Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy (2016) 27, 18e25

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.hkjot-online.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Enhancing Occupational Therapy Students’

Knowledge, Competence, Awareness, and
Interest in Accessibility
Michal Avrech Bar*, Navah Z. Ratzon

Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Professions, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel
Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Received 9 February 2016; received in revised form 23 March 2016; accepted 4 April 2016
Available online 9 June 2016

KEYWORDS Summary Objective/Background: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the incor-
accessibility; poration of an environmental assessment for accessibility, as part of an “Activity Analysis”
curriculum; course, would enhance new students’ knowledge, competence, awareness, and interest in
occupational therapy accessibility issues for people with disabilities.
students; Methods: In this research, we included an out-of-class training of environmental assessment
people with for accessibility. One hundred and two 1st-year occupational therapy students at Tel Aviv Uni-
disabilities; versity participated in this research. Of the 102 participants, 56 experienced the training and
teaching 46 did not but attended the regular Activity Analysis course. The students explored a typical
community environment, during which a specific checklist was used for assessing levels of
accessibility. The “Accessibility-Knowledge Competence Awareness and Interests” question-
naire was administered before and after the course to both groups.
Results: Students who participated in the out-of-class training showed significant increases in
their knowledge, competence, and partial awareness of accessibility and also had better
grades in two separate courses that required knowledge of accessibility. There was no signif-
icant difference in the results of the Accessibility-Knowledge Competence Awareness and In-
terests before and after the Activity Analysis course in the control group.
Conclusion: The findings of the current study support the contribution of teaching 1st-year
occupational therapy students the principles and practices of accessibility for people with dis-
abilities, by improving their knowledge and level of competence at this early stage of their
professional lives. Further studies are needed, however, to determine the optimal course of
implementation in order to enhance awareness and interest in the subject of accessibility.
Copyright ª 2016, Hong Kong Occupational Therapy Association. Published by Elsevier
(Singapore) Pte Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Conflicts of interest: All contributing authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Funding/Support: No financial support was received for the work described in this study.
* Corresponding author. Occupational Therapy Department, School of Health Professions, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University,
P.O.B. 39040 Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Tel.: þ972 3 640 9104; fax: þ972 3 640 9933.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.A. Bar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hkjot.2016.04.001
1569-1861/Copyright ª 2016, Hong Kong Occupational Therapy Association. Published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Enhancing students’ competence in accessibility 19

alone cannot (Lawson, 2014). In a study that explored the

Introduction effectiveness of a universal course design in an occupa-
tional therapy curriculum, it was found that occupational
An enabling environment is one of the central factors in therapy students who received multiple and flexible
optimizing an individual’s performance of his or her methods of teaching, such as course application through
everyday activities. This notion has been recognised by labs and fieldwork, gained a better understanding of the
professional occupational therapy bodies (American information than students who only received the traditional
Occupational Therapy Association, 2014; Townsend & lecture-based approach (Simmons, Willkomm, & Behling,
Polatajko, 2013). The implementation of laws and regula- 2010).
tions designed to combat discrimination against individuals First-year students are generally not aware of the major
with disabilities in Western countriesdespecially those environmental impact of mobility technology on the lives of
dealing with the provision of accessibility (Fembek, people with disabilities. By enabling students to physically
Butcher, Heindorf, & Wallner-Mikl, 2012; National Gover- experience everyday environmental barriers, they gain a
nors Association, 2012e2013; The Council of the European better understanding of the challenges of accessibility for
Union, 2000; U.S. Department of Justice, 2009; Waddington people with disabilities and are more motivated to look for
& Lawson, 2009)dhas opened up new opportunities and solutions (Block et al., 2005). To this end, several studies
given hope to those who stand to benefit. The United have had students use wheelchairs for their mobility. This
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with not only increased the students’ awareness of the ramifi-
Disabilities (2006) declared that disability results from the cations of disability but also increased the students’ un-
interaction between persons with impairments, and the derstanding of the importance of accessibility (Grayson &
environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective Marini, 1996; Kirby, Crawford, Smith, Thompson, &
participation in society. Subsequently, the education Sargeant, 2011). Moreover, it has been reported that stu-
strategy of health professionals needed to be revisited so dents who have participated in field work among people
that students would become aware of, and fully under- with various disabilities claim an understanding of disability
stand, these concepts. Students who enrol in health pro- as a complex construct involving family and societal groups,
fession programs can benefit from opportunities to explore occupations, physical environment, and attitudes. Impor-
the complex challenges facing people with disabilities in tantly, these students better understood the concept that
everyday life (Flecky, 2011). This poses unique challenges environmental barriers are a cause for separation from the
for an occupational therapy education program, whose goal social milieu and context (Gitlow & Flecky, 2005; Merzel &
is to implement these ideas into the curriculum (Ratzon, D’Afflitti, 2003).
Avrech Bar, & Halevy, 2006). In summary, the literature supports the need for
Occupational therapy educators also need to deal with developing educational strategies that include both theo-
the challenge of providing an education curriculum that retical and practical approaches in a learning process
helps students move from a theoretical understanding to intended to facilitate the students’ awareness, raise their
application of theory in the complexity of actual service levels of competence and knowledge, and arouse their
situations (Spalding & Killett, 2010). To bridge this gap, interest in the subject of accessibility for people with
health programs in general, and occupational therapy in disabilities. Hence, the purpose of this study was to
particular, use different teaching methods such as problem- investigate whether incorporating environmental assess-
based learning (Reeves et al., 2004), clinical experience ments for accessibility (outside class), as part of an “Ac-
(Cavanaugh & Cohen, 2012; Rodger, Fitzgerald, Davila, tivity Analysis” course, would be effective in enhancing
Miller, & Allison, 2011), and simulation (Bethea, Castillo, students’ knowledge and feelings of competence, aware-
& Harvison, 2014). Simulation learning has been recog- ness, and interest in accessibility issues for people with
nised as facilitating the application of theory within a safe disabilities. Specifically, the study addressed the following
and controlled environment (Hope, Garside, & Prescott, research questions:
2011).
Occupational therapy educators use both traditional 1. Was there a difference in knowledge, competence,
“chalk and talk” lecture approaches with more active awareness, and interest in accessibility in occupational
learning techniques in their courses (Bennett, 2001; Jakee, therapy students who had experienced the out-of-class
2011). They “develop teaching styles based on their peda- training and those who had not experienced the out-
gogical beliefs and use instructional methods that can be of-class training (control group)?
broadly classified as teacher-centred (e.g., lectures) or 2. Was there a difference in students’ achievements in
student-centred (e.g., simulation, experiments, field ex- courses that required knowledge of accessibility in those
periences)” (Lawson, 2014). The way educators construct who had experienced the out-of-class training and those
and present course content can lead students to value it in who had not?
a particular way (Stes, Coertjens, & Van Petegem, 2010).
Adult students are better learners when they are actively
engaged in learning (Bennett, 2001). Therefore, student- Methods
centred methods that involve active learning tend to
correlate positively with better academic performance Study design
outcomes (Stes et al., 2010). These methods enhance stu-
dents’ experiences and help them integrate and analyse This was a prepost study design: questionnaires were
information in ways that lectures and in-class activities administered prior to the Activity Analysis course and on
20 M.A. Bar, N.Z. Ratzon

completion of the course. The control group did not embarked on the actual assignment. Their reports were
perform the out-of-class training. then made available to the nonprofit agencies in order to
share the information among those with disabilities as well
Participants as with the general public.

The Accessibility-Knowledge Competence Awareness and

Overall, 102 occupational therapy students attending their
Interests questionnaire
1st year of study for a BA degree at the university partici-
In order to assess the contribution of the additional out-of-
pated in this research. Their age range was 20e40 years
class training, we developed the “Accessibility-Knowledge
(mean age 23.5 years, standard deviation 3.28) and they
Competence Awareness and Interests” (A-KCAI) question-
included 100 women and two men. There were 46 students
naire. The A-KCAI was based on previous questionnaires
in one academic year and 56 students in the following ac-
that were used at the university to receive students’
ademic year. The former group attended the regular Ac-
feedback on courses. It was designed to assess 1st-year
tivity Analysis course, while the latter group attended the
occupational therapy students’ knowledge and their levels
same mandatory Activity Analysis course but with the
of competence, awareness, and interests regarding acces-
additional out-of-class training in keeping with the educa-
sibility for people with disabilities. The A-KCAI consisted of
tional philosophy of active learning (Jakee, 2011; Lawson,
16 items that cover various topics relating to accessibility,
2014). None of the students reported any previous experi-
such as physical structures, access to different services,
ence or prior knowledge about the topic of accessibility.
and knowledge of the local laws on accessibility. The
Two of the students in the group who were exposed to the
questionnaire covered three categories: (a) knowledge and
additional out-of-class training reported having a disability
level of competence (4 questions plus 1 4-part question),
(1 had a hearing impairment and 1 was poststroke due to an
(b) awareness (8 questions) and, (c) interest in the subject
aneurysm).
of accessibility for people with disabilities (2 questions). It
also included one stand-alone question for evaluating the
Outcome measurement relevance of using a checklist in learning about accessi-
bility. Each item was scored on a Likert scale of 1e5, where
Activity analysis: An additional out-of-class training higher scores indicated greater knowledge, higher levels of
The curriculum for a Bachelor’s degree in occupational competency, and greater awareness and interest in the
therapy includes an Activity Analysis course in the 1st year various aspects of accessibility for people with disabilities.
of study. In this study we integrated the out-of-class The A-KCAI had an electronic form which the students were
training of accessibility into the Activity Analysis course. asked to fill online. The participants also provided de-
The Activity Analysis course applies a number of means for mographic information, including age, sex, and previous
analysing activities and occupations. The students analyse experience in the field of accessibility.
the components of various activities, occupations, and The A-KCAI questionnaire was evaluated by experts in
environments, the possible meaning that these features accessibility who determined its validity and confirmed that
have for clients, how the activity can be made accessible, it was suitable for its designated use in this study. Analysis
and their therapeutic potential. During the course, stu- of data gathered in this study revealed that the A-KCAI had
dents practice activity analysis within the classroom by good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s coefficient
investigating motor, sensory, and mental client factors in alpha ranges between .54 and .78) and good temporal
relation to a given activity. stability (intraclass correlation coefficient .54e.77).
In this study, we added two sessions to this course: the
first was a lecture given to the class about accessibility, and
the second was an out-of-class training that included an Procedures
environmental assessment for accessibility. The latter
allowed the students to practice a broad activity analysis of First-year students received a detailed explanation from
accessibility features outside of the classroom. The stu- the course lecturers (the authors of the paper) about the
dents, together with their lecturers (the authors of this study objectives. The lecturers explained that since the
paper), explored a typical community environment, during students’ reports would be made available for use by
which a specific checklist was used for assessing levels of nonprofit agencies, the project would contribute to the
accessibility by measuring and documenting them. The community. Students in one academic year were not
checklist was based on local regulations that covered all of exposed to the additional out-of-class training but atten-
the elements designated for examination (i.e., parking ded the regular Activity Analysis course while students
places, signposting, physical structures, furniture, web- from the following academic year experienced the addi-
sites, and utility accessories). The answers were either tional out-of-class training within the Activity Analysis
“yes” or “no” and full accessibility was defined by each course. Both student groups filled out the A-KCAI ques-
aspect of that element having received a “yes” score. In tionnaire online within the 1st week of the Activity Anal-
preparation for this experience, the lecturers approached ysis course and once again at the end of the semester after
nonprofit agencies in the community which promote completing their course assignments (an academic year
accessibility for people with disabilities. It was agreed upon separating the 2 groups). The forms were identified by
by those agencies that students were granted access to identification numbers. In order to minimise the sense of
explore cafes in the community and document the condi- obligation on the students’ part to enrol in the study, the
tions they found. Following this agreement the students students did not receive grades on filling out the A-KCAI
Enhancing students’ competence in accessibility 21

and they filled the forms in their own time and in private was a significant difference in the levels of knowledge and
(e.g., at home, in the dorms, or at their place of work). competence of students who experienced the out-of-class
For the comparison of grades of two other courses where training in comparison to the control group after
knowledge of accessibility is required, “Assistive Tech- completing the Activity Analysis course (p < .001). The
nology” and “Occupational Therapy in Physical Dysfunc- results are detailed in Table 2.
tion” grades were taken from the department’s grading Results of the comparison between students who expe-
system. These two courses were taught by two different rienced the additional out-of-class training and those who
lecturers (not the authors) who were unaware of the stu- did not experience it, revealed that students’ achieve-
dents’ out-of-class training. Both courses were evaluated ments in both the Assistive Technology course and the
and grades were awarded the same way in both academic Occupational Therapy in Physical Dysfunction course were
years. The study received ethics approval from Tel Aviv significantly higher for students who experienced the out-
University, Tel Aviv, Israel. of-class training (p < .01 and p < .05, respectively). There
were no significant differences between the two groups in
Data analysis the final grade of the Activity Analysis course. The results
are displayed in Table 3.
SPSS version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to
process the data. The level of significance for comparing Discussion
the A-KCAI scores before and after the out-of-class training
was set at .003. Since the questionnaire included 16 The exposure of occupational therapy students to a
questions, a Bonferroni correction was required (.05/19, as comprehensive accessible experience at an early stage of
1 question had 4 parts). The intraclass correlation coeffi- their studies contributed considerably to promoting their
cient was calculated to determine the A-KCAI’s reliability. knowledge and level of competence in issues involving
The level of significance for comparing students who accessibility for people with disabilities. However, the
experienced the out-of-class training to the control group practical experience contributed less to promoting their
was .05. awareness of these issues and it failed to stimulate their
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was calculated to test interest in this subject. Nevertheless, the results suggest
the differences in students’ knowledge and levels of that the additional out-of-class training contributed to the
competence, awareness, and interest in the subject of students’ achievements in their Assistive Technology and
accessibility for people with disabilities before and after Occupational Therapy in Physical Dysfunction studies where
attending the Activity Analysis course. knowledge of accessibility issues is required, as was
The ManneWhitney U analysis was calculated to demonstrated by the significant improvement in their
compare the results of the three categories of the A-KCAI grades on these courses. The combination of subjective
between the students who experienced the out-of-class perception (the students’ self-report revealed by the A-
training and the control group. Independent t tests were KCAI) and objective parameters (quantitative grades in the
used to analyse the differences in students’ achievements courses) has thus validated the contribution of the out-of-
in courses (Activity Analysis, Assistive Technology, and class training as a learning tool in promoting the under-
Occupational Therapy in Physical Dysfunction) between the standing of environmental barriers that people with dis-
students who experienced the out-of-class training and the abilities face daily.
control group.
Knowledge and level of competence
Results
In this study, the students felt more competent in con-
According to a comparison of students’ answers to the A- ducting an accessibility survey and filling in a checklist for
KCAI questionnaire before and after completing the course reporting on the accessibility of several elements in the
(p Z .003), their knowledge, competence levels, and par- environment, including parking lots, restaurants, and
tial awareness of the issues regarding accessibility for buildings. They also felt that they now had the basic tools
people with disabilities increased considerably in students to make recommendations about accessibility issues. The
who experienced the out-of-class training. There was no new teaching experience also contributed to their knowl-
significant difference between the students’ interest levels edge of the laws and regulations concerning accessibility.
or in their answers to most of the awareness questions on Moyers and Hinojosa (2003) stated that we, as occupational
accessibility before and after the accessibility project. The therapy educators, have a responsibility to offer learning
detailed questionnaire is presented in order to provide an experiences that provide students with the knowledge and
overall picture of the full questionnaire. The results are skills to enable them to enhance their clients’ participation
displayed in Table 1. in everyday activities, as well as to understand the
There was no significant difference in the A-KCAI results complexity of disability in affecting the lives of clients and
of the control group before and after the Activity Analysis families.
course (data not shown). Enabling participation by engagement in everyday ac-
There was no significant difference in the level of tivities is considered one of the main goals in occupational
knowledge, competence, awareness, and interest levels of therapy (American Occupational Therapy Association,
occupational therapy students between the two groups 2014). When participation in occupations is barred,
before starting the Activity Analysis course. However, there confined, restricted, or excluded then occupational
22 M.A. Bar, N.Z. Ratzon
Table 1 The Difference in Occupational Therapy Students’ Response to the Accessibility-Knowledge Competence Awareness
and Interests Questionnaire Before and After the Course (N Z 56).
Item preceded by “To what extent.” Mean SD Z Asymp. sig.
(2-tailed)
Knowledge & competence
Are you capable of filling out an accessibility checklist? 5.34 .001
Before 2.64 .99
After 3.88 .68
Can you evaluate parking accessibility? 3.69 .001
Before 3.52 .85
After 4.11 .68
Can you evaluate the accessibility from parking place to a building 3.71 .001
entrance?
Before 3.48 .83
After 4.00 .63
Can you evaluate the accessibility to restaurants & coffee shops? 4.80 .001
Before 3.30 .89
After 4.14 .58
Can you evaluate the overall accessibility to buildings? 3.94 .001
Before 3.07 .85
After 3.69 .66
Can you compose a recommendation for the adaptation of a building for 5.57 .001
people with disabilities?
Before 2.16 .68
After 3.15 .73
Are you familiar with the law on accessibility for people with disability? 5.90 .001
Before 1.98 .77
After 3.29 .68
Do you know which authorities are involved with accessibility issues? 5.25 .001
Before 1.91 .61
After 2.68 .72
Awareness
Is the issue of accessibility an integral part of occupational therapy? e.744 .457
Before 4.46 .63
After 4.54 .53
Will a checklist enhance your ability to analyse the activities of people with e.99 .318
disabilities?
Before 4.36 64
After 4.25 .74
Do educational institutions have to be accessible for people with disabilities 3.96 .001
even if there are no people with disabilities currently studying there?
Before 4.11 .82
After 4.45 .60
Should governmental institutions have forms written in Braille? e.74 .458
Before 4.41 .65
After 4.48 .63
Do the rights of an employer to employ people with disability need to be e.77 .439
defended?
Before 2.25 .76
After 2.24 .96
Is it important that rental car companies have cars with manual operation e.18 .858
for people with disabilities?
Before 4.02 .84
After 3.95 .87
Should employers be flexible with arrival time to work for people with e.93 .351
disabilities?
Before 3.43 .85
After 3.54 .73
Should the government subsidize the rent of an apartment for people with e.83 .408
disabilities?
Before 4.07 .73
After 4.16 .70
Enhancing students’ competence in accessibility 23

Table 1 (continued )
Item preceded by “To what extent.” Mean SD Z Asymp. sig.
(2-tailed)
Interest
Does experience in screening for accessibility interest you? e.05 .960
Before 3.7 .78
After 3.7 .85
Are you thinking of being involved in accessibility issues? 1.98 .048
Before 3.80 .75
After 3.57 .78
Stand-alone question
Does experience in screening for accessibility contribute to this course? e.88 .380
Before 4.00 .74
After 4.11 .75
Note. Asymp. sig. Z asymptotic significance; SD Z standard deviation.

understanding and teach how restricted accessibility can

Table 2 The Difference in the Accessibility-Knowledge
affect participation of people with disabilities. An earlier
Competence Awareness and Interests Between Students
study showed that performing accessibility surveys as part
who Experienced the Out-of-class Training (n Z 56) and the
of the educational process contributed to promoting
Control Group (n Z 46).
knowledge of issues involved in accessibility and also
Variables Group Mean SD Z increased the role of students in aiding inclusion of people
Knowledge & Out-of-classa
3.61 0.44 3.24* with disabilities into the community (Ratzon et al., 2006).
competence Control 3.24 0.61 In summary, knowledge and competence are two of the
Awareness Out-of-classa 4.14 0.33 1.82 most important components of professional identity. Rose
Control 4.27 0.39 et al. (2009) reported that occupational therapists are
Interest Out-of-classa 3.67 0.71 0.48 considered to have a low sense of competence compared
Control 3.69 0.75 with other health professions. Our current study demon-
strated that the out-of-class training succeeded in
Note. SD Z standard deviation.
improving these two factors in our students’ self-
*p < .001.
a
Students who experienced the out-of-class training. perception in relation to accessibility issues.

Awareness
injustice occurs (Kronenberg & Pollard, 2005). People with
disabilities are most at risk for occupational injustice. Using
an occupational justice lens may advance social inclusion of The students’ awareness of accessibility was partially
populations who routinely experience social exclusion, such changed after the implementation of the accessibility
as people with disabilities (Hansen, 2013; Nilsson & teaching experience. Perhaps the students in the current
Townsend, 2010). Therefore, it is the responsibility of study began the course with relatively high levels of
occupational therapy educators to deliver this awareness and therefore the practical experience made
only a negligible difference.
Students in Gitlow and Flecky’s (2005) study commented
that they had become more aware of accessibility issues
Table 3 The Difference in Students’ Achievements in through their experience. Students in their study had a
Courses that Require Knowledge of Accessibility Between slightly different experience from that of the students in
Students who Experienced the Out-of-class Training our study. They actually met with people who had disabil-
(n Z 56) and Those Who Did Not (Control Group: n Z 46). ities and this contributed to their awareness. The experi-
Grades Group Mean SD t(1, 100) ences of our students were confined to exploring the
Activity analysis Out-of-class a
89.28 5.37 1.80
physical environment and did not include interaction with
Control 91.20 5.29
people.
Assistive technology Out-of-classa 88.93 5.17 3.14**
Ikiugu and Rosso (2003) recognised the need for courses
Control 83.59 11.48
integrating theoretical topics and clinical practice. Stu-
Physical dysfunction Out-of-classa 84.10 7.04 2.28*
dents on their course demonstrated awareness of the value
Control 80.73 7.75
of contextualization by stating that occupational therapy
practice must take into account context such as changes in
Note. SD Z standard deviation. societal values. The participants in their study seemed to
*p < .05.
have become aware of the need to be proactive in this
**p < .01.
a setting and had finally developed a better understanding of
Students who experienced the out-of-class training.
the connection between theory and practice. Hence,
24 M.A. Bar, N.Z. Ratzon

courses that bridge theory and practice are indeed impor- Limitations and recommendations for future
tant in raising students’ awareness of issues related to the research
environment, but must be further developed to specifically
increase students’ awareness of accessibility issues for This study has some limitations. Firstly, the study lasted
people with disabilities. only 2 academic years; it would need to be extended over
a longer period of time for the results to be validated for
Interests application to an occupational therapy curriculum. Sec-
ondly, although we had the same teaching method in both
The present study’s results revealed that there were no yearsdthe out-of-class training notwithstandingdit re-
significant differences between the two groups in the stu- mains possible that there might have been a researcher’s
dents’ interest levels. Promoting and developing interest bias. Perhaps unconsciously we invested more in teaching
among students is a challenge to all educators. Although skills and knowledge regarding accessibility in the group
the level of a person’s interest has been found to be a that experienced the out-of-class training. Thirdly, infor-
powerful influence on learning, many educators do not mation regarding any disability among participants’ rela-
know how to intensify their students’ academic interest tives is missing. Having a family member or a relative with
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Clearly, the content of the cur- a disability may have increased their awareness and affect
riculum and the learning environment (educator, organisa- attitudes towards people with disabilities. In addition,
tion) contribute to the development of the student’s and purely by chance, the two students with a disability
interest. Hidi and Renninger (2006) suggested a four-phase themselves belonged to the group that was exposed to the
model of interest development which described phases of out-of-class training, which might have indirectly influ-
situational and individual interest in both affective and enced the results. In order to generalise the study’s re-
cognitive processes. According to that model, further sults and conclusions more research should be carried out
development of the out-of-class training should focus on with students from a variety of universities. Further
two things. Firstly, increase the students’ interest by studies on methods to promote the students’ awareness
providing opportunities for them to ask questions, and and interest in accessibility for people with disabilities are
secondly, help them feel positive about their newfound warranted.
abilities to work with the content (disability/accessibility)
by offering choices of tasks, and by promoting a sense of
personal achievement. Conclusion
Another explanation for the lack of change in students’
interest in accessibility issues after experiencing the out- The findings of the current study support the contribution
of-class training may be partly due to how they perceive of teaching 1st-year occupational therapy students the
the occupational therapy profession. The expressed pri- principles and practices of accessibility for people with
mary interest of new students is in treating people, rather disabilities for improving their knowledge and level of
than issues related to the environmental challenges faced competence at this early stage of their professional lives.
by those people (Craik, Gissane, Douthwaite, & Philp, Incorporation of an environmental assessment for accessi-
2001). bility within the out-of-class training enhanced student
learning and understanding of accessibility for people with
disabilities. This understanding will help them in promoting
Students’ achievements the participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in
community life and thus, in promoting occupational justice.
Students’ achievements in the Assistive Technology course Furthermore, knowledge might be transferred from the
and in the Occupational Therapy in Physical Dysfunction new accessibility experience to other study domains within
were higher for the group which had received the out-of- the occupational therapy curriculum.
class training. These results may indicate the way students
transfer knowledge from one course to the other. Students’
reporting of the transfer of skills and concepts from one References
course to another has been described in a previous study
(Lightner, Benander, & Kramer, 2008). Mestre (2002) American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational
stated: “We define transfer of learning broadly to mean therapy practice framework: domain and process. (3rd ed.).
the ability to apply knowledge or procedures learned in one American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, S1eS48.
context to new contexts.” The students in our study Bennett, N. (2001). Doing does it. Occupational Therapy in Health
implemented their newly acquired knowledge of disability Care, 14, 61e65.
to the contexts of assistive technology and occupational Bethea, D. P., Castillo, D. C., & Harvison, N. (2014). Use of simu-
therapy in physical dysfunction. In the two courses on these lation in occupational therapy education: way of the future?
subjects, the students learned how to analyse life situa- American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl2),
S32eS39.
tions of people with various disabilities and apply different
Block, P., Ricafrente-Biazon, M., Russo, A., Chu, K. Y., Sud, S.,
adaptations. By means of the out-of-class training, the Koerner, L., et al. (2005). Introducing disability studies to
students learned to identify barriers of everyday life. Then, occupational therapy students. American Journal of Occupa-
they sought the appropriate evaluations, treatments, and tional Therapy, 59, 554e560.
technologies that would help clients to function within the Cavanaugh, J. T., & Cohen, S. K. (2012). Fostering the development
constraints of the environment. of effective person- centred healthcare communication skills:
Enhancing students’ competence in accessibility 25

an interprofessional shared learning model. Work, A Journal of Moyers, P., & Hinojosa, J. (2003). Continuing competence and
Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41, 293e301. competency. In G. McCormack, E. Jaffe, & M. Goodman-Lavey
Craik, C., Gissane, C., Douthwaite, J., & Philp, E. (2001). Factors (Eds.), Occupational therapy manager (2nd ed., pp. 463e487).
influencing the career choice of first-year occupational therapy Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
students. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, National Governors Association (NGA). (2012e2013). A better bot-
114e120. tom line: Employing people with disabilities. Washington, DC:
Fembek, M., Butcher, T. H., Heindorf, I., & Wallner-Mikl, C. (2012). NGA.
International study on the implementation of the UN Conven- Nilsson, I., & Townsend, E. (2010). Occupational justicedbridging
tion on the rights of persons with disabilities. Zero project theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational
report 2013. Austria: Essl Foundation. Therapy, 17, 57e63.
Flecky, K. (2011). Foundations of service-learning. In K. Flecky, & Ratzon, N., Avrech Bar, M., & Halevy, Z. (2006). Accessibility sur-
L. Gitlow (Eds.), Service learning in occupational therapy: veys as a teaching tool and as a way to promote community
Philosophy and practice (pp. 1e18). Boston, MA: Jones & Bar- accessibility. Israeli Journal of Occupational Therapy, 15,
tlett Publishers. 83e91.
Gitlow, L., & Flecky, K. (2005). Integrating disability studies con- Reeves, S., Summerfield Mann, L., Caunce, M., Beecraft, S.,
cepts into occupational therapy education using service Living, R., & Conway, M. (2004). Understanding the effects of
learning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, problem-based learning on practice: findings from a survey of
546e553. newly qualified occupational therapists. British Journal of
Grayson, E., & Marini, I. (1996). Simulated disability exercises and Occupational Therapy, 67, 323e327.
their impact on attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In- Rodger, S., Fitzgerald, C., Davila, W., Miller, F., & Allison, H.
ternational Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 19, 123e131. (2011). What makes a quality occupational therapy practice
Hansen, A. M. W. (2013). Bridging theory and practice: occupa- placement? Students’ and practice educators’ perspectives.
tional justice and service learning. Work: A Journal of Preven- Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 58, 195e202.
tion, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 45, 41e58. Rose, M. A., Smith, K., Veloski, J. J., Lyons, K. J., Umland, E., &
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of in- Arenson, C. A. (2009). Attitudes of students in medicine,
terest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111e127. nursing, occupational therapy, and physical therapy toward
Hope, A., Garside, J., & Prescott, S. (2011). Rethinking theory and interprofessionsl education. Journal of Allied Health, 38,
practice: pre-registration student nurses experiences of simu- 196e200.
lation teaching and learning in the acquisition of clinical skills in Simmons, C., Willkomm, T., & Behling, K. (2010). Professional
preparation for practice. Nurse Education Today, 31, 711e715. power through education: universal course design initiatives in
Ikiugu, M. N., & Rosso, H. M. (2003). Facilitating professional occupational therapy curriculum. Occupational Therapy in
identity in occupational therapy students. Occupational Ther- Health Care, 24, 86e96.
apy International, 10, 206e225. Spalding, N. J., & Killett, A. (2010). An evaluation of a problem-
Jakee, K. (2011). Overhauling technical handouts for active student based learning experience in an occupational therapy curricu-
participation: a model for improving lecture efficiency and lum in the UK. Occupational Therapy International, 17, 64e73.
increasing attendance. International Journal of Teaching and Stes, A., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional
Learning in Higher Education, 23, 98e108. development for teachers in higher education: impact of
Kirby, R. L., Crawford, K. A., Smith, C., Thompson, K. J., & teaching approach. Higher Education, 60, 187e204.
Sargeant, J. M. (2011). A wheelchair workshop for medical The Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/78/EC
students improves knowledge and skills: a randomized of 27 November 2000, article 13, establishing a general
controlled trial. American Journal of Physical Medicine and framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
Rehabilitation, 90, 197e206. tion. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/
Kronenberg, F., & Pollard, N. (2005). Overcoming occupational LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriZCELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML.
apartheid: a preliminary exploration of the political nature of Townsend, E. A., & Polatajko, H. J. (2013). Enabling occupation II:
occupational therapy. In F. Kronenberg (Ed.), Occupational Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-
therapy without borders: Learning from the spirits of survivors being & justice through occupation (2nd ed.). Ottawa, ON:
(pp. 58e86). London: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone. CAOT.
Lawson, S. (2014). Preferred study strategies and instructional UN Convention. (2006). Final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a
methods for learning and academic success among occupational Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the
therapy students. Education Special Interest Section Quarterly, Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons
24, 1e4. with Disabilities on its eighth session. Retrieved December 14,
Lightner, R., Benander, R., & Kramer, E. F. (2008). Faculty and 2014, from http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/
student attitudes about transfer of learning. InSight: A Journal N06/645/30/PDF/N0664530.pdf?OpenElement.
of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 58e66. U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). A guide to disability rights
Merzel, C., & D’Afflitti, J. D. (2003). Reconsidering community- laws. Retrieved January 8, 2016, from http://www.ada.gov/
based health promotion: promise, performance, and poten- cguide.htm.
tial. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 557e574. Waddington, L., & Lawson, A. (2009). Disability and non-
Mestre, J. (2002). Transfer of learning: Issues and research agenda. discrimination law in the European Union. European Commis-
Report of a Workshop held at the National Science Foundation. sion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Retrieved December 11, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/
2003/nsf03212/nsf03212.pdf.