perlow-atia february 2008 1 accessibility in higher education: learning from faculty attitudes ellen...

Perlow-ATIA February 2008 1

Accessibility inHigher Education:

Learning from Faculty Attitudes

Ellen Perlow – Texas Woman’s UniversityAssistive Technology Industry Association

2008 Conference Caribe Royale Convention Center, Orlando,

Florida February 2, 2008 11:45am-12:45pm -- Bonaire

1 http://www.a4access.org/atia2008.ppt http://www.a4access.org/atia2008.txt

This document is available in alternative formats.


Outline of Presentation I. Introduction of Session ParticipantsII. Abstract, Learning ObjectivesIII.Background: 2006-2007 and 2007-present

studies Who, What, Why, JustificationsIV. The Studies: Procedure/Methodology,

Instruments, Comparison of 2006-2007 Final Results with 2007-2008 Preliminary Results

V. Session Participant Discussion, Collaboration, Development of Action Plans

VI. Summation Activity


Abstract Faculty attitudes and value priorities regarding interaction with students with access needs are particularly influential at the higher education level in shaping policies that foster accessibility-friendly environments. Results of a study of such attitudes among postsecondary health education faculty, discussed at Accessing Higher Ground 2007, are compared with results from replication of the study with faculty in the disciplines of education and library science. Session participants collaborate to formulate an action plan of goals and objectives to promote faculty support for accessibility and universal design initiatives at their institutions.


Learning ObjectivesVia in-session collaboration with colleagues, participants learn about :1. Factors present in higher education environments that increase the significance of faculty attitudes toward students with access needs.2. Comparison of results from cross-disciplinary investigation of faculty attitudes toward students with access needs in higher education.3. New approaches to promote the success of accessibility and universal design initiatives in higher education.


Background of Studies1. Institutional Review Board-approved2. Informed consent: adult age 18 or

older and faculty member in discipline; convenience samples

3. Primarily U.S.-based Higher Education Faculty

a. 2006-2007: Health Education/Public Health (n=30)

b. 2007-present: Education/Library-Information Science (as of February 2, 2008: n=14)


Who: Why These Faculties?

1. Health Education: Accessibility key component: Health Literacy (U.S. DHHS, 2000), Health Educators’ Areas of Responsibility (National Commission for Health Ed. Credentialing, 2008)2. Education: Accessibility, Universal Design for Learning mandated: U.S. federal legislation for pre-K-12 public education (NCLB, 2002; IDEA 2004). 3. Library and Information Science: a. School librarians are teachers. b. Equity of Access: Key Action Area (American Library Association, 2008)


Background: What and Why

• What: • Faculty Attitude / Awareness Assessment:

• Accessibility, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning

• People/Students with Access Needs [PWAN/SWAN], veterans with access needs

•Why:• To improve attitudes, awareness: find disconnect, value priorities that predict attitudes, behaviors (Rohan, 2000).• Class Empowerment• Strengthen Culture of Accessibility in Higher Education


Background: Justification

Accessibility in Health Education:1. Ethics of Profession (NCHEC, 2008)2. Healthy People 2010 (U.S. DHHS, 2000, 2008)- within Major Goals: “increase quality & years of

healthy life; eliminate health disparities” - PWAN: Major Area of Concern- Health Literacy-“capacity to obtain”=Access 3. Accessibility critical for health outcomes (Lloyd...,

2006)4. PWAN > 20% U.S. pop. (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2003)5. U.S. by 2010 70 million=PWAN (Wu & Green,

2000)6. PWAN: major health disparities (McCarthy, et al.,

2006) 7. U.S. PWAN=43% of Medicaid costs (Carbaugh…2006)



Accessibility in Education and Library/Info. Science8. 21st century: PWAN = greater proportion of higher education student population (11%): both face-to-face and online classrooms (Foss, 2002; Lewis & Farris, 1999; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006).9. By 2030, older adults, 65 years or older will have grown from 12.4% to 20% of the U.S. population; increase in no. of older college students (Kressley, 2002; Silverstein, 2001)10. In U.S.: IDEA, P.L. 108-446: Inclusion (1975-present)11. More SWAN in pre-K-12 (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2007) 12. SWAN served under IDEA, P.L. 108-446 graduating with H.S. Diplomas = potential college applicants and enrollees (U.S. Dept. of Ed. OSEP Fall 2005/2006 data)13.2006->2016:15% growth sp.ed. teachers(USDOL,2007)



14. Increasing number of Students with Access Needs. Graph depicts increase in students, 1976-2006, receiving services under IDEA 2004-pre-K-12 U.S. public education ((U.S. Dept. of Education, 2007).

Perlow-ATIA – February 2008 11


15. Students served under IDEA, P.L. 108-446 (SWAN) are graduating with High School Diplomas higher education/college applicants & enrollees (U.S. Dept. of Ed. OSEP Fall 2005/2006 data).

U.S. and Outlying Areas

High School Diploma

Transferred to Regular Education

50 States, D.C., BIE schools) 222,847 70,671

U.S. and outlying areas 224,343 71,397

Source: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007). Table 4-1. Students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, part B, who exited school, by exit reason and state: Fall 2005-06ª. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from https://www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_4-1.xls



16. Percentage of U.S. Population (50 states + D.C.) Ages 6-21 served under IDEA, Part B, P.L. 108-446: 2001 – 2005 [Excerpt of Data]

Source: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007, July). Profiles of parts B and C programs in states and outlying areas. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from page 66 at https://www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBDataMeeting2007.pdf

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

% of U.S. Population, Ages 6-21: All Access Needs

8.80% 8.93% 9.05% 9.14% 9.15%

% of U.S. Population, Ages 6-21: Autism Spectrum

0.15% 0.18% 0.21% 0.25% 0.29%

% of U.S. Population, Ages 6-21: Other Health Issues (also AD/HD)

0.52% 0.59% 0.68% 0.77% 0.85%



Accessibility in Higher Education17. For re-accreditation, Higher Education institutions are being called upon to document institutional effectiveness and to be accountable for students’ learning: “Students Are Central to Success.”See: U.S. Department of Education. Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Final Report (September 26, 2006): http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdfFor example, see: http://www.twu.edu/iep/sacs/



Accessibility throughout the Lifespan18. PWAN = class anyone can join at any time; virtually all people do (Shapiro, 1994)19. Accessibility = boundary-free diversity issue affecting all people throughout the world across all categories of diversity of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, class, and economic status.20. Accessibility = universal issue, gateway to health literacy…Global Climate/Aging … 9/11 … Katrina ... Tsunami ... Darfur…Famine … AIDS …gun violence ... civil wars ... Afghanistan/Iraq...



Photograph of U.S. Army and Air Force service members caring for wounded troops.http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31234 (retrieved 2/2/2008).U.S. Casualties – Afghanistan/Iraq Wars: See: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf


Study Procedure1. Recruitment: U.S.-based discussion lists frequented by higher ed. faculty in discipline 2. Participants respond, indicate requests, if any, for alternative formats, send consent, survey, postage-paid envelope to return documents 3. Participants insert signed consent separate envelope, return form[s], survey to researcher 4. Researcher receives; stores consent separately5. Variable: IRB Consent-Standard: 5 p.; LP: 20 p.


Survey Instruments 06-07,07-08

• Anonymous, demographic-free surveys: except for references to faculty discipline, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 surveys are identical.• 15 multiple choice/fill-in statements; respond by circling one of five answers; optional comments • Simple process accommodates busy faculty.• Question order: no pattern; -/+/“I Don’t Know.” • “I Don’t Know” can be correct response.• Common faculty concerns addressed: SWAN ‘disrupt’ classes, seek undeserved assistance; ability to pass classes, complete program, enter profession.


Survey Instruments 06-07,07-08

•Each of 15 questions = quantified variable •Questions coded into five group variables:• Experience/Knowledge• Negative Experience?• Comfort Level• Confidence Level • Interest Level

• Examine relationship of group variables


Instruments: Areas of Inquiry

Higher Education

Faculty Attitudes toward

Students with Access Needs

Experience:Access Issues

Knowledge: Access Issues

Confidence in Student Success

Interest in Access/UDL

Learning & Training

Negative Experience


Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables

1. Experience/Knowledge: Personal PWAN/SWAN/[self] experience, in Face-to-Face online classes; A/AT/UD[L] knowledge. Questions 1, 3, 132. Negative Experience?: SWAN “disrupting” class, asking for undeserved special treatment. Questions 8, 93. Comfort: Comfort Level in teaching, interacting with PWAN/SWAN. Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7


Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables

4. Confidence: Confidence in SWAN ability to successfully pass participant’s classes, department program, enter profession. Questions 10, 11, 125. Interest: Participant interest in learning [more] about accessibility, AT, UD[L], interest in training on topics at participant institution. Questions 14, 15


3 Experience/Knowledge Variables

• 1. I have ____ personal experience with having accessibility needs and assistive technology.extensive some infrequent no I don’t know

• 3. I ___have students with accessibility needs in the classes that I teach. often sometimes rarely neverI don’t know

• 13. I am _about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning. very knowledgeable knowledgeable slightly familiar unfamiliar I don’t know


2 Negative Experience? Variables

8. I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes.

no rare some frequent I don’t know

9. I have ___ experience with students in my classes who claim accessibility needs and ask for special treatment that they do not deserve.

no rare some frequent I don’t know


5 Comfort Level Variables

• 2. I am ____ being around people with accessibility needs.• 4. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my FACE TO FACE classes.• 5. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my ONLINE classes.• 6. I am _ in interacting with students with accessibility needs.• 7. I am ____ in working with students in my classes to solve class-related accessibility issues. Response options for all five questions:

very comfortable comfortable neutraluncomfortable I don’t know


3 Confidence Level Variables

• 10. Students with accessibility needs can _____ the classes that I teach. successfully pass pass, but with great difficulty probably not pass not pass I don’t know

• 11. Students with accessibility needs are __ to successfully complete my department’s program. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know

• 12. People with accessibility needs are___ to find work as health education professionals. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know


2 Interest Level Variables

• 14. I am ______ in learning more about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning.

15. I am ______ in attending training sessions on the topics listed in question 14 at the institution with which I am affiliated. Response options to both questions: very interested interested possibly interested not interested I don’t know


Group Variables: Reliability

Cronbach Alpha standardized scores-r: n=44• Experience/Knowledge r = .78062• Negative Experience? r = .679090• Comfort Level r = .813976• Confidence Level r = .491486- Difference in confidence regarding success in class/department program and success in entering profession• Interest Level r = .935448


ATIA February 2008:

Comparison between

2006-2007 (n=30) final results and

2007-present (n=14)

preliminary results

Perlow-ATIA-February 2008 29

2006-07 Health Educators n=30

Variable Label N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

EXPEKNOWEXPENEGCOMFORTCONFIDNCINTEREST

Experience/KnowledgeNegative Experience?Comfort LevelConfidence LevelInterest

30303030 30

3.1111114.6666673.8733334.0055563.78333

0.645250.379050.752891.08674 0.71539

2.03.52.41.0 2.0

4.666675.05.0 5.05.0

Variable Label N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

EXPEKNOWEXPENEGCOMFORTCONFIDNCINTEREST

Experience/KnowledgeNegative Experience?Comfort LevelConfidence LevelInterest

14141414 14

3.5119054.2142863.9142863.9047624.000000

0.699401.220250.506661.104990.94054

2.01.03.22.0 2.0

4.666675.05.0 5.05.0

2007-2/08 Preliminary [LIS] n=14


SUMMARY-06-7: n=30; 07-2/08: n=14

Scores: Total # of Responses = 30 / 14 for each question

Survey Question 5 – Most Positive 4- Positive 3-Neutral 2 – Least Positive

1-I Don't Know

1-Experience-Personal with PWAN 1-extensive-1 4-some-6 16-infreq-3 9-no-4 0 - 0

2-General Comfort with PWAN 7-very comf-2 20-comf-9 2-neutral-3 1-uncomf-0 0 - 0

3-Experience SWAN in classes 2-often-1 8-somet.-7 19-rarely-5 1-never-0 0 - 1

4-Comfort-SWAN F2F classes 8-very comf-4 19-comf.-9 3-neutral-0 0-uncomf-0 0 - 1

5- Comfort-SWAN Online classes 8 -very comf-2 8-comf.-7 0-neutral-0 0-uncomf-1 14 - 4

6-Comfort-Interacting with SWAN 9 -very comf-2 16-comf.-11 4-neutral-1 1-uncomf-0 0 - 0

7-Comfort-Working with SWAN to solve class access issues

10-very comf-5 16-comf.-9 3 -neutral-0 0-uncomf-0 1 - 0

8-Experience SWAN "disrupting" classes 19-never-7 11-rare-3 0-some-3 0-frequent-0 0 - 1

9-Experience SWAN asking for special treatment 23-never-11 5-rare-1 2-some-0 0–frequent-0 0 - 2

10-Confidence SWAN pass classes that I teach 28 –can pass-12 0-pass but wg.diffic.-0

0– prob.not pass-0

0-not pass-0 2-DON’T KNOW-2

11-Confidence SWAN pass departmental program 19-able-10 4-able but wg. diffic.-0

1(3.5) prob.not pass-0

0-not pass-0 6-DON’T KNOW-4

12-Confidence SWAN successfully enter profession 14-able-4 4-able but wg.diffic.-6

0-unlikely to be able-0

0-unable-0 12DON’T KNOW-4

13-Experience/Knowledge about Accessibility/UD/UDL

2-veryknowledg.-1

6-knowl.-8 + 1 = 3.5

14-slightlyfamiliar – 4

8-unfamiliar-0

0 – 0

14-Interest in learning more about Accessibility/UD/UDL

4-veryinterested-5

18-interested-3

6-possiblyinterested-4

2-notinterested-1

0 - 0

15- Interest in learning more about Accessibility/UD/UDL at affiliated institution

4-veryinterested-5

16-interested-6

2-possiblyinterested-2

1-notinterested-1

0 - 0


Selected Results (see handout)

EXPERIENCE/KNOWLEDGE:HE 1-Experience-Personal with PWAN: 16/30 infrequent; 9/30 no experience; LIS 1-Experience-Personal with PWAN: 4/14 infrequent; 0/14 no

experience; HE 3-Experience having SWAN in classes: 19/30 infrequent; 8/30 sometimesLIS 3-Experience having SWAN in classes: 0/14 infrequent; 3/14 sometimesHE 13-Exp/Knowl. accessibility, UD/UDL: 14/30 slightly familiar; 8/30 unfamiliarLIS 13-Exp/Knowl. accessibility, UD/UDL: 4/14 slightly familiar; 0/14

unfamiliar

NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE?:HE 8-Experience SWAN “disrupting” classes: 19/30 never; 11/30 rarelyLIS 8-Experience SWAN “disrupting” classes: 7/14 never; 3/14 rarely; 1/14

some 1/14 I don’t knowHE 9-Experience SWAN ask for special treatment: 23/30 never; 5/30 rarely; 2/30

someLIS 9-Experience SWAN-sp. treatment: 11/14 never; 1/14 rarely; 2/14 Don’t

know



COMFORT LEVEL:

HE 2-wPWAN: 20/30 comfortable; 7/30 very comf.; 2/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomfortableLIS 2-PWAN: 9/14 comfortable; 2/14 very comf.; 3/14 neutral; 0/14

uncomfortableHE 4-w SWAN F2F: 19/30 comfortable; 8/30 very comfortable; 3/30 neutralLIS 4-SWAN F2F: 9/14 comfortable; 4/14 very comfortable; 1/14 DON’T

KNOWHE 5-w SWAN ONLINE: 14/30 DON’T KNOW; 8/30 very comf.; 8/30 comfortableLIS 5-w SWAN ONLINE: 4/14 DON’T KNOW; 2/14 very comfortable; 7/14 comfortable 1/14 uncomfortableHE 6-w SWAN Interax:16/30 comf.; 9/30 v. comfortable; 4/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomft.LIS 6-w SWAN Interax:11/14 comfortable 2/14 v. comfort.; 1/14 neutral; 0/14 uncomfortableHE 7-w SWAN Solve:16/30 comf.;10/30 v. comfortable;3/30 neutral;1/30 Don’t knowLIS 7-SWAN Solve: 9/14 comf.; 5/14 v. comfortable; 0/14 neutral; 0/14 Don’t

know



CONFIDENCE LEVEL:

HE 10-SWAN able to pass classes that I teach: 28/30 pass; 2/30 DON’T KNOW

LIS 10-SWAN able to pass classes that I teach: 12/14 pass; 2/14 DON’T KNOW

HE 11-SWAN able to pass departmental program: 19/30 able; 6/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30: able, but with great difficulty

LIS 11-SWAN able to pass dept. program: 10/14 able; 4/14 DON’T KNOW; 0/14: able

HE 12-SWAN able to enter profession: 14/30 able; 12/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30 able,

but with great difficulty LIS 12-SWAN able to enter profession: 4/14 able; 4/14 DON’T

KNOW; 6/14 able, but with great difficulty

Perlow-ATIA-February 2008 34


INTEREST LEVEL:

HE 14-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL: 18/30 interested; 6/30

possibly interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 not interested

LIS 14-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL: 4/14 interested; 4/14 possibly interested; 5/14 very interested; 1/13 not interested

HE 15-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL at institution:

16/30 interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 possibly interested; 1/30 not interested

LIS 15-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL at institution:

6/14 interested; 5/14 very interested; 2/14 possibly interested; 1/14 not interested


Experience/Knowledge

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPEKNOWAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPEKNOWAREA = LIS

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPEKNOWAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPEKNOWAREA = LIS


Negative Experience?

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPENNEGAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for EXPENNEGAREA = LIS

Perlow-ATIA 2008 37

Comfort Level

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for COMFORTAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for COMFORTAREA = LIS

Perlow-ATIA 2008 38

Confidence Level

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for CONFIDNCAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for CONFIDNCAREA = LIS

Perlow-ATIA 2008 39

Interest Level

The UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for INTERESTAREA = Health EdThe UNIVARIATE ProcedureFitted Distribution for INTERESTAREA = LIS

Perlow-ATIA 2008 40

H. Ed. Participant Comments


Participant 3: “I am especially interested in universal design."

Participant 6: “I chair campus-wide commission on disabilities which sponsors training sessions for faculty & staff. I studied special education during UG & MS programs."

Participant 8: "I didn’t have enough students with accessibility needs to know enough or be very interested in training."

Participant 9: [Question] #11 [“Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program”] - I teach in 2 departments - one is Nursing - accessibility needs can make it very difficult to perform the necessary skills - the other department’s program does not have these skill requirements - my answer is an "average” between the two. [Question 11 response = 3.5]

Participant 15: "I do no teach online, so the online question did not apply to me."

Perlow-ATIA 2008 41

H. Ed. Participant Comments


Participant 17: "For question #6: Depends on the access need (score assigned: average of comfortable, uncomfortable") Comment: Depends on the accessibility issue.

Participant 19: Question 8 is not the clearest to understand.

[“I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes.””

Participant 23: “Article in NEA flyer just released this month on this topic – just read it!”

Participant 24: "I’m not really sure what “universal design for learning” is. This the timid endorsement."

Participant 29: “I am always happy to participate in research, so put me on a list if you want to. From my perspective, the big question is how do we get students who don’t necessarily need assistive tech, but who could potentially benefit to some degree, to ask for help. Thanks!"

Perlow-ATIA 2008 42

LIS Participant Comments


Participant 33 [did not mark whether ED or LIS]:

Comment to Question 5 (about comfort level with students with access needs in online courses]: Circled ”I don’t know” answer and commented: “When they’re online I don’t know any needs they don’t tell me about.” Comments section: “The generic definition of “accessibility needs” made these hard questions to answer. I have one experience with [w/] students who have some needs but none at all with students with other needs.”

Perlow-ATIA 2008 43



Participant 34 [did not mark whether ED or LIS]: Comment to Question 9: “I have ____ experience with students in my classes who claim accessibility needs and ask for special treatment that they do not deserve.” Participant circled the answer “I don’t know” and the word “deserve” in the question, writing next to the word “deserve:” “? meet ADA standards for as per univ. gdlines = “deserve.” Comment to Question 11: “Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program” “depends on the need and the student’s goals.”

Participant 34 – continued next page --

Perlow-ATIA 2008 44



Participant 34 – continued:Comment to Question 12: “People with accessibility needs are ___ to find work as education/LIS professionals” Circled the answer “I don’t know” with comment: “depends on the needs & the work.” Comment to Question 15: “I am ___ in attending training sessions on the topics listed in question 14 at the institution with which I am affiliated” circled “possibly interested.” Comment: “prefer to learn in terms of a student’s real needs rather than repeat the general training I’ve already done” Additional comments: “see earlier notes”

Perlow-ATIA 2008 45



Participant 36 [LIS]: Additional comments: “I have not taught an online class, so #5 is Not applicable.”

Participant 38 [LIS]: Additional comments: “Have attended university workshops on course design to meet disability issues”

Perlow-ATIA 2008 46



Participant 39 [LIS]: Comment to Question 10: “Students with accessibility needs can ___ the classes that I teach.” Circled: “I don’t know” as answer with comment: “and depends on the accessibility need.” Comment to Question 11: “Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program.” Circled: “I don’t know” as answer with comment: “Same as above” [“and depends on the accessibility need”]Comment to Question 12: “People with accessibility needs are ___ to find work as education/LIS professionals” Circled the answer “I don’t know” with comment: “Same as above” [“and depends on the accessibility need”].

Perlow-ATIA 2008 47



Participant 39 [LIS]: continued: Additional Comments: “see attached” [attachment of separate page [stapled] and typewritten comments: “Some of the survey questions were difficult to answer because the topic (“accessibility needs”) is very broad and covers a large spectrum. When I started answering the survey, I was thinking in terms of physical ability, and didn’t consider people with differing emotional/ mental abilities to be considered as well In my teaching experience, I have had very few students with physical disabilities, and those that I have had were generally sufficiently motivated to complete the program, and find jobs. I have also had a number of students with emotional difficulties, whom I have thought were going to have a very hard time finding jobs because they were (to my mind) far less adaptable than students with physical disabilities.”


Comparison/Issues of Interest

1. When asked positively, participants …

2. LIS somewhat more experience, also more negative experiences than Health Educators.

3. Both Health and LIS Educators: demonstrate interest in positive PWAN/SWAN interaction.

4. Both disciplines: interest in learning more about access issues: need to be very interested.

5. Both Health/LIS Educators should be receptive.


Comparison/Issues of Interest


6. Both Health Ed./LIS Educators: lack of confidence in college students with access needs to succeed, particularly in entering profession.

7. Impact of different accessibility support systems in U.S. pre-K-12 [21] (IDEA/Sec. 504/ NCLB, transition services) vs. higher education (Sec. 504/The A.D.A.): future convergence?

8. Impact of institutional effectiveness initiatives.

9. Need to positively change perceptions. How?


Research Agenda


1. Participant Recruitment: Need for more participants: LIS, especially Education Faculty.

2. Expand analysis: multivariate/factor analysis.

3. Examination of confounding factors, such as effect of [length of] IRB consent forms.

4. Demographic data?5. Replication of studies in more disciplines.

6. Advocacy/research to promote successful PWAN outcomes in higher education, careers.


References• American Library Association. (2008). Key action areas: equity of access. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governingdocs/keyactionareas/equityaction/equityaccess.htm• Boyle, C. A., & Cordero, J. F. (2005, November). Birth defects and disabilities: a public health issue for the 21st century. American Journal of Public Health, 95(11), 1884-1886. • Carbaugh, A.L., Elias, R., & Rowland, D. (2006). Aid to people with disabilities: Medicaid’s growing role. Annual Review of Public Health, 27: 412-442.• Foss, J. J. (2002). Attitudes and accommodation practices of university health professions faculty toward students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, no. 03A, 737.


References• Kressley, K. M. & Huebschmann, M. (2002). The 21st century campus: gerontological perspectives. Educational Gerontology, 28, 835-851.• Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Educational Statistics Quarterly, 1(3). Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_1/1_3/4-esq13-b.asp• Lloyd, L. L. J., Ammary, N. J., Epstein, L. G., Johnson, R., & Rhee, K. (2006, July). Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 331-335. • McCarthy, E. P., Ngo, L. H., Roetzheim, R. G., Chirikos, T.N., Li, D., Drews, R.E., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2006, November 7). Disparities in breast cancer treatment and survival for women with disabilities. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(9), 637-645.


References• National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (2008). Responsibilities & competencies. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.nchec.org/aboutnchec/rc.htm• National Organization on Disability [NOD]. (2004, June 24). Landmark disability survey finds pervasive disadvantages. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.nod.org/• Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any other name?: the values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277.• Schmetzke, A. (2006, September 25). E-mail communication.• Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity: people with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books.• Silverstein, N. M., Choi, L. H., & Bulot, J. J. (2001). Older learners on campus. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, 22(1), 13-30.


References• U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003, March). Disability status: 2000. (CZKBR17).• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1994). Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions – United States, 1991-1992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43: 730-739.• U.S. Department of Education. (2008). IDEA 2004: building the legacy. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://idea.ed.gov/• U.S. Department of Education. (2008). No Child Left Behind [NCLB]. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/• U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a, June). Postsecondary education information system: enrollment of students with disabilities. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/1999046/


References• U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b, June). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-04, with a special analysis of community college students. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006184• U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Participation in elementary/secondary education: Indicator 7: Children with disabilities in public schools. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section1/indicator07.asp• U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007). Table 4-1. students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, part B, who exited school, by exit reason and state: Fall 2005-06. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from https://www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_4-1.xls


References• U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007, July). Profiles of parts B and C programs in states and outlying areas. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from https://www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBDataMeeting2007.pdf• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Health communication (chapter 11). In: Healthy People 2010: Understanding and improving health and objectives for improving health. 2d ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2008). Healthy People 2010: what are its goals? Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.healthypeople.gov/About/goals.htm

Perlow-ATIA 2008 57

References• U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007. December 18). Teachers - special education: employment change. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.htm#projections_data • Wu, S. V., & Green, A. (2000). Projection of chronic illness prevalence and cost inflation. Santa Monica: CA: Rand Corporation.


Deepest Thanks to Deepest Thanks to William Cissell, Ph.D. (Health William Cissell, Ph.D. (Health

Studies) and Michael Wiebe, Ph.D. Studies) and Michael Wiebe, Ph.D. (Special Education), (Special Education),

Professors/Faculty Advisors Professors/Faculty Advisors Extraordinaire, Extraordinaire,

and and Mark Hamner, Ph.D., Mark Hamner, Ph.D., Statistics Professor Statistics Professor

Extraordinaire, Extraordinaire, for invaluable encouragement and for invaluable encouragement and

assistance with this research.assistance with this research.


ATIA 2008 and ATIA 2008 and ParticipantsParticipantsThank you!Thank you!

Presenter Contact Presenter Contact Info:Info:

Ellen Perlow, Ph.D. CHES Ellen Perlow, Ph.D. CHES [email protected]@hotmail.comAlternative formats are Alternative formats are available upon request.available upon request.


Accessibility, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning, NIMAS now are mandated in

Pre-K-12 U.S. public education (IDEA 2004/NCLB), thus also in U.S. Teacher Education.

See: http://idea.ed.gov/See: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/

Onward and Upward to Higher Education. Excelsior!

Perlow-ATIA 2008 61

Presenter Biographical InfoEllen Perlow, Ph.D. CHES, a career academic librarian and

certified health educator (2005-present), has degrees in elementary education, library and information science, educational technology, law, and a Ph.D. in health studies (2006) with a focus on accessibility. She also is a graduate of the California State University at Northridge [CSUN] Assistive Technology Applications Certificate Program (September 2000), CSUN Symposium Series advanced accessibility training (2001-2003), and a regular participant and presenter on accessibility and assistive technology at conferences and to university classes. Dr. Perlow's dissertation, A for Accessibility: Descriptor Preferences of People with Accessibility Needs (2006), was an IRB-approved participatory research study by and for self-identifying adults with access needs. The research examined the impact of access-related terminology on accessibility advocacy success and class self-empowerment. This dissertation research, as well as the IRB-approved research discussed at Accessing Higher Ground 2007, has included provision of alternative formats and accessible venues, keeping with the studies' theme of access to the research process. In furtherance of her goal to integrate a culture of accessibility into higher education, Dr. Perlow currently is a doctoral student in Special Education at Texas Woman's University.

perlow-atia february 2008 1 accessibility in higher education: learning from faculty attitudes ellen...

Documents