Next Article in Journal
Bridging the Digital Disability Divide: Determinants of Internet Use among Visually Impaired Individuals in Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
College Students with ADHD: A Selective Review of Qualitative Studies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/disabilities4030042
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia

by
Unita Werdi Rahajeng
1,2,*,
Wiwin Hendriani
1 and
Pramesti Pradna Paramita
1
1
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60286, Indonesia
2
Psychology Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2024, 4(3), 678-695; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030042
Submission received: 19 June 2024 / Revised: 14 August 2024 / Accepted: 6 September 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Access to higher education has been widely open for students with disabilities (SwD) as also enforced by the Government of Indonesia (GoI). However, challenges evidently face SwD in their survival of university life including limited accessible services and facilities, as well as negative stereotypes surrounding SwD. This study aimed to explore the diverse strategies adopted by SwD in navigating these challenges, examining the nuances and implications of the deployed strategies. This review explored the experiences of SwD in higher education institutions in Indonesia and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review) guidelines. Data were gathered from seven databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Portal Garuda. In total, 17 of 1777 articles were selected based on two inclusion criteria viz. peer-reviewed articles derived from empirical studies and utilizing life experiences of SwD in Indonesian HE as the primary data source. The study identified the five key strategies employed by SwD: Adaptation, Technology Assistive Optimization, Requesting Support, Building Relationships, and Passive Action. Detailed elaboration of the findings is presented to shed light on the prominent insight to improve the quality of education services for SwD in Indonesia.

1. Introduction

Access to higher education (HE) is considered a fundamental right for all individuals, including those with disabilities. The benefits of attending HE for persons with disabilities (PwD) are extensive, providing them with the opportunity to obtain a valuable degree that expands their knowledge, equips them with specialized skills, and fosters a supportive network, which is crucial to actively participate in the labor market [1,2]. These assets contribute to resilience, enabling PwD to thrive in unique circumstances [3]. HE also offers a platform for PwD to explore personal, social, and community values, formulating meaningful aspirations and goals [4]. However, despite the advantages of enrolling PwD in higher education, studies have highlighted barriers hindering their equal learning opportunities compared to their typical peers [5,6,7].
In Indonesia, there has been a notable increase in the participation of PwD in HE. There are claims from some universities about increased participation of PwD [8,9], as well as from organizations of persons with disabilities [10]. A significant milestone was the enactment of Law No. 8/2016 on Persons with Disabilities, demonstrating the GoI’s commitment to advancing the rights and inclusion of PwD [11]. This legislation aligns with Indonesia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).
According to Law No. 8/2016, PwD are defined as individuals who have a physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The law outlines the following categories of disabilities: (1) physical disabilities, which affect motor functions and mobility; (2) sensory disabilities, including visual and hearing impairments; (3) intellectual disabilities, characterized by limitations in cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior; and (4) mental disabilities, which encompass conditions that affect emotional and psychological well-being, such as a person with bipolar disorder, ADHD, learning difficulties, and autism. The act emphasizes the right of PwD to equal access to education and other public services and mandates that educational institutions provide appropriate accommodations and support to enhance the learning experience and participation of students within these categories.
According to Article 10 of Law No. 8/2016, PwD in Indonesia have the right to receive quality education at all levels, whether through inclusive or specialized programs, and are also entitled to reasonable accommodations [12]. Furthermore, the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology issued Ministerial of Education Regulation No. 46/2017 regarding Special Education and Special Service Educational in Higher Education. This regulation underscores the rights of PwD to receive appropriate accommodations while pursuing HE, emphasizing the principles of inclusive education [13]. Consequently, HE institutions are required to allocate resources to support inclusive education for PwD. This includes investing in accessible infrastructure, providing scholarship opportunities, developing service models specifically for SwD, and enhancing the skills of staff to meet the needs of SwD. These measures reflect the GoI’s commitment to promoting an inclusive educational environment based on social and human rights models of disability.
These policies have undoubtedly facilitated access for PwD and have mitigated the barriers they face when entering HE. Despite the GoI having implemented policies to promote disability inclusion in HE, the practical application of these policies remains inconsistent across institutions. For instance, not all HE institutions have established Disability Service Units (DSUs), which are essential for providing specialized support and accommodations to SwD [14]. Moreover, many institutions lack accessible infrastructure, such as ramps, elevators, and adaptive technologies, which are critical for ensuring physical accessibility [15,16,17].
The inclusivity of curricula also remains inadequate, as many programs do not yet incorporate flexible teaching methods or materials that cater to diverse learning needs [14]. Not all educators fully comprehend the needs of SwD, and some may be reluctant to implement the necessary modifications and accommodations [16,18]. Additionally, there is a notable absence of systematic monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the effectiveness of disability inclusion practices [19]. This lack of oversight hinders the ability to ensure that policies are effectively implemented and that SwD receives the support they are entitled to, highlighting a significant gap between policy and practice.
This reluctance to provide adequate support exacerbates the challenges that SwD face and impedes their academic progress. Such conditions underscore the significant challenges to achieving effective disability inclusion within the HE context.
In order to recognize SwD as adult learners with the capacity for agency, it is important to consider how their actions are influenced by perceived norms and perceived control [20]. Perceived norms relate to how SwD interpret the attitudes and expectations of others in their environment, which can affect their behavior and engagement. Perceived control, on the other hand, involves SwD’s assessment of the availability and accessibility of the skills, opportunities, and resources required to undertake certain actions. When these resources are readily available, they facilitate greater engagement and proactive behavior among SwD.
We argue that SwD’s responses to challenges within the HE setting should be viewed as strategic actions. These actions are characterized by thoughtful consideration of potential consequences, aimed at optimizing benefits and mitigating risks. By understanding these responses through the lens of perceived norms and perceived control, we gain insight into how SwD navigate their academic environments and address the barriers they encounter.
The aim of this scoping review is to explore and map the strategies employed by SwD in navigating challenges within HE in Indonesia. Additionally, this review seeks to identify the essential capabilities needed by SwD to navigate these challenges successfully, in alignment with the principles of the human rights model. By understanding these strategies, we aim to provide insights that will help HE leaders, policy makers, and stakeholders in Indonesia enhance and develop support systems for SwD.
The research question guiding this review is: “What evidence exists concerning the strategies employed by SwD in navigating challenges within Indonesian HE?” This question is designed to address the review’s aim by seeking a comprehensive examination of the empirical studies related to the strategies used by SwD.
The scoping review methodology, as outlined by [21], is employed to provide a broad and inclusive examination of the existing literature. Scoping reviews offer the advantage of crossing disciplinary boundaries and methodologies [22], which allows for a detailed exploration of the various strategies used by SwD in Indonesia. This approach helps in understanding the nuances of these strategies, the considerations behind them, and their impact on navigating challenges in HE.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Identifying the Relevant Literature

A comprehensive search was executed across prominent databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, ERIC, and Google Scholar (for the English literature). Additionally, Google Scholar and Portal Garuda were utilized for the Bahasa Indonesia literature. To note, Portal Garuda is the most comprehensive digital scholarly portal in Indonesia. A dual-search approach in Google Scholar involved both English and Bahasa Indonesia, limiting results to the relevant articles on the first ten front pages. Following [23], our target was to attain a sample size of 200–300 articles from Google Scholar for a robust literature review. The search terms we used for the literature search are shown in Table 1. Search terms in Bahasa Indonesia are modified from English. The search, conducted from 13–19 June 2023, yielded 1777 articles from the six databases. After eliminating 135 duplicate articles, 1642 articles underwent further literature selection.

2.2. Selecting the Literature

The literature selection process underwent meticulous two-stage scrutiny: (1) title and abstract screening, followed by (2) full article screening. Decisions were categorized into either inclusion or exclusion based on predefined criteria. Inclusion criteria included empirical studies, peer-reviewed articles (journal articles and proceedings), participants were HE SwD, research conducted in Indonesian university settings, and a focus on SwD experiences in navigating higher education life challenges. The Rayyan QCRI application facilitated the selection process [24]. After the initial screening, 210 articles remained that met the criteria to be included and followed up by reading the full articles. Ultimately, 17 articles met all inclusion criteria and progressed to further analysis. See Figure 1 for the literature flowchart.

2.3. Charting the Data

We extracted data related to study characteristics and answered the research question. Study characteristic information was developed at the beginning of our study and included: author, year of publication, type of publication, setting location, and participant characteristics. We follow the recommended strategy for qualitative data analysis from Thomas and Harden [25], employing Atlas.ti 23.2.1 for Mac [26].The coding process involved three iterative steps: (1) coding text, (2) developing descriptive themes, and (3) generating analytical themes. Initially, the first author independently conducted coding on data extracted from the literature, specifically targeting sections labeled as “Results” or “Findings”. Themes were refined based on the interplay of similarities and differences between codes, ensuring a robust, data-driven approach. In the final step, all themes were described and narrated, incorporating additional information to capture nuanced insights. Findings were meticulously presented through a combination of tables and narratives, adhering to the PRISMA-Scr guidelines [22].

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristic

All included studies were articles published from 2015 to 2023. Notably, the majority of articles (n = 15; 88.2%) were published post-2016, coinciding with the enactment of Indonesian Law No. 8/2016 on Persons with Disabilities. Out of the selected articles, ten (58.8%) were published after 2020, aligning with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, discussions pertaining to online and distance learning became prominent. This aspect will be addressed in this review. The qualitative approach was uniformly employed across all studies reviewed. This choice reflects the focus of the review on the personal experiences of SwD, highlighting the particular relevance of qualitative methods. Qualitative techniques are especially suited for exploring emotional phenomena and subjective experiences, as they offer a detailed understanding from the participants’ perspectives [27,28]. These methods allow researchers to gain nuanced insights into what participants find significant through detailed observations and interactions [29]. Given these advantages, it is not surprising that all the studies included in this review utilized a qualitative approach.
A total of seventy-five SwD participated in the reviewed studies, encompassing various types of disabilities. Of these participants, 35 were blind, 17 were deaf, 12 had physical disabilities, 2 had mental intellectual disabilities, 1 had multiple disabilities, and 8 did not disclose their participant’s disability status. It is noteworthy that the majority of studies did not provide demographic data such as gender and age of the participants. Notably, no research was conducted in a multi-institutional setting, with each study being confined to a single institution. Thirteen studies were conducted in public HE, while three were carried out in private HE. One article did not disclose the HE’s name, precluding the identification of its institutional characteristics. Table 2 provides a brief summary of the studies included.

3.2. Strategies for Navigating Challenges

The themes identified in this review were derived through a systematic thematic analysis of qualitative data extracted from the selected studies. We employed a data-driven approach to thematic analysis, which involved categorizing the data into recurring patterns and strategies based solely on the data itself, without being influenced by pre-existing theories or frameworks. This process included coding the data and grouping similar strategies into broader themes.
The analysis yielded a total of 16 codes, which were subsequently categorized into five overarching themes. The first was Adaptation, which is defined as strategies involving adjustments or changes made by SwD to fit their educational environment. The second was Assistive Technology Optimization, which relates to the utilization and optimization of technology to support academic tasks and overcome barriers. The third was Requesting Support, which describes actions taken by SwD to seek assistance or accommodation from their environment. The fourth, Building Relationships, relates to efforts by SwD to establish connections with peers, lectures, or available support networks to enhance their academic experience. The fifth, Passive Action, defines instances where SwD adopt a less proactive stance, possibly due to perceived barriers and lack of resources.
Among these themes, Requesting Support emerged as the most prevalent, while Passive Action was identified as the least frequent. It is noteworthy that all studies, except for [32], indicated that SwD utilize a diverse range of strategies concurrently and interchangeably. This suggests that the use of these strategies is adaptable and context-dependent, varying according to available resources and specific circumstances.
The subsequent section will provide a comprehensive examination of each strategy, elucidating the complexities and nuances involved. The strategy themes identified across the studies are summarized in Table 2.

3.2.1. Adaptation

Adaptation encompasses strategies designed to enhance SwD’s ability to align with environmental expectations. Generally, SwD are expected to demonstrate independence and assimilate into typical student functioning. They are held to the same standards and performance levels as their non-disabled peers, particularly in academic settings [34,38,40,43,46]. It is crucial to acknowledge that some SwD may come from special schools with distinct curricula, necessitating increased learning efforts [40,46] and the development of effective study strategies [31,34,40,41,46]. These efforts push SwD out of their comfort zones [37], exposing them to novel tasks and habits that require adaptation. Consequently, they must cultivate adaptive behaviors and habits that align with environmental expectations. In certain situations, SwD may find it necessary to conceal their disabilities to fit in [45].
This strategy is fundamentally rooted in accepting life’s challenges in [45] and persisting through degree completion [41,45,46]. Unfortunately, it poses the risk of inducing fatigue in SwD [31,40,45]. However, it also yields positive outcomes, such as assisting SwD in meeting academic requirements [46] and fostering positive community acceptance to encourage continued participation [31,33].

3.2.2. Assistive Technology Optimization

SwD can effectively harness assistive technology to surmount learning barriers. Assistive technologies, encompassing both traditional tools like Braille [31] and modern applications like screen reader [30,31,35,45], play a pivotal role in aiding SwD to comprehend lecture material [31,38,40,41] or complete assignments [30,45]. Unlike adaptation, the utilization of assistive technology demands less adjustment; however, SwD must acquire the necessary skills to use these tools, particularly given the rapid evolution of technology [34].
The introduction to assistive technology often comes from teachers and fellow peers with disabilities [34,45]. To select and adeptly utilize appropriate assistive technology, SwD must have a thorough understanding of their specific needs [33]. In numerous instances, assistive technology proves indispensable for ensuring accessibility [33,38], meeting independent learning requirements [30] and enhancing overall participation [30,43,45].
Interestingly, all of the studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the issue of Assistive Technology Optimization [30,33,41,43]. This focus is largely due to the abrupt shift to online and distance learning mandated by the pandemic, which placed a greater reliance on assistive technologies for SwD. As in-person classes were suspended, the effectiveness of these technologies became critical in enabling SwD to engage with their coursework. The proficiency of SwD in utilizing technology, particularly the accessibility of assistive technology, plays a crucial role in meeting the demands of coursework effectively [43].

3.2.3. Requesting Support

Within this strategy, SwD actively pursues support, accommodation, and enhanced accessibility from their environment to fulfill their needs. A common approach involves seeking assistance from peers [34,35,40,45], family [33,43], the campus community [44], and the Disability Service Unit (DSU) [31,43,45]. SwD may even solicit help from local residents during field study activities [37]. Beyond instrumental support, informational support in the form of explanations and guidance is also sought [33,35,40,41,45,46]. Subsequent to requesting assistance, SwD often engage in negotiations, advocating for changes, modifications, and adaptations in their environment to enhance accessibility [33,39]. Throughout these negotiations, SwD are required to propose potential solutions while remaining open to collaborative discussions [34,37,38].
The implementation of this strategy necessitates SwD to disclose their condition and specify the particular needs that should be accommodated by the environment [39,43]. Seeking assistance and accommodation can be a formidable challenge for SwD, demanding courage and assertiveness, especially when encountering individuals who may be reluctant or resistant to providing help [40,45]. The successful execution of these strategies by the environment can significantly minimize barriers for SwD [34,36,40,43,44], facilitating their adherence to academic requirements and active participation in university life [30,37,45]. Moreover, it serves as a catalyst for raising awareness and fostering a culture of disability inclusion [39,40], as a lack of support often stems from a lack of understanding regarding SwD’s needs and required accommodations.

3.2.4. Building Relationship

This strategy centers on the initiation and sustenance of interpersonal connections within inclusive settings, encompassing both formal interactions like lectures and organization [32,33,34,43,46], or informal interactions such as forming friendships [38,39]. SwD actions, such as greetings or initiating communication, play a pivotal role in enhancing relationships [37,38,39,43]. As relationships progress, strategies such as a willingness to engage [40,42] and assume social roles tend to emerge [37]. Peer relationships, in particular, have been extensively studied in this context.
However, this is not without its challenges, as SwD often grapple with discomfort when initiating interactions [39] and a fear of rejection [45], particularly if they lack experience in heterogeneous social settings. Similar to the general population, SwD tend to select friends and establish boundaries within their social relationships to foster and maintain connections [39,44,45]. Similar to the Requesting Support strategy, SwD must disclose their disability [39]. Despite its challenges, this strategy offers significant advantages, including fostering friendships, establishing a support system, and promoting inclusiveness [39,44].

3.2.5. Passive Action

The distinguishing feature of this strategy is the inclination to refrain from actively addressing or overcoming barriers. Passive strategies may involve maintaining silence and accepting the situation [40,41]. Instead of confronting obstacles directly, individuals employing this strategy tend to engage in actions that are not directly related, such as positive thinking [31,34,46], praying [41], distracting themselves with recreational activities to evade the problem [36,40], or ignoring the problem [42].
Despite these actions, there is still an underlying sense of hope, with an anticipation of better change in the future [41,45]. The choice to adopt this strategy is often associated with feelings of boredom, annoyance, helplessness, and fear [31,40,42,46]. SwD may opt for this strategy when other active approaches, such as seeking support and accommodation, have proven unsuccessful. It is important to note that the adoption of this strategy is not always an avoidance attempt by SwD; at times, it may serve as a temporary coping mechanism to regain motivation when conditions allow [41].

4. Discussion

In Indonesia, SwD encounters numerous challenges in HE life as a minority population within academic institutions. This review analysis has identified five distinct strategies employed by SwD to navigate these challenges, namely Adaptation, Assistive Technology Optimization, Requesting Support, Building Relationship, and Passive Action. Each strategy exhibits unique navigation characteristics, albeit with interconnections.
In exploring the strategies employed by SwD in Indonesian HE, the combined application of the theory of perceived norms and perceived control with the human rights model provides a comprehensive analytical framework. This integration allows us to understand how SwD’s strategic choices are influenced by their perceptions of social expectations (perceived norms) and their beliefs about their own capacity to act effectively (perceived control) [20]. The human rights model, which underpins disability inclusion policies in Indonesia, provides a crucial context for evaluating these strategies [13,14]. It enables us to assess how well the strategies employed by SwD align with existing ethical and legal principles of inclusion.

4.1. Adaptation

Adaptation is defined as the strategies involving adjustments or changes made by SwD to fit their educational environment. This can include modifying their behavior or concealing their disability to align with normative expectations of typical students.
Perceived norms play a significant role in shaping adaptation strategies, which often impose implicit norms that do not necessarily account for the specific needs of SwD. To conform to these norms, SwD may choose to downplay their disability, aligning themselves with standards that frequently fail to accommodate disabilities. The adaptation strategy can be seen as a response to a lack of adequate support systems and an environment that does not fully embrace diversity [47,48].
This adaptation can be particularly influenced by Indonesia’s communal values and cultural context, which emphasize harmony and collectivism [49]. In such contexts, SwD may feel pressured to conform to prevailing social expectations and maintain harmony within their social environment.
From the perspective of perceived control, Adaptation reflects SwD’s efforts to mitigate barriers by exerting control over their personal presentation. The continual effort to adapt can also indicate an ongoing struggle to achieve a sense of control in an environment that does not fully acknowledge or accommodate disability differences. For example, if the environment imposes norms that do not align with SwD’s needs, they may have to expend additional effort to conform, potentially affecting their overall sense of control and well-being [50].
The human rights model emphasizes that educational institutions have an obligation to create an environment where all students can openly express their needs and receive appropriate support without fear of discrimination or marginalization [51]. While these Adaptations may help SwD manage their immediate academic challenges, they also underscore significant gaps in the inclusivity of educational environments. By aligning this strategy with the human rights model, it becomes evident that the responsibility lies with educational institutions to address these gaps and create an environment that supports and respects the rights of all students, including those with disabilities. Adaptation should be viewed as a necessary but insufficient response, signaling the need for enhanced institutional practices to ensure comprehensive support and inclusivity.
In summary, while SwD may need to adapt due to the nature of HE compared to previous educational experiences, these adaptations should be akin to those experienced by typical students [52]. For example, adjustments might involve changes to lecture schedules or fostering more active and independent learning behaviors. However, it is crucial that these adaptations do not ignore the unique needs of SwD. Without equal access or specialized support, adaptation efforts may fall short of addressing the core issues of inclusivity.

4.2. Assistive Technology Optimization

Assistive Technology Optimization involves the effective use and enhancement of technology to support SwD in navigating academic tasks and overcoming barriers. By providing tools and resources tailored to their needs, SwD can overcome barriers and participate more fully in daily activities [53].
Perceived norms play a critical role in shaping how assistive technology is integrated into the educational setting. The extent to which assistive technology is normalized within an institution’s academic culture can influence its effectiveness and acceptance. If the use of assistive technology is seen as a standard practice rather than an exception, SwD are more likely to feel comfortable and supported in utilizing these tools. Conversely, if assistive technology is perceived as unusual or stigmatized, it can undermine the effectiveness of these tools and hinder SwD’s willingness to use them. Therefore, fostering a culture that recognizes and supports the use of assistive technology as a normative aspect of inclusive education is crucial.
The availability of assistive technology is crucial, yet in developing countries like Indonesia, access to advanced technology often lags behind that of developed nations [54,55]. The cost associated with advanced assistive technology can be a significant barrier, particularly for SwD from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or rural areas [56]. The compatibility of assistive technology with the Indonesian context remains a challenge; for example, not all automated closed captioning technologies are compatible with Bahasa Indonesia [57]. Improved accessibility to assistive technology would enable SwD to use these tools more effectively and comfortably.
The urgent need for Assistive Technology Optimization was particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. As face-to-face lectures were restricted, the transition to remote learning necessitated the extensive use of assistive technology, especially in the realms of Internet and information technology. SwD were required to adeptly navigate various technological tools to engage with distance learning platforms such as online conferences and Learning Management System (LMS) applications [53]. Additionally, they relied on specialized assistive technology like screen reader programs and speech-to-text applications to enhance accessibility. This experience highlights how assistive technology empowers SwD to participate effectively in lectures.
From the perspective of perceived control, optimizing assistive technology reflects SwD’s efforts to leverage available tools to gain greater autonomy and manage their academic responsibilities. The proficient use of assistive technology can enhance SwD’s perceived control by helping them circumvent barriers that might otherwise impede their educational progress. In this context, assistive technology not only provides practical support but also empowers SwD to assert greater control over their learning environment and academic outcomes, contributing to a more equitable educational experience [58].
However, given the rapid advancements in technology, SwD must actively engage with and learn to use the most appropriate assistive technologies for their needs. This ongoing engagement requires enthusiasm and adaptability, as the technology landscape continually evolves. The ability to effectively integrate and utilize assistive technology is crucial for SwD to maintain and enhance their perceived control over their academic experiences.
The human rights model underscores the principle that SwD have the right to access educational resources and support systems that enable their full participation. Assistive technology is a fundamental component of this support infrastructure, ensuring that SwD can engage with their education on an equitable basis. The human rights model asserts that educational institutions have a duty to provide necessary accommodations and resources, including assistive technology, to ensure that all students, regardless of disability, can participate fully in academic life
In summary, the optimization of assistive technology for SwD is a crucial strategy that aligns with the principles of perceived control and perceived norms, while also adhering to the human rights model. However, for assistive technology to be truly effective, it must be supported by institutional policies and cultural norms that recognize, embrace, and support its role in facilitating disability inclusion.

4.3. Requesting Support

Requesting Support is a strategy employed by SwD to actively seek help or accommodations from their educational environment to better manage their academic responsibilities and overcome barriers.
Perceived norms play a significant role in shaping SwD’s behavior for Requesting Support. If seeking help is perceived as a normative and accepted practice in HE, SwD are more likely to feel comfortable and confident in making such requests. When institutions foster a culture where Requesting Support is seen as a standard rather than an exception or a sign of weakness, it positively influences SwD’s willingness to seek assistance. Conversely, if the norm within an institution is to view requests for support as unusual or stigmatizing, SwD may hesitate to ask for help [48,59], which can impede their academic performance and overall experience.
Some articles addressing Requesting Support shed light on SwD seek assistance from their peers, a need addressed by the peer-buddy program implemented in several HE institutions in Indonesia [9,38,40]. These programs involve non-disabled peer volunteering to assist SwD, offering various forms of support and reasonable accommodations, such as with wheelchair navigation, note-taking, or sign language interpretation. Peer buddies not only provide practical assistance but also advocate for SwD with higher education authorities, thereby serving as crucial allies [60]. The existence of peer-buddy programs signals a campus environment that is actively supportive and responsive to the needs of SwD.
Requesting support often represents an expression of SwD’s belief regarding their ability to influence their environment. Requesting support is a fundamental aspect of self-advocacy for SwD, symbolizing empowerment and determination rather than a sense of entitlement or dependence [61]. When SwD believe that their requests for support will be met with a positive response and result in meaningful assistance, they are more likely to proactively seek help. Effective communication of the urgency of support needs from their environment is crucial for SwD, necessitating strong negotiation and communication skills. SwD also require sufficient knowledge to construct rational arguments about the necessity of obtaining appropriate accommodations, including awareness of their rights as PwD [62,63]. Such rational arguments not only facilitate the request for support but also help minimize the stigma of helplessness associated with SwD. However, if SwD perceive that their requests are unlikely to be fulfilled or that they might face negative repercussions, their willingness to seek help may be diminished [64].
From the perspective of the human rights model, Requesting Support aligns with the fundamental rights of SwD to access necessary accommodations and resources for equitable participation in education [65]. The human rights model emphasizes that SwD have the right to a supportive learning environment where their needs are recognized and addressed. Requesting Support is a way for SwD to assert their rights and ensure they receive the accommodations needed to succeed. Educational institutions are obligated to provide such support as part of their duty to uphold the rights of all students. This model reinforces that support should be accessible without stigma or discrimination and that institutions must create an environment where all students feel empowered to request and receive necessary accommodations.
In summary, Requesting Support is a critical strategy. A supportive institutional culture that normalizes requesting assistance and a robust framework for providing such support enhance SwD’s perceived control. The human rights model further underscores the importance of institutions’ obligations to provide necessary support, ensuring that all students, including those with disabilities, can fully participate and succeed in their educational pursuits.

4.4. Building Relationship

Building Relationships is a strategy employed by SwD to establish connections with peers, educators, and support networks. This strategy can significantly impact their academic experience and sense of inclusion.
Perceived norms influence how SwD engage in Building Relationships. In educational settings where forming connections with peers and faculty is viewed as a normative and valued practice, SwD are more likely to actively seek and develop these relationships [5]. When institutions cultivate an environment that encourages social interactions and peer support, it normalizes relationship building as an integral part of the academic experience. Conversely, if the prevailing norms do not support or recognize the importance of such relationships, SwD may face challenges in establishing meaningful connections, potentially leading to feelings of isolation and reduced academic engagement [59].
This strategy not only enhances their academic experience but also intersects significantly with the Requesting Support strategy. Articles highlight that building strong interpersonal connections often reduces the stigma associated with seeking help, leading to more seamless and less resistant support requests [39,62]. This cultural norm, where seeking help is normalized and peers are seen as allies, aligns with the perception that Requesting Support is a regular and accepted part of the academic experience.
Perceived control pertains to how SwD assess their ability to navigate their social environment and form supportive relationships. When SwD perceive that they have the ability to connect with supportive peers and mentors, they are more likely to invest in these relationships [64]. This perceived control is facilitated by an environment that is open and supportive, where SwD feel that their efforts to engage with others will be met with positive responses. Conversely, if SwD perceive barriers to forming relationships, such as a lack of acceptance or support, their sense of control may diminish.
From the perspective of the human rights model, Building Relationships is a fundamental aspect of ensuring inclusive and equitable education. The human rights model asserts that all students, including those with disabilities, have the right to participate fully in their educational environment, which includes forming social connections and accessing support networks. HE institutions have a responsibility to create an environment where SwD can build relationships without facing discrimination or exclusion.
In summary, creating a supportive environment where relationship building is normalized and valued enhances SwD’s perceived control over their academic and social experiences. By aligning with the human rights model, institutions can ensure that all students, including SwD, have the opportunity to form meaningful connections.

4.5. Passive Action

Passive Action is a strategy employed by students with disabilities (SwD) characterized by a more reserved or reactive approach to managing academic challenges. This strategy involves minimal proactive engagement or reliance on available resources.
From the perspective of perceived norms, Passive Action can be influenced by the prevailing attitudes and expectations within the educational environment. If institutional norms do not actively support or accommodate disabilities, SwD might perceive a lack of validation for their needs, leading them to adopt a more passive stance. When the norms within an institution do not sufficiently encourage or normalize proactive support-seeking behaviors, SwD may feel dissuaded from actively engaging in requesting help or using available resources [48]. Passive actions that are persistently employed reflect an environment that may be perceived as less supportive or even neglectful toward SwD [66].
Perceived control also plays a significant role in the adoption of Passive Action. When SwD experiences low perceived control, this sense of helplessness can lead to a passive approach, where SwD may choose to avoid or disengage from challenging situations rather than actively seeking solutions or support [67]. If the resources and support available are perceived as insufficient or ineffective, SwD might default to Passive Action as a way to manage their challenges with minimal engagement.
The adoption of Passive Action can also signal a coping mechanism in response to repeated experiences of failure or ineffective support. In the face of inadequate responses from the educational environment, SwD may withdraw and adopt a less proactive stance as a form of self-preservation. This approach underscores the need for educational institutions to address systemic shortcomings and provide robust support systems that empower SwD to engage actively and confidently in their academic pursuits.
In relation to the human rights model, Passive Action highlights a critical gap in the effective realization of disability rights. When SwD resort to Passive Action, it may indicate that the institutional environment has failed to provide adequate support and resources, thereby infringing upon their rights. This strategy may be a response to a lack of accessible and supportive systems, reflecting a systemic issue where SwD feel that their rights to an inclusive educational experience are not being fully upheld.
In summary, Passive Action often arises in environments where the norms do not sufficiently support proactive engagement, where SwD experience low perceived control over their academic challenges and where the human rights model is not fully realized. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to foster a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.
We conclude that Assistive Technology Optimization, Requesting Support, and Building Relationships align more closely with the principles of the human rights model, as advocated by disability inclusion policies in Indonesia [11,14]. These strategies honor the rights of SwD by emphasizing social inclusion and recognizing the essential need for access to technology, social support, and appropriate accommodations. From the perspective of perceived norms, these strategies are most effective in an HE environment that fosters a disability-friendly atmosphere. In terms of perceived control, each of these strategies exemplifies proactive engagement and self-empowerment, demonstrating how SwD actively manage their academic experiences and advocate for their needs.
In contrast, the Adaptation and Passive Action strategies do not fully align with the principles of disability inclusion. While these strategies may be more readily accepted within typical environments and cause less conflict, they fall short of fostering true social inclusion where differences are acknowledged and accommodated. Adaptation strategies necessitate the normalization of persons with disabilities, a process that can be challenging, especially in the absence of equal access opportunities. Conversely, Passive Action strategies reflect a state of helplessness, which contradicts the proactive and empowering approach advocated by Indonesia’s disability inclusion policies. Table 3 summarizes this discussion.

5. Recommendation for Practices and Policies

Therefore, we recommend adopting practices and policies that align with the principles of disability inclusion and support SwD in effectively implementing strategies that embody the human rights model. Specifically, we advocate for enhanced support in optimizing assistive technology, Requesting Support, and Building Relationships. Additionally, we suggest minimizing the overuse of adaptation and passive-action strategies.

5.1. Recommendation 1: Foster Disability-Friendly Campus

HE institutions must foster a disability-friendly campus climate to effectively support SwD. A welcoming climate is characterized by the acceptance and celebration of diversity among SwD, which includes normalizing the use of assistive technology and ensuring that necessary accommodations are readily provided. HE institution should develop accessible, transparent, and robust support systems that facilitate SwD’s ability to request assistance or reasonable accommodations.
In this regard, the presence of a Disability Services Unit (DSU) is particularly significant. The DSU plays a crucial role in managing and coordinating support services, thereby ensuring that accommodations are efficiently provided and tailored to individual needs. Furthermore, the campus environment should be inclusive and welcoming, offering SwD ample opportunities for social interaction with peers, participation in campus activities, and the development of supportive networks. Such an environment not only supports academic success but also promotes a sense of belonging for SwD, contributing to a more equitable and inclusive educational experience.

5.2. Recommendation 2: Skill Development for SwD

SwD must be equipped with a range of essential skills to navigate the complexities of HE successfully. First, proficiency in using assistive technology is crucial. SwD need to identify and utilize the assistive technologies that best address their specific needs, enabling them to perform academic tasks and participate in activities effectively. Mastery of these tools not only enhances their ability to complete coursework but also fosters a more equitable learning environment.
Equally important is the skill to communicate their support needs clearly and effectively. SwD must understand the various accommodations that could benefit them and be able to articulate these needs to others in a manner that is both precise and comprehensible. This skill ensures that they receive the appropriate support required for their academic success.
Additionally, developing social relationship skills is critical for SwD. They should have ample opportunities to engage in inclusive social interactions, which are vital for building a network of friendship and support systems.
The cultivation of these skills should ideally commence prior to the onset of university. Preparing SwD with these competencies in advance will facilitate a smoother transition into HE, ultimately supporting their academic and social development in a more comprehensive manner.

5.3. Recommendation 3: Strengthen Policies Promoting Disability Inclusion in HE

Existing policies on disability inclusion in Indonesian HE requires robust follow-up through technical regulations, facility provision, and continuous evaluation. We propose several key recommendations to enhance these policies, focusing on the provision of assistive technology, technical regulations for DSU, and the transition support for SwD into HE.
First, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) should prioritize increasing the availability and accessibility of assistive technology for SwD. Given that many assistive technologies remain costly and often inaccessible to SwD from lower socio-economic backgrounds, it is essential to implement policies that facilitate easier access to these resources. Support for the development of assistive technologies tailored to the Indonesian context should also be a research priority, ensuring that innovations are relevant and practical for local needs.
Furthermore, in light of [14] findings indicating inequities within Indonesian DSU, there is an urgent need for systematic monitoring and evaluation by the government. This process should include establishing and enforcing quality standards for services provided to SwD. Effective technical regulations must ensure a transparent and accessible system for support, enhancing both the quality and consistency of services offered through DSUs.
Finally, there appears to be a notable absence of policy frameworks specifically addressing the preparation program for SwD’s transition into HE in Indonesia. This finding underscores the critical need to design and implement programs that focus on developing essential skills for navigating HE challenges.
By addressing these areas—enhancing assistive technology access, strengthening technical regulations for DSU, and creating transition frameworks—Indonesia can significantly improve its HE system’s inclusivity and effectiveness in supporting SwD.

6. Limitation

One notable limitation of this review is the restricted access to certain sources, such as thesis manuscripts archived in institutional repositories. These repositories often have limited access, which can prevent us from obtaining and including relevant research that is not readily accessible outside the host institution. This limitation may impact the comprehensiveness of our review by excluding potentially valuable studies that could offer additional insights into the topic.
We also highlight the low proportion of students with mental and intellectual disabilities—such as ADHD, autism, learning difficulties, and mental health issues—represented in the articles reviewed. This contrasts with the more frequent representation of students with other types of disabilities in the literature. Generally, students with mental and intellectual disabilities may not exhibit overt or visible signs of disability, which could contribute to their under-recognition and marginalization in research on SwD in Indonesia. Consequently, the findings of this review might not fully capture the experiences and challenges faced by students with mental and intellectual disabilities. This gap underscores a significant area for future research. We suggest that subsequent studies focus on exploring the challenges and strategies of students with intellectual and mental disabilities to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their experiences.
One significant limitation of the studies included in this review is the lack of detailed demographic data. Many of the studies did not provide comprehensive information on participant characteristics, such as age, gender, or specific disability types. This omission is critical, as demographic details are essential for understanding the contextual factors that may influence the experiences and outcomes reported in the research.
The absence of such data impacts the quality and generalizability of the findings. Detailed demographic information is crucial for assessing the representativeness of the study samples and for interpreting how different characteristics might affect participants’ experiences. Without this information, it is challenging to determine whether the findings are applicable across diverse populations or if they are specific to certain subgroups. This gap in the data represents a significant weakness in the reviewed studies and highlights the need for future research to prioritize the collection and reporting of comprehensive demographic information. Addressing this gap in future research will enhance the quality and relevance of the scientific literature on this topic.

7. Conclusions

In this article, we examine how SwD in Indonesia navigate the challenges within HE. Our review identified five common strategies employed by SwD: Adaptation, Assistive Technology Optimization, Requesting Support, Building Relationships, and Passive Action.
We highlighted that strategies such as Assistive Technology Optimization, Requesting Support, and Building Relationships align with the prevailing disability inclusion policies in Indonesia. However, strategies like Adaptation and Passive Action also persist among SwD, reflecting that the HE environment in Indonesia still requires significant improvements to become more supportive and inclusive.
To address these challenges, it is crucial to develop derivative policies and practices that strengthen existing frameworks. Additionally, support for SwD needs to be enhanced to ensure they possess the necessary skills and capabilities to effectively navigate the demands of HE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, U.W.R. and W.H.; methodology, U.W.R., W.H. and P.P.P.; software, U.W.R.; validation, W.H. and P.P.P.; formal analysis, U.W.R.; investigation, U.W.R.; resources, U.W.R.; writing—original draft preparation, U.W.R.; writing—review and editing, W.H. and P.P.P.; visualization, U.W.R.; supervision, W.H.; project administration, U.W.R.; funding acquisition, U.W.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research constitutes an integral part of the first author’s doctoral research, generously supported by the Higher Education Financing Center (BPPT) through the Indonesian Education Scholarship Programme (BPI) of the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, and Technology Research, along with the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education Agency (LPDP) of the Ministry of Finance.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Our heartfelt appreciation extends to Ni Ketut Desi Ariani, Dinia Istika, and Talidah Putri Syafril for their invaluable contributions in facilitating the literature search and organization process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Brennan, J.; Durazzi, N.; Tanguy, S. Things We Know and Don’t Know about the Wider Benefits of Higher Education: A Review of the Recent Literature. In Department for Business Innovation and Skills; BIS Research Paper URN BIS/13/1244; LSE Consulting: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sandoval-Lucero, E. Serving the Developmental and Learning Needs of the 21st Century Diverse College Student Population: A Review of Literature. J. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 4, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Craig, A. Resilience in People with Physical Disabilities; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moriña, A.; Biagiotti, G. Academic Success Factors in University Students with Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2021, 37, 729–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Francis, G.L.; Duke, J.M.; Fujita, M.; Sutton, J. “It’s a Constant Fight”: Experiences of College Students with Disabilities. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 2019, 32, 247–261. [Google Scholar]
  6. Moriña, A. Inclusive Education in Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2017, 32, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yssel, N.; Pak, N.; Beilke, J. A Door Must Be Opened: Perceptions of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2016, 63, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lintangsari, A.P.; Emaliana, I. Inclusive Education Services for the Blind: Values, Roles, and Challenges of University EFL Teachers. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2020, 9, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maftuhin, A.; Aminah, S. Universitas Inklusif: Kisah Sukses atau Gagal? INKLUSI J. Disabil. Stud. 2020, 7, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Christiyaningsih. Pertuni Tingkatkan Akses Penyandang Tunanetra ke Perguruan Tinggi. Republika. Available online: https://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/17/03/18/omzb0m384-pertuni-tingkatkan-akses-penyandang-tunanetra-ke-perguruan-tinggi (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  11. Pratiwi, A.; Lintangsari, A.P.; Rizky, U.F.; Rahajeng, U.W. Disabilitas dan Pendidikan Inklusif di Perguruan Tinggi; Universitas Brawijaya Press: Malang, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nasir, M.N.A.; Efendi, A. Thematic Analysis on the Rights of Disabled People to Higher Education. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2019, 12, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  13. Afrianty, D. Disability Rights and Inclusive Education in Islamic Tertiary Education. In Islam, Education and Radicalism in Indonesia; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 306–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Amnesti, S.K.W.; Jundiani, J.; Zulaichah, S.; Mohd Noh, M.S.; Fitriyah, L. Higher Education with Disabilities Policy: Ensuring Equality Inclusive Education in Indonesia, Singapore and United States. J. Hum. Rights Cult. Leg. Syst. 2023, 3, 412–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Feriani, E. Interaksi Sosial Dosen dengan Mahasiswa Difabel di Perguruan Tinggi Inklusif. INKLUSI J. Disabil. Stud. 2017, 4, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Muhibbin, M.A.; Hendriani, W. Tantangan dan Strategi Pendidikan Inklusi di Perguruan Tinggi Di Indonesia: Literature Review. J. Pendidik. Inklusi 2021, 4, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Juwantara, R.A. Pemenuhan Hak Difabel di UIN Sunan Kalijaga dan Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta. INKLUSI J. Disabil. Stud. 2020, 7, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Azimi, M.; Rachman, A.; Mirnawati, M. Problematik Pembelajaran Mahasiswa Berkebutuhan Khusus pada Perguruan Tinggi Inklusif. Vidya Karya 2021, 35, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sunardi; Sugini; Prakosha, D.; Martika, T. The Development of an Inclusion Metric for Indonesia Higher Education Institutions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality Education, Surakarta, Indonesia, 5 September 2020; ACM: Surakarta, Indonesia, 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lockwood, C.; dos Santos, K.B.; Pap, R. Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods. Asian Nurs. Res. 2019, 13, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haddaway, N.R.; Collins, A.M.; Coughlin, D.; Kirk, S. The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Thomas, J.; Harden, A. Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. Atlas.ti Mac (version 23.2.1). 2023.
  27. Matin, B.K.; Williamson, H.J.; Karyani, A.K.; Rezaei, S.; Soofi, M.; Soltani, S. Barriers in Access to Healthcare for Women with Disabilities: A Systematic Review in Qualitative Studies. BMC Womens Health 2021, 21, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Farrell, E.; Hollmann, E.; Le Roux, C.W.; Bustillo, M.; Nadglowski, J.; McGillicuddy, D. The Lived Experience of Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22, e13334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. The PLoS Medicine. Qualitative Research: Understanding Patients’ Needs and Experiences. PLoS Med. 2007, 4, e258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Destiyanti, I.C.; Halawati, F. Optimasalisasi Penggunaan TPACK: Praktik TPACK dalam Konteks Mahasiswa Disabilitas. J. Pendidik. Konseling 2022, 4, 3979–3986. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fikriyyah, W.R.; Fitria, M. Adversity Quotient Mahasiswa Tunanetra. J. Psikol. Tabularasa 2015, 10, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grafiyana, G.A. Dinamika Resiliensi pada Mahasiswa Difabel Universitas Gadjah Mada. Psycho Idea 2018, 16, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Handayani, I.P.; Achadi, M.Y.; Khairi, A.M. Pola Belajar Mahasiswa Disabilitas Netra pada Masa Pandemi COVID-19 Di UIN Raden Mas Said Surakarta. Masal. J. Pendidik. Sains 2022, 2, 406–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hardini, F.; Tarigan, S.J.B.; Trang, V.T.T. Barriers and Coping Strategies of Students with Disability during Inclusive Learning in Higher Education. J. Inov. Teknol. Pembelajaran Kaji. Ris. Dalam Teknol. Pembelajaran 2022, 9, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kusmawati, A.; Rahman, I.; Fauziyah, A.; Aulia, C. Konseling Kelompok Rekan Sebaya bagi Disabilitas Netra di Lingkungan Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta. J. Pendidik. Konseling 2023, 5, 3733–3740. [Google Scholar]
  36. Larasati, R.P.; Noorrizki, R.D. Resiliensi pada Mahasiswa Penyandang Disabilitas di Universitas Negeri Malang. J. Penelit. Kualitatif Ilmu Perilaku 2022, 3, 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  37. Maftuhin, A. Hambatan Inklusi Mahasiswa Difabel dalam Kuliah Kerja Nyata (KKN) UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. Edukasia J. Penelit. Pendidik. Islam 2018, 12, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Michael, D. Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Tinggi Bagi Penyandang Disabilitas Di Universitas Brawijaya. J. Herit. Archaeol. Manag. 2020, 11, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mujahid, A. Psychological Well-Being pada Mahasiswa Muslim Penyandang Disabilitas Netra. Acad. J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2020, 4, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rahma, U.; Faizah, F.; Perwiradara, Y.; Ikawikanti, A.; Mayasari, B.M.; Rinanda, T.D. Analisa School Wellbeing pada Mahasiswa Disabilitas Tunadaksa, Tuli dan Tunanetra di Perguruan Tinggi Inklusi. Psikovidya 2020, 24, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ratnasari, D.E. Strategi Coping Mahasiswa Difabel dalam Menyelesaikan Skripsi di Masa Pandemi COVID-19. INKLUSI J. Disabil. Stud. 2021, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Riahta, R.; Hasanah, N.; Pratiwi, A. Regulasi Emosi Mahasiswa Penyandang Tunarungu dalam Relasi dengan Kawan Sebaya. Indones. J. Disabil. Stud. 2015, 2, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ro’fah, R.; Hanjarwati, A.; Suprihatiningrum, J. Is Online Learning Accessible during COVID-19 Pandemic? Voices and Experiences of UIN Sunan Kalijaga Students with Diisabilities. Nadwa J. Pendidik. Islam 2020, 14, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rosydi, R.; Dewi, D.S.E. Penyesuaian Diri pada Mahasiswa Disabilitas. PSIMPHONI 2020, 1, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sari, Q.Y.; Arifin, A.Z.; Sanjaya, R.; Nugraha, W.; Lessy, Z. Implementasi Kebijakan Kesejahteraan Sosial pada Adaptasi Sosial Mahasiswa Difabel dalam Proses Pembelajaran. JSHP J. Sos. Hum. Dan Pendidik. 2022, 6, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sudarwati, E.; Widiati, U.; Ubaidillah, M.F.; Prasetyoningsih, L.; Sulistiyo, U. A Narrative Inquiry into Identity Construction and Classroom Participation of an EFL Student with a Physical Disability: Evidence from Indonesia. Qual. Rep. 2022, 27, 1534–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Witham, B.; Brewer, G. “Giving the People Who Use the Service a Voice”: Student Experiences of University Disability Services. Disabilities 2023, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lindsay, S.; Cagliostro, E.; Carafa, G. A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators of Disability Disclosure and Accommodations for Youth in Post-Secondary Education. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2018, 65, 526–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ferdiana, A.; Post, M.W.M.; Bültmann, U.; Van Der Klink, J.J.L. Barriers and Facilitators for Work and Social Participation among Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury in Indonesia. Spinal Cord 2021, 59, 1079–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grimes, S.; Southgate, E.; Scevak, J.; Buchanan, R. University Student Perspectives on Institutional Non-Disclosure of Disability and Learning Challenges: Reasons for Staying Invisible. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 23, 639–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. UNESCO. The Right to Higher Education a Social Justice Perspective; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kimball, E.W.; Moore, A.; Vaccaro, A.; Troiano, P.F.; Newman, B.M. College Students with Disabilities Redefine Activism: Self-Advocacy, Storytelling, and Collective Action. J. Divers. High. Educ. 2016, 9, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Afrianty, D.; Thohari, S.; Rahajeng, U.W.; Firmanda, T.H.; Mahalli, M. Perguruan Tinggi dan Praktik Akomodasi Layak Bagi Mahasiswa Penyandang Disabilitas di Indonesia di Masa Pandemi COVID-19; Australia-Indonesia Disability Research and Advocacy Network: Boston, MA, USA, 2021; Available online: https://aidran.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/perguruan-tinggi-dan-praktik-akomodasi-layak-bagi-mahasiswa-penyandang-disabilitas-di-indonesia-di-masa-pandemi-covid-19.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  54. Layton, N.; Mont, D.; Puli, L.; Calvo, I.; Shae, K.; Tebbutt, E.; Hill, K.D.; Callaway, L.; Hiscock, D.; Manlapaz, A.; et al. Access to Assistive Technology during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Voices of Users and Families. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Walker, J.H.; Tebbutt, E. The Informal Economy as a Provider of Assistive Technology: Lessons from Indonesia and Sierra Leone. Health Promot. Int. 2023, 38, daac005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hendarwan, H.; Syaripuddin, M.; Sidik, H.; Prastama, E.; Kusumo Projo, N.W.; Nasrudin; Damanik, J.; Putri, I.; Indriasih, E.; Amannullah, G.; et al. Situation of Assistive Technology Provision in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the ICCHP-AAATE 2022 Joint International Conference on Digital Inclusio, Assistive Technology & Accessibility, Lecco, Italy, 11–15 July 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Andra, M.B.; Usugawa, T. Automatic Transcription and Captioning System for Bahasa Indonesia in Multi-Speaker Environment. In Proceedings of the 2020 5th International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS), Okinawa, Japan, 18–20 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  58. McNicholl, A.; Desmond, D.; Gallagher, P. Assistive Technologies, Educational Engagement and Psychosocial Outcomes among Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2023, 18, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brewer, G.; Urwin, E.; Witham, B. Disabled Student Experiences of Higher Education. Disabil. Soc. 2023, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rahajeng, U.W.; Widyarini, I.; Ilhamuddin, I. Kekuatan Karakter Relawan Muda bagi Penyandang Disablilitas. INKLUSI J. Disabil. Stud. 2020, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Anctil, T.M.; Ishikawa, M.E.; Tao Scott, A. Academic Identity Development through Self-Determination: Successful College Students with Learning Disabilities. Career Dev. Except. Individ. 2008, 31, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pfeifer, M.A.; Reiter, E.M.; Cordero, J.J.; Stanton, J.D. Inside and out: Factors That Support and Hinder the Self-Advocacy of Undergraduates with ADHD and/or Specific Learning Disabilities in STEM. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2021, 20, ar17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Test, D.W.; Fowler, C.H.; Wood, W.M.; Brewer, D.M.; Eddy, S. A Conceptual Framework of Self-Advocacy for Students with Disabilities. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2005, 26, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lindsay, S.; Cagliostro, E.; Carafa, G. A Systematic Review of Workplace Disclosure and Accommodation Requests among Youth and Young Adults with Disabilities. Disabil. Rehabil. 2018, 40, 2971–2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Barnard-Brak, L.; Lectenberger, D.; Lan, W. Accommodation Strategies of College Students with Disabilities. Qual. Rep. 2014, 15, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zaks, Z. Changing the Medical Model of Disability to the Normalization Model of Disability: Clarifying the Past to Create a New Future Direction. Disabil. Soc. 2023, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wolfner, C.; Ott, C.; Upshaw, K.; Stowe, A.; Schwiebert, L.; Lanzi, R.G. Coping Strategies and Help-Seeking Behaviors of College Students and Postdoctoral Fellows with Disabilities or Pre-Existing Conditions during COVID-19. Disabilities 2023, 3, 62–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disabilities 04 00042 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart.
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart.
Disabilities 04 00042 g001
Table 1. Search term.
Table 1. Search term.
LanguageSearch TermDatabase
English(“college student” OR “university student” OR “postsecondary education” OR “college admission” OR “higher education” OR “student affairs” OR “student services” OR “student personnel”) AND (disabilit* OR “hearing impair*” OR deaf OR disabled OR handicap OR adhd OR add OR dyslex* OR blind OR disabilities OR accommodation OR “mental illness” OR “mobility impairment” OR “visual impair*”) AND indonesiaScopus, Web of science, Proquest, ERIC, Google Scholar
Bahasa Indonesiamahasiswa AND (disabilitas OR difabel OR difable OR difabilitas)Google Scholar, Portal Garuda
Table 2. Summary of included studies.
Table 2. Summary of included studies.
NoAuthor and Year PublicationPublic/Private HEParticipantStrategies Theme
1Destiyanti & Halawati (2022) [30]NAN = 3. Intellectual (1), Blind (2); Sex: NA; Age: NAb,c
2Fikriyyah & Fitria (2015) [31]PublicN = 3. All Blind; Sex: NA; Age: NAa,b,c,e
3Grafiyana (2018) [32]PublicN = 2. All Deaf; Sex: NA; Age: NAd
4Handayani et al (2022) [33] PublicN = 2. All Blind; Sex: NA; Age: NAb,c,d
5Hardini et al. (2022) [34]PrivateN = 6. Blind (5), Multiple (1); Sex: Male (5), Female (1); Age: M = 22.5a,b,c,d,e
6Kusmawati et al. (2023) [35]PrivateN = 6; All Blind; Sex: NA; Age: NAb,c
7Larasati & Noorrizki (2022) [36] PublicN = 2; Blind (2), Physical (1); Sex: NA; Age: M = 22d,e
8Michael (2020) [37]PublicN = 8; Deaf (3), Physical (1), Blind (4); Sex: Male (6), Female (2); Age: NAa,c,d
9Michael (2020) [38]PublicN = 4; Blind (1), Deaf (1), Physical (1), Intellectual (1); Sex: NA; Age: NAa,b,c,d
10Mujahid (2020) [39]PublicN = 2; All Blind; Sex: Male (2); Age: M = 23,5c,d
11Rahma et al. (2020) [40]PublicN = 11; Physical (3), Deaf (4), Blind (4); Sex: Male (5), Female (6); Age: NAa,b,c,d,e
12Ratnasari (2021) [41]PublicN = 2; Deaf (1), Physical (1); Sex: All female; Age: NAa,b,c,e
13Riahta et al. (2015) [42]PublicN = 3; All Deaf; Sex: NA; Age: NAd,e
14Ro’fah et al. (2020) [43]PublicN = 8; Sex: NA; Age: NAa,b,c,d
15Rosydi & Dewi (2020) [44]PrivateN = 3; All Physical; Sex: NA; Age: NAc,d
16Sari et al. (2022) [45]PublicN = 8; Physical (1), Blind (4), Deaf (3); Sex: NA; Age: NAa,b,c,d,e
17Sudarwati et al. (2022) [46]PublicN = 1; Physical; Sex: NA; Age: NAa,c,d,e
(a) Adaptation, (b) Technology Assistive Optimization, (c) Requesting Support, (d) Building Relationship, and (e) Passive Action.
Table 3. Summary of strategies.
Table 3. Summary of strategies.
StrategyDefinitionPerceived NormPerceived ControlHuman Right Model
AdaptationAdjustments or changes made by SwD to fit their HE environment.Pressure to conform to HE norms that often lack inclusivity, SwD may hide or downplay their disability.Controlling personal presentation and interactions, highlighting a gap between perceived and actual control.Inadequacy of support systems; SwD should not have to compromise their identity to fit into the education system.
Assistive Technology OptimizationUtilization and optimization of technology to support academic tasks and overcome barriers.Acceptance of assistive technology as a standard practice. Enhance autonomy and manage academic responsibilities, improving perceived control over their learning environment.Essential for ensuring equitable access; HE must provide necessary accommodations and support.
Requesting SupportActively seek support, accommodation, and accessibility from their environment.If Requesting Support is normalized, SwD are more likely to feel supported. If stigmatized, it can hinder effectiveness.Seeking support to gain better control over their academic experience; success depends on the accessibility and reception of support.Right to request and receive support without discrimination; institutions must ensure fair access to support.
Building RelationshipInitiation and establish connection with peers, lectures, and available support network.Social support and connections are seen as normative; strong relationships facilitate access to help and reduce resistance.Creates support networks that enhance control and reduce resistance, reflecting SwD’s efforts to gain influence and support in their academic setting.Should have opportunities to form supportive relationships without feeling marginalized, supporting their right to social inclusion.
Passive ActionLess proactive stance, possibly due to perceived barriers and lack of resources. If passive behavior is seen as a norm, it may lead to less encouragement for active participation.Avoiding engagement; indicates a struggle with exerting control and utilizing available support effectively.Should not be forced into passivity; systems should support active participation and remove barriers.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rahajeng, U.W.; Hendriani, W.; Paramita, P.P. Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia. Disabilities 2024, 4, 678-695. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030042

AMA Style

Rahajeng UW, Hendriani W, Paramita PP. Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia. Disabilities. 2024; 4(3):678-695. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rahajeng, Unita Werdi, Wiwin Hendriani, and Pramesti Pradna Paramita. 2024. "Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia" Disabilities 4, no. 3: 678-695. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030042

APA Style

Rahajeng, U. W., Hendriani, W., & Paramita, P. P. (2024). Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia. Disabilities, 4(3), 678-695. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030042

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop