Academic attainment in visually impaired students in distance education

Abstract

This investigation studied attainment in visually impaired students taking modules by distance learning with the Open University in 2012. Students with visual impairment alone were less likely to complete their modules and less likely to pass the modules that they had completed than non-disabled students, but they were just as likely to obtain good grades on the modules that they had passed. Students with visual impairment plus additional disabilities were less likely to complete their modules, less likely to pass the modules that they had completed, and less likely to obtain good grades on the modules that they had passed than non-disabled students. These findings are in contrast to those of earlier studies, which suggested that visual impairment had little or no impact upon attainment in higher education. The disparity is attributed to a student population which is nowadays much more diverse both in its abilities and in its disabilities.

Keywords

Academic attainment distance education higher education visual impairment

Introduction

Partly due to changes in national legislation intended to promote equal opportunities for people with disabilities, and partly due to the general expansion of higher education, the last 20 years have seen a marked increase in the numbers of students with disabilities in higher education. In the United Kingdom, national statistics about such students are collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. In 1994–1995, it recorded that 15,699 UK-domiciled students with disabilities had been admitted to the first year of study at UK institutions. In contrast, in 2012–2013, it recorded that 73,135 UK-domiciled students with disabilities had been admitted to their first year of study.¹

The relevant national legislation places a duty on institutions to anticipate the needs of all potential students with any impairment. This requires embedding good practice in the curriculum rather than responding to requests for adjustments from students with disabilities. In the United Kingdom, this is known as ‘inclusive curriculum design’ (Geography Discipline Network, 2006), an idea that has been promoted by the Higher Education Academy (Morgan & Houghton, 2011). In the United States, it is known as ‘universal design of instruction’ (Burgstahler, 2008), while in continental Europe, it is just one aspect of a wider initiative called ‘design for all’ (Whitney & Keith, 2008).

The notion of inclusive curriculum design is especially pertinent for visually impaired students, who in the past have found it difficult to access disciplines that involve practical work or fieldwork (Shepherd, 2006). However, even if it facilitates access to higher education, does it bring about equitable levels of academic attainment? This article describes the rather limited research literature that is available concerning the academic attainment of visually impaired students in higher education, and it then presents a new body of evidence concerning their achievement in a particular context, that of distance education.

The attainment of visually impaired students

The first systematic analysis of the academic attainment of visually impaired students was conducted by Richardson and Roy (2002). They used a database of all students in higher education in the United Kingdom in 1995–1996 to compare visually impaired students and students with no recorded disability. They found that visually impaired students constituted just 0.12% of all students normally resident in the United Kingdom, and that their representation varied with their age, gender, ethnicity and entry qualifications, and with their level, mode, and subject of study. They also found that visually impaired students were less likely than students with no reported disability to complete their programmes of study but that those who obtained first degrees (bachelor’s degrees) were just as likely as students with no reported disability to obtain a better class of honours once differences in background demographic variables had been taken into account.²

Obtaining a more detailed account of academic attainment in visually impaired students is difficult because national statistics are not collected about other academic outcomes. At a local level, the number of visually impaired students within a single institution may be too small to make reliable comparisons with the attainment of students without disabilities. As a result, researchers have tended to rely on small-scale qualitative studies of the experiences of visually impaired students (e.g., Bishop & Rhind, 2011; Cole-Hamilton & Vale, 2000; Frank, McLinden, & Douglas, 2014; Owen Hutchinson, Atkinson, & Orpwood, 1998; Roy, Dimigen, & Taylor, 1996; Simkiss, Garner, & Dryden, 1998). Such studies provide valuable information that can be used to promote the development of support services, but they do not provide evidence on the more fundamental question of the academic attainment of visually impaired students.

One problem with Richardson and Roy’s (2002) analysis is that it was concerned only with visually impaired students who had no other disabilities. In their database, visually impaired students with additional disabilities were recorded as having ‘multiple disabilities’ and could not be separately identified as visually impaired. Cole-Hamilton and Vale (2000, pp. 10–11) suggested that 20% of all visually impaired students in further and higher education had additional disabilities, most commonly physical disabilities or hearing loss. Clearly, it is important to establish whether these additional disabilities affect the students’ attainment.

One higher education institution that recruits large numbers of visually impaired students is the Open University. Richardson and Roy (2002) had had to exclude Open University students from their more detailed analysis because many of these students had been omitted from their database. Richardson (2010) compared attainment in disabled and non-disabled students who had taken undergraduate modules by distance learning with the Open University in 2003. Visually impaired students were as likely as non-disabled students to complete their modules, to pass the modules that they had completed and to obtain good grades for the modules that they had passed. This was so, regardless of whether or not the effects of demographic variables were controlled.

Nevertheless, Richardson’s conclusion was based on just 340 visually impaired students out of a student population of more than 130,000, and his sample may have been too small to detect real variations in attainment. Moreover, as in Richardson and Roy’s (2002) study, visually impaired students with additional disabilities had been consigned to a separate category of ‘multiple disabilities’. Since 2003, both the total student population and the number of visually impaired students at the Open University have increased. It is therefore timely to undertake a fresh investigation of the attainment of visually impaired students with and without additional disabilities at that institution.

Accordingly, this study was carried out to compare academic attainment in visually impaired and non-disabled students. The first part of the analysis describes the demographic characteristics of visually impaired and non-disabled students at the Open University. The second compares completion rates, pass rates, and grades in visually impaired and non-disabled students. The third part compares completion rates, pass rates, and grades when differences in demographic variables are taken into account.

Context

The Open University was set up in 1969 to provide degree programmes by distance education across the United Kingdom. It accepts all applicants over the normal minimum age of 16 years onto most of its undergraduate modules without imposing any formal entrance requirements. Initially, nearly all of its modules were delivered by correspondence materials, combined with television and radio broadcasts, video and audio recordings, tutorial support offered at a local level, and (in some cases) week-long residential schools. In more recent years, the University has made increasing use of computer-based support, particularly CD-ROMs, dedicated websites, and computer-mediated conferencing. Moreover, nowadays many students are recruited from other European countries, and on some modules, they are recruited from around the world.

The University’s arrangements for undergraduates traditionally had a modular structure in which prerequisite requirements were minimised and students were not restricted to prescribed schemes of study. Students enrolled for individual modules rather than for entire degree programmes, and they qualified for a bachelor’s degree when they had gained the appropriate number of credit points (equivalent to 3 years full-time study) from modules that they had passed. Most of the University’s modules are worth 30 or 60 credit points, on the basis that full-time study consists of modules worth 120 credit points in any calendar year. Students may register for two or more modules at a time up to a maximum load of 120 credit points. (In 2012, the UK government required English universities to increase their fees to reflect the true cost of delivering their programmes and extended the availability of student loans. To qualify for loans, students have to register for specific qualifications, and since 2012, a majority of Open University students in England and Northern Ireland have registered for entire degree programmes rather than for individual modules.)

Visually impaired students

In 2012, a total of 175,924 students registered for undergraduate modules with the Open University, of whom 115,086 (or 65.4%) had registered for a single module, 38,780 (or 22.0%) had registered for two modules, and 22,058 (or 12.5%) had registered for three or more modules. At the time of their registration, the students had been asked to declare whether they had a disability or additional requirements. Those students who did so declare were followed up by telephone to establish the nature of their disabilities and the accommodations or other support that they might require.

Of the 175,924 students, 21,083 (or 12.0%) had declared that they had one or more disabilities. Information about the nature of these students’ disabilities was recorded using the checklist shown in Table 1. The list includes symptoms and medical conditions as well as disabilities in a narrow sense, and this may have contributed to the fact that 9007 (or 42.7%) of the students had been recorded as having more than one disability. Table 1 shows the prevalence of each disability among all 175,924 students.

Table l.

Prevalence of specific disabilities in Open University students in 2012.

Disability category	n
Blind or partially sighted	1724
Deaf or hard of hearing	1323
Restricted mobility	4945
Restricted manual skills (difficulty handling items)	3052
Impaired speech	534
Dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties	4961
Mental health difficulties	7291
Personal care support	977
Fatigue or pain	7221
Other disabilities	3205
Unseen disabilities (e.g., diabetes, epilepsy, or asthma)	3530
Autistic spectrum disorder	552

Of the students who registered in 2012, 1724 (or 1.0%) had declared that they were blind or partially sighted. Within this group, 483 were recorded as having only this disability, whereas 1241 were recorded as having one or more additional disabilities. Among the latter students, the most common additional disabilities were fatigue or pain (809 students), restricted mobility (688 students), restricted manual skills (455 students), and unseen disabilities (435 students). In short, 72% of visually impaired students had one or more additional disabilities. Students taking Open University modules are very different from other students in further and higher education, especially in terms of their age and educational background. Even so, Cole-Hamilton and Vale’s (2000) suggestion that 20% of visually impaired students had additional disabilities may well have been an underestimate. The analyses that follow compare three groups of students: the students with no declared disabilities, the students with visual impairment only (VI only), and the students with visual impairment plus additional disabilities (VI plus).

Age

Table 2 shows the age distributions of these three groups. (Relevant data were missing for four students.) A chi-squared test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(12, N = 156,561) = 807.91, p < .001. An analysis of variance using a Newman–Keuls post hoc test showed that the students with no disabilities (M = 35.71 years) were significantly younger than the VI only students (M = 43.64 years) and the VI plus students (M = 44.38 years), who did not differ significantly from each other.

Table 2.

Percentage frequency distribution by age of students with different disabilities.

	n	21 or under	22–24 years	25–29 years	30–39 years	40–49 years	50–59 years	60 or over
No declared disability	154,837	10.6	9.3	16.7	28.2	21.2	9.2	4.8
VI only	483	5.0	4.8	11.2	21.7	24.4	14.5	18.4
VI plus	1241	4.8	4.2	9.9	19.7	25.9	20.7	14.7

VI only: visual impairment only; VI plus: visual impairment plus additional disabilities.

Similar results have been obtained in a sample of visually impaired students in the United Kingdom by Simkiss et al. (1998, pp. 45–46), in national surveys in the United Kingdom (Richardson & Roy, 2002) and the United States (Horn & Berktold, 1999, p. 11), and also in Open University students (Richardson, 2010). Visual impairment often results from accidents or illness in adulthood or from processes associated with ageing such as macular degeneration (see Stevens, Bartlett, Walsh, & Cooke, 2014), so it is not surprising that it is more common in people who study later in life.

Gender

Table 3 shows the percentages of women in the three groups of students. (Relevant data were missing for one student.) A chi-square test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 156,564) = 40.85, p < .001. Further tests showed that the proportion of women was significantly higher in the VI plus students than in the students with no disabilities and the VI only students, who did not differ significantly from each other.

Table 3.

Percentage of women, percentage frequency distribution by prior qualifications, and percentage of students receiving financial support in students with different disabilities.

	Percentage of women	Prior qualifications			Percentage with financial support
	Percentage of women	High	Medium	Low	Percentage with financial support
No declared disability	59.3	33.3	37.0	29.6	25.7
VI only	57.3	36.1	32.6	31.3	34.2
VI plus	68.2	32.9	35.1	32.0	50.5

VI only: visual impairment only; VI plus: visual impairment plus additional disabilities.

Previous studies in the United Kingdom have found more men among visually impaired students (Richardson & Roy, 2002; Roy et al., 1996; Simkiss et al., 1998, p. 46), whereas one survey in the United States found more women (Horn & Berktold, 1999, p. 10). However, Richardson (2010) found that the gender distribution of visually impaired Open University students was not significantly different from that of non-disabled students. The proportion of women was greater in groups of students with some other disabilities, and this explains the increased number of women in the VI plus students.

Entrance qualifications

As mentioned earlier, the Open University accepts applicants over the minimum age of 16 years onto its undergraduate modules without imposing formal entrance requirements. It does, however, record its students’ highest educational qualifications before joining the Open University. These were classified into three categories by comparison with the General Certificate of Education, Advanced Level (GCE A-Level), which is the main university entrance qualification in the United Kingdom: low, less than two passes at GCE A-Level or the equivalent; medium, two or more passes at GCE A-Level, the normal minimum entry requirement at other United Kingdom universities, or the equivalent; and high, qualifications beyond GCE A-Level.

Table 3 shows the distributions of prior qualifications for the three groups of students. (Relevant data were missing for 265 students.) A chi-square test showed that these were not significantly different from each other, χ²(4, N = 156,300) = 7.86, p = .10. In a national survey, Richardson and Roy (2002) found that visually impaired students tended to have lower qualifications on admission to higher education than non-disabled students. They attributed this trend to poorer achievement in secondary education compounded by delays in diagnosis and inadequate support. In the United States, visually impaired students are similarly less likely to gain a high-school diploma than non-disabled students (Horn & Berktold, 1999, pp. 29–30). Nevertheless, in Open University students, Richardson (2010) found that visually impaired students had similar prior qualifications to non-disabled students, as was found in the present study.

Socioeconomic circumstances

On the basis of their personal circumstances, Open University students could apply to the University for financial assistance towards the cost of their registration fees and study materials. The award of such assistance may be taken as a rough proxy for lower socioeconomic circumstances. (Disabled students could also apply to national agencies for a Disabled Student’s Allowance towards the cost of their studies.) Table 3 shows the percentages of students receiving such assistance in the three groups. A chi-square test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 156,565) = 410.83, p < .001. Further tests showed that the proportion of students receiving financial assistance was significantly lower in the students with no disabilities than in the VI only students, which was in turn significantly lower than in the VI plus students. Similar results were obtained by Richardson (2010) in the case of VI only students; indeed, students with disabilities of all kinds were significantly more likely to be receiving financial assistance than were non-disabled students.

Subject of study

The students were classified according to their subject of study into the 10 categories in Table 4. Students registered for two or more modules were classified according to the first module for which they had registered. (Opening modules are intended for students who are new to higher education or who are switching to a new area of study. They are all assessed simply on a pass/fail basis.) Table 4 shows the percentages of students across the 10 subjects in each of the three groups. A chi-square test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(18, N = 156,565) = 156.67, p < .001. Further tests showed that all of the pairwise comparisons among the three groups were also significant. Table 4 shows that the VI only students were more likely than the students with no disabilities to be studying modules in the arts or education but less likely to be studying modules in business and law or science. The VI plus students were more likely than the students with no disabilities to be studying modules in the arts or social sciences but less likely to be studying modules in business and law, mathematics and computing, or science.

Table 4.

Percentage frequency distribution by subject of study in students with different disabilities.

	No declared disability	VI only	VI plus
Arts	13.7	18.4	21.9
Business and law	12.0	9.3	9.2
Education	6.4	8.5	4.9
Health and social care	7.3	6.6	8.5
Mathematics and computing	11.1	10.6	6.3
Modern languages	3.4	4.8	4.5
Openings modules	5.5	4.3	5.2
Science	15.3	11.0	11.7
Social sciences	16.6	17.8	20.7
Technology	8.6	8.7	7.0

VI only: visual impairment only; VI plus: visual impairment plus additional disabilities.

Completion rates, pass rates, and grades

Out of the 258,820 module registrations at the Open University in 2012, 176,788 (or 68.3%) led to successful completion. Table 5 shows the completion rates for the students in the three groups. A chi-square test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 229,353) = 83.50, p < .001. Further tests showed that the completion rate was significantly higher in the students with no disabilities than in the VI only students, and that the completion rate was in turn significantly higher in the VI only students than in the VI plus students.

Table 5.

Percentage of students completing their modules, percentage of completed students passing their modules, and percentage distribution of grades for passed students in students with different disabilities.

	Percentage complete	Percentage pass	Module grade				Percentage good grades
	Percentage complete	Percentage pass	One	Two	Three	Four	Percentage good grades
No declared disability	69.0	92.8	21.2	31.0	30.5	17.3	52.2
VI only	65.6	89.5	22.4	26.3	29.4	21.9	48.7
VI plus	59.3	86.2	16.0	28.1	30.5	25.5	44.0

VI only: visual impairment only; VI plus: visual impairment plus additional disabilities.

Module grades vary from 1 (distinction) to 4 (bare pass). Grades 1 and 2 are ‘good’.

Of the 176,788 completions, 163,366 (or 92.4%) led to passes. Table 5 shows the pass rates for the students in the various disability categories. A chi-square test showed that these were significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 158,165) = 77.23, p < .001. Further tests showed that the pass rate was significantly higher in the students with no disabilities than in the VI only students or in the VI plus students, but that there was no significant difference between the two latter groups.

Although some modules were assessed simply on a pass/fail basis, on many modules, the passing students were awarded grades between 1 (distinction) and 4 (bare pass). When determining the class of honours degrees, the boundary between Grades 2 and 3 maps onto that between upper and lower second-class honours, and so Grades 1 and 2 can be regarded as ‘good’ grades that would merit the award of a good degree (see Note 1). Out of the 85,944 registrations that led to a grade, 44,382 (or 51.6%) led to a good grade. Table 5 shows the distributions of grades and the percentages of good grades for the three groups of students. A chi-square test showed that these percentages were significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 77,337) = 14.18, p = .001. Further tests showed that the proportion of good grades was significantly lower in the VI plus students than in the students with no disabilities, but that there was no significant difference between the VI only students and either of these groups.

One possibility is that attainment varied across the three groups because they tended to choose modules in different subjects. This notion can be tested by examining the interaction between the variation across the three groups and the effect of subject of study. This interaction was not significant in the case of completion rates, χ²(18, N = 229,353) = 28.30, p = .06; pass rates, χ²(18, N = 158,165) = 11.12, p = .89; or good grades, χ²(16, N = 77,337) = 13.38, p = .65. In other words, the pattern of attainment in non-disabled students, VI only students, and VI plus students was similar across different subjects, and so the differences in attainment are not due to different choices of subject.

Controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics

The analyses that have been described thus far have shown that the three groups of students vary with regard to the likelihood of their completing their modules, passing their modules, or obtaining good grades on their modules. In other words, simply at a descriptive level, visual impairment plays a statistically significant role in predicting completion and attainment. However, the three groups of students also vary with regard to age, prior qualifications, and socioeconomic circumstances. It follows that the apparent variation in the completion and attainment of students with visual impairment is confounded with variations in their completion and attainment related to these demographic characteristics. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were carried out to control for possible effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance on completion and attainment in these students.

The results are reported in terms of odds ratios, which can be explained briefly as follows. If the probability of the members of Group 1 exhibiting a particular outcome is p (e.g., .60), then the odds of this are p/(1 − p) (i.e., .60/.40 or 1.50). If the probability of the members of Group 2 exhibiting that outcome is q (e.g., .70), then the odds of this are q/(1 − q) (i.e., .70/.30 = 2.33). The odds ratio is the ratio between these odds (i.e., [p/(1 − p)]/[q/(1 − q)], which equals [p(1 − q)]/[q(1 − p)]). In this case, the ratio between the odds is 1.50/2.33 = .64. In other words, the odds of the members of Group 1 exhibiting the relevant outcome are 64% of the odds of the members of Group 2 exhibiting that outcome.

Odds ratios vary from 0 (when p = 0 or q = 1) to infinity (when p = 1 or q = 0). An odds ratio of 1 means that there is no difference in the odds of the two groups’ members exhibiting the outcome (when p = q); an odds ratio less than 1 means that the members of Group 1 are less likely to exhibit the outcome than are the members of Group 2, and an odds ratio greater than 1 means that the members of Group 1 are more likely to exhibit the outcome than are the members of Group 2. Whether an odds ratio is significantly different from 1 depends on the odds ratio itself and on the number of members in each group.

Table 6 shows the odds ratios comparing the students with visual impairment with the non-disabled students in terms of the completion rate, the pass rate, and the proportion of good grades. The numbers in the three left-hand columns are unadjusted and correspond to the data in Table 5. For instance, the odds of the VI only students completing their modules were 15% (i.e., [1 − .85] × 100) less than the odds of non-disabled students completing their modules. The numbers in the three right-hand columns are adjusted for the possible effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance (all treated as categorical variables). For instance, the odds of the VI only students completing their modules were 16% (i.e., [1 – .84] × 100) less than the odds of non-disabled students completing their modules when these other characteristics had been taken into account.

Table 6.

Odds ratios of completion, passing, and obtaining a good grade in students with visual impairment, both unadjusted and adjusted for the effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance.

	Unadjusted			Adjusted
	Complete	Pass	Good grades	Complete	Pass	Good grades
VI only	0.85*	0.66*	0.87	0.84*	0.62*	0.83
VI plus	0.65*	0.48*	0.72*	0.67*	0.49*	0.75*

VI only: visual impairment only; VI plus: visual impairment plus additional disabilities.

Data show the odds ratio of each outcome in students with visual impairment compared with students with no declared disability.

Odds ratios significantly different (p < .05) from 1.

In the case of the completion rates, the combined effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance were highly significant, χ²(10, N = 229,011) = 3170.86, p < .001. Students aged less than 30 years were less likely to complete their modules than were older students, χ²(6, N = 229,011) = 394.95, p < .001; women were more likely to complete their modules than were men, χ²(1, N = 229,011) = 29.40, p < .001; students with medium or high prior qualifications were more likely to complete their modules than were students with low qualifications, χ²(2, N = 229,011) = 1763.82, p < .001; and students who had financial assistance were less likely to complete their modules than were students who did not, χ²(1, N = 229,011) = 523.01, p < .001. When these effects had been statistically controlled, the completion rates for the three groups of students were still significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 229,011) = 72.07, p < .001. Table 5 shows that the completion rate was significantly lower in the VI only students and the VI plus students than in the students with no disabilities.

In the case of the pass rates, the combined effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance were highly significant, χ²(10, N = 157,954) = 1435.04, p < .001. Students aged less than 30 were less likely to pass their modules than were older students, χ²(6, N = 157,954) = 377.98, p < .001; women were more likely to pass their modules than were men, χ²(1, N = 157,954) = 67.06, p < .001; students with medium or high prior qualifications were more likely to pass their modules than were students with low qualifications, χ²(2, N = 157,954) = 257.84, p < .001; and students who had financial assistance were less likely to pass their modules than were students who did not, χ²(1, N = 157,954) = 502.53, p < .001. When these effects had been statistically controlled, the pass rates for the three groups of students were still significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 157,954) = 62.34, p < .001. Table 6 shows that the pass rate was significantly lower in the VI only students and the VI plus students than in the students with no disabilities.

With regard to obtaining good grades, the combined effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance were highly significant, χ²(10, N = 77,217) = 1892.81, p < .001. Students aged less than 30 were less likely to obtain good grades than were older students, χ²(6, N = 77,217) = 280.52, p < .001; men were more likely to obtain good grades than were women, χ²(1, N = 77,217) = 6.50, p = .01; students with medium or high prior qualifications were more likely to obtain good grades than were students with low qualifications, χ²(2, N = 77,217) = 716.07, p < .001; and students who had financial assistance were less likely to obtain good grades than were students who did not, χ²(1, N = 77,217) = 332.86, p < .001. When these effects had been statistically controlled, the proportions of good grades for the three groups of students were still significantly different from each other, χ²(2, N = 77,217) = 11.66, p = .003. Table 6 shows that the proportion of good grades was significantly lower in the VI plus students than in the students with no disabilities but not in the VI only students.

Discussion

In a national survey in the United Kingdom, Richardson and Roy (2002) found that visually impaired graduates were as likely as students with no reported disability to obtain a better class of honours, once differences in demographic variables had been statistically controlled. However, this conclusion applied to students who had completed their programmes and proceeded to graduation. Indeed, Richardson and Roy found that visually impaired students were less likely than non-disabled students to complete their programme. At the Open University, Richardson (2010) found that visually impaired students were as likely as non-disabled students to complete their modules, to pass the modules they had completed, and to obtain good grades for the modules they had passed. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, these findings were based on just 340 visually impaired students and excluded VI plus students.

The present findings are rather less optimistic. VI only students tended to be older than non-disabled students, and they were more likely to receive financial assistance in their studies; however, they showed a similar gender distribution to non-disabled students and had similar prior qualifications. They were more likely to be studying modules in the arts or in education than non-disabled students, but they were less likely to be studying modules in business and law or in science. They were less likely to complete their modules and less likely to pass the modules that they had completed than were non-disabled students, but they were just as likely to obtain good grades on the modules that they had passed. This explains why those visually impaired students who do successfully complete their programmes are as likely as non-disabled students to obtain good honours. These conclusions remain the case when the possible effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance on attainment have been taken into account and hence are not due to confounding with these variables.

VI plus students tended to be older than non-disabled students, they were more likely to be women, and they were more likely to be receiving financial assistance, but they had similar prior qualifications to non-disabled students. They were more likely to be studying modules in the arts or in social sciences than non-disabled students, but they were less likely to be studying modules in business and law, in mathematics and computing, or in science. (These differences in subject choice may well be due, at least in part, to the difference in their gender distribution, since the former constitute traditionally female subjects, whereas the latter constitute traditionally male subjects.) They were less likely to complete their modules, less likely to pass the modules that they had completed, and less likely to obtain good grades on the modules that they had passed than non-disabled students. The disparity in attainment between these students and the VI only students (see Table 6) presumably reflects the impact of other forms of disablement on students’ performance. These conclusions, too, remain the case when the effects of age, gender, prior qualifications, and financial assistance on attainment have been taken into account.

The sample of VI only students in this study is 40% larger than that in Richardson (2010). However, this is unlikely to explain the disparity between the present findings and those of the earlier study. It is more likely to be due to changes in the population of visually impaired students being recruited by the Open University and, by implication, by other UK higher education institutions. Between 2003 and 2012, the total population of students taking undergraduate modules with the Open University increased from around 130,000 to around 175,000. This indicates that the University is nowadays recruiting a student population that is much more diverse both in its abilities and in its disabilities.

Conclusion

The results of this study have implications not only for the Open University, but also for other institutions of higher education. The increased size and diversity of the Open University’s student population have just been highlighted. Clearly, the Open University needs to ensure that it has the appropriate human and technical resources and the appropriate policies and procedures in place to support this diverse population. In recent years, this has led to the ‘Securing Greater Accessibility’ project, which aims to ensure that the University complies with UK equality legislation by making learning resources accessible to all. This includes the need to ensure that its programmes anticipate the enrolment of students with disabilities rather than just trying to accommodate their disabilities once they have enrolled. In this regard, the Open University is no different from other institutions that have adopted the idea of inclusive curriculum design.

Equally, however, the University’s student population is highly distinctive, and one would not necessarily expect these results to generalise to other institutions. Even so, they are broadly consistent with those originally obtained by Richardson and Roy (2002). In spite of the new funding arrangements that were introduced in 2012, the total student population in UK higher education institutions has also continued to increase. In addition, many campus-based institutions are turning to distance education and other, more flexible modes of delivery to extend their national and global reach. The need to ensure that appropriate resources, policies, and procedures are in place to support such a diverse student population (and the subpopulation of visually impaired students, in particular) is a lesson that should be heeded by other institutions, too.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to James Forman for generating the data set that was analysed in this study and to Anne Jelfs for her comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Bishop

Rhind

D. J. A.

(2011). Barriers and enablers for visually impaired students at a UK Higher Education Institution. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 29, 177–195. doi:10.1177/0264619611415329.

Burgstahler

(2008). Universal design of instruction (UDI): Definition, principles, guidelines, and examples. Seattle: Center for Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html

Cole-Hamilton

Vale

(2000). Shaping the future: The experiences of blind and partially sighted children and young people in the UK (Summary report). London, England: Royal National Institute for the Blind.

Frank

McLinden

Douglas

(2014). Investigating the learning experiences of student physiotherapists with visual impairments: An exploratory study. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 32, 223–235. doi:10.1177/0264619614537813.

Geography Discipline Network. (2006). Inclusive curriculum project. Cheltenham, UK: Centre for Active Learning, University of Gloucestershire. Retrieved from http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/icp/index.htm

Horn

L. J.

Berktold

(1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes (Report No. NCES 1999–187). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999187.pdf

Morgan

Houghton

A.-M.

(2011). Inclusive curriculum design in higher education: Considerations for effective practice across and within subject areas. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/inclusion/Disability/Inclusive_curriculum_design_in_higher_education

Owen Hutchinson

Atkinson

Orpwood

(1998). Breaking down barriers: Access to further and higher education for visually impaired students. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thomas.

Richardson

J. T. E.

(2010). Course completion and attainment in disabled students taking courses with the UK Open University. Open Learning, 25, 81–94. doi:10.1080/02680511003787263.

10.

Richardson

J. T. E.

Roy

A. W. N.

(2002). The representation and attainment of students with a visual impairment in higher education. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 20, 37–48. doi:10.1177/026461960202000107.

11.

Roy

A. W. N.

Dimigen

Taylor

(1996). Types of supportive intervention sought by visually impaired graduates to assist their transition from education to employment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 14, 66–70. doi:10.1177/026461969601400206.

12.

Shepherd

I. D. H.

(2006). Developing an inclusive curriculum for visually disabled students. Cheltenham, UK: Centre for Active Learning, University of Gloucestershire. Retrieved from http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/icp/ivisual.pdf

13.

Simkiss

Garner

Dryden

(1998). What next? The experience of transition: Visually impaired students, their education and preparation for employment. London, England: Royal National Institute for the Blind.

14.

Stevens

Bartlett

Walsh

Cooke

(2014). Age-related macular degeneration patients’ awareness of nutritional factors. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 32, 77–93. doi:10.1177/0264619613519341.

15.

Whitney

Keith

(2008). European developments in the design and implementation of training for eInclusion. In Miesenberger

Klaus

Zagler

Karshmer

(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 5105. Computers helping people with special needs (pp. 156–161). Berlin, Germany: Springer.