Work Engagement of the Academic Community in Developing an Inclusive Campus

Abstract

In the last decade, higher education has moved to implement inclusive education to strive for equal access for people with disabilities. However, equality of accessibility is not only in the aspect of infrastructure, but also includes the academic and non-academic climate on campus. If examined more comprehensively, many problems are still not resolved. Various factors are responsible for this, one of which is the involvement of community work in the campus environment. This study aims to describe the role of lecturer involvement in managing quality and equity learning. This research raises a project of implementing inclusive education in various universities in Indonesia. The method used is a mixed method by utilizing a combination of UWES and HEdPERF instruments. Researchers involved 100 lecturer respondents who were involved in learning with students with disabilities. This research has proven the phenomenon of lecturer performance in the perspective of inclusive education. Lecturers with no special educational background have a significant gap. The results of this research can also be a contribution to better policies and procedures.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education is an education delivery system that provides opportunities for all students with disabilities to participate in education and learning in an educational environment together with students in general [1]. Inclusive education is an approach that pays attention to how to transform the education system so that it can respond to the diversity of students, allowing teachers and students to feel comfortable with this diversity [2], and sees it more as a challenge and enrichment in the learning environment than seeing it as a problem [3, 4].

The Indonesian government has regulated the education system described in the National Education System Law. These articles regulate full guarantees for all persons with disabilities to obtain quality educational opportunities and services. Therefore, the government issued some implementing regulations through government regulations in Permenristekdikti number 46 of 2017 concerning Special Education and Special Services in Higher Education. Through this regulation, the government hopes there will be more opportunities for individuals with disabilities to pursue higher education. This regulation is also intended so that students with disabilities can obtain educational services that suit their needs so that they can study and achieve optimal academic achievement [5].

Students with disabilities are those who have disabilities, barriers, or difficulties in carrying out certain activities, so they need special tools, environmental modifications, or alternative techniques to be able to participate effectively in attending higher education [6]. All study programs at universities must be open to the presence of students with disabilities [7]. Determining the requirements for prospective students should focus more on the academic abilities of prospective students, not because of aspects of their disabilities [8]. Opportunities to study at universities for students with disabilities need to be provided as broadly as possible so that in the future they can fully participate in various social aspects of society [9]. Universities need to provide services for students with disabilities to be able to participate in the educational process at universities easily, comfortably, and safely [10].

The involvement of the academic community has an important role in providing an environment that allows students with disabilities to access academic and non-academic services [11]. This aims to ensure that students with disabilities can study easily and complete their studies on time [12]. Efforts to realize an inclusive university require cooperation from all parties, including leaders, lecturers, administrative staff, student organizations, and students with disabilities [13]. In the learning process, universities must provide accessibility to make it easier for students to access their various learning needs [14]. The academic community must pay attention to assessment, lesson planning, class management, learning materials and media development, implementation of accessible learning, and evaluation of relevant learning. The university also launched a disability service unit, which is part of an institution or institution that functions as a provider of services and facilities for students with disabilities [15].

In recent years, various universities in Indonesia have opened up to students with disabilities. This progress is a positive achievement for education in Indonesia. However, the achievement of the main topic of implementing inclusive education in tertiary institutions is a fundamental question. This relates to the complexity of learning and services available at the higher education level. Awareness of the academic community is an important key to being able to provide learning equity for students with disabilities [16]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the involvement of the academic community in providing quality learning at universities.

2. Method

This study uses a mixed-method design. Quantitative research instruments are used to collect data on the involvement of the academic community in realizing quality learning at universities. Quantitative data use the UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) measurement instrument [17, 18]. Furthermore, qualitative data use a descriptive questionnaire. This questionnaire was adapted from the HEdPERF Scale, which is used to measure the quality of higher education services [19]. The scale components cover six aspects including academic, non-academic, reputation, access, program issues, and understanding aspects. However, at this stage, it is only limited to the academic aspect, which examines the management of learning. Furthermore, the academic aspects are broken down into five main components, namely Assessment (AS), Learning Planning (LP), Material Development (CD), Accessible Learning (LA), and Evaluation (EV) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Role of research.

Respondents in this study were teaching staff, totaling 100 respondents spread across eight universities in Indonesia (see Table 1). Respondents involved are parties who have authority in managing learning activities for students with disabilities. The next stage is to conduct interviews with respondents to confirm descriptively their involvement in creating quality learning. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data are interpreted to be able to produce recommendations.

Category	n = 100
Gender
Male	43
Female	57
Age
25–35	32
36–45	45
>46	23
Work duration
<5 Years	38
>5 Years	62
Bacground
SE	64
NSE	36
Department
Educational	71
Non-educational	29

Table 1.

Respondent demographic.

3. Result

The UWES instrument consists of 17 questions that must be filled out by respondents with a score of 1–6. The score that respondents can achieve with this instrument is 0 for the lowest level and 102 for the highest level. The instrument was distributed to 100 respondents is the Bahasa Indonesia format, which can be downloaded directly through the website https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/. This instrument with the Bahasa Indonesia format has met the validity and reliability criteria based on the Rasch analysis [18]. The results of quantitative data collection are described with descriptive statistics in Table 2.

	N	Range	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation	Variance	Kurtosis
									Std. Error
SE	64	12	48	60	52.83	3.195	10.208	−.308	.590
NSE	36	20	40	60	49.58	6.272	39.336	−1.129	.768

Table 2.

Quantitative data.

Instrument data scores from two groups of lecturers were tested using the Mann-Whitney formula, which showed that the SE category had a score of U = 180.5, p = .005). This result shows a significant difference between the two groups with a score lower than α (0.05). Even though the two groups had the same highest score (60), the lowest score had a very significant difference. Thus, the mean of the two groups shows a difference. In general, this condition can be assumed that the work engagement between the two is at a different level. The distribution of scores in the NSE group is in principle lower. However, this score still does not explicitly describe the quality of their work with performance loads related to the management of inclusive learning. Other additional performance load factors may influence the level of scores achieved with the UWES instrument. Therefore, there is a need for further confirmation of each filling in the question item. This confirmation is quantitative to increase the flexibility of the response they provide. Furthermore, this confirmation also aims to describe the efforts they have made so far. The qualitative instrument indicators refer to the HEdPERF service quality instrument, which has been narrowed down only to academic aspects. This effort was made to limit the expansion of data provided by respondents. In simple terms, the efforts they have made to manage quality and inclusive learning are described in Table 3.

Background/Aspect	AS	LP	CD	LA	EV
SE (n = 64)	23 (35.9%)	38 (59.3%)	15 (23.4%)	64 (100%)	64 (100%)
NSE (n = 36)	28 (77.7%)	14 (38%)	14 (38%)	36 (100%)	20 (55.5%)

Table 3.

Confirmation data.

The collection of qualitative data on respondents includes five main components of higher education services that support quality learning for students with disabilities. The data include lecturer involvement in managing quality learning (see Table 3). Assessment is an important initial stage to determine the characteristics of students. At the assessment stage, lecturers take an important role to determine the characteristics and needs of their learning. Based on the data, the average NSE in compiling this document is relatively high (77.7%) compared with SE having a percentage (35.9%). NSE lecturers generally do not have competence for assessment, so they involve volunteers to obtain specific information about the needs of students with disabilities. While the SE lecturer made an initial identification in the disability category. They argued that most of their students were visually and hearing impaired, so they did not need a more specific assessment.

The second component is learning planning with a universal design. This approach requires lecturers to prepare learning program plans by integrating learning designs for students with disabilities in the same document. In this component, 59.3% of SEs have integrated curriculum modifications that are universal in the document. The others stated that they did not know the specific concept of Universal Design. However, they revealed that in general they have attempted to determine the limits of learning outcomes that must be mastered by students with disabilities. Thirty-eight percent of NSEs have received training internally on adjusting learning outcomes and displaying them in planning documents.

The third component is the development of material content, which must be in accordance with the conditions of students with disabilities. This section shows the low involvement of lecturers in the development of accessible learning content. This is evidenced by the percentage of SE 23.4% and NSE 38%. Based on the results of SE confirmation, most stated that they gave freedom to students to independently explore various sources of material. In accessing the availability of textbooks for people with visual impairments, SE relies more on the role of volunteers to access the material.

The high percentage of learning activities (all categories 100%) in general does not mean that their learning activities are equity. This statement is proven in the confirmation they gave. Generally, SE already knows the need for assistive technology that must be available. This was conveyed by them at the beginning of the lecture and ensured that the collaborating volunteers understood this. However, NSE statements are relatively dependent on volunteer performance. This condition is considered a problem if their students do not have volunteer companions.

At the learning stage, class teachers and subject teachers showed very good engagement data (X 86%, Y 89.6%). Not so with GPK, who stated that the implementation of learning that was carried out was not accessible (GPK involvement was 13%). This is burdened by classroom management provisions that are not supported by non-physical accessibility such as books for blind students or learning methods that are identical to teacher centers. In other conditions, GPK finds it difficult to control environmental situations that are friendly to students with autism or ADHD. This is generally caused by applying of the regular class model, which is considered less relevant to their conditions.

Whereas in the evaluation component, Equity emphasizes aspects of the assessment that are relevant to the learning outcomes that have been planned and modified beforehand. NSE shows a figure of 55.5%, which states that the assessment has been based on adjustments to learning outcomes. While others stated that they provide equalization. Most of them do equalization because it is a form of appreciation or mercy. However, this is not proven in SE, which has determined a standardization of assessment based on the criteria of each student with disabilities without any reason for mercy.

4. Discussion

4.1 Assessment

Based on expert statements, generally known that the procedures that need to be carried out by practitioners before providing interventions for persons with disabilities are identification and assessment [20]. Identification is the process of searching for an identity or category of disability by finding symptoms and characteristics. The process is known as the screening process to be able to justify whether individuals are included in the disability category or not. This information is used as capital in the next process, namely assessment. The assessment aims to obtain more specific information about their characteristics. To carry out assessment activities, each expert utilizes instruments or tools to obtain valid information about the child’s condition [21]. This procedure applies to any intervention or learning program that will be provided to persons with disabilities. In the context of learning services in higher education, assessment places more emphasis on identifying and analyzing the needs of students with disabilities. This procedure includes aspects of the potential, competence, and characteristics of students with disabilities within the framework of determining educational programs [22].

In particular, the assessment is also intended to find out the strengths and learning barriers of students with disabilities. For the assessment to obtain optimal and accountable results, it is necessary to involve relevant experts in its implementation, such as doctors, psychologists, pedagogues, and other specific professions. In the context of learning and special services, the results of the assessment can be used to determine the initial abilities (baseline) of students with disabilities before receiving educational services [23]. Based on the data obtained, it shows that the implementation of the assessment has not yet been carried out in every institution that involves students with disabilities in lectures. There are still many of the lecturers involved who do not know the specific procedures they have to do before learning takes place. Some of the assumptions found in the results of data confirmation and analysis are (1) Lack of comprehensive socialization at universities providing inclusive education, which has an impact on the low knowledge of lecturers; (2) Unavailability of centralized service systems and units under the auspices of the university in managing special services; and (3) Availability of experts who are still unable to cover the need for special service procedures. Theoretically, the quality of assessment has a close relationship with the quality of learning [24]. Conditions in the field have proven that there are not only NSE lecturers but also many SEs who have not carried out mandatory procedures. These findings trigger the emergence of the next hypothesis, namely about service provision based on student perspectives.

4.2 Learning plan

Learning is a process that is carried out in an orderly and orderly manner and runs logically and systematically following pre-agreed rules. Learning planning is the elaboration, enrichment, and development of the curriculum. In making lesson plans, lecturers must consider the situation and conditions as well as the potential of students with disabilities [25]. This of course will have implications for the model or content of lesson plans developed by each lecturer, adapted to the real conditions faced by each university. Planning as a learning program has several meanings that have the same meaning, namely a process of managing, organizing, and formulating learning elements, which include determining objectives, material or content, learning methods, and formulating learning evaluations [26]. Learning objectives are the formulation of qualifications that must be achieved by students after carrying out the learning process. Formulation of the qualifications of abilities that students must have after participating in the learning in that learning with a change of behavior. The types of behavior changes in the outline cover the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor fields. In learning planning, the lecturer makes a Semester Learning Plan (RPS), which is a learning planning document that is structured as a guide for students in carrying out lecture activities for one semester to achieve predetermined learning outcomes [27].

The development of learning plans in inclusive education settings must be universal. This can be interpreted that the learning that will be carried out must be accessible for all students, including students with disabilities. Based on the results of this analysis, it proves that most of the teaching staff who are involved with students with disabilities still do not understand the concept of UDL (Universal Design for Learning). This concept has long been developed as a relevant curriculum model for learning that includes persons with disabilities [28]. In general, UDL displays modifications to the curriculum components developed by teaching staff [29]. This modification aims to describe the competency achievements set for students with disabilities. A literature study has elaborated on the suitability of UDL implementation in inclusive schools, which has a positive impact on the quality of learning [30].

4.3 Content development

Materials are learning components that play an essential role, in directing students with disabilities to achieve the set learning goals or objectives. Learning materials contain certain aspects that are expected to be able to guide students with disabilities to get good results. Learning material is very important as a means used in the teaching and learning process to achieve goals and shape the competence of students with disabilities. However, this research reveals the low performance of lecturers in providing accessible learning content. Respondents stated that they fundamentally ensured that students with disabilities involved (those with visual and hearing impairments) had companion volunteers to help gain access to the available materials. Practically, lecturers (SE and NSE) still do not provide a lot of diversity of sources and learning media in various formats.

The success of learning as a whole is very dependent on the success of the lecturer in designing learning materials. Learning materials occupy a very important position in the entire curriculum, which must be prepared so that the implementation of learning can achieve the target [29]. While learning media are tools used in the learning process to convey messages, ideas, or ideas in the form of teaching materials managed by lecturers for students with disabilities. The message can be in the form of information that is easily absorbed by the recipient but can also be in the form of information that is abstract or difficult to understand [31]. When the message conveyed cannot be received by the recipient, the media becomes a solution that can convey the message. The function of learning media can help facilitate learning for students with disabilities to provide a more real experience (abstract becomes concrete), can attract the attention and interest in learning of students with disabilities, and can evoke an equating between theory and reality [32]. It is a fundamental requirement that the format of learning resources and media must be available for various characteristics of disabilities. Text and voice-based formats can help students with visual impairments access content with the help of screen reader applications. Furthermore, text-based formats and visual images can help students with hearing impairments learn the material. Of course, these formats can be combined into one model of friendly learning resources and media for other categories.

4.4 Learning accessibility

Implementation of learning is sought to encourage students with disabilities to be active and explorative in achieving their competencies, which include attitudes, knowledge, and skills. These three competencies have different acquisition trajectories (psychological processes), namely attitudes, knowledge, and skills [33]. Attitude is obtained through the activity of “accepting, implementing, appreciating, living, and practicing.” Knowledge is obtained through the activities of “remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating.” Meanwhile, skills are acquired through the activities of “observing, asking, trying, reasoning, presenting, and creating” [34]. Competency characteristics along with differences in acquisition trajectories also influence the standard process characteristics. To strengthen scientific approaches (scientific), integrated thematic (inter-subject thematic) and thematic (within a subject) as well as apply discovery-based learning or research (discover learning). To encourage the ability to solve problems using a scientific approach, it is necessary to apply problem-based learning. Meanwhile, to encourage the ability to produce contextual work, both individually and in groups, it is highly recommended to use a learning approach that produces problem-based work (project-based learning) [35].

The diversity of learning approaches that can be implemented in lecture classes has implications for optimizing the quality of learning itself. However, the limited abilities of students with disabilities certainly bring a certain level of difficulty to learning. Therefore, adjustments need to be made, which include modifications, substitutions, or omissions to the learning design [36]. This adjustment approach encourages more equity learning for students with disabilities. However, this concept is not fully implemented in universities. The results of the previous analysis provide evidence that lecturers have not fully made adjustments to the learning model. Most lecturers emphasize the involvement of volunteers be able to help students with disabilities in passing the “impossible” learning stage.

In principle, the problems encountered in the implementation of learning can be minimized. Generally, students who experience the most problems in the learning process in classical classes are those who have hearing or visual impairments. These two categories of disabilities make it difficult for them to obtain conventional information. The use of assistive technology can help them minimize this condition, such as screen readers, live transcribers, and augmented reality [37]. Supposedly, lecturers have understood the importance of this effort and ensure that their students are available with the tools.

4.5 Evaluation

Evaluation refers to a process to determine the value of a learning activity. Evaluation means determining to what extent an activity is valuable, quality, or valuable [38]. Evaluation is carried out in the context of overall education quality control as a form of accountability for education providers. The main purpose of evaluating learning is to obtain accurate information about the level of attainment of instructional goals by students so that follow-up can be pursued [39]. Therefore, the evaluation also does not only measure student success. However, through student achievements, the evaluation also aims to determine the quality of learning through the suitability of the chosen approach or method.

Evaluation implementation must eliminate bias and ensure that it can be carried out comprehensively, not just to test the level of success. In the context of inclusive education, evaluation of course also has specific standards to comply with these provisions. Of course, this provision must uphold the principle of equity so that the attainment of instructional objectives is more precise and measurable. In the previous section, we discussed adjustments at the learning planning stage by emphasizing the substitution, modification, or omission approach. The approach is also recommended to be applied at the evaluation stage. For example, practice-based learning with learning outcomes of the ability to analyze objects. This type of learning prioritizes observational abilities, which are impossible for students with visual impairments to do. So it is necessary to make adjustments to the form of evaluation that is more relevant to their abilities, for example, emphasizing students’ abilities in elaborating the characterization of the object being studied.

It was a surprising phenomenon when the data confirmed that there was an element of “pity” in the assessment process. This is very clearly contrary to the principle of evaluation. Even though it was proven by NSE lecturers, this fact is proof that lecturers do not fully uphold the principle of objectivity in the evaluation process. Equity in learning is not about compassion, but about efforts to support accessibility and justice to achieve the expected goals.

5. Conclusion

Learning should eliminate various elements of bias that have the potential to eliminate equality. The principle of equity emphasizes the aspect of equal access for all students. The evidence found in the field can be concluded that lecturers’ understanding of inclusive learning is still relatively low. Although several aspects show a fairly good percentage, in terms of implementation, there are still many who ignore proper procedures. The assumption is that their work involvement is still not optimal and has not shown a proactive role. Of course, this is an important prerequisite that needs to be maximized so that higher education can be truly inclusive. As a form of recommendation from the results of this study, it is necessary to determine standard procedures that must be carried out by every tertiary institution that is committed to inclusive education. Increased understanding also needs to be done for each element responsible for service quality, not just teaching staff who are involved in the academic field.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are addressed to all respondents who have been sincerely involved, even without funding. Including the authorities who provide permission and assistance for the completion of data collection. This research was fully funded by Universitas Negeri Malang and University of PGRI Adi Buana Surabaya.

Appendices and nomenclature

SE

Special education background of lecturer or teaching staff

NSE

Non-special education background of lecturer or teaching staff

AS

Assesment (analyzing process to find student’s charateristics)

LP

Learning Plan (plan document for learning)

CD

Conten development (material, learning media, and learning resource development)

LA

Learning accesibility (accesibility of activity ini learning context)

EV

Evaluation (learning evaluation process)

HEdPERF

Higher education performance (performance scale for higher education)

UWES

Utrecht work engagement scale