Analysis of DSC Survey Results May - June, 2005

Read the complete analysis of survey results below, or view the summary.

1.       Outline

The DSC Client Survey (“Evaluation of Services to Students with a disability at the ANU”) was conducted to seek some qualitative feedback on the experiences of students with disabilities at the ANU. The survey was conducted online through May and June, 2005 using the Apollo online polling system.The survey was designed by Jacinda Vaughan, the DSC Administration Officer, in conjunction with the other DSC staff members, and is the first online client survey the DSC has conducted. It is hoped that we may be able to conduct similar surveys annually to track client feedback over time.

The Survey consisted of three sections:

·         Section 1: General Background Information

·         Section 2: Disability Services Centre

·         Section 3: University Community as a Whole

The survey has provided the DSC with a solid base reference point for evaluating the quality of experiences and services provided for students with disabilities at the ANU, and generally paints a very positive picture of the quality of services provided by the ANU.

2.       Demographic Summary:

There were 69 respondents to the DSC Survey, 51 Female & 18 Male. 48 of the respondents are studying Full-time, and 22 Part-time. There were 59 Undergraduates and 10 Postgraduates. 39 respondents (56.5%) were aged under 24, 7 (10.14%) were in the 25 – 29 age bracket, 12 (17.39%) in the 30 – 39 bracket, 4 in the 40 – 49 bracket, 5 in the 50 – 59 bracket and 2 were aged over 60.

The largest group (33.33%) were from the Faculty of Arts, followed by 18.84% from the Faculty of Law, 14.49% from the Faculty of Science and 8.7% from FEIT.

45 (65.22%) were Group A (Permanent Disabilities) and 21 Group B (Temporary or Variable Disabilities). 3 did not identify their Disability Group.

All Disability categories were represented in the survey and the numbers of respondents from each disability category roughly corresponds to the proportion of students registered with the DSC in each category:

• Hearing Impairment                                1          (1.47%)
• Vision Impairment                                  2          (2.90%)
• Mobility Impairment                                13         (18.84&)
• Chronic Medical Condition                      22         (31.88%)
• Writing Disability                                    27         (39.13%)
• Psychiatric Disability                              23         (33.33%)
• Specific Learning Disability                     8          (11.59%)

28% of respondents heard of the DSC via the Enrolment or Student Administration area, 25% were referred by another ANU Student Service, 17% were referred by Academics and the same number heard of the DSC via a friend.

Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Disability Grouping

N.B. Some respondents have multiple disabilities, so may be represented in more than one disability category.

3.       Disability Services Centre
Overall, respondents were very positive about the quality of services provided by the DSC, the attitude of DSC Staff and the facilities and resources provided for their use. The provision of Special exam Arrangements, Note-taking, the DSC Email List Server and the Digital Lecture Delivery system all received very positive evaluations from users of these services. The provision and understanding of Information about processes, systems and responsibilities of students, whilst still quite positive, received a lower approval rating and DSC staff will review our approach to the provision of information to endeavour to enhance this aspect of our services. Another area to be reviewed is the information provided on Special Consideration, Special Exams and Mid-Semester Special Exam Arrangements, since the number of students expressing an inadequate understanding of these procedures is higher than is desirable (This reflects some apparent confusion with Special Exams, Special Exam Arrangements and Special Consideration amongst ANU staff that has already been discussed with Gillian, and may be partly to do with the nomenclature used, which does not accurately reflect the nature of the adjustment. I have suggested changing the terminology to “Alternative Exam Arrangements” for SEAs, “Deferred Exam” for Special Exam and retaining Special Consideration to aim at reducing confusion).

The constructive and thoughtful responses from students identified a number of minor areas for improvements. some of which (e.g. Headphones on Chifley Resource Room Computers and more storage space in the Resource Room) has already been addressed by the DSC.

Responses:

88.41% of respondents said that they felt the DSC services and their responsibilities were clearly explained during the initial registration process, 2.9% felt they were not explained clearly and 8.7% were not sure. Most students (56.5%) said they had received a copy of the DSC Student Guide, but the number of students who felt they had not received the Guide (23.19%) or weren’t sure, was unacceptably high and will be addressed. The Guide is available on the web, in Print or as a CD-ROM and contains a range of useful information on processes, responsibilities and resources. It is a very important reference point for students and it is DSC policy that all newly registered students receive a copy.

On the question about whether students felt the services provided by DSC staff were appropriate, 94.2% felt they were, only 1 student felt they were not, and 3 students were not sure. 95.65% of respondents rated the attitude of DSC staff as “Good” (38%)or “Very Good” (62%) and only 1 student was dissatisfied.

Figure 2: Disability Services Responses

 A sample of the some of the positive comments are:

Most respondents ((90%) felt they were able to access the DSC in a timely manner, although from some of the comments, even though they are mostly positive, it is apparent that timely access to DSC staff is vital for some students, and lack of access can be very stressful (see below).

Over 91% rated the Quality of DSC services as “Good (38%) or “Very Good” (53%). Respondents made some very positive comments such as:

On the question relating to the information provided by staff, a lower, but still high proportion (76%) of students rated the Information as “Good” or “Very Good”. 22% felt the information provided was “Average” whilst 1 student rated it “Not Great” No-one rated it as “Poor.”

Some positive comments:

Figure 3: Survey Responses on Service Quality & Staff Attitude & Information Provided

Respondents were given the option to make general comments or raise other issues. 14 students took the option to respond and their comments are included verbatim below:

Examinations Procedures:

A very high proportion of respondents thought that the Special Exam Arrangements they received were appropriate (88%), relevant (96%), helpful (90%)and reasonable (92%). Most people felt their responsibilities for notification of exams was made clear (80%), but the proportion of Group B (Temporary or Variable Disability) students who understood their responsibility to provide updated medical documentation each exam period fell to 74%. The level of understanding acknowledged for the process for Mid-semester exams was also disappointingly lower at 56%, although 71% of respondents (both Group A & Group B) did acknowledge that they were aware they needed to notify the DSC of all Mid-semester exams. 81% said they understood the process for final exams and 91% said the organisation of their exams ran smoothly.

The understanding of the process for Special Consideration was much lower than desirable at 58% as was the understanding of Special Exams at 68%.

Figure 4: Survey Responses on SEA Experiences

A number of respondents provided some helpful comments on the exam process (see below):

Disability Resource Room (Chifley)

76% of respondents in this section rated the DSC Resource Room in the Chifley Library as Good (52%) or Very Good (24%). Four students (19%) rated it as Average and 1 student gave it a Not Great rating. No-one gave it a Poor rating. The DSC Training Room received a similar ranking, with 75% giving it a Good or Very Good, and the rest giving it an Average ranking. Both the Computers and the assistive software received and 83% Good or Very Good ranking, with no ratings below average. The Rest Area was ranked 78% Good or Very Good, with a similar rating for printing at 76%. There were no ratings in this section below the Average category.

There were a number of suggestions for improvements, such as including headphones on all computers and more storage space and these issues have largely been addressed already.

Overall, this is a very high approval rating for this type of facility. With planned enhancements, this should continue to improve, and continue to cater effectively for the technology access needs for students.

Figure 5: Survey Responses on Disability Resources

Note-taking

Students were again very positive about their experiences receiving note-taking services from the DSC. 79% of students responding to this section gave their experience of receiving lecture notes a “Good” or “Very Good” rating. Similar rankings were achieved on the Quality, Availability, Appropriateness and legibility of notes provided. 87% of respondents in this category felt that their notes were provided in a timely fashion once the DSC had been notified of the need for notes being provided.

Once again, this is a very positive response rate for this type of service.

Figure 6: Survey Responses on Note-taking

Some comments on the Note-taking Service:

Disability Parking

As is often the case, parking raises many issues and often creates very heated responses. Whilst most people understood the disability parking time restrictions (71%), felt that disability parking spaces were clearly marked (83%) and were able to find an appropriate parking space (62%) about 70% of respondents felt that the number and location of disability parking spaces were inadequate.

Figure 7: Survey Responses on Disability Parking

4.       University Community as a Whole

Academic Areas

On the whole, Academic areas performed reasonably well, although a number of students pointed out that performance was quite variable in different areas. The overall approval rating was not quite as strong as in the DSC section, but it was very pleasing to see that 73% of students reported that they were able to negotiate adjustments with Academic staff effectively and within a reasonable time period.

Figure 8: Survey Responses on Academic Needs (Reading Materials & Equipment)

However, the comments in this section do point out that some people have had issues with the availability of reading materials in a suitable format, which could have significant impact on their capacity to study effectively.

Reading materials availability comments:

Similarly, students identified a number of issues with the availability of equipment/resources in their comments.

Although 73% of respondents said that they were able to negotiate adjustments with academic staff, there were some comments which raise concerns about the variability and appropriateness of some responses from academic staff to requests for adjustments:

Golden Key Mentoring Program

The information on this program is quite limited, since only two of the respondents had used the program, and one found it useful and the other did not.

Digital Lecture Delivery (DLD)

27 of the respondents identified as having used the DLD system. The response to this resource was overwhelmingly positive, with some students identifying it is one of the most helpful resources available (See comments below)

When asked for suggestions on possible enhancements for the DLD system, the most common suggestion was that it needs to be adopted more widely. Other students suggested text transcripts and the inclusion of PowerPoint presentations (both planned for Phases 2 & 3 of the DLD Project) would be beneficial.

Special Exam Arrangements for Faculty-run Exams

Responses in this area were again quite mixed, demonstrating an unacceptable level of variability between academic areas. 70% of respondents identified as having difficulties when exams run by academic areas require SEAs and 30% reported no difficulties. As some of the comments below demonstrate, some students experienced so much difficulty in organising SEAs for Departmental exams, they chose not to use them, whilst other felt that the faculty was obliging and helpful. Some of this variability may be due to staff attitudes towards “genuine” and “questionable” disabilities – often sensory or mobility issues are treated with more acceptance than the invisible disabilities such as medical or mental health issues. It is important to note that the legislation makes no distinction in the type of disability, and the university has an obligation to make appropriate adjustments for all students with all disabilities. This is an area that needs some awareness training, since it is the most significant area identified in the survey which has a substantial negative identification, and therefore potentially a major source of risk for legal action.

Comments:

General Comments:

31 respondents chose to make some general comments at the end of the survey. These comments are a mixture of positive and negative, but generally, the comments portray a positive picture of people with a disability studying at the ANU. It is not without problems, but the overall impression is that the respondents to the survey felt that the “ANU is a great place to study and it is up to each person to make the most of it!”

Comments:

Summary

Positive Responses:

• Quality of DSC Services
• Notetaking Service
• SEA Examinations run by Examinations Office
• Equipment, Resources & Technology
• Digital Lecture Delivery (DLD) System
• Appropriate Responses of some Academic Areas

Issues to be Addressed:

• Inconsistency of responses by Academic areas to request for adjustments
• Inconsistency of responses by Academic areas to SEAs for Faculty-run exams
• Number & Location of Disability Parking spaces
• Headphones on all Resource Room computers (done)
• Storage Space in DSC Chifley Resource Room (done)
• Further developments and wider acceptance of DLD system
• Better understanding of Mid Semester & Faculty-run exam requirements & processes
• Better understanding of Special Consideration processes.
• Improved information dissemination by DSC.

Conclusion

The DSC Survey has been a very worthwhile exercise. The demographics and numbers of respondents have provided a good cross-section of students, covering different disabilities, age groups, gender, types of programs and permanent and variable disabilities. The predominantly positive feedback is very encouraging, and demonstrates that the DSC and ANU generally, are doing a lot of things right for students with disabilities. The responses regarding the DSC and the services provided have been very positive, and the DLD lecture recording system has been a great success for students with disabilities.

Along with the positive responses have come some more critical ones, which have identified areas and issues that need to be addressed. Straightforward issues like headphones on Resource Room computers and some storage space have already been addressed, but others, such as the inadequate understanding of processes for Mid-semester and departmental exams are the source of some concern. The difficulties some students experience in negotiating adjustments with some academic areas reinforces the need for continued information dissemination, awareness training and enhanced liaison between the DSC and the academic areas. The imminent introduction of the DDA Disability Standards for Education is another source of potential risk which will need to be managed carefully, particularly in academic areas.

Trevor Allan,

Manager, Disability Services Centre