Lessons Learned in The Faculty Room

Burgstahler, S. (2007). Lessons learned in The Faculty Room. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 18 (3), 103-128.

Lessons Learned in The Faculty Room Sheryl Burgstahler University of Washington A collaboration of postsecondary institutions nationwide undertook a project to apply research in developing methods and materials to help instructors more fully include students with disabilities in their courses. These institutions conducted a needs assessment; developed content and delivery modes; undertook a rigorous formative evaluation; delivered professional development presentations to faculty, administrators, and teaching assistants; and evaluated results. Participants reported that, as a result of the presentations, they were better able to find resources on their campuses to accommodate students with disabilities, they gained knowledge about legal obligations, and they learned specific teaching strategies and accommodations that benefit students with different types of disabilities. The author shares lessons learned from this project that can be applied on any postsecondary campus to improve teaching and assessment. Growing numbers of students with disabilities are attending colleges and universities. Yet many faculty members report little knowledge regarding legislation, accommodations, and resources for delivering course content to this audience effectively. This article shares information about the needs assessment, methods, products, and evaluation of a project that addresses faculty training needs nationwide.

Project Design Staff and collaborators in the project reported in this article designed, and delivered professional development to faculty and academic administrators to help them include students with disabilities more fully in their courses. As illustrated in Figure 1, methods employed in this 103

104

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

project included • selecting and working with a nationwide collaborative team with expertise in the areas of disabled student services, faculty development, and instructional design; • conducting a needs assessment, which included a literature review, focus groups, and a collection of materials and experiences from postsecondary campuses nationwide; • developing and delivering a variety of models of professional development to meet the needs of faculty and administrators as determined by the needs assessment;

Lessons Learned in The Faculty Room

105

• conducting a formative evaluation of methods and delivery options throughout the project, modifying methods and materials using an iterative process; • collecting evaluative data to measure outcomes of the training options; and • disseminating resources to postsecondary campuses nationwide. The faculty development project described in this article was directed by the University of Washington’s Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center, which has worked since 1992 to increase the success of individuals with disabilities in their postsecondary education and careers. DO-IT staff undertook a search to put together a team of experts from postsecondary institutions nationwide, selecting from a pool of more than 100 those applicants with the greatest potential to contribute to project efforts and to create a diverse group with regard to institutional race/ethnic mix, size, location, and funding source. The team included faculty, disabled student services staff, and administrators at higher education institutions in 23 states (DO-IT, 2002c). Each team member partnered with another institution in the same state. If a team member was from a four-year institution, the partner school was a community or technical college; if the team member was from a community or technical college, the partner school was a four-year school. In total, 23 two-year/ technical and 23 four-year schools participated; eight were private, and one was a college for native Americans. Project collaborators also included representatives from the Association of Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES), the National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for People With Disabilities (HEATH), and the Washington Association on Postsecondary Education and Disability (WAPED). During the three years of the project, team members and collaborators participated in two 3-day working sessions in Seattle, Washington, where they designed professional development materials, data-collection instruments, and timelines for their home institutions. Upon returning to their campuses, team members and their partners conducted focus groups, delivered professional development programs, disseminated materials, provided technical assistance to faculty and administrators, and institutionalized successful practices. Discussion, coordination, formative evaluation, and modification of project activities were conducted year-round via an interactive Internet discussion list and monthly audio conferences.

106


Needs Assessment Project staff, with the help of team members, conducted a rigorous needs assessment that was used to inform the development of all project products and strategies. The three methods employed in the needs assessment were gathering materials and experiences from postsecondary campuses nationwide, completing a comprehensive literature review, and conducting focus groups of faculty/administrators and of students with disabilities. The products and data collected from campuses included printed and web-based materials regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in academic programs and enrollment and graduation statistics for students with specific types of disabilities. Team members also shared relevant experiences and recommendations in focused discussions at yearly collaborative meetings, in ongoing e-mail discussions, and in monthly audio conferences. Documents and notes resulting from this effort were collected and referred to often while developing products and strategies for the professional development of faculty and academic administrators. A comprehensive literature review explored printed publications and online resources that could best inform the development of project products and strategies. Results of the literature review were published in To Improve the Academy (Burgstahler, 2002a) and summarized in project training materials (Burgstahler, 2002b). Participants in the focus groups were members of the populations who were most knowledgeable about the need for and most directly impacted by professional development of faculty and administrators (Mertens, 1998)—namely, students with disabilities and members of the faculty and administration. The candid discussions that took place in the focus groups captured the opinions and recommendations of participants as well as the attitudes and experiences that had led to these views (Krueger & King, 1998; Morgan, 1997, 1998). The focus groups addressed three research questions (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006): 1. What knowledge and skills are most important for postsecondary faculty members to acquire in order for them to include students with disabilities fully in their courses? 2. For what types of disabilities and for what types of courses/activities is it most difficult for faculty to provide accommodations? 3. What are the best delivery formats for the professional


107

development of postsecondary faculty regarding working with students with disabilities? The following conclusions emerged from team member input, a review of the literature, and transcripts of focus group sessions that, together, served as the project needs assessment: • The literature review revealed that increasing numbers of students with disabilities are attending postsecondary academic institutions (Gajar, 1998; Henderson, 2001; Horn & Berktold, 1999; National Council on Disability, 2000). The largest and fastest growing subgroup of first-year students who report disabilities are those with learning disabilities—from 16.1% in 1988 to 40.4% in 2000 (Henderson, 2001). Students with disabilities who participate in postsecondary education are more likely to enroll in two-year community and technical colleges than are students without disabilities (Horn & Berktold, 1999; National Council on Disability, 2000), and many two-year college students with disabilities have difficulty transitioning to four-year schools (Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001). • The literature review revealed that students with disabilities are less successful in their postsecondary education and careers than their peers who do not have disabilities (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; National Council on Disability, 2000; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; SRI International, 2005; Stodden & Dowrick, 2001). • The results of both the literature review and the focus groups (research questions 1 and 2) suggest that faculty members generally are willing to make academic accommodations for students with disabilities, but they lack experience with these students and know little about their legal obligation to provide accommodations, about the functional impact of specific disabilities, about typical accommodations that make academic and career success possible for these students, and about the campus resources available to assist them (Anderson-Inman, Knox-Quinn, & Szymanski, 1999; Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 2000; Burgstahler, 2002a; Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Dodd, Fischer, Hermanson, & Nelson, 1990; Dona

108

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching & Edmister, 2001; Hill, 1996; Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle, 1998; National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Support [NCSPES], 2000a, 2000b; Thompson, Bethea, & Turner, 1997). • The literature review revealed that faculty members’ level of comfort in including students with disabilities in their discipline and their willingness to provide accommodations varies academic area. For example, education and social science faculty have been found to be among those more willing to accommodate students with disabilities, while science faculty are among those who are less willing (Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990; Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999). • The literature review and reports from team members revealed that faculty members have limited knowledge of how advancing technologies have made it possible for students with disabilities to successfully pursue hightech fields that were once unavailable to them and how the design of electronic resources such as web pages and online distance learning courses can erect barriers to students with certain types of disabilities (Burgstahler, Corrigan, & McCarter, 2004; Connell et al., 1997; Salzberg et al., 2002; Scott & Gregg, 2000; Schmetzke, 2001; Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998). • Both the literature review and the focus groups (research questions 1 and 2) revealed that some faculty members are confused about issues related to the confidentiality of disability-related information and about how to maintain academic standards while providing reasonable academic accommodations for students with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2000; Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; NCSPES, 2000b). • The literature review, reports from team members, and the focus groups (research question # 2) revealed that the most problematic accommodations for faculty to provide are those for students with "invisible" disabilities, such as learning and psychological disabilities (Burgstahler, 2002; Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; Nelson et al., 1990; Vogel


109

et al., 1999). • The literature review and reports from team members suggested that most faculty members consider accessibility issues only after a student with a disability enrolls in their courses and that few apply principles of universal design of instruction, whereby a broad range of student characteristics is considered when curriculum and instructional strategies are being designed (Bowe, 2000; Burgstahler, 2001; Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), 2002). • The literature review, focus groups (research question 3), and reports from team members suggested that faculty members and administrators have a wide variety of scheduling issues, interest levels, and perceived need for information regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their courses (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006). • The literature review and focus groups (research question 3) both revealed that faculty and administrators prefer the availability of multiple training delivery methods, including short printed publications, Internet-based resources, in-person presentations, and individual support for specific situations (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Leyser et al., 1998; Nelson et al., 1990). • Team members reported that it is important to train new faculty, teaching assistants, and part-time instructors as well as more established faculty and administrators (Burgstahler & Jirikowic, 2002). • Team members emphasized the importance of tailoring training content to the audience. • Team members reported that barriers to the delivery of faculty and administrator training on their campuses include lack of time and funding to create and deliver presentations and develop resource materials.

Professional Development Content and Delivery Models In response to the diverse content and scheduling needs reported by

110


faculty members and administrators, project staff and team members created and delivered six models of professional development. All six delivery options address what faculty desire to know: the typical teaching strategies and academic accommodations that benefit students with disabilities, the legal issues involved, and the campus resources available. They promote the application of the principles of universal design of instruction, whereby a broad range of abilities, disabilities, and other student characteristics are considered in the design of curriculum and instructional strategies. They also deal with ways to communicate with students who have disabilities while assuring confidentiality of disabilityrelated information and maintaining academic standards. The first three professional development models were designed for on-site training tailored to the individual needs of specific schools, faculty members, and academic administrators. They may be offered as part of regular departmental and other campus meetings or as separate presentations. The content of the models was reviewed and modified extensively as part of an ongoing iterative formative evaluation process conducted by team members. The remaining three models incorporate content from the needs assessment and formative evaluation of Models 1-3 to create three additional modes of delivery—video presentations offered on cable television, self-paced learning on the World Wide Web, and an online distance learning option for a cohort of participants on a single campus. Handouts, scripts, videos, online lessons, and other support materials for all six models are available in the project’s comprehensive training materials (Burgstahler, 2002b) that can be found on DO-IT’s website at http://www.washington.edu/doit/TeamN. Permission is granted to duplicate and modify project materials, in total or in part, as long as the source is acknowledged.

Presentation Models and Dissemination Efforts Model 1 Model 1 is a 20-30-minute presentation on basic legal issues, accommodation strategies, and campus resources for working with students with disabilities. It is designed to be delivered at regular departmental meetings and emphasizes the cooperative relationship between students and instructors. An 8-minute video, Working Together: Faculty and Students With Disabilities, may be incorporated into this short presentation. Two brochure handouts, Working Together: Faculty and Students With Disabilities and Working Together: Teaching Assistants and Students With Disabilities, which summarize legal issues and accommodation strategies for faculty


111

and teaching assistants, respectively, also can be distributed during the presentations. At the end of each publication, a space entitled “Campus Resources” is left blank so that it can be modified for any institution; an electronic copy of each publication is available on the website to facilitate modification. In addition, the handouts Universal Design of Instruction: Definition, Principles, and Examples and Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction provide an overview of basic concepts and a checklist for applying universal design to instruction, respectively.

Model 2 Model 2 is a one- or two-hour comprehensive presentation with special focus on applying universal design to instruction and providing accommodations to students with a variety of disabilities. Legal issues and campus resources are also covered. A 16-minute video presentation, Building the Team: Faculty, Staff and Students Working Together (DO-IT, 2002a), promotes a cooperative relationship between the student, the instructor, and the campus office that supports students with disabilities. The handouts used in Model 1 are appropriate for Model 2 as well, and in this case, the presenter has time to discuss specific issues of interest to the audience.

Model 3 Model 3 consists of 10 tailored workshops for more in-depth training on specific areas identified through the needs assessment. Topics include accommodating students with learning and psychiatric disabilities; universal design of instruction; creating accessible information resources, web pages, computers, distance learning courses, and computer labs; communicating with students who have disabilities; and including students with disabilities in science, mathematics, and engineering courses. Most of the presentations include a short video. The 10-minute presentation Real Connections: Making Distance Learning Accessible to Everyone (DO-IT, 2002a) was created as part of the project because of the tremendous growth of Internet use in course delivery and the lack of knowledge of most faculty members and administrators regarding how to design Internet-based distance learning courses that are accessible to students who have disabilities. Seven additional video presentations and handouts that may be used in training sessions were funded, developed, and evaluated as part of other DO-IT projects (DO-IT, 2002a).

112


Model 4 Model 4 is a televised instruction option delivered on public television. Project video presentations are aired regularly on the University of Washington’s cable television station and made freely available to a national audience through the nationwide Research TV network of television stations hosted by postsecondary institutions. Videos of the presentations also can be purchased from DO-IT, and streaming videos are available for viewing without charge as part of the project’s comprehensive training materials available on the DO-IT website (DO-IT, 2002a).

Model 5 Model 5 is a distance learning course delivered via a series of e-mail messages (DO-IT, 2002b) that can be copied from the DO-IT website. In this model, the instructor, usually a disabled student services staff member, sends an e-mail lesson to a cohort of faculty members approximately every five days for up to 10 weeks. Each lesson includes a question to discuss online before the next lesson is delivered. The series of lessons uses content that has been thoroughly evaluated when developing Models 1-3, is well suited for use with a group of new faculty members or teaching assistants, and can be tailored for the needs of any campus.

Model 6 Model 6 is comprehensive web-based, self-paced instruction website for faculty members and administrators on any postsecondary campus. Located at http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/, The Faculty Room includes case studies; frequently asked questions; and accommodations typically needed by students with disabilities for lectures, labs, field trips, distance learning, and other postsecondary academic settings. The site’s content is tailored specifically for an audience of postsecondary faculty and academic administrators as determined through the evaluation of Models 1-3. Disabled student services offices are encouraged to link to this resource from their websites.

Dissemination Efforts As part of the project dissemination effort, project staff and team members created a comprehensive training and resource notebook that can be used by those delivering professional development to faculty on


113

their campuses. Entitled Building the Team: Faculty, Staff, and Students With Disabilities Presentation and Training Materials, it includes a research synthesis, institutionalization strategies, presentation tips, sample presentation scripts and visual aids, videos, and handout templates (Burgstahler, 2002b). In cooperation with AHEAD, a copy of the notebook was sent to disabled student service offices of all campuses worldwide at which there is at least one AHEAD member. In cooperation with the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, a notebook was sent to each campus with a POD member. The notebooks are available for purchase from DO-IT; materials also may be accessed without charge from the DO-IT website.

Evaluation Methods and Outcomes All six models of professional development were tested and implemented on the 23 team member campuses, at their partner schools, and at conferences and meetings nationwide. Data were collected to document the presentations’ effectiveness as well as any indications of systemic change.

Evaluation of Training Models and Resource Materials More than 11,000 individuals participated in training sponsored by the project. As shown in Figure 2, presentation organizers reported that, of the attendees, 34% were faculty members, 25% were administrators, 6% were teaching assistants (TAs), and 35% represented other groups, including students with and without disabilities, counselors, social workers, tutors, and technical staff. The project team organizer of each on-site training session submitted, for evaluation purposes, a presentation summary sheet with information on the type of presentation, length, format, content, audience, and instructional materials. Over the three years of the project, 24 presentations of Model 1, 146 presentations of Model 2, 31 presentations of Model 3, and 62 “other” types of presentations were reported. “Other” presentations included staffing tables and booths at exhibits and providing handouts to participants at conferences. Most of the presentations were delivered on team and partner school campuses; the remainder were held at conferences or other meetings off campus. One hundred eighty-one presentations were sponsored by specific groups, 23 by campus departments, 18 by faculty organizations, 18 by teaching assistant training programs, and 122 by other groups. An additional 82 presentations were stand-alone events. The project team created two versions of post-presentation evalua-

114


��

��

��

��

tions, one short form and one long form, from which presenters could choose; these are available on the DO-IT website (Burgstahler, 2002b). Respondents indicated what they learned by rating their level of agreement with statements made about the content of presentations on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Overall, participants agreed that, as a result of the presentations, they • were better able to find resources on their campuses to accommodate students with disabilities (mean = 4.64), • gained knowledge about legal obligations (mean = 4.72), and • gained knowledge about specific accommodations for students with different types of disabilities (mean = 4.76). Personal reactions to the on-site training by participants from a wide range of stakeholder groups also suggested increased knowledge of legal issues, teaching strategies, accommodations, and campus resources:


115

• Faculty member: “[I learned] specific parameters of college/university obligations to provide accommodations”; “I learned a lot about the technology that is available.” • Administrator: “I learned the disabled student services office is a resource for me as well as the student.” • Teaching assistant: “I was really impressed with the system available on campus. I’m glad I had a chance to know about it”; “This was the tip of the iceberg. I’d like more in-depth seminars to follow.” • Visiting scholar: “The video was outstanding—it caused me to think about exactly how a person using a screen reader would actually get information from a web page. This was much more helpful than a list of do’s and don’ts.” Multiple drafts of video presentations in the Model 4 televised instruction training option underwent rigorous formative evaluation through viewings by various stakeholders on team member campuses. The iterative process employed resulted in products of practical use on campuses with a wide variety of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic types, sizes, funding sources, and institution type (for example, two-year/technical and four-year). As reported by one video viewer, “Reviewing some of the strategies that have been demonstrated in the video to assist students with disabilities makes it easier to do what we need to do.” The distance learning lessons of Model 5 used the content developed and tested in Models 1-3. This model of instruction underwent a formative evaluation with team members as “students” and a DO-IT staff member as “instructor.” It was then used successfully as an orientation for new faculty on campuses of project team schools. It can be tailored for the needs of any postsecondary campus. Comments by participants include, “[I learned] that it is the university’s job to accommodate the student,” and “I learned exactly what the law requires and why.” Model 6 included the comprehensive content developed and tested in Models 1-3 tailored for web-based, interactive delivery. It included tutorial content, downloadable multimedia presentations, and links to other useful websites located at The Faculty Room site. Responses via e-mail and the web-based evaluation instrument suggested that The Faculty Room is applicable by users in various positions and at campuses with a wide range of characteristics:

116

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching • Postsecondary academic administrator: “DO-IT’s The Faculty Room is a resource that shouldn’t be passed up. In order to comply with the law and to help people with disabilities make the most of their education at [our institution], it is important to be aware of the issues and recommendations that can be found at this site.” • Community college instructor: “An excellent website of comprehensive resources that any instructor can have access to 24 hours a day!” • Academic instructional communications specialist: “We were led to your website and felt like we stumbled on a gold mine. Your materials are excellent, and we would very much like to use them in training and awareness programs for our faculty.” • Learning center director: “[We will link The Faculty Room] to our institution’s website. I’ve already sent an announcement out to our college to look this site over. I want to thank DO-IT for all the timely and helpful information that you have and share with us. You make our job as service providers very easy to do.” • Academic services staff: “Super resource. Please keep it going and do not change any of the URLs, as you are firmly linked into our Learning and Teaching links throughout the database!”

Signs of Systemic Change Ultimately, we hope that project activities will result in positive changes in campus climate and practice that lead to greater academic and career success for students with disabilities. Without conducting a controlled research study, it is not possible to assess fully whether faculty and administrator training activities resulted in systemic change. Input provided by team members at the end of the project, however, suggests that their efforts have resulted in long-lasting change on their campuses. The following comments suggest what systemic outcomes other campuses might strive for and expect from faculty and administrator training efforts: • A greater awareness of campus resources and the promotion

Lessons Learned in The Faculty Room of collaborative relationships between faculty members and the office of disabled student services: Because of the awareness created by the trainings, five faculty members contacted my office when construction workers blocked the accessible entrance to an academic building. The presentations that have been facilitated related to [this project] have been successful in opening up communication between the Disabled Student Services [DSS] office and faculty; increasing the number of referrals made by faculty to the DSS office; increasing the number of phone calls from faculty regarding accommodation questions; increasing the number of positive comments from students regarding faculty members’ willingness to accommodate their needs; increasing the number of faculty requesting note takers, proctors, and educational assistants in class; and increasing the number of faculty documenting requests for such accommodations on course syllabi and websites. • Faculty members’ acceptance of their responsibility for and increased understanding and use of accommodation strategies: The math faculty have become very involved in allowing new accommodations based on their increased awareness of the needs of students with disabilities. This has included allowing multiplication and formula charts in specific courses. Business school faculty have developed creative ways to work with students who have disabilities that affect their social interaction (for instance, Aspergers, Autism) in courses with large enrollments. One physical science professor, after attending training, was willing to modify an assignment that required students to view the stars. Faculty members in geology used to feel that students with mobility impairments should not go on “digs” and discouraged them from pursuing this degree. The

117

118

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching faculty now think of ways to include students with mobility impairments in their fieldwork. • The increased application of universal design of instruction: Many faculty now provide their syllabi and notes in alternate formats. Our web design team became more focused on access for people with disabilities and attended a national training in order to better accommodate all students in web-based courses. The campus has adopted a Web Accessibility Policy and a portal for faculty, staff, and students as a gateway for electronic information. . . . I am confident that the gains made on this campus can be credited to the . . . project. The Chief Information Officer is working to make all electronic classrooms accessible. • The inclusion of disability-related topics in postsecondary courses: Information technology [IT] faculty are including training on the effects of IT in the lives of persons with disabilities.

Long-term project impact on faculty and administrator attitudes, knowledge, and actions is also suggested by the comments: • Attitudes: “I want to assist in helping this student succeed.” • Knowledge: “From a manager’s perspective, it was very useful to have the differences between the legislative initiatives explained and contrasted.” • Actions: “Your training helped me understand the need for accommodations that assist the student’s learning but don’t compromise the course content.” Strategies for institutionalizing faculty and administrator training on postsecondary campuses are included in the comprehensive notebook


119

created in this project (Burgstahler, 2002b).

Implications for Practice The project described in this article resulted in products that are now available to stakeholders nationwide. The lessons learned from the project can be applied on other campuses committed to ensuring that faculty and administrators are prepared to include students with disabilities fully in their courses.

Project Products Stand-Alone Printed Publications Stand-alone printed publications are designed for use on campuses with a wide variety of characteristics, as handouts for presentations or as part of campuswide mailings. They include a statement giving permission to modify and duplicate as long as the source is acknowledged. The collection is available online (Burgstahler, 2002b) in reproducible and alternate formats.

Training Videos Training videos, complementing many of the printed publications referenced above, can be purchased from DO-IT, and streaming video can be viewed without charge from the DO-IT website (DO-IT, 2002a). These videos are also available without charge to members of the Research TV network (http://www.research-tv.com/).

The Faculty Room Website The Faculty Room website (http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty), a comprehensive resource for faculty and academic administrators, can be linked from any disabled student services office, academic department, or faculty training website. It can be used by individual faculty members who wish to improve their teaching and assessment of students with disabilities.

The Distance Learning Course The distance learning course created by the project (DO-IT, 2002b) can be tailored to specific campuses and is particularly useful for orienting

120


new faculty members and teaching assistants.

Comprehensive Training and Resource Notebooks Comprehensive training and resource notebooks, which include a research synthesis, institutionalization strategies, presentation tips, sample presentation scripts and visual aids, videos, and handout templates, can be purchased from DO-IT or accessed without charge from the website (Burgstahler, 2002b).

Lessons Learned The project team learned lessons that can be applied by others as they create and deliver training and resources to faculty and administrators on their campuses. Following are a few of these lessons: • Training options that vary in length and content allow them to be tailored to the needs and interests of specific audiences. • Presentations should model principles of universal design and employ training strategies that encourage active participation, including case studies, discussion, and panels. • To put a human face on the issues, it is valuable for students with various types of disabilities to share their experiences in person. When arranging this is impractical, showing a videotape that includes students with disabilities talking about academic challenges and solutions is a practical alternative. • Both simple overviews of issues and comprehensive resources for reference should be made available. Short presentations as part of regular departmental meetings are the most requested, but often they lead to an invitation to return to deliver in-depth content. • Encouraging the application of universal design in procurement of technology and other products, instruction, and facility design can lead to more inclusive programs and environments, as well as minimize the need for accommodations.


121

• Professional development activities can increase understanding and cooperation, which may minimize the number of disability-related complaints and grievances. • Professional development can boost the level of comfort and confidence of faculty members in working with students who have disabilities, thereby contributing to a more inclusive learning environment. • Preparation time to create professional development options can be extensive. In addition, disabled student services offices often are severely limited with respect to available staff time and budget for providing assistance with these efforts. Having access to a collection of flexible web-based, videotaped, and printed materials such as those created by DO-IT can serve to reduce preparation time, thereby conserving office budgets and staff time for other priorities. • When presentations are delivered on an ongoing basis, preparation becomes less time-consuming. • It is important to explore systematic ways to provide training and institutional change. Examples include offering a distance learning course each fall to new faculty members, including accessible design concepts and practices in regular Web-development courses, and incorporating disability topics into ongoing teaching assistant orientations. • It is important to persist with efforts toward accommodation. When one door closes, look for another; when one person/group isn’t receptive, try another person/ group, or try another time. • Well-developed web-based materials, like The Faculty Room, provide a self-instruction option for faculty members who wish to improve their teaching and assessment of students with disabilities. The many positive project outcomes were a result, at least in part, of regular interaction between team members that kept enthusiasm high; these communications were engaging and productive because they were

122


focused on specific project activities of interest to everyone. Working as a national team helped individual members gain professional support, gave them a vehicle for sharing ideas, added to their credibility and stature on their own campuses, and created a professional network nationwide. During the course of the project, team members expressed the need for student service staff—including those in admissions offices, advising services, libraries, tutoring centers, distance learning programs, computing services, and career services offices—to be trained on how to include students with disabilities fully in their programs. In response to this need, a grant proposal was submitted, and a new three-year project was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education (grant #P333A020044). This new project (DO-IT, 2007b) expanded previous project activities to improve the knowledge and skills of postsecondary student service administrators and staff. Project efforts resulted in a comprehensive training binder (Burgstahler, 2005) and two websites to complement The Faculty Room: The Student Services Conference Room is for student services staff, and The Board Room is for high-level postsecondary administrators. A third grant (#P333A050064) supports a project focused on systemic change and funded the development of the Center on Universal Design in Education (DO-IT, 2007a). All four of these websites have been combined on DO-IT’s AccessCollege page at http://www.washington. edu/doit/Resources/postsec.html. Like their predecessor, the ultimate goal of these new sites is to increase the numbers of individuals with disabilities who earn baccalaureate and graduate degrees and transition successfully to careers.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research The project discussed in this article applied existing and new research to the creation and delivery of products and methods that help faculty and administrators on postsecondary campuses include students with disabilities in their courses. Although the project conducted an extensive evaluation that included self-reports from team members and participants, a controlled study with both pre- and posttests was not funded as part of this project. Project staff also did not undertake controlled studies to determine whether increased knowledge and skills on the part of faculty and administrators resulted in improved postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities and to determine the relative benefits of the six professional development options created in the project. Logical next steps would be to undertake controlled studies to confirm that training results in long-term knowledge and skill gains by faculty and administrators


123

and that these gains result in positive changes in instruction as well as in increased success in college course and degree completion for students with disabilities. The results of the project suggest the following additional questions for future research: • How can we help faculty be more aware of the availability of adaptive technology and the need for the development and use of accessible electronic products? • What specific strategies can faculty use better to instruct and evaluate students with learning disabilities? • What training could be provided to students with disabilities and to the general student body to support the academic success of students with disabilities? • What professional development activities for faculty in specific disciplines could address the challenges of students with disabilities in these programs? • How can campus units that support disabled students work together to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy? • What strategies and content can help student services units on campus make their programs more accessible to students with disabilities?

Conclusions A nationwide project, through a team of dedicated collaborators, applied research conducted by project staff and others to create professional development materials and methods to help faculty and academic administrators include students with disabilities more fully in their courses. The ultimate goal of the project is to increase the success rates of students with disabilities in postsecondary studies and careers. To reach this goal, stakeholders—students with disabilities, faculty and administrators, and disabled student services staff—must work together. As one project team member, a disabled student services director, reported, Every time you create the opportunity for real dialogue with faculty, you are helping to shape the institutional culture and

124

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching climate that students with disabilities engage in and to create the circumstances that allow faculty to air their concerns, articulate misinformation, exchange ideas, and forge new partnerships. Disabled student service programs cannot function in a vacuum. We have to be a felt presence on campus and at every level.

The flexible materials and methods developed and evaluated through this project are designed for use in postsecondary institutions of all types and are readily available in forms that can be tailored to the unique needs of specific institutions. They can help faculty members improve their teaching and assessment of students with disabilities. Ultimately, the impact of projects such as this can be to increase the participation of people with disabilities in various fields and, by bringing these new perspectives into educational and employment settings, to improve those fields.

References Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Computersupported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22 (2), 185212. Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413. Bourke, A. B., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of instructional accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 26-32. Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal design of instruction. Seattle, WA: DOIT, University of Washington. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html. Burgstahler, S. (2002a). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty. To Improve the Academy, 21, 181-183. Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2002b). Building the team: Faculty, staff, and students with disabilities working together. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.washington. edu/doit/TeamN. Burgstahler, S. (2005). Students with disabilities and campus services. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://


125

www.washington.edu/doit/AdminN. Burgstahler, S. (2007). Building capacity for a welcoming and accessible postsecondary institution. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 233-246. Burgstahler, S., Crawford, L., & Acosta, J. (2001). Transition from two-year to four-year institutions for students with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21 (1), 25-38. Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18 (2), 135-147. Burgstahler, S., & Jirikowic, T. (2002). Supporting students with disabilities: What every teaching assistant should know. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 9 (1), 23-30. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2002). Universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.cast.org/udl/. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design. DO-IT. (2002a). Building the team: Faculty resources from DO-IT. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www. washington.edu/doit/TeamN/. DO-IT. (2002b). Distance learning course: Academic accommodations for students with disabilities. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www. washington.edu/doit/Faculty/Presentations/Distance/. DO-IT. (2002c). DO-IT Prof: A project to help postsecondary educators work successfully with students who have disabilities. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.washington. edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/prof.html. DO-IT. (2007a). AccessCollege: Systemic change for postsecondary institutions. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/access_college.html. DO-IT. (2007b). DO-IT Admin: A project to help postsecondary campus services administrators work successfully with students who have disabilities. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http:// www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/admin.html. Dodd, J. M., Fischer, J., Hermanson, M., & Nelson, J. R. (1990). Tribal col-

126


lege faculty willingness to provide accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of American Indian Education, 30 (1), 8-16. Dona, J., & Edmister, J. H. (2001). An examination of community college faculty members’ knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at the fifteen community colleges in Mississippi. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14 (2), 91-103. Gajar, A. (1998). Postsecondary education. In F. Rusch & J. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp. 383-405). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hill, J. L. (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. Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1 (3), 59-64. Houck, C., Asselin, S., Troutman, G., & Arrington, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (10), 678-684. Krueger, R., & King, J. (1998). Involving community members in focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning for focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). (2000a). National survey of educational support provision to students with disabilities in postsecondary education settings. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa. National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). (2000b). Postsecondary education and employment for students


127

with disabilities: Focus group discussions on supports and barriers in lifelong learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa. National Council on Disability. (2000). Transition and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the gaps to post-secondary education and employment. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, J., Dodd, J., & Smith, D. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (3), 185-189. Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67 (2), 197-226. Salzberg, C. L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C. C., Blair, R. J., Carsey, A. C., & Johnson, A. S. (2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need, content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary education and disability, 15 (2), 101-114. Schmetzke, A. (2001) Online distance education—‘Anytime, anywhere’ but not for everyone. Information Technology and Disability Journal, 7 (2) [On-line version]. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.rit. edu/~easi/itd/itdv07n2/axel.htm. Scott, S. S., & Gregg, N. (2000). Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing access for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (2), 158-167. 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. SRI International. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2001). Postsecondary education and employment of adults with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 25 (3), 19-23. Thompson, A., Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in high education: A survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 166-180. Vogel, S., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1999). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitude and practices. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14 (3), 173-186.

128


Acknowledgments This article is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education (grant nos. P33A990042, P333A02844, and P333A50064) and by the National Science Foundation (cooperative agreement no. HRD-0227995). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the federal government. Special thanks go to Deb Cronheim, Christina DeMille, Tanis Doe, Tracy Jirikowic, Nancy Rickerson, and project team members for their assistance in data collection, product creation, and dissemination. Sheryl Burgstahler directs the Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center and Accessible Technology Services at the University of Washington. She has published dozens of articles and delivered presentations at national and international conferences that focus on universal design of on-site and online instruction and on electronic communities. She is the author or co-author of six books on Internet-based instruction. Dr. Burgstahler has extensive experience teaching at the pre-college, community college, and university levels. Her website is located at http://staff. washington.edu/sherylb/bio.html.