studentswould also recognize with regard to independentfieldwork and dissertations. However, this evidencesuggests that these issues are exacerbated by dys-lexia and that measures to accommodate dyslexicstudents are not fully effective, in this case in over50 per cent of cases where students had experienceof independent fieldwork. Given the prevalence ofdyslexic students in higher education in the UK andthe extent to which those responding to the surveyexperienced barriers relating to independent field-work, this raises issues of the need for support andadjustment. Indeed, it questions the appropriatenessof independent fieldwork-based dissertations, orindeed dissertations

per se

, as a fair and appropriatemeans of assessing the abilities of dyslexic students.

This short commentary represents one of the fewattempts since Hurst’s call in 1996 to include dis-abled students’ experiences in debates about higher

education provision (though see Fuller

et al.

2004a2004b; Healey

et al.

2005). It has attempted to elicitdisabled students’ experiences of barriers withregard to fieldwork in the GEES subject area. Thesurvey revealed that disabled students do face andexperience barriers with regard to fieldwork inthese subjects, despite existing measures by staff toinclude them. These barriers are diverse in theirnature and are experienced by around one quarterof disabled students and over half, in the case ofindependent fieldwork, in the GEES subjects. Wecan say that fieldwork remains a significant barrierto participation in the GEES subjects for many dis-abled students and, thus, to the access and wideningparticipation agenda more generally.

Dyslexic students are the largest single categoryof disabled students, both in the GEES subjects andin higher education generally. This report has high-lighted two areas where dyslexic students experi-ence significant barriers to learning. These are notetaking, information gathering in the field and read-ing while on residential fieldwork and in undertak-ing independent fieldwork, especially where it feedsinto a dissertation. Clearly additional measures needto be examined to overcome these barriers. Forexample, fieldwork could involve more active-learningexercises that do not rely on large amounts of notetaking in the field and could involve more practicalwork that is supported by inclusively designed hand-outs and/or pre-preparation or post-trip debriefing.

The barriers faced by many dyslexic studentsin independent fieldwork and dissertations raisethe issue of whether this is the most appropriateand equitable way of assessing dyslexic students’abilities. Whilst thinking through alternative paths toachieving the learning outcomes of dissertations andindependent fieldwork is desirable from a pedagogicviewpoint, the inherent dangers of ‘ghettoizing’ dys-lexic students must be borne in mind. These resultsmight act as a timely prompt to consider a widerreflection on the place and practice of independentfieldwork or at the very least, ways of adjusting theexperience to make it more inclusive.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the Geo-graphy Discipline Network for their help on this project, thedisabled students who took the time to respond to oursurvey, those staff who assisted with the administration ofthe survey and HEFCE for providing the funding to supportthis research.

Commentary

449

References

Fuller

M, Bradley

A and Healey

M

2004a Incorporatingdisabled students within an inclusive higher educationenvironment

Disability and Society

19 455–68

Fuller

M, Healey

M, Bradley

A and Hall

T

2004b Barriers tolearning: a systematic study of the experience of disabledstudents in one university

Studies in Higher Education

29303–18

Hall

T and Healey

M

with other members of the GDNICP Project Team

2004

The experience of learning atuniversity by disabled students in geography, earth andenvironmental sciences and related disciplines: a reporton the Geography Discipline Network (GDN) InclusiveCurriculum Project (ICP) student survey

GeographyDiscipline Network, University of Gloucestershire,Cheltenham (http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/icp) Accessed 2June 2005

Hall

T, Harrison

M and Healey

M

2000

The experience ofacademic departments and disability support units in pro-viding learning support for students undertaking fieldworkand related activities: report on surveys

Geography Dis-cipline Network, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham(http://www.glos.ac.uk/el/philg/gdn/disabil/report.htm)Accessed 2 June 2005

Hall

T, Healey

M and Harrison

M

2002 Fieldwork anddisabled students: discourses of exclusion and inclusion

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS

27213–31

Healey

M, Bradley

A, Fuller

M and Hall

T

2005 Listening tostudents: the experiences of disabled students of learningat university in

Adams

M and Brown

S

eds

Inclusive learn-ing in higher education: improving provision for disabledstudents

Routledge Falmer, London

Hurst

A

1996 Reflecting on researching disability and highereducation in

Barton

L

ed

Disability and society: emergingissues and insights

Longman, London 123–43

Maguire

S

1998 Gender differences in attitudes to undergraduatefieldwork

Area

30 207–14

Nairn

K

1996 Constructing identities: gender, geography andthe culture of fieldtrips Paper presented at the Royal Geo-graphical Society/Institute of British Geographers AnnualConference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Nairn

K

1999 Embodied fieldwork

Journal of Geography

98272–82

National Disability Team

2005

Statistics on course

(http://www.natdisteam.ac.uk/resources_statistics_oncourse.html)Accessed 13 June 2005

Preece

J

1995 Disability and adult education – the consumerview

Disability and Society

10 87–102

QAA

2000

Benchmark statement for geography

The QualityAssurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester(http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/geography.pdf)Accessed 6 June 2001