An Evaluation of the Glenorchy City Council Disability Awareness Training Program:  The Issues and Benefits of Fieldwork Experiential Learning

Heather Cuthbertson

Abstract

This paper focuses on evaluation of the experiential fieldwork component of the major qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the initial Glenorchy City Council Disability Awareness Training Program.  This program was delivered in 1996.  The focus of the evaluation was the content and delivery of the training program.  Methodology was summative and formative in nature and included the use of a participant questionnaire.  The findings highlighted the benefits, gaps, issues, and concerns identified by participants in the program and resulted in a number of recommendations for future programs.  These recommendations concerned the content of the training program, the relevance of experiential learning, and the issues around the need for an affective training professional.  While the training program focused on access issues for people with disabilities, the application of this style of training would also be appropriate for changing attitudinal behaviour around many social justice issues.

Introduction

The Disability Awareness Training Program was developed as a Glenorchy City Council Community Access Advisory Committee project.  This program was a response to an oversight in the approval process of a public building, which resulted in no access for people with disabilities.

Discussions with staff involved in building approvals revealed a lack of knowledge of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) (DDA).  Furthermore, there appeared to be a very limited understanding by those in the technical areas of Council as to the limitations of the mechanical aids used by people with disabilities and the limitations of the disability itself.  Staff understanding of disability appeared to comprise the impression that ’ people with disabilities use wheelchairs and that wheelchairs can’t go up stairs’.  It was felt that a training program should allow the opportunity to not only experience the physical access issues faced by people with disabilities, but also the social issues. It was hoped this training would provide an understanding of obligations under the DDA, change in understanding disability, and the requirements for building and planning approval, and construction of physical infrastructure.  The Disability Awareness Training Program also aimed to develop an understanding of the social and physical issues faced by people with disabilities when attempting to access the community and the limitations of mechanical aids used for mobility. It was hoped that staff perceptions and attitudes could be altered through provision of experiential exercises.  Fink (1977) saw this type of learning as a means of promoting interest in the subject matter.

Until about 20 years ago we historically institutionalised our community members who had disabilities.  A result of this practice has been the fear and ignorance, of many in the community, towards people with disabilities.  Since de-institutionalisation there has been a greater number of people with disabilities living in our communities, but the community generally has not embraced them.  There has been little effort put into educating the community about people with disabilities and for a large proportion of the community, there has never been any contact or communication with people with disabilities. Fear and ignorance has continued.  Many individuals are still quite uncomfortable relating to people with disabilities and unclear on how they should communicate with them.  It was anticipated that the experiential component of the Glenorchy program would assist in breaking down these barriers.,  It would allow staff to see the abilities of people with disabilities.  Participants would spend the whole day with people with disabilities in both a working and social context providing opportunities for staff to feel more comfortable and able in communicating with people with disabilities as well as demystifying disability.

The Program

The Disability Awareness Training Program had the following aims:

•  Increase awareness of the social and physical needs and issues for people with disabilities.

•  Breakdown communication barriers between council staff and people with disabilities.

•  Educate participants of legal obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act (1992).

•  Educate participants working in technical areas of council as to the guidelines for design and construction provided in the Australian Standards for Mobility and Access - AS1428 series.

It was initially aimed at those employees in Council who are involved in the design, construction, planning, and approval of both Council and private physical infrastructure, however some participants chose to attend because the awareness development this program offered would be of benefit to their roles in Council.

The program provided legal and technical information, involved experiencing disability first hand or in the role of a support person, allowed for participants to identify the social and physical issues for the workplace and community through the experiential, and allowed for de-briefing and workshops on the identified issues.  The evaluation of the program identified a number of issues and recommendations for subsequent delivery of the Disability Awareness Training Program.  A debriefing period was conducted at the end of each day.

The first Program was delivered in December 1995 and has continued to be delivered on a regular basis. The experiential component consisted of participants being given the opportunity to take on a simulated disability or to take on the role of a support person.  Participants with an ambulatory or visual ‘disability’ were allocated ‘support’ people from participants and also a person who had a disability similar to that being simulated.  People were also advised that if they felt strongly against being involved in the experiential element, then it was not necessary for them to participate in any role. No one indicated a reluctance to take on a role.  Due to the difficulty in ‘simulating’ an intellectual disability, no attempts were made at this task.  Instead, the Chapel Tea Rooms, which provides light lunches and Devonshire Teas was chosen as the venue for lunch.  The Chapel Tea Rooms is a service of Aurora Enterprises, which is an organisation offering training and recreational options for people with an intellectual disability.  Having lunch at this venue gave the opportunity for participants to see people with an intellectual disability fulfilling a variety of valued roles.

After the experiential learning experience, information was provided to participants on legal and design standards for access.  Time was also spent debriefing the experiential element. In an effort to maximise learning, participants also spent time in groups, exploring the possible solutions to physical and social barriers faced during their experiential learning.  The legal and design responsibilities of Council and staff were also explored during this process. This style of learning is clarified in the ‘Experiential Learning Model’ (Fig. 1) developed by Kolb (Bell and Griffin in Adams et al, 1997:57).

Clark (Merriam 1993:125) explored the benefits of experiential learning through what he termed ‘transformational learning’.  Transformational learning “shapes people, they are different afterwards”.  Transformational learning is learning which results in changes in personal attitudes or perceptions.  Transformational learning can be assisted through the use of things such as journalising, analysing metaphors, doing life histories, and using literature to stimulate critical consciousness” (Mezirow and Associates 1990 cited in Tranter, 1988:55).  While there are several ways that transformational learning can be facilitated, I believe that experiential learning is a good method.

Figure 1 

The intention in providing an experiential component in the Disability Awareness Training Program was to ensure that for participants, ‘disability’ became a personal experience.  Boud and Pascoe (1978) have shown that through field experience participants are more likely to understand and apply learning outcomes.  Field trips provide support for successful experiential learning, and promotion and understanding of the real world.  Therefore, it was anticipated that learning in this manner would best ensure that Council staff, involved building planning processes, would automatically consider issues of disability access.  This would contrast to the prevalent practice at the time, of not considering disability at all, or only as an after thought, or when it becomes a contentious issue with the public. 

This training program was designed to develop a greater awareness of the issues for people with disabilities in the area of design and construction for access, and the social constraints faced by these people.  The training would provide participants with an opportunity to communicate with people with disabilities and to break down some of the sensitivities, ignorance, and misconceptions that may result in social isolation for people with disabilities.

Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation of the program, particularly the experiential element, was vital because of the number of concerns were articulated by Managers (on behalf of their staff).  These concerns included:

• Fear of community perception or acceptance

• Feeling ‘stupid’

• Appearing to be ‘mocking’ of people with disabilities

• Occupational Health and Safety responsibilities

• ‘What would friends say’

• Staff would not want to do it

It was important to determine how effective the experiential component was in achieving the goals of the program, and that it was in fact a useful and acceptable component of the program, not just based on this developer’s perceptions and biases. Furthermore, the evaluation needed to discover whether the program as a whole was meeting its intended aims.  An inductive evaluation process was decided upon in the hope that the outcomes would be specific enough to support a general belief in the effectiveness of the program.

A questionnaire was developed, piloted with colleagues and modified in light of feedback.  This questionnaire was designed to provide answers to the following questions:

•  Does the Disability Awareness Training Program meet the desired aims?

•  Is the experiential component valuable?

•  Has there been the development of a greater understanding of the physical and social issues faced by people with disabilities?

•  Was the Disability Awareness Training Program relevant to the workplace?

•  Does the training break down the barriers and misconceptions by staff of people with disabilities?

•  Can participants apply the learning outcomes to the workplace?

•  Is the Disability Awareness Training Program cost effective?

•  Did the Training Consultant meet expectations?

The following questions were asked of participants in the questionnaire:

• Was the chosen venue for the morning session suitable?

• Was the chosen venue for the afternoon session suitable?

• Was the information provided in the program clear and easy to understand?

• How could the information be improved?

• Prior to coming to the program what was your greatest concern?

• What did you like most about the program?

• What did you dislike most about the program?

• Was this program relevant to your job?

• Why was the program not relevant to your job?

• What knowledge are you most likely to take back to your job?

• Will having completed this program change the way you do your job?

• Was the program of overall benefit?

• Would you recommend the program to other staff?

• What changes would be recommended to the program for future courses?

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques were used in an effort to maintain objectivity.  There was a deliberate choice to not ask questions specifically about the experiential element of the program.  This way the responses would be more in tune with the priorities of the participants. Keeping the questionnaire general was hoped to minimize evaluator biases. Although a survey form is best suited to quantitative analysis, qualitative data was collected by allowing the opportunity for comment.  Quantitative measures gave data concerning the other aspects of the program that requiring evaluation and provided a means of incorporating a non-value based analysis.

The Human Resource Department at Glenorchy City Council estimates that approximately 60% of the outside workforce has some problem with literacy skills.  It was important to find a way to capture the input of these participants so that the program met the needs of all targeted staff.  To avoid embarrassing participants with low literacy skills, participants were given the choice of participating in the research project or not.  Low literacy participants were invited along with all other participants to discuss the questionnaire on a one –to-one basis.  This invitation was couched in a way that would limit the awareness of the presence of literacy difficulties.  Since there was a change in venues from the morning session to the afternoon session, it would be quite reasonable to expect that participants may have left behind their belongings at the morning venue and not taken anything with them on the experiential.  An offer of assistance to those who may have ‘left behind their reading glasses with their belongings at the previous venue,’ thus provided an opportunity to avoid embarrassment and gain input from these people at the same time.

To ensure that responses would be open and honest, participants were informed that completing the ‘personal details’ section of the questionnaire was not compulsory.  A letter was attached to the front of the questionnaire.  So as to further guarantee anonymity, the completed questionnaire was placed in a box on a table when leaving the venue.

Of the 46 participants who attended 37 responded to the evaluation questionnaire, which is a return rate of approximately 80%, and 3 gave general verbal feedback.  So as to not bias the results of the survey the verbal responses from these three people and other verbal responses made since were not included in the data analysis.  Where possible comments have been put together under statements that are reflective of themes covered.  For example, “I won’t feel awkward when a disabled person comes into the office anymore” was included under will feel more comfortable when dealing with people with disabilities in the data section.  Where the comments could not be classified under a broad statement they were recorded individually.

Results

All 37 respondents reported that the program was of overall benefit. They appeared to enjoy the program with a lot of light heartedness and laughter at situations that participants found themselves in.  Verbal feedback was very encouraging with the program generally being spoken of in a very positive light.  The experiential component, which had been the area of most contention, was the most successful and enjoyed part of the program.  Twenty-three respondents reported a better understanding of people with disabilities, their issues, and needs. 

While for 23 respondents the cause of most concern prior to the program was the experiential, after the program, 36 claimed the experiential to be the most liked part of the program with only one responding that is was disliked.

The content of the program around the technical and legal issues relating to disability appear to have been acquired, even though only 8% of respondents felt the information was clear and easy to understand.  Twenty-seven respondents were able to identify these areas as having an impact on how they will do their job.

Participants generally identified that they now have an increased awareness of the social and physical issues faced by people with disabilities and felt that the program has given them something to take back to the workplace.  Those in the technical areas of Council found the information provided to be of benefit.  Participants often queried the absence of Managers in the program and a number of participants expressed a desire that all staff at Council should take part in the training program.  This attitude was reflected in expressions of interest from other Council staff since this program was held.

Other observed indicators of success are:

• Previous inadequate or sub-standard civil construction has been rectified.

• Staff reported a greater level of comfort in communicating with people with disabilities.

• Staff that previously thought they knew all that there was to know of people with disabilities and their issues openly acknowledged the ignorance and arrogance in such assumptions.

• The advice of community development staff and the Access Committee is now being sought by technical staff in relation to design issues.

• The access committee is now an official committee of council under the Local Government Act (1995).

• A consultative process with people with disabilities has been formalised.

Conclusions

Although tasks associated with experiential learning initially appear intimidating or embarrassing to participants, the benefits associated with changing attitudinal behaviour make this learning style a valuable tool for social justice training.  The opportunity for participants to put  ‘lessons’ learnt in the experiential component into practice through the workshop process reinforced the learning experience and allowed for an opportunity to generalise learning across a range of disability access issues. This program achieved a greater acceptance of people with disabilities, an increased positive image, perception, and understanding of the experiences and issues of this minority group.  This type of learning also allowed an opportunity for increasing self-awareness and self-evaluation of prejudices and perceptions held by participants prior to the training. The outcomes of this training program have highlighted the sort of benefits that can be achieved through the application of experiential learning in training for social justice.

References

Other Bibliographic Resources