Making STEM Accessible to Postsecondary Students with Disabilities

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
— Thomas A. Edison — 

We all have defining moments in our lives. However, much of our development comes through small, incremental steps in which friends, parents, teachers, and counselors play roles. As mentors, caring adults may have established long-term relationships with us and promoted our success. Many seemingly inconsequential interactions shaped who we are now and who we will become.

Although most of this networking develops informally, supportive relationships can be intentionally promoted. This book tells how to create and sustain an electronic community designed to support teens with disabilities. Strategies and content can be easily adapted to other populations.

The personal stories, mentoring tips, and activities for teens with disabilities included in this book can be used in an online mentoring community (also called an electronic mentoring community or e-mentoring community) to promote success in school, careers, and other life experiences. It includes steps that lead to a happy, healthy, successful future for anyone, regardless of the presence of a disability. In the community of young people and mentors described in this book, key questions are asked, but simple answers are not provided. It is a place where everyone can find opinions that reflect their own as well as alternative views. Online discussions help participants more fully understand themselves, as well as individuals and systems with whom they interact, as they chart their own course to success.

The set of strategies presented in this book has its foundation in the large body of research and practice in the areas of:

• success
• self-determination
• transition
• mentoring
• peer support
• community building
• electronic communication

We know too well that postsecondary academic, career, and independent living outcomes for people with disabilities are discouraging. We often hear about the problems young people with disabilities face—physical obstacles, social rejection, academic failure, unemployment, drug abuse, and medical crises. Much research focuses on identifying these problems and then developing specific strategies for overcoming them. This approach is consistent with research and practice regarding adolescents from other high-risk groups, which concentrate on helping youth avoid identified problems—pregnancy, drug abuse, high school dropout, criminal activity, academic failure, gang membership—or deal with these problems once they exist. In contrast, this book presents strategies that contribute to the overall positive development of youth, which will also help them avoid many types of problems in the future, as well as successfully deal with those they ultimately face.

After all, some people do overcome significant challenges and lead successful lives. What does success mean to them, and how do they achieve it? What internal characteristics do these individuals possess, and what external factors have been present in their lives? What advice do they have for helping young people build personal strengths to overcome the challenges they face now, as well as those they no doubt will face in the future? How can these individuals with relevant insights be brought together with young people with disabilities as they travel the road to adulthood? How can long-term relationships with mentors and peers help young people develop into competent, contributing, and content adults? How can successful strategies be applied in an online forum?

This chapter provides an overview of the need for interventions to increase the participation and success of individuals with disabilities in science technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); theoretical and conceptual frameworks for interventions, as well as a summary of the content included in the remaining chapters of this multimedia “book.”

Need for Interventions

To fill increasing numbers of positions in STEM, the U.S. must draw from a talent pool that includes all demographic groups, including those with disabilities (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001; Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2015; Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2006). Although increasing numbers of individuals with disabilities are attending college, with their initial interest in STEM similar to that of their nondisabled peers, they experience far less academic and career success in STEM (National Science Foundation, 2015; Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001, November), and those who are also minorities, females, and/or veterans face multiple challenges (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Freeman, 2004; Gil-Kashiwabara, Hogansen, Geenan, Powers, & Powers, 2007; Leake, et al., 2006).

However, success stories in STEM fields demonstrate that opportunities do exist for students with disabilities who successfully overcome barriers imposed by (1) inaccessible facilities, curricula, websites, technology, and student services; insufficient accommodations and supports; and others’ low expectations as well as (2) inadequate personal skills in academics and self-advocacy and access to STEM role models and peers with disabilities (DO-IT, 1993-2015; Stern, & Woods, 2001). To support NSF’s mandate to apply the best ideas from the most capable researchers and educators, efforts should be made to increase participation in STEM by citizens with disabilities. Professors, student services, and other campus units can play important roles in this effort.

The evidence base for practices of the DO-IT Center—where DO-IT stands for Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology—comes from literature reviews, student outcome data, suggestions from practitioners, and input from students with disabilities (DO-IT, (n.d.). In 2007, SRI International was commissioned to evaluate the alliance program funded by the Research in Disabilities Education (RDE) program at NSF; DO-IT’s AccessSTEM project was rated highly with respect to its organization, activities, and results. The research team concluded that the most important things participants gained from DO-IT participation with respect to transition and retention outcomes were

• A sense of belonging (both academic and social integration),
• Involvement (in academic and social life),
• Sense of purpose (through internships, workshops, networking, and mentoring), and
• Self-determination skills (skill building, and practice).

Theoretical and Philosophical Foundations for Practices

Over the course of DO-IT projects, effective student interventions were organized into a model of inputs to promote movement through critical junctures (DO-IT, n.d.)—e.g., STEM degree completion—that have also been identified by other researchers and practitioners as effective ways to bring students from underrepresented groups into STEM fields (Allen, Bonous-Hammarch, & Teranishi, 2006; Burgstahler, Bellman, & Lopez, 2004; Burgstahler & Chang, 2008, 2009; Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001; Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Isakson & Burgstahler, 2008; Luecking & Fabian 2000; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Stern & Woods, 2001; Stewart, et al., 2009; Valentine, et al., 2009).

Observations of AccessSTEM staff and others suggest that:

• students with disabilities have little access to peers and mentors with disabilities;
• individuals face common issues as well as unique challenges related to specific disabilities;
• both academic and non-academic (e.g., self-advocacy) issues must be addressed;
• motivational activities are needed to recruit students without initial interests in STEM; and
• comprehensive retention interventions produce more positive outcomes than isolated efforts.

The content presented in this publication embraces disability as a diversity issue; a social model of disability; a universal design approach in transforming technology, courses, and student services; social justice education practices to engage students with disabilities in activities that increase their success while promoting positive change on campus; and a multi-faceted view of retention. Components of this theoretical and conceptual framework are described in the paragraphs that follow.

Disability and Diversity. Traditional efforts to assist students with disabilities on campuses nationwide embrace a “medical model” of disability, in which focus is on the “deficit” of the individual and how the person can be rehabilitated or how accommodations can be made so that they can fit into an established environment and access information (Loewen & Pollard, 2010; Moriarty, 2007). In contrast, the “social model” of disability and other integrated approaches within the field of disability studies (DePoy & Gibson, 2008a; DePoy & Gibson, 2008b; Gabel & Peters, 2010) consider variations in abilities—like those with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity—a natural part of the human experience and suggest that more attention should be devoted to designing products and environments—including courses, technology, and student services—that are welcoming and accessible to everyone.

Universal Design. Universal design (UD)—defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, n.d.)—is an approach that is consistent with the social model of disability, addresses other diversity issues as well, and has the potential to reduce the need for some individual accommodations. UD challenges society to construct a world where everyone can participate with maximum independence (Loewen & Pollard, 2010).

When UD principles are applied in a postsecondary institution, educational products and environments meet the needs of potential students with a wide variety of characteristics. Disability is just one of many characteristics that a student might possess. For example, one student could be an English-language learner, six feet tall, male, thirty years old, an excellent reader, primarily a visual learner, and deaf. UD requires consideration of all characteristics of potential users, including abilities and disabilities, when developing a course or service.

UD can be applied to any product or environment. For example, a typical service counter in a career services office is not accessible to everyone, including students who are short in stature, use wheelchairs, and cannot stand for extended periods of time. Applying UD principles might result in the design of a counter that has multiple heights-the standard height designed for individuals within the typical range of height and who use the counter while standing up and a shorter height for those who are shorter than average, use a wheelchair for mobility, or prefer to interact with service staff from a seated position.

Making a product or an environment accessible to people with disabilities often benefits others. For example, automatic door openers benefit students, faculty, and staff using walkers and wheelchairs, but also benefit people carrying books and holding babies, as well as elderly citizens. Sidewalk curb cuts, designed to make sidewalks and streets accessible to those using wheelchairs, are often used by students on skateboards, parents with baby strollers, and delivery staff with carts. When television displays in restaurants, museums, and other public areas are captioned, programming is accessible not only to people who are deaf but also to others who cannot hear the audio in noisy areas.

UD is a goal that puts a high value on diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. It is also a process. Rich details about UD applications to higher education can be found the DO-IT’s Center on Universal Design in Education (n.d.) and in the book Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (Burgstahler, 2008). The following paragraphs summarize the process, principles, and applications of UD.

Process of Universal Design: The process of UD requires a macro view of the application being considered as well as a micro view of subparts of the application. The following list suggests a process that can be used to apply UD in a postsecondary setting.

• Identify the application. Specify the product or environment to which you wish to apply universal design.
• Define the universe. Describe the overall population (e.g., users of service), and then describe the diverse characteristics of potential members of the population for which the application is designed (e.g., students, faculty, and staff with diverse characteristics with respect to gender; age; size; ethnicity and race; native language; learning style; and abilities to see, hear, manipulate objects, read, and communicate).
• Involve consumers. Consider and involve people with diverse characteristics (as identified in Step 2) in all phases of the development, implementation, and evaluation of the application. Also gain perspectives through diversity programs, such as the campus disability services office.
• Adopt guidelines or standards. Create or select existing universal design guidelines or standards. Integrate them with other best practices within the field of the specific application.
• Apply guidelines or standards. Apply universal design in concert with best practices within the field (as identified in Step 4) to the overall design of the application, all subcomponents of the application, and all ongoing operations (e.g., procurement processes, staff training) to maximize the benefit of the application to individuals with the wide variety of characteristics identified in Step 2.
• Plan for accommodations. Develop processes to address accommodation requests (e.g., purchase of assistive technology, arrangement for sign language interpreters) from individuals for whom the design of the application does not automatically provide access.
• Train and support. Tailor and deliver ongoing training and support to stakeholders (e.g., instructors, computer support staff, procurement officers, volunteers). Share institutional goals with respect to diversity and inclusion and practices for ensuring welcoming, accessible, and inclusive experiences for everyone.
• Evaluate. Include universal design measures in periodic evaluations of the application; evaluate the application with a diverse group of users, and make modifications based on feedback. Provide ways to collect input from users (e.g., through online and printed instruments and communications with staff; Burgstahler, 2015).

Principles of Universal Design: At the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University, a group of architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental design researchers established seven principles of UD to provide guidance in the design of products and environments. Following are the CUD principles of UD, each paired with an example of its application:

• Equitable use. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. For example, a website that is designed to be accessible to everyone, including people who are blind, employs this principle.
• Flexibility in use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. An example is a museum that allows visitors to choose to read or listen to the description of the contents of a display case.
• Simple and intuitive. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Science lab equipment with clear and intuitive control buttons is an example of an application of this principle.
• Perceptible information. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. An example of this principle is captioned television programming projected in noisy restaurants.
• Tolerance for error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. An example of a product applying this principle is software applications that provide guidance when the user makes an inappropriate selection.
• Low physical effort. The design can be used efficiently, comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue. Doors that open automatically for people with a wide variety of physical characteristics demonstrate the application of this principle.
• Size and space for approach and use. Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility. A flexible work area designed for use by employees with a variety of physical characteristics and abilities is an example of applying this principle. (Burgstahler, 2015)

Social Justice Education and Self-Determination

Social justice education is an educational philosophy committed to equity and social change, with its goals clustering around three main areas: social responsibility, student empowerment, and the equitable distribution of resources (Bell & Griffin, 1997; Loewen & Pollard, 2010). Combined with UD and the view of disability as a diversity issue, this student-centered approach is one response to the challenge of addressing the needs of students with disabilities along with members of other marginalized groups (Hackman & Rauscher, 2007) and engaging students with disabilities as agents of change as they develop their own self-determination skills (Cory, White, & Stuckey, 2010).

Self-determination skills—that allow people to take charge of their lives—are critical to postsecondary success all students with disabilities. Characteristics of postsecondary campuses that support self-determination for students with disabilities include self-determined role models, self-determination skill instruction, opportunities for students to make choices, positive relationships with others, and availability of specific support services. In addition, universal design of instruction, fosters self-determination by offering students multiple opportunities for learning (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003).

Retention

Factors impacting student retention occur within individuals, the institution, and the external community (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Current studies reflect a shift from a focus on the student to the institution and from the general student population to “non-traditional” students (Berge & Huang, 2004). Berge and Haung (Berge & Huang, 2004) propose a holistic, customizable model of retention that encourages institutions to consider the interconnectivities among personal, institutional, and circumstantial factors.

Change efforts to make STEM courses and related services more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities can build on Berge and Haung’s multifaceted conceptualization of retention by employing practices that:

• encourage commitment (on the part of students with disabilities, faculty, IT managers, student service units, and the institution).
• enhance integration (by transforming existing services to be more inclusive of students with disabilities).
• improve delivery systems (for both general student support services and specialized services for students with disabilities).
• increase person-environmental fit (through systemic changes in departments, courses, labs, and student services).
• improve outcomes (as measured by STEM degree attainment and course/service ratings of students with disabilities).

Components of a Model for Change Toward More Inclusive Practices

Review of research and practice leads to the following vision of postsecondary offerings that are responsive to the needs of STEM students with disabilities.

• Priorities. Institution, college, and department vision, mission, and value statements reflect a high value with respect to diversity, including that defined by disability.
• Data collection and reporting. Data collection and reporting routines reflect high priorities with respect to diversity, thus including information relevant to STEM students with disabilities.
• UD and accommodations. All departments, courses, technology units, and student services are welcoming and accessible to all students, including those with disabilities. Their practices (with respect to planning, policies, and evaluation; physical environments and products; teaching practices; staff training; information resources and technology; and events) are designed to meet the needs of all students, specifically students with disabilities.

Systemic change efforts toward a campus environment that is more inclusive of students is particularly powerful when bottom-up strategies are combined with top-down support (Amabile, 2002; Burgstahler, 2005; Steffy, 1993; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005).

Change Management. Change can be viewed from three perspectives: The reason for change, the content of change, and the process of change (Levy & Merry, 1986). Federal legislation requiring full access to campus offerings to individuals with disabilities and increasing numbers of students with disabilities attending postsecondary institutions provide two solid external reasons for changes in practices. Content presented in the remaining chapters of this book provide additional motivations for change, such as the desire for consistent and equitable practices. Also provided is the content for change—such as universal design checklists for instruction and student services.

The process for change can be guided by a change management model, such as the ADKAR (people-oriented model, which attempts to overcome some of the commonly-reported problems with the people dimension of change management. Change agents can align their interventions with the five ADKAR fundamental processes for promoting and sustaining change—Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement.

Replication of the Model. There are various steps institutions might take increase the STEM interest, learning, participation, persistence, and graduation of students with disabilities:

• Seek top-down support and engage campus leadership in determining project goals, objectives, timeline, and deliverables that are consistent with the campus vision, mission, and values.
• Form (1) a leadership team with representatives from the faculty and campus units that are most important for supporting the success of students with disabilities in STEM at institution, college, and department levels and (2) a leadership team of STEM students with disabilities. Develop charges, set up communication mechanisms, and timelines. Provide training, deliver tools that will empower them to be effective agents of change, and evaluate their success. Engage in activities to review and transform vision, mission, and values statements; practices; and data collection and reporting routines of relevant campus units.
• Throughout combined efforts, engage with advocates and students with disabilities to determine which activities for students with disabilities are best hosted by mainstream campus services for all students or tailored to the unique needs for community-building and skill-building for this population.
• Conduct an annual capacity-building institute that includes the two leadership groups and other key stakeholders. Deliver progress reports and develop proceedings with recommendations for furthering the project goal. Deliver the recommendations to appropriate campus leaders and advisory boards. Offer incentives such as capacity-building awards.
• Conduct formative evaluation to guide the campus efforts and summative evaluation to measure outputs, outcomes, and impacts; adjust practices based on results.
• Share lessons learned and evidence-based practices with stakeholder groups.

The remaining chapters of this multimedia "book" are described below.

Chapter 2 Experiences of Students with Disabilities—How students with disabilities view the impact of their disabilities and their experiences in educational settings

Chapter 3 Teaching Students with Disabilities—How accommodations and universal design make on-site and online education welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 4 Making Services Accessible to Students with Disabilities—How student services, departments, and the entire campus can be designed to be welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 5 Assistive Technology for Students with Disabilities—How assistive technology provides access to computers for students with disabilities

Chapter 6 Accessible Technology Design—How technology can be designed so that is accessible to everyone, including users with disabilities

Chapter 7 Access to STEM for Students with Disabilities—How STEM learning can be made welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 8 Incorporating UD and Disability Topics Into the Curriculum—How appropriate disability and UD content can be integrated into existing courses

Chapter 9 Institutional Changes and More Resources—How departments and institutions can become more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

How students with disabilities view the impact of their disabilities and their experiences in educational settings.

VIEW     Part of Me, Not All of Me

VIEW     DO-IT Scholar Profile: Alexandra

VIEW     Invisible Disabilities and Postsecondary Education

READ     Invisible Disabilities and Postsecondary Education

VIEW     Returning from Service: College and IT Careers for Veterans

READ    Returning from Service: College and IT Careers for Veterans

VIEW    Opening Doors: Mentoring on the Internet

READ   Opening Doors: Mentoring on the Internet

How accommodations and universal design make on-site and online education welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

VIEW     Invisible Disabilities and Postsecondary Education

READ     Invisible Disabilities and Postsecondary Education

READ     Academic Accommodations for Students with Learning Disabilities

READ     Academic Accommodations for Students with Psychiatric Disabilities

READ     Effective Communication: Faculty and Students with Disabilities

READ     Universal Design in Postsecondary Education: Process, Principles, and Applications

VIEW     Building the Team: Faculty, Staff, and Students Working Together

READ     Working Together: Faculty and Students with Disabilities  

READ     Working Together: Teaching Assistants and Students with Disabilities

READ     Universal Design of Instruction (UDI): Definition, Principles, Guidelines, and Examples

VIEW     Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction

VIEW     Beneficiaries of Universal Design of Instruction

VIEW     Real Connections: Making Distance Learning Accessible to Everyone

READ     Real Connections: Making Distance Learning Accessible to Everyone

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Distance Learning

How student services, departments, and the entire campus can be designed to be welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

VIEW     Equal Access: Student Services

READ     Equal Access: Student Services

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Tutoring and Learning Centers

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Career Services

VIEW     Equal Access: Universal Design of an Academic Department

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of an Academic Department

How assistive technology provides access to computers for students with disabilities.

VIEW     Working Together: People with Disabilities and Computer Technology

READ     Working Together: People with Disabilities and Computer Technology

VIEW     Working Together: Computers and People with Sensory Impairments

READ     Working Together: Computers and People with Sensory Impairments

VIEW     Working Together: Computers and People with Mobility Impairments

READ     Working Together: Computers and People with Mobility Impairments

VIEW     Working Together: Computers and People with Learning Disabilities

READ     Working Together: Computers and People with Learning Disabilities

READ     Checklist for Making Computer Labs Accessible to Students with Disabilities

How technology can be designed so that is accessible to everyone, including users with disabilities.

VIEW     IT Accessibility: What Campus Leaders Have to Say

READ     What Can Campus Leaders Do to Ensure IT is Accessible? 

VIEW     IT Accessibility: What Webmasters Have to Say

VIEW     World Wide Access: Accessible Web Design    

READ     Web Accessibility: Guidelines for Administrators

READ     30 Web Accessibility Tips

VIEW     Captions: Improving Access to Postsecondary Education

READ     Who Benefits from Captions on Videos?

How STEM learning can be made welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

READ     Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering by Welcoming Participants with Disabilities

VIEW     STEM and People with Disabilities

VIEW     Equal Access: Science and Students with Sensory Impairments

VIEW     Equal Access: Science and Students with Sensory Impairments

VIEW     Working Together: Science Teachers and Students with Disabilities

READ     Working Together: Science Teachers and Students with Disabilities

VIEW     The Winning Equation: Access + Attitude = Success in Math and Science

READ     The Winning Equation: Access + Attitude = Success in Math and Science

READ     Making Science Labs Accessible to Students with Disabilities

READ     Checklist for Making Science Labs Accessible to Students with Disabilities

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Engineering Labs

READ     Checklist for Making Engineering Labs Accessible to Students with Disabilities

READ     Making a Makerspace? Guidelines for Accessibility and Universal Design

READ     Accessible Science Equipment

VIEW     Communication Access Realtime Translation: CART Services for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People

How appropriate disability and UD content can be integrated into existing courses.

READ     Universal Design of Web Pages in Class Projects

READ     WebD2: A Promising Practice in Integrating Accessibility Topics into Curriculum

How departments and institutions can become more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

VIEW     Self-Examination: How Accessible Is Your Campus?

READ     Self-Examination: How Inclusive Is Your Campus?

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Engineering Departments

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Computing Departments

READ     Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering by Welcoming Participants with Disabilities

READ     Increasing the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Lessons Learned and Resources from NSF's RDE Projects

Alexander, C., & Strain, P. S. (1978). A review of educators' attitudes toward handicapped children and the concept of mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools, 15(3), 390-396. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C.A. ¤ 12101 et seq. Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Computer-supported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22(2), 185-212. Andresen, L. (1991). Teaching university teachers to teach—while they teach. A Quarterly Experience, 26, 14-17. Bain, L., Scott, S., & Steinberg, A. G. (2004). Socialization experiences and coping strategies of adults raised using spoken language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1), 120-128. Baird, L., Schneier, C., & Laird, D. (1983). The training and development sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press. Benz, M. R., Doren, B., & Yovanoff, P. (1998). Crossing the great divide: Predicting productive engagement for young women with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21(1), 3-16. Bernstein, L. E., Auer, E. T., & Tucker, P. E. (2001). Enhanced speech reading in deaf adults: Can short-term training/practice close the gap for hearing adults? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(1), 5-18. Blackhurst, A. E., Lahm, E. A., Harrison, E. M., & Chandler, W. G. (1999). A framework for aligning technology with transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22(2), 153-183. Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-414. Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Brookfield, S. D. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4), 227-242. Bruce, R. R., & Wyman, S. M. (1998). Changing organizations: Practicing action training and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burgstahler, S. (2003). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty. To Improve the Academy, 21, 179-195. Burgstahler, S. (2007a). Accessibility training for distance learning personnel. Access Technology Higher Education Network (ATHEN) E-Journal, 2. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from https://athenpro.org/node/41 Burgstahler, S. (2007b). Lessons learned in the Faculty Room. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 18(3), 103-128. Burgstahler, S. (2008a). Promoters and inhibitors of universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 279-283). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burgstahler, S. (2008b). Universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burgstahler, S. (2008a). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 23-43). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burgstahler, S., & Cory, R. (Eds.). (2008). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 135-147. Burgstahler, S., & Jirikowic, T. (2002). Supporting students with disabilities: What every teaching assistant should know. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 9(1), 23-30. Caffarella, R. S., & Zinn, L. F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 241-254. The Center for Universal Design. (1997). About UD. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm Claxton, C. S., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and administration. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Coker, C. A. (1996). Accommodating students' learning styles in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(9), 66-68. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1997). The principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprincipleshtmlformat.html Conti, G. J. (1998). Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (pp. 73-77). Malabar, FL: Kreiger Publishing Company. Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for teachers of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass publishers. Dunn, R. S., & Griggs, S. A. (2000). Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood publishing group. Durre, I., Richardson, M., Smith, C., Shulman, J. A., & Steele, S. (2008). Universal design of instruction: Reflections of students. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 83-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 325-336. Erickson, W., & Lee, C. (2008). 2007 disability status report: The United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics. Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASSE Prism, 6(4), 18-23. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-Prism.htm Fichten, C. S. (1995). Paradigms, partnerships, and the next generation of movers and shakers: College students with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9(1), 3-16. Fichten, C. S., Amsel, R., Bourdon, C. V., & Creti, L. (1988). Interactions between college students with physical disabilities and their professors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 19(1), 13-20. Finn, D. E., Getzel, E. E., Asselin, S. B., & Reilly, V. (2008). Implementing universal design: Collaborations across campus. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 267-277). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Fonosch, G. G., & Schwab, L. O. (1981). Attitudes of selected university faculty members toward disabled students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22(3), 229-235. Frank, D., & Rocks, W. (1996). Exploiting instability: A model for managing organizational change. Paper presented at the 5th Annual International Conference of the National Community College Chair Academy. Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394564). Frank, K., & Wade, P. (1993). Disabled student services in postsecondary education: Who's responsible for what? Journal of College Student Development, 34(1), 26-30. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Gilson, S. F. (1996). Students with disabilities: An increasing voice and presence on college campuses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6(3), 263-272. Goad, T. (1997). The first-time trainer: A step-by-step quick guide for managers, supervisors, and new training professionals. New York: Amacon. Guy, T. C., Reiff, J. C., & Oliver, J. P. (1998). Infusing multicultural education: A process of creating organizational change at the college level. Innovative Higher Education, 22(4), 271-290. Hannah, M. E., & Pliner, S. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children: A review and synthesis. School Psychology Review, 12(1), 12-25. Harris, Z. M., & Kayes, P. (1995). Multicultural and international challenges to the community college: A model for college-wide proactive response. Paper presented at Annual Convention of the American Association of Community Colleges. Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387173). Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching styles in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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. Higbee, J. L. (2008). The faculty perspective: Implementation of universal design in a first-year classroom. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 61-72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hill, J. L. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding adequacy of services and willingness of faculty to make accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(1), 22-43. Hord, S. M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 43(5), 22-26. Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(3), 59-64. Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678-684. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. ¤ 1400 et seq. Jenner, C. (2008). A change process for creating a universally designed campus. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 255-265). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books. Kozeracki, C. (1998). Managing organizational change in the community college. (Report No. JC980463). Los Angeles, CA. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424884). Kuveke, S. H. (1996). Effecting instructional change: A collaborative approach. (Clearinghouse No. CS012366). New Jersey. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED392029). Latham, P. H. (1995). Legal issues pertaining to the postsecondary student with ADD. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11(2-3), 53-61. LD Online (n.d.). Questions & answers about learning disabilities. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from www.ldonline.org/questions/aboutld Lee, V. S. (1999). Creating a blueprint for the constructivist classroom. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8(4). Retrieved August 7, 2009, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ntlf.10046/epdf Levin, J. S. (1998). Sense-making in the community college: The meanings of organizational change. (Report No. JC980173). Arizona. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417777). Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York: Praeger. Leyser, Y. (1989). A survey of faculty attitudes and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 7(3-4), 97-108. 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. McAlexander, P. J. (2003). Using principles of universal design in college composition courses. In J. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 105-114). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. McCusker, C. E. (1995). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Its potential for expanding the scope of reasonable academic accommodations. Journal of College and University Law, 21(4), 619-641. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11-21. McLagan, P. A. (1978). Helping others learn: Designing programs for adults. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. In M. Tight (Ed.), Education for Adults: Vol. 1. Adult Learning and Education (pp. 124-138). Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm. Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Mino, J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a learner-centered community college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 154-160. Mitchell, R. E., Young, T. A., Bachelda, B., & Karchmer, M. A. (2006). How many people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies, 6(3), 306-335. National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). (2000). National survey of educational support provision to students with disabilities in postsecondary education settings. A Technical Report. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. National Council on Disability. (2000). Federal policy barriers to assistive technology. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. National Federation of the Blind. (2009). The Braille literacy crisis in America: Facing the truth, reversing the trend, empowering the blind. Baltimore, MD: Author. Nelson, J. R., Dodd, J. M., & Smith, D. J. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 185-189. Ness, J. E. (1995). The paraprofessional: An introduction. Module One-Facilitator's Edition [and] Student's Edition. Strategies for paraprofessionals who support individuals with disabilities series. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, The Institute on Community Integration. Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science-Education, 82(2), 127-146. O'Banion, T. (Ed.). (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion. London: Longman. Ouellett, M. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 135-144. Patrick, D. L. (correspondence to Senator Tom Harkin, September 9, 1996). Retrieved August 7, 2009, from www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/cltr204.txt Phelps, L., A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197-226. Pilling-Cormick, J. (1997). Transformative self-directed learning in practice. New Directions For Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 69-77. Price Waterhouse Change Integration Team. (1995). Better change: Best practices for transforming your organization. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Reis, S. M., Neu T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 463-480. Rend—n, L. I., & Hope, R. O. (1996). Educating a new majority: Transforming America's educational system for diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. A. (1990). Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women's inroads into male occupations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2008). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 45-59). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Rose. D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Roth, V., Cracolice, M. S., Goldstein, E., & Snyder, V. (2001). Workshop leader training. In D. K. Gosser, M. S. Cracolice, J. A. Kampmeire, V. Roth, V. S. Strozak, & P. Varma-Nelson (Eds.), Peer-led team learning: A guidebook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, S. S., & McGuire, J. M. (2008). A case study approach to promote practical application of universal design for instruction. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 135-143). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 29 U.S.C. ¤ 794. Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books. Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47-51. Smith, D. G. (1989). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or alienation in the academy? (Report No. HE023153). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, George Washington University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED317145). Souma, A.,& Casey, D. (2008). The benefits of universal design for students with psychiatric disabilities. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 97-104). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Stodden, R. A. (1998). School-to-work transition: Overview of disability legislation. In F. Rusch & J. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp. 60-75). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment of adults with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 25(3), 19-23. Svinicki, M. D. (1996). When teachers become learners. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 5(3). Retrieved August 7, 2009, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ntlf.10027/epdf Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35(4), 141-146. Tennant, M. (1995). Establishing an adult teacher learner relationship. In M. Tennant & P. Pogson (Eds.), Learning and change in the adult years: A developmental perspective (pp. 171-190). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, A. M. (1991). Beyond education: A new perspective on society's management of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thurlow, M. L., Johnstone, C. J., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2008). Universal design of assessment. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 73-81). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (1998). A feminist critique of organizational change in the community college. New Directions For Community Colleges, 26(102), 77-85. Travis, J. (1995). Community cores: The future for the community college campus. Roundtable presentation delivered at the 75th Annual Convention of the American Association of Community Colleges. (Clearinghouse No. JC960002). Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389357). Trupin, L., Sebesta, D. S., Yelin, E., & LaPlante, M. P. (1997). Trends in labor force participation among persons with disabilities, 1993-1994. Washington DC: United States Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). Current postsecondary education and employment status, wages earned, and living arrangements of special education students out of secondary school up to 4 years, by type of disability: 2005. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-04 (NCES 2006-184). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Office, Division of Instructional Development. (1998). Handbook for teaching assistants at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from www.oir.uiuc.edu/Did/docs/handbook.pdf Vogel, S. A., Leyser, Y., Burgstahler, S., Sligar, S., & Zecker, S. (2006). Faculty knowledge and practices regarding students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 109-123. Vogel, S. A., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1999). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(3), 173-186. Wilson, D. C. (1992). A strategy of change: Concepts and controversies in the management of change. New York: Routledge. Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/college instruction: Integrating the results of learning style research into course design and delivery. In R.R. Sims and S.J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Yee, J. A., & Los Angeles ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (1998) Forces motivating institutional reform. (Report No. EDOJC9809). Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421179). Yelin, E. H., & Katz, P. P. (1994a). Labor force trends of persons with and without disabilities. Monthly Labor Review, 117(10), 36-42. Yelin, E. H., & Katz, P. P. (1994b). Making work more central to work disability policy. Milbank Quarterly, 72(4), 593-619. Yuker, H. E. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward people with disabilities. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(5), 3-22. Zemsky, R., & Oedel, P. (1994). Challenge: To develop a clear picture of when and why employers and their employees invest in the acquisition of work-related skills. EQW Issues, 7.