International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Attitudes of academics to special needs

accommodations in Kuwait

Gad Elbeheri, John Everatt, Faidon Theofanides, Abdessattar Mahfoudhi &

Khaled Al Muhareb

To cite this article: Gad Elbeheri, John Everatt, Faidon Theofanides, Abdessattar Mahfoudhi &
Khaled Al Muhareb (2018): Attitudes of academics to special needs accommodations in Kuwait,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1508517

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1508517

Published online: 16 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1508517

Attitudes of academics to special needs accommodations in

Kuwait
Gad Elbeheria, John Everatt b
, Faidon Theofanidesc, Abdessattar Mahfoudhi d
and
Khaled Al Muharebe
a
Australian College of Kuwait, Executive Management, Kuwait, Kuwait; bUniversity of Canterbury, School of
Education, Christchurch, New Zeland; cAustralian College of Kuwait, Marketing Department, School of
Business, Kuwait, Kuwait; dAustralian College of Kuwait, Foundation Skills Programme, Kuwait, Kuwait;
e
University of Kuwait, School of Education, Kuwait, Kuwait

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with Received 11 April 2018
the perceptions of academics working in Kuwait towards potential Accepted 30 July 2018
accommodations for university students with disabilities. A focus
KEYWORDS
on students with disabilities is relatively new in Kuwait, but this University students; Special
study considered staff within a university with the stated aim to needs; Academics
support students with disabilities. An independent, anonymous perceptions; post secondary
online questionnaire was distributed to staff (76 respondents). The school education; learning
13 items were reduced to four factors that related to increasing disabilities
levels of providing accommodations: (i) Basic, (ii) Alternative, (iii)
Individualised/flexible, and (iv) Changes in course materials.
Findings indicated that the staff were willing to implement
accommodations for students with disabilities. In terms of
characteristics influencing perceptions, there were no differences
across gender or academic discipline. However, staff with more
teaching experience indicated that they were more likely to allow
alternative and flexible accommodations. Staff who had taught
students with a disability previously were more variable in their
views about allowing more flexible accommodations, possibly due
to positive/negative prior experiences. These data argue for
generally positive attitudes within this relatively inexperienced
context, but argue for the need for additional training to support
less experienced staff and to ensure previous experiences can
enhance positive staff development.

Introduction
The proportion of students with disabilities generally (and students with learning disabil-
ities in particular) in institutions of higher education is increasing in many countries
around the world (Hartman and Krulwich 1984; Satcher 1992). In the US alone, the
number of students with disabilities has grown almost four times over the last thirty
years. Previous estimates had suggested that only 2.3% of the total student populations
reported a disability, whereas more recent data estimate the proportion of students with
disabilities in all undergraduate programmes of study to represent approximately 9% of

CONTACT Gad Elbeheri gelbeheri@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

the total college population (Leyser et al. 2011). Similar increases have also been reported
in Canada (Ottawa Citizen, November 27, 2008), Australia (Ryan 2007) and the UK
(Pumfrey 2008). Reasons for this increasing number are numerous and include: Better
academic preparation, special education and civil rights legislation, improved transition
planning, and increased availability of funding and scholarships for those with additional
needs. Economic factors have also played a role in the increasing number of students with
disabilities being admitted to higher education institutions. Colleges and universities have
found themselves under pressure to expand their recruiting efforts to counter the dimin-
ishing number of students being eligible for admission to higher education in some
countries. The increase in the use of compensatory technology, and the increase in the
physical accessibility of campuses, have also helped in assisting more students with disabil-
ities into higher education. It is noteworthy to mention that in response to these increasing
numbers internationally, there is an equally increasing demand on faculty to meet the
needs of those students, as well as to improve their inclusive practices and change their
attitudes towards, and perceptions of, students with disabilities to enable those students
to access higher education opportunities (Arries 1999; Belch 2004).
Most courses and units being offered at colleges and universities depend on verbal skills
needed to understanding lectures, read textbooks, read background literature about the
subject being taught, write exams and quiz papers, and complete written assignments.
The same skills are needed to participate in class discussions and make oral presentations
when required. A percentage of students with disabilities find such skills challenging,
which negatively affects their contribution to the class and their work, which may sub-
sequently lead to poor grades. In addition, some faculty members do not feel that it is
their responsibility to modify the curriculum to grant such students access, and accommo-
date them in the educational system at colleges and universities. While there exists a per-
centage of post-secondary school faculty members who are indeed sympathetic to the
cause of those students, many may not know how to appropriately offer such accommo-
dation or how to enable those students to access the curriculum. Despite increases in the
number of students with disabilities in post-secondary settings internationally, retention
and degree completion of students with disabilities have not followed the same trend
and many of those students drop out during their first year or perform worse in assess-
ments (Belch 2004; Stodden 2001; Weis, Dean, and Osborne 2016).
There are a number of different factors that contribute to the success or failure of stu-
dents with disabilities (particularly those with learning disabilities) in post-secondary edu-
cation settings. Such factors include students’ cognitive and academic skills, their
motivation and study habits, their prior educational experiences, family support and
family expectations, financial resources and university support and accommodation
systems (e.g. Murray and Wren 2003; Trammell 2003; Wagner, Newman, and Cameto
2004). In addition to those factors, there are also issues related to inadequate academic
preparation (Horn, Berktold, and Bobbitt 1999), a lack of transition support between sec-
ondary schools and college settings, and a lack of faculty knowledge and use of appropriate
accommodations and modifications (Weis, Dean, and Osborne 2016). Furthermore,
research has been instrumental in highlighting the importance of faculty perceptions
and attitudes towards providing university students with disabilities access to knowledge
and to learning. Findings suggest that many faculty may have lower expectations for stu-
dents with disabilities than their counterparts without disabilities (Houck et al. 1992;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

Mathews, Anderson, and Skolnick 1987; Minner and Prater 1984). Studies have also high-
lighted that, although faculty may be willing to provide relatively minor accommodations
to students with disabilities (such as allowing the use of a tape recorder to record lectures
or a set amount of additional time during exams), they may be less willing to allow more
major accommodations, such as reductions in, or alterations, of the course material or
assignment (Nelson, Dodd, and Smith 1990; Skinner 2007; Vogel et al. 1999). Farone,
Hall, and Costello (1998) conducted a study to assess the perceptions of university
faculty members towards students with disabilities and concluded that faculty, staff and
administrators lacked information regarding disability issues, had ‘poor’ attitudes
towards students with disabilities and were not receptive to accommodation requests.
Other studies have reported that some students perceived faculty as lacking sensitivity
and awareness regarding their educational needs, and reported feelings of intimidation
and rejection (Hill 1996; Kruth and Mellard 2006; Wilson, Getzel, and Brown 2000).
Faculty have also been reported to be particularly skeptical and sometimes mistrusting
of students whose disabilities are not visible, such as those with learning disabilities
and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorders and psychiatric disabilities (Beilke and
Yssel 1999; Jensen et al. 2004).
In contrast, studies have reported faculty who hold positive attitudes toward students
with disabilities and who are willing to provide teaching and accommodations to cater
for the needs of such students (Abu-Hamour 2013; Bigaj, Shaw, and McGire 1999; Koo
2017; Murray, Wren, and Keys 2008; Vogel et al. 2008; Vukovic 2016). However,
despite the willingness to provide accommodations reported in those studies, findings
have also indicated that there were certain accommodations that faculty were reluctant
to make, such as overlooking spelling errors, incorrect punctuation, allowing substitutions
for required courses and giving extra credit assignments (Leyser et al. 1998; Nelson, Dodd,
and Smith 1990; Sweener et al. 2002). Such views suggest that faculty members are less
comfortable allowing accommodations that they view will lower course standards, or
give unnecessary or unfair advantage to some students, while they are more comfortable
providing accommodations that are easy to provide, require little extra time to administer
and which ultimately facilitate the inclusion of students into the planned activities of
unites/courses (Bigaj, Shaw, and McGire 1999).
The above difference in the conclusions of studies assessing university faculty members’
perceptions and attitudes toward students with disabilities may be due to a number of
factors, including individual faculty characteristics which have been found to affect
their perceptions of students with disabilities. Research has identified faculty knowledge,
attitudes and willingness to provide help and support in the form of reasonable academic
accommodations as critical factors contributing to the success of students with disabilities
at university (Dona and Edmister 2001; Leyser et al. 1998; Scott and Gregg 2000). Even
within the same institution, faculty from differing backgrounds and with different experi-
ences can have very different perceptions regarding accommodations and modifications.
Research has identified a number of factors that have been found to be influential when
it comes to the attitudes and perceptions of faculty members towards supporting univer-
sity students with disabilities:

. Gender: Some studies found that female faculty members have more positive attitudes
toward individuals with disabilities (Baggett 1994) and are also more willing to provide
4 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

accommodations to students with disabilities than male faculty members (Bigaj, Shaw,
and McGire 1999; Koo 2017; Leyser et al. 2003; Murray, Wren, and Keys 2008).
However, other studies did not find a significant effect of gender on positive attitudes
and willingness to provide accommodations (see Rao and Gartin 2003).
. Academic Rank: Previous data suggest that faculty members who do not have a PhD
(Doctorate) tend to be more supportive, and more willing to offer accommodations
to university students with disabilities, than those who hold those degrees (Leyser
et al. 2003; Murray, Wren, and Keys 2008; Vogel et al. 1999).
. Teaching Experience: Faculty members who have more experience of teaching students
with disabilities tend to have more positive attitudes and are more comfortable allowing
accommodations than those with less experience of teaching students with disabilities
(Leyser et al. 2003; Rao and Gartin 2003; Satcher 1992). However, some studies did not
find a significant difference (e.g. Koo 2017).
. Academic Discipline: Faculty members in education faculties/colleges tend to be more
supportive and understanding, and more willing to provide accommodations for uni-
versity students with disabilities, than their counterparts in other colleges/departments
(Nelson, Dodd, and Smith 1990; Vasek 2005; Vogel et al. 1999). Nelson, Dodd, and
Smith (1990) found that education faculty were slightly more likely than faculty
members in Arts and Sciences but considerably more likely than faculty members in
Business to make instructional, assignment and exam accommodations. Similar
results were also reported in Koo (2017) and Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008).
. Undertaking Professional Development: Faculty who undertake professional develop-
ment on how to support and teach university students with disabilities tend to hold
more positive views about those students, and tend to be more willing to offer them
accommodations, than those who have not receive such training (Bigaj, Shaw, and
McGire 1999; Lombardi, Murray, and Dallas 2013).

Given the evidence, these five features/characteristics of staff will form the basis of the
current research; i.e. to determine whether they also influence the attitudes of staff towards
providing accommodation for students with disabilities within the specific context of a
university in the Middle East. Research on attitudes of staff towards such students
within the Middle East is relatively rare, particularly in the country targeted for the
current work (i.e. Kuwait). Much of the work on attitudes towards inclusion of students
with disabilities has been performed in pre-university settings (see, for example, Alkha-
teeb, Hadidi, and Alkhateeb 2015). Abu-Hamour (2013) examined faculty attitudes to
inclusion of students with disability in a public university in Jordan and found general
positive attitudes towards inclusive practices. However, many staff knew very little
about disability laws and lack the training needed to apply inclusive practices. Faculty atti-
tudes were influenced by gender (females being more positive), rank (assistant more posi-
tive than associate and full professor) and years of teaching experience (the younger more
positive). In a similar study, Khansa (2015) studied faculty attitudes towards accommo-
dations for students with learning disabilities in a private university in Lebanon. Again
the results showed positive attitudes but lack of knowledge and training. Also consistent
with previous research, the results indicated that staff characteristics may influence atti-
tudes towards accommodations, with female faculty showing a more positive attitudes
than male faculty.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Given the relative lack of research, the current study should provide data on which to
consider attitudes in a country-context where there is a lack of experience of supporting
students with disabilities at post-secondary education levels, and potentially allow a com-
parison with other contexts. As such, it would be appropriate to describe some of the leg-
islative aspects relevant to the work conducted in Kuwait. Indeed, Kuwait has developed
higher (post-secondary) education provisions within a relatively short period of time (see
The Investment Climate in Arab Countries Annual Report 2008). Post-secondary edu-
cation in Kuwait is governed by the Ministry of Education & Higher Education. It super-
vises two public institutions (the University of Kuwait and the Public Authority for
Applied Education and Training) and some twenty licensed private universities and col-
leges through its local regulator, the Private Universities’ Council. Kuwait has also under-
gone changes in the fields of disabilities, and learning challenges, in terms of awareness,
advocacy and recognition. Kuwait signed to be part of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2013. However, prior to this, in 1996, legis-
lation called for the creation of a unified body to coordinate, regulate, monitor and advo-
cate for the rights of disabled individuals in Kuwait. This has led to the current Public
Authority of Disabled Affairs; an authority stipulated in Law Number 8 (passed in
2010), which is known as the Persons with Disabilities Law (Kuwait e-Government
website: last accessed May 2018 at https://www.e.gov.kw/sites/kgoArabic/Forms/
GODPLAW.pdf). The Persons with Disabilities Law guarantees access to education for
all those with disabilities (including learning disabilities), providing necessary tuition,
aids and accommodations (Articles 9 and 10). In response to this, learning needs processes
and resources have been created in the public and private universities in order to include
students with disabilities.
Although there is a growing awareness of the need to support students with disabilities
in Middle East countries, including Kuwait, there are still challenges in terms of awareness
and practice (e.g. Abdalla and St Louis 2012; Elbeheri and Everatt 2011; Scior et al. 2013).
A lack of awareness can also lead to problems for survey research, the current data collec-
tion strategy. If staff are not aware of the issues, then attitudes will reflect more the lack of
awareness than considered perceptions – why would a staff member consider accommo-
dations for students with disabilities if there are no such students within their university.
The university in which the study was conducted was targeted given that it has advertised
its desire to support students with disabilities – and there is evidence that it has
implemented policies aimed to specifically support (and provide accommodations for)
students with learning disabilities (e.g. close links with a special school for children
with learning disabilities in literacy and mathematics is one piece of evidence for the
aims of the college). Hence, in contrast to universities in Kuwait (and elsewhere in the
Middle East) where there may be little awareness, the current study focused on staff
who should have some level of awareness and, therefore, be reflecting on issues of accom-
modations. Therefore, their attitudes towards accommodations should be relevant to con-
sidering the development of provisions within such a relatively emerging context.

Methodology
The current study focused on the perceptions of academics about students with disabilities
in the context of a college within Kuwait. A private college was selected to serve as the
6 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

focus of the data collection. This college was selected due to its aim to support students
with disabilities, particularly those with learning difficulties. At the time when this
research was conducted, the university comprised about three thousand students, of
which approximately 2% reported as having some form of disability. This is a relatively
small proportion compared to current trends in other parts of the world (as discussed
in the introduction), but is more consistent with figures reported by universities in
North America and Europe some 30 years ago – at a time when inclusive practices
were more emergent in these international contexts. This figure is also larger than
many other private and government universities in Kuwait, where the reported level is
typically less than 1% (e.g. at the time of this research, the largest university in Kuwait
comprised 37,000 students of which 0.6% were reported to have some form of disability).
Hence, the university targeted by the current research shows evidence of meeting its aims
to attract and support more students with disabilities. One of the features that may lead to
this increased proportion of students with disabilities is its focus on more practical-based
(vocation-oriented) qualifications: i.e. courses focus on Business and Engineering. The
college is an English-language college, which means that it also has a large foundation pro-
gramme to support students with their English proficiency – again, something that often
attracts those Arabic-background students with a more practical focus on their academic
studies as being able to converse in English is often seen as a way towards a better job. The
foundation programme has also provided a basis on which to support students who have
previously struggled in school. The college has policies that attempt to support such pre-
viously low performing students, many of whom have grades that would exclude them
from most other universities in Kuwait.
The Office of the Dean of the college approved the use of an anonymous survey to
collect data across all departments within the college. This office comprised staff with
research qualifications from universities around the world, including the UK and USA,
and was therefore the place where research undertaken in the college was considered
and approved in terms of international ethical principles. Participants were informed
about the purpose of the study; that participation was voluntary and that completion of
the anonymous survey served as consent to participate. Participants consisted of the aca-
demic staff teaching foundation and undergraduate courses at the private university in
Kuwait. The survey was conducted online, and the academics were initially invited to par-
ticipate in the study using email announcements that provided an active link to the anon-
ymous survey created through SurveyMonkey. Seventy-nine participants started to fill-in
the questionnaire, but only 76 of these completed all the questionnaire items – there were
90 staff members in the private university at the time of the study, which means that over
80% of the available staff were sampled. The data used in the current analyses are based on
the 76 staff who completed the full questionnaire.
The questionnaire included demographic questions (discussed as part of the descrip-
tion of Table 1), which formed the data on which staff were categorised on the five charac-
teristics discussed in the introduction, followed by a series of Likert-type statements
indicating the degree of agreement-disagreement on a five-point scale to statements
about accommodating students with disabilities. These statements/items were developed
for the present study (to reflect the context of the university), but were derived from
similar work across the literature on attitudes to accommodations for students with dis-
abilities. The questionnaire asked respondents to state whether they agreed or disagreed
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

Table 1. Details of participants.

Participant characteristic Totals for characteristic Percentage of sample
Number of males:females 50:26 66% males
Academic rank a
Associate professor 7 9
Assistant professor 14 18
Lecturer 15 20
Senior instructor 11 14
instructor 15 20
Junior instructor 6 8
Teaching assistant 8 11
Years teaching experience 12 (on average)
Age in years b 42 (average)
Academic discipline taught c
Foundation 12 16
Engineering/aviation 44 58
Business 20 26
Taught students with disabilities before YES:NO 57:19 75% YES
a
To increase group sizes, associate and assistant professor were combined, and junior instructor and teaching assistant were
combined.
b
Age and years teaching experience were highly correlated and therefore only teaching experience is considered in the
analyses.
c
Engineering and aviation staff were combined to contrast with business and foundation staff.

to different types of accommodations (see below). Such views on accommodations were

the target of the questionnaire, with the aim to determine which staff characteristics
related to attitudes to different types of accommodations (as discussed in the introduc-
tion). Items on potential accommodations were:

. Allow students with documented disabilities to use technology (e.g. laptop, calculator,
spell checker) to complete tests even when such technologies are not permitted for use
by students without disabilities.
. Provide hard copies of lecture notes or outlines to students with documented
disabilities.
. Allow flexible response options on exams (e.g. change from written to oral) for students
with documented disabilities.
. Allow students with documented disabilities to digitally record (audio or visual) class
sessions.
. Make individual accommodations for students who have disclosed their disability to
me.
. Arrange extended time on exams for students who have documented disabilities.
. Extend the due dates of assignments to accommodate the needs of students with docu-
mented disabilities.
. Allow students with documented disabilities flexibility in submitting assignments elec-
tronically (e.g. mail attachment, digital drop box).
. Use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats (e.g.
podcast of lecture available for download, course readings available as mp3 files).
. Use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation (e.g. Dis-
cussion Board, Forums … etc.) for students with documented disabilities.
. Include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with disabilities to discuss their
needs with me.
8 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

. Make a verbal statement in class inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs
with me.
. Use a variety of instructional formats (for example: small groups, peer assisted learning,
hands on activities) for students with documented disabilities.

Responses were recorded via the on-line system and the results downloaded by the
researchers in order to be analysed via the Statistical Package for the Social Science
(SPSS version 23). No identifying information was included in the data, except that pro-
vided by the staff member themselves as part of the profile information: participants were
asked to indicate their age, gender, academic rank, college department within which they
taught, years of teaching experience and if they had previous experience teaching students
with disabilities. Table 1 provides a summary of the profile of the participants.

Results
Overall, the responses to the questionnaire items on accommodations were, on average, on
the positive side of the scale (i.e. above 3; see Table 2), suggesting that these staff would by
positive about supporting students with disabilities via accommodations of varying types:
The accommodation items produce a Cronbach alpha value of .86.
To assess the staff responses further, the questionnaire items on accommodations were
subjected to factor analytic procedures to reduce the data to a set of variables on which
comparisons could be made related to the five staff characteristics (i.e. gender, rank, dis-
cipline, years of teaching experience and experience of teaching a student with a disability).
Such procedures were deemed appropriate due to a large number of inter-correlates
between questionnaire items, an examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy, which suggested that the sample was factorable (KMO = .812), and
the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value which was significant (χ 2 = 362, df = 78, p < 0.001).
Factors were extracted via Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation
method to determine loadings. Four factors were identified, all with Eigen values
greater than 1, which explained over 60% of the variance in scores (Alternative procedures
using Principal Axis Factoring also argued for four factors, as did inspection of Scree
Plots). Based on the questionnaire items on which these four factors loaded (see
Table 3), they will be referred to as:

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the questionnaire items.
Short-form of questionnaire items Mean response Standard deviation
Allow students with disabilities to use technology to complete tests 3.64 1.230
Provide hard copies of lecture notes 3.99 1.216
Allow flexible response options on exams 3.83 1.136
Allow students with disabilities to digitally record class sessions 3.74 1.370
Make individual accommodations 3.84 1.167
Arrange extended time on exams 4.41 .819
Extend the due dates of assignments 3.70 1.143
Allow students flexibility in submitting assignments electronically 3.89 1.250
Course material available in a variety of formats 4.12 1.019
Use technology to facilitate class communication and participation 4.29 .861
Statement in syllabus inviting discussion of needs 4.11 1.114
Verbal statement inviting discussion of needs 3.38 1.469
Use variety of instructional formats 4.25 .866
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

Table 3. Factors loadings for the four factors derived from the questionnaire.
Questionnaire items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Allow students with documented disabilities to use technology to complete .205 .745 .098 .230
tests even when such technologies are not permitted for use by students
without disabilities.
Provide hard copies of lecture notes or outlines to students with documented .688 .431 .005 .005
disabilities.
Allow flexible response options on exams (e.g. change from written to oral) for .253 .651 .496 .073
students with documented disabilities.
Allow students with documented disabilities to digitally record (audio or visual) .123 .741 .372 .142
class sessions.
Make individual accommodations for students who have disclosed their disability .328 .001 .548 .084
to me.
Arrange extended time on exams for students who have documented disabilities. .747 .028 .397 .068
Extend the due dates of assignments to accommodate the needs of students with .032 .167 .803 .007
documented disabilities.
Allow students with documented disabilities flexibility in submitting assignments .251 .234 .579 .348
electronically.
Use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats. .256 .407 .297 .529
Use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation for .732 .363 .163 .289
students with documented disabilities.
Include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with disabilities to discuss .082 .313 .244 .687
their needs.
Make a verbal statement in class inviting students with disabilities to discuss their .132 .032 .130 .828
needs.
Use variety of instructional formats for students with documented disabilities. .495 .049 .250 .554
Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation.

Factor 1 = Basic accommodations, since this loaded mainly on items referring to basic
accommodations, such as ‘hard copies of notes’ (item 2), ‘extended exam time’
(item 6) and ‘use of technology for participation’ (item 10);
Factor 2 = Alternative forms of assessment/learning, which loaded on ‘allowing technol-
ogy use which other students would not be allowed to use’ (item 1), ‘flexible response
exams’ (item 3) and ‘digital recording of lectures’ (item 4);
Factor 3 = Individualized/Flexible accommodations, which loaded on items that focused
on ‘individual accommodations’ (item 5), ‘extended assignment dates’ (item 7) and
‘flexibility in submitting assignments’ (item 8);
Factor 4 = Changes/Communications, which related to ‘course material in a variety of
formats’ (item 9), ‘invitations to discuss needs’ (items 11 and 12) and ‘varying instruc-
tional formats’ (item 13).

These four factors showed reasonable evidence of reliable (Cronbach alpha above .7)
and were interpretable in terms of suggesting increasing levels of accommodations,
from basic forms to alternative and more individualised support, to more discussions
with students about needs. Given that this was a focus in the research (i.e. considering
differing forms of accommodations), factor scores were calculated for each of the four
factors and staff characteristics compared on these factor scores.
The staff characteristics contrasted in the remaining analyses were gender, academic
rank, discipline area, years of teaching experience, and experience of teaching students
with disabilities. Gender was coded as female versus male; and independent t-tests were
used to compare males and females on the factor scores. Academic rank was coded
based on five levels: Professor (assistant, associate and full professor levels, though there
were none of the latter in the college targeted), Lecturer, Senior Instructor, Instructor,
10 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

and Junior instructor/Teaching assistant (the latter being assistants to the other instruc-
tors). Analyses of variance were performed to contrast these groups on the four factor
scores. Discipline area was coded as Engineering/Aviation versus Business versus Foun-
dation, and again analyses of variance were used to contrast these groups on the four
factor scores. Number of years of teaching experience was compared to the factor
scores by simple correlation analyses. Finally, experience of teaching students with disabil-
ities was coded simply as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and, therefore, independent samples t-tests were used
to look for differences between these two groups on the factor scores.
These analyses indicated that gender was not significantly related to the factor scores
(Basic: t(74) = 1.66, p = .10; Alternative: t(74) = 1.62, p = .11; Individualised/Flexible: t(74)
= 1.85, p = .07; Changes/Communications: t(74) = 0.96, p = .34), nor was academic disci-
pline scores (Basic: F(2,73) = 0.61, p = .55; Alternative: F(2,73) = 2.22, p = .12; Individua-
lised/Flexible: F(2,73) = 1.54, p = .22; Changes/Communications: F(2,73) = 0.45, p = .63).
However, academic rank was related to scores on factor 3 (Basic: F(4,71) = 0.47, p = .76;
Alternative: F(4,71) = 1.65, p = .17; Individualised/Flexible: F(4,71) = 3.01, p = .02; Changes/
Communications: F(4,71) = 0.32, p = .86). Of the three items that factor 3 primarily
loaded onto (item 5 ‘individual accommodations’, item 7 ‘extended assignment dates’,
and item 8 ‘flexibility in submitting assignments’), differences across ranks were most
apparent on item 5 (F(4,71) = 2.81, p = .03). However, for each of these questions, staff at
lecturer/professor levels produced, on average, slightly more positive answers to state-
ments about individualised, more flexible accommodations (see Table 4).
Additionally, there was a relationship between years of teaching experience and scores
on factor 2 (Basic: r(76) < .01, p = .97; Alternative: r(76) = .26, p = .03; Individualised/Flex-
ible: r(76) = −.10, p = .39; Changes/Communications: r(76) = −.02, p = .80). Of the three
items that showed the largest loadings on this factor (item 1 ‘allowing technology use
which other students would not be allowed to use’, item 3 ‘flexible response exams’,
item 4 ‘digital recording of lectures’), the relationship was largest for item 1 (r = .2),
suggesting that those with more teaching experience are more positive about allowing stu-
dents with documented disabilities more flexible accommodations that they may not con-
sider appropriate for students without disabilities.
Finally, there was an effect for those who indicated that they had taught students with
disabilities before to be more variable in their responses to items that loaded on factor 2

Table 4. Average scores of different academic ranks on the three items primarily loading onto factor 3
(standard deviations are in brackets).
Item 5 Item 7 Item 8
Teaching assistant/junior instructor 3.71 3.79 3.57
(1.14) (1.19) (1.40)
Instructor 3.20 3.53 3.47
(1.27) (1.30) (1.46)
Senior instructor 3.55 3.36 4.27
(0.93) (0.67) (0.91)
Lecturer 4.40 4.00 3.73
(1.12) (1.41) (1.58)
Professor 4.14 3.71 4.33
(1.06) (1.01) (0.66)
Note: Item 5 ‘individual accommodations’. Item 7 ‘extended assignment dates’. Item 8 ‘flexibility in submitting
assignments’.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

(Levine F-test: F(74) = 8.72, p < .01). This led to those who had taught students with disabil-
ities before to be, on average, slightly less positive in their responses to this factor’s ques-
tionnaire items than those who had not taught students with disabilities before. This was
in contrast to the other factor scores, where those who had taught students with disabilities
before were, on average, slightly more positive in their responses than those who had not
taught students with disabilities before. The main difference in variability of response was
for item 4 on the ‘digital recording of lectures’ (Levine F-test: F(74) = 9.23, p < .01).

Discussion
The findings suggest generally positive attitudes of staff towards providing accommo-
dation to students with disabilities, and a willingness to change their lecture and examin-
ation practices to accommodate students with disabilities. In terms of the staff
characteristics that influenced such views, neither gender nor academic discipline were
influential in the current analyses, but both academic rank and years of teaching experi-
ence were. Teaching experience and academic rank also seemed to influence willingness to
adopt alternative and flexible accommodations. In addition, whether the staff member had
taught a student with a disability previously led to greater variability in the responses of
those who had. Overall, the results are in line with previous findings in other international
contexts with the possible exception that previous experience of teaching students with
special needs led to increased variability in views, which may be an indication of how posi-
tive or negative past experiences have been.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that are associated with the attitudes of
Kuwaiti academics about providing accommodation to university students with disabil-
ities. A focus on students with disabilities is relatively new in Kuwait, so this is a higher
education context where early attempts to inform staff about disabilities and accommo-
dations for disabilities can be studied. The current study focused on a single college in
Kuwait that has stated aims to support students with disabilities, and determines factors
within the college’s staff that might influence attitudes towards such students.
These data argue for generally positive attitudes even within this relatively inexperi-
enced context of supporting students. This is explained by the growing changes in
Kuwaiti higher education institutions to provide policies and services to support the learn-
ing of students with special needs. However, the differences in attitudes found also argue
for the need for additional staff training to ensure that less experienced staff are appropri-
ately supported in their practice and that previous experiences can be used for positive
staff development. The empirical findings should serve as an initial step towards develop-
ing best practices to support post-secondary school students with disabilities. To address
some of the less favourable attitudes, targeted professional training has been found
effective to change attitudes (e.g. Lombardi, Murray, and Dallas 2013).
This study is limited to one college in Kuwait and does not provide a complete picture
of faculty attitudes towards inclusive practices across high education institutions in Kuwait
– it would be interesting to see if these vary with different policies/practices across univer-
sities. There is also a need to examine students’ evaluation of the services provided to
them, as students do not always share the same views as their instructors (e.g. Baker,
Boland, and Nowik 2012), and practice does not always match attitudes (Bruder and
Mogro-Wilson 2010). Such future research might also consider differentiating staff
12 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

attitudes in terms of different disabilities. The present study did not make reference to any
specific disability, but it is possible that attitudes will vary by disability: a more obvious/
visible disability (e.g. a physical disability) may lead to more positive attitudes towards
providing accommodations than a less recognisable disability (a mental disability or a
learning disability). Data collected in other contexts where provisions (accommodations)
for students with disabilities is a relatively new practice would also be worthwhile to con-
trast with the current data. The findings that previous experience may lead to more posi-
tive and more negatives attitudes should be considered in these contexts. Good policy and
initial training in these developing contexts may reduce negative experiences for both staff
and students.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Gad Elbeheri is the Founder and Managing Director of Global Educational Consultants (Egypt)
and the President (Middle East & Africa) of the International Higher Education Group LLC (USA).
Previously he was the Dean of the Australian College of Kuwait and the Executive Director of
Centre for Child Evaluation & Teaching. An applied linguist who obtained his PhD from the Uni-
versity of Durham, UK, Dr. Elbeheri has a keen interest in cross-linguistic studies of specific learn-
ing difficulties and inclusive education. Dr. Elbeheri has made over 40 conference and seminar
presentations around the world. He has published over 8 books in both English and Arabic in
the field of dyslexia, and over 10 peer reviewed journal articles on dyslexia and its manifestations
in Arabic. He has participated in producing nationally standardized tests and computer-based
screening programs in Arabic.
John Everatt is a Professor of Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. His research
focuses on literacy acquisition and developmental learning difficulties, including how to support
children and adults who are struggling to thrive within an educational context. His work also con-
siders literacy skills among those from a second/additional language background, as well as how the
characteristics of different scripts/orthographies might lead to variations in learning/acquisition.
Khaled Al Muhareb is an assistant professor of special education at the Department of Curriculum
and Teaching Methods of the College of Education, Kuwait University. He teaches undergraduate
and graduate level courses in special education focusing on issues, strategies and methods related to
teaching students with disabilities in inclusive settings. His research interests include teacher prep-
aration for inclusive education, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and Multi-Tiered System of
Supports (MTSS). Dr. Almuhareb is also involved with several government agencies working on
initiatives to enable inclusive educational practices in Kuwait.
Faidon Theofanides is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Australian College of Kuwait and an
Adjunct Senior Lecturer at Central Queensland University. His research interests include several
aspects: Marketing Research (advanced techniques in quantitative and qualitative analysis), Adver-
tising Research, Consumer Behavior, European social (labor issues, insurance, disability) and econ-
omic policies. Together with his colleagues he is author and coauthor of more than 25 marketing
and business articles published in international scientific journals and conferences.

ORCID
John Everatt http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3401-9220
Abdessattar Mahfoudhi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5536-351X
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

References
Abdalla, F., and K. St Louis. 2012. “Arab School Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs and Reactions
Regarding Stuttering.” Journal of Fluency Disorders 37 (1): 54–69.
Abu-Hamour, B. 2013. “Faculty Attitudes Toward Students with Disabilities in a Public University
in Jordan.” International Education Studies 6 (12): 74–81.
Alkhateeb, J. M., M. S. Hadidi, and A. J. Alkhateeb. 2015. “Inclusion of Children with
Developmental Disabilities in Arab Countries: A Review of the Research Literature from 1990
to 2014.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 49–50: 60–75.
Arries, J. 1999. “Learning Disabilities and Foreign Languages: A Curriculum Approach to the
Design of Inclusive Courses.” The Modern Language Journal 83: 98–110.
Baggett, D. 1994. “A Study of Faculty Awareness of Student with Disabilities.” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Development Education, Kansas City, MO,
March 4 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369208).
Baker, K. Q., K. Boland, and C. M. Nowik. 2012. “A Campus Survey of Faculty and Student
Perceptions of Persons with Disabilities.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
25 (4): 309–329.
Beilke, J., and N. Yssel. 1999. “The Chilly Climate for Students with Disabilities in Higher
Education.” College Student Journal 33 (3): 364–371.
Belch, H. 2004. “Retention and Students with Disabilities.” Journal of College Student Retention 6:
3–22.
Bigaj, S., S. Shaw, and J. McGire. 1999. “Community Technical College Faculty Willingness to use
and Self-Reported Use of Accommodation Strategies for Students with Learning Disabilities.”
Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education 21 (2): 3–14.
Bruder, M. B., and C. Mogro-Wilson. 2010. “Student and Faculty Awareness and Attitudes About
Students with Disabilities.” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 6 (2): 3–13.
Dona, J., and J. Edmister. 2001. “An Examination of Community College Faculty Members’
Knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at the Fifteen Community Colleges
in Mississippi.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 14: 91–103.
Elbeheri E., and J. Everatt. 2011. “Dyslexia Support in Higher Education in the Arab World.”
Journal of Inclusive Practice in Further and Higher Education 3 (1): 43–49.
Farone, M., E. Hall, and J. Costello. 1998. “Postsecondary Disability Issues: An Inclusive
Identification Strategy.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 13: 35–45.
Hartman, R., and M. Krulwich. 1984. Learning Disabled Adults in Postsecondary Education. US
Department of Education (no. 300-80-0847). Washington, DC: Higher Education and the
Handicapped Resource Center (HEATH).
Hill, J. 1996. “Speaking out: Perceptions of Students with Disabilities Regarding Adequacy of
Services and Willingness of Faculty to Make Accommodations.” Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability 12 (1): 22–43.
Horn, L., J. Berktold, and L. Bobbitt. 1999. Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A
Profile of Preparation, Participation and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Centre for Education Statistics.
Houck, C., S. Asselin, G. Troutman, and J. Arrington. 1992. “Students with Learning Disabilities in
the University Environment: A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions.” Journal of Learning
Disabilities 25: 678–684.
Investment Climate in Arab Countries Annual Report. 2008. Higher Education in Arab Countries:
Data and Facts, Challenges and Opportunities. Kuwait: Assafa.
Jensen, J., N. McCrary, K. Krampe, and J. Cooper. 2004. “Trying to Do the Right Thing: Faculty
Attitudes Toward Accommodating Students with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability 17 (2): 81–90.
Khansa, R. 2015. “Faculty Attitudes Towards Students with Learning Disabilities in Higher
Education Institute in Lebanon.” Journal of Psychological Sciences 1 (2): 88–97.
14 G. ELBEHERI ET AL.

Koo, K. 2017. “An Examination of Faculty Attitudes and Willingness to Accommodate Students
with Disabilities at the University of Saskatchewan.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University
of Saskatchewan, Canada.
Kruth, N., and D. Mellard. 2006. “Student Perceptions on the Accommodation Process in
Postsecondary Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 19 (1): 71–84.
Leyser, Y., L. Greenberger, V. Sharoni, and G. Vodel. 2011. “Students with Disabilities in Teacher
Education: Changes in Faculty Attitudes Toward Accommodations Over Ten Years.”
International Journal of Special Education 26 (1): 162–174.
Leyser, Y., S. Vogel, A. Brulle, and S. Wyland. 1998. “Faculty Attitudes and Practices Regarding
Students with Disabilities: Two Decades After Implementation of Section 504.” Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability 13: 5–19.
Leyser, Y., S. Vogel, S. Wyland, A. Brulle, V. Sharoni, and G. Vogel. 2003. “American and Israeli
Faculty Attitudes and Practices Regarding Students with Learning Disabilities: A Cross-
Cultural Study.” In Learning Disabilities in Higher Education and Beyond: An International
Perspective, edited by S. Vogel, G. Vogel, V. Sharoni, and O. Dahan, 201–225. Baltimore: York
Press.
Lombardi, A. R., C. Murray, and B. Dallas. 2013. “University Faculty Attitudes Toward Disability
and Inclusive Instruction: Comparing Two Institutions.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability 26 (3): 221–232.
Mathews, P., D. Anderson, and B. Skolnick. 1987. “Faculty Attitude Toward Accommodations for
College Students with Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities Focus 3: 46–52.
Minner, S., and G. Prater. 1984. “College Teachers’ Expectations of LD Students.” Academic
Therapy 20: 225–229.
Murray, C., and C. Wren. 2003. “Cognitive, Academic and Attitudinal Predictors of the Grade Point
Averages of College Students with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 36:
407–415.
Murray, C., C. Wren, and C. Keys. 2008. “University Faculty Perceptions of Students with Learning
Disabilities: Correlates and Group Differences.” Learning Disability Quarterly 31: 95–113.
Nelson, J., J. Dodd, and D. Smith. 1990. “Faculty Willingness to Accommodate Students with
Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Academic Divisions.” Journal of Learning Disabilities
23: 185–189.
Pumfrey, P. 2008. “Moving Towards Inclusion? The First-Degree-Results of Students with and
Without Disabilities in Higher Education in the UK: 1998–2005.” European Journal of Special
Need Education 23 (1): 34–46.
Rao, S., and B. G. Gartin. 2003. “Attitudes of University Faculty Toward Accommodations to
Students with Disabilities.” The Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education 25 (2): 47–54.
Ryan, J. 2007. “Learning Disabilities in Australian Universities: Hidden, Ignored and Unwelcome.”
Journal of Learning Disabilities 40 (5): 436–442.
Satcher, J. 1992. “College Students with Learning Disabilities: Meeting the Challenge.” College and
University 67 (2): 127–132.
Scior, K., A. Hamid, A. Mahfoudhi, and F. Abdalla. 2013. “The Relationship Between Awareness of
Intellectual Disability, Causal and Intervention Beliefs and Social Distance in Kuwait and the
UK.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 34: 3896–3905.
Scott, S., and N. Gregg. 2000. “Meeting the Evolving Education Needs of Faculty in Providing
Access for College Students with LD.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 33: 158–167.
Skinner, M. E. 2007. “Faculty Willingness to Provide Accommodations and Course Alternatives to
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities.” International Journal of Special Education 22
(2): 32–45.
Stodden, R. 2001. “Postsecondary Education Supports for Students with Disabilities: A Review and
Response.” The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 23: 4–9.
Sweener, K., D. Kundert, D. May, and K. Quinn. 2002. “Comfort with Accommodations at the
Community College Level.” Journal of Developmental Education 25 (3): 12–14, 16, 18, 42.
Trammell, J. 2003. “The Impact of Academic Accommodations on Final Grades in a Postsecondary
Setting.” Journal of College Reading and Learning 34 (1): 76–90.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

Vasek, D. 2005. “Assessing the Knowledge Base of Faculty at a Private, Four-Year Institution.”
College Student Journal 39 (2): 307–315.
Vogel, S., J. Holt, S. Sligar, and E. Leake. 2008. “Assessment of Campus Climate to Enhance Student
Success.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 21 (1): 15–31.
Vogel, S., Y. Leyser, S. Wyland, and A. Brulle. 1999. “Students with Learning Disabilities in Higher
Education: Faculty Attitudes and Practices.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 14:
173–186.
Vukovic, B. 2016. “Fostering Accessible Learning Environments: University Faculty Attitudes and
Practices in Inclusive Instruction, and Relationship with Faculty Development.” Unpublished
PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Wagner, M., L. Newman, and R. Cameto. 2004. Changes Over Time in the Secondary School
Experiences of Students with Disabilities. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NTLS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International.
Weis, R., E. L. Dean, and K. J. Osborne. 2016. “Accommodation Decision Making for
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities: Individually Tailored or One Size Fits All?”
Journal of Learning Disabilities 49 (5): 484–498.
Wilson, K., E. Getzel, and T. Brown. 2000. “Enhancing the Postsecondary Campus Climate for
Students with Disabilities.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 14 (1): 37–50.