Learn about the pilot that University of Michigan conducted to increase faculty development around the topic of accessibility. We will share our collaborative process for how to effectively implement universal design to benefit all learners. We will discuss our takeaways and how we want to move forward with this work.
The University of Michigan recently underwent a process to consider how to provide for better accessibility of learning experiences on our campus. To explore this process, we applied for an internal grant through the Office of the Provost’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion department. The grant was for DEI Innovation, and campus partners, including the Offices of the Provost, Information Technology Services, the University Library, and various colleges working together to consider how to provide more accessible learning experiences for students with disabilities and learners as a whole. Our goal was to center the learner’s experiences and to consider feedback from students with disabilities, and how to foster a culture of support for our learners.
We worked to:
-
Identify the gaps presented by using an accommodation-only model to provide accessibility.
-
Consider how universal design can be applied to benefit all learners.
-
Pilot the Universal Design Online Content Inspection Tool (UDOIT) in Canvas, in order to address more content accessibility issues earlier in the course creation process, and to remediate issues in current courses.
-
Provide better faculty development opportunities surrounding accessible design and delivery of learning materials.
Through the project we identified that one critical area of need was faculty development. Faculty are interested in providing accessibility for their learners, but need resources to address three needs:
-
Learning how to identify accessibility issues
-
Learning how to fix accessibility issues
-
Learning to sustain accessibility after addressing issues
Every term thousands of documents are uploaded to the university’s learning management system by faculty for students to read as part of their coursework. Many of the learning materials go unexamined for accessibility barriers, unless students who are registered with the Disability Services Office request for accessibility, which is reactive. We want to move toward a proactive accessibility model. Additionally, while faculty generally seem interested in proactively ensuring their course materials are accessible, we face the challenge of scaling meaningful support for faculty doing accessibility work.
To identify accessibility issues, we worked to implement a course content scanner tool (UDOIT) in Canvas, and piloted this project with faculty, instructional support staff, administrators, and students. We found through this process that accessibility issues are common in courses, even where faculty are aware of accessibility and want to be supportive of accessibility. It is important to identify opportunities to teach faculty more disability awareness, and to demonstrate scenarios where to be aware of accessibility.
To fix accessibility issues, faculty need support. Scaling meaningful accessibility remediation support for faculty is cost-prohibitive, but through our grant project we have considered ways to provide resources. We believe that student involvement can help faculty with this project. Faculty may enlist honors-option students or request accessibility help for extra credit. Additionally, schools and universities may consider broad investments into student employment to address accessibility issues. Importantly, faculty must be trained on how to do this work. If students do this, then the next time faculty teach they will not know how to address accessibility.
To sustain accessibility, institutions must invest into Communities of Practice/Faculty Learning Communities, and build accessibility into pre-existing training and support options. There should be a combination of specific, targeted trainings for accessibility, and an awareness amongst all faculty development options that accessibility should be addressed when introducing new tools and pedagogical strategies. Sustainability also requires institutional commitment. Institutions must demand accessibility from third party vendors/technology providers, and help to screen for accessibility when units procure or faculty adopt new tools. When accessibility issues are documented, the institution should make accessibility statements which document known issues and workarounds. Sustained accessibility requires coalition building amongst IT professionals, leadership, faculty, and instructional designers.
There is a great degree of opportunity for inter-institutional collaboration to address accessibility issues in higher education. Accessibility is not complicated, but it can be expensive or time-consuming. Identifying strategies to maximize impact, teach faculty the core reasons for accessibility, and collaborate with membership organizations is an important way forward as the landscape is evolving.
Innovation in the accessibility space will be driven by increasing institutional resourcing, aligning with universal design principles and arguments, and collaborating between institutions to share resources and knowledge, while holding our peers and vendors accountable. Ongoing faculty development and cultural awareness around disability and accessibility is important at every institution. Institutions must take an incremental approach in providing professional development and in implementing universal design.
Our goal is to establish a higher standard of accessibility in learning materials so that students with and without disabilities face less barriers to learning. We look forward to reflecting on what we have learned through our grant project at the University of Michigan.