The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2006) foregrounds the systemic discrimination experienced by people with disabilities and calls for equity, broadened access and participation¹ in higher education (UNCRPD 2006). This injunction is mirrored in South African higher education policy frameworks (Republic of South Africa 1997a, 2001, 2018) with regard to broadening access and participation for students with disabilities (SWDs). Regrettably, these policy provisions do not resonate with the current experiences of individuals with disabilities. To explore this slippage, this article focuses on data derived from a qualitative research study with two Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities, who were part of a teaching practice learning community managed by the Disability Unit at the University. The research focussed on their chalkboard experiences and how these influenced equity, access and participation as trainee teachers in their teaching practice school placements.

We begin by scanning the policy terrain on inclusion of SWDs in higher education in the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa, followed by a review of the literature on the practice learning experiences of SWDs in these two countries. Thereafter, the context and background of this research study is documented. We move on to elucidate the theoretical orientation, which is informed by Tinto’s (2003, 2004) Learning Community Model for student retention and success. Following an overview of the research methodology, the results, discussion and conclusions are presented.

Foregrounding inclusion and the right to education for all, policy frameworks underscore equity and broadening access to enable the inclusion and participation of SWDs in higher education (Republic of South Africa 1997b, 2001, 2018; UNCRPD 2006). This is increasingly advanced as a basic human right and a social justice concern. The earnestness of these imperatives is reflected in equity, access and participation being included in institutional performance indicators to support social change and transformation. However, despite these policy advances, SWDs continue to experience complexities and tensions in negotiating fair and inclusive higher education. It has been suggested that these emerge because of control, hegemony and exclusion of persons with disabilities by social institutions (Terzi 2005).

The UNCRPD and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) recognise disability as a human rights and social justice concern, denouncing all forms of oppression, exclusion and discrimination arising from disability. The UNCRPD’s (2006) assertion on higher education inclusion and participation for persons with disabilities provides for reform by stating in Article 24 (e) that ‘effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of inclusion’. In South Africa, disability is considered as a system of discrimination requiring social redress and transformation through the imperatives of equity, access and participation in higher education (Republic of South Africa 1997b, 2001, 2018). Furthermore, the Integrated National Disability Strategy (1997c) and the Sustainable Development Goals (2016) draw our attention to the need for equity and inclusion in higher education for persons with disabilities. A more recent South African policy pronouncement, the Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training System (Republic of South Africa 2018), draws attention to the social inclusion of SWDs in higher education. This translates to the promise of universal design and curriculum accessibility; attention to violence, abuse and HIV and AIDS; inclusion of disability in higher education policies; access to sports, recreational and cultural activities; disability responsive retention and success outcomes and extensive disability sensitisation.

This study aligns to and acknowledges the distinctiveness of the social model of disability. This relates to the removal of social, attitudinal and universal design barriers and the importance of the individual and collective agencies of persons with disabilities to inform the design of inclusive social arrangements (Barnes 2007).

Studies have documented the challenges experienced by SWDs in higher education in accessing resources designed for able-bodied students (Gibson 2012; Opini 2012). These studies found that a complex and problematic relationship exists between SWDs and access to such resources. Our review of this literature found no international data on students with visual disabilities’ experiences of chalkboard access and participation. However, in South Africa, Subrayen’s (2018) study showed that the chalkboard produced complex and multi-dimensional power hierarchies, leading to the production of stigma.

Much rigorous research has been undertaken in the UK on the practice learning placements of SWDs. These studies highlight good practice models (Ashcroft et al. 2008; Botham & Nicholson 2014; Glazzard & Dale 2015; Griffiths 2012; Griffiths, Worth, Sculliard & Gilbert 2010), stereotyping and disempowerment (Glazzard & Dale 2015) and stigma and challenges arising from disability disclosure (Botham & Nicholson 2014). Interestingly, the country’s Equality Act (2010) provides guidelines for the preparation and design of practice learning placements for SWDs, and studies suggest that such models enhance retention, access and participation. Griffiths et al.’s (2010) case study of nursing SWDs argues for a comprehensive student-centric approach that supports collaboration with practice partners; disability disclosure; support systems; review of placement practices and institutional arrangements, all of which form the six-phase tripartite model. This model provides reflective learning, continuous assessment and evaluation suitable to individual student’s needs (Griffiths et al. 2010).

Botham and Nicholson’s (2014) modified action research study with physiotherapy SWDs corroborates Griffith et al.’s (2010) findings on practice partner engagement and on-going communication for open and early disability disclosure to support a structured practice placement procedure for evaluating and assessing clinical practice placements. This good practice model is also supported in a discussion paper by Ashcroft et al. (2008). These scholars assert that prior clinical training in simulated patient care laboratories for nursing SWDs improved clinical skills and enhanced readiness and confidence for clinical practice placements. Furthermore, Glazzard and Dale (2015) and Griffiths (2012) advocate for the use of specialised technology for trainee teachers with dyslexia. Their findings show improved retention and success rates in the trainee teachers’ teaching practice school placements. As noted by Glazzard and Dale (2015), tutors trained in dyslexia and support plans for teaching practice reduced barriers in such placements.

Glazzard and Dale (2015) and Botham and Nicholson (2014) agree that inequities and complexities exist in practice learning placements for SWDs in the UK. The results of Glazzard and Dale’s (2015) study show that trainee teachers with dyslexia experienced stereotyping, stigma and disempowerment by school mentors and tutors in their teaching practice school placements. This negatively influenced teaching and learning in the classroom context. Another important finding was that SWDs delayed disability disclosure in singular or multiple practice learning placements for fear of discrimination leading to stigma (Botham & Nicholson 2014; Stanley et al. 2011). Hence, disability disclosure is fraught with tensions and complexities where SWDs have to consistently negotiate and re-negotiate decision-making related to the timing of disability disclosure (Botham & Nicholson 2014; Stanley et al. 2011). However, despite this rigorous research on practice learning placements in the UK, these studies do not offer directions on strategies to enhance equity, access and participation for Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities in their teaching practice school placements.

In comparison to the UK, little progress has been made in South Africa on the practice learning arrangements for SWDs in higher education. Ndlovu and Walton (2015) recently noted that there is a paucity of evidence to highlight the unique experiences of SWDs in their practice learning placements. This presents a challenge in critically understanding and analysing the practice learning experiences of SWDs in South African higher education. There is, thus, a need for a critical examination of the ways in which SWDs negotiate their teaching practice learning experiences in the school context. Small-scale data sets suggest that South African SWDs are experiencing tensions in these placements (Ndlovu & Walton 2015; Ntombela & Subrayen 2013; Subrayen 2011, 2018).

Van den Heever’s (2017) study at a higher education institution in South Africa highlights the clinical experiences of final year able-bodied nursing students. These students acquired psycho-social disabilities, such as continuous stress and anxiety, chronic physical and emotional fatigue and personal identity detachment, while in their clinical training with young traumatised children in hospitals. These acted as barriers to access and participation in these students’ clinical nursing practice placements (Van den Heever 2017). A qualitative study in KwaZulu-Natal found that academic staff’s lack of awareness of students with visual disabilities and unique chalkboard access trajectories led to the exclusion of a student with a visual disability from entering a Bachelor of Education programme (Subrayen 2011). This constrained retention and success of students with visual disabilities, hence violating their freedom and agency (Sen 1999) to do and be what they have ‘reason to value’ (p. 87).

Two other studies found that Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities experienced constraints in their teaching practice school placements. Ntombela and Subrayen’s (2013) situational analysis concluded that blind students experienced barriers related to the lack of human support and specialised assistive technologies to navigate their teaching practice school placements. This impacted on their retention and success outcomes. The authors argued that these exclusions provide evidence to support the argument that students with visual disabilities experience barriers to chalkboard access. Institutional commitment is, thus, required to consider visual disability as human diversity in the apportionment of accessible resources for teaching practice school placements.

More recently, Subrayen’s (2018) sociological analysis of the experiences of Bachelor of Education students with visual and physical disabilities found that these students experienced many inequities in their teaching practice school placements. Complex and multiple power hierarchies lead to the production and reproduction of stigma, and a lack of freedom and agency to make decisions about teaching practice, environmental barriers in the teaching practice context and the chalkboard as a normative resource prevented the achievement of equity for eventual equality. As observed by Terzi (2005), normative resources are designed by social institutions without accounting for the social realities of persons with disabilities. These resources serve to exclude persons with disabilities (Terzi 2005) and constrain individuals’ human development and expansion of their capabilities (Sen 1999). These South African studies highlight that despite the invocation of equity, access and participation imperatives in higher education policy frameworks (Republic of South Africa 1997b, 2001), SWDs continue to experience systemic institutional constraints relating to stigma, inadequate student funding, marginalisation and a lack of human support and specialised technological software (Ndlovu & Walton 2015; Ntombela & Subrayen 2013; Subrayen 2018). However, Subrayen’s (2018) study also demonstrated that learning communities (Tinto 2003, 2004) for student engagement supported equity, access and participation in teaching practice placements.

This section has demonstrated that, in both the UK and South Africa, there is documented evidence on the constraints confronting SWDs in their practice learning placements. However, there remains a need for a deeper sociological understanding of the redress and transformative measures relating to the chalkboard experiences of students with visual disabilities.

The School of Education at the University was the site for the research. The core teacher education curriculum requires trainee teachers to participate in a compulsory 16-week practice teaching experience in a school setting. This practical exposure is intended as a catalyst for nuanced and diversified school-based experiences to enable trainee teachers to become reflective practitioners. The School of Education’s Disability Support Unit’s primary mission is to ensure academic integration and support for SWDs. A student group programme undertaken by the Unit involves group collaboration and sharing experiences of access and participation in teaching practice school placements.

Arising from these programmes, the lead author, in her capacity as the University’s Disability Coordinator at its School of Education, developed a booklet entitled ‘Management Strategies for Effective Teaching Practice Placement for Students with Visual Disabilities’. The booklet was formulated through the voices of SWDs on their teaching practice school placement experiences and is used as a critical pre-placement teaching practice tool. Prior to embarking on his or her teaching practice school placement, a copy of this booklet is provided to each SWD to guide their access, participation and retention in their placement. It is presented in the requisite print accessibility format such as large print in the required font size, Braille or through voice synthesised software.

The first part of the booklet details the challenges SWDs experience in their teaching practice school placement. These include personal barriers; the lack of reasonable accommodations at the placement schools; universal design barriers; attitudinal challenges emanating from learners and school staff; challenges arising from the disclosure or non-disclosure of disability and chalkboard inaccessibility. In the second part of the booklet, the ways in which SWDs navigate their teaching practice school placement to ensure retention and success are documented. Intervention strategies related to social skills training; classroom management; learner engagement; specialised technological software and reworking traditional methods of the chalkboard; consultations with teaching practice assessors and school mentors and the advantages of disability disclosure are also documented. Furthermore, the booklet provides advice from a professor who is blind on the requisite psychological processes for effective teaching and learning in the classroom.

Ideas such as collaborative and cooperative learning; sharing of knowledge; engagement with common themes; mutual connectedness and the co-construction of skills and competencies from Tinto’s (2003, 2004) Learning Community Model are used during the teaching practice school placement programmes. Within-group collaboration, support and sharing of experiences and students’ engagement with the booklet are underpinned by Tinto’s (2003, 2004) Learning Community Model for student perseverance, retention and success, as explicated below.

Tinto (2003, 2004) defines learning communities as a structure for beginning, undecided and academically developing students. We draw on Tinto’s theoretical framework to emphasise the potential of appropriate support for retention and success for SWDs, particularly in the context of promoting collaborative and cooperative learning through linked courses, sharing and discussion of curriculum content. Furthermore, he argues that learning communities are structured in ways that connect students with one another by organising common themes which gives meaning to their mutual connectedness. Importantly, Tinto (2003) posits that learning communities share three commonalities. The first is sharing knowledge in a focussed and coherent manner to establish deep levels of dialogue. The second commonality relates to shared knowing through the enrolment of the same students in the learning communities to facilitate their involvement and engagement, and co-construction of academic skills and knowledge to enhance deep levels of dialogue and the development of their cognitive abilities. The third commonality is shared responsibility, wherein there is a responsibility to every voice, hence enhancing collaboration and co-operation to improve and develop the entire learning community collectively. Although Tinto’s (2003, 2004) Learning Community Model does not provide explanations on shared knowledge, shared knowing and collaborative and cooperative strategies as they relate to visual disabilities in the context of teaching practice school placements, his work highlights sustained academic engagement and integration. Hence, Tinto’s (2003, 2004) model has the potential to promote critical engagement in broadening access and participation for students with visual disabilities. This theoretical lens is valuable as it stimulates arguments for institutional commitment. However, Tinto (2003) claims that the value of learning communities is based largely on anecdotal evidence, self-reports and assessments resulting in institutions working without any clear direction. The few available sociological studies that are positioned in Tinto’s model tend to focus on able-bodied students in relation to socio-economic status and curriculum concerns. As will be demonstrated later, we use requisite evidence to argue that learning communities do promote and enhance retention and success for students with visual disabilities.

The enquiry aimed to explore two key research questions: (1) What are the chalkboard experiences of Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities in their teaching practice school placements? (2) How do these students negotiate their chalkboard access to enable teaching and learning in the classroom? A qualitative approach provided tools to deepen our understanding and interpretation of the unique experiences of students with visual disabilities in their teaching practice school placements at the University. Data were obtained through qualitative research instruments, as the researchers were interested in capturing the participants’ authentic voices (Denzin & Lincoln 2005).

Non-probability sampling was used because the lead researcher is the Disability Coordinator at the said university and is the only staff member responsible for the support and management of all SWDs. This sampling strategy allowed for what Bryman (2012) considers ease of ‘accessibility’ of the participants to the researcher (p. 201). The sample comprised two female third-year Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities who acquired vision loss in early adulthood.

One participant was 21 and the other was 23. For one of the participants, the dust from the chalkboard exacerbated her visual challenges, while with the other, her challenges commenced with mild hearing loss followed by visual challenges. This participant used spectacles as a blending-in strategy (Goffman 1963) to conceal redness and swelling of the eyes. Only 2 of the 11 students in the learning community had visual disabilities. As an equity measure, both participants required print and electronic material in font size 14.

We selected the sample primarily because the participants were part of a teaching practice learning community, where SWDs receive support, guidance and skills for retention and success outcomes in their teaching practice school placements. Data were generated through semi-structured interviews to allow for rich understanding of the chalkboard experiences of students with visual disabilities. Prompts and probes were used to elicit relevant information and to extend conversations relevant to their experiences. This allowed the participants to narrate from their subjective positions rather than the researcher imposing meaning on their narration (Chase 2005). The interviews lasted approximately 60 min each which was sufficient to generate the required data. To ensure the transferability of the findings, detailed rich and thick descriptions of the participants’ voices are presented in the form of direct quotes (Denzin & Lincoln 2005).

Both the participants consented to their interviews being audio recorded. Data were transcribed verbatim from the original transcripts and audio recordings. Themes were derived using thematic analysis, which was prepared according to the procedures used by Braun and Clarke (2006). This involves familiarising oneself with the data; generating codes; searching for themes through the codes; reviewing and refining the themes; defining and naming them; and, finally, production of the research report. The benefit of using this method of analysis is that interpretation of the themes is supported by the data (Guest 2012). Although this method allowed categories to emerge from the data (Saldana 2009), it also runs the risk of missing nuanced data (Guest 2012).

Based on the analysis of the data generated, the following experiences emerged. Barriers experienced in negotiating the chalkboard are considered, followed by the factors contributing to access. We use Tinto’s theoretical framework as an analytical lens to demonstrate that in the absence of adequate institutional support, both by the University and host institution, students resorted to shared knowledge, shared knowing, collaborative and cooperative learning as offered by learning communities and a teaching practice pre-placement booklet, as a hedge against the cultivation of ablest identities. In this study, the constructs of shared knowledge, shared knowing, collaborative and cooperative learning (Tinto 2003, 2004) stimulated claims for both barriers and factors contributing to access.

The study from which this article derives examined the chalkboard experiences of Bachelor of Education students with visual disabilities in their teaching practice school placements. Several themes emerged which signalled overt and covert barriers to access and participation. Aside from these barriers, this study also signals that reworking traditional methods of chalkboard access together with a pre-placement teaching practice booklet for SWDs enhanced the retention and success outcomes of trainee teachers with visual disabilities. The findings also demonstrate the value of transition and retention support trajectories such as teaching practice school placement learning communities. One of the more significant findings relates to flexible chalkboard teaching and learning designs such as large print posters, using the chalkboard and posters simultaneously, and using different coloured chalk. In addition to teaching practice school placement learning communities for students with visual disabilities, the teaching practice booklet served as a resource or toolkit to minimise barriers to chalkboard access and participation.

Taken together, the findings suggest that despite redesigning access and participation in relation to the chalkboard, complexities and challenges persist. This raises the need for policy review and for the higher education sector to consider systemic structures for retention and success. As Tinto (2006–2007:5) argues, we need to look at ‘what works’ to enhance retention and success for diversified student cohorts. There must be a call for deeper structural connections with institutional climates and, through systemic transformation of higher education policy frameworks, there is a need to develop structured teaching practice learning communities for SWDs.

Although the data and analysis provide snapshots of the participants’ accounts of their experiences, these were not corroborated by observations or other methods and sources. What the participants say may or may not be very different from the way they actually ‘negotiate’ the chalkboard in the classroom, especially as trainee teachers. Additional methods and sources would have enhanced the trustworthiness of the research. This is acknowledged as a limitation, and it is hoped that subsequent studies will embrace a wider range of research methods and instruments to corroborate the findings and analyses offered here.

Finally, higher education institutions have an obligation to ensure that teaching practice school placement assessors undergo formal and extended learning in relation to disability in higher education and non-traditional teaching and learning strategies and interventions used by SWDs in their teaching practice school placements. Assessors are also advised to be cognisant of contextual differences in resourced and under-resourced schools and the diverse ways in which SWDs navigate these differences in their teaching practice school placements.