Faculty perspectives on challenges faced by students with disabilities in bachelor’s programs

This study explores faculty members’ perceptions of challenges faced by students with disabilities enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs within a specific geographical context in Saudi Arabia. It further investigates whether statistically significant differences in the severity of these perceived challenges, as measured by the study questionnaire, based on teaching experience with students with disabilities as well as college category variables. A total of 256 faculty members completed an online questionnaire, which was developed around five axes. Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses were used to examine trends and group differences, and the results identified significant challenges associated with implementing policies for enrollment, services provided to students with disabilities, faculty awareness of support, and the accommodations on campus. Conversely, they did not perceive bachelor’s programs as incompatible with students with disabilities. The results indicated no significant differences between those with and without prior teaching experience, yet a significant effect of discipline was found on the extent to which faculty members agreed on these challenges, favoring those in the humanities disciplines. Implications for the university enrollment of students with disabilities are also discussed.

1 Introduction

Students with disabilities are significant within the academic community in university education institutions; they are anticipated to receive comprehensive support, starting from the admission process and continuing throughout their educational journey and engagement in academic activities (Zielińska, 2022). While the representation of students with disabilities in universities remains low (Taneja-Johansson, 2024), the literature on the education of people with disabilities emphasizes the need to conduct studies that enhance the understanding of disabilities in the realm of university education. This knowledge can address the challenges faced by university administrators (Clouder et al., 2020) and explore the factors that facilitate or hinder university enrollment for persons with disabilities (Taneja-Johansson, 2024). This understanding can allow universities to demonstrate their commitment to including students with disabilities in their academic disciplines, thereby increasing the university enrollment of such students and fostering diversity on campus (Taylor, 2011).

Within Saudi Arabia, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2023) enshrines the rights of persons with disabilities to access educational and training support services across all educational stages, including admission opportunities into higher education programs. The Human Capability Development Program 2021–2025, a cornerstone of Saudi Vision 2030 (2016), explicitly identifies “improving equal access to education” as a key level three strategic objective, utilizing “the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled in educational institutions” as a quantifiable performance indicator. Despite these progressive policies and programs, a study conducted by the Authority of People with Disability (2022) on the empowerment of students with disabilities across 27 public universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia revealed a concerning disparity in access to higher education programs for people with disabilities, with a mere 0.52% enrollment rate compared to their non-disabled peers. Consequently, the Authority proactively recommends expanding admission opportunities for students with disabilities, particularly in science, engineering, and health colleges.

Among existing studies, most have explored the role of disability service centers within universities in tackling the challenges surrounding the enrollment and participation of students with disabilities in university education. These centers’ primary aim has been to bolster their access to equitable educational opportunities and facilitate their successful transition into future careers. More specifically, these roles concentrate on fostering inclusive practices throughout the campus and implementing the necessary academic accommodations (Scott et al., 2016), which seek to provide reasonable adjustments granting students with disabilities equal access to classes, programs, and courses, both in content and activities, by eliminating barriers and allowing for full engagement and learning (Souma et al., 2002). However, it is fundamental to recognize that simply enrolling students with disabilities in disability service centers does not guarantee that they will receive adequate services. Moreover, the presence of academic accommodations does not necessarily equate to the academic success of students (De Los Santos et al., 2019; Parsons et al., 2021). Despite institutional services, students with disabilities may require additional assistance to thrive academically. While some such students may benefit from social support systems (e.g., peer support groups), the literature often advocates considering other support systems (De Los Santos et al., 2019) to ensure a comprehensive approach to fostering success in university education.

Faculty members are crucial for supporting students with disabilities in universities and ensuring that they receive appropriate postsecondary education (Zhang et al., 2010). Their understanding of the needs of such students fosters the provision of suitable accommodations that promote academic success without compromising the components of educational courses. Collaboration with faculty members strengthens campus support networks for students with disabilities (Scott et al., 2016). With the increasing prevalence of these students in universities, more faculty members are likely to have teaching experiences with diverse learning styles (Lombardi et al., 2013). Consequently, university educational institutions must use the most efficient education methods to train faculty members to improve their institutional processes related to students with disabilities (De Los Santos et al., 2019), which can positively impact their enrollment and participation rates.

Previous studies have highlighted the significance of faculty member partnerships within campus support programs for students with disabilities, emphasizing their role in guiding best practices and implementing policies and procedures that promote student success (Scott et al., 2016). Therefore, understanding faculty members’ perceptions of the challenges faced by students with disabilities is vital for building an effective support system. Previous studies have examined the faculty members’ understanding of the concept of inclusion and the challenges of creating inclusive learning environments (Korthals Altes et al., 2024), the impact of training opportunities on faculty members’ attitudes toward disabilities and inclusive design (Lombardi et al., 2013), their perceptions of specific disability categories of students with disabilities in university education (Almutairi, 2023; Zhang et al., 2018), their perceptions of the higher education enrollment rights of students with disabilities (Zhang et al., 2018), and their knowledge and practices regarding providing university accommodation for students with disabilities (Zhang et al., 2010). However, a gap remains in understanding faculty members’ perceptions of the challenges of enrollment and participation for students with disabilities in university education programs. This is especially true considering that having a positive attitude toward the concept of inclusion is not sufficient to fully understand faculty members’ perceptions of equal opportunities for all students in higher education and the challenges associated with it (Korthals Altes et al., 2024). Furthermore, it is essential to explore faculty members’ experiences as providers of support to analyze the factors that enhance the experiences of students with disabilities in university education (Dumitru et al., 2024).

Considering the role of faculty members in supporting students with disabilities, targeting university education institutions in a specific geographical area is crucial (De Los Santos et al., 2019) because of the varying practices among universities regarding the enrollment systems of students with disabilities and, consequently, the nature of services provided after enrollment. This aligns with the recommendation of Korthals Altes et al. (2024) to conduct more context-sensitive studies that consider both institutional and national higher education policies. This study aims to address this gap by exploring faculty members’ perceptions of the challenges faced by students with disabilities enrolling in bachelor’s degree programs in university education within a specific geographical context, the Saudi Arabian higher education context. The study employed a quantitative survey methodology to gather faculty perceptions of the challenges faced by students with disabilities in bachelor’s degree programs. It also conducted statistical analyses to determine whether these perceptions significantly differed based on two main variables: the faculty members’ teaching experience with students with disabilities and college category variables (humanities, scientific, and health and applied sciences colleges). The study was guided by the hypothesis—supported by existing literature—that faculty perceptions are influenced by their exposure to students with disabilities and by disciplinary norms. These research questions are critical in understanding the institutional factors that shape inclusive education and will highlight implications for policy and professional development.

Accordingly, the study was guided by the following research questions: (a) What challenges do faculty members perceive that students with disabilities face in bachelor’s degree programs within the Saudi Arabian context? (b) Do perceptions of faculty members of these challenges significantly differ based on their prior teaching experience with students with disabilities? (c) Do perceptions of faculty members of these challenges significantly differ based on college category (humanities, scientific, and health and applied sciences colleges)?

2 Methodology

2.1 Research sample

Recognizing the variability in the service regulations of students with disabilities across universities (De Los Santos et al., 2019) and aiming to control for contextual variables within a specific geographical region, both pilot and primary research samples were drawn from faculty members at a single local university in a major city in Saudi Arabia. Specifically, this university has over 20 years of experience in enrolling students with disabilities and possesses additional support capabilities, including an academic program in special education, as well as various initiatives and programs promoting the inclusion of such students. The pilot research sample comprised 30 faculty members (22 males and 8 females) selected through a non-random quota sampling method, to ensure balanced representation across faculty categories, with half of the sample from humanities colleges and the other half from scientific and health colleges. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from King Saud University Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. KSU-HE-22-849). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire voluntarily and anonymously, in line with the principles of the ethical approval.

A priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1.9.3) was conducted for the planned independent-sample t tests and one-way ANOVAs (three groups). Assuming a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50 for t tests; Cohen’s f = 0.25 for ANOVA), two-tailed α = 0.05, and power = 0.80, the larger required total sample size was 159 (53 for each group in one-way ANOVA, three groups). Accordingly, we adopted this target to ensure adequate power for each analysis. The primary research sample consisted of 256 faculty members (137 males and 119 females), recruited via the convenient sampling method. The questionnaire was distributed electronically by the university’s Questionnaire Center to all academic staff through official email channels, and the research team also conducted in-person visits to faculty offices to invite participants. The obtained sample size was adequate for the study purpose and ensured diversity across academic ranks and college types. Regarding academic rank, 148 were assistant professors, 60 associate professors, and 48 professors. Regarding college affiliations, 138 were from humanities colleges, 55 from scientific colleges, and 63 from health and applied colleges. Their years of teaching varied from one to 44 years, with a mean of 14.77 years.

2.2 Research instrument

The questionnaire entitled “Faculty Members’ Perspectives on Challenges to Students with Disabilities’ Enrollment in Higher Education Bachelor Programs” served as this study’s primary data collection tool. It was developed by the authors, informed by previous studies on challenges faced by students with disabilities in higher education, published after 2010. Examples of references reviewed for the study instrument are marked with an asterisk. The initial version of the study instrument consisted of 62 total items structured around five main axes: (1) policies and regulatory procedures of enrollment, (2) equipment and accommodations, (3) specialized programs and services provided upon enrollment, (4) faculty knowledge of available support, and (5) perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for students with disabilities. These items were reviewed and refined based on expert judgment and findings from the pilot study, and the final version of the questionnaire included 37 items. The research sample utilized a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree) for answering the questionnaire items.

2.2.1 Study instrument’s face validity (expert validity)

The initial version of the study instrument was presented to a panel of ten faculty members specializing in special education to provide the necessary reforms and feedback on phrasing clarity, linguistic correctness, and relevance of the questionnaire items to their corresponding axes. Only items with an agreement rate of 80% or higher among experts were retained in the final version, and their suggested modifications were incorporated. This resulted in a streamlined questionnaire comprising 46 statements distributed across the five main axes.

2.2.2 Internal consistency of the questionnaire

Following the administration of the questionnaire to the pilot sample, to examine the internal consistency of each item/axis within the scale, a series of Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests were employed. Nine statements were excluded from further analysis that demonstrated a correlation coefficient below 0.3 or lacking statistical significance.

Ultimately, it was determined that the scale should be treated as five independent axes rather than generating an overall composite score. This decision stemmed from the observation that the correlations between the axis scores and the total score, and between the individual statements and the total score, were statistically insignificant. This approach, prioritizing dimension scores over a composite total score, is common in questionnaire design, especially when the goal is to explore participants’ views on multiple facets of a topic (e.g., Cho et al., 2016; Osman et al., 2014).

2.2.3 Exploratory factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the construct validity of the questionnaire. EFA using principal component extraction and oblimin rotation was conducted on the 37 items. Sampling adequacy was excellent (KMO = 0.93), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ² (666) = 7051.21, p < 0.001, confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Items were evaluated using a 0.40 loading threshold, and all exceeded this value.

A two-factor solution was extracted based on eigenvalues above 1 and the scree plot, and it accounts for 50.95% of the total variance (Factor 1 = 36.56%, Factor 2 = 14.39%). Factor loadings above 0.40 were considered salient. Factor 1 comprised 25 items which represent the first four axes of the questionnaire: policies and regulatory procedures of enrollment, equipment and accommodations, specialized programs and services provided upon enrollment, and faculty knowledge of available support. Loadings ranged from 0.53 to 0.82. Factor 2 included 12 items which reflect the fifth axis, perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for students with disabilities. Loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.77. No cross-loadings above the 0.40 threshold were found. Inter-factor correlations were moderate, indicating related but distinct constructs. The complete factor loading matrix is provided in Appendix 1.

This pattern suggests that the questionnaire captures two higher-order dimensions and maintains coherence with the originally defined five axes. Therefore, subsequent analyses focused on the five dimensions consistent with the theoretical bases of the questionnaire and methods of prior studies (e.g., Cho et al., 2016; Osman et al., 2014).

2.2.4 Questionnaire reliability

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed to evaluate the reliability of each questionnaire axis using data from the primary study sample. The resulting reliability values are as follows: axis 1 (policies and regulatory procedures of enrollment) = 0.938, axis 2 (equipment and accommodations) = 0.883, axis 3 (specialized programs and services provided upon enrollment) = 0.88, axis 4 (knowledge of the support provided) = 0.926, and axis 5 (perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for university students with disabilities) = 0.902.

2.3 Data analysis

Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28). Questionnaire responses were coded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). For each participant, arithmetic mean scores were calculated for the items within each of the five dimensions. A hypothetical mean of 3.00—the midpoint of the scale—was used as a benchmark in one-sample t-tests to assess whether faculty perceptions of challenges within each dimension were statistically above or below a neutral level. Independent sample t-tests were performed to compare the scores of faculty members with and without prior experience in teaching students with disabilities. Finally, to compare the scores across faculty members of different faculty categories (humanities, health, and science), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. To control for Type I error for multiple comparisons, the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction was applied separately to the main (dimension-level) and item-based analyses. Adjusted p-values were reported, and results were considered statistically significant at p (FDR-adjusted) < 0.05.

3 Results

The present study sought to understand faculty members’ views on the challenges faced by students with disabilities in bachelor’s programs, including barriers to admission, enrolment and academic success. Table 1 presents the descriptive and normality statistics for each axis. The Shapiro–Wilk test indicated significant deviation from normality (p < 0.05) for four of the five axes, but was not significant for the fifth axis, p = 0.092. However, visual inspections of Q-Q plots suggested that the distributions were approximately symmetric. The skewness and kurtosis values indicated that most axes were approximately normally distributed (within ± 1), but axis 4 showed a greater deviation (skewness = − 1.02, kurtosis = 1.45), consistent with the Shapiro–Wilk test, suggesting a non-normal distribution. Given the large sample size (n = 256) and the robustness of t-tests and ANOVA to moderate deviations from normality (Blanca et al., 2017; Lumley et al., 2002), parametric tests were retained. Homogeneity of variances was confirmed before conducting the tests. Equivalent non-parametric analyses (one-sample Wilcoxon test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis test) were also performed and revealed comparable results. Therefore, only the parametric results are reported, and non-parametric results are available upon request.

Table 1

Table 1. Descriptive and normality statistics for each dimension by group.

Table 2 presents the results of a one-sample t-test that compared the arithmetic means of the questionnaire axes with the hypothetical mean.

Table 2

Table 2. Results of the one-sample t-test comparing the arithmetic means of the scale axes with the hypothetical mean.

The results presented in Table 2 demonstrate that the faculty members identified significant challenges in the bachelor’s programs’ policies and enrollment regulatory procedures of students with disabilities, t(255) = 7.92, p = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.33, 0.55], d = 0.49, as well as challenges in physical, environmental, and technological equipment and accommodations at the university, t(255) = 4.17, p = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.35], d = 0.25, specialized programs and services for bachelor’s program enrollment, t(255) = 10.96, p = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.47, 0.67], d = 0.68, and faculty members’ knowledge and support for bachelor’s program students t(255) = 18.23, p = 0.003, 95% CI = [0.85, 1.06], d = 0.68. The differences between the arithmetic means for these four axes and the hypothetical means were significant. The results indicated a high degree of consensus among faculty members that these axes present a challenge in the admission of students with disabilities to bachelor’s programs.

In contrast, the fifth axis (perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for university students with disabilities) did not reveal a high arithmetical mean, as the differences between the arithmetic mean scores of the axes and the hypothetical mean were not statistically significant, t(255) = 0.63, p = 0.26, 95% CI = [−0.06, 0.12], d = 0.03.

Each scale item was compared with the arithmetic mean to examine the challenges regarding the enrollment of students with disabilities in university bachelor’s programs from faculty members’ perspectives. Table 3 presents the comparisons of the arithmetic and hypothetical means. Notably, faculty members perceived enrollment policies and procedures as being inadequately implemented, as evidenced by the high arithmetic mean scores on the items of the first axis (policies and regulatory procedures of enrollment) compared with the hypothetical mean. The one-sample t-test results were significant for all items on this axis.

Table 3

Table 3. Results of the comparisons between the arithmetic means of the items and the hypothetical mean.

Additionally, faculty members reported a lack of awareness regarding the support services available to students with disabilities, alongside a perception that these services do not fully meet students’ actual needs. This reflects a perceived mismatch between institutional provisions and student realities. This was corroborated by a comparison of the arithmetic mean scores for the items on the third axis (specialized programs and services provided upon enrollment) and forth axis (knowledge of the support provided) with the hypothetical mean, with significant results in the one-sample t-test for all corresponding items, indicating that faculty responses were not neutral but skewed toward concern and dissatisfaction. This suggests that faculty not only feel underinformed about available support systems but also question their effectiveness in addressing student needs. Concerning equipment and accommodations assessed with axis 2, faculty members identified technological provisions as a significant challenge to the enrollment of students with disabilities. The responses to the third and fourth items on this axis, addressing accessibility requirements in educational platforms and the availability of information and communication technology training programs, scored high, with significant t(255) = 4.52, p = 0.001, 95% CI = [0.18, 0.45], d = 0.28, and t(255) = 7.91, p = 0.001, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.65], d = 0.50, respectively. Conversely, the responses to the first and last items, concerning inadequate facilities such as student housing and safety/security considerations, did not deviate significantly from the hypothetical mean, with non-significant t(255) = 1.50, p = 0.14, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.23], d = 0.09 and t(255) = 1.78, p = 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.28], d = 0.11, respectively. The mean score for the responses to the second item regarding classroom equipment and layout was slightly higher than the hypothetical mean; however, this result was not significant, t(255) = 2.10, p = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.32], d = 0.13.

The results for the last axis (perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for university students with disabilities) revealed that faculty members disagreed with specific items, particularly those related to the perceived negative impact of admitting students with disabilities to bachelor’s programs. This was evident in the responses to the first item, which suggested a negative impact on the program’s overall academic level, t(255) = −11.34, p = 0.001, 95% CI = [−0.89, −0.63], d = −0.71. Moreover, the eleventh item, which implied that the enrollment of these students is detrimental to both themselves and other students, was significant, t(255) = −5.03, p p < 0.001, 95% CI = [−0.48, −0.21], d = −0.32. However, the faculty members agreed with the eighth item, which stated that “students with disabilities are considered to be at risk of dropping out of university compared to their peers without disabilities,” t(255) = 3.45, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.36], d = 0.22. Additionally, the faculty members did not believe that the admission of these students should be restricted to theoretical disciplines, as evidenced by the non-significant result for the 12th item on the fifth axis, t(255) = −0.53, p = 0.60, 95% CI = [−0.20, 0.12], d = −0.03.

The remaining items with significant results primarily pointed to increased difficulties in the educational process for both students and faculty, or the perceived advantages of alternative educational pathways, such as diplomas and community colleges. Notably, the results for the third item concerning difficulty in implementing accommodations due to lecture formats or financial constraints were not significant, t(255) = 1.93, p = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.28], d = 0.12.

3.1 Faculty perspectives based on their experience teaching students with disabilities and college categories

Altogether, 165 (64.70%) faculty members who responded to the questionnaire had prior experience teaching students with disabilities, whereas 91 (35.68%) did not. Independent sample t-tests revealed no significant differences in faculty members’ viewpoints on the challenges of enrolling students with disabilities across all axes, regardless of their prior teaching experience. The fifth axis, which relates to the compatibility of bachelor’s programs for students with disabilities approached but did not reach statistical significance. There was a trend favoring those who had previously taught students with disabilities, t(254) = 2.22, p = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.41], d = 0.29. Table 4 provides the arithmetic mean scores, standard deviations, and t-test results for comparisons across all the axes.

Table 4

Table 4. Arithmetic mean scores, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results comparing faculty members who have previously taught students with disabilities to those who have not.

Finally, the one-way ANOVA results indicated that for most axes, faculty members from scientific, health, and humanities disciplines did not differ significantly in their agreement regarding the challenges faced by students with disabilities. Specifically, no statistically significant differences were observed for the second, third, or fourth axes when comparing faculty members from scientific, health, and humanities disciplines, F(2, 253) = 1.41, p = 0.28, ${\eta }_p^2$ = 0.03, F(2, 253) = 2.61, p = 0.11, ${\eta }_p^2$ = 0.02, F(2, 253) = 0.42, p = 0.66, ${\eta }_p^2$ = 0.00, for the second, third, and fourth axes, respectively. Although faculty members in scientific colleges tended to report higher agreement scores on the first axis (policies and regulations) than their colleagues in humanities and medical colleges, these results did not reach statistical significance, after adjusting the alpha value for multiple comparisons: F(2, 253) = 3.83 p = 0.06, ${\eta }_p^2$ = 0.03. With regards, to the fifth axis, which relates to the compatibility of bachelor’s programs for students with disabilities, a main significant effect was found, F(2, 253) = 6.66, p = 0.006, ${\eta }_p^2$ = 0.05. Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests revealed that faculty members in the humanities scored higher than members in science disciplines, p = 0.025, and significantly higher than members in the health disciplines, p = 0.005. However, no significant difference was found between health and science faculty, p = 0.99. Table 5 presents the arithmetic mean scores, standard deviations, and one-way ANOVA results for each discipline (humanities, science, and health) across five questionnaire axes.

Table 5

Table 5. Arithmetic means, standard deviations, and results of one-way ANOVA tests comparing faculty members across disciplines in the questionnaire axes.

4 Discussion

The present study aimed to uncover faculty members’ perceptions of the challenges encountered by students with disabilities during their enrollment in university bachelor’s programs within the Saudi Arabian higher education context. Regarding the first research question, which focuses on the challenges that faculty members perceive students with disabilities to face in bachelor’s degree programs, the results of the research performance dimensions indicated five interpretable aspects. First, despite the presence of clear local policies advocating for the enrollment of persons with disabilities in higher education, faculty members perceived a lack of clarity in the implementation of related policies and procedures. This discrepancy between policy and practice is notable given the existence of supportive legislation, such as the Disability Welfare Law (2000), which guarantees the right to education for persons with disabilities at all levels, including higher education. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) underscores this commitment, with Article 24, Paragraph 5 explicitly mandating access to higher education and reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities. Finally, Article 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2023) reaffirms the right of persons with disabilities to university admission opportunities. This disparity between supportive policies and faculty perceptions may reflect a lack of awareness or understanding of these policies among faculty members, leading to the belief that they are not being implemented effectively. This finding aligns with that of Zhang et al. (2010), who emphasized that faculty knowledge of legal responsibilities and institutional support directly influences personal beliefs. These personal beliefs, in turn, directly affect the successful enrollment and accommodation of students with disabilities. Thus, training programs and interventions are recommended to enhance faculty awareness and promote appropriate support for these students.

Second, the challenges posed by assistive technology accommodation can be interpreted from two perspectives. First, it may reflect the faculty members’ lack of familiarity with available university technologies and their limited understanding of how electronic platforms can be leveraged to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. Consequently, they may perceive technology as ill-equipped to support inclusion, in contrast to physical accommodations, which are more readily apparent and familiar within the university environment and require less specialized training and knowledge. Second, as Koca-Atabey (2017) highlighted, support for students with disabilities is characterized by a dynamic nature, emphasizing that their needs evolve over time. These students’ changing demographic characteristics include their growing technological proficiency. Therefore, those responsible for their support must remain agile and responsive to provide effective solutions that meet the contemporary context’s demands. Thus, a challenge may arise from the gap between these students’ technological capabilities and faculty members’ awareness of these capabilities, impacting their ability to integrate and utilize these skills within existing learning platforms and tools.

Third, the study findings indicate that faculty members’ perceptions of specialized services and programs pose a challenge to the enrollment of students with disabilities. This can be attributed to either the absence of such services and programs or their inadequacy in addressing the needs of students with disabilities in bachelor’s programs. Accommodations, for instance, are among the most prominent specialized academic services coordinated by universities’ disability service centers. Parsons et al. (2021) pointed out a negative impact on academic performance when students with disabilities lose access to the accommodations they receive at the secondary level upon university enrollment. This observation might explain faculty members’ perceptions of the challenges stemming from the absence or insufficiency of specialized services. Furthermore, the perceived challenge might be due to current methods’ inadequacy for identifying and implementing accommodations based on these students’ individual needs. This could be linked to a lack of clarity in defining “reasonable accommodation” in higher education. A clear definition of this concept could help elucidate its impact on the academic success of these students (De Los Santos et al., 2019).

Fourth, the results concerning the questionnaire’s fourth axis (knowledge of the support provided) highlighted a perceived lack of knowledge among faculty members about support systems available for students with disabilities. This encompasses a range of areas, from the regulatory framework governing higher education institutions’ disability services to the specific accommodations and support offered by the Disability Services Center, faculty members’ cooperation with the center in providing services such as accommodations, and training support for teaching students with disabilities and implementing inclusive teaching strategies. These findings align with the observations of De Los Santos et al. (2019), who emphasized the need for robust awareness and support systems within higher education institutions. They advocated for mandatory professional development and training programs focused on the needs of students with disabilities, encompassing instructions on implementing accommodations in the classroom and maintaining a comprehensive list of available accommodations within the university system.

Furthermore, Shine and Stefanou (2022) suggested that providing faculty members with professional development opportunities focused on inclusive teaching skills can enhance their self-efficacy; consequently, this enhances their positive perceptions of working with students with disabilities and implementing necessary accommodations. Notably, information regarding the regulatory framework and available accommodations is crucial for faculty members and should be prioritized in training programs (Debrand and Salzberg, 2005). Sniatecki et al. (2015) emphasized that enhancing faculty members’ knowledge about disability-related issues contributes to a more inclusive institutional environment. Faculty members can benefit from educational opportunities focusing on legal requirements when interacting with students with disabilities and the available campus support services. Scott et al. (2016) expanded upon this by advocating for a partnership between disability service centers and faculty members to strengthen support for these students on campus, suggesting that this collaboration could extend to faculty participation in research that informs best practices and the development and implementation of policies and procedures that facilitate the success of students with disabilities. This is particularly important given the limited scope of disability service center staff, whose primary focus is often on direct interaction with students and the identification of barriers to their success rather than research initiatives. Therefore, fostering an understanding of faculty needs and working effectively with them is essential for disability service centers to achieve their goals and enable the academic success of students with disabilities.

Fifth, the study results confirmed the faculty members’ recognition of the challenges facing students with disabilities; however, they did not perceive the bachelor’s programs as inherently incompatible with these students, acknowledging the potential for increased difficulty in the educational experience for both students with disabilities and faculty members. This aligns with the observations of Zhang et al. (2018): While faculty members may be aware of the rights of students with disabilities to access university education, they may lack the knowledge, skills, and effective strategies to address their needs. Therefore, facilitating appropriate accommodations and policies for enrolling students with disabilities in bachelor’s programs is vital for creating equal educational opportunities. The availability of alternatives, such as diploma programs and community colleges, does not negate the compatibility of bachelor’s programs with students. Similarly, these options cater to students without disabilities to meet labor market demands and can serve a similar purpose for students with disabilities. This perspective resonates with the findings of Sniatecki et al. (2015), in which participants reported positive attitudes toward students with physical disabilities, followed by those with learning and mental health disabilities, with no significant differences between groups. This suggests that faculty members generally recognize the academic potential of students with disabilities.

In relation to the second research question, it was observed that when examining differences in the responses between faculty members with and without experience teaching students with disabilities, no significant differences were observed across the axes regarding policies, programs, services, and physical, environmental, and technological accommodations, or in their knowledge of the available support services for these students. However, a trend toward differences emerged in the fifth axis (perceptions of the convenience of bachelor’s degree programs for university students with disabilities). Faculty members with prior experience in teaching these students tended to score higher on their awareness of current challenges than inexperienced members. Given that the high-scoring items within this dimension primarily reflected difficulties in the educational process rather than an issue to students or programs, this may suggest that faculty members with prior experience in teaching students with disabilities possess a heightened awareness of the challenges faced by them and their students. This may highlight the importance of a clear and prompt implementation of programs and services to eliminate obstacles faced by students with disabilities and faculty members and ensure equal education opportunities in bachelor’s programs for students with disabilities.

Finally, regarding the third research question, which indicated that academic discipline did not influence faculty members’ acknowledge of the presence of challenges for students with disabilities overall, this pattern held across all axes except the fifth axis, which assessed perceptions of the compatibility of bachelor’s programs for students with disabilities. On this axis, humanities faculty tended to perceive more challenges than both science and health faculty. This supports the view of lack of knowledge of inclusive teaching in higher education—even among faculty members in disciplines that might address disability within their curricula (such as some humanities departments). This aligns with the observation of Korthals Altes et al. (2024) that the lack of knowledge, experience, and skills related to inclusion among faculty members represents one of the most evident personal-level challenges. Such challenges can be addressed through training programs that provide opportunities for support groups of faculty members knowledgeable about inclusive teaching, as well as through open discussions on inclusive education and the responsibilities required to achieve it.

4.1 Limitations

When interpreting this study’s findings, several limitations should be considered. First, data collection was confined to a single local university of a specific type (i.e., public, private, nonprofit, research-focused, or teaching-focused) within a particular geographical area in Saudi Arabia. While this restriction was justified (De Los Santos et al., 2019) due to university variations in enrollment criteria and services, recognizing other university contexts and considering university type, admission policies, educational systems (Römhild and Hollederer, 2024), and the nature of available services for students with disabilities, may add important information to the results.

Second, although this study aimed to include faculty members from diverse academic disciplines, the sample size was relatively small. The results’ generalizability could be enhanced by replicating the study with a larger and more diverse sample across different university systems.

Third, the most prevalent type of disability at the university and that most frequently encountered by faculty members may have influenced their responses to the study instrument. For instance, Barr and Bracchitta (2015) demonstrated the impact of disability type as a crucial predictor of positive perceptions of persons with disabilities. Despite the disparate rates of disability types at one university and across different universities, the inherent challenge of controlling the disability type variable across diverse geographical contexts and university types should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings.

Fourth, although previous studies have suggested that teaching field and duration are not significant factors in faculty members’ perceptions and willingness to work with students with disabilities (Shine and Stefanou, 2022), their perceptions may be influenced by different disciplines’ specific demands. For example, faculty members in the arts and humanities might be less attuned to aspects related to digital technologies than their science and technology counterparts (Mercader and Gairín, 2020), potentially impacting their perception of challenges faced by students in humanities programs, even though these programs generally impose fewer technological requirements than those in science and health colleges.

Fifth, reliance on a closed-ended questionnaire may have influenced the participants’ response tendencies (Creswell, 2003). Despite the adherence to rigorous methodological steps in questionnaire development, assessment, and verification of psychometric properties, this inherent methodological limitation may have positively influenced the results. It is ill-advised to disregard some participants’ challenges in survey research, intentionally providing socially desirable responses to demonstrate efforts in the inclusion of persons with disabilities (Huskin et al., 2018).

4.2 Implications and recommendations

This study contributes to researchers and practitioners in the field of university education for students with disabilities, specifically in bachelor’s programs. The findings highlight a paradox: While faculty members did not view bachelor’s programs as inherently incompatible with students with disabilities, they acknowledged their limited knowledge in effectively supporting these students. This knowledge gap may partially explain their perception of the failure to implement admission policies and regulations for students with disabilities as well as the insufficiency of support programs and services provided after accepting them into the university. This hypothesis was reinforced by the perception of faculty members of physical equipment, such as safety and security equipment and facilities, as adequate, probably because it is readily visible and easily recognizable. In contrast, despite their availability, technological accommodations were perceived as incompatible, since only those with expertise in assistive technologies were aware of them. Alternatively, the results could be explained by unenforced policies and regulatory procedures for the admission of students with disabilities, despite their clarity, as well as the need to enhance programs and services for students with disabilities. Each interpretation requires a distinct approach. Addressing the lack of faculty members’ knowledge of policies, programs, and services requires increased initiatives for dissemination and awareness among faculty members. Furthermore, addressing unenforced policies and the unfulfilled services and programs for students with disabilities demands policy implementation and the reinforcement of programs and services. Based on these findings, this study suggests working simultaneously on raising awareness of policies and services, specifically academic accommodations and assistive technology, ensuring policy enforcement, and increasing the quality of provided services and programs.

Furthermore, faculty members believed that university disciplines could be adapted if policies were effectively implemented and appropriate support systems were in place. Therefore, the focus should be on swift and decisive actions to implement policies and regulations while simultaneously bolstering programs and services. Further, informing faculty members about available services and programs is equally important. This multifaceted approach may help bridge the gaps that currently hinder universities’ compliance with national and international policies supporting the enrollment of students with disabilities in bachelor’s programs across various disciplines, a goal that generally aligns with faculty members’ expressed beliefs about these programs’ suitability.

5 Conclusion

This study provides an analysis of faculty members’ perceptions of enrollment challenges faced by students with disabilities in bachelor’s degree programs within the Saudi Arabian higher education context. It contributes to the field by exploring how faculty specialty and teaching experience shape inclusive educational practices and student opportunities. Faculty perspectives were measured through a structured questionnaire covering five axes: enrollment policies, services provided awareness of support, accommodations on campus, and program compatibility. Each of these dimensions may reflect core concerns of Students with Disabilities success in Bachelor Programs. By documenting both challenges and opportunities, the research provides evidence-based insights into the ways faculty perceptions and experiences can promote or hinder access, engagement, and achievement for students with disabilities.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from King Saud University Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. KSU-HE-22-849). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire voluntarily and anonymously, in line with the principles of the ethical approval.

Author contributions

NA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FS: Data curation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. AA: Data curation, Resources, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research project was supported by a grant from the Research Center for the Humanities, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Nada Alothaiem, a faculty member in the Special Education Department at King Saud University, for her contributions during the initial meetings of this research project.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1702695/full#supplementary-material

References

Alamri, J., Barashi, W., Alsulami, R., AlHarigy, L., Shuaib, B., Hariri, S., et al. (2021). Arab online courses and the disabled: an automated and user-testing approach. HMS-SJKFU 22, 1–7. doi: 10.37575/h/edu/210067

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aldihani, M. (2018). Wāqiʿu taʿ̊līmi ạlṭũlāãbi dẖawī ạl̊ạiιʿāqaẗi fī mūảsãsāti ạltãʿ̊līmi ạl̊ʿālī bidaẘlaẗi ạl̊kūaẙti: kKulĩyãẗu ạltãr̊bīaẗi ạl̊ạảsāsīãẗa ạảnamūdẖajaⁿạ [the reality of education of students with disabilities in higher education institutions in Kuwait: basic education college as a model]. J. Edu. Sci. 26, 152–199. Available online at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/980732

Google Scholar

Almutairi, H. (2023). Faculty attitudes toward teaching students with mild intellectual disabilities in higher education. Rev. Bras. Educ. Especial. 29:e0042. doi: 10.1590/1980-54702023v29e0042

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amalki, S. (2021). Ạltãḥadĩyātu ạlãtī tawājuhi ạlṭũlāãbi dẖawī ạl̊ạiιʿāqaẗi ạl̊baṣarīãẗi bijāmiʿaẗi ạl̊maliki suʿūduⁿ: dirāsaẗu naẘʿīãẗu [challenges facing students with visual disabilities at King Saud University: a qualitative study.]. Assiut Educ. J. 37, 349–381. Available online at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1216913

Google Scholar

Authority of People with Disability. (2022). The role of disability units and centers within Saudi universities towards empowering students with disabilities. Available online at: https://apd.gov.sa/en/research-center (accessed December 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Barr, J. J., and Bracchitta, K. (2015). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: the effects of contact with different disability types. Curr. Psychol. 34, 223–238. doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9253-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blanca, M., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., and Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 4, 552–557. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.383,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bolourian, Y., Zeedyk, S. M., and Blacher, J. (2018). Autism and university experience: narratives of students with neurodevelopmental disorders. J. Autism Develop. Disord. 48, 3330–3343. doi: 10.1007/s10803-018-3599-5,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cho, J., Ory, M. G., and Stevens, A. B. (2016). Socioecological factors and positive aspects of caregiving: findings from the REACH II intervention. Aging Ment. Health 20, 1190–1201. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1068739,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clouder, L., Karakus, M., Cinotti, A., Ferreyra, M. V., Fierros, G. A., and Rojo, P. (2020). Neurodiversity in higher education: a narrative synthesis. High. Educ. 80, 757–778. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00513-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

*Cox, B. E., Edelstein, J., Brogdon, B., and Roy, A. (2021). Navigating challenges to facilitate the success for college students with autism. J. High. Educ. 92, 252–278. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2020.1798203

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

De Los Santos, S. B., Kupczynski, L., and Mundy, M. A. (2019). Determining academic success in students with disabilities in higher education. Int. J. High. Educ. 8, 16–38. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v8n2p16

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Debrand, C. C., and Salzberg, C. L. (2005). Validated curriculum to provide training to faculty regarding students with disabilities in higher education. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 18, 49–61. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ846380

Google Scholar

Disability Welfare Law. (2000). Available online at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/872950d8-7059-41fd-a6f1-a9a700f2a962/1 (accessed November 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

*Dix, N., Lail, A., Birnbaum, M., and Paris, J. (2020). Exploring the “at-risk” student label through the perspectives of higher education professionals. Qual. Rep. 25, 3830–3846. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2020.3371

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dumitru, C., Koulianou, M., and Mastrothanasis, K. (2024). Inclusion of students with specific learning disorders in higher education: a systematic literature review. J. Educ. Sci. Psychol. 14, 46–64. doi: 10.51865/JESP.2024.2.06

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fleming, B., and Tonge, J. (2018). Transforming the higher education experience of students with disabilities through innovative system design and accessible data visualisation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 256, 495–499. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-923-2-495

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gilson, C. L., and Dymond, S. K. (2012). Barriers impacting disabled students with disabilities at Hong Kong university. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 25, 103–118. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994280

Google Scholar

*Hanafi, A. (2018). The higher education for people with disabilities: reality, requirements, and the role of support services: people with hearing disabilities as a model. Faculty Educ. J. 23, 240–258. Available online at: http://search.mandumah.com/Record/953068

Google Scholar

Huskin, P. R., Reiser-Robbins, C., and Kwon, S. (2018). Attitudes of undergraduate students toward persons with disabilities: exploring effects of contact experience on social distance across ten disability types. Rehabil. Counsel. Bull. 62, 53–63. doi: 10.1177/0034355217727600

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Koca-Atabey, M. (2017). Re-visiting the role of disability coordinators: the changing needs of disabled students and current support strategies from a UK university. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 32, 137–145. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2016.1254969

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Korthals Altes, T., Willemse, M., Goei, S. L., and Ehren, M. (2024). Higher education teachers’ understandings of and challenges for inclusion and inclusive learning environments: a systematic literature review. Educ. Res. Rev. 43:10060. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.10060

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, B. A. (2014). Students with disabilities: opportunities and challenges for colleges and universities. Change Mag. High. Learn. 46, 40–45. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2014.867212

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lidström, H., and Hemmingsson, H. (2014). Benefits of the use of ICTin school activities by students with motor, speech, visual, and hearing impairment: a literature review. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 21, 251–266. doi: 10.3109/11038128.2014.880940,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lombardi, A., Murray, C., and Dallas, B. (2013). University faculty attitudes toward disability and inclusive instruction: comparing the two institutions. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 26, 221–232. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=eJ1026882

Google Scholar

Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., and Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23, 151–169. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Malakpa, S. W. G., and Spann, S. J. (2012). Admitting, retaining, and graduating students with disabilities to higher education in Liberia. Liberian Stud. J. 37, 93–104.

Google Scholar

Mara, D. (2014). Higher education for people with disabilities—Romanian education experience. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 142, 78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.591

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D. R., Swiss, L., and Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to college students’ use of disability services and accommodation. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 22, 151–165.

Google Scholar

*Mayat, N., and Amosun, S. L. (2011). Perceptions of academic staff towards accommodating students with disabilities in a civil engineering undergraduate program at a university in South Africa. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 24, 53–59.

Google Scholar

Mercader, C., and Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: the importance of the academic discipline. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17:182. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Merchant, W., Read, S., D’Evelyn, S., Miles, C., and Williams, V. (2020). The insider view: tackling disabling practices in higher education institutions. Higher Educ. 80, 273–287. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00479-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moriña, A., and Orozco, I. (2020). Facilitating the retention and success of students with disabilities in health sciences: experiences and recommendations by nursing faculty members. Nurse Educ. Pract. 49:102902. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102902,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Murr, C. D., and Blanchard, R. D. (2011). Perceptions of the visually impaired toward pursuing geography courses and majors in higher education. J. Geogr. 110, 200–208. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2011.540253,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Osman, A., Lamis, D. A., Freedenthal, S., Gutierrez, P. M., and McNaughton-Cassill, M. (2014). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: analyses of internal reliability, measurement invariance, and correlates across gender. J. Pers. Assess. 96, 103–112. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.838170,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

*Papadakaki, M., Maraki, A., Bitsakos, N., and Chliaoutakis, J. (2022). Perceived knowledge and attitudes of faculty members towards inclusive education for students with disabilities: evidence from a Greek university. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:2151. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042151,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parsons, J., McColl, M. A., Martin, A. K., and Rynard, D. W. (2021). Accommodations and academic performance: first-year university students with disabilities. Can. J. Higher Educ. 51, 41–56. doi: 10.47678/cjhe.vi0.188985,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act. (2023). Available online at: https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/e52b691a-785c-42a7-8916-b07d00e4fd38/1 (accessed October 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

Römhild, A., and Hollederer, A. (2024). Effects of disability-related services, accommodations, and integration on academic success of students with disabilities in higher education. A scoping review. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 39, 143–166. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2023.2195074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, J. E. (2018). Disabilities and degrees: identifying health impairments that predict lower chances of college enrollment and graduation in a nationally representative sample. Community Coll. Rev. 46, 145–175. doi: 10.1177/0091552118762630,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sánchez, P. M. T., Cabezas, M. F., and Fernández-Jiménez, C. (2021). Factors to enhance the development of inclusive university communities: ideas, beliefs, and attitudes of university teachers towards disabilities. An. Psicol. 37, 541–548. doi: 10.6018/analesps.334951

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saudi Vision 2030 (2016). Media Document (Human Capability Development Program 2021–2025). Available online at: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/media/pgid4z3t/2021-2025-human-capability-development-program-delivery-plan-en.pdf (accessed October 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Scheef, A., Caniglia, C., and Barrio, B. L. (2020). Disability as diversity: perspectives of institutions of higher education in the U.S. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 33, 49–61.

Google Scholar

Scott, S., Markle, L., Wessel, R. D., and Desmond, J. (2016). Disabilities in service partnerships with faculty members. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 29, 215–220.

Google Scholar

Shepler, D. K., and Woosley, S. A. (2012). Understanding the early integration experiences of college students with disabilities. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 25, 37–50.

Google Scholar

Shine, D., and Stefanou, C. (2022). Creating an inclusive higher education classroom for students with disabilities: the role of attitudes and confidence among university faculty members. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 33, 216–224.

Google Scholar

Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., and Snell, L. H. (2015). Faculty attitudes toward and knowledge of college students with disabilities. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 28, 259–275.

Google Scholar

Souma, A., Rickerson, N., and Burgstahler, S. (2002). Academic Accommodation for Students with Psychiatric Disabilities. Washington, DC: Washington University of Washington.

Google Scholar

Taneja-Johansson, S. (2024). Facilitators and barriers along pathways to higher education in Sweden: a disability lens. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 28, 311–325. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1941320

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor, S. J. (2011). Disability studies in higher education. New Dir. High. Educ. 2011, 93–98. doi: 10.1002/he.438

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, D., Landmark, L. J., Reber, A., Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O. M., and Benz, M. (2010). University faculty’s knowledge, beliefs, and practices in providing reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities. Remedial Spec. Educ. 31, 276–286. doi: 10.1177/0741932509338348

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., Rosen, S., Cheng, L., and Li, J. (2018). Inclusive higher education for students with disabilities in China: what do the university teachers think? High. Educ. Stud. 8, 104–115. doi: 10.5539/hes.v8n4p104

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zielińska, M. (2022). The policy of supporting students with disabilities at higher education institutions in Poland — the example of the University of Wrocław University and Wrocław University of technology. Pol. Pol. Sci. Rev. 10, 97–113. doi: 10.2478/ppsr-2022-0006,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar