STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY AT
A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY: YEAR 2
Tina Brown, Jeffrey Goncalves, & Danielle Haugland
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Building on a prior study, which began in 2021, this paper
continues with year two of the same study conducted at
Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) in Japan,
focusing on students’ perceptions of disability. The researchaims to expand understanding of KUIS students’ definition of
disability and how their perceptions change over time. The
methodology involved administering a bilingual questionnaire
to first-year students, with some modifications made from theprevious year’s survey. The data represents an analysis of the
combined findings from 2021 and 2022 totaling 102
responses. The results reveal that while respondents havevarious perceptions of disability, the majority support social
inclusion and disagree with separating disabled individuals
from society. The study also demonstrates differences
between their personal perceptions of disability and theirunderstanding of how Japanese society defines disability. We
conclude by discussing our findings, which highlight theimportance of promoting inclusive practices and further
research into this field.
INTRODUCTION
The disability studies field has an enormous amount of literature
available, yet there is not much literature available in English on thespecific topic of changes in Japanese university students’ perceptions of
disability. While there are certainly interesting and exciting studies thatmeet this criteria, many of those studies are small or somewhat dated(Iwakuma et al., 2020; Mino et al., 2000). It is our hope that bycontinuing the research we started in 2021 (Brown et al., 2023) we areable to expand our understanding of our students’ perceptions of disability
and bring some additional information to the field.
This paper is a follow-up study to Brown et al. (2023). In the next
sections we will review the previous study, explain our methodology,
analyze the data, and discuss limitations and ideas for future research.
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
3

PREVIOUS STUDY SUMMARY
The first study we conducted at Kanda University of International Studies(KUIS) aimed to explore students’ perceptions of disabilities. We sought
to understand how students defined disability, measure theirunderstanding of disabilities in the university’s social context, and trackchanges in their perceptions over time.
In 2021 we surveyed fifty-seven participants using thirty-nine questions.
The questionnaire included a variety of question types, such as
open-ended, multiple-choice, and Likert scale questions. We ensured
student anonymity and privacy throughout the survey. The intention was
to conduct the survey annually and to track changes in perceptions overtime.
The results and analysis section of the original study highlighted key
findings. Seventy percent of respondents were first-year students, which
offers us the opportunity to observe changes in perceptions as
respondents progress through their education. The majority of
respondents identified as female/women, which seems to reflect thehigher enrollment numbers of women at KUIS. The study presented the
responses to specific survey questions related to perceptions of
disabilities. Some respondents emphasized the negative aspects andlimitations connected to disabilities, while others expressed pity andcondescension. A neutral category also emerged, focusing on theinconveniences disabled individuals experience. The study comparedrespondents’ personal perceptions of disabilities with their understandingof how Japanese society defines disabilities, revealing contrasts between
individualcompassion
andinclusion,
andperceived
societalmarginalization.
The Likert scale section asked about participants’ beliefs about separating
people with various disabilities from different sectors of life. The results
indicated that most participants disagreed with these separations,demonstrating a high value placed on social inclusion by the participants.
For more detailed information about the types of questions asked, refer tothe Results and Analysis, and Likert Questions sections in this paper.
The study provided insights into students’ perceptions of disabilities at
KUIS. It aimed to contribute to the existing literature, support thedevelopment of inclusive practices, and facilitate better understanding
and support for disabled students. In this paper we will add data from a2022 survey to the 2021 survey results and analyze the expanded results.
METHODOLOGY
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
4

The research questions we considered for this study are the same asoutlined in Brown et al. (2023):
1. What do students at Kanda University of International Studies(KUIS) think about disability?
2. Do they identify specific learning difficulties such as Attention Deficitand Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as a disability?
3. How will their perceptions change over time? (p. 16)
The first two questions are relevant to this update. However, the third
question still cannot be considered as we have only one respondent who
took the survey twice. While we intended for this to be a longitudinal
study, that depends on respondents’ willingness to retake our survey.
Since only one respondent repeated the survey, we decided to removethat respondent from the analysis in this paper and instead focus on
adding more first-time responses to our data set.
This study was conducted at KUIS using the same bilingual questionnaire
as was used in Brown et al. (2023) with some small changes. Threesurvey questions were added, and a translation error was fixed. The newquestions added were “Have you taken this survey before?”, “Have you
ever learned about disabilities in school or on your own?”, and “Howwould you rate your interest in the topic of disabilities?” We thought thesequestions could inform us of whether or not disability-related issues arebeing addressed in schools in Japan, as well as gauge student interest in
the topic. The translation error was from Question 37 in the 2021 survey,
which became Question 39 in the 2022 version. The English question asks
“If you have/have had a relationship with disabled people or a disabled
person: How do you think your relationship with disabled people affects
your perceptions of disabilities?” In 2021 the translator used the word 恋
愛関係 for relationship, which denotes a romantic relationship. This was
not what we intended, so for the 2022 survey it was corrected to 何らかの関係があった、which more accurately reflects what we wanted to ask, as itcovers many levels of personal connections.
We contacted all senior participants who took the survey in 2021 in order
to try to accomplish our goal of making the study longitudinal. We did notcontact current second or third year participants who took the survey in
2021 for two reasons. First, we wanted to give respondents time to learn
and change. Second, we believe respondents might get used to thesurvey and not answer thoughtfully, or get tired of answering the same
survey and stop. In our estimation, the optimal situation would be for a
student to take the survey in their first and final years.
Keeping this in mind, the 2022 survey targeted first-year students, but noone was refused if they wanted to take it. first-year students wereBrown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
5

targeted because we wanted a large pool of respondents to contact toretake the survey in the future and we knew that all first-year students
would be first-time survey respondents. The flier advertising the survey
explained that only first-year students would be entered into a drawing to
win one of 10 available Amazon vouchers. Fliers were placed in fivecampus buildings and teachers of Freshmen English, a required course for
all first-year students, were asked to share the survey link and QR codewith their students.
As this was a continuation using the same survey as the year before,
most results combined the 2021 and 2022 data for our analysis for a totalof 102 responses. When data is not an aggregate of both years, it will be
indicated. This makes sense for most questions as it is a good
representation of student perceptions of disabilities. In 2021 there were
57 respondents and in 2022 there were 45 new respondents, so the newly
added questions and the question with a translation error have a sample
size of 45. New responses were randomized and coded in order to protect
student anonymity. Although we have focused on combined data for thisupdate, we do note interesting changes between the two years in a
number of places where there were notable differences in how respondentgroups answered the questions. All student quotes in this paper havebeen translated unless otherwise indicated.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Characteristics of respondents
While we did not ask specifically for the nationalities of respondents, bytargeting mostly first-year students and understanding the demographics
of our student body, we can be reasonably confident that most
respondents reside in and were mostly raised in Japan. When asked theopen-ended question “What is your gender?” out of 102 respondents,
77.4% (79) wrote “woman”, “female”, or a similar word that would be
categorized in the same way; 19.6% (20) wrote “male”, “man”, or asimilar word; 0.98% (1) wrote “other”; 0.98% (1) wrote “femboy”; and0.98% (1) wrote no gender descriptor. For the 2022 survey we added asmall number of new questions, which were mentioned in themethodology section. One of these questions was about previous
knowledge of disabilities. Out of 45 respondents, 64.4% (29) said they
had learned about disabilities in school, 20% (9) said they had learned
about the topic on their own, and 15.6% (7) said they had not learned
about it in either context. It is relevant to note that respondents could
have checked multiple boxes and could have suggested a different idea ifthey had one. 8.9% (4) of participants selected that they had learned
about disabilities both at school and on their own. All other respondents
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
6

selected only one option. These answers indicate that a majority ofschools KUIS first-year respondents attended have at least somehow
integrated this topic into their curriculum or classrooms, though thequality or manner of that education cannot be determined based on thissurvey.
Question 4
When asked the open-ended question “When you hear the word
‘disability,’ what do you think of?” participants had a wide range of
responses. As with our previous study, we used four codes to apply toanswers: negative, neutral, positive, and empathetic (Brown et al., 2023).
When adding the 2021 and 2022 survey data together, we found that
37.3% (38) of responses could be considered negative. Examples ofnegative responses are “weirdo,” “difficulty” (original English), and“disadvantage.” 42.2% (43) of answers would be considered neutral. Mostof these answers are simply names of disabilities, impairments, orconditions. For example, “wheelchair,” “autism,” and “physical, mental
disability.” Other answers include “disabled person,” and “an acquaintance
who has developmental disorders.” There does not appear to be any
judgment behind these responses, thus the category of neutral wasapplied. 10.8% (11) of responses were coded as positive and included“paralympics,” “universal design,” and “barrier free.” Finally, 9.8% (10) of
responses were deemed empathetic. All of these expressed some kind ofunderstanding of barriers faced and used phrases like “seems hard.”
Questions 4 and 41
We compared the answers from Question 4 (above) with Question 41, an
open-ended question that asked “How do you think Japan defines
disability?” For this analysis, answers were coded as similar, different, andsomewhere in the middle. For example, in answer to Question 4, one
student replied “Having physical or mental problems.” The same student
replied “A person who has emotional or physical difficulties” for Question
41, thus it was coded as similar. Another student replied “wheelchair” forQuestion 4 and “unusual existence” for Question 41, thus it was coded as
different. Out of 102 respondents, 67.6% (69) of respondents answered
these two questions differently, 16.7% (17) answered somewhere in the
middle, and 15.7% (16) answered similarly. This suggests that most
respondents view Japanese society’s definition of disability differently
from their own views or associations with the word. There could be manyreasons for this result, offering a notable area to expand on in future
research, perhaps with student interviews.
Questions 5 and 6

Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
7

Question 5 is a multiple answer checkbox list with a diverse list of terms
that could be considered disabilities, depending on a person’s definition.
This survey question attempts to answer Research Question 2, which asks
if participants identify specific learning difficulties as disabilities. Out of
102 respondents, the terms that were most perceived to be disabilities
were blindness (88.2%, 90), followed closely by deafness (87.3%, 89),
Down syndrome (86.3%, 88), speech disorders (85.3%, 87), a person
who uses a wheelchair (80.4%, 82), autism spectrum disorder (80.4%,82), and hearing loss (77.5%, 79). Compared to those stated above,
psychological disabilities were recognized by significantly fewer
participants. Terms in this category include experiencing a traumatic
event (48%, 49), depression (39.2%, 40), and anxiety (22.5%, 23).
Brain injury, which could fall into various categories, was considered adisability by 58 (56.9%) respondents. ADHD and dyslexia, both in the
category of learning difference or learning disability, were both considereddisabilities by 81 (79.4%) respondents. Cerebral palsy, a neurologicalcondition, was considered a disability by 59 (57.8%) respondents,
followed by chronic and prevalent physical health conditions rheumatoid
arthritis (37.3%, 38), diabetes (15.7%, 16), and obesity (7.8%, 8).
Finally, four respondents (3.9%) selected none of the conditions.
Question 6 asked respondents to look at the same list and mark any
words they were unfamiliar with. The condition that the highest numberof participants were unfamiliar with was rheumatoid arthritis (46.1%, 47),
followed by autism spectrum disorder (31.4%, 32), brain injury (29.4%,30), cerebral palsy (29.1%, 30), and experiencing a traumatic event(28.4%, 29). This unfamiliarity could explain the relatively low number of
respondents who marked some of these terms as potential disabilities. On
the other hand, the number of participants unfamiliar with terms in the
category of physical, mental, or sensory disabilities including ADHD
(12.7%, 13), Down syndrome (8.8%, 9), dyslexia (8.8%, 9), and speechdisorders (8.8%, 9), followed by diabetes, anxiety and depression (2.9%,3), obesity (2%, 2), blindness, deafness, hearing loss, and a person using
a wheelchair (all at 0.98%, 1) is much lower than the other terms listed.
Likert Questions
The first section of Likert scale questions asked participants to rate theirlevel of agreement with statements about separating people withdisabilities from non-disabled people in school, work, and daily life. An
example set of questions is “People with physical disabilities should be
separated from the rest of society in school”, “People with physicaldisabilities should be separated from the rest of society in work”, “People
with physical disabilities should be separated from the rest of society indaily life”. Six more questions were listed, replacing “physical disabilities”
with “mental disabilities” and “learning disabilities” respectively. The
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
8

respondents could select “strongly agree”, “mostly agree”, “mostly
disagree”, or “strongly disagree.” In an effort to simplify our survey andremain in line with Japan’s official definition of what a disability is, we
separated disabilities into physical disabilities, mental disabilities, andlearning disabilities (Cabinet Office, n.d., ch.1 sec. 2). The responses inthis 2022 survey showed similarities to the 2021 results.
Daily life is the most accepted space for people with disabilities.
Separation of people with mental disabilities has a combined 100% (102)
total disagreement rate. Additionally, the separation of people withphysical disabilities in daily life had a combined 98% (100) total
disagreement which is the same rate (98%, 100) as separation of people
with learning disabilities in daily life. With these statistics, we can see aclear picture of support for the inclusion of people with disabilities in daily
life, and infer that this is an important issue for respondents.
Separation of people with disabilities in schools, regardless of category,
had the overall lowest average rate of total disagreement. This wasdetermined by combining the responses for disagreement (262) anddividing by the total possible responses (306) for both 2021 and 2022
data. This gives the school sector a total disagreement rate of 85.6%. The
work sector had a total disagreement rate of 88.2% (270). There could be
different reasons for these results, however, without deeper and more
specific data, it is not possible to make accurate determinations.
In regards to types of disabilities, physical disabilities are the mostgenerally accepted as they have the highest average rate of disagreementwith separation (95.8%, 293), regardless of sector of life. Mental
disabilities appear to be the least accepted as the average rate ofdisagreement with separation is 87.3% (267). Similar to the data in theprevious paragraph, multiple factors could have influenced these results
and the collection of more exact data is required for proper analysis,
which will be highlighted in the Discussion and Limitations section. The
combined numbers can be seen in Table 1 and a full breakdown of thedata by year is in the appendix.
Table 1. Agreement with the Separation of Disabled People Based on
Disability and Sector of Life: Combined 2021 and 2022
Disability
and Sectorof Life

Strongly
Agree

Mostly
Agree

Total
Agree

MostlyDisagreeStrongly
Disagree

Total
DisagreeBrown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
9

Physical
Disabilitiesin School

.98%
(1)

3.9%
(4)

4.9%
(5)

31.4%
(32)

63.7%
(65)

95.1%
(97)

Physical
Disabilities
in Work

0

5.9%
(6)

5.9%
(6)

36.3%
(37)

57.8%
(59)

94.1%
(96)

Physical
Disabilities
in DailyLife0

2% (2)

2%
(2)

19.6%
(20)

78.4%
(80)

98%
(100)

MentalDisabilitiesin School

2% (2)

16.7%
(17)

18.6%
(19)

44.1%
(45)

37.3%
(38)

81.4%
(83)

MentalDisabilities
in Work

2% (2)*

17.6%
(18)

19.6%
(20)*

42.2%
(43)

38.2%
(39)

80.4%
(82)

MentalDisabilities
in Daily
Life

0

0

0

4.9% (5)

95.1%
(97)

100%
(102)

Learning
Disabilitiesin School

2.9%
(3)

16.7%
(17)

19.6%
(20)

41.2%
(42)

39.2%
(40)

80.4%
(82)

Learning
Disabilities
in Work

.98%
(1)

8.8%
(9)

9.8%
(10)

46.1%
(47)

44.1%
(45)

90.2%
(92)

Learning
Disabilities
in DailyLife0

2% (2)

2%
(2)

22.5%
(23)

75.5%
(77)

98%
(100)

*These numbers have been adjusted due to a typing error in Table 1 in Brown et. al.
(2023). A correction to the full data is noted in the appendix.

The second section of Likert scale questions asked students to rate theiragreement with whether or not they believed people with disabilities
achieve commonly perceived life goals. Statements related to personal life
were “I think disabled people usually get married” and “I think disabled
people usually have children.” Statements related to academics were “I
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
10

think disabled people usually graduate high school” and “I think disabled
people usually graduate university.”
Responses for the more personal achievements did not appear to showmuch change between 2021 and 2022. The rates of total agreement anddisagreement with the belief that disabled people usually get married issimilar between the surveys.
The main difference seen in this data comes from agreement with thestatement “I think disabled people usually have kids.” The total number of
responses for disagreement were similar: 30 responses (52.6%) in 2021
and 28 (62.2%) in 2022. However, due to differences in sample size thisis actually a 10% difference. Total agreement went from 27 responses(47.3%) in 2021 to 17 (37.8%) in 2022. There could be several reasonsfor this difference. For example, despite respondents being only one year
apart in school, perhaps something about the curriculum changed. There
could also have been differences in interpretation of the question or
simply differences in personal views. See Table 2 for a full breakdown of
the data.
Table 2. Beliefs on the Achievements of Commonly Perceived Life Goals:
Personal
Usually get married

Usually have kids

2021

2022

Combined

2021

2022

Combined

Strongly
Disagree

1.8%
(1)

2.2%
(1)

2%
(2)

5.3%
(3)

4.4%
(2)

4.9%
(5)

MostlyDisagree

47.4%
(27)

48.9%
(22)

48%
(49)

47.4%
(27)

57.8%
(26)

52%
(53)

Total
Disagree

49.2%
(28)

51.1%
(23)

50%
(51)

52.7%
(30)

62.2%
(28)

56.9%
(58)

Mostly
Agree

40.4%
(23)

37.8%
(17)

39.2%
(40)

36.8%
(21)

33.3%
(15)

35.3%
(36)

Strongly
Agree

10.5%
(6)

11.1%
(5)

10.8%
(11)

10.5%
(6)

4.4%
(2)

7.8%
(8)

Total Agree

50.9%
(29)

48.9%
(22)

50%
(51)

47.3%
(27)

37.8%
(17)

43.1%
(44)

Again comparing the 2021 and 2022 results, responses to academic
achievement showed the greatest difference in data. Though the total
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
11

number of respondents who agreed that disabled people usually graduatehigh school were similar, due to the sample size the percentages werequite different: 68.4% (39) in 2021 and 82.2% (37) in 2022. The rate fordisagreement showed a larger gap: 31.6% (18) in 2021 and 17.8% (8) in
2022. All together, a clear majority of respondents (74.5%, 76) believedthat disabled people graduate high school. For the beliefs about disabled
people graduating university, the percentage of respondents nearlyflipped. The 2021 survey showed a rate of 38.6% (22) total agreementthat rose to 62.2% (28) in 2022. The total disagreement rate similarly
flipped from 61.4% (35) in 2021 to 37.8% (17) in 2022. While these are
drastic changes, combined they even out to 49% (50) of respondents
having some agreement and 51% (52) having some disagreement that
disabled people usually graduate university. See Table 3 for further
details.
Table 3. Beliefs on the Achievements of Commonly Perceived Life Goals:
Academic
Usually graduate highschoolUsually graduate university

2021

2022

Combined

2021

2022

Combined

Strongly
Disagree

5.3%
(3)

2.2%
(1)

3.9%
(4)

7%
(4)

2.2%
(1)

4.9%
(5)

MostlyDisagree

26.3%
(15)

15.6%
(7)

25.6%
(22)

54.4%
(31)

35.6%
(16)

46.1%
(47)

Total
Disagree

31.6%
(18)

17.8%
(8)

25.5%
(26)

61.4%
(35)

37.8%
(17)

51%
(52)

Mostly
Agree

50.9%
(29)

62.2%
(28)

55.9%
(57)

31.6%
(18)

51.1%
(23)

40.2%
(41)

Strongly
Agree

17.5%
(10)

20%
(9)

18.6%
(19)

7%
(4)

11.1%
(5)

8.8%
(9)

Total Agree

68.4%
(39)

82.2%
(37)

74.5%
(76)

38.6%
(22)

62.2%
(28)

49%
(50)

With regards to these questions about achievements, one respondent did
expand on their answer by stating, “In regards to numbers 27 - 32, it
may be difficult to carry out now, but it requires change.” This comment
highlights one student’s understanding of the possibility that some of
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
12

these responses could be linked to the existence of external factors
preventing disabled people from successfully accomplishing some of thesegoals that otherwise might not be specifically impacted by theirdisabilities. This points to the possibility that others might make thisconnection as well, so it should be considered for future research on this
topic.
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
Through the combination of both surveys, we have obtained a goodstarting point for assessing the perceptions of the students at ouruniversity. We have established a general idea of how students perceive
disabilities and what they consider to be disabilities. When asked “Whenyou hear the word ‘disability,’ what do you think of?”, students largely
suggested phrases with neutral connotations about disability. Respondents
tended to consider visible disabilities as disabilities at a higher rate thannon-visible disabilities. This correlates to their beliefs about the inclusionof disabled people in society and the perceived accomplishments of people
with disabilities. We have chosen not to request that participants
complete the same survey every year for two main reasons: we want togive respondents time to develop an understanding of the topic, and avoid
the possibility that they may become less interested in the topic if theytake the same survey repeatedly.
One limitation that is important to mention here is that the coding of
qualitative data is subjective. Question 4, which attempts to understandhow students view disability, and question 41, which attempts tounderstand how students think Japan views disability, were analyzed
together to see if there was a difference in what respondents' own views
were, and how the respondents’ believed Japan defines disability. Whencoding responses for Questions 4 and 41, we tried to remain consistent
when we labeled something as similar, different, or somewhere in the
middle. However, it is possible that responses we marked as being
different could be seen as similar in the eyes of respondents and viceversa. We marked a clear majority of responses as different, which could
suggest a divide between the respondents' personal beliefs and more
more widely held beliefs in Japan as a whole. This could be caused by avariety of factors such as age, personal experience, or understanding oflaws. Our respondents are all university students, implying a generally
younger demographic, while many societal beliefs tend to be formed byolder ideas from the past. This difference could mark a turning point in
the perceptions of disabilities in Japan toward becoming more openly
accepting and accommodating in the future. This possible interpretation
combined with the potential subjectivity of the coding shows that it isBrown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
13

important to continue and develop our research to get the most accurate
and concise information possible.
One of our next steps is to conduct interviews with respondents. The main
limitation of our data is that it is largely based on selecting answers froma set list of choices. While respondents were given space and opportunity
to expand on their answers, few chose to do so. In regards to the Likert
statements, one respondent commented, “I answered all the questions,but answers may vary depending on the types of disabilities at hand.” Thishighlights why interviews will be an important step in the process ofgetting a clear picture of student perceptions. There are many factors that
contribute to the choices respondents made, and acknowledgement that
not all disabled people would be affected in the same way in the various
situations we inquired about is important. This idea could also apply toother parts of the survey and help answer our third research question(how will participants’ perceptions change over time?). Without theseinterviews, complete and accurate analysis will not be possible.
CONCLUSION
This paper summarized our previous study about student perceptions of
disability and updated the findings to include additional data collected in
2022. By using the survey and analyzing our results, we were able torefine our understanding of KUIS students’ opinions about disability. While
our data cannot be applied to a wide range of situations it did give us
some insight into our student body. We plan to continue the project byasking the same participants to take the survey again in the future, andby doing interviews in order to gain a better and more in depth
understanding of our students’ perceptions of disabilities. We sincerely
believe that our research and similar studies are important and beneficial
for universities.
REFERENCES
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of
disabilities at a small Japanese university. Literacies and Language
Education: Research and Practice, Spring 2023, 13-26. English Language
Institute, KUIS.
https://kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/eli/publications/wp-content/uploads/2023/0
4/Brown-T.-Goncalves-J.-Hugland-D.-2023.docx.pdf
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (n.d.). Basic Act for Persons with
Disabilities (Overview).
https://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/english/pdf/act-1.pdf
Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
14

Iwakuma, M., Miyamoto, K., & Murata, J. (2021). Changes in perceptionsof Japanese university students toward disability: A mixed methods study.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2020.1865521
Mino, Y., Yasuda, N., Kanazawa, S., & Inoue, S. (2000). Effects of medical
education on attitudes towards mental illness among medical students: A
five-year follow-up study. Acta Medica Okayama, June 2000, 54(3),127–132. https://doi.org/10.18926/AMO/32304

Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
15

APPENDIX
Agreement with the Separation of Disabled People Based on
Disability and Sector of Life: Full Breakdown
Disability
and Sectorof Life
Physical
Disabilitiesin School

Strongly
Agree

MostlyDisagreeStrongly
Disagree

Total
Disagree2
1.8% (1) 1.8% (1) 3.6% (2)
1

33.3%
(19)

63.2%
(36)

96.5%
(55)

2
2

6.7% (3) 6.7% (3)

28.9%
(13)

64.4%
(29)

93.3%
(42)

.98% (1) 3.9% (4) 4.9% (5)

31.4%
(32)

63.7%
(65)

95.1%
(97)

2
1

5.3% (3) 5.3% (3)

33.3%
(19)

61.4%
(35)

94.7%
(54)

2
2

6.7% (3) 6.7% (3)

40%
(18)

53.3%
(24)

93.3%
(42)

5.9% (6) 5.9% (6)

36.3%
(37)

57.8%
(59)

94.1%
(96)

3.5% (2) 3.5% (2)

17.5%
(10)

78.9 %
(45)

96.4%
(55)

0%

22.2%
(10)

77.8%
(35)

100%
(45)

Total

Physical
Disabilities
in Work

Total
Physical
Disabilities
in Daily
Life

0
2
1
2
2

2% (2)

2% (2)

19.6%
(20)

78.4%
(80)

98%
(100)

2
3.5% (2)
1

17.5%
(10)

21%
(12)

42.1%
(24)

36.8%
(21)

78.9%
(45)

2
2

15.6%
(7)

15.6%
(7)

46.7%
(21)

37.8%
(17)

84.4%
(38)

2% (2)

16.7%
(17)

18.6%
(19)

44.1%
(45)

37.3%
(38)

81.4%
(83)

3.5%*
(2)

15.8%
(9)

19.3%**
(11)

40.4%
(23)

40.4%
(23)

80.8%
(46)

20% (9)20% (9)

44.4%
(20)

35.6%
(16)

80%
(36)

Total

MentalDisabilities
in Work

Total
Agree

0

Total

MentalDisabilitiesin School

Mostly
Agree

2
1
2
2

Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
16

19.6%
(20)

42.2%
(43)

38.2%
(39)

80.4%
(82)

2
1

0%

5.3% (3)

94.7%
(54)

100%
(57)

2
2

0%

4.4% (2)

95.6%
(43)

100%
(45)

Total
MentalDisabilities
in DailyLife

2% (2)

0004.9% (5)

95.1%
(97)

100%
(102)

2
1.8% (1)
1

17.5%
(10)

19.3%
(11)

40.4%
(23)

40.4%
(23)

80.8%
(46)

2
4.4% (2)
2

15.6%
(7)

20% (9)

42.2%
(19)

37.7%
(17)

80%
(36)

2.9% (3)

16.7%
(17)

19.6%
(20)

41.2%
(42)

39.2%
(40)

80.4%
(82)

8.8% (5) 8.8% (5)

43.9%
(25)

47.4%
(27)

91.3%
(52)

Total

Learning
Disabilitiesin School

Total

Learning
Disabilities
in Work2
12
2.2% (1) 8.9% (4)
2

11.1%
(5)

48.9%
(22)

40%
(18)

88.9%
(40)

.98% (1) 8.8% (9)

9.8%
(10)

46.1%
(47)

44.1%
(45)

90.2%
(92)

Total
Learning
Disabilities
in Daily
Life
Total

17.6%
(18)

2
1

1.8% (1) 1.8% (1)

17.5%
(10)

80.7%
(46)

98.2%
(56)

2
2

2.2% (1) 2.2% (1)

28.9%
(13)

68.9%
(31)

97.8%
(44)

2% (2)

22.5%
(23)

75.5%
(77)

98%
(100)

0

2% (2)* This number was miswritten in the original publication (Brown et al., 2023) as 5.3%** Because of the above mistake, the total was added incorrectly as 21.1%.

Brown, T., Goncalves, J., & Haugland, D. (2023). Student perceptions of disability at aJapanese university: Year 2. Literacies and Language Education: Research and Practice,
Autumn 2023, 3-17. English Language Institute, KUIS.
17