Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 17, Number 1Fall 2003

EditorSally S. Scott, The University of Connecticut

Associate EditorsManju Banerjee, Recording For the Blind & DyslexicElizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityElaine Manglitz, University of Georgia

Editorial Review Board

Betty Aune, College of St. ScholasticaRon Blosser, Recording For the Blind & DyslexicLoring Brinkerhoff, Educational Testing Service and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic Donna Hardy Cox, Memorial University of Newfoundland Catherine S. Fichten, Dawson College, MontrealAnna Gajar, The Pennsylvania State UniversitySam Goodin, University of Michigan Richard Harris, Ball State UniversityCheri Hoy, University of GeorgiaCharles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University Cyndi Jordan, University of Tennessee, Memphis and Hutchison School Joseph Madaus, University of ConnecticutJames K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State

University Joan M. McGuire, University of ConnecticutDavid McNaughton,The Pennsylvania State UniversityDaryl Mellard, University of KansasWard Newmeyer, University of California, BerkeleyNicole Ofiesh, University of ArizonaLynda Price, Temple UniversityFrank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDaniel J. Ryan, University of BuffaloStan Shaw, University of ConnecticutPatricia Silver, University of MassachusettsJudith Smith, Purdue University Calumet Judy Smithson, Bloomington, IndianaSharon Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School DistrictRuth Warick, University of British Columbia Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Grady Landrum, PresidentWichita State University

Randy Borst, Immediate Past PresidentUniversity at Buffalo, SUNY

Jim Kessler, President-ElectUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Carol Funckes, TreasurerUniversity of Arizona

Kent Jackson, SecretaryIndiana University of Pennsylvania

Stephan Smith, Executive DirectorAHEAD

Joanie Friend, Director of CommunicationMetropolitan Community Colleges

Mike Shuttic, Director of MembershipOklahoma State University

Virginia Grubaugh, Director of Professional DevelopmentUniversity of Michigan

Linda Walter, Director of MarketingSeton Hall University

Ruth Warick, Director of Constituent Relations - InternationalUniversity of British Columbia

Jean Ashmore, Director of Constituent Relations - USRice University

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 17, Number 1Fall 2003

New Directions in Faculty Development...............................................................................................................3 – 9Stan F. Shaw, Ed.D.Sally S. Scott, Ph.D.

Universal Design for Instruction: The Paradigm, Its Principles,and products for Enhancing Instructional Access...........................................................................................10 – 20Joan 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 Lineand Just in Time..................................................................................................................................................21 – 32Kristina M. KrampeWilliam H. Berdine

A Field Test of the Impact of an Inservice Training ProgramOn Health Sciences Education Faculty.............................................................................................................33 – 48Jo-Ann Sowers, Ph.D.Martha R. Smith, M.S.

Changing the Culture (CTC): A Collaborative TrainingModel to Create Systemic Change.....................................................................................................................49 – 58Pamela 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)...................................................................................................................59 – 78Elizabeth 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/~paceCalifornia State University at Northridge: http://p3.csun.edu/University of Connecticut: http://www.facultyware.uconn.eduUniversity of Kansas: http://www.ku-crl.orgBuffalo State College: http://www.buffalostate.edu/offices/disabilityservices/fac-workshops.htmUniversity of Minnesota: http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad/default.htmUniversity of New Hampshire: http://iod.unh.edu/EE/Oregon Health Sciences University: http://www.healthsciencefaculty.orgUtah State University: http://asd.usu.eduLandmark College: http://www.landmark.edu/support/index.htmlUniversity of Washington: http://www.washington.edu/doit/FacultyUniversity of Arizona: http://www.utc.arizona.edu/utc_peel_main.htmSan 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 TimeUniversity of Southern Mississippi: http://www.ids.usm.edu/ODA/PTTAProject.htmOhio State University: http://telr.osu.edu/dpg/University of Rhode Island: http://www.uri.edu/ctcVirginia Commonwealth University: http://www.students.vcu.edu/pdaUniversity 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 postsecondary level 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 2Evolving 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 requirementsD. Participate in institutional requirements for notification of nondiscriminationE.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 classroomB. 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 accessD. 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 andadministrators with the skills and supports necessary to teach students with disabilities. Such methods and strategies mayinclude in-service training, professionaldevelopment, customized and general technical assistance, workshops, summerinstitutes, 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 the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut.  He is also Co-Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability and the Coordinator for the Center’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.

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 research interests include: college programming, services, and accommodations for individuals with learning disabilities; Universal Design for Instruction; and disability studies.

Universal Design for Instruction: The Paradigm, Its Principles, and Productsfor Enhancing Instructional Access

Joan M. McGuire, Ph.D.Sally S. Scott, Ph.D.Stan F. Shaw, Ed. D.

Center on Postsecondary Education and DisabilityUniversity of Connecticut

AbstractUniversal Design for Instruction (UDI), a construct that serves as the foundation for

the work of a federally funded project at the University of Connecticut,1 offers an approach to inclusive instruction that is responsive to the diverse learning needs of a

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 PlanSeveral 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 PerspectiveAn 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 InstructionIn 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 ImplementationIn 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 DefinitionPrinciple 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 between

students 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 publication process 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 both areas 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 undergo this 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.

DiscussionBarriers 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 FacultyThe 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 to use 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 research universities 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 InstructionWe 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 comes slowly 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 to expand 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 providingaccess for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 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, and former 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 research interests 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 of Educational 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. KrampeWilliam H. BerdineUniversity of KentuckyAbstract

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 it makes 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.

MethodsThe UK-ED project was completed in three phases: (a) knowledge base development prior to

development of the UK-ED WPSS; (b) development, evaluation, and dissemination of the prototype for use at UK and LCC; and (c) validation, revision, and dissemination of the UK-ED WPSS for use at KCTCS. Since these activities are cumulative, the results of these activities will be discussed within the phase they were conducted.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 were developed 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 Services Staff Personnel AggregateE-mails Sent 378 2,302 7,796 10,476E-mail Response Rate 36.5 17.0 17.8 18.3Fliers Sent 18 733 7,527 8,278Flier Response Rate 0 4.4 2.5 2.6Total Sent 396 3,035 15,323 18,754Total Response Rate 34.8 13.9 10.2 11.4

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 legal issues 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/]

Figure 1.

Entry Page of the UK-ED WPSS.

Figure 2a.

First level of the info pages area.

Figure 2b.

Second level of the info pages area.

Figure 2c. Third level of the info pages area.

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 topic presented 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 3b. Retrieved information entry page in the info search section.

Figure 4a. Question and answer story format in the viewpoints 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 campus and 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 for each 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 post-session survey used during the one-to-one phase were completed by other participants on the UK campus to determine 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.

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 about campus 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 in-session questionnaire; however, accuracy rates may have been confounded by technical difficulties. 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.).

Table 2

Web Statistics on the UK/LCC Version of the UK-ED WPSS from January to September 2002

Month/Year Rank Based on Hits Total Monthly Hits Daily Average Hits

Jan-02 117 7,757 259

Feb-02 109 8,703 290

Mar-02 121 7,662 255

Apr-02 100 10,720 357

May-02 92 11,829 394Jun-02 78 11,822 394Jul-02 81 12,885 430

Aug-02 77 16,941 565

Sep-02 79 18,670 622

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 was placed 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 to 79; 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 on individual 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 components and 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 18, 2002, from http://ide.ed.psu.edu/IDDE/References.htm.

Cole, K., Fischer, O., & Saltzman, P. (1997). Just-in-time knowledge delivery. Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 49-53.

Desmarais, M. C., Leclair, R., Fiset, J., & Talbi, H. (1997). Cost-justifying electronic performance support systems: How can the benefits and return of investments of an EPSS be determined in advance [Electronic version]? Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 39-48. Retrieved January 31, 2002, from http://www.crim.ca/.ipsi/articles/p39-desmarais.pdf.

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 AuthorsKirstina 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 Program on Health Sciences Education FacultyJo-Ann Sowers, Ph.D.

Martha R. Smith, M.S.

Oregon Health & Science University

Abstract

The goal of the Health Sciences Faculty Education Project at Oregon Health & Science University was to enhance the capacity of health science programs and faculty to admit, teach, accommodate, and graduate students with disabilities. Multiple approaches were implemented to achieve this goal. A key strategy was an inservice training program designed specifically for health sciences education faculty called “A Day in the Life of Health Science Students.” The program was field-tested with 247 nursing, medicine, dentistry, and allied health faculty at 39 institutions. Participating in the training positively impacted the perceptions, knowledge, and concerns of the faculty about students with disabilities. “A Day 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 others with 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 role for 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 to faculty 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.healthsciencefaculty.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 one question 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) are not 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-point Likert 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 students with 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 Great Deal (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

Disabilities N Pre-Mean

Pre-SD

Post-Mean

Post-SD

PairedDiffer.Mean

PairedDiffer.SD

T (2-tailed)

Medicine

LD 41 4.15 1.24 4.54 1.19 .390 .628 3.981**

Blind 40 3.40 1.43 4.10 1.34 .700 1.09 4.059**

Deaf 41 4.56 1.12 4.95 1.05 .390 .771 3.242*

Wheelchair User

41 5.44 .81 5.59 .71 .146 .358 2.619

Mental Health

40 3.44 1.30 3.79 1.31 .350 .700 3.163*

Nursing

LD 89 3.54 1.11 4.40 1.10 .860 1.08 7.805**

Blind 91 2.62 1.21 3.36 1.47 .736 1.08 6.482**

Deaf 88 3.59 1.34 4.36 1.24 .773 1.09 6.664**

Wheelchair User

90 3.53 1.56 4.11 1.52 .583 .910 6.084**

Mental Health

89 2.99 1.25 3.45 1.35 .455 .804 5.343**

(table continues)

Table 1 (continued)

Disabilities N PreMean

PreSD

PostMean

PostSD

PairedDiffer.Mean

PairedDiffer.SD

T (2-tailed)

Dentistry

LD 49 3.68 1.25 4.49 1.08 .806 .983 5.739**

Blind 47 1.74 1.26 1.87 1.38 .128 .400 2.207

Deaf 48 4.23 1.24 4.51 1.23 .281 .831 2.345

Wheelchair User

51 4.75 1.39 5.17 1.33 .412 .920 3.195*

Mental Health

45 2.98 1.39 3.19 1.39 .211 .644 2.199

Allied Health

LD 18 3.33 1.24 4.22 1.00 .889 .900 4.189**

Blind 19 2.32 1.42 3.00 1.83 .684 .820 3.637*

Deaf 18 3.72 1.90 4.50 1.76 .778 1.00 3.289*

Wheelchair User

18 4.33 1.68 5.06 1.76 .722 1.02 3.010*

Mental Health

18 2.5 1.07 3.11 1.37 .611 .778 3.335*

Note. Rating scale: 6= Strong Agreement; 1=Strong Disagreement. *p < .010. **p < .001 to .010.

Results

The number of faculty who responded to each of the questions on the post-training questionnaire varied dramatically. In part this occurred because some faculty chose not to answer the questions related to

their perceptions and concerns, but were willing to answer the questions about the impact of the training on their knowledge and to give general feedback about the training. Some faculty were willing to answer a few of the questions about perceptions and concerns, but not others. The number of faculty who responded to the concern related to the “perception of other students” was particularly low because the page on which this question appeared was inadvertently not included in the questionnaire for a number of the training events. In the following, we present the major findings grouped into four categories.

Table 2

Mean, Standard Deviations, and T-Tests Pre- And Post-Training for Faculty Concerns about Having Students in Their Programs

Concerns N Pre-Mean

Pre-SD

Post-Mean

Post-SD

PairedDiffer.Mean

Paired Differ.SD

T (2-tailed)

Medicine

Cost of Accomm.

42 3.45 1.66 3.38 1.65 -.071 .463 -1.00

Time by Staff

43 4.21 1.26 4.16 1.31 -.047 .486 -.63

Impact on AcademicStandards

43 3.51 1.53 3.47 1.49 -.047 .532 -.57

Impact on ClinicalStandards

43 3.72 1.44 3.67 1.41 -.047 .486 -.63

Impact on PatientCare

43 3.86 1.44 3.77 1.44 -.093 .479 -1.27

Perceptions of OtherStudents

22 2.36 1.22 2.41 1.30 .045 .375 .57

(table continues)

Table 2 (continued)

Concerns N PreMean

PreSD

PostMean

PostSD

PairedDiffer.Mean

Paired Differ.SD

T (2-tailed)

Nursing

Cost of Accomm.

89 3.54 1.50 3.40 1.58 -.140 1.21 -1.097

Time by Staff

91 4.36 1.34 3.95 1.46 -.418 1.17 -3.420**

Impact on AcademicStandards

90 4.11 1.38 3.52 1.49 -.589 1.18 -4.737**

Impact on ClinicalStandards

91 4.46 1.37 3.73 1.41 -.731 1.26 -5.557**

Impact on PatientCare

90 4.52 1.36 3.84 1.48 -.678 1.24 -5.208**

Perceptions of OtherStudents

14 3.50 1.56 3.14 1.46 -.357 .929 -1.439

(table continues)

Table 2 (continued)

Concerns N PreMean

PreSD

PostMean

PostSD

PairedDiffer.Mean

Paired Differ.SD

T (2-tailed)

Dentistry

Cost of Accomm.

50 3.67 1.48 3.23 1.50 -.440 1.30 -2.40

Time by Staff

50 4.55 1.20 3.91 1.38 -.640 1.54 -2.95*

Impact on AcademicStandards

49 4.05 1.26 3.38 1.48 -.673 1.61 -2.92*

Impact on ClinicalStandards

49 4.44 1.22 3.50 1.23 -.939 1.52 -4.32**

Impact on PatientCare

49 4.60 1.33 3.56 1.45 -1.04 1.49 -4.90**

Perceptions of OtherStudents

6 4.17 1.17 3.17 1.47 -1.00 1.79 -1.37

(table continues)

Table 2 (continued)

Concerns N PreMean

PreSD

PostMean

PostSD

PairedDiffer.Mean

Paired Differ.SD

T (2-tailed)

Allied Health

Cost of Accomm.

20 3.65 1.73 3.0 1.34 -.650 .988 -2.94*

Time by Staff

21 4.71 1.01 3.57 1.12 -1.14 1.11 -4.72**

Impact on AcademicStandards

20 4.50 1.36 3.20 1.20 -1.30 1.17 -4.95*

Impact on ClinicalStandards

20 4.65 1.46 3.45 1.32 -1.20 1.11 -4.86**

Impact on PatientCare

21 4.76 1.30 3.95 1.43 -.810 .928 -4.00*

Perceptions of OtherStudents

4 3.75 1.26 3.00 2.00 -.750 1.50 -1.00

Note. Rating scale: 6= Very Concerned; 1=Not Concerned. *p < .010. **p < .001 to .010.

Perceived Ability of Students with Disabilities to Be Successful in Health Science Program and ProfessionsTable 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the ratings by faculty of their perceptions of the

ability of students with disabilities to be successful in their programs, prior to and after participating in the inservice training. As illustrated, the perceptions of the medicine faculty increased for each of the five disability groups, with increases ranging from .700 for students who are blind to .146 for wheelchair users. The change in ratings for the medicine faculty was statistically significant (p < .001) for students with learning disabilities and students who are blind. Further, the rating changes for students who are deaf and who have mental health disabilities, while not statistically significant, can be considered to be strong evidence of the impact of the inservice training.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of Faculty Ratings of Their Knowledge Increase

Disciplines

Medicine Nursing Dentistry Allied Health

Topics N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Accomm. 50 4.12 1.206 95 4.66 1.145 46 4.58 1.000 23 5.09 1.041

Legal Issues 49 4.12 1.364 93 4.57 1.338 46 4.95 1.045 22 4.91 1.151

Clinical Teaching

49 3.83 1.240 94 4.52 1.143 46 4.28 1.073 23 4.52 1.410

ClassroomTeaching

49 4.03 1.201 94 4.51 1.216 46 4.25 1.233 23 4.83 .984

Note. Rating scale: 6= Knowledge about the topic change a great deal; 1= Not at all.

Increases in the perceptions of nursing faculty occurred for each of the disability groups, with the greatest change for students with learning disabilities (.860) and the least for students with mental health disabilities (.455). The changes in nursing faculty perceptions for each of the disabilities groups were statistically significant at the .00l level.

The dental faculty perceptions also increased for each of the disability groups, with the least change for students who are blind (.128) and the greatest for students who have a learning disability (.806). However, only the change in the faculty ratings related to students who have a learning disability is considered statistically significant. In addition, while the change related to students who are wheelchair users is not statistically significant, it is considered strong evidence of the impact of the training.

The greatest amount of change for the allied health faculty occurred for students with learning disabilities (.889); the least amount of change occurred for students who experience mental health disabilities (.611). Only the change for students with learning disabilities is considered statistically significant; however, the changes related to students with the other types of disabilities can be considered strong evidence of the impact of participating in the inservice training.

Concerns Related to Students with Disabilities Table 2 shows the means of the ratings given by the faculty in each of the four disciplines regarding

the extent of their concerns about the six issues related to having students with disabilities in their programs, prior to and after participating in the inservice training. Looking across the means of the 24 ratings (i.e., four disciplines times six questions each), 14 of the faculty ratings were 4.0 or above prior to

the training. Only the medicine faculty’s ratings of their concerns about “the perception of other students about students with disabilities” were below 3.0.

The greatest amount of post-training change for the medicine faculty was related to patient care concerns (-.07), while their concerns actually increased slightly related to “perception of other students of students with disabilities” (.045). None of the changes were statistically significant or suggested strong evidence for the impact of the inservice training.

The inservice training appeared to have the greatest impact on the concerns of the nursing faculty. Thus, after the training, all of their ratings decreased to below 4.0, and four of the changes (staff time, impact on academic standards, impact on clinical standards, and impact on patient safety) were statistically significant. The amount of change related to “faculty time” provides strong evidence of the positive impact of the training.

The dental faculty’s level of concern decreased for each of the six issues, with the amount of change for two of the concerns being statistically significant (i.e., impact on clinical standards and impact on patient care). The amount of change for two other concerns (i.e., staff time, impact on academic standards) provides strong evidence of the impact of the training.

Finally, the allied health faculty’s level of concern about each of the six concern areas decreased after the training. The greatest amount of change related to “staff time,” while the least related to “cost of accommodations.” The amount of change that occurred pre-post training was statistically significant for four of the concern areas, including patient safety.

Knowledge Table 3 shows the means of the ratings given by faculty of the four disciplines regarding the extent to

which their knowledge of four issues was increased as a result of participating in the inservice training program. On a scale of 1 (Not at All) to 6 (A Great Deal), only one rating mean was less than 4, which was 3.83 for the medicine faculty about “How to teach students with disabilities in clinical settings.” Representatives from four disciplines believed that they had learned the most about accommodation strategies and legal issues.

General Feedback Table 4 shows the means of the faculty ratings of the extent to which they agreed that they would use

the information, the format was conducive to learning the information, and the topics met their needs. All ratings were over 4.0, and all of the ratings given by the nursing, dentistry, and allied health faculty were over 5.0.Discussion

The field test results of “A Day in the Life of a Health Sciences Student” suggest that the perceptions, concerns, and knowledge of health science faculty can be positively impacted by training. Indeed, the authors were pleasantly surprised by the amount of change that occurred in reported faculty perceptions, concerns, and perceived knowledge as a result of the two-hour inservice program. We might expect that if faculty had attended additional training events the extent of change would have been even greater. This hypothesis was not addressed by this field test, but is worthy of study in the future.

Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviations of Faculty Feedback Ratings About the Inservice Training

Disciplines

Medicine Nursing Dentistry Allied Health

Questions N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Topics Met My Needs?

50 4.54 1.33 94 5.17 .89 44 5.30 .85 23 5.52 .95

I Will UseInformation?

50 4.74 1.41 112 5.37 .90 53 5.34 .83 31 5.45 .93

Format wasConducive to Learning?

51 4.75 1.51 109 5.35 .98 53 5.55 .64 31 5.45 .96

Note. Rating scale: 6 = Strong Agreement with question; 1 = Strong Disagreement.

The inservice training curriculum appears to have had its greatest impact on the perceptions of the nurse faculty. This may in part simply be because these faculty’s perceptions appear to have been the least positive prior to the training; thus, they had more “room” to improve. Anecdotally, we found throughout our work on this project that nurse faculty had a high level of concern, particularly about patient care, regarding students with disabilities. On the other hand, they were eager to learn and were open to changing their perceptions of these students.

Considering that the medicine faculty’s perceptions were quite positive prior to the training (i.e., they had less room to change than the other faculty), we were surprised at the extent to which the training positively impacted their perceptions of students with disabilities. One possible explanation is that the medicine faculty self-selected to attend the trainings, whereas program administrators in many of the other programs communicated to the faculty that they were expected or even required to attend the trainings. This was never the case for the medicine faculty. Thus, these faculty were likely the most positive about and interested in the issue of medical students with disabilities prior to the training, and perhaps the most open to the further enhancement of their perceptions.

The training program appeared to be the least effective for the dental faculty. Anecdotally, the dental faculty were the “toughest” audience of the four groups. In part, the nature of the dental profession may partly explain the resistance to change regarding their perceptions of students with disabilities. The dental profession is fairly prescriptive and narrow. Most dentists perform basically the same job and prescribed set of skills, as is also fairly true of hygienists and assistants. For example, all dentists fill cavities. On the other hand, physicians and nurses perform a much wider array of skills and go into a variety of jobs that require very different skills and abilities (e.g., psychiatrist vs. surgeon). Thus, dental faculty members tend to believe that either you can do the precise set of skills required of dentists or you cannot. It appeared that the dental faculty were open to the idea that some people with disabilities could perform the necessary

skills of their profession, but that there are many individuals with disabilities who could not be accommodated enough to be able to be a dentist, hygienist, or assistant.

For the purposes of this article we did not attempt to analyze the differences between disability groups. However, there appears to be differences within and across disciplines related to perceptions of students with different disabilities. Prior to the training all of the disciplines had lower perceptions of the ability of students who are blind and those with mental health disabilities. Based on anecdotal reports, it appeared that few of the faculty who participated in the training had knowledge of health sciences professionals who are blind and none had taught such a student. We were able to find and conduct interviews with a number of doctors who are blind, but have not been able to find nurse, dentist or allied health professionals who are blind. However, the videotape of doctors who are blind appeared to impact the perceptions of not only the medicine faculty, but also the nurse and allied health faculty. The videotape had less impact on the dental faculty, likely due to the issues already discussed.

Considering that society continues to stigmatize people with a mental health disability based on fears that they are prone to violence, as well as health science faculty’s general concerns about patient safety, it was not surprising that faculty perceptions were fairly negative about students with this disability. In our revised curriculum we have provided more information aimed at helping to dispel myths related to individuals with a mental health disability.

Our conversations with the faculty who participated in the training suggested that one of the most important elements of the training program were the videotapes of successful health science professionals with disabilities. Seeing highly competent and successful health science doctors, nurses, dentists, and various allied health professionals describe the challenges that they encountered, and the strategies that they and their faculty used to meet these challenges, appeared to be a powerful experience for the faculty and to impact their perceptions of the ability of students with various disabilities to be successful health science education students. In addition, because the professionals directly addressed many of the concerns of the faculty and described specific accommodation strategies that they used in their classroom and clinical settings, the videotapes likely accounted for a substantial amount of the change in the concern and knowledge measures of the study.

Because the existing literature placed so much emphasis on patient safety, it was not surprising that this was a key concern of the faculty across the four disciplines. We were pleased to find that the impact of training on this concern was statistically significant for the nursing and dentistry faculty, and that there was strong evidence of its impact for the allied health faculty. Again, the fact that the medicine faculty’s pre-training concern was relatively low perhaps explains the lack of a statistically significant change for them.

The results of this field test substantiate the results of our survey showing that faculty are very concerned about the amount of time it will take them to accommodate and work with students with disabilities (Sowers & Smith, in preparation). All faculty members are very busy and have limited time. However, time is a particularly critical issue for many health sciences education faculty who not only teach, but also directly supervise students in clinical settings and carry a patient load. Again, we were pleased to see that the amount of change for this concern was statistically significant for the nursing and allied health faculty, and that there was strong evidence that the amount of change for the dental faculty could be attributed to the training and its focus on illustrating practical accommodation and teaching strategies.

The focus on providing faculty with examples of accommodations that may be used for specific tasks that students must perform in their clinical programs may explain the substantial increase in the perceived knowledge by faculty. In fact, we believe that tailoring the training to the specific and practical demands and requirements of each of the health sciences education disciplines was key to the impact it had on faculty across the knowledge areas addressed on the questionnaire, as well as the perception and concerns questions.

One of the greatest challenges in trying to deliver training to faculty was their time availability. The limited time they have available for training is usually devoted to learning about medical advances (e.g., new drugs and procedures) that they can teach to their students. It is rare for health sciences education faculty to attend training to enhance their teaching skills. In fact, two hours was about the upper limit of what they were able and willing to allocate for our training. We found that we could get the best turnout when we offered the training early in the morning with coffee and bagels, or at lunch with sandwiches. In addition, repeating the training in each program on numerous occasions during the course of the project provided faculty many opportunities to fit it into their schedules.

In addition to the full two-hour inservice training curriculum, we used a wide array of other strategies to bring information about students with disabilities to faculty. For example, we offered to deliver

abbreviated versions (one hour and even less) of the curriculum to faculty as part of their departmental meetings and in other venues. We also cosponsored a one-hour lunchtime lecture series with the office of diversity and multicultural affairs that was attended by over 500 administrators, faculty, staff and students from OHSU. Nationally known experts in the area of cultural, sexual orientation and disability presented at these forums. For example, the dean at a school of medicine that has progressive policies related to students with disabilities and a student with significant physical disabilities were the featured speakers at one of the forums. As suggested earlier, the web site was also a key tool for getting information to faculty at OHSU and PCC and the other schools where the training was field-tested. We also mailed newsletters to each faculty member at OHSU and in PCC’s health sciences programs, which included information about Universal Design strategies and about how to teach and accommodate students with disabilities, as well as information about the web site. In addition, we left stacks of these newsletters in key locations around the university and college, including the cafeteria and faculty lounges.

The number of students with disabilities who wish to enter the health sciences fields and who apply to health sciences education programs appears to be growing (Keyes, 1993; Maheady, 1995). As a result, these programs and their institutions are likely to become increasingly interested in receiving training and technical assistance. In addition, the contingencies on these programs to attract more diverse students are growing. There is a critical nursing shortage in the country, which is motivating nursing programs to proactively reach out to students who have traditionally been underrepresented in the field (Marks, 2000; Smith & Sowers, 2002; Tanner, in press). In addition, health science educators understand that they need to create a more diverse professional workforce in order to reflect the increasing diversity of the patient population in America. Hopefully, health sciences programs will continue to grow in understanding that people with disabilities can help meet their workforce needs and bring a diverse perspective to their programs and professions.

Limitations

As suggested earlier, many of the faculty who participated in this training did so because they were interested in learning about issues related to teaching and accommodating students with disabilities. This was particularly true for the medicine faculty. It is unclear what the extent of change would have been if an even larger percentage of faculty had attended who were not self-motivated. It would have been helpful to include a question in the training evaluation questionnaire to assess motivation for coming to the training (e.g., interest, expectation, requirement, food).

Perhaps the most important limitation of the study is the fact that we were only able to collect self-report data about faculty’s attitudes, concerns, and knowledge. We did not collect data that revealed the extent to which the behavior of the faculty actually changed as a result of participating in the training. Research is recommended that evaluates the extent to which this or other inservice training programs impacts admission decisions for students with disabilities, as well as how the faculty in these programs teach and accommodate these students.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101.CAREERINFONET: Informed Career Decisions. Career information. Retrieved June 15, 2002, from

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/.Center for Universal Design. (2002). What is universal design? Retrieved November 30, 2002, from

http://www.design.ncsu.edu/.Christensen, R. M.  (1998).  Nurse educators’ attitudes toward and decision-making related to applicants

with physical disabilities.  Journal of Nursing Education, 37(7), 311-314.Hartman, D. W., & Hartman, C. W.  (1981, February).  Disabled students and medical school admissions. 

Archives in Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 62, 90-91.Helms, L. B., & Weiler, K.  (1991).  Suing programs of nursing education.  Nursing Outlook, 39(4), 158-

161.Keyes, J. (1993, November). Medical students with disabilities: Implications for health science programs.

Presentation at the National Association of College and University Attorneys, Health Sciences Section meeting, Washington, DC.

Magilvy, J. K., & Mitchell, A. C.  (1995).  Education of nursing students with special needs. Journal of Nursing Education, 34(1), 31-36.

Mahedy, D.C. & Winland-Brown, J. (1995) Inclusion of students with disabilities in nursing education programs in Florida. Florida Nurse, 43 (10), 11.

Maheady, D. C.  (1999).  Jumping through hoops, walking on egg shells: The experiences of nursing students with disabilities.  Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 162-70.

Marks, B. A.  (2000).  Jumping through hoops and walking on eggshells or discrimination, hazing, and abuse of students with disabilities?  Journal of Nursing Education, 39(5), 205-210.           

Martini, C.J.M.  (1987).  Physical disabilities and the study and practice of medicine.  The Journal of the American Medical Association, 257(21), 2956-2957.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, Title 5, Section 504, 87 Stat. 355 29 VSC Section 794.Reichgott, M. J.  (1998).  The disabled student as undifferentiated graduate: A medical school challenge. 

The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1), 79. Samberg, L. (1994). Educating students with disabilities on campus: Strategies of successful projects.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Smith, M. & Sowers, J. (2002) Disability as diversity. The Vine, newsletter of the Child Development and

Rehabilitation Center’s Multicultrual Task Force, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, Fall issue, 1 - 3.

Sowers, J., & Smith, M. (in press-a). Historical review of the literature related to nursing students with disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education.

Sowers, J., & Smith, M. (In press-b). Survey of nursing faculty about students with disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education.

Sowers, J., & Smith, M. (in preparation). Health sciences education faculty: A survey of their perceptions, concerns, and knowledge about students with disabilities.

Swenson, I., Foster, B. H., & Champagne, M.  (1991).  Responses of schools of nursing to physically, mentally, and substance-impaired students.  Journal of Nursing Education, 30(7), 320-325.

Takakuwa, K. M.  (1998).  Coping with a learning disability in medical school.  The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1), 81.

Tanner, C. (in press). Implications for nursing workforce shortages, increasing patient diversity, and students with disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education.

Thompson, J. S.  (1995).  Disability, fundamentals of nursing care: Able to care.  Nursing Times, 91(44), 40-41.            

Watson, P. G.  (1995).  Nursing students with disabilities: A survey of baccalaureate nursing programs.  Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(3), 147-153.           

Weatherby, F., & Moran, M. (1989).  Admission criteria for handicapped students: Focus on the ability to provide safe, effective nursing care rather than on individual deficits.  Nursing Outlook, 37(4), 179-181.           

Wu, S. S. (1998). Disabilities: Looking back and looking ahead. JAMA, 279(1), 78.Wu, S.S., Tsang, P. & Wainapel, S.F. (1996). Physical disability among medical students. American

Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75 (3), 183-187.

About the Authors

Dr. Sowers is the Co-Director of the National Center on Self-Determination, of the Oregon Institute on Disability and Development at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Public Health at OHSU, and the Principal Investigator of the Health Sciences Faculty Education Project.

Ms. Smith is a Research Associate at the National Center on Self-Determination of the Oregon Institute on Disability and Development at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), the Director of the Office for Student Access at OHSU, and the Coordinator of the Health Sciences Faculty Education Project.

Author NoteThis research was supported in part by a grant (#P333A990051) from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jo-Ann Sowers, Center on Self-Determination, Oregon Institute on Disability and Development, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97202. E-mail: sowersj@ohsu.edu.

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.The University of Rhode Island

Abstract

The goal of the Changing the Culture project at the University of Rhode Island is to develop a multi-institutional, statewide network of disability resource mentors, whereby faculty and administrators encourage their department colleagues to develop policies and teaching practices that are inclusive of students with disabilities. The CTC program is systematically increasing the number of disability resource mentors in private and public postsecondary institutions in Rhode Island. One of several outcomes of the project’s seminar, and the resulting day-to-day presence of disability resource mentors, has been increased system-wide inclusiveness for students with disabilities.

Changing the Culture (CTC) project’s primary goal is to work with faculty and administrators at Rhode Island’s postsecondary institutions to develop more inclusive and supportive learning environments for students with disabilities. More specifically, the project seeks to prepare at least one faculty member in each academic department (or one administrator in each administrative unit) to serve as a disability resource mentor to colleagues and as a liaison to offices of disability services.

To prepare for their roles, disability resource mentors participate in a four-day workshop in which they acquire information about various disabilities, examine assumptions and attitudes about students with disabilities, and consider accommodations that enable students with disabilities to participate fully in postsecondary programs. Following the workshops, disability resource mentors talk with colleagues in their departments to raise consciousness about the challenges students with disabilities face, increase knowledge about disabilities, consider what various accommodations make possible, and occasionally help resolve conflicts if someone is unwilling or hesitant to provide the requested accommodations.

Underlying this approach to faculty development are three core observations and assumptions. First, the CTC project team recognizes that several people play roles in how welcoming and inclusive a college or university is for students with disabilities. That is, while faculty play a prominent role, students also interact with administrators and staff in admissions offices, financial aid offices, libraries, housing offices, deans’ offices, career services and myriad other offices. It seems important, therefore, to have disability resource mentors in these offices as well as among faculty.

Second, CTC’s approach acknowledges that departments constitute important decision-making entities for faculty and administrators. That is, faculty set programmatic goals, curricular requirements, and many of the academic and administrative policies that affect students within departmental units. Administrators, too, initiate and often determine policies within their departments. Having a person

knowledgeable about disabilities present when department members discuss such matters increases the likelihood that goals, requirements, and policies will include rather than exclude students with disabilities.

Finally, CTC’s approach recognizes the power of colleague relationships. While the importance of these relationships is documented in research on peer mentoring (Kerka, 1998), the emphasis in this project derives primarily from the observations of CTC team members who have worked with faculty for more than 30 years. Colleagues within a department may disagree, argue, and debate, but for the most part, they listen to and respect one another. Therefore, if minds need to be changed, departmental colleagues seem good candidates for changing them.

Table 1

Outline of Four-Day Seminar to Train Disability Resource Mentors

Morning Afternoon

Day One IntroductionsAttitudes & Stigma Student Panel Excerpts: “When Billy Broke His Head” (Golfus & Simpson, 1994)

Short Film: “Big Man/Big Voice” (Langley, 1997) Legal Considerations: Rights & Responsibilities, Civil Rights, What Is Reasonable?

Day Two Vision Disability, Simulation & Scenario Discussion Hearing Disability, Simulation & Scenario Discussion

Film: “Voices in a Deaf Theatre” (Meisel, 1996) Physical Disability Out & About Campus Simulation Activity Follow-Up & Scenario Discussions

Day Three How Students Process Information Learning Disabilities & ADHD

Film: “Misunderstood Minds” (Kirk, 2002) LD&ADHD DocumentationScenario Discussions

Day Four Film: “Depression & Manic Depression” (Guth, 1996) Mental Health Disability, Simulation & Scenario Discussion

DSS Data and University Policies Bringing the Information Home, What Will You Do? Summary Discussion or Alumni Mentor Panel

Training for Disability Resource Mentors

The goals for CTC’s four-day training seminar are to enable disability resource mentors to initiate and facilitate the following activities with their colleagues:

To discuss multicultural aspects of disability and address negative stereotypes that are barriers to people with disabilities;

To explain disability laws as related to higher education and interpret the concept of “reasonable accommodations” for a range of disabilities;

To summarize research on learning and the implications for teaching generally and for teaching students with disabilities specifically;

To convey basic information about various disabilities (visual, hearing, physical, learning, attention, and mental health) and about accommodations that help students with these disabilities succeed;

To engage colleagues in thinking creatively about ways to enable students with disabilities to meet department and program requirements.

Table 1 outlines the topics and schedule for the CTC disability resource mentor training.The CTC training methods used are built upon constructivist and social constructivist views of

learning, which posit that people are not simply passive recipients of new information, but rather actively engaged in constructing their understanding of new knowledge (Bruning, 1994; Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999; Fosnot, 1996; Svinicki, 1999). Prior learning and experience play major roles in the construction process because people interpret new information in light of what they already know. Interactions with others are also key because they enable learners to gain additional perspectives and interpretations. Therefore, the CTC training seminar emphasizes active involvement, experiential activities, reflection on experience, and interaction with peers.

Each of the sessions outlined in Table 1 begins with a short presentation of basic information about the topic under focus. The opening session on attitudes, for example, identifies and shows examples of stereotypical representations of persons with disabilities in children’s literature, advertising, television, and film. The session on legal issues outlines key provisions of laws affecting persons with disabilities. Sessions on the various categories of disability begin with an overview of the characteristics, challenges, and accommodations pertinent to each. While these opening presentations involve considerable interaction in the form of questions and answers, the CTC team has worked to keep them as brief as possible (under 30 minutes) in an effort to quickly move on to activities that invite more active involvement and interaction among participants.

Since, simulation experiences are among those highly involving activities, most of the sessions include a simulation. For example, specially prepared “blocker glasses” simulate vision disabilities; an audiotape simulates degrees of hearing loss. A reading exercise simulates the difficulties persons with dyslexia have decoding reading assignments and written exams. A more substantial simulation occurs the afternoon of the second day. Here the CTC team distributes wheelchairs or crutches to some participants to simulate mobility disabilities, “blocker” glasses to simulate vision loss to others, and tinnitus maskers or ear protectors to simulate hearing loss to the remaining participants. In teams of two, participants try to make their way around campus to two or three places – the library, a faculty office, a classroom, for example. In follow-up discussions and in their evaluations, participants note that this is one of the most powerful parts of the seminar. Many express surprise at how difficult it is to navigate campus. Some report interactions in which they felt they were treated differently because of their “disability.” Most agree that they understand the challenges faced by students with disabilities much more fully as a result of the simulation.

Scenario discussions, another key element in the training seminar, provide opportunities for disability resource mentors to prepare for the kinds of interactions they might have with colleagues. The CTC training team has created about 30 different scenarios based on interactions and incidents that have actually occurred. The following is a sample scenario discussed in the session on physical and mobility impairments:

Gail is completing her sophomore year at a large research university. She is applying for admittance to the natural resources program. She has a 3.4 GPA and has previous experience that makes her a strong candidate. She uses a wheelchair, however, and a faculty member on the admissions committee has questioned the appropriateness of admitting her because of her disability. The faculty member reminds everyone of the extensive field work that is required in the program’s curriculum. She questions how a student in a wheelchair will be able to participate in the many required field trips in which students gather specimens that are then analyzed in lab settings.As a disability resource mentor, what suggestions or recommendations might you make to the admissions committee?

Every seminar session includes discussion of two to four scenarios. Participants discuss first in small groups and then share their ideas in the larger group. Because the scenarios rarely have obviously correct

answers, they invite participants to consider a variety of issues such as student rights, institutional standards, and legal issues.

Two additional training strategies/methodologies merit mention. First, the seminar includes a panel of students with different disabilities. Panel members respond to questions about the saliency of their disability in their lives, how they wish others would interact with them, and what they say when others suggest that accommodations create unfair advantages to them. Students speaking in their own words are especially effective in conveying emotional content as well as information. Films also bring to life information about disabilities and, as Table 1 indicates, the seminar includes one film followed by discussion each day.

In the closing session, participants work in small groups to brainstorm ways in which they might “bring the information home to colleagues.” Some opt to conduct discussion groups in which they will invite colleagues to share their experiences in working with students with disabilities. Others decide they will request time during department meetings to talk briefly about the training program, to explain what they are prepared to do as disability resource mentors, and perhaps to discuss one or two scenarios from the seminar. Some prefer a more low-key approach in which they will look for opportunities to talk with colleagues individually.

In addition to the seminar, participants receive a resource manual made up of a collection of distributed materials from HEATH Resource Center, the NETAC Consortium, and similar agencies, as well as handouts and information developed by the CTC staff. The manual is intended to serve as a resource to the mentors as they bring aspects of the seminar back to their departments. A website (www.uri.edu/ctc) also serves as a link to other demonstration projects and to websites that have information about the various disabilities described during the seminar. Two of the six seminars apprenticed a training team from each of the cooperating institutions, Community College of Rhode Island and Rhode Island College. Those teams have begun to function independently, conducting seminars at their respective institutions.

Method of EvaluationThe overall goal of the Change the Culture project was to facilitate the development of an inclusive

and supportive learning environment for students with disabilities. Professional development training was the primary strategy utilized to reach this goal. Faculty and administrators participated in a comprehensive training seminar and ongoing supportive activities as described. The outcome of the training was evaluated in two different ways: (a) immediate effectiveness of the training seminar for the participants, and (b) long-term impact of the training on the postsecondary learning environment. Data related to the immediate effectiveness of the training were easily obtained through multiple seminar feedback instruments, which informed ongoing revision and modification to the curriculum. Data on the long-term impact were inherently more difficult to obtain due to the lack of a “gold standard” outcome measure. The global nature of the variable of interest and the multifaceted causality in an environment as complex as postsecondary education also contribute to this difficulty. Given this complex outcome environment and the limited duration of the project (three years), preliminary qualitative data support the impact of the training on the postsecondary learning environment.

ResultsA total of 103 faculty and administrators from 45 departments at 7 Rhode Island higher education

institutions have been trained as disability resource mentors. Six seminars were conducted during the three-year project period. Participants, from both public and private institutions, represented numerous disciplines, including engineering, business, arts and sciences, pharmacy, allied health, environment and life sciences, affirmative action and university libraries.

Effectiveness of the Training SeminarThree instruments were used to collect data on the effectiveness of the training seminar: (a) a scale

measuring participants’ confidence in meeting the training objectives, (b) a satisfaction survey, and (c) a narrative feedback form. The first two tools were Likert instruments that asked participants to rate their agreement/disagreement with statements about the training on a 4-point scale; the feedback form collected narrative data. Data from all three tools were used to modify and revise the curriculum and presentations to maximize the effectiveness of the training.

Table 2

Pre- And Post- Confidence Scale Means and Standard Deviations

Standard Mean Deviation

Confidence Scale Item Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

1. Describe common stereotypes of persons with disabilities and the associated limitations these stereotypes foster.

2.82 3.63 0.67 0.51

2. Identify and implement strategies to combat the negative stigma of disability.

2.47 3.50 0.73 0.50

3. Summarize the basic principles of the IDEA and the ADA.

2.21 3.38 0.93 0.60

4. Explain the concept of “reasonable accommodations” and give examples for a range of disabilities.

2.54 3.79 0.74 0.41

5. Summarize the latest research on learning disabilities, including types, causes, and accommodation strategies.

1.97 3.05 0.81 0.55

6. Describe common mental illnesses, including their symptoms, treatments and unique associated stigma.

2.32 3.33 0.79 0.58

7. Demonstrate mentoring skills, including active listening, problem solving, and consideration of multiple points of view.

2.80 3.58 0.82 0.52

8. Describe affective and psychomotor consequences of selected (simulated) disabilities.

1.98 3.17 0.72 0.66

9. Describe/discuss first-person accounts of life with a disability.

2.31 3.47 1.01 0.59

10. Disseminate seminar content to departmental/administrative unit colleagues.

2.78 3.68 0.97 0.49

Note. Data based on a 4-point Likert scale with greater numbers associated with greater confidence.

Confidence scale. The confidence scale was administered before the training started on Day 1 and again at the end of the final day of training. Table 2 presents pre- and post- means and standard deviations for each item, or training objective. Higher scores indicate greater confidence. A summative score for each individual was also calculated. Considering this summative data, the pre-test mean (M = 24.12, SD = 5.8) was significantly lower than the post-test mean (M = 35.6, SD = 3.5), t (86) = 15.4, p < .001.

Satisfaction survey. The satisfaction survey was administered at the end of the final day of training. In addition to assessing the logistics of seminar delivery (e.g., parking, environmental comfort, etc.) and instructor skills (e.g., encouraged participation, skilled in listening and responding, etc.), this instrument sought information on overall participant satisfaction and participants’ plans for using the presented information. Means and standard deviations for these data are given in Table 3; again, higher numbers indicate a more positive response.

Table 3

Satisfaction Scale Means and Standard Deviations

Satisfaction Scale Items MeanStandard deviation

1. How satisfied are you with the class? 3.80 0.40

2. How satisfied are you with the instructor(s) of this class? 3.83 0.38

3. How satisfied are you that this class is time well spent? 3.77 0.42

4. What is the likelihood that you will apply the skills taught in the class? 3.78 0.42

5. What is the likelihood that you will use the class materials in your job? 3.71 0.46

6. What is the likelihood that you will recommend this class to others? 3.81 0.39

7. What is the likelihood that you will take another class? 3.60 0.59

Note. Data based on a 4-point Likert scale with higher numbers associated with greater satisfaction/likelihood.

Narrative feedback. Finally, formative (daily) and summative narrative feedback on each seminar was gathered. Questions addressed three topics: (a) what about the training was effective/helpful, (b) what was still unclear, and (c) what could be done to improve the experience. These responses informed subsequent sessions. Typical summative data follow:

The CTC Training Initiative has developed excellent materials and an engaging delivery approach [that] work together to create an environment where faculty, staff, and students can explore their current beliefs regarding disability. It is [a] combination that builds both knowledge and skill in its participants. E. Dalton, Associate Professor, Rhode Island College. (personal communication, July 16 2002)

[After participating in the training] I feel confident that I will be able to be a true resource to my colleagues in terms of educating them about the needs of students with disabilities and also in terms of assisting them in providing reasonable accommodations to these students. Thank you for a wonderful learning experience. (L. Bowleg, Assistant Professor, URI, personal communication, July 13, 2002).

I experienced one of the most successful professional development opportunities of my career. (L. Peebles, Director-Student Services, New England Institute of Technology. personal communication, July 10, 2002).

Because of the training, I was able not only to understand the importance of thinking of cultural diversity as including disabilities, but I knew the arguments to make. Thus, … my work is more informed. (W.L. McKinney, Dean, College of Human Science and Services, URI, personal communication, July 11, 2002).

Long-Term Impact of the Training on the Postsecondary Environment Changing the learning environment of postsecondary institutions to better meet the needs of students

with disabilities is a long-term goal. Measuring such change is challenging, given the complex, long-term, multifaceted nature of this learning environment. Changing the Culture took a qualitative approach to collect preliminary data from the disability resource mentors to support the long-term impact of the training on the postsecondary learning environment. Focus groups, listserv discussions, and one-on-one conversations were the sources for these data.

Two broad categories of impact were identified in the data through content analysis: policy changes and improved communication. Policy changes included the elimination of time limits for all exams in several academic departments and the addition of standard accommodation statements in course syllabi and departmental handbooks. Perhaps the most significant policy change occurred at Rhode Island College where disability resource mentors, as a group, successfully advocated for a full-time disability services coordinator. The coordinator, the first full-time staff for disability services in that institution’s history, is now a member of the CTC satellite training team at that institution. The second identified theme was improved communication among colleagues concerning accommodations. Disability resource mentors reported making themselves available to mediate between their faculty colleagues and students with disabilities. Consider the following, for example:

One disability resource mentor (DRM) in the physics department told about his colleague, who was rudely confronted by two students demanding accommodations. The colleague refused to provide extended time on the final exam. That colleague then went to the DRM and said, “You’re the one I’m supposed to talk to…” The DRM, investigating, learned that it was the rude behavior, not the accommodation, creating the problem. He told the faculty colleague, “You really can’t refuse the extended time, but let’s talk to the students about appropriate behavior toward faculty.” (L. Kahn, Professor, Physics, URI, personal communication, May 6, 2001).

Disability resource mentors also reported that myths about persons with disabilities are being dispelled and greater comfort has been demonstrated in dealing with students with disabilities, as described in the following quotes:

I have noticed a much better understanding and concern for students with disabilities. The message seems to be getting through to my colleagues and the Dean who has spoken positively about the program and the efforts of those who have participated. (J. Matoney, Professor, College of Business, URI, personal communication, May 26, 2003)

I can attest to the value of the [CTC] program for faculty and students. Its success can be measured more in the informal, day-to-day shifts in student/professor interactions and pedagogical practices than in any grand policy change. Through informal memos and conversations, my colleagues and I have shared information about URI policies and government rules regarding the accommodation of students with disabilities, as well as information about the needs of individual learners. (M. Schwartz, Professor, History, URI, personal communication, July 10, 2002)

The efforts [of CTC] are making a significant difference in the level of awareness, knowledge and, therefore, advancement of issues related to college students with disabilities. (L. Peebles, Director-Student Services, New England Institute of Technology, personal communication, July 10, 2002)

DiscussionThe goal of the CTC project is to create systemic change in institutions of higher education that

combats the threat to the intellectual, academic and personal achievement of students with disabilities. To create such systemic change, the project has successfully trained a network of disability resource mentors, who serve as information resources to their colleagues and liaisons to the disability services units of their institutions. In addition, independent trainer teams have been established to present a training seminar at their institutions and to expand the networks of mentors at those cooperating institutions.

There is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of the training seminar. There is preliminary evidence of the systemic impact of the disability resource mentor network, in department policy changes, funding of new positions, and reduction of attitudinal barriers. This formative period for a grass-roots movement of systemic change has begun to foster a more inclusive environment for college students with disabilities. The increased awareness and improved strategies to include students with disabilities will benefit ALL students in higher education institutions.

The CTC project will continue its work by professionally packaging the tested curriculum for use by other institutions, upgrading the CTC web site so that it becomes a national interactive resource, and creating professionally prepared documents that will complement the library of materials from NETAC and the other Demonstration Program projects. Further, the CTC project will continue efforts to train new disability resource mentors, support the efforts of established training teams at other institutions, and adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of future faculty, adjunct faculty, and secondary school educators who assist student transition to the postsecondary environment.

Three objectives will provide the framework for accomplishing CTC’s future work to promote systemic change:

• Refine, for use by institutions of higher education, the tested teaching methods and strategies of the mentor training. Adapt the curriculum for future faculty, adjunct faculty, and secondary-level transition educators. Universal design and multicultural issues will also be important.

• Expand the network of disability resource mentors through professional development and training sessions at postsecondary institutions in Rhode Island, New England, and beyond the local region.

• Professionally package program materials for effective dissemination on a national basis (i.e., package curricula in CD-ROM, create an interactive CTC web site, etc.) to support systemic change.

In evaluating the progress of CTC, we will examine the impact of disability resource mentors on department attitudes and student experience. The effectiveness of each seminar will continue to be evaluated, as will retention and graduation statistics for students with disabilities. True systemic change, the most significant feature of the CTC program, lies in the hard work of intensive training and personal day-to-day encounters of mentor to colleague and trainer to mentor; documenting this systemic change is a long-term process. This project is a product of U.S. Department of Education Grant Award #P333A990064: Changing the Culture: The University of Rhode Island’s Demonstration to Ensure that Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education.

References

Bruning, R. H. (1994). The college classroom from the perspective of cognitive psychology. In K.W. Prichard & R. McL. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications (pp. 3-22). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Donovan, M.S., Bransford, J.D., & Pellegrino, J. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Retrieved on April 3, 2003, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9457.html.

Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Golfus, B., & Simpson, D. E. (1994). When Billy broke his head [Video cassette]. San Francisco, CA: Independent Television Service.

Guth, J. (1996). Depression and manic depression [Video cassette]. Boston, MA: Fanlight Productions.Kerka, S. (1998). New perspectives on mentoring. ERIC Digest No. 194. (pp. 3 - 4) (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED418249).Kirk, M. (2002). Misunderstood minds [Video cassette]. Boston, MA: WGBH Video.Langley, J. S. (1997). Big man, big voice [Video cassette]. New York: CBS Video.Meisel, M. (1996). Voices in a deaf theater [Video cassette]. Boston, MA: Fanlight Productions.Svinicki, M. D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. In M.D. Svinicki, (Ed.), Teaching and learning on the edge of the millennium: Building on what we have learned, (pp. 5-27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

About the Authors

Pamela Rohland, Disability Services for Students, University of Rhode Island is Principal Investigator for the CTC Project ; Susan Roush, College of Human Science and Services, University of Rhode Island, is Co-Principal Investigator for CTC; Bette Erickson, Instructional Development Program, University of Rhode Island, is the CTC Curriculum Consultant; Deborah Mathews, Institute of Human Sciences and Services, University of Rhode Island, is the External Project Evaluator. Kristen Quinlan and Anabela DaSilva Smith, University of Rhode Island are doctoral candidates in Psychology, and are staff members for Disability Services and the CTC Project. Alphabetical placement of secondary authors indicates equal contributions. Authors acknowledge the contributions of Jonathan Corey, New Program Coordinator of CTC.

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.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace SupportsVirginia Commonwealth University

Abstract

This article describes the responses to an on-line survey that was sent to 21 universities and colleges funded during 1999-2002 by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) to develop and implement faculty and administrator professional development activities. The projects were asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions concerning their experiences over the three-year period working with faculty, administrators, students with disabilities, and other professionals on their campuses. Their responses were analyzed qualitatively by identifying recurring issues and themes. Implications of the findings for future research and evaluation efforts on the effectiveness of professional

development strategies and their long-term impact on the education of students with disabilities in higher education are explored.

Efforts to create faculty development programs to address student diversity and student services began to emerge on university and college campuses during the 1990s (Alfano, 1994) prompted by the growing number of diverse learners, including students with disabilities, entering postsecondary education programs. More and more students with disabilities are seeking advanced degrees as a result of a combination of legislative, academic, and social changes (Gilson, 1996). The National Longitudinal Transition Study –2 (Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003) findings reflect the increased interest by students (and their families) to attend institutions of higher education. As a result, higher education programs, especially two-year colleges, were more likely to be a transition option in 2001 than in 1987 for students with disabilities. This option was for youth of all disability categories regardless of gender, race, or income level (Wagner et al., 2003).

A growing body of literature is focusing on the need for professional development programs for postsecondary education faculty (NCLD, 1999; Salzberg et al, 2002; Scott & Gregg, 2000; Szymanski, Hewitt, Watson, & Swett, 1999; Thompson, Bethea, & Turner, 1997; Wilson, Getzel, & Brown, 2000; Wilson & Getzel, 2001). Studies address faculty perceptions of teaching students with diverse needs, level of knowledge about students with disabilities, and the need for information and resources. Results reveal a need for professional development activities that provide faculty and staff with opportunities to increase their understanding about educating students with disabilities in higher education.

The literature provides a basis for understanding the information and materials needed by faculty on educating students with disabilities in higher education. This information is critical as higher education works to meet the unique learning needs of a diverse student population, including students with disabilities. As greater numbers of students with disabilities seek advanced training from postsecondary programs to meet the growing demand of the market place for higher-level skills, there will be a continuing need to educate and assist faculty and staff about the availability of effective teaching strategies and technology.

It is equally important to learn what universities and colleges are doing in terms of faculty development and the outcomes of such activities. What strategies prove effective for faculty development? What are the challenges and barriers that colleges and universities face when implementing programs? What recommendations do colleges have for other institutions of higher education implementing faculty development activities? These questions and more need to be addressed as faculty and administrators work to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities.

In response to the growing need for faculty development activities across the country, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) issued a request for proposals (RFPs). The purpose of the RFP was to support model demonstration projects in providing technical assistance or professional development for faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education as part of an effort to ensure that students with disabilities receive a quality postsecondary education. Proposals were to address one or more of the following activities, (a) develop innovative, effective, and efficient teaching methods and strategies; (b) synthesize research and other information related to the provision of postsecondary educational services to students with disabilities; and (c) conduct professional development and training sessions for faculty and administrators to meet the postsecondary needs of students with disabilities. As a result of the competition, 21 postsecondary sites were selected for the 1999-2002 grant funding cycle.

The sites represent a wide range of educational institutions, and each designed faculty development activities to meet the unique needs of their individual campus. Hence the project staff from these sites possesses a wealth of information and first-hand experience about the strategies and methods used to implement faculty development activities on their campuses. This article describes the responses to an on-line survey that was sent to each of the OPE-funded projects. Project staff were asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions concerning their experiences over a three-year period working with faculty, administrators, students with disabilities, and other professionals on their campuses to develop, implement, and evaluate faculty development activities.

Table 1

Survey Site Participants N=17

OPE SitesUniversity of Arizona

University of Arkansas at Little RockCalifornia State University at NorthridgeUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of KansasUniversity of KentuckyLandmark CollegeUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of New HampshireNorthern Illinois UniversityOhio State UniversityOregon Health and Science UniversityUniversity of Rhode IslandUtah State UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversityUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout

MethodParticipants

Survey respondents were project directors or coordinators of the 21 OPE-funded sites from 1999-2002. On-line surveys were sent to each of the 21 sites asking for their participation. Reminder e-mails were sent to ensure the highest return rate possible. Seventeen completed surveys were returned to Virginia Commonwealth University for analysis. Table 1 provides a list of the participating sites.

Survey InstrumentThe survey instrument asked respondents to provide information on the outcomes of their projects;

ideas on what they had learned concerning faculty development in higher education; and suggestions and ideas for other colleges and universities on strategies for implementing faculty development programs. The survey instrument was designed to serve two purposes. The first was to gather information on the focus of their projects and the products developed as a result of their activities. Some of this information is briefly described in Appendix A. More detailed descriptions of the projects and their products are summarized in a publication “Faculty Development in Higher Education: Training Products and Resource Information,” which is available by contacting the authors.

The second purpose of the survey was to gain insight from a variety of colleges and universities across the country concerning implementation of faculty development programs. The respondents were asked eight open-ended questions about implementation of their project activities and their impact. The responses were analyzed qualitatively by identifying recurring issues and themes. Each site provided several responses to the questions. The tables presented in the results section summarize emerging themes or similar trends among the responding sites, based on the responses of four or more sites.

ResultsFaculty Input

The first question asked how feedback from the faculty helped to guide project activities. The responses illustrate how projects worked extensively to develop customized training and materials for faculty and staff at their institutions. Thus, feedback obtained from faculty helped to guide a number of the activities either in the development stage or modification of materials after presented to the faculty. Prior to the development of training materials, some sites, including University of Kentucky and Ohio State University, conducted focus groups or other assessments to determine the format or type of training to develop. California State University, Northridge, described how faculty input helped to shape the dissemination and media uses for their training; for example, the staff had planned to develop videotapes, but instead offered on-line training. Formative and summative evaluation methods were also used at all the project sites to continually enhance the content and format of the training. University of Wisconsin-Stout moved almost exclusively to disseminating information using a web site in response to the need for this type of dissemination rather than face-to-face training. Similarly, to keep a continual flow of information and feedback among faculty members who attended trainings, Northern Illinois University developed a listserv to send a “tip of the week” as a method of follow-up after a training, thereby allowing faculty an opportunity to share their experiences of implementing what they learned.

Faculty input also took the form of faculty members assisting in the development of training materials for their colleagues. For example, at the University of Kansas faculty members developed content-specific instructional devices and identified the components for the creation of a CD-ROM. In other projects, faculty members were not the only audience that the staff solicited information from concerning the content and information for professional development activities. Students with disabilities, university administrators, and auxiliary personnel also provided input. These groups were used either in the review of materials, presenters in training programs, or received training as part of the project activities. Landmark College produced a CD featuring college students talking about their learning disabilities. Table 2 summarizes the most frequent responses from the sites concerning faculty input in project activities.

Table 2Use of Faculty Input for Project Activities

Activity Frequency PercentEvaluation of Materials, Activities, and Training

12 71%

Determined Format of Training 11 65% Participated in Development of Materials 4 24%

Incorporating Project ActivitiesThe second question asked how the projects were able to incorporate activities into their college or

university setting. Over half of the responding sites did so through the development of a web site, which became a primary vehicle for providing information and training to faculty and other university personnel. A number of sites reported that activities involving on-site or face-to-face training were incorporated into established university or college meetings and events. For example, partnerships were developed with centers for faculty development on various campuses incorporating disability related training into their faculty development activities. Utah State University incorporated training information and materials into annual graduate teaching assistant orientations and departmental meetings. Similarly, the University of Arizona described their project as an outreach and infusion model. They were able to infuse learner-centered concepts and instructional strategies in academic departments on their campus. Infusing information, resources, and materials into existing programs and events at the university was voiced by several of the sites as an effective method for reaching faculty and administrators.

The development of training materials and resources focusing on Universal Design principles was identified by five of the sites. The University of Connecticut, for example, developed a national resource for training faculty and administrators on Universal Design for Instruction, including on-line examples of

inclusive instructional strategies. Day-to-day use of strategies and techniques by faculty and staff was viewed as a critical means for incorporating the information and materials developed by the projects.

In two project sites activities helped to build an increasing awareness and need for additional staff to assist in providing the services and supports needed by students with disabilities. Positions included a full-time disability coordinator through the University of Rhode Island project and University of Arkansas at Little Rock created an instructional technology specialist to focus on web accessibility and Universal Design. Table 3 lists activities that were provided by four or more responding sites.

Outreach Methods UsedSurvey participants were also asked to identify the most effective methods of outreaching to faculty

and what contributed to their participation and interest. Availability of training in various formats was found helpful by a majority of the OPE sites in outreach to faculty, and is exemplified through the University of Washington project. The use of web sites, brochures, videotapes, and on-site presentations were all listed as effective strategies.

Table 3

Strategies for Incorporating Activities on Campus

Strategies Frequency PercentDevelopment of Web Site 9 53%Use of Established Meetings or Events 7 41%Focus on Universal Design Principles 5 29%

Collaboration was also a key factor when outreaching to faculty. Thus, sites emphasized the importance of building relationships with all parties involved, including faculty, administrators, staff, and students with disabilities. Some of the sites, including Virginia Commonwealth University fostered collaboration through the use of faculty liaisons to work with individual departments helping to disseminate information and provide input on topics for further training. Working with university centers for improving instruction and collaborating with other university student services to develop and implement of training activities was seen as an effective methods for reaching faculty. Additionally, the University of Minnesota, along with three other sites, reported on the importance of having administrative support across several levels of the university to endorse faculty development activities offered by the projects. On some campuses, faculty members were more responsive when a dean, vice president, or vice provost endorsed the projects’ activities and encouraged their participation.

Four of the sites, including Oregon Health and Science University, believed that structuring their training and resource development around the concepts of Universal Design proved effective for reaching faculty. Providing information within the context of Universal Design enabled faculty to learn how changes in their instruction, curriculum, and use of technology could benefit all students, including students with disabilities. Thus, using the concepts of Universal Design helped faculty broaden their perspective on teaching students with disabilities.

The use of an honorarium or other incentives was reported to be an effective way to obtain faculty participation by four of the sites. The University of New Hampshire found that faculty members who received these incentives agreed to share information with their colleagues or participate in an evaluation process documenting changes made in curriculum materials, policies, or teaching strategies. Table 4 summarizes the responses of the sites concerning outreach strategies for faculty participation.

Challenges/Barriers to Providing TrainingThe overwhelming response to the question on the greatest challenges or barriers to developing and

providing faculty development activities was time constraints. Thus, 15 sites responded that the competition for faculty members’ time to participate in training or other activities was the greatest barrier.

The sites sought various methods and strategies to overcome the issue of time availability for professional development activities.

Table 4

Effective Outreach Methods

Methods Frequency PercentAvailability of Training Format Options (i.e., web, brochures, videos, on site)

12 71%

Collaboration with Key Faculty, Administrators, Staff, and Students with Disabilities

6 35%

Applied Principles of Universal Design within Training Sessions

4 24%

Endorsement of Training by Key Administrators

4 24%

Use of Honorarium/Incentives for Faculty 4 24%

Table 5

Barriers or Challenges to Developing and Providing Faculty Development Activities

Barriers Frequency PercentTime Limitations of Faculty 15 88%Lack of Faculty Buy-In for Training 7 41%Lack of Administrative Support 4 24%

The second barrier was the lack of understanding or buy-in by faculty members of the need for professional development activities and the relevancy of the information and materials provided to their teaching. Some respondents voiced concerns about the lack of awareness that some faculty members had concerning instructing students with disabilities, which led to negative attitudes. Other sites described difficulties with getting faculty members to see the need for professional development on an ongoing basis to keep updated on new technologies, instructional strategies, and other methods to assist students with disabilities.

The third most frequent barrier was the lack of administrative support. Respondents noted that without strong administrative support and leadership, faculty development activities were not viewed as critical. The participants’ responses to this question are summarized in Table 5.

Changes to Project Implementation Based on their experiences of implementing faculty development activities over the previous three

years, project staff were asked to comment on whether or not they would have done anything differently. A majority responded no. Participants felt that specific outcomes had been achieved as a result of the design and implementation of their projects. A few additional comments focused on developing more web based resources or on-line training for faculty.

Critical Information Needed by FacultyThe respondents were asked to express their opinions on what information was most critical for

faculty when teaching students with disabilities. Three major areas emerged, Universal Design principles,

legal rights and responsibilities for instructing students with disabilities, and information that facilitated further understanding and awareness on the part of faculty members. A little over 40% of the sites identified the need for instructing faculty members on the principles of Universal Design and ideas and strategies for implementing these principles.

Table 6

Information Most Critical for Faculty Instructing Students with Disabilities

Information Frequency PercentLegal/Policy Issues Regarding Classroom Accommodations

9 53%

Understanding/Awareness of Educating Students with Disabilities

9 53%

Principles and Strategies of Universal Design 7 41%

Over half of the sites identified the need for faculty to obtain training on the issues around the legal rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities in higher education. Specifically, they reported that information was needed about the accommodation process on their campus and the roles and responsibilities of students with disabilities, faculty, and the disability support services office. The sites also listed issues related to accommodation and academic standards.

The third area identified by 53% of the sites as critical for faculty development involved information, resources, and materials that increased understanding and awareness of educating students with disabilities. Examples included helping faculty to understand the value-added aspects of having students with disabilities in their classes. Other topic areas focused on understanding student learning needs, creating an environment where students are comfortable in approaching faculty to discuss accommodations, increasing awareness of diverse learners in higher education, and the tools and strategies that are available to meet these diverse needs. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 6.

Recommendations for Other Colleges andUniversities

The survey respondents were asked to provide recommendations to other universities or colleges implementing faculty development activities. Their recommendations are summarized in Table 7. The most frequent response to this question concerned building collaborative partnerships on campus. Building support networks with faculty, building trust among the various partners involved in educating students with disabilities, and working with a variety of services or departments on campus were believed to be the most important components of creating faculty development activities.

The sites also recommend that a variety of training formats be developed. Thus, approximately 40% commented that training formats should include face-to-face, on-line, and print materials so that faculty and administrators can easily access the materials and information.

A final recommendation concerned the involvement of students with disabilities, faculty, and disability service providers in the development and implementation of professional development activities. Involving students with disabilities was seen as especially critical. The respondents felt that student involvement helped to maximize personal contact between faculty and students and increased faculty awareness of the educational experiences students were having on campus.

Impact of Projects The projects provided a wealth of information in response to the question asking what their projects

had achieved. Examples illustrate the ongoing or established nature of the activities and products they created. In the area of Internet/on-line resources, over half of the sites created resources and information for on-line training or web site use. Listservs proved to be an effective method for communicating with faculty and keeping up-to-date on their issues and concerns. Training materials and information developed for the project were also listed by a majority of the projects. Numerous publications, products and

presentations were developed to assist faculty at their own university along with dissemination efforts to help other colleges and universities across the country.

Table 7

Recommendations for Other Colleges and Universities

Recommendations Frequency PercentBuild Collaborative Partnerships 9 53%Develop Training Using Several Formats (i.e., face-to-face, on-line, and print)

7 41%

Create Training Teams (i.e., students with disabilities, faculty, DSS staff) to Assist with Development and Implementation of Faculty Training

7 41%

Table 8

Products and Impact of Project

Impact Frequency PercentTraining Materials and Presentations 16 94%Internet/On-Line Resources 9 53%Increased Awareness 7 41%Increased Collaboration 5 29%Policy Changes 4 24%Creation of New Positions 4 24%

Changes in university policies were identified as a project impact. Fro example, respondents described changes within departments that helped to create a more welcoming environment for students with disabilities. Other changes included clearer guidelines for accessing accommodations through the disability support services offices and implementation of these accommodations by faculty. Changes in policies resulted from increased interaction and collaboration among university services, faculty, and administrators. Further, the building of collaborative relationships led to changes in how their university or college met the challenges and issues educating students with disabilities. Thus, project sites described enhanced relationships with disability support services and writing labs, libraries, centers for faculty development and training, and information technology centers. Some projects had also been able to establish new positions within the disability services support network on campus, including the hiring of disability support services staff, faculty development personnel, and a consultant to assist in the access of student services. Table 8 summarizes the responses by the OPE sites.

ConclusionThe results of this survey provide an overview of the opinions and experiences of 17 project sites

funded to develop and implement faculty and administrator professional development activities. The findings are a beginning step towards better understanding how universities and colleges implement these activities. However, some limitations should be noted. Research is needed to further validate the impact and effectiveness of the professional development activities reported by the sites. Specifically, studies are

needed that measure long-term individual and institutional changes, and the outcomes of faculty development on the education of students with disabilities.

Second, the results presented in this article were based on the opinions and views of 17 project directors or coordinators. A greater number of professionals involved in faculty development need to voice their experiences to achieve a greater cross-section of universities and colleges. Additionally, survey questions were designed to provide an overview of the experiences and thoughts of the OPE sites. This framework might potentially have limited the type of information or responses provided by the participants.

In spite of these limitations, the results present important strategies and approaches. Some of the experiences and ideas of the OPE sites have already been reported in the literature (e.g. 2000 Salzberg et al., 2002 Scott & Gregg). Comparable results were found concerning the need for a variety of formats for faculty and administrators to obtain information and training. The sites also faced similar issues when providing training, including time limitations of faculty, lack of administrative support, and lack of buy-in from faculty concerning the relevancy of the training or even the need for this type of professional development.

The results indicate that the advancement of technology has enabled faculty to access information and resources in spite of time limitations. However, the sites emphasized the need for collaboration to successfully implement faculty development activities. Thus, over half of the sites reported that a critical piece of designing and implementing professional development programs was building partnerships with faculty, administrators, students with disabilities, and other departments on campus. These partnerships were seen as necessary for creating an environment where these types of activities could thrive. How these relationships are fostered and maintained over time warrants further investigation.

The idea of infusing disability-related training into existing faculty meetings, retreats, or other events was another finding. Some of the sites felt that incorporating principles of Universal Design into their course development was part of this infusion process as a way to benefit all students. Universal Design strategies offered faculty a more comprehensive approach to teaching diverse learners, including students with disabilities.

The need for professional development activities to focus on increasing the awareness of the need to educate students with disabilities and understanding the legal responsibilities involved continued to remain pressing issues. Ongoing research and evaluation studies are needed to assess how colleges and universities incorporate the principles of Universal Design, and the impact on instructing students with disabilities and the delivery of services to meet their educational needs.

The 21 OPE-funded projects were a testing ground for trying new and innovative strategies for professional development in higher education. Further study is needed on the long-term impact of the training and information created through these projects as well as other projects funded to enhance the educational experiences of students with disabilities in higher education. It is critical that innovative practices are shared among institutions of higher education and that the results of research and evaluation studies on professional development activities are disseminated in order to add to the growing body of knowledge in the field of disability and higher education.

ReferencesAlfano, K. (1994). Recent strategies for faculty development. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC

Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.Gilson, S.F. (1996). Students with disabilities: An increasing voice and presence on college campuses.

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6, 263-272.National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1999, January 29). Learning disabilities: Issues in

higher education. Report from the NJCLD [Online]. Retrieved August 8, 2001, from: http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/higher_ed.html

Salzberg, C.L, Peterson, L., Debrand, C.C., Blair, J.J., Carsey, A.C., & Johnson, A.S. (2002, spring). 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.

Scott, S., & Gregg, G. (2000). Meeting the evolving educational needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.

Szymanski, E.M., Hewitt, G.J., Watson, E.A., & Swett, E.A. (1999). Faculty and instructor perception of disability support services and student communication. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 22(1), 117-128.

Thomspon, A.R., Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 166-180.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing population: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wilson, K.E., & Getzel, E.E. (2001). Creating a supportive campus: The VCU Professional Development Academy. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 23(2), 12-18.

Wilson, K., Getzel, E., & Brown, T. (2000). Enhancing the post-secondary campus climate for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 14(1), 37-50.

Appendix A

Office of Postsecondary Education Demonstration Projects 1999-2002

University of ArizonaProject Director: Dr. Julie Padgett

520-626-5768 — Padgett@u.arizona.eduProject Web Site: http://www.utc.arizona.edu/utc_peelmain.htmProject Title: PEEL Program to Enhance and Ensure Learning for Students with DisabilitiesProject Description: The PEEL Project at the U. of A. has infused into all existing faculty development programs relevant and usable information regarding creating effective learning environments for students with disabilities. Additionally, PEEL staff members have collaborated with 20 partner institutions around the country to provide faculty and administrator development relative to students with disabilities on their campuses.Major Areas of Focus: Faculty, TA, and administrator development relative to students with disabilities. Faculty and TA professional development focuses on appropriate teaching strategies, and administrator development focuses on advocacy issues.

University of Arkansas at Little RockProject Director: Melanie Thornton

501-569-8410 — mpthornton@ualr.eduProject Web Site: http://www.ualr.edu/~paceProject Title: Project PACEProject Description: Project PACE is a program of Disability Support Services at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). The primary project objective is to improve the quality of education for students with disabilities through the development and provision of resources, technical assistance and professional development opportunities to faculty, staff, and administrators in postsecondary settings. Specific accomplishments include the development of teaching strategies, the establishment of two Faculty Resource Councils on Disability on two Arkansas campuses, the provision of professional development at several Arkansas institutions, and the development of products and resources for faculty development.Major Areas of Focus: 1. Establishment of a model for faculty development—the Faculty Resource Council on Disability—in which a faculty member from each academic department receives training and resources on teaching students with disabilities and, in turn, acts as a mentor to his or her colleagues. 2. Development and provision of faculty development opportunities. 3. Development and dissemination of products.

Buffalo State College Information for this summary was obtained from the project’s web site.Project Director: Delores Battle, Project Co-Director

716-878-6210 — battlede@bscmail.buffalostate.eduMarianne Savino, Project Co-Director716-878-4500 — savinomr@bscmail.buffalostate.edu

Project Web Site: http://www.buffalostate.edu/%7Eequity/projsuccess.htmlProject Title: Project Success Project Description: The goal of Project Success is to provide widespread appropriate professional development for administrators and faculty in order to affect systemic change in institutions of higher education Major Areas of Focus: 1. To review and synthesize the exemplary literature and other information related to postsecondary education for persons with disabilities. 2. To develop innovative teaching strategies and supports to aid administrators and faculty in postsecondary institutions in western New York to bring about systemic changes in the education of persons with disabilities. 3. To use innovative technology to disseminate information and resources to

administrators and faculty in postsecondary institutions locally, regionally, and nationally about efficient and effective ways to ensure that persons with disabilities receive a quality education.

California State University at NorthridgeProject Director: Dr. Merri C. Pearson

S. Kay Vincent, Project Coord.818-677-2611 — s.kay.vincent@csun.edu

Project Web Site: http://p3.csun.eduProject Title: Preparing Postsecondary Professionals (P3)Project Description: Preparing Postsecondary Professionals, the P3 project will improve the access of educational settings for students with disabilities, particularly focused on students with hearing loss in mainstreamed settings using state-of-the-art research and innovative technological methods. Because most students with hearing loss attend mainstreamed institutions of higher education, there is a need for systemic change in institutions to provide equal access and opportunity to these students. In addition, the project created and supplemented with sections for students so they can be empowered to help themselves and their faculty.Major Areas of Focus: 1. Create 20 in-service training modules to enhance postsecondary professionals who work with deaf and hard of hearing students–we develop challenges, strategies and tips on dealing with issues related to hearing loss. 2. To provide and evaluate innovative in service training and technical assistance to higher education administrators and faculty. 3. To increase the capacity of administrators and faculty to better understand and meet the needs of students with hearing loss.

Columbia UniversityInformation for this summary was obtained from the OPE web site.Project Director: Lynne M. Bejoian

212-854-2388 — lmb16@columbia.edu Project Web Site: not availableProject Title: Universal Access Does Not Equal Dumbing Down: Stigma, Pedagogy & ElitismProject Description: The objective of this project is to educate faculty at selective institutions to become effective teachers of students with invisible disabilities. The project team will create a faculty workshop and related follow-up activities and instructional media to educate faculty about issues of invisible disabilities and how to teach in an inclusive manner that benefits all students.Major Areas of Focus: Information not available at this time.

University of ConnecticutProject Director: Dr. Stan Shaw, Professor and Co-Director, Postsecondary Education Disability Unit

sfshaw@uconn.eduDr. Joan McGuire, Professor and Co-Director, Postsecondary Education

Disability Unitmcguire@uconn.edu — 860-486-3321

Project Web Site: http://www.facultyware.uconn.eduProject Title: Assuring Equal Academic Access for College Students with LD by Implementing Universal Design in the Instructional EnvironmentProject Description: This project has focused on the development of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) as an approach to promoting academic access for students with learning disabilities and other diverse learners. Based on an extensive review of the literature, focus groups of students, and ongoing collaboration with faculty and administrators at partner institutions, the Principles of Universal Design for Instruction © have been developed as a significant training tool for faculty. Outcomes consist of instructional products and approaches developed by college faculty that reflect the Principles of UDI and are usable and generalizable across a range of academic settings and disciplines. All instructional products have been evaluated and packaged using distance learning technologies and are available through the

project web site, Facultyware.uconn.edu. The extensive web site contains numerous resources on UDI and diverse learners as well as an innovative on-line process for expanding the collection of inclusive instructional products that are accessible to college faculty across the country at no cost.Major Areas of Focus: 1. The development of the Principles of Universal Design for Instruction© as a significant training tool for faculty. 2. The development of an extensive interactive web site that provides resources on UDI as well as a platform for faculty to share inclusive instructional strategies and products.

University of KansasProject Director: Jean Schumaker

785-864-4780 — jschumaker@ukans.eduProject Web Site: http://www.ku-crl.orgProject Title: Open Door ProjectProject Description: The Open Door Project provides research-validated instructional routines designed to enhance critical content elements to increase the accessibility of the content. Technology-based professional development modules have been prepared to prepare college and university faculty to effectively teach academically diverse classes that include students with disabilitiesMajor Areas of Focus: 1. Increase access to postsecondary curriculum through effective and efficient instructional routines. 2. Increase awareness of the instructional needs of students with disabilities. 3. Partner with university faculty in the development of a technology-based professional development delivery system. 4. Increase university faculty instructional delivery.

University of KentuckyProject Director: Kristina Krampe

859-257-7973 — kmkram1@pop.uky.eduProject Web Site: http://www.uky.edu/TLC/grants/uk_ed/Project Title: Engaging DifferencesProject Description: The primary goal of the Engaging Differences project is to develop a web-based performance support system (WPSS) for administrators, instructional employees, and auxiliary service personnel of postsecondary institutions that will enhance the quality of education and services provided to adult students with disabilities.  Major Areas of Focus: Accessibility guidelines (buildings and Web), etiquette, instructional accommodations, assistive technology, disability rights laws, campus policy, services, experts, related literature, and relevant legal cases.

Landmark CollegeProject Director: Lynne C. Shea

802-387-6706 — lshea@landmarkcollege.orgProject Web Site: http://www.landmark.eduProject Title: Promoting Access for Postsecondary Students with Learning DisabilitiesProject Description: Landmark College’s project focuses on the needs of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Training materials, guides, and professional development activities were developed and used statewide. Based on our expertise in learning disabilities, our project provided professional development to faculty and administrators at 19 participating Vermont colleges and universities.  Additionally, a four-book series on working with postsecondary students with learning disabilities, authored by Landmark College personnel, was developed and disseminated. A CD, “College Students Talk About Learning Disabilities,” was also produced and disseminated to project partners and other institutions of higher education. In addition, materials on using assistive technology have been made available through the Landmark College website.  Major Areas of Focus: 1. Developed training program over three years for faculty and staff at 19 Vermont colleges and universities in the area of learning disabilities. 2. Produced four-book series on working with postsecondary students with learning disabilities. 3. Produced on-line resources in the area of using assistive technology with students with learning

disabilities. 4. Produced CD: “College Students Talk About Learning Disabilities”. 5. Increased institutional capacity for outreach in the area of instruction of students with learning disabilities by developing a training program for faculty presenters.

University of MinnesotaProject Director: Judy Fox

612-626-7292 — foxxx021@tc.umn.eduProject Web Site: http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/CTAD/default.htmProject Title: Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD)Project Description: In response to the need for better faculty training on issues of disability in postsecondary education, staff from Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD) created a two-day faculty development workshop emphasizing the application of Universal Instructional Design. Staff conducted a total of 12 workshops in the upper midwest at both two- and four-year institutions, working primarily with full-time faculty because of their presumed institutional longevity and impact. Dissemination products include a facilitator’s manual that allows non-specialists to replicate the workshop at their home institutions, and an edited book entitled Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Creation, implementation, and evaluation of a replicable, 12-hour, two-day faculty development workshop emphasizing the application of Universal Instructional Design. Staff conducted a total of 12 workshops at 7 different sites. 2. Creation of a facilitator’s guide (including videotapes) that allows non-specialists to replicate the workshop at their home institutions. 3. Contribution to scholarly literature through publication of an edited book entitled Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education. Staff and participants also presented at numerous conferences, published a range of articles, and created a searchable, on-line annotated bibliography.

University of New HampshireProject Director: Cheryl Jorgensen, Project Coordinator

603-862-4678 — cherylj@cisunix.unh.eduCate Weir, Project Coordinator603-228-2084 — cweir@cisunix.unh.edu

Project Web Site: http://iod.unh.edu/EE/Project Title: Equity and Excellence in Higher EducationProject Description: “Equity and Excellence in Higher Education” is a faculty development project designed to provide college and university teachers with strategies for instruction that create an inclusive and accessible classroom that is supportive of diversity in its students. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Provide professional development to faculty on effective and inclusive instructional practices for diverse classrooms. 2. Facilitate small reflective practice groups of faculty who will work together to examine their own practices and try out new curriculum design and instructional methodologies. 3. Produce and disseminate information on effective college teaching to all NH higher education institutions. Support the development of a permanent capacity for supporting individual faculty to improve their instruction.

Northern Illinois UniversityProject Director: Dr. Nancy Castle (formerly Long)

815-753-9126 — nlong@niu.eduProject Web Site: http://factraining.hhsweb.comProject Title: Presidential Commission on Persons with Disabilities Project to Increase Retention and Success of Postsecondary Students with Disabilities Through Innovations in InstructionProject Description: Fifty-four faculty and administrators participated in an in-depth training institute and mentoring program over the course of three years. The training design and mentoring program was then field-tested and refined for portability to the community college setting. An additional 10 faculty and administrators were included at the community college site. The final intervention package will include the contents of and procedures for the intensive training, for mentoring, for developing a class/student learning profile, and a computerized

catalogued inventory (that will be continuously added to) of accommodations and alternative teaching techniques that were used by project trainees. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Understanding the concept of Universal Instructional Design. 2. Learning styles as they apply to working with individuals with disabilities (i.e., audio, visual, tactile). 3. Implementing UD principles and accommodations into course curricula (e.g., how to Bobby-approve your web site, etc.). 4. Locating resources to assist with implementation of UD principles and accommodations (e.g., using the Center for Access Ability Resources, using the project website, etc.). 5. Mentoring faculty and administrators.

Ohio State UniversityProject Director: Margo Izzo, Ph.D. & Ann Yurcisin, ED.S.

614-292-9218 — izzo.1@osu.eduProject Web Site: http://www.osu.edu/grants/dpgProject Title: The Ohio State University Partnership: Improving the Quality of Higher Education Programs for Students with DisabilitiesProject Description: The Nisonger Center at Ohio State University, in collaboration with key partners such as the Provost’s office, the Office for Disability Services (ODS), Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR), the Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator’s office (ADA coordinator’s office), several colleges and academic departments from the main Columbus campus, a rural branch campus, and a local two-year community college, implemented a widespread climate assessment and action planning process across these sites that involved training, disability awareness initiatives, innovative curricular and policy changes, the purchasing of needed adaptive technology, the promotion of Universal Design for Learning, the creation of a web accessibility center, and the development of information resources for faculty. Major Areas of Focus: 1.Climate assessment (focus groups, in-depth interviews, polls, surveys, etc.) in order to establish a baseline level of disability awareness across several academic departments. 2. Department action planning based on identified climate assessment needs (training of faculty and disability awareness initiatives, policy and curricular innovations, purchasing of adaptive technology for student use, etc.). 3. Education and training of instructors in disability issues to help improve the climate and quality of instruction for students with disabilities was the target aim.

Oregon Health and Science UniversityProject Director: Jo-Ann Sowers, PhD

sowersj@ohsu.eduProject Web Site: http://www.healthsciencefaculty.orgProject Title: The Health Sciences Students with Disabilities Faculty Education ProjectProject Description: The key goal of this project was to enhance the capacity of health science faculty to admit, teach, accommodate, and graduate students with disabilities. We surveyed faculty at health science institutions in Oregon and in other states regarding their attitudes, knowledge, and concerns regarding students with disabilities. The key implementation sites were the Oregon Health & Science University and Portland Community College. A faculty person from each health science department served as a program accommodation liaison and received substantial training and support to enable them to provide leadership regarding students with disabilities. A faculty training curriculum was implemented with faculty in each department and was further field-tested with faculty at over eight other institutions. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Enhancing the capacity of health science programs to successfully integrate students with disabilities into their programs. 2. To reduce the concerns faculty have regarding students with disabilities in health sciences programs. 3. To specifically address the issues of how to accommodate students with disabilities in health sciences programs during the clinical portions of their program.

University of Rhode IslandProject Director: Pamela Rohland

401-874-2098 — rohland@uri.eduProject Web Site: http://www.uri.edu/ctc

Project Title: Changing the Culture (CTC): Enhancing the Inclusion and Retention of Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary InstitutionsProject Description: Since 1999, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education (Grant Award #P333A990064), the University of Rhode Island has been developing effective teaching strategies used in professional development seminars for faculty and administrators at Rhode Island postsecondary institutions. The CTC project has successfully trained a network of 103 disability resource mentors, who serve as information resources to their colleagues. These participants represent the three state institutions and four private institutions of higher education in Rhode Island. We have developed a web site, listserv, a complete and tested curriculum for the training seminar, and a resource manual for each mentor. Apprentice trainer teams have been established to support and expand the networks of mentors at cooperating institutions. This formative period for a grass-roots movement of systemic change has begun to foster a more inclusive environment for college students with disabilities. The increased awareness and improved strategies benefit ALL students. Major Areas of Focus: The guiding principle of CTC is that disability is an example of cultural diversity. Because of negative stereotypes, students with disabilities are often discouraged from participating fully in higher education and experience lowered expectations, inaccessible environments, and limiting course policies. These barriers threaten the intellectual identity and performance of students with disabilities in a manner similar to the barriers that African Americans and women experience. The overarching goal of the CTC project is to create systemic change in institutions of higher education that combats the threat to the intellectual, academic and personal achievement of students with disabilities (with policy changes in departments and administration, funding of positions, reduction of attitudinal barriers, increased retention and graduation rates for students with disabilities, etc.).

San Diego State UniversityProject Director: Bobbie J. Atkins, Ph.D., CRC

619-594-1569 — batkins@mail.sdsu.eduProject Web Site: http://interwork.sdsu.edu/web_cont_edu/higher_ed.htmlProject Title: Prototype of Disability Training for Faculty and Administration in Higher Education (Project Higher Ed)Project Description: The overarching goal of Project Higher Ed is to develop a prototype of disability education and training for faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education. The training will foster and enhance faculty’s and administrators’: knowledge of disability and skills and strategies necessary for meeting the postsecondary needs of students with disabilities. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Module #1 – Disability & Society. Objectives: (a) To become familiar with the historical and contemporary issues shaping the lives of individuals with disabilities. (b) To explore the myths and stereotypes surrounding individuals with disabilities. (c) To increase awareness about opportunities for individuals with disabilities, especially in colleges and universities. 2. Module #2 – Students with Disabilities in U.S. Colleges and Universities: Statistical Profile, Challenges, and Learning Characteristics. Objectives: (a) To be familiar with the current statistical profile of students with disabilities in U.S. colleges and universities. (b) To be aware of the challenges/barriers faced by many postsecondary students with disabilities. (c) To explore ways of improving the postsecondary experience of students with disabilities. 3. Module #3 – Orientation to Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS) in Higher Education. Objectives: (a) To understand the variety and depth of services through the offices of Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS) within higher education. (b) To increase awareness of needs and services for students with disabilities within higher education. (c) To understand how to collaborate as students, faculty, counselors, and administrators in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities. 4. Module #4 – Universal Design for Learning. Objectives: (a) To become familiar with the concept of Universal Design for Learning. (b) To apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning to one’s own teaching. (c) To be able to differentiate between Universal Design for Learning and academic accommodations for students with disabilities.

University of Southern MississippiInformation for this summary was obtained from the project’s web site.

Project Director: Valerie Decoux, Project Co-Director601-266-5955 — Valerie.decoux@usm.eduJane Siders, Project Co-Director601-266-5163 — Jane.siders@usm.edu

Project Web Site: http://www-dept.usm.edu/~ids/ODA/mpttap.htmProject Title: Postsecondary Training and Technical Assistance ProjectProject Description: In addition to focusing on improving the academic environment for students with disabilities, the project works closely with student organizations to improve the overall college experience for students with disabilities on campus. A critical link to junior high and high schools will be developed to not only increase the numbers of students with disabilities in Mississippi attending postsecondary institutions, but also to better prepare them for the challenges of college.Major Areas of Focus: 1. USM will develop a statewide postsecondary disability information network. 2. Design and implement a replicable training and technical assistance process at USM founded on principles of adult education and instructional technology. 3. Develop and maintain a technology-based information system to provide postsecondary disability training to personnel and students in Mississippi universities, colleges, community colleges, and secondary institutions. 4. Promote campus-wide positive student awareness about students with disabilities. 5. Provide outreach training and technical assistance on postsecondary disability issues to faculty, staff, and administrators at Mississippi universities.

Utah State UniversityProject Director: Dr. Charles Salzberg

435-797-3234 — Salzberg@cc.udu.eduBeth Price, Proj. Coor.435-797-7020 — bethp@cc.usu.edu

Project Web Site: http://asd.usu.eduProject Title: The Accommodating Students with Disabilities in Higher Education ProjectProject Description: The Accommodating Students with Disabilities in Higher Education Project has developed a multimedia package of materials for teaching faculty, staff, administrators, and teaching assistants how to work with students with disabilities. These materials are presentation-ready, including suggested scripting and instructional materials, and are customizable to meet the needs of each institution. Available in both web-based and live workshop formats, these training programs are designed to require minimum time from faculty. Both offer basic understanding of the accommodation process and of the faculty, student, and disability services office roles in that process. Supplementary units expand information on topics such as Universal Design. Major Areas of Focus: Our focus is on developing and disseminating a flexible-use training program for universities across the country that can be customized for the needs of each college or university.

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityProject Director: Liz Getzel

804-828-1851 — lgetzel@mail2.vcu.eduProject Web Site: http://www.students.vcu.edu/pdaProject Title: The VCU Professional Development Academy (PDA): Increasing Capacity of University Personnel to Support Students with DisabilitiesProject Description: VCU’s Division of Student Affairs, in collaboration with the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports, established the Professional Development Academy to address faculty and staff development needs based on findings and recommendations of a comprehensive external evaluation at VCU. The PDA is designed to (a) foster a more supportive campus environment for students with disabilities, (b) equip administrators and support staff with disability related information and resources, (c) provide training and technical assistance to instructional faculty to ultimately facilitate successful

academic outcomes for their student with disabilities and (d) establish a campus-wide network that will support a more decentralized support and service delivery model. Major Areas of Focus: 1. Campus wide network of key faculty, staff and administrators. 2. Using Universal Design principles in instruction. 3. Supporting web accessibility. 4. Department specific technical assistance (i.e. laboratory, clinicals). 5. Disability awareness training and resources (including assistive technology). 6. Student summer orientation, fall orientation course and individual student support services.

University of WashingtonProject Director: Sheryl Burgstahler

206-543-0622 — sherylb@cac.washington.eduProject Web Site: http://www.washington.edu/doit/FacultyProject Title: DO-IT Prof: A Project to Help Postsecondary Educators Work Successfully with Students Who Have DisabilitiesProject Description: The DO-IT Prof project applies lessons learned by DO-IT and other researchers and practitioners nationwide to implement a comprehensive professional development program for college faculty and administrators. DO-IT Prof serves to improve the knowledge and skills of postsecondary faculty and administrators to better prepare them to fully include students with disabilities in academic programs on their campuses. The DO-IT Prof team includes faculty, disabled student services staff, and administrators at institutions of higher education in 23 states. Project partners include representatives from AHEAD, the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports, the HEATH Resource Center, and WAPED (Washington Association on Postsecondary Education and Disability).Major Areas of Focus: Responding to the diverse content and scheduling needs of faculty and administrators, the DO-IT Prof team created and delivered six models of professional development. Model 1: A 20 to 30 minute presentation to introduce participants to basic legal issues, accommodation strategies, and resources specific to their campuses. Model 2: A 1 to 2 hour presentation with special focus on providing accommodations to students with a variety of disabilities. Model 3: A tailored workshop for more in-depth training on topics selected for a specific audience. Model 4: A televised instruction option using a series of videotapes to deliver on public television. Model 5: A distance learning “anytime-anywhere” course that provides lessons and discussion delivered via electronic mail. Model 6: Self-paced, web-based instruction in The Faculty Room at http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/.

University of Wisconsin-StoutProject Director: Dr. Pinckney Hall/Christine Varnavas, M.S.

715-232-2387 — varnavusc@uwstout.eduProject Web Site: http://www.askvrd.org/askableProject Title: Teachable MomentsProject Description: Teachable Moments began as a model using identified faculty as department resources/liaisons and traditional training methods. As the project evolved, it was determined that a more timely approach was necessary. A just-in-time training model was then adopted and AskABLE, a question-and-answer service, was developed. AskABLE provides users with expert advice within approximately 48 hours. AskABLE experts are doctoral and specialized professionals with decades of experience in working with individuals with disabilities. Major Areas of Focus: Utilizing the just-in-time training model via the Internet, AskABLE, a question-and-answer disability web site, was created to provide faculty, staff, parents and students with information, as they needed it.

About the Authors

Elizabeth Evans Getzel, M.A., is the VCU-RRTC Director of Postsecondary Education Initiatives at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. She has over 20 years of experience conducting research, evaluation, and training in the areas of transition planning for secondary students with

disabilities, postsecondary education for students with disabilities, and career planning/employment for individuals with disabilities. Requests for information can be emailed to her at lgetzel@mail2.vcu.edu.

Lori W. Briel, M.Ed., is a Research Associate at the VCU-RRTC in Richmond, Virginia. Currently, she provides comprehensive career planning and placement services for postsecondary students with disabilities. Additionally, she assists with the development and provision of professional development activities for university faculty. She has co-authored several journal articles and a book chapter in these areas.

Shannon McManus, M.Ed., is a Research Associate at the VCU-RRTC in Richmond, Virginia. She is the lead staff person on a study involving VCU students with learning disabilities and ADHD determining effective strategies that enhance their academic success. Her work also involves providing resources and information to faculty and staff on effective instructional strategies for students with disabilities.

Author’s Note: The authors would like to thank Denise Rodier, Research Assistant, for her assistance in compiling the survey results for this manuscript.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityAuthor Guidelines

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes manuscript submissions that are of an innovative nature and relevant to the theory and practice of providing postsecondary support services to students with disabilities. Guidelines for authors are as follows:

ContentManuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:· Research: Reports original quantitative or qualitative research; · Integration: Integrates research of others in a meaningful way; compares or contrasts theories; critiques

results; and/or provides context for future exploration. · Innovation: Proposes innovation of theory, approach, or process of service delivery based on reviews

of the literature and research.

FormatAll manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication Manual (5th

ed.), American Psychological Association, 2001. *· Manuscripts should not exceed 20-25 typewritten pages. · Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second (see

pages 63-65 of APA Manual). Authors should also avoid the use of sexist language and the generic masculine pronoun.

· Manuscripts should have a title page that provides the names and affiliations of all authors and the address of the principal author. (Authors should refrain from entering their names on pages of the manuscript.)

· An abstract of 100-150 words should accompany all manuscripts. Abstracts must be typed and double-spaced on a separate sheet of paper.

· An original and four (4) hard copies of the manuscript should be furnished. · An electronic copy of the manuscript should be provided on disk with platform and software clearly

labeled. (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) · A cover letter should indicate whether or not the manuscript has been published or submitted

elsewhere for consideration of publication.*For information on changes in the fifth edition, see www.apastyle.org/fifthchanges.html. For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at www.apastyle.org/faqs.html.

Please note· Do not send original artwork during the manuscript review process; it will be requested upon article

acceptance. · Authors will be notified by mail upon receipt of their manuscript.

Mailing address

Manuscripts should be submitted directly to the editors at either of the following addresses:

Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.D.University of ArizonaCollege of EducationDepartment of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School PsychologyRoom 435bTucson, AZ 85721

James K. McAfee, Ph.D.The Pennsylvania State UniversityCollege of EducationEducational Psychology, School Psychology

and Special Education227 CEDARUniversity Park, PA 16802

Upon acceptance for publication

For manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the editor:· An electronic copy of the final manuscript on a 3.5" disk (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) with word

processing software and level of computer system clearly defined. · A hard copy of the final manuscript. · A signed and completed Copyright Transfer form. · A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author.

Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The Journal reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of changes.