1. Effects of a Postsecondary Faculty Professional Development Program Designed to Better Address the Needs of Students with Disabilities Accessing Higher Ground – 2015 Kelly D. Roberts, PhD robertsk@hawaii.edu

2. Presentation Overview A. Project overview B. Measurement tools C. Analysis D. Summary of outcomes E. Syllabus Checklist F. Student Evaluation of Faculty G. Case Study

3. A. Project Overview Innovative and Sustainable Teaching Methods and Strategies project Professional development (PD) provided to 16 postsecondary education faculty. PD to improve knowledge, attitudes, and skills Intention – to better address the needs of all students, including students with disabilities..

4. Summer Institute PD delivered over 3 consecutive days & 6 content areas: 1.UDI, 2.Accessible distance education and assistive technology, 3.Student and faculty rights and responsibilities, 4.Disability culture, 5.Hidden disabilities, and 6.Multiculturalism and disability.

5. Background 7 Participants participated in case studies 20 hours total with 6.5 on Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) This presentation reports on the impact of the UDI PD

6. 9 Principles of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) 1. Equitable use, 2. Flexibility in use, 3. Simple and intuitive, 4. Perceptible information, 5. Tolerance for error, 6. Low physical effort, 7. Size and space for approach and use, 8. A community of learners, and 9. Instructional climate

7. Research Questions 1. To what extent did the participating faculty apply the UDI principles during the semester following the Summer Institute? 2. How did the participating faculty evaluate their experiences using the UDI principles? 2(a) How did the Summer Institute help the faculty apply UDI?

8. Research Questions 2(b) How did faculty evaluate their efficacy in meeting diverse student needs through UDI? 2(c) What resources supported faculty implementation of UDI? 2(d) What challenges to implementing UDI did the faculty experience?

9. Design Collective case study (Stake, 2000). Each faculty case was investigated in alignment with specific research questions, and then individual cases were compared to each other for a broader view of sustained impact Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected Investigating the effects of the Summer Institute on the faculty’s instructional practice

10. Data Collection Surveys were administered to faculty immediately before and after participation in the PD Faculty interviews were conducted during the semester following the Summer Institute at the beginning and at the end of the semester Faculty course syllabi were collected at the beginning of the semester Students were surveyed at the end of the semester

11. B. Measurement Tools 1.Faculty Summer Institute pre- and post-survey 2.Faculty pre- and post-interview protocols 3.Student survey 4.Syllabus checklist

12. Faculty pre & post survey Gender College Experience applying principles of UD to course design; Experiences instructing students with disabilities (SWD) Competence instructing SWD Familiarity w/accommodations Change in faculty knowledge of UDI using five assessment items.

13. Faculty pre- and post-interview protocols. Each interview took about 50 minutes and was tape-recorded with the participant’s permission. The tape-recorded interview was fully transcribed for analysis.

14. Faculty pre-interview protocols 5 open-ended questions on motivation to participate in the Summer Institute and case study Perceptions of possible gains Plans for implementing what will be learned Academic expectations toward students with and without disabilities.

15. Faculty post-interview protocols 10 open-ended questions on perceptions of the achievement of their instructional plans using UDI Resources and challenges in the use of the UDI Provision of accommodations Change in competence, skills, and attitudes in instructing SWD Reflection

16. Student Survey Disability status Perceptions of the faculty’s responsiveness to their instructional needs 26 questions evaluating faculty participant’s use of UDI in their course syllabi, instructional materials and practices (See Handout)

17. Syllabus Checklist 15 items scored dichotomously - designed to evaluate whether faculty applied UDI principles to course syllabi and in instructional planning

18. C. Analysis Qualitative data from the faculty interviews were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with NVivo. Quantitative data from student surveys, course syllabi checklists, and faculty Summer Institute pre- and post-surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired samples t-test.

19. D. Summary of Outcomes All of the participating faculty reported applying UDI principles 3 explicitly referred to the underlying UDI principles when describing their application of UDI (i.e., flexibility, creating a welcoming instructional climate, and creating a community of learners). UDI was experienced by students, and observed in the course syllabi

20. Summary of Outcomes While there was an increase in faculty knowledge of UDI following the Summer Institute, this difference was not statistically significant (t(6)=1.549, p =.172).

21. 1. Includes a welcoming and inclusive statement about accommodations for students with special needs. 83 2. Includes a faculty e-mail address/link to increase students’ access. 83 3. Includes faculty’s office hours. 67 4. Identifies both online and offline office hours for flexibility of making an appointment. 0 5. States learning (or instructional) goals and objectives that clearly specify the intent of the class. 100 6. Includes information about class online communications. 83 7. Provides a specific course schedule (e.g., overview of what to learn each week and deadlines). 100 8. Includes a description of course policies (e.g. late papers, grade appeals, extra credit). 100 E. Syllabus Checklist Percent UDI strategies observed in participating faculty’s course syllabi.

22. Syllabus Checklist Continued Percent 9. Identifies options for diverse linguistic/language abilities (e.g., enhancement, translations, note taker). 0 10. Includes texts that may be accessed through alternative media formats (e.g., book recording, e-book, pdf, Braille format, on-line version). 83 11. Includes diversified medium of assignments (e.g., essay, power point, audio, video, inspiration, webpage, project). 67 12. States students may choose among diverse means to submit assignments (e.g., through e-mail, electronic mail box, in class, or physical mailbox). 17 13. Describes varied assessment methods and ongoing assessment.67 14. States students may choose what to study for a project or assignment.67 15. Provides opportunities for students to choose assessments consistent with their strengths and abilities. 33

23. F. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice: Percent of respondents who agree/strongly agree. SyllabusPercent 1. The syllabus of this class was available online.58.7 2. The syllabus of this class included information about late paper, grade appeal, or extra credit. 82.8 3. The syllabus included information on assessment options students can choose by their strengths and abilities. 35.2 4. The syllabus of this class provided a specific course schedule (e.g., overview of what to learn each week and deadlines). 80.4

24. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Instructional Goals Percent 1. The professor of this class clearly presented the lesson goals and objectives of this class. 81.9 2. The professor of this class provided an alternative format to describe the course (e.g., graphic representations, digital pictures, tables, audio clips). 46.8

25. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Instructional Materials Percent 1. The professor of this class provided various types of texts (e.g., textbook, journal article, newspaper, digital texts). 53.8 2. The professor of this class provided options of different media formats of texts (e.g., book recording, Braille format). 30.4 3. The professor of this class provided options for students with diverse linguistic abilities in materials and media (e.g., enhancement, translations, note-taker). 25.8 4. The professor of this class used both visual and auditory materials. 44.1 5. The professor of this class provided various resources (e.g., website, association, multimedia). 58.7

26. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Instructional Strategies Percent 1. The professor of this class used diverse teaching strategies.38.0 2. The professor of this class tried to address the varied levels and needs of students. 53.3 3. The professor of this class was accessible during the semester. 88.2 4. The professor of this class gave prompt feedback.70.7 5. This class provided many opportunities to show my learning progress. 57.0

27. F. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Instructional Strategies Continued Percent 6. In this class, I could choose to work individually or in a group. 40.2 7. In this class, I could choose what to study for a project or assignment. 34.8 8. In this class, I could choose a medium to present my knowledge (e.g., essay, presentation). 22.8 9. The professor of this class allowed a diverse way to submit assignment (e.g., a choice of sending paper through e-mail, physical, and electronic mail box). 38.5

28. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Assessment Percent 1. The professor of this class clearly explained his/her expectation of student performance (e.g. providing a rubric, checklist, visual organizer, or exemplary work). 63.0 2. Assessments of this class were directly related to learning goals and instructional methods. 62.6 3. This class offered ongoing assessment.48.4

29. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice Assessment Continued Percent 4. This class offered varied assessment methods (e.g., peer review, self-reflection, etc.) 27.5 5. The professor of this class allowed students to choose assessment methods consistent with their strengths and abilities. 26.7 6. The professor of this class provided visible progress markers which gave concrete evidence of progress and allowed students to monitor their own progress. 42.2