1 / 47

Abstract

marli
Download Presentation

Abstract

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accessibility in Postsecondary Classrooms: Learning from Faculty AttitudesEllen Perlow, Ph.D. CHES - November 2007Accessing Higher Ground Conference, Boulder, CO http://www.a4access.org/ahg2007.htmlhttp://www.a4access.org/ahg2007.ppthttp://www.a4access.org/ahg2007.txtThis document is available in alternative formats. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  2. Abstract Success of accessibility and universal design initiatives in higher education depends, in part, upon academic faculty attitudes and value priorities regarding integration of these initiatives into their curricula, research, and campus advocacy. Results of an IRB-approved study involving postsecondary health educators provide a snapshot of these attitudes and priorities. Utilizing this study as background, session participants collaborate to formulate an action plan to promote faculty support for accessibility and universal design initiatives at their institutions. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  3. Learning Objectives 1. Attendees will learn about the results of an IRB approved study assessing faculty attitudes toward accessibility and students with accessibility needs. 2. Through discussion of this study, attendees will learn and explore approaches to positively address relevant post- secondary faculty concerns regarding implementation of access initiatives & recruitment of students with access needs, including veterans, to higher education and into various professions. 3. Via in-session collaboration with colleagues, attendees will learn new approaches to promote the success of accessibility and universal design initiatives in higher education. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  4. The Study: Purposes • Who: U.S.-based Postsecondary Health Education/Public Health Faculty • What: Attitude/Awareness Assessment: • Accessibility, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning • People/Students w/A Needs [P/SWAN] • Why: Recruitment of P/SWAN, including veterans, to Health Education profession Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  5. Background: Hypotheses • In accordance with the Health Education profession’s principles, responsibilities, and competencies (NCHEC, 2007), health educators demonstrate: 1. Basic knowledge, awareness about and basic interest in accessibility and universal design; 2. A basic level of understanding and comfort in interacting with people / students with access needs, including veterans. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  6. Need/Hypothesis Justification • Ethics - Health Ed. Profession (NCHEC, 2007) • Major Goals-U.S. [DHHS, 2007) healthagenda:* “increase quality & years of healthy life” “eliminate health disparities” (*Healthy People 2010) 3. Health Literacy in Healthy People 2010 (U.S. DHHS, 2000) defined as “the capacity to obtain, interpret, and understand basic health information and services and the competence to use such information and services to enhance health.” 4. Health literacy critical: improve health outcomes, address health disparities (Lloyd, et al., 2006) Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  7. Need/Hypothesis Justification 5. Health Literacy definition (U.S. DHHS, 2000): successful outcomes depend upon initial meeting of requirements of first capacity measure. “The capacity to obtain” = Accessibility 6. PWAN > 20% U.S. pop. (U.S. B. Census, 2003) 7. By 2010, aging U.S.  70 million Americans with recognized access needs (Wu & Green, 2000). 8. PWAN: major health disparities, unemployed, lack health care access (U.S. CDC, 1994; Boyle & Cordero, 2005; McCarthy, et al., 2006; NOD, 2004). Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  8. Need/Hypothesis Justification 9. PWAN health promotion major area of concern (#6): U.S. HP2010 agenda (U.S. CDC, 2007) 10. PWAN utilize 43% of U.S. Medicaid expenditures; health educators’ major clients (Carbaugh, Elias, & Rowland, 2006, p. 417). 11. 21st century: PWAN > proportion / higher ed. student population (11%): both face-to-face and online classrooms (Foss, 2002; Lewis & Farris, 1999; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006). 12. By 2030, older adults (age ≥ 65 yrs) 12.4% -> 20% of the U.S. population. >older higher ed. students (Kressley…2002; Silverstein…2001). Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  9. Need/Hypothesis Justification 13. Increasing number of Students with Access Needs. Graph (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2007) depicts increase in students, 1976-2006, receiving services under IDEA 2004: pre-K-12 U.S. public education. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  10. Need/Hypothesis Justification 14. Students served under IDEA, P.L. 108-446 (SWAN) are graduating with High School Diplomas  higher education/college applicants & enrollees (U.S. Dept. of Ed. OSEP Fall 2005/2006 data). Source: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007). Table 4-1. Students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, part B, who exited school, by exit reason and state: Fall 2005-06ª. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from https://www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_4-1.xls Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  11. Need/Hypothesis Justification 15. For [re]-accreditation, Higher Education institutions are being called upon to document institutional effectiveness and to be accountable for students’ learning: “Students Are Central to Success.” See: U.S. Department of Education. Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Final Report (September 26, 2006): http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf For example: see: http://www.twu.edu/iep/sacs/ Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  12. Need/Hypothesis Justification 16. PWAN = class anyone can join at any time; virtually all people do (Shapiro, 1994). 17.Accessibility = boundary-free diversity issue affecting all people throughout the world across all categories of diversity of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, class, and economic status. 18. Accessibility = universal issue, gateway to health literacy…Global Climate/Aging … 9/11 …Katrina.. Tsunami.. Darfur…Famine …AIDS …gun violence ... civil war ... Afghanistan/Iraq... Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  13. Need/Hypothesis Justification Photograph of U.S. Army and Air Force service members caring for wounded troops. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050311_151.html (retrieved 10/28/2007). U.S. Casualties – Afghanistan/Iraq Wars: See: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  14. Need … Goals • Despite current events, professional tenets, little, if any, accessibility, universal design awareness, knowledge in Health Education profession. • Goal: Integrate accessibility/UD/UDL awareness/training -> postsec. H. Ed. curricula • Goal: Promote key professional goals: diversity, health literacy; eliminate health disparities • Goal: Find disconnect, value priorities that predict attitudes and behaviors (Rohan, 2000). • Goal: Class self-empowerment Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  15. Study: IRB / Participants • Study IRB-approved: October 2006-2007 • Primarily U.S.-based postsecondary health education faculty: convenience sample • “Health education” defined broadly to include allied health professions • Informed consent: adult = or > age 18; and Health Education faculty member • Total number of participants: n=30 Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  16. Study Procedure 1. Recruitment: U.S.-based Health Education E-Mail Discussion List (HEDIR) 2. Participants respond, indicate requests, if any, for alternative formats, then send consent, survey, postage-paid envelope to return documents (1 Large Print requested) 3. Participants insert signed consent separate envelope, return form[s], survey to researcher 4. Researcher receives; consent stored separately 5. Variable: IRB Consent-Standard: 5 p.; LP: 20 p. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  17. Survey Instrument • Anonymous survey and demographic-free • 15 multiple choice/fill-in statements by circling 1 of 5 answers; optional comments • Simple process accommodates busy faculty • Questions-no pattern; +/-/“I Don’t Know” • “I Don’t Know” can be correct response • Survey addresses common faculty concerns: SWAN ability to pass classes, complete dept. program, enter profession; SWAN ‘disrupt’ classes, seek undeserved special treatment Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  18. Survey Instrument • Each of 15 questions is quantified variable • Questions coded into 4 group variables: • Experience/Knowledge • Comfort Level • Confidence Level • Interest Level • Examine relationship of group variables Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  19. Instrument: Areas of Inquiry Experience/ Knowledge Confidence in Student Success [Health Education] Faculty Attitudes toward Students with Access Needs Comfort Level Interest in Learning about Accessibility/ UD/UDL Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  20. Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables • Experience/Knowledge: Personal PWAN/SWAN/self experience, F2F online classes; A/AT/UD[L] knowledge Questions 1, 3, 8, 9, 13 2. Comfort: Comfort Level in teaching, interacting with PWAN/SWAN Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  21. Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables 3. Confidence: Confidence in SWAN ability to successfully pass participant’s classes, department program, enter profession Questions 10, 11, 12 4. Interest: Participant interest in learning [more] about accessibility, AT, UD[L], training on topics at participant institution Questions 14, 15 Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  22. 5 Experience/Knowledge Qs. 1. I have ____ personal experience with having accessibility needs and assistive technology. extensive some infrequent no I don’t know 3. I ______have students with accessibility needs in the classes that I teach. often sometimes rarely never I don’t know 8. I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes. no rare some frequent I don’t know 9. I have ___ experience with students in my classes who claim accessibility needs and ask for special treatment that they do not deserve. no rare some frequent I don’t know 13. I am __ about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning. very knowledgeable knowledgeable slightly familiar unfamiliar I don’t know Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  23. 5 Comfort Level Questions 2. I am ____ being around people with accessibility needs. very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know 4. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my FACE TO FACE classes. very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know 5. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my ONLINE classes. very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know 6. I am _____ in interacting with students with accessibility needs. very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know 7. I am ____ in working with students in my classes to solve class-related accessibility issues. very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  24. 3 Confidence Level Questions 10. Students with accessibility needs can _ the classes that I teach. successfully pass pass, but with great difficulty probably not pass not pass I don’t know 11. Students with accessibility needs are __ to successfully complete my department’s program. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know 12. People with accessibility needs are___ to find work as health education professionals. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  25. 2 Interest Level Questions 14. I am ______ in learning more about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning. very interested interested possibly interested not interested I don’t know 15. I am ______ in attending training sessions on the topics listed in question 14 at the institution with which I am affiliated. very interested interested possibly interested not interested I don’t know Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  26. Final Resultsn=30November 2007 Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  27. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  28. Selected Results (see handout) EXPERIENCE/KNOWLEDGE: 1-Experience-Personal with PWAN: 16/30 infrequent; 9/30 no experience; 3-Experience having SWAN in classes: 19/30 infrequent; 8/30 some 8-Experience SWAN “disrupting” classes: 19/30 never; 11/30 rarely 9-Experience SWAN asking for special treatment: 23/30 never; 5/30 rarely; 2/30 some 13-Experience/Knowl.: accessibility, UD/UDL: 14/30 slightly familiar; 8/30 unfamiliar COMFORT LEVEL: 2-wPWAN: 20/30 comfortable; 7/30 very comfortable; 2/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomfortable 4-w SWAN F2F: 19/30 comfortable; 8/30 very comfortable; 3/30 neutral 5-w SWAN ONLINE: 14/30 DON’T KNOW; 8/30 very comfortable; 8/30 comfortable 6-w SWAN Interax:16/30 comfortable; 9/30 v. comfortable; 4/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomft. 7-w SWAN Solve:16/30 comfortable;10/30 v. comfortable;3/30 neutral;1/30 Don’t know Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  29. Selected Results (see handout) CONFIDENCE LEVEL: 10-SWAN able to pass classes that I teach: 28/30 pass; 2/30 DON’T KNOW 11-SWAN able to pass dept. program: 19/30 able; 6/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30: able 12-SWAN able to enter profession: 14/30 able; 12/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30 able, but with great difficulty INTEREST LEVEL: 14-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL: 18/30 interested; 6/30 possibly interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 not interested 15-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL at institution: 16/30 interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 possibly interested; 1/30 not interested Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  30. Experience – Knowledge Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  31. Comfort Level Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  32. Confidence Level Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  33. Interest Level Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  34. Participant Comments • Participant 3: “I am especially interested in universal design." • Participant 6: “I chair campus-wide commission on disabilities which sponsors training sessions for faculty & staff. I studied special education during UG & MS programs." • Participant 8: "I didn’t have enough students with accessibility needs to know enough or be very interested in training." • Participant 9: [Question] #11 [“Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program”] - I teach in 2 departments - one is Nursing - accessibility needs can make it very difficult to perform the necessary skills - the other department’s program does not have these skill requirements - my answer is an "average” between the two. [Question 11 response = 3.5] • Participant 15: "I do no teach online, so the online question did not apply to me." Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  35. Participant Comments • Participant 17: "For question #6: Depends on the access need (score assigned: average of comfortable, uncomfortable") Comment: Depends on the accessibility issue. • Participant 19: Question 8 is not the clearest to understand. • [“I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes.”” • Participant 23: “Article in NEA flyer just released this month on this topic – just read it!” • Participant 24: "I’m not really sure what “universal design for learning” is. This the timid endorsement." • Participant 29: “I am always happy to participate in research, so put me on a list if you want to. From my perspective, the big question is how do we get students who don’t necessarily need assistive tech, but who could potentially benefit to some degree, to ask for help. Thanks!" Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  36. Conclusions 1. When asked positively, participants … a. Demonstrated interest in interacting supportively with PWAN/SWAN b. Demonstrated interest in learning more about accessibility, universal design, and Universal Design for Learning. Need to be very interested … 2. Health Educators should be receptive…. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  37. Conclusions 3. Positive accessibility advocacy with health education professionals would be mutually beneficial to the profession as well as to people with access needs. 4. Health educators have less than full confidence in SWAN to successfully complete department program, enter profession (Questions 11 and 12). … 5. Need to counter these perceptions. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  38. Future Research / Advocacy • Current Replication of Study: 10/2007-Education/Library & Info. Science Faculty • Comparison: Health Ed. vs. Education vs. Library & Info. Science Faculty responses • Confounding factors  positive results? • Inclusion of demographic data • Multivariate/Logistic analysis; assign levels • Develop Bayesian prediction model Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  39. NCHEC Areas/Responsibilities The 7 Areas of Responsibility for Health Educators (NCHEC, 2007) are: • Assessing individual and community needs for health education. • Planning effective health education programs. • Implementing health education programs. • Evaluating the effectiveness of health education programs. • Coordinating provision of health education services. • Acting as a resource person in health education. • Communicating health and health education needs, concerns, and resources. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  40. References • Boyle, C. A., & Cordero, J. F. (2005, November). Birth defects and disabilities: a public health issue for the 21st century. American Journal of Public Health, 95(11), 1884-1886. • Carbaugh, A.L., Elias, R., & Rowland, D. (2006). Aid to people with disabilities: Medicaid’s growing role. Annual Review of Public Health, 27: 412-442. • Foss, J. J. (2002). Attitudes and accommodation practices of university health professions faculty toward students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, no. 03A, 737. • Lloyd, L. L. J., Ammary, N. J., Epstein, L. G., Johnson, R., & Rhee, K. (2006, July). Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 331-335. • Kressley, K. M. & Huebschmann, M. (2002). The 21st century campus: gerontological perspectives. Educational Gerontology, 28, 835-851. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  41. References • Lewis, L. & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Educational Statistics Quarterly, 1(3). Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_1/1_3/4-esq13-b.asp • McCarthy, E. P., Ngo, L. H., Roetzheim, R. G., Chirikos, T.N., Li, D., Drews, R.E., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2006, November 7). Disparities in breast cancer treatment and survival for women with disabilities. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(9), 637-645. • National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (2007). Responsibilities & competencies. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.nchec.org/aboutnchec/rc.htm • National Organization on Disability [NOD]. (2004, June 24). Landmark disability survey finds pervasive disadvantages. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.nod.org/ Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  42. References • Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any other name?: the values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277. • Schmetzke, A. (2006, September 25). E-mail communication. • Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity: people with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books. • Silverstein, N. M., Choi, L. H., & Bulot, J. J. (2001). Older learners on campus. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, 22(1), 13-30. • U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003, March). Disability status: 2000. (CZKBR17). • U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1994). Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions – United States, 1991-1992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43: 730-739. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  43. References • U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a, June). Postsecondary education information system: enrollment of students with disabilities. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/1999046/ • U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b, June). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-04, with a special analysis of community college students. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo,asp?pubid=2006184 • U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Participation in elementary/secondary education: Indicator 7: Children with disabilities in public schools. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  44. References • U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007). Table 4-1. students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, part B, who exited school, by exit reason and state: Fall 2005-06. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from https://www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_4-1.xls • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Health communication (chapter 11). In: Healthy People 2010: Understanding and improving health and objectives for improving health. 2d ed. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O. • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2007). Healthy People 2010: what are its goals? Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.healthypeople.gov/About/goals.htm • Wu, S. V., & Green, A. (2000). Projection of chronic illness prevalence and cost inflation. Santa Monica: CA: Rand Corporation. Perlow-AHG-November 2007

  45. Presenter Contact Info:Ellen Perlow eperlow@hotmail.comDeepest thanks to Co-Investigator William B. Cissell, Ph.D. CHES Cornaro Professor (retired)and Mark S. Hamner, Ph.D. Statistics Professor Extraordinaire Thank You! Questions/Ideas? Perlow-AHG-November 2007

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

  47. Accessibility, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning, NIMAS now are mandated in Pre-K-12 U.S. public education, thus also in U.S. Teacher EducationIDEA 2004/NCLBSee: http://idea.ed.gov/ Onward and Upward to Higher Education. Excelsior! Perlow-AHG-November 2007

More Related