Thompson Kadell Final Paper

Running header: FOSTERING AN ACCESSIBLE CLASSROOM 1
Fostering an Accessible Classroom: An Assessment of Online
Faculty Resources for Alternative Text
Alexandra Kadell and Jordan Thompson
Salem State University

FOSTERING AN ACCESSIBLE CLASSROOM 2
Executive Summary: Fostering an Accessible Classroom:
An Assessment of Online Faculty Resources for Alternative Text
In order to create a more equitable learning environment it is our responsibility, as
institutional professionals, to remove barriers that would prevent the learning of any student
(ADA, web, 2016). Conducting research, such as the following document, provides institutions
the ability to reflect upon their current practices to assist students in accessing an education.
Professors are a monumental stakeholder in creating an inclusive classroom. It is imperative that
we, as student affairs professionals, assist faculty by providing support and resources to ensure
that their classrooms are accessible. This support can be seen through publishing online
documents for the utilization of office resources, providing online or in person training, or
encouraging faculty to have a working relationship with the office of Disability Services.
Through supporting the faculty, offices of Disability Services are ultimately supporting students.
One of the more commonly used accommodations that offices of Disability Services are
seeing, is the conversion of courses texts to alternative texts. Students ranging from visually
impaired to learning disabilities use alternative texts to help support their learning needs.
Students who wish to acquire alternative texts must have a documented disability, be affiliated
with the office of disability services, have to purchase the required text(s), have their professors
send over course materials to office, and/or then wait for the office of Disability Services to
accurately convert their course texts. This process of conversion can include formatting PDFs to
allow screen readers to accurately relay the information, editing PowerPoints or textbooks,
articulating images or videos through captions, and much more. With this daunting process many
faculty rely on offices, such as the Disability Services, office to accommodate their students.
However, if an institution can instill a campus culture that thinks about alternative texts before a
student with a disability enrolls in their courses, we can begin to eliminate the barriers they must
go through to receive their accommodation.
It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that faculty at Salem State University
(SSU) is provided with the necessary information to create an inclusive classroom while being
accessible for all students. Allie and Jordan have developed a research project that has assessed
the online resources available to faculty regarding accessible texts. By evaluating SSU’s online
website in conjunction with four sister institutions consisting of Bridgewater State University,
Westfield State University, Worcester State University, and Massachusetts College of Art and
Design, Allie and Jordan have analyzed the best practices institutions within Massachusetts have
implemented to foster an accessible classroom.
Using a quantitative data analysis, Allie and Jordan developed a rubric, scaling zero, one,
two, and three. The rubric was created to address four research questions. The research questions
are as following: 1.) How attainable are online educational resources for faculty members at the
various institutions? 2.) Are there multiple resources, regarding alternative text, available for
faculty members? If so, what are the types of resources that are being used? 3.) What online
software training programs are offered for student/faculty usage? 4.) Are faculty being
encouraged to actively utilize texts offered in alternative formats? The categories that were
created to answer these questions are as followed: Navigation of Institution Website, Quality of
Resources Available, Software Training Programs, and Encouragement and Support to Consider
Alternative Texts.
Through the evaluation of the websites, the following institutional scores were recorded.
Bridgewater State University 6/12 Worcester State University 1/12

Salem State University 5.5/12 Massachusetts College of Art and Design
Westfield State University 8/12 0/12
One category that each institution failed to meet the standards of the rubric was Quality of
Resources available due to a lack of peer review literature being offered to faculty. Throughout
the findings section of the formal assessment document, the reader will be able to see the
category breakdown of where each institution scored. Generally, from the findings Allie and
Jordan concluded that the institutions websites were primarily easy to navigate, overall had no
quality of resources, provided some software training, and had either a significant emphasis of
encouragement and support for utilizing alternative texts or none.
When considering these assigned scores, recommendations were made to improve the
online information available for faculty regarding alternative texts in the classroom for students
with disabilities. Some highlights of the recommendations include that institutions should
redesign and structure their website to include formatting that directly relates to alternative texts.
Additionally, institutions should upload any documents, resources, or processes that may be
beneficial for faculty to access. This can also include creating how to guides for faculty to utilize,
links to outside resources, such as publishers who produce alternative course texts, and clearly
articulating the compliances with ADA. Lastly, institutions should consider creating online or in
person software training to promote a campus culture that is updated, aware, and skilled in the
availability of alternative text software resources.
Introduction
After working with the Disability Services Office during the 2016 - 2017 academic year,
Allie worked alongside the professionals to edit course required texts to provide accessibility to
students who had visual impairments. The process of editing texts requires meticulous work to
ensure the screen reader accurately conveys the content. Throughout the duration of the spring
semester, Allie along with several student employees edited five books collectively. The demand
to provide accessible texts goes beyond editing texts for students with visual impairments. Each
semester the office receives numerous requests for converting texts to accessible formats.
Through this experience, Allie actively questioned, with academic freedom in mind, are faculty
engaged in choosing required texts in an accessible format?
Jordan has a personal research interest in understanding how the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) impacts college campuses, resources, and students. She completed her
functional area paper for her Introduction to Higher Education course comparing how the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Bunker Hill Community College accommodates their
students with disabilities through the CAS Standards. This foundational research helped further
Jordan’s interest in higher education and hopes to build upon it in a professional role in the
future.
Purpose of Assessment Project
With these two interests in mind, Allie and Jordan’s assessment research project entailed
a critical analysis of how much of a presence educational resources is provided to faculty in
order for them to meet their students with disabilities accommodations in the classroom.
Specifically, Jordan and Allie used a rubric to assess the websites from Salem State University
(SSU) and four additional sister institutions. The purpose of the project was to evaluate other
institutional resources for faculty and provide SSU’s Disability Services Office a better
understanding of the best practices implemented at public four year state institutions. From this
research, Allie and Jordan will submit these best practices will be implemented at SSU to support
faculty in order to encourage an equal and accessible educational environment for all students.
From Allie and Jordan’s purpose four main questions were created to guide the
development of the assessment project. These questions are as followed: 1.) How attainable are
online educational resources for faculty members at the various institutions? 2.) Are there
multiple resources, regarding alternative text, available for faculty members? If so, what are the
types of resources that are being used? 3.) What online software training programs are offered
for student/faculty usage? 4.) Are faculty being encouraged to actively utilize texts offered in
alternative formats? As a result of researching the online resources for faculty use, Allie and
Jordan identified five different institutional approaches that are offered in compliance with the
ADA. Allie and Jordan, excluding SSU, choose four sister institutions to examine in order to
understand how other public state institutions are accommodating students to provide a greater
perspective of institutional resources and policies in the state of Massachusetts. Additionally,
while conducting the assessment project, Allie and Jordan applied research practices which
advance their professional competency as emerging student affairs practitioners. Through the
research, Allie and Jordan differentiated and compared the state institutional resources to further
build upon the previous knowledge of the marginalized student population.
The stakeholders associated with this project are the Disability Services Office at SSU,
specifically Jenny McDowell, who is the alternative text specialist. In addition SSU, is a primary
stakeholder, since Allie and Jordan evaluated the website presence for faculty in the community.
The information which has been evaluated has help compare the institutions perspectives on
resources that are present on the institutional websites and the available research on accessible
texts for faculty. In addition, the analysis of faculty resources has been beneficial to students who
identify with a disability by determining the best practices of their learning needs through the
appropriate accommodations and considerations to provide support inside the classroom
regarding accessible texts.
Current Literature
Throughout Allie and Jordan’s research they utilized current literature to help inform
them of the current practices being implemented, provided context to the logistics surrounding
accessible formatting, and guided their direction in the creation of the assessment tool, this final
report, and the presentation.
The first resource Allie and Jordan used to inform their assessment is Madaus and Shaw’s
(2006) journal on the 2004 Individuate with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This source
provides a general overview of the different implications the IDEA is going to have on students
with disabilities in a higher education. The article outlines four direct ways, reevaluation,
performance requirements, transition and planning, and diagnosis, and how the law is going to
impact students (Madaus & Shaw, 2006). A limitation to this study in regards to Allie and
Jordan’s research is that the journal does not have a focus on alternative texts, but rather provides
an overview and example of the extensive laws higher education must follow.
Additionally, the online source An Educator's Guide to Making Textbooks Accessible and
Usable for Students with Learning Disabilities (2017) provides multiple strategies that faculty
can use in order to make their required texts accessible for all types of students. Some examples
are providing e-texts, using publishers that provide e-books, and utilizing software that supports
e-reading. These strategies, which the Center for Applied Special Technology and LD OnLine
outline, was informative as Allie and Jordan developed their assessment project with the rubric.
Equally important is the National Network for Information, Guidance, and Training on
the Americans with Disabilities Act (2016) website has a compilation of different resources that
lends direction in order for individuals to be compliant with the ADA. Specifically the website
offers insight to the regulations and procedures individuals must achieve to provide equal access.
In the section effective communication, the organization states that to uphold title II and III of the
ADA, we must provide accessible means of communication to individuals with disabilities. This
includes assistive listening devices and systems, voice, text and video based telecommunication
products, screen reading software, braille, accessible electronic and information technology, etc.
(ADA National Network, web, 2016).
As well, in the Postsecondary Institutions and Students with Disabilities, states a factor to
ensure regulations are met, members of an institution must make online class material in
accessible formatting, classroom handouts must be accessible by screen reader or alternative
formats (ADA National Network, web, 2016). It is essential that within the research Allie and
Jordan used the ADA website as a resource in order to provided context of the various laws
surrounding alternative texts. As well as, knowledgeably and accurately recommend best
practices that not only fit the institutional need, but the law requirements as well.
Another resource is the article Determining Faculty Needs for Delivering Accessible
Electronically Delivered Instructions in Higher Education (2010) the author, Marsha Gladhart,
conducted a study to assess if faculty training is needed to help create and inclusive online
environment for students with disabilities. The study focused on online classroom at multiple
statewide universities. From the findings the faculty reported having several students in their
classes identifying that they have accommodations. However, the faculty reported having little
knowledge and training in working with students with disabilities (Gladhart, 2010). The study
was valuable to Allie and Jordan's research because it provided a perspective of what tools
instructors are using in their online classes, how active is the university for providing faculty
with opportunities, and has extensive deconstructed examples of the teaching strategies, tools,
and professional development opportunities. A limitation to this study is that the focus is
specifically towards online learning, which is not the core of this assessment.
Lastly, DeLee (2015) analyzes the need for faculty understanding of student
accommodations and educational tools to support students. Online learning and other educational
realms need to have the support for faculty to learn how to meet student’s accommodations
(DeLee, 2015). To increase awareness and educational resources campuses have taken different
initiatives to meet their faculty needs (DeLee, 2015). This article helped frame Allie and Jordan’s
argument that there is a need for accessible resources and materials for faculty to provide
students the learning environment they need to have a successful education.
These are a few examples of the current literature that Allie and Jordan used throughout
this project. Allie and Jordan connected with Jenny, from SSU’s Disabilities Services Office,
throughout the semester to gather more literature that applies to alternative texts; ultimately
strengthening our research and assessment design.
Methodology
For the assessment project Allie and Jordan developed a rubric to evaluate the four sister
institutions as well as Salem State University’s (SSU) online faculty educational resources. By
utilizing a rubric tool there were several benefits to accurately, unbiasedly, and to consistently
assess the various online resources for faculty (Henning & Roberts, 2016). The rubric also served
as a scoring tool which allowed Allie and Jordan to clearly visualize the differentiation between
each of the public, state institutional resources. The focus of the assessment tool and project was
to provide feedback to the Disability Services office at SSU as well as compare SSU’s resources
to their sister institutions. Ultimately, the results and recommendations will help improve
accessibility information for faculty and staff who are working with students who need
accommodations at SSU.
The five institutions analyzed were Salem State University, Westfield State University,
Bridgewater State University, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, and Worcester State
University. To evaluate the institutions Allie and Jordan researched the campuses webpages for
content and use the rubric to analyze how effective the resources are for faculty. Allie and Jordan
evaluated on a zero, one, two, three scale with the following categories; Navigation of Institution
Website, Quality of Resources Available, Software Training Programs, and Encouragement and
Support to Consider Alternative Texts to determine if the information provided for faculty about
accessibility helped inform them on creating alternative texts accommodations. The rubric can be
found at the appendix of this final paper. After collecting the data a further analysis of the best
practices is conveyed within this report. Along with current literature and the findings a
comprised list of best practices will be submitted to the Disability Services Office at the end of
the semester.
Findings
Allie and Jordan conducted their research of the five institutions, Salem State University,
Westfield State University, Bridgewater State University, Massachusetts College of Art and
Design, and Worcester State University, using their rubric to determine the accessibility
information that is available to faculty members. When evaluating each institution using the
rubric, the institution’s websites were primarily easy to navigate and had an emphasis of
encouragement and support for utilizing alternative texts in the classroom to help students.
Throughout this section each individual institution will be analyzed using the rubric to elaborate
on the findings of accessibility for faculty members.
Salem State University

The first institution that was evaluated was Salem State University (SSU). SSU received
a combined score of 5.5 out of 12 for Allie and Jordan’s rubric due to a few discrepancies in the
resources that are available to faculty on the institution's website and will be further elaborated
on throughout this section.
Following the rubric, the navigation of the institutional website received a 3 out of 3.
This section received full credit due to the information being accessed in under a three minute
search time. The information was accessed by searching “faculty accessibility” on
www.salemstate.edu. The link led to https://www.salemstate.edu/campus-life/support-
services/disability-services/faculty-information, which is the information hub for faculty
members regarding accessibility resources that are produced by the Disability Service office on
SSU’s campus. Allie and Jordan then used this to help guide the following sections of the rubric.
The next section, Quality of Resources Available, Allie and Jordan scored 0 out of 3. The
key component to this aspect of the rubric is evaluating whether or not faculty members are
provided literature regarding accessibility to gather more information about the needs of their
students who may need alternative texts support in the classroom. SSU did not provide any
outside and informative literature for their faculty members online.
Another area that was further evaluated using the institutional website was Software
Training Programs. SSU scored a 1.5 out of 3 in this section. The institution offers the software,
Computer Aided Realtime Translation (CART), which is a resource that can be utilized within
the classroom to provide live translation of course materials. On the SSU website tips to using
CART are available for faculty to access. Within the tips examples such as, communicating with
CART reporter, introducing the reporter to the class, and inviting students to participate in class
through a different lens (Larson, 2017). The reason why SSU received a 1.5 out of 3 versus a
whole number is because they had tips to utilize the resource, but no online training was offered.
If faculty members need more information they will need to contact Disability Services of how
to make texts more accessible for their students, however, have access to the foundational
knowledge of CART through the institution’s website.
In the last section of the rubric, Encouragement and Support to Consider Alternative
Texts, SSU received 1 out of 3 in this section because their website did not link to outside
resources but provided one statement on their site, from their Disability Services office, to
promote encouragement of using resources of alternative texts, “We are proud to partner with
faculty, staff and administrators across campus to provide our students an accessible education”
(Salem State University, web, 2017). Unlike some of their sister institutions, SSU lacked an
emphasis of encouragement and support of faculty members to use alternative texts by not
providing outside links. The link to CART was a PDF created by SSU describing how to use the
technology effectively but did not link to CART’s outside site or training.
Westfield State University
The second institution that was analyzed was Westfield State University. Westfield State
University received a combined score of 9 out of 12. The institution was reviewed following the
same rubric and was found to have similarities and differences in comparison to SSU and other
sister institutions.
Westfield State University received a 3 out of 3 for their navigation of their institutional
website. Allie and Jordan used the institution's website search engine and typed in “faculty
accessibility,” the same steps as SSU’s search. Westfield State University’s main website is,
http://www.westfield.ma.edu/, and after using the search engine information for faculty was
found here: http://www.westfield.ma.edu/academics/banacos-academic-center/information-for-

faculty. This search time was within three minutes. This site led us to completing the research on
the other sections of the designed rubric.
Similar to SSU, Westfield State University, received a 0 out of 3 because of their lack of
outside literature to inform faculty of student’s needs in using alternative texts. The Westfield
State University did provide faculty with a lot of other resources within their website, which will
be described further in the next two sections.
Looking at the Software Training Programs that are available at Westfield State
University, since the website had multiple “how to” guides regarding their electronic text and an
online training they received a 3 out of 3. Westfield State University does a significant job with
providing detail outlines of the available resources, such as scanning/copying materials,
changing PDFs to readable texts, and how to operate ScanTailor (Westfield State University,
web, 2017). In addition, the office, Banacos, provides in person training of the software
ScanTailor upon request. This helps establish resources support and ensures the faculty
understanding of the process of converting course materials properly to electronic texts
(Westfield State University, web, 2017). Lastly, they provide outside links to software resources,
such as Microsoft Accessibility Checker. This online training provides visual images and
descriptions for using the platform to make the classroom materials more accessible. In this
training, the information that is covered includes, Word, Excel, Outlook, and Powerpoint
presentations as well as the reasoning of why and how individuals should accommodate their
documents (Microsoft, web, 2016).
In the fourth section of the rubric, Encouragement and Support to Consider Alternative
Texts, Westfield State University, scored a 3 out of 3. The format of the website and language
that is used poses questions that engages the reader (i.e. a faculty member) to promote the use of
electronic texts in their classroom. For example, some of the questions and statements that are
posed include, “why do I need this,” “what is my role,” “how do I know if it is accessible,” and
“I use articles and handouts to supplement…” (Westfield State University, web, 2017).
Throughout their explanation of alternative texts the language used is clear, friendly, and
supportive. Their use of “I” statements and having accountability for students, faculty and staff
members, provides a collaborative environment which encourages all to utilize the resources.
The faculty members are also provided outside resources from the institutions site, as seen
above, to help make their courses more accessible to students with disabilities. This website
provides a plethora of resources, training opportunities, and support from the Banacos office at
Westfield State University.
Bridgewater State University
The third institution that was evaluated was Bridgewater State University (BSU) who
scored a 6 out of 12 on the rubric. BSU as an institution, like the others, had similarities and
differences from the other Massachusetts state institutions. Within this section BSU evaluation of
the rubric will be outlined.
Following a similar format, we originally searched “faculty accessibility,” on BSU’s
website, www.bridgewater.edu. Unlike the other sites the information was not easily found in
under the three minute guideline that is outlined on the rubric. Allie and Jordan then had to re-do
the search with “faculty alternative texts” to then navigate to the page:
https://www.bridgew.edu/academics/academic-achievement/disability-resources. There were
discrepancies between Allie and Jordan’s search of the website of finding the information. Allie
was able to utilize this phrase to be linked whereas Jordan’s search was unsuccessful. Therefore,
BSU received a 2 out of 3 for navigation of the institution’s website.

Likewise BSU, received a 0 out of 3 for the category Quality of Resources. After
evaluating BSU website for Disabilities Services resources there was no presence of peer review
journals, news articles, or other scholarly work throughout its sections. After reviewing two
sister institutions, the lack of quality resources appears to be an emerging theme.
The third section that looks at evaluating the Software Training Programs for BSU’s
website, the institution was rated 1 out of 3. Although links were provided for faculty members
regarding services that produce accessible texts, these links are third party, accessible online
libraries. Their promotions of trainings are not extensive and this may be due to the structure of
the website which could be focused on the campus community as a whole, not just intended for
faculty use. The information that is provided does not give step-by-step instructions or training
opportunities. However, there is contact information for the campus’ Disability Resource office
for further instruction of how to utilize the available technology. BSU was given this score to
reflect the unsubstantial lack of resources regarding alternative text and instructions.
When exploring BSU’s website further for evaluating their Encouragement and Support
of Alternative Text, the institution received a 3 out of 3. The institution's site provides a clearly
defined philosophy which states, “To encourage and assist students: to assume their personal
responsibilities, to become self-advocacy, to become independent learners, to benefit from array
of experiences within the university” (Bridgewater State University, web, 2017). As part of the
requirements for this area, within the rubric, BSU encourages faculty involvement in having an
accessible classroom. In addition, BSU has links on their site to outside resources for audio and
digital texts that faculty and the campus community can use to access alternative materials. The
outside links encourage faculty to explore alternative texts but it lacks the in-depth instruction
that could be available of how to successfully use the sites to the best of their ability. BSU
received this score based on the links to multiple outside sources but as reflected above, does not
provide “how to” documents for faculty.
Worcester State University
Worcester State University was given a 1 out of 12 for our designed rubric and was the
fourth institution that was evaluated. The institutions evaluation can be found below.
Following suit with the other institutions, Allie and Jordan searched “faculty
accessibility” on https://www.worcester.edu/ and our search results did not prevail with faculty
information, rather student information from the office of Student Accessibility Services.
Another search was conducted but Allie and Jordan were not successful in finding faculty
specific information regarding alternative texts. Therefore, Allie and Jordan contacted Worcester
State University and heard back from the Director of Student Accessibility Services who sent
over the document that is used for faculty and staff guidelines. It was not explained how the
faculty members could obtain the brochure. We then used this information from the institution to
evaluate the rest of the rubric. Worcester State University did not have resources on their web
page, which was why they were not able to receive any points on the rubric scale.
The next section of the rubric, Quality of Resources, received a 0 out of 3 as well.
There was no literature available for faculty to read for when working with students with
disabilities. This finding falls in line with the other state institutions that have been looked at thus
far. The informational packet that was provided for faculty members was an outline of
expectations, guidelines, ADA compliance, etc. Allie and Jordan then looked into the
information about software training programs within this information. Within the packet that was
provided information regarding software training programs could not be found. Therefore, the
institution scored a 0 out of 3 in this section.

An area in which Worcester State University did receive credit was a 1 out of 3 for
Encouragement and Support to Consider Alternative Texts. Their statement says, “We are proud
to partner with faculty, staff and administrators across campus to provide our students with equal
access” (Worcester State University, PDF, 2017, p. 1). The institution offered an encouraging
statement to have faculty to consider alternative texts and software programs. However, they did
not have any links to outside resources for the faculty to consider using when making their class
accessible for all students.
Massachusetts College of Art and Design
The fifth and final institution that Allie and Jordan evaluated using their rubric was
Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt). The institution received a score of a 0 out
of 12 in conjunction with Allie and Jordan’s rubric.
In the first section, similar to Worcester State University, Allie and Jordan had to contact
the Disability Services Office to gather more information regarding faculty resources on
alternative texts after an unsuccessful website search. Allie and Jordan received the document
from the Associate Dean of Academic Resources and were informed the information that was
provided was posted on an internal wiki. Therefore, because the website public navigation was
unsuccessful MassArt received a 0 out of 3 on the rubric.
In the Quality of Resources section, Allie and Jordan used the provided document from
MassArt to determine if there was any current literature provided for faculty members regarding
working with students with disabilities. Similar to other institutions, there was not any literature
provided in the faculty's document regarding accessibility online and therefore, MassArt was
given a 0 out of 3.
The third section, Software Training Programs, also received a 0 out of 3 for lacking
information regarding how to make a faculty member’s course materials accessible for students.
In the internal faculty document, there was a reference to alternative texts but when utilizing this
resource, a faculty member will need to work with the campus library to go through their
processes. There was no mention of setting up a training or contact information, rather just a
brief reference to seeking out the library to get alternative texts for students. We only received a
brief two page summary of information for faculty members so a more detailed section of
information may be available from another source.
The last section, Encouragement and Support to Consider Alternative Text, received a 0
out of 3. The resource that was received did not have any encouraging statements for faculty to
consider making their classroom more accessible. One statement in particular stated, “Students
with disabilities are subject to the same behavioral standards as are other students in the
classroom and are not entitled to disrupt the learning of other students” (MassArt, pdf, p. 2).
Allie and Jordan felt that with statement, along with others, did not have an inviting or
supportive tone for faculty to ensure their courses are accessible for all student learners. The lack
of encouragement may be equated to just this document and not the institution’s actual
perspectives of assisting students with disabilities. However, with using this rubric Allie and
Jordan did not feel as if MassArt should receive a score for this section.
Implications and Recommendations
After evaluating the institutions and analyzing the results and the findings of the rubric in
determining faculty’s online resources regarding alternative texts varied. For a majority of the
institutions, their websites were easily navigated, although two institutions needed to be
contacted for the internal information that is available for faculty regarding accessibility. Overall,
there was a lack of peer reviewed literature that was readily available outside of the compliance
of ADA with each institution. Allie and Jordan reflected upon this limitation of the rubric
because there may not be an emphasis of providing literature for faculty members, rather just
information regarding compliance and an overview of accommodations. Additionally, the
approach to software training varied, however, institutions mainly provided “how to” documents,
online training, or request for further information from the appropriate offices on campus. There
was a divide of encouragement and support from the offices of Disability Services. Some offices
provided specific links for faculty with language that was an inviting and promoting in nature
while others only provided a vague statement of overall support. Lastly, through the search of
institutional websites there was a plethora of public information directly relating to student
resources, whereas it was limited for faculty. This may be a result of institutional online
platforms that campus community members have access to. Overall, with the foundational
knowledge of the best practices being implemented at the institutions, recommendations can be
made to improve the experiences of all students.
With the purpose of creating an institution that is committed to accessibility in the
classroom, several recommendations have been created from this research for institutions to
consider in order fulfilling higher education’s mission of access. Allie and Jordan’s
recommendations are not only for SSU, but the corresponding institutions are as followed. First,
the universities should consider redesigning and restructuring their websites to properly outline
the resources the office provides. For example, creating headlines for each resource that the
office provides. Allowing these headlines to be clicked on will allow the information to be found
easily on the webpage. Westfield State and Bridgewater State's website structure are models that
institutions can easily mirror. Secondly, institutions should structure their websites to include
information regarding alternative texts. Whether that is seen through sections within the website,
similar to the recommendation above, or through clickable links, it is imperative that institutions
directly outline what alternative texts are, what type of learner would use alternative texts, how it
can be used inside the classroom, and what resources the office has to support the usage of
alternative texts.
Thirdly, institutions should upload any documents or processes that they have onto their
websites to ensure faculty members are able to access the information. Some examples of this
would be “how to” guides on using software, converting PDFs, or requesting accommodations.
In addition, institutions should post any endorsed outside services, such as publishers, to
encourage faculty to require course texts that can be easily produced in an alternative text format.
Some examples of audio and digital texts can be found on Bridgewater State’s Alternative
Technology and Alternative Texts section on their website.
A fourth recommendation that was found from this research is that each institution should
create software training opportunities for faculty. By developing these training opportunities
either online or in person with the corresponding offices can alleviate requests from the
Disability Services office or encourage a campus community that is dedicated to an accessible
learning environment. Lastly, institutions should emphasize the compliant standards of ADA. In
doing so, clearly displaying significant factors of the compliance for faculty to be aware of can
justify the need for the various resources that the office ensures students have access to through
their accommodations.
Conclusion
By using these recommendations, institutions can make small changes to better inform
their faculty of their role in students with disabilities academic success. Institutions need to
comply with ADA in order to remain funded from the state and federal government. Therefore,
their publication of information needs to be more widely accessible for its constituents. As seen
above, this assessment of online faculty resources is critical in looking further into assisting
faculty in making their classrooms more accessible for all students. Allie and Jordan’s rubric was
designed to highlight four key areas that covered the original research questions of this
assessment. Allie and Jordan acknowledge that this assessment is foundational and in order to
strengthen the research conducted the findings could be combined with a qualitative perspective
to have a better understanding of how each institution utilizes their available resources. Overall,
combining a passion of Allie and Jordan in working to enhance the marginalized identities of
students with disabilities we hope that this assessment strengthens the current practices and
future research.
Appendix: Online Faculty Resources for Accessible Classrooms
3 2 1 0
Navigation of Was easily Was somewhat Had to contact Had to contact &
Institution accessed within a readily an institutional had no
Website three minute available in a representative to information
period four plus get more online
minute time information
period
Quality of Had three or more Had two Had one current Had no resources
Resources current literature current literature (peer available online
Available (peer reviewed, literature (peer reviewed, news
news articles, reviewed, news articles, etc.) to
etc.) to reference articles, etc.) to reference
reference
Software Had university Had university Had request for Had no software
Training “how to” “how to” further training
Programs documents, in- documents & information & programs
person & online online training office contact
trainings available available information but
no official
trainings
Encouragement Had specific Had a Had a statement Had no

& Support to documentation statement encouraging significant
Consider that linked faculty encouraging faculty, but had encouragement
Alternative to multiple faculty, but had no outside links or support from
Texts options for one outside link for accessible the office
accessible course for accessible course texts
texts course texts
Total: /12
References
ADA National Network. (2016). I want to find:. Retrieved from: https://adata.org
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) & LD OnLine. (2017). An educator’s
guide making textbooks accessible and usable for students with learning disabilities. LD
OnLine WETA. Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/16310/
Bridgewater State University. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.bridgew.edu/
DeLee, B. (2015). Academic support services for college students with disabilities. Journal of
Applied Learning Technology, 5(3), 39-48.
Gladhart, M. A. (2010). Determining faculty needs for delivering accessible electronically
delivered instructions in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disabilities, 22 (3), 185 -196. Retrieved from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ906692.pdf
Henning, G.W. & Roberts, D. (2016). Student affairs assessment: Theory to Practice. Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Larson, J. (2017). Scheduling computer aided real time services in your classroom. Right
Answers, Inc. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/160921164405853.pdf
Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Disability services in postsecondary education: Impact of
IDEA 2004. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(1), 12-21.
Massachusetts college of arts and design. (2017). Retrieved from: https://massart.edu/
Massachusetts college of arts and design. (2017). PDF.
Microsoft. (2016). Use the accessibility checker on your Windows desktop to find accessibility
issues. Retreievd from: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Use-the-Accessibility-
Checker-on-your-Windows-desktop-to-find-accessibility-issues-a16f6de0-2f39-4a2b-
8bd8-5ad801426c7f?CorrelationId=d9169d4a-823d-4be7-b63b-12161af73ec2&ui=en-
US&rs=en-US&ad=US
Salem State University. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.salemstate.edu/
Westfield State University. (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.westfield.ma.edu/
Worcester State University. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.worcester.edu/
Worcester state University. (2017). Student accessibility services: Faculty and staff guidelines.
PDF.

Thompson Kadell Final Paper

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Thompson Kadell Final Paper

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running header: FOSTERING AN ACCESSIBLE CLASSROOM 1

Fostering an Accessible Classroom: An Assessment of Online

Faculty Resources for Alternative Text

Alexandra Kadell and Jordan Thompson

Salem State University

Executive Summary: Fostering an Accessible Classroom:

An Assessment of Online Faculty Resources for Alternative Text

In order to create a more equitable learning environment it is our responsibility, as

Professors are a monumental stakeholder in creating an inclusive classroom. It is imperative that

go through to receive their accommodation.

implemented to foster an accessible classroom.

Bridgewater State University 6/12 Worcester State University 1/12

encouragement and support for utilizing alternative texts or none.

availability of alternative text software resources.

engaged in choosing required texts in an accessible format?

Purpose of Assessment Project

a critical analysis of how much of a presence educational resources is provided to faculty in

perspective of institutional resources and policies in the state of Massachusetts. Additionally,

build upon the previous knowledge of the marginalized student population.

appropriate accommodations and considerations to provide support inside the classroom

regarding accessible texts.

report, and the presentation.

(ADA National Network, web, 2016).

accessible formatting, classroom handouts must be accessible by screen reader or alternative

students the learning environment they need to have a successful education.

strengthening our research and assessment design.

on the findings of accessibility for faculty members.

Salem State University

on throughout this section.

search time. The information was accessed by searching “faculty accessibility” on

www.salemstate.edu. The link led to https://www.salemstate.edu/campus-life/support-

services/disability-services/faculty-information, which is the information hub for faculty

outside and informative literature for their faculty members online.

knowledge of CART through the institution’s website.

Westfield State University

found here: http://www.westfield.ma.edu/academics/banacos-academic-center/information-for-

the other sections of the designed rubric.

be described further in the next two sections.

providing detail outlines of the available resources, such as scanning/copying materials,

understanding of the process of converting course materials properly to electronic texts

documents (Microsoft, web, 2016).

Westfield State University.

Bridgewater State University

the rubric will be outlined.

Following a similar format, we originally searched “faculty accessibility,” on BSU’s

https://www.bridgew.edu/academics/academic-achievement/disability-resources. There were

BSU received a 2 out of 3 for navigation of the institution’s website.

sister institutions, the lack of quality resources appears to be an emerging theme.

responsibilities, to become self-advocacy, to become independent learners, to benefit from array

provide “how to” documents for faculty.

Worcester State University

institution scored a 0 out of 3 in this section.

accessible for all students.

Massachusetts College of Art and Design

of 12 in conjunction with Allie and Jordan’s rubric.

unsuccessful MassArt received a 0 out of 3 on the rubric.

information may be available from another source.

Implications and Recommendations

information regarding compliance and an overview of accommodations. Additionally, the

made to improve the experiences of all students.

With the purpose of creating an institution that is committed to accessibility in the

Technology and Alternative Texts section on their website.

Disability Services office or encourage a campus community that is dedicated to an accessible