Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

University of Connecticut This special issue of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability presents information on faculty development regarding students with disabilities in

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Manju Banerjee, Recording For the Blind & Dyslexic

Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University

Elaine Manglitz, University of Georgia

Editorial Review Board

Betty Aune, College of St Scholastica

Ron Blosser, Recording For the Blind & Dyslexic

Loring Brinkerhoff, Educational Testing Service and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic Donna Hardy Cox, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Catherine S Fichten, Dawson College, Montreal

Anna Gajar, The Pennsylvania State University

Sam Goodin, University of Michigan

Richard Harris, Ball State University

Cheri Hoy, University of Georgia

Charles A Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University

Cyndi Jordan, University of Tennessee, Memphis and Hutchison School

Joseph Madaus, University of Connecticut

James K McAfee, The Pennsylvania State

University

Joan M McGuire, University of Connecticut

David McNaughton,The Pennsylvania State University

Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas

Ward Newmeyer, University of California, Berkeley

Nicole Ofiesh, University of Arizona

Lynda Price, Temple University

Frank R Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Daniel J Ryan, University of Buffalo

Stan Shaw, University of Connecticut

Patricia Silver, University of Massachusetts

Judith Smith, Purdue University Calumet

Judy Smithson, Bloomington, Indiana

Sharon Suritsky, Upper St Clair School District

Ruth Warick, University of British Columbia

Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Grady Landrum, President

Wichita State University

Randy Borst, Immediate Past President

University at Buffalo, SUNY

Jim Kessler, President-Elect

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Carol Funckes, Treasurer

University of Arizona

Kent Jackson, Secretary

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Stephan Smith, Executive Director

AHEAD

Joanie Friend, Director of Communication

Metropolitan Community Colleges

Mike Shuttic, Director of Membership

Oklahoma State University

Virginia Grubaugh, Director of Professional

Development

University of Michigan

Linda Walter, Director of Marketing

Seton Hall University

Ruth Warick, Director of Constituent Relations - International

University of British Columbia

Jean Ashmore, Director of Constituent Relations - US

Rice University

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 17, Number 1 Fall 2003 New Directions in Faculty Development

Stan F Shaw, Ed.D.

Sally S Scott, Ph.D.

Universal Design for Instruction: The Paradigm, Its Principles,

and products for Enhancing Instructional Access

Joan M McGuire, Ph.D.

Sally S Scott, Ph.D.

Stan F Shaw, Ed.D.

University of Kentucky Engaging Differences Project:

Providing Information about Accommodations On Line

and Just in Time

Kristina M Krampe

William H Berdine

A Field Test of the Impact of an Inservice Training Program

On Health Sciences Education Faculty

Jo-Ann Sowers, Ph.D.

Martha R Smith, M.S.

Changing the Culture (CTC): A Collaborative Training

Model to Create Systemic Change

Pamela Rohland, M.A.

Bette Erickson, Ed.D.

Deborah Mathews, M.A.

Susan E Roush, Ph.D.

Kristen Quinlan, B.A.

Anabela DaSilva Smith, M.A.

Strategies for Implementing Professional Development

Activities on College Campuses: Findings from the

OPE-Funded Project Sites (1999 – 2002)

Elizabeth Evans Getzel, M.A.

Lori W Briel, M.Ed.

Shannon McManus, M.Ed.

Copyright 2003, The Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD), Waltham, Massachusetts,

USA All rights reserved

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is published two times per year Nonprofit bulk

rate postage paid at Madison, Wisconsin Any article is the personal expression of the author(s) and does

not necessarily carry AHEAD endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability seeks manuscripts relevant to postsecondary

education and access for students with disabilities, including theory, practice and innovative research For information on submitting a manuscript, see Author Guidelines on the inside back cover of this issue or at

the AHEAD website, www.ahead.org.

New Directions in Faculty Development

Stan F Shaw, Ed D.

and Sally S Scott, Ph.D.

University of Connecticut

This special issue of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability presents information on

faculty development regarding students with disabilities in postsecondary settings Each of the articles relates to the work emanating from the Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education (CFDA No 84.333) funded by Title VII, Part D, of the Higher Education Amendments of 1988 The purpose of these projects was to develop and implement professional development and technical assistance activities designed to provide faculty and administrators in

institutions of higher education the skills and supports needed to help students with disabilities to succeed See Table 1 for a list of the 21 sites funded by the U.S Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), in 1999

Table 1

Institutions of Higher Education Funded Under the 1999 Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education

University of Arkansas at Little Rock: http://www.ualr.edu/~pace

California State University at Northridge: http://p3.csun.edu/

University of Connecticut: http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu

University of Kansas: http://www.ku-crl.org

Buffalo State College: http://www.buffalostate.edu/offices/disabilityservices/fac-workshops.htmUniversity of Minnesota: http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad/default.htm

University of New Hampshire: http://iod.unh.edu/EE/

Oregon Health Sciences University: http://www.healthsciencefaculty.org

Utah State University: http://asd.usu.edu

Landmark College: http://www.landmark.edu/support/index.html

University of Washington: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty

University of Arizona: http://www.utc.arizona.edu/utc_peel_main.htm

San Diego State University: http://www.interwork.sdsu.edu/web_programs/higher_ed.htmlNorthern Illinois University: http://factraining.hhsweb.com/

University of Kentucky: http://www.uky.edu/TLC/grants/uk_ed/

Columbia University: Information Not Available At This Time

University of Southern Mississippi: http://www.ids.usm.edu/ODA/PTTAProject.htm

Ohio State University: http://telr.osu.edu/dpg/

University of Rhode Island: http://www.uri.edu/ctc

Virginia Commonwealth University: http://www.students.vcu.edu/pda

University of Wisconsin – Stout: http://www.askvrd.org/askable

The purpose of this special issue is to promote awareness of the projects and help postsecondary personnel get an in-depth understanding of the training programs and products developed and available at several exemplary sites In order to appreciate the significance of these projects, it is important to examine the context for this timely federal initiative supporting college students with disabilities

Students with Disabilities

The information age is making postsecondary education a personal and national necessity For example, in 1999 students who graduated from college earned, on average, between 58-92% more than those just graduating from high school More than 15 million students enrolled in postsecondary education during 2000—about two of every three high school graduates (U.S Department of Education, 2000) The percentage of full-time college freshmen with disabilities increased from 2.3% in 1978 to 9.8% in 1998 (Henderson, 1999) Between 1988 and 2000, “learning disability” was the fastest growing category of reported disabilities among students (Henderson, 2001) By 2000, two in five freshmen with disabilities (40%) cited a learning disability (LD) compared to l6% in 1988 In the last few years, however, students with ADHD and psychiatric disabilities are reported to be increasing at an even faster rate than students with LD (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002; Steinberg, 1998; Wolf, 2001)

Clearly, the doors to higher education have opened for these students Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (1999) indicate that students with disabilities who manage to graduate from college exhibit similar labor market outcomes as their counterparts without disabilities (i.e., the employment rates and annual salaries of the two groups do not significantly differ) However, the Report of the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (U.S Department of Education, 2002) states that

“students with disabilities who elect to continue their education at the post-secondary level face significant barriers to achieving their goals” (p 48) Thus, college participation and, more important, graduation, does not approach that for students without disabilities The U.S Department of Education (November, 2000) reports that students with disabilities “who enroll in a two-year program with the intention of transferring to

a four-year school do not, and students with disabilities are less likely to persist in earning a postsecondary degree or credential than peers without disabilities” (p 16)

Since a college education has become a minimum requirement to successfully compete in the global marketplace, improved access to postsecondary education and strategies to enhance graduation rates from postsecondary education for students with disabilities must become a priority (Dukes & Shaw, 2003) The challenge for both postsecondary students with disabilities and institutions of higher education is to ensure that access really becomes opportunity

Postsecondary Disability Services

The changing nature of postsecondary disability services has created a new and challenging

environment for service providers Within the past 10 years trends show that there are a greater number of students to serve, most with disabilities that are not readily apparent to the faculty or administration In addition, there are often fewer resources, more complex accommodation needs, and a greater potential for conflict and litigation (Heyward, 1998) Providing services to students with disabilities at the postsecondarylevel has evolved from being straightforward and student-oriented with minimal programmatic influence to being more complex and having substantial impact on faculty instruction and institutional policy (Heyward,1998) The Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) is faced with providing quality service that is appropriate for the individual student and cost effective, as well as adhering to legal mandates

To help its members deal with these growing challenges, the Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD), the organization for postsecondary disability professionals, has recently adopted and promoted several professional guidelines in support of quality program development and enhancement for postsecondary students with disabilities including Professional Standards (Shaw, McGuire, & Madaus, 1997), a Code of Ethics (Price, 1997), and Program Standards (Shaw & Dukes, 2001)

In the arena of faculty development, postsecondary disability professionals have typically focused outreach activities and training materials on legal mandates, including compliance requirements,

accommodations, and office procedures (Scott & Gregg, 2000) The relationship between faculty and postsecondary disability professionals has at times been described as adversarial as disability professionals have sought accommodations for students with disabilities (Faculty members, 1995) In recent years, however, there has been increasing acknowledgement of the need to work more collaboratively with college faculty A major role for postsecondary disability professionals is now seen as collaboration with faculty and other postsecondary personnel to help students become self determined, independent learners (Shaw et al., 1997)

AHEAD’s Program Standards for postsecondary disability services reinforce this collaborative role (Shaw & Dukes, 2001) Determined through a rigorous empirical process, these standards reflect

overwhelming consensus among postsecondary disability service providers on essential programmatic components (Dukes, 2001) For example, standards in the category of faculty/staff awareness encourage consultation with faculty and support for instructional interventions As postsecondary disability

professional roles continue to evolve, perceptions must move to the next level, beyond mere collaboration with faculty around issues of legal compliance A focus on a broader interpretation of faculty collaboration and support offers a potentially more powerful and proactive venue for providing equal educational access (Scott & Gregg, 2000)

Faculty

Faculty play a pivotal role in ensuring equal educational access for students with disabilities Similar

to the trends observed with students with disabilities and postsecondary disability services, the expectations

of and demands on faculty and their involvement with college access issues have evolved over time While expectations of faculty were once to merely acknowledge that accommodations must be permitted for students with disabilities (Jastram, 1979; Stewart, 1989), typical activities and expectations now reflect a much broader ownership of disability issues on campus (see Table 2 for an overview of evolving faculty roles and responsibilities)

Growing participation in ensuring equal educational access for students with disabilities at

institutional and individual levels has direct implications for faculty development and training activities The ultimate example of this expansion of faculty involvement in providing educational access is the emergence of Universal Design (UD) in higher education Under a UD paradigm accessible features are built into the classroom proactively rather than being retrofitted as an after-the-fact request for

accommodation (Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger, 2003) As this new paradigm emerges, faculty will take on increasing leadership roles as the key designers of accessible learning environments in the

classroom

Given the changing dynamics of students with disabilities, the emerging pressures and constraints on postsecondary disability services, and the evolving responsibilities of faculty to be increasingly involved in ensuring accessible college environments, the topic of faculty development is receiving increased focus.Faculty Development

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, Scott and Gregg (2000) synthesized current practices in faculty development and noted general practices for educating and supporting faculty in working with college students with disabilities The descriptions in the literature were remarkably consistent,

recommending approaches to faculty development such as: (a) the large group faculty inservice as an efficient educational tool for general awareness, (b) the small-group workshop allowing for more in-depth follow-up with faculty including individual departments, and (c) the individual follow-up session designed

to assist faculty in responding to individual students With only slight variation, descriptions of faculty development programming noted that it was important to view faculty education as a developmental process over time, requiring multiple and varied forms of outreach Training was described as typically focused on increasing knowledge about disabilities, familiarity with nondiscrimination law, and awareness

of campus services

Table 2

Evolving Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in Assuring Equal Educational Access for College

Students with Disabilities

I Serve as an institutional representative and assist in fulfilling the legal mandate for campus

accessibility

A Follow policies and procedures of the institution pertaining to disability access

B Be an informed participant in institutional structures that consider disability issues such as disability advisory boards, academic standards committees, and policy development

structures

C Maintain academic standards for program and course requirements

D Participate in institutional requirements for notification of nondiscrimination

E.Refer students for services in appropriate support offices

II Participate in the design of inclusive classrooms and decision making about individual student accommodation requests

A Maintain academic standards of content and pedagogical practice in the classroom

B Make academic adjustments, including modifying instruction that consider student learning and access needs

C Participate in discussion of appropriate accommodations that allow students equal

educational access

D Permit reasonable accommodation allowing for student experimentation

Adapted from “Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing access for college

students with LD,” by S Scott & N Gregg, 2000, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.

Although existing faculty development initiatives have served a valuable role, faculty support and training must keep pace with the dynamic and evolving context of higher education While faculty continue to need information pertaining to disabilities, support services, and the law (Hill, 1996; Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle, 1998), there

is a critical need for data-based approaches and innovation in faculty development

initiatives to keep pace with the ever-changing landscape in higher education Scott and Gregg (2000) provided a wake-up call, noting that “if we do not re-examine our

assumptions and broaden our questions pertaining to faculty development, we have the potential to endlessly recreate the wheel in faculty education approaches” (p 165) Salzberg et al (2002) conducted a survey of disability services professionals to tap their perspectives on changing needs and future directions in faculty development They identified the need for varied formats in training delivery ranging from traditional in- person sessions to varied electronic media such as web-based information and CD- ROMs Leyser et al (1998) found that few faculty were interested in participating in training workshops, but preferred to receive information through self-paced print

materials.

In terms of contents Salzberg et al (2002) noted that disability services professionals continue to see the importance of providing faculty training in the areas of campus services, legal foundations, and characteristics of disabilities, but in keeping with

evolving faculty roles, they recommended expanding the list of desired topics to include ethical issues and designing accommodations Hot topics identified by disability services professionals as emerging on the horizon of faculty training needs include distance education and Universal Design.

In considering the implications of the varied responses of disability services

professionals on future directions in faculty development, Salzberg et al (2002) noted that “the design of a faculty training program needs to be tailored to the individual needs, preferences, and available resources of each institution and these vary widely” (p.112) In addition to institutional variation, it has been recommended that faculty development initiatives would benefit from addressing the varying needs of faculty during different career stages (Gillespie, 2002; Scott & Gregg, 2000; Seldin, 1995; Walker & Symmons,

1997) as well as supporting initiatives that are unique to specific academic disciplines (Gillespie, 2002; Huber & Morreale, 2002; Leyser et al., 1998; Scott & Gregg, 2000) Given this backdrop of a dynamic and changing environment in higher education, the stage is set for examining the innovative demonstration projects that are featured in this special issue.

Demonstration Projects

The Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education were created by Congress “to support model demonstration projects to provide technical assistance or professional development for faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education in order to provide students with disabilities a quality postsecondary education” (U.S Department of Education, 1999, p 10) They were required to conduct, at least, one of the following activities:

TEACHING METHODS AND STRATEGIES The development of innovative, effective and efficient teaching methods and strategies to provide faculty and

administrators with the skills and supports necessary to teach students with

disabilities Such methods and strategies may

include in-service training, professional

development, customized and general technical assistance, workshops, summer institutes, distance learning, and training in the use of assistive and educational technology.

SYNTHESIZING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION Synthesizing research and other information related to the provision of postsecondary educational

services to students with disabilities.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING SESSIONS Conducting professional development and training sessions for faculty and administrators

from other institutions of higher education to enable the faculty and

administrators to meet (U.S Department of Education, May 5, 1999, pp 10-11)

The individual projects highlighted in this issue describe initiatives that have

incorporated rigorous data-based procedures for developing and evaluating faculty development approaches and products They reflect a number of the innovative faculty development topics called for in the literature and, as data-based practices, offer a solid foundation for moving the faculty development knowledge base forward in keeping with the dynamic environment of higher education Featured projects and their areas of focus include: the University of Connecticut (Universal Design for Instruction), the University

of Kentucky (web-based support system), the University of Oregon (staff development for health sciences faculty), and the University of Rhode Island (systems change) We end

this special issue of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability with a

synthesis of the Demonstration Projects funded in 1999 Getzel, Briel and McManus gathered data from the 1999 funded projects to provide an overview and general

information on the faculty development strategies Information about the range of

projects that have developed unique and effective staff development strategies will permit follow-up in areas of interest In addition, 27 projects, some continuations and many new ones, began their three year funding in 2002 under the second round of OPE

Demonstration Projects We look forward to continued innovation, expanded resources, and reports of their work when it is completed.

References

Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F (2002) Postsecondary education and

transition for students with learning disabilities Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Dukes, L.L., III (2001) The process: Development of AHEAD program standards Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 62-80.

Dukes, L.L., III, & Shaw, S F (2003) A profile of postsecondary disability service personnel: A discussion

of personnel development needs Submitted for publication

Faculty members and service providers: The unhappy alliance (1995) Disability Accommodation Digest,

4(3&4), 1-4

Gillespie, K (Ed.) (2002) A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources

Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co., Inc

Henderson, C (1999) College freshmen with disabilities: Statistical year 1998 Washington, DC:

American Council on Education

Henderson, C (2001) College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile Washington, DC:

American Council on Education

Heyward, S (1998) Disability and higher education: Guidance for Section 504 and ADA compliance

Horsham, PA: LRP Publications

Hill, J (1996) Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding adequacy of services and

willingness of faculty to make accommodations Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,

12(1), 22-43

Huber, M., & Morreale, S (Eds.) (2002) Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning

Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Jastram, P (1979) The faculty role: New responsibilities for program access In M Redden (Ed.) New

directions for higher education: Assuring access for the handicapped (no 25) (pp 11-22) San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A (1998) Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students

with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504 Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 13(3), 5-19.

National Center for Education Statistics (1999) Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A

profile of preparation, participation and outcomes NCES 1999-187 Washington, DC: U.S

Department of Education

Price, L A (1997) The development and implementation of a code of ethical behavior for postsecondary

personnel Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

12(3), 36-44

Salzberg, C., Peterson, L., Debrand, C., Blair, R., Carsey, A., & Johnson, A (2002) Opinions of disability services directors on faculty training: The need, content, issues, formats, media, and activities

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(2), 101-114.

Scott, S., & Gregg, N (2000) Meeting the evolving needs of faculty in providing access for college

students with LD Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 158-167.

Scott, S., Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S (2003) Implementing Universal Design in higher

education: Moving beyond the built environment Journal of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 16(2), 78-89.

Seldin, P (1995) Improving college teaching In P Seldin and Associates, Improving

college teaching (pp 1-11) Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Shaw, S.F., & Dukes, L.L., III (2001) Program standards for disability services in higher

education Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 81-90.

Shaw, S.F., McGuire, J.M., & Madaus, J.W (1997) Standards of professional practice Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(3), 26-35.

Steinberg, H (1998) Moving along the program continuum: From LD to AD/HD In P Quinn & A

McCormick (Eds.), Re-thinking

AD/HD: A guide for fostering success in students with AD/HD at the college level Bethesda:

Advantage Books

Stewart, A (1989) The postsecondary LD primer: A training manual for service providers (USDOE,

OSERS, Grant # G00830151-88.) Cullowhee, NC: Western Carolina University

United States Department of Education (May, 1999) Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with

Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary

Education, Higher Education Programs

United States Department of Education (2000) National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education 2000 (NCES 2000-602) Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office

United States Department of Education (November, 2000) Learning Without Limits: An Agenda for the

Office of Postsecondary Education Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education (2002) A New Era: Revitalizing Special

Education for Children and Their Families Washington, DC: Author.

Walker, C., & Symmons, C (1997) The meaning of human motivation In J Bess (Ed.), Teaching well

and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively (pp 3-18) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press

Wolf, L.E (2001) College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities: Outcomes and interventions

Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, 931, 385-395.

About the Authors

Stan F Shaw, Ed.D., is a Professor and Coordinator of the Special Education Program in theDepartment of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut He is also Co-Director of theCenter on Postsecondary Education and Disability and the Coordinator for the Center’s AnnualPostsecondary Disability Training Institute His primary areas of interest are professional development forpostsecondary disability personnel, services for college students with disabilities, transition, disabilitypolicy and law, and teacher education

Sally S Scott, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at theUniversity of Connecticut She is the Co-Director of the Universal Design for Instruction Project, afederally funded, three-year grant from the U.S DOE Office of Postsecondary Education Current researchinterests include: college programming, services, and accommodations for individuals with learningdisabilities; Universal Design for Instruction; and disability studies

Universal Design for Instruction: The Paradigm,

Its Principles, and Products

for Enhancing Instructional Access

Joan M McGuire, Ph.D.

Sally S Scott, Ph.D.

Stan F Shaw, Ed D.

Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

changing postsecondary population In this article elements relating to the

implementation of project activities are presented, including the participation of key stakeholders throughout the grant period The application of the Nine Principles of UDI© to college teaching is discussed along with observations regarding project

outcomes Suggestions for future initiatives are also delineated.

In the 20 years after 1978, the first year of postsecondary disability statistics

reported by the American Council on Education, the number of college students with disabilities has increased more than fourfold (Henderson, 2001) The majority of these students have nonvisible disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, ADHD, psychiatric disorders) that often affect cognitive processes In addition, college enrollments include increasing numbers of international students, individuals from under represented groups, and students whose first language is not English As higher education acknowledges the educational value of diversity on our college campuses (American Council on Education, 2000; American Council on Education and American Association of University

Professors, 2000), faculty must address the implications of student diversity in the design and delivery of instruction The following observations of Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) regarding diversity are provocative: “As the arc of multiculturalism radiates through higher education, it creates an exciting, unsettled, and kaleidoscopic landscape

It awakens discourse, confronting the inertia of conventional college teaching.” (p 283) Traditionally, the primary means to ensure equal access to instruction for college students with disabilities has been to provide modifications and accommodations such as those mandated by federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1973) Although modifications and accommodations are often a necessary and appropriate means to provide access, they are based on a philosophy of retrofitted changes designed to “level the playing field.” Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn (1998) introduced the notion of Universal Design (UD) in higher education as a new paradigm for making instruction accessible Building on approaches to Universal Design originally found in the fields of architecture, interior, landscape, and product design (The Center on Universal Design, 1997), Universal Design in the context of instruction makes accessibility issues a proactive and integral focus of instructional planning (Silver et al., 1998) UD results in the creation of environments and products that are usable by a wide range of diverse individuals (Follette Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998)

Based on this intriguing notion of applying UD to college instruction, the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability at the University of Connecticut has been

systematically exploring and developing Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) to anticipate diverse learning needs in college classrooms and to incorporate effective instructional strategies to make learning more accessible to students with disabilities Universal Design for Instruction is an approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners, including students with disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Embry, 2002) By adapting the principles of UD to include instructional practices that have been acknowledged as effective for students with disabilities, this project has developed a foundation for an inclusive paradigm for faculty development grounded in research and practice (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003) UDI represents an approach to pedagogy that is responsive to a broad range of diverse student learning needs

This article will delineate the activities conducted in the development of the

University of Connecticut’s Demonstration Project, “Assuring Equal Access for College Students with LD by Implementing Universal Design in the Instructional Environment.” The outcomes of the project will be discussed including

the project web site, Facultyware® (www.facultyware.uconn.edu), a resource containing useful information about UDI and instructional products that have been reviewed and evaluated by faculty across the country Observations emerging from the project

regarding the challenges and opportunities for faculty development and instruction for college students with disabilities and the use of UDI will also be shared We begin with a review of project implementation.

Implementing a Plan

Several guiding assumptions were influential in the development of project

activities As a project team, we believed that outcomes and innovations of the project should be grounded in the knowledge and experiences of key stakeholders (i.e., students with disabilities, disability service providers, faculty, and administrators) To ensure that project activities were addressing current needs in the field, stakeholders were involved throughout the project Another guiding assumption was that recommendations and strategies for enhancing faculty instruction must be research-based Using an extensive literature base compiled at the beginning of the project and periodically updated, project activities and subsequent instructional recommendations were grounded in research from multiple fields of study A final assumption guiding the project was that faculty

development must be approached through a perspective of systemic change As a result, emphasis was placed on encouraging simultaneous administrative support (a top down perspective), and faculty initiatives (a grass roots or bottom up approach) (Baldridge & Deal, 1983; Fullan, 1991) These assumptions are reflected in the following project activities.

Identifying Barriers and Bridges to Academic Access from a Student Perspective

An important foundation for the project was to talk with students with learning and other cognitive disabilities about their experiences as learners in the college environment Four student focus groups were conducted on three different college campuses including one four-year public institution and two community colleges in the northeastern United States Students were asked to describe positive learning experiences such as the best course they had ever taken in college, teaching methods that positively affected their learning, and faculty attributes that promoted a supportive learning environment

Students also discussed barriers they had experienced and offered advice on how faculty could promote inclusive college coursework Students candidly shared their experiences and suggestions for faculty to enhance the learning environment Focus groups were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed across groups A detailed report of focus group procedures and findings is presented by Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2002b).

Listening to the Experts in College Teaching

Another important source for understanding the existing knowledge base and experiences of key stakeholders was faculty Outstanding college teachers at the

University of Connecticut who are recipients of the prestigious University Teaching

Fellow award were interviewed to learn more about the strategies and approaches of excellent teachers in the classroom Eighteen Teaching Fellows were individually interviewed to garner insights on effective instructional practices, experiences with diverse learners, and approaches to faculty development that support improved college instruction Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2002a) provide a detailed report of interview methodology and findings

Creating the Framework for Universal Design for Instruction

In the process of developing the grant proposal, an extensive review of the literature was conducted to gather existing research and practices pertaining to Universal Design in the instructional environment Only a handful of articles could be located; among these, one pertained to UD in higher education (Silver et al., 1998) Knowing that consumers of the project activities would be college faculty with a strong value system for academic rigor and research, one of the first activities in the grant cycle was to develop a thorough literature and research base for recommended practices in implementing UD in college instruction As a result, an extensive review of the literature was conducted in the areas of Universal Design, effective instruction in higher education, and effective instruction with students with learning disabilities in both secondary and postsecondary educational settings

Based upon this review, the principles of UD (Center for Universal Design, 1997) were found to be quite encompassing as a framework for inclusive college instruction Working also with the seminal principles for practice in higher education identified by Chickering and Gamson (1987), and emerging guidelines for inclusive education at the K-12 level from the Center on Applied Special Technology (CAST, 1999) and the

National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998), these four sources were viewed collectively with particular attention to overlaps across

principles as well as gaps in the literature

The Principles of Universal Design for Instruction were drafted from this

complementary literature base The proposed principles were reviewed and refined based upon feedback from experts in disability access, authorities in Universal Design, faculty with acknowledged teaching excellence, and individuals with expertise in instruction of diverse learners including college students with learning disabilities

The Nine Principles of Universal Design for Instruction© (Principles of UDI©; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2001) were the outcome of this rigorous process (see Table 1.) More information about the development and ongoing validation of the UDI principles may be found in Scott et al (2003) By identifying each of the nine areas extrapolated from the literature, the principles provide a rubric for inclusive college teaching not previously available to faculty Given the broad nature of the principles, several

applications are in keeping with faculty development initiatives on college campuses and the broadly varying needs of individual faculty members interested in enhancing their teaching For example, depending on faculty needs, the principles can be applied to the design of a new course or used to reflect upon practices in an existing class They can inform a variety of teaching issues and approaches ranging from assessing students’ learning, to broadening learning experiences, to considering how an inclusive classroom climate can be established Although the Principles of UDI© can serve as a useful reference point for experienced faculty from diverse academic disciplines, they have

particular relevance for junior faculty and graduate teaching assistants seeking support and direction as emerging teachers.

Forging Collaborations for Implementation

In order to explore and implement UDI across diverse college settings, the project established collaborative partnerships with 20 two- and four-year college campuses across the country Each of the collaborating schools established a site-based UDI team representing, for example, campus disability services, academic administration, teaching and learning centers, and academic support offices Across the collaborating sites, over

100 faculty in approximately 30 different disciplines were involved with project

activities Team membership and function varied depending on the identified tasks of the institution, as well as numerous individual variables such as campus mission, resources, expertise, and interest This variation was an important consideration for establishing UDI teams that were most appropriate to promoting change on each individual campus.

Table 1

The Nine Principles of Universal Design for Instruction©

Principle 1: Equitable use Instruction is designed to be useful to and accessible by

people with diverse abilities Provide the same means of use for all students; identical whenever possible, equivalent when not

Principle 2: Flexibility in use Instruction is designed to accommodate a wide range of

individual abilities Provide choice in methods of use

Principle 3: Simple and intuitive Instruction is designed in a straightforward and

predictable manner, regardless of the student’s experience,knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level Eliminate unnecessary complexity

Principle 4: Perceptible information Instruction is designed so that necessary information is

communicated effectively to the student, regardless of ambient conditions or the student’s sensory abilities

Principle 5: Tolerance for error Instruction anticipates variation in individual student

learning pace and prerequisite skills

Principle 6: Low physical effort Instruction is designed to minimize nonessential physical

effort in order to allow maximum attention to learning.Note: This principle does not apply when physical effort is integral to essential requirements of a course

Principle 7: Size and space for Instruction is designed with consideration for appropriate

size and space for approach, reach, manipulations, and use regardless of a student’s body size, posture, mobility, and communication needs

Principle 8: A community of learners The instructional environment promotes interaction and

communication among students and betweenstudents and faculty

Principle 9: Instructional climate Instruction is designed to be welcoming and inclusive

High expectations are espoused for all students

Source: Principles of Universal Design for Instruction, by Sally S Scott, Joan M McGuire, and Stan

F Shaw Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability Copyright

2001 Reprinted with permission

Collaborating sites were involved with various project initiatives, including development and piloting

of training materials, implementation of the Principles of UDI© in diverse college classrooms, and

submitting inclusive instructional products for possible inclusion on Facultyware®, the project web site

Throughout the project, the input and feedback of collaborating sites comprised an iterative process for product development Orientation materials were used and evaluated by personnel on campus teams, and a Likert-scale format yielded ratings on various elements Feedback pertaining to organization of the materials, clarity of explanations, and format of individual learning units was incorporated into the final revision of materials

Developing a Dynamic Web Site

A major product of the project was the development of an extensive and dynamic web site entitled Facultyware®: Tools for the Universal Design of Instruction The Facultyware site, located at

www.facultyware.uconn.edu, is designed to be a comprehensive information source on inclusive college teaching available to faculty around the world with Internet access The site is a platform for widely disseminating information on the growing resources and support materials pertaining to UDI It also provides ongoing updates on emerging initiatives, activities, and research conducted by project personnel

In order to support faculty and other visitors to the site who are interested in pursuing specific elements of diversity in the classroom, additional resources such as annotated web site links, literature reviews, and resource materials about disabilities and related areas are also provided

One of the most innovative and important features of the web site is the presence of an on-line process that allows faculty across the country to submit high-quality and inclusive instructional practices that they have used in the classroom for possible publication on the site The goal of this on-line publicationprocess is to showcase inclusive teaching strategies and methods developed by faculty from diverse academic disciplines and postsecondary settings The instructional products that are selected for

publication on the Facultyware site are made available as instructional freeware that can be used and adapted by other faculty Instructional products are of varied formats (e.g., text, audiotape, video tape, or web based) and pertain to diverse aspects of instruction (e.g., planning a course, delivery of instruction, or assessment of student learning)

To ensure a rigorous process for selecting instructional products for publication on Facultyware, an on-line juried review process was developed All instructional products are reviewed by a national panel of experts in UDI to determine the extent to which they reflect the Principles of UDI© A second national panel of faculty reviewers reviews the products to provide feedback on the quality and usability of the product in the college instructional environment Instructional products that receive positive ratings in bothareas are accepted for publication on the Facultyware site

To ensure ease and efficiency of this on-line review process, several methods were used and

evaluated during the pilot phase of developing the process UDI experts and faculty reviewers were provided a brief Likert scale to rate the training materials To gain further feedback, several reviewers from each panel were interviewed, and debriefing provided useful insights into the process This dynamic product development approach led to a streamlining of the review process and revision of orientation materials for on-line training of UDI experts and faculty field reviewers As more faculty products undergothis on-line juried review process and meet the criteria for publication on the web site, faculty across the country can anticipate access to a broad range of instructional innovations for use in their teaching

Barriers and Bridges to Academic Access

With the exception of perceptions about the benefits of small class size that were noted only by students at the two participating community colleges, each of the remaining positive attributes were confirmed by students from all four focus groups Notably, these positive factors all centered upon elements incorporated into the classroom environment by individual instructors Briefly, students affirmed that a good college course was characterized by instructors who are approachable and available, clear in content delivery and course expectations, and engaging and challenging (Madaus et al., 2002b) The availability of a professor to meet with a student before and after class either in the classroom, in a lab, or

in the professor’s office was cited as an attribute that helped students to clarify questions about course content and affirmed faculty’s interest in students’ learning Clarity was particularly valued by these students, who offered examples such as these: (a) delivery of content (e.g., detailed explanations of concepts without going off on tangents); (b) provision of lecture outlines or copies of notes in advance of class; (c) detailed syllabi with straightforward assignments; and (d) continual feedback rather than

summative grades only Clarity was also a central theme as students stated the benefits of organizational techniques used by effective professors such as reading guides, chapter outlines, and study guides

In addition to the benefits of instructors who are engaging and present material in interesting and relevant ways, students also spoke positively about professors who challenge them to learn Faculty who use pause and questioning techniques during instruction to encourage individual students or an entire class

to engage in problem solving were viewed as effective Students were appreciative of faculty who

recognize that not all class members bring the same level of understanding to the classroom and are willing

to adjust their instruction to ensure comprehension before moving on to another topic Also, personalized connections between students and professors were highly valued, and some students mentioned their appreciation of the positive response of instructors to their self-disclosure of their LD

Attributes of teaching methods that restrict access to instruction were gleaned from the transcripts Interestingly, they comprised nearly the converse of the characteristics of an effective instructor

Specifically, fast-paced instruction, a focus on quantity rather than quality, lack of clarity in course

expectations, assignments, and requirements, and testing on material not taught in class were viewed as problematic Students from the research university expressed frustration with inconsistencies in

expectations and grading between professors and teaching assistants Students were uniformly clear that skepticism on the part of faculty regarding LD and a need for accommodations constituted a barrier to access

The themes that emerged from the focus groups from three institutions that vary widely in mission, size, and academic competitiveness were remarkably consistent They are captured in a summary of students’ responses regarding advice they would offer instructors: be clear and straightforward in

expectations, become involved and engaged with classes, and be compassionate regarding student needs (For a more detailed discussion of findings, see Madaus et al., 2002b)

Attributes of Effective Instruction as Perceived by Outstanding College Faculty

The voices of faculty, key stakeholders in this project that focused on the development of UDI as a concept for creating inclusive teaching environments, were captured through interviews with 18

distinguished Teaching Fellows at the University of Connecticut Initial analysis of transcripts of these interviews suggests that faculty comments about their teaching strongly resonate with the Nine Principles

of UDI© although faculty do not express themselves in terms that mirror the exact language of the

principles (Madaus et al., 2002a) Additionally, there is a synchrony between the perceptions of students and the observations of these faculty regarding elements of effective instruction When asked to discuss instructional strategies and techniques they incorporate in their teaching, participating faculty mentioned the following: (a) setting clear expectations and demands; (b) being approachable and available to students;(c) actively engaging students; and (d) setting high expectations

The similarity between the observations of these outstanding teachers and the Principles of UDI© is particularly striking For example, nearly every Teaching Fellow spoke strongly about the importance of clarity and explicitness regarding course requirements and expectations as well as the need to be organized.Components of detailed syllabi (illustrative of Principle 3, Simple and Intuitive) mentioned by several included course policies and information about assignments, labs, and exam dates The issue of quality

versus quantity was mentioned by several professors, who stated their perspective that focusing in depth on the truly important concepts of a topic was more important than covering a broad range of topics

superficially

Another technique found to be useful by several of the Fellows is the provision of course notes or outlines – to all students, an example of Principle 1, Equitable Use Their comments complement those of the students in the focus groups as faculty emphasized the importance of active listening and removing the barrier of students having to compulsively take notes while missing many key concepts (Madaus et al., 2002)

In concert with the notion of Instructional Climate, Principle 9, several of these faculty offered examples of their availability to students both in and outside of the classroom and ways to set a tone of being approachable To promote student engagement in the learning process, techniques such as

comprehensive use of technology in class (e.g., building molecular structures on a computer display based upon student responses to questions) were cited as a way to make abstract concepts real and relevant This reflects Principle 4, Perceptible Information Uniformly, these faculty members underscored the importance

of challenging students and holding high expectations

It is striking to note that of the 18 Teaching Fellows, only two had participated in any type of faculty development activities relating to teaching Nevertheless, participants expressed an obvious commitment and a high level of internal motivation to improve instruction fueled mainly by their interest in students Consistent with observations about the dearth of faculty preparation for teaching and limited participation

of faculty in teaching improvement programs (Seldin, 1995), this statement from a Teaching Fellow reflects

a common and powerful theme in the interviews: “Apart from the experience that I had as a teaching assistant, we were never really trained as teachers So when it comes to research, we’re professionals When it comes to being teachers, we’re amateurs We are really just self-taught, we pick it up in sort of a random fashion” (Madaus et al., 2002a, p 10)

Finally, faculty were asked to consider diversity and changes in the student population Three faculty noted that their work with students with disabilities influenced their thoughts about the way in which they deliver instruction Changes included individualizing a strategy or accommodation, changing their pedagogical methods (e.g., being mindful of the need to monitor the pace of lecturing), implementing a variety of instructional activities within a class meeting, and using authentic assessments so that students can employ multiple methods to demonstrate their knowledge of course material

With a broad range of disciplines represented, including engineering, biology, art history, physics, mathematics, accounting, plant science, education, psychology, and family studies, these interviews are one

of several methods in progress to examine the construct validity of UDI, a process admittedly comprising what Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) describe as a “complex and ongoing endeavor” (p 80) (For a more detailed discussion of findings see Madaus et al., 2002a.)

Implementation of UDI

Since UDI comprises a new framework for integrating inclusive instructional strategies into college teaching, a major project activity has been the development of orientation materials for use by collaborating

institutions and the broader audience of users of Facultyware The UDI Orientation Materials (Scott &

McGuire, 2001) handbook includes readings and reflective questions on UDI as well as its application to college instruction Training and technical assistance at the collaborating institutions included on-site

presentations, distance training via materials available on Facultyware, hard copies of the UDI Orientation

Materials, and opportunities for participants to provide feedback on every aspect of project activities to

refine both the process and products

As collaborating institutions became familiar with UDI, faculty participants were encouraged to submit instructional products for review and publication on Facultyware Additionally, they were trained touse the electronic review process and were asked to review submitted products as field reviewers To date, more than 15 products from a range of disciplines have been reviewed and are now available on the site as instructional freeware

Several insights have emerged based upon our experiences First, faculty do not necessarily view instructional strategies they use in teaching as novel or innovative These are simply the tools they use to promote student learning Yet, using the UDI framework to consider instruction has resulted in notable enthusiasm from collaborating institutions At one site, members of the UDI team implemented one or several of the principles in their teaching and their products have been reviewed and are now posted on

Facultyware The team has become very autonomous in embracing the UDI paradigm and is implementing

a campus-based mentoring project for other faculty interested in this approach to faculty development.Another observation relates to the complexities of posting intellectual property on the World Wide Web In what is often viewed as a moving target, ownership of material on a web site is the subject of ongoing legal discussions, particularly as it relates to material developed by faculty in the course of their work The project continues to monitor its position that ownership of instructional products remains with the submitting faculty member by dialoging with legal counsel on a regular basis to ensure that project procedures are consistent with legal mandates

Finally, faculty development and effective approaches to such initiatives must be viewed within the context of an institution, its mission, and its culture For example, junior faculty at comprehensive researchuniversities are understandably conflicted about their interest in their pedagogy in the midst of a value system that emphasizes research and scholarly publications As Armour stated, “As long as faculty perceive that research is the key to success at their institutions and the primary criterion for recognition within their disciplines, teaching will remain in a subservient position” (p 13, 1995) Faculty at two-year collaborating institutions noted problems with access to technology, an important tool for pedagogical innovation Although this concern is legitimate, inclusive instruction is not dependent upon technology It will be important to ensure that UDI is not regarded as synonymous with technology if faculty are to be encouraged to use it as a reflective tool in the ongoing process of developing and refining their teaching prowess

Universal Design for Instruction and Its Efficacy in Promoting Inclusive Instruction

We are encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive response of various stakeholders regarding UDI and its application in college classrooms Examples of efforts in postsecondary education to promote UDI

as a method of faculty development continue to come across our desks Yet, the intuitive appeal of UDI must not overshadow the importance of research into its validity and its effects Simply put, there is a need for more empirical evidence that UD, and specifically UDI, results in more positive outcomes for students

or for the faculty who embrace it

The literature in the field of special education is replete with examples of the bandwagon effect,

“wherein an idea or a cause suddenly becomes popular and gains momentum rapidly… to produce hastily conceived, poorly implemented innovations or programs, the failure to achieve anticipated goals, and consequent disillusionment with the original idea, or backlash” (Trachtman, as cited in Ysseldyke,

Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000, p 181) Our goal is to continue our work in validating the construct of UDI, examining each of its principles for its attributes and applicability to instruction, and seeking the input of faculty and students regarding the outcomes of incorporating this approach in college classrooms A variety of research methods are underway to bring rigor to these initiatives

Conclusion

Change is in the air regarding the importance of teaching and efforts to promote innovative

approaches to faculty development College teaching is being taken more seriously as a result of pressure from diverse sources, including state legislatures, student consumers, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the American Association for Higher Education (Morgan, 2002; Seldin, 1995) The reward system that has historically pitted research against teaching is under scrutiny (Seldin, 1995) Diversity is reflected in a student population with more students from minority groups, more older students, more students who also work full time, more students with disabilities, and more first-generation college students (Greene, 1995; Henderson, 2001) With the convergence of such factors, the time is prime for creative endeavors that promote inclusive instruction

As we continue our work on UDI, we enthusiastically invite the participation of all stakeholders in the process of exploring ways that all learners are assured instructional access The task is daunting given its scope and complexity; yet, there are recommendations to guide us in this quest Systemic change comesslowly and must involve administrators, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students (Ambrose, 1995) Leadership is critical to the promotion of teaching effectiveness and innovation, yet this is an era of extensive retirements and retrenchment The effects of administrative turnover will require that change agents are responsive to institutional dynamics and campus culture

Opportunities abound for ways to apply the concept of UD to instruction An integral component of our recently awarded 2002 OPE grant is the creation of learning communities, groups of faculty and administrators who are committed to enhancing instruction for diverse learners (Scott & McGuire, 2003)

The work of these communities is expected to contribute to the research base on UDI and its efficacy and toexpand the repertoire of faculty products available on Facultyware The role of disability service providers warrants consideration in settings where UDI may create a context for a collaborative approach to

instructional access Although it will always be necessary to ensure that accommodations are provided, the dynamics in such settings may change from compliance to a collaborative model (Scott, Loewen, Funckes,

& Kroeger, 2003) With resources on UDI available on an anytime, anywhere basis via Facultyware, mechanisms for seeking feedback from faculty users of the site are under discussion The literature on effective faculty development programs underscores the importance of multiple approaches to meet individual preferences, schedules, and styles (Seldin, 1995; Scott & Gregg, 2000) Facultyware is designed with this in mind, and as it expands to include research on the efficacy of UDI, the potential for it to contribute to pedagogy and instructional access for students with disabilities is powerful

References

Ambrose, S.A (1995) Fitting programs to institutional cultures: The founding and evolution of the

university teaching center In P Seldin and Associates, Improving college teaching (pp 77-90)

Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc

American Council on Education (2000) Facts in brief: Enrollment in postsecondary education institutions

increases, NCES report shows Washington, DC: Higher Education and National Affairs, American

Council on Education Retrieved June 12, 2000, from

http://www.acenet.edu/hena/facts_in_brief/2000/02_28_00_fib.cfm

American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors (2000) Does diversity

make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms Washington, DC:

Authors

Armour, R A (1995) Using campus culture to foster improved teaching In P Seldin and Associates,

Improving college teaching (pp 13-25) Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Baldridge, J., & Deal, T (Eds.) (1983) The dynamics of organizational change in education Berkeley,

CA: McCutchan

Center for Applied Special Technology (1999) Universal Design for Learning Peabody, MA: Author

Retrieved March 28, 2000, from www.cast.org

Center for Universal Design (1997) The center for universal design: Environments and products for all

people Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Retrieved April 4, 2000, from

http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/index.html

Chickering, A W., & Gamson, Z F (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No ED282491)

Follette Story, M., Mueller, J L., & Mace, R L (1998) The Universal Design file: Designing for people of

all ages and abilities Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design.

Retrieved April 4, 2000, from

http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs/center/books/ud_file/toc3b14.htm

Fullan, M (1991) The new meaning of educational change New York: Teachers College Press.

Greene, J.A (1995) Capitalizing on diversity in the classroom In P Seldin and Associates, Improving

college teaching (pp 103-113) Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Henderson, C (2001) College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile Washington, DC:

American Council on Education

Kameenui, E J., & Carnine, D (1998) Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Madaus, J.W., Scott, S.S., & McGuire, J.M (2002a) Addressing student diversity in the classroom: The

approaches of outstanding university professors (Universal Design for Instruction Project Technical

Rep No 02) Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut , Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Madaus, J.W., Scott, S.S., & McGuire, J.M (2002b) Barriers and bridges to learning as perceived by

postsecondary students with learning disabilities (Universal Design for Instruction Project Technical

Rep No 01) Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P (1991) Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Scott, S.S., & Gregg, N (2000) Meeting the evolving needs of faculty in providing

access for college students with learning disabilities Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.

Scott, S.S., Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S (2003) Implementing Universal Design

in higher education: Moving beyond the built environment Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16, 78-89.

Scott, S.S., & McGuire, J.M (2003) Universal Design for Instruction learning community fact sheet

Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Scott, S S., & McGuire, J.M (2001) Universal Design for Instruction orientation materials Storrs, CT:

University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M., & Embry P (2002) Universal Design for Instruction fact sheet Storrs, CT:

University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M., & Foley, T (2003) Universal Design for Instruction: A framework for

anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom

Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.

Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M, & Shaw, S.F (2001) Principles of Universal Design for Instruction Storrs,

CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Seldin, P (1995) Improving college teaching In P Seldin and Associates, Improving

college teaching (pp 1-11) Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K (1998) Universal instructional design in higher education: An

approach for inclusion Equity and Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47-51.

Wlodkowski, R.J., & Ginsberg, M.B (1995) Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M.L (2000) Critical issues in special education (3rd ed.)

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

About the Authors

Joan M McGuire, Ph.D., is a professor of Special Education in the Department of Educational Psychology

at the University of Connecticut, Co-Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, andformer director of the University’s Program for College Students with Learning Disabilities She

specializes in postsecondary disability program development, administration, and evaluation; Universal Design for Instruction (UDI); professional development and training for postsecondary personnel; and assessment and documentation of learning disabilities in adults Dr McGuire has authored and coauthored more than 60 articles, has presented nationally and internationally at more than 100 professional meetings, and, with her colleagues, generated more than $2.9 million in grants and contractual funds Dr McGuire

was previously the Co-Editor of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Sally S Scott, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut She is the Co-Director of the Universal Design for Instruction Project, a federally funded, three-year grant from the U.S DOE Office of Postsecondary Education Current researchinterests include: college programming, services, and accommodations for individuals with learning disabilities; Universal Design for Instruction; and disability studies

Stan F Shaw, Ed.D., is a Professor and Coordinator of the Special Education Program in the Department ofEducational Psychology at the University of Connecticut He is also Co-Director of the Center on

Postsecondary Education and Disability, and the Coordinator for the UConn’s Annual Postsecondary

Disability Training Institute His primary areas of interest are professional development for postsecondary disability personnel, services for college students with disabilities, transition, disability policy and law, and teacher education.

University of Kentucky Engaging Differences Project: Providing Information about Accommodations On Line and Just in Time

Kristina M Krampe

William H Berdine

University of Kentucky

Abstract

The University of Kentucky Engaging Differences (UK-ED) project focused on developing,

evaluating, and disseminating a web-based performance support system (WPSS) to enhance

accommodations provided by personnel at the University of Kentucky (UK), the Lexington Community College (LCC), and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) The project was completed in three phases: (a) knowledge base development, (b) development of a prototype of the WPSS for use at UK and LCC; and (c) validation of the UK-ED WPSS for use at KCTCS The WPSS components and activities conducted within each phase are described Results suggested that the WPSS allowed users

to effectively and efficiently locate information In addition, all users’ perceptions of the systems were positive.

As a part of the 1999 Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education Program, the Office of Postsecondary Education funded the University of Kentucky Engaging Differences project (UK-ED) to develop, evaluate, and disseminate a web-based performance support system (WPSS) designed to enhance the accommodations provided by academic administrators (i.e., chancellors, deans, departmental chairs), instructional employees (i.e., faculty and teaching assistants),and auxiliary service administrators (i.e., housing, recreation, transportation, food services) at the

University of Kentucky (UK), the Lexington Community College (LCC), and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS)

The goal of such a system is to support and enhance performance by providing the knowledge required by a given task at the time when it is being performed (Cole, Fischer, & Saltzman, 1997;

Desmarais, Leclair, Fiset, & Talbi, 1997; Laffey, 1995) Thus, it should be designed in such a manner that itmakes the user competent in the work environment, fits together as a whole, provides integrated

information that is contextually relevant, facilitates collaboration among workers, and is able to grow with technological advances In recent years, the World Wide Web (WWW) has been used to build educational performance support systems (Bannan-Ritland, Egerton, Page, & Behrmann, 2000; Carr & Carr, 2000; Dunlap, n.d.; Kirkley & Duffy, 1997; Northrup, Pilcher, & Rasmussen, 1998) While WPSSs in educational

environments have been described, there is no empirical research about their use in such environments

Hence the development of the project described here

Phase I: Knowledge Base Development

During the first year of the project, a main objective was to develop a knowledge base of best practices related to the provision of a high-quality education to students with disabilities at the

postsecondary level Two activities were conducted to develop this knowledge base: (a) a web-based survey and (b) focused interviews

Web-based survey In spring 2000, a web-based survey was conducted with personnel on the UK and

the LCC campuses (Sheppard-Jones, Krampe, Danner, & Berdine, 2002) Three versions of the survey weredeveloped with questions specific to the job duties of administrators, faculty, and auxiliary service

personnel, respectively Each of the three versions also contained a common core of questions regarding knowledge of specific disability issues, services, and etiquette

A request to complete the web-based surveys was sent to 18,754 staff via an e-mail message or printed flyer, with a return of 2,130 surveys Auxiliary services personnel submitted the majority of the responses (1,569); this group also represents the largest percentage of university staff Instructional staff completed 423 surveys, followed by administrators with 138 responses Table 1 provides a summary of response rates for the web-based survey

Table 1

Web-Based Survey Response Rates

Respondents

Academic Administrator Instructional Auxiliary

Note The response rates represent percentages

Respondents’ level of knowledge of disability issues and services at the postsecondary level varied widely For example, administrators indicated having higher knowledge overall, particularly regarding legalissues and campus disability services As expected, faculty professed having more knowledge of

instructional accommodations than the other two groups of respondents Finally, auxiliary services staff, comprising a wide array of job classifications, included the highest percentage of respondents with current knowledge in the area of etiquette, including person-first language, attitudinal barriers, and specific interaction recommendations

Although the responses were classified according to the job category of the individual, common threads could be seen across the groups Respondents indicated having some general knowledge of disability topics, but presented a lack of particular knowledge related to accessing accommodations The results indicate a repeated need for specific, timely information on an as-needed basis There also is a need for greater understanding of both available campus resources and general resources that may be helpful to students with disabilities Responses to pen-ended questions consistently stated that any additional

information in the area of disability issues would be welcome

Focused interviews In addition to the web-based survey, 52 participants participated in a qualitative

study through e-mail, individual, and small-group interviews during spring 2000 (Jensen, McCrary, Krampe, & Sheppard-Hones, 2000) Participants included 23 academic administrators, 12 auxiliary service administrators, 8 instructors, and 9 students with disabilities The interview transcripts were analyzed by means of open and focused coding by four members of the research team (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995)

As part of this process, several significant themes emerged that transcended organizational and individual differences and served as organizing principles for the design phase of the project

Briefly, most of the faculty in the study indicated that they wanted to meet their responsibilities as teachers, but were unclear as to what “reasonable accommodation” means in the college classroom Furthermore, some questioned whether providing accommodations for students with disabilities, in some ways, means providing remediation as well

A number of sources noted that the campus is disconnected and lacks institutional mechanisms for sharing resources and information For example, while most of the participants believed that there is a written policy regarding students with disabilities, they were unsure or unaware of institutional procedures

or regulations Overall, the strongest sentiment expressed involved the need for better training and more consistent application of accommodations

Phase II: UK/LCC WPSS Development, Evaluation, and Dissemination

Based on the needs assessment activities described above, the following topical areas were identified for inclusion: (a) physical accessibility, (b) etiquette, (c) instructional accommodations, (d) assistive technology, (e) legislation, (f) policy, (g) relevant court cases, (h) services, (i) experts, and (j) related literature In addition, campus personnel indicated that there was a need for didactic information, there were negative attitudes and biases about accommodation, and there was a lack of connectedness

Components of the UK-ED WPSS To address these topical areas and identified needs, project staff

employed four presentation formats: (a) Info Pages to provide didactic information; (b) Info Search to allow users to find services, experts, and related literature; (c) Info Exchange to allow discussions among postsecondary personnel; and (d) Viewpoints to allow users to explore attitudes and biases Figure 1 illustrates the entry page to the UK-ED WPSS [http://www.uky.edu/TLC/grants/uk_ed/]

The Info Pages component provides didactic information about the topics of accessibility guidelines (universal design, facilities, web sites); etiquette (specific interaction tips, person-first language, attitudinal barriers); instructional accommodations (according to disability types and academic activities, universal design for learning); assistive technology (background, types, decision-making model); legislation

(Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); campus policy (UK, LCC); and legal implications for higher education

Users may select Info Pages for topical areas using the local navigation menu included on the left side of each page in the WPSS The didactic information is infused with images, when appropriate In additions, within each Info Page, hyperlinks are provided to other locations in the WPSS related to the topicpresented on a given Info Page Figure 2(a-c) illustrates the three content levels available in the Info Pages component

The Info Search component contains a searchable database of 239 services and experts (local, state, and national), 142 related literature items (books, articles, on-line publications, reports), and 38 legal cases (Supreme, circuit, and district courts, and Office of Civil Rights) related to accommodating postsecondary students with disabilities First, the user selects either the category he or she wishes to search (e.g., campus

resources, law, and policy) or is given the option of searching the database Upon entering a keyword or

selecting a category, the user is presented with a list of ranked matches with hyperlinks to contact

information for the requested service or expert, a citation and abstract for the piece of literature, or a citation and summary for the legal case Figure 3 (a-b) illustrates the search pages and individual entries contained in the Info Search component

Figure 3a

Search page in the info search section

Figure 4b

Personal story format in the viewpoints section

Figure 4c

Collage story format in viewpoints section

The Express Yourself component allows users to discuss the topic of accommodating students with disabilities in postsecondary education Users may select one of four UK-ED discussion forums or from a list of seven external discussion forums and listservs Within the UK-ED discussion forums, users can post

questions or concerns as well as view responses and solutions from the entire postsecondary community or their individual campus

Finally, the Viewpoints component allows users to explore their attitudes about providing

accommodations to postsecondary students with disabilities Stories are based on comments expressed during individual and small-group interviews with representatives of the target audience on the UK campusand responses are based on disability rights laws, campus policy, and literature On the entry page of the WPSS, the user is presented with story headlines, brief story descriptors, and links to seven Viewpoints stories

Story formats include: (a) brief statements with questions and possible responses along with discussions foreach response; (b) brief stories that reflect an individual’s experiences related to accommodation; and (c) a collage of statements from diverse perspectives on a single topic Regardless of the format, Viewpoints stories include hyperlinks that direct the user to other locations in the WPSS that contain information about topics presented in the story Figure 4 (a-c) illustrates the three story formats used in the Viewpoints component

Formative evaluation In January 2001, formative evaluation activities were initiated on the UK

campus to review the effectiveness and usability of the UK/LCC version of the UK-ED WPSS prior to public posting and dissemination activities These activities, based on Dick and Carey’s (1996) model, included four phases of evaluation: (a) expert review, (b) one-to-one, (c) consumer analysis, and (d) field trial

The expert review phase included evaluations by 5 content experts, 5 instructional design experts, and 15 individuals with disabilities with postsecondary experience In the one-to-one phase, an in-session questionnaire was used to evaluate information access by 5 academic administrators, 5 faculty members, and 5 auxiliary service administrators on the UK campus and a post-session survey was used to gather information about their perceptions of the support system

For the next two phases, consumer analysis and field trial, the in-session questionnaire and session survey used during the one-to-one phase were completed by other participants on the UK campus todetermine if any additional revisions were necessary in the site prior to public posting For the consumer analysis phase, 5 academic administrators, 5 faculty members, and 5 auxiliary service administrators, other than those involved in the previous phase, participated In the final phase, 10 academic administrators, 15 faculty members, and 5 auxiliary service administrators completed the in-session questionnaire and post-session survey

post-During the expert review phase, subject matter experts and individuals with disabilities generally agreed that the content was current and represented best practice in the field Subject matter experts also agreed that the media used in the WPSS supported the content In addition, subject matter experts and individuals with disabilities agreed that its use was feasible and would enhance accommodation Finally, the two groups agreed that the WPSS was appropriate for postsecondary personnel

Design and usability experts were most concerned with the combination of background and

foreground colors used, the design of the Viewpoints component, the use of logos and montages within the WPSS, and the lack of help and orientation information Individuals with disabilities were most concerned about missing alt and title tags, insufficient contrast between foreground and background colors, lengthy pages, confusing navigation, and missing contextual and orientation information Based on these data, 14 actions were undertaken to resolve reported problems and issues

An analysis of data from the one-to-one phase indicated that the WPSS was effective in providing information to personnel on the UK campus Users obtained an accuracy rate of 80% or higher on the in-session questionnaire In addition, users viewed an average of 6.5 pages per question to locate responses Users’ perceptions of the WPSS were generally positive, and nearly all of the negative ratings on the post-session survey (i.e., 10 out of 12) were attributed to two users

However, further analysis indicated that the WPSS was more effective at providing information aboutcampus policy, legal cases, and campus services than information about reasonable accommodations, discussion forums, and perspectives on disability issues Furthermore, the main difficulties encountered during this phase consisted of the amount of time required by administrators to locate responses to specific questions on the in-session questionnaire, confusion over the evaluation instruments, and a few technical problems Fourteen actions were undertaken to resolve problems reported by users during this phase.Data from the consumer analysis phase indicate that the WPSS was effective in providing

information to personnel on the UK campus Users obtained an accuracy rate of 76% or higher on the session questionnaire; however, accuracy rates may have been confounded by technical difficulties In

in-addition, they viewed an average of 5.3 pages per question to locate responses Users’ perceptions of the WPSS were generally positive, and nearly all of the negative ratings on the post-session survey (i.e., three out of five) were attributed to one user

Further analysis indicated that the WPSS was more effective at providing information about campus policy, legal cases, related literature, discussion forums, and perspectives on disability issues than

information about reasonable accommodations and campus services In addition, the main difficulties encountered during this phase consisted of the amount of time required by auxiliary service administrators

to locate a response to one question on the in-session questionnaire, some confusion over the evaluation instruments, and a few technical problems To improve the effectiveness of the WPSS, five actions were taken

During the field trial phase, data indicated that the WPSS was effective in providing information to personnel on the UK campus Users obtained an accuracy rate of 74% or higher on the in-session

questionnaire, with a variation based on constituent group (i.e., the smaller auxiliary administrator group had an accuracy rate 20% higher than the other two groups) Users’ perceptions of the WPSS were positive,and the majority of negative ratings on the post-session survey (i.e., 16 of 21) were attributed to 5 of the 30 users Furthermore, the main difficulties encountered during this phase consisted of the amount of time required by auxiliary service administrators to locate a response to one question on the in-session

questionnaire, some confusion over the evaluation instruments, and a few technical problems Based on these data, three actions were taken to improve the WPSS (For more detailed information, see Krampe, 2002.)

UK/LCC dissemination Beginning June 2001, information was provided about the WPSS at UK

Human Resources training events In addition, information was provided to new teaching assistants at an annual orientation and to a staff advisory council at a monthly meeting in fall 2001 A greater emphasis wasplaced on these activities Starting in January 2002 All administrators, faculty members, auxiliary services personnel, and students had multiple opportunities to be exposed to the UK-ED WPSS through these dissemination activities, which were diverse in their techniques (i.e., listing in the undergraduate bulletin; posting on three campus listservs; mass mailing to all faculty for two semesters; 11 campus presentations; articles in two campus newspapers and one community newspaper; advertisements on tables in all food services locations for two semesters; advertisement in all student housing for one month; booths at new graduate students, teaching assistants, and faculty orientations; brochures distributed by nine campus offices; and links from nine university web pages, including the UK’s site index.)

Table 2 reports information about the frequency of online access of the UK-ED WPSS from January

to September 2002 When dissemination activities were systematically provided, the number of monthly hits on the UK-ED WPSS increased from 7,757 to 18,670; its ranking on the UK server jumped from 117 to79; and the number of daily average hits more than doubled from an average of 259 to 622 hits

Phase III: KCTCS WPSS Development and Dissemination

In October 2001, UK-ED entered its third and final phase, which focused on the validation of the UK-ED WPSS This phase overlapped with the second phase, which continued until the end of the project

in September 2002 During the third phase of the project, the UK/LCC version of the UK-ED WPSS was modified for use with KCTCS personnel Meetings were held with KCTCS personnel to review the UK/LCC version to determine necessary revisions for use with a statewide system of community and technical colleges

Six changes were deemed necessary to validate its use with KCTCS campuses First, the design was modified to reflect the look of the KCTCS site on which it would reside Second, the searchable databases component was modified due to the lack of a search engine for the KCTCS site Third, UK and LCC services and experts were removed from the databases and replaced with KCTCS services and experts – system-wide and campus-specific Fourth, the campus policy section was redesigned and rewritten to reflect the system-wide policies and procedures mandated by KCTCS and the individual policies and procedures of the 25 campuses within KCTCS Fifth, the faculty guide was rewritten for use with KCTCS faculty and staff Finally, links within the WPSS were modified to reflect internal and external links pertinent to KCTCS

Prior to public posting, KCTCS central office personnel and disability services coordinators from all

25 KCTCS campuses reviewed the revised version of the UK-ED WPSS [http://www.kctcs.net/edp/] in summer 2002 Necessary revisions were made based on their feedback and preparations were made for mass dissemination Beginning in August 2002, dissemination activities were conducted system-wide First,numerous interactive television (ITV) broadcasts were made to expose all KCTCS personnel to their modified version of the UK-ED WPSS Second, videotapes were made of the ITV broadcasts for use with personnel unable to attend these broadcasts Finally, printed brochures were disseminated to all KCTCS personnel

Due to the end of the project in September 2002, no further dissemination activities were provided onindividual campuses While a meeting was held in September 2002 with disability services coordinators to discuss individual presentations for the 25 campuses, no follow-up activities were conducted due to the end

of the UK-ED project Unfortunately, it is not possible to report on the web server statistics for the KCTCS version of the UK-ED WPSS since it was not publicly disseminated until August and September 2002, when funding for the UK-ED project ended

Implication

The UK-ED project provided a resource to the postsecondary community in Kentucky about

accommodation of students with disabilities The need for this resource was identified through needs assessment activities completed by faculty, auxiliary service personnel, and administrators Based on the data on monthly hits, average daily hits, and ranking on the UK server, it appears that information on the UK-ED WPSS is being accessed at increased levels

It is the hope of the project personnel that the efforts undertaken through UK-ED will create positive changes Through the creation of resources such as UK-ED we can begin to address some of the needs expressed by postsecondary personnel, including a sense of community, consistent information about the accommodation process, and knowledge of campus and community resources available

While the specific target audience for the UK-ED project was postsecondary administrators, faculty, and staff, this WPSS has a much greater potential audience For example, the information would be beneficial to postsecondary students themselves, those with and without disabilities Also, many persons with and without disabilities who work, play, teach, and interact together across a variety of settings could benefit Other potential users include parents of students with disabilities and secondary school personnel There is a need to better prepare students with disabilities so they can be successful in postsecondary settings Parents, students, faculty, and administrators at the secondary level could use information

provided within the UK-ED WPSS to better address issues related to transition and accommodation at the postsecondary level.

Conclusion

The University of Kentucky Engaging Differences (UK-ED) project focused on developing,

evaluating, and disseminating a web-based performance support system (WPSS to enhance

accommodations provided by personnel at the University of Kentucky (UK), the Lexington Community College (LCC), and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) The project was completed in three phases: (a) knowledge base development, (b) development of a prototype of the WPSS for use at UK and LCC; and (c) validation of the UK-ED WPSS for use at KCTCS The WPSS componentsand activities conducted within each phase were described Results suggested that the WPSS allowed users

to effectively and efficiently locate information In addition, all users’ perceptions of the system were positive

Bannan-Ritland, B., Egerton, E., Page, J., & Behrmann, M (2000) Literacy explorer: A performance

support tool for novice reading facilitators Performance Improvement, 39(6), 47-53 Retrieved

February 15, 2002, from http://www.pcd-innovations.com/literacy.htm

Carr, A M., & Carr, C S (2000) Instructional design in distance education (IDDE) Retrieved February

Dick, W., & Carey, L (1996) The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.) New York: Harper-Collins

Dunlap, J C (n.d.) Web resource collaboration center (WRCC): An integrated tool to support lifelong

learning Retrieved January 31, 2002, from http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/136.pdf.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R I., & Shaw, L L (1995) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes Chicago: University

of Chicago Press

Jensen, J., McCrary, N., Krampe, K M., & Sheppard-Jones, K (2000) A simple gift: A working paper for

the University of Kentucky engaging differences project qualitative assessment study [Electronic

version] Retrieved September 19, 2000, from

http://www.uky.edu/TLC/grants/uk_ed/PDF/simple_gift.pdf

Kirkley, J R., & Duffy, T.M (1997) Designing a web-based electronic performance support system

(EPSS): A case study of literacy online In B H Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp 139-148)

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications

Krampe, K (2002) The formative evaluation of a web-based performance support system designed to

improve accommodation of students with disabilities in postsecondary education Dissertation

Abstracts International, 63(06), 2199 (UMI No AAT 3056964)

Laffey, J (1995) Dynamism in electronic performance support systems [Electronic version] Performance

Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 31-46 Retrieved December 5, 2001, from

http://cpt.fsu.edu/PIQContents/Laffey.pdf

Northrup, P T., Pilcher, J K., & Rasmussen, K L (1998) STEP: An EPSS professional development tool

Retrieved February 18, 2002, from http://scholar.coe.uwf.edu/pnorthru/EPSS_Steps.htm

Sheppard-Jones, K., Krampe, K M., Danner, F., & Berdine, W H (2002) Investigating postsecondary staff

knowledge of students with disabilities using a web-based survey Journal of Applied Rehabilitation

Counseling, 33(1), 19-25.

About the Authors

Kirstina M Krampe is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky She is the Co-Principal Investigator for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning In addition, Dr Krampe teaches an online course about legal issues

William H Berdine is a Professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky He is a Principal Investigator for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning From 2000-2002, he served as president of the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education In 2002, Dr Berdine served on President Bush’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

A Field Test of the Impact of an Inservice Training

in the Life of Health Science Students” is an important tool available to health sciences education

programs as the number of students with disabilities who wish to enter these programs continues to grow

The health science field offers excellent career opportunities for individuals with disabilities The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that of the 25 fastest growing occupations during 2000-2010, 13 are in the medical and health fields In addition, 11 of the 25 highest paying occupations are in these fields (CAREERINFONET webpage, June 15, 2003) To ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities to receive the education they will need to enter these careers, health sciences education programs and faculty must have the capacity to admit and retain students with disabilities

The authors conducted a review of the literature related to health sciences education and students with disabilities (Health Science Faculty Education website, June 15, 2003; Sowers & Smith, in press-a) The vast majority of the articles appeared in medicine and nursing journals To date, no comprehensive studies have been conducted to obtain an estimate of the number of students with disabilities who enroll in health sciences education programs in general In one study, Wu, Tsang, and Wainapel (1996) surveyed medical schools between 1987 and 1990 to determine the number of graduates who experience a physical disability Only 2 % of graduates experienced a physical disability and few of these students experienced a severe disability However, preliminary evidence suggests that students with disabilities are seeking admission to medical schools in increasing numbers For example, requests for accommodations when taking the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) grew from 69 in 1985 to 101 in 1990, and to 330 in

1993 (Keyes, 1993)

In nursing, Magilvy and Mitchell (1995) surveyed 86 programs and found that almost 80% reported that they had admitted a student with a disability in the prior five years The number of students with disabilities admitted to the programs ranged from 1 to 200, with an average of 13 Watson (1995) found that 45% of the 247 nursing programs that returned his survey indicated that they had admitted new students with disabilities for that academic year The most prevalent disability was learning, followed by physical/mobility, hearing, visual, and psychological No studies have been conducted to estimate the number of students with disabilities in dental or allied health programs

Many health sciences education faculty believe that students with disabilities may not be appropriate candidates for their programs (Christensen, 1998; Martini, 1987; Swenson, Foster, & Champagne, 1991; Takakuwa, 1998; Weatherby & Moran, 1989) Among medicine and nursing faculty, the most consistent and important concern regarding students with disabilities is the ability of these students to provide safe patient care in clinical training settings (Marks, 1999; Reichgott, 1998) A number of other concerns were also identified in the literature, including the impact of students with disabilities on the academic and clinical standards of programs, the amount of faculty time necessary to accommodate students, and the

attitude and reaction of other students toward students who are accommodated because of their disability (Hartman & Hartman, 1981; Maheady, 1999) The medicine and nursing literature also points to the need for training aimed at increasing the knowledge of faculty in order to enhance their attitudes toward and to alleviate their concerns about students with disabilities (Helms & Weiler, 1991; Magilvy & Mitchell, 1995; Maheady, 1999; Takakuwa, 1998; Thompson, 1995; Watson,1995)

The authors conducted a survey of 966 health sciences education faculty at 39 institutions regarding their perceptions, concerns, and knowledge about students with disabilities (Sowers & Smith, in

preparation) The primary purpose of the survey was to obtain information that would serve as the basis for the content of a faculty inservice training program Participants first answered a number of demographic questions, including their title, department, length of time teaching, and experience with students and otherswith disabilities Faculty then rated their perceptions of the ability of students with different disabilities (e.g., learning, mental health) to successfully complete their program, their concerns about various issues (e.g., patient safety, cost of accommodations), and their need for training related to a variety of topics (e.g., legal requirements, accommodation strategies)

The results of the survey showed that faculty perceptions about the capacity of students with

disabilities to be successful in their programs were low (Sowers & Smith, in press-b; Sowers & Smith, in preparation) Responses also substantiated previously voiced concerns that faculty were worried about patient safety, cost of accommodations, need to lower the standards of their academic and clinical program, and the reaction of other students toward students with disabilities who were accommodated Finally, faculty noted that they needed and wanted training about these issues This article presents the results of a field test of “A Day in the Life Health Science Students” inservice training curriculum The curriculum was developed and field-tested through the Health Sciences Faculty Education Project Prior to the inservice training field-test methods and results, we will provide a brief description of the project

Health Sciences Faculty Education Project

The Health Sciences Faculty Education Project developed, implemented, and evaluated several approaches to enhancing the capacity of health sciences programs and faculty to teach and accommodate students with disabilities The Oregon Health & Sciences University (OHSU) and Portland Community College were the key implementation sites Project staff worked with the administration at the institutional and program levels (e.g., School of Medicine, Department of Nursing) to develop policies and practices that would enhance the admission and retention of students with disabilities

A key practice was the implementation a Program Accommodation Liaison (PAL) model, through which an administrator or faculty in each health science program takes a key leadership role in developing their program’s capacity regarding students with disabilities In part, the PAL model was based on the results of a study conducted by HEATH Resource Center, the Association on Higher Education And

Disability (AHEAD), and the Educational Testing Service (ETS), to examine postsecondary education for

students with disabilities model projects funded by OSERS (Samberg, 1994) The study identified

strategies used by the projects to impact faculty, the relative effectiveness of these strategies, and the challenges encountered by the projects Inservice training and consultation delivered by the project staff or disabled student service (DSS) staff members were found to be common strategies The projects reported significant difficulty getting faculty and staff to attend training events While most project directors suggested that consultation was generally well received by faculty, many reported encountering resistance Project and DSS staff felt that the resistance partly derived from a feeling on the part of the faculty that the staff did not have sufficient knowledge of the faculty’s subject matter to be credible The PAL model addresses this barrier by training department faculty and administrators who are knowledgeable about the curriculum and profession, who can then assist DSS staff in providing training and technical assistance to other faculty Administrators and faculty volunteered to be a PAL based on their interest to serve in this rolefor their programs and their willingness to attend trainings and participate in technical assistance The PALs attended a two-day inservice training program at the beginning of the project The training included in-depth information about the history of the disabilities rights movement, postsecondary data related to students with disabilities and services, legal issues and trends in general and specific to health sciences education, accommodation strategies in general and specific to health sciences education programs and students, and universal teaching strategies Each PAL developed a plan that included action steps for how they would bring information to the faculty in their programs and for developing policies, procedures, and practices that would enhance the extent to which their program was welcoming of and accessible to students with disabilities Project staff met with each PAL, at least monthly to provide them with technical

assistance related to achieving their goals and completing their action steps For example, we worked with PALs to develop orientation and other program materials that communicated the program’s commitment to welcoming, accommodating, and supporting students with disabilities

Another key approach was the “A Day in the Life of Health Science Students” inservice training curriculum to be described in detail in the methods section of this article A train-the-trainer guide was developed to enable staff in offices for students with disabilities to deliver the inservice training program tofaculty at their institutions The guide includes the overheads from the inservice training program,

presenter notes for each overhead, and hints for how to deliver the information and engage faculty It has been field-tested with faculty at the project’s outreach institutions (i.e., institutions where faculty received the inservice training)

A project web site (www.healthscience

faculty.org) was another major component of the project This web site is specifically targeted to health science faculty Using Universal Design principles as a framework, we included topics in which health sciences faculty are interested and then discussed how these topics apply to students with disabilities (Center for Universal Design, 2002) For example, in the Technology for Everyone section, one article described robotic surgery and the implications of this technology for medical students with disabilities (e.g., someone with limited hand use might be able to do surgery with this technology) When new information was posted on the web site, each of the faculty at the key implementation and outreach sites received an email from their PAL and/or office for students with disabilities about the information and a link to the site

In the remainder of this article, we will present the methodology and the results of the field-test of the

“A Day in the Life of Health Science Students” inservice training program The purpose of the field test was to evaluate the impact of the inservice training program on the perceptions, concerns, and knowledge

of health sciences education faculty about students with disabilities

Field-Test Methods

Participants

A total of 247 faculty at 39 institutions participated in “A Day in the Life of a Health Science Student” inservice training program Fifty-one medicine, 112 nursing, 53 dental (dentistry, dental hygiene, and dental assistants), and 31 allied health faculty members attended the training and completed at least onequestion on the evaluation form Allied health faculty included a broad range of career program areas, such

as clinical lab sciences, radiology, emergency medical technicians, and dietetics The participants included full, associate, and assistant professors, as well as instructors Some faculty and instructors worked part time, and some primarily taught in clinical settings off campus

“A Day in the Life of Health Science Students” Inservice Training Curriculum

We used the results of our survey, along with a review of the literature, and input from faculty and staff in the office for students with disabilities services at a number of institutions with health sciences programs to develop training curriculum for faculty “A Day in the Life of Health Science Students”, has four key goals

The first goal is to enhance the perception of faculty regarding the capacity of students with

disabilities to successfully complete their programs and to be successful health science professionals Videotapes of individuals with various disabilities who have completed health science training and are successful professionals are a key element of the training These professionals describe their experiences getting into and completing their education, as well as their experiences as professionals They also describe accommodations that they had used in their programs and now use in their professions,

specifically addressing the concerns of health sciences education faculty

The second goal of the training curriculum is to provide specific information and strategies about how health science students with various disabilities can be successfully supervised, taught, and

accommodated in clinical settings To that end, the key academic and clinical activities that students are required to learn and perform are used to illustrate how students with a variety of disabilities can be taught and accommodated A key theme of the curriculum is the advantage of using Universal Design strategies Information about specific disabilities, such as learning disabilities are discussed and illustrated in the context of the type of teaching strategies and accommodations that could be used for each of the tasks or skills (e.g., reading patient charts) that students learn to perform The inservice training materials include

examples of tasks and accommodations that are specifically targeted to each of the major health sciences

education programs (e.g., nursing, medicine, dentistry, and a number of the allied health programs)

The third goal of the inservice training is to help faculty understand that Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L 93-122) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (P.L 101-336) arenot affirmative action laws or require that academic and clinical standards be modified or lowered to

accommodate students with disabilities The key features of the laws (e.g., otherwise qualified student) are covered and discussed in the context of health science programs, including clinical settings

The fourth goal of the inservice training curriculum is to provide information to faculty to address

their concerns about including students with disabilities in their health science programs For example,

data are presented about the low cost of the majority of accommodations Significant attention is paid in

the curriculum to addressing faculty concerns about patient care and safety

“A Day in the Life of Health Science Students” inservice training curriculum is approximately two

hours long This includes presentation of information, exercises (e.g., problem solving accommodations

strategies related to specific functional difficulties that a student might have in performing a task), and

questions and answers The training time can easily be shortened or lengthened by the number of exercises that are included

Measures

At the conclusion of the training, faculty completed a questionnaire to assess the impact of the

training on their perceptions, knowledge, and concerns They were asked to rate the extent to which they

agreed with the statement: “Students who experience the following types of disabilities can be successful in

my program and profession”: (a) significant learning disabilities, (b) blind or have significant vision loss,

(c) deaf or have significant hearing loss, (d) use a wheelchair, and (e) significant mental health disabilities They rated the extent to which they agreed with the statement prior to and after the training, using a 6-pointLikert scale, with 6 Strong Agreement and 1 Strong Disagreement

The faculty members were also asked to rate the extent to which they had concerns regarding studentswith disabilities being in their programs Specifically, they were asked to rate their concerns about the

following issues: (a) cost, (b) time required of faculty, (c) impact on academic standards, (d) impact on

clinical standards, (e) impact on patient care, and (f) perceptions of other students about students with

disabilities and the accommodations they received They rated their concerns using a 6-point Likert scale, with 6 = Very Concerned and 1 = Not Concerned

Faculty were also asked to rate the extent to which their knowledge was increased as a result of

participating in the training about the intent and implications of the disability laws for health science

programs and faculty related to students with disabilities, how to teach these students in classroom and in

clinical settings, and about accommodation strategies Faculty rated their knowledge increase from A GreatDeal (6) to Not at All (1)

Finally, faculty were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed that the topics covered met their

need, that they would use the information, and that the format was conducive to learning the information Faculty rated their agreement for each of these three questions from Strong Agreement (6) to Strong

Disagreement (1)

Table 1

Mean, Standard Deviations, and T-Tests Pre- And Post-Training for Faculty Perceptions

of Student Ability to Succeed in Their Programs

Pre-Mean

SD

Pre- Mean

SD

Post-Paired Differ.

Mean

Paired Differ.

SD

T (2- tailed)