Universal Design of Student Development Programs and …Implementing Universal Design Disability Services as a Resource: Advancing Universal Design Karen S. Kalivoda and Margaret C

Universal Design of StudentDevelopment Programs and Services

187CHAPTER 14Implementing Universal Design

Disability Services as a Resource:Advancing Universal DesignKaren S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. TottyThe University of Georgia

Many institutions of higher education have established disability services offices to assist in implementing thebasic regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990). This chapter offers a brief overview of themission of these offices and describes some common ways disability services offices can assist both students withdisabilities and the campus community. Suggestions are proposed on how to utilize the support available fromthese standard service delivery systems and at the same time advance the concept of Universal Design.

The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA; 1990) mandates thatinstitutions of higher education

provide equal educational opportunity tostudents with disabilities. Higher educationadministrators and student developmentprofessionals are faced with difficultdecisions regarding how to provide the mostefficient and cost-effective accessthroughout the institution. The law requiresa particular person to be assigned tocoordinate ADA compliance for theinstitution, but does not require a specificoffice to serve students with disabilities.However, most colleges and universitieshave chosen to establish offices to addressspecific disability concerns of students(Schuck & Kroeger, 1993).

The purpose of this chapter is to offerpractical information for institutions, bothpublic and private, small and large, to assistin implementing the ADA’s basicregulations. The authors will offer a briefoverview of the mission of disabilityservices offices, describe commonassistance available from disability servicesoffices to both students with disabilities andthe college or university community, andsuggest how to implement Universal Designwithin the campus community.

Establishment ofDisability Service Offices

As early as 30 years ago, institutionswere challenged to set up offices through

CHAPTER 14Disability Services

188

which “all assistance and activities [forstudents with disabilities] would bechanneled” (Pinder, 1979, p. 8). Manyinstitutions established new positions tocoordinate equal access needs for studentswith disabilities and others assigned theseextra responsibilities to an existing positionsuch as the dean of students. Program designfor disability services programs, whethercomprehensive or specific, varies widelyjust as size and characteristics of institutionsvary. With the establishment in 1977 of theAssociation on Handicapped StudentService Programs in PostsecondaryEducation, now named the Association onHigher Education and Disability (AHEAD),disability services providers gained supporton how to provide services to individualswith disabilities pursuing postsecondaryeducation. AHEAD is an internationalorganization of professionals with a missionto increase full participation of persons withdisabilities in higher education. The growthin the AHEAD membership, from 36 chartermembers in 1977 to 2,200 in 2001, reflectsthe growth in disability services officesthroughout the nation (J. Jarrow, personalcommunication, August 24, 2001).

These offices share a common goal ofassisting institutions in fulfilling theirresponsibility to provide equal access toqualified students with disabilities(Kalivoda & Higbee, 1989). The term equalaccess means equal availability of all

programs and freedom of participation forall students with disabilities. Equal accessdoes not guarantee equal outcomes nor doesit promote favoritism of one group overanother or result in the lowering ofacademic standards.

Documentation of Disability

Federal statutes require that institutionsof higher education provide appropriateaccommodations and modifications forstudents with disabilities. Institutions are notrequired to provide evaluative testing toestablish the presence of a disability (U.S.Department of Education, 1998). However,some institutions do have on-site evaluatorsthat diagnose learning disabilities (LD),attention deficit hyperactivity disorders(ADHD), and psychological disorders. It isa student’s responsibility to present currentand adequate documentation of a disability.This procedure can be confusing to studentswho enter college from public secondaryspecial education programs. Public schoolsystems may conduct evaluations as part ofstudents’ individual plans for disability-related educational services (Silver, 1992).Should the most recent documentation froma health professional be outdated, studentsmay be required to seek, at their ownexpense, more current documentation. Manyinstitutions require diagnostic evaluations nomore than three years old. Others are moreflexible as long as the documentationspecifically states the diagnosis and


adequately addresses current level offunctioning and necessary accommodations.As long as it is current, disabilitydocumentation certified by a qualifiedhealth professional should not be questionedby an institution. The institution does havethe authority, however, to determine theappropriate accommodations that it shouldprovide (Jarrow, 1997).

Health related conditions, such as lupus,cystic fibrosis, Crohn’s disease, and multiplesclerosis may simply require verificationfrom the student’s health care provider.Should the condition wax and wane, thedisability service representative may requirefrequent updates to verify flare ups thatfunctionally limit the student. Students withcognitive deficits due to an acquired braininjury are usually asked to provide theresults of neuropsychological testing. Athorough neuropsychological evaluation willprovide ample information to determinenecessary and appropriate accommodationsfor the student.

There is considerable controversy overthe documentation requirements for ADHDand LD (Zirkel, 2000). AHEAD suggestsguidelines to assist institutions inestablishing the appropriate criteria and toencourage a general sense of uniformity indocumentation requirements across thenation. Most institutions of higher educationwill require students to provide a recent

evaluation conducted by a qualified healthprofessional experienced in the diagnosisand treatment of ADHD and LD. Offeringthe student a list of qualified evaluators mayfacilitate prompt implementation of supportservices. The evaluation should address thespecific academic and support service needsof the student. This information is rarelyincluded in an evaluation report unlessspecifically requested from the referralsource. It is recommended that a set ofquestions regarding the academic needs ofthe student be sent to the evaluator witheach referral.

Program Standards

Dukes (2001) conducted research with1000 postsecondary professionals atdisability services offices in North Americato determine which service components theydeemed essential to ensure equaleducational access for students withdisabilities. Nine general categories ofservice delivery with 27 standards wereidentified as essential regardless of type ofinstitution, funding source, location, oradmissions policy. The AHEADmembership recently approved the programstandards for disability services offices inhigher education and they are brieflydescribed below (Shaw & Dukes, 2001).

The first category consists ofconsultation, collaboration, and awareness.It includes advocating for students with


190

disabilities and ensuring their adequaterepresentation on campus committees.Disability personnel may find that theyprovide the only voices that speak to theneeds of this population on campus. Thismakes the development of good workingrelationships with key departments aroundcampus critical to the enhancement of equalopportunity. Providing academicdepartments with disability awarenesstraining and information about disabilitiesand resources available to assist them candecrease attitudinal barriers that result instereotyping and discrimination towardpeople with disabilities.

The second category, informationdissemination, promotes equal access byinforming the campus community about theavailability of services for students withdisabilities. To promote equal access to thecampus community, it is important thatdisability services offices coordinate andprovide auxiliary aids such as alternativeprint, interpreter services, and adaptivetechnology. Auxiliary aids, not limited to thecollege classroom, should be provided at allinstitution-sponsored activities andprograms (Kalivoda & Higbee, 1994).

Faculty and staff awareness, the thirdcategory, involves consultation with faculty,staff, and administrators regardingappropriate academic accommodations forstudents with disabilities. Faculty are chieflyresponsible for providing academic

adjustments for students with disabilities intheir classes. Instructors are not asked tolower academic standards or to provideadjustments that are excessive, but they areexpected to make reasonableaccommodations. If academic adjustmentsare not provided by faculty, students withdisabilities will be at an academicdisadvantage.

Academic adjustments, the fourthstandard, establishes the responsibility ofdetermining the appropriate academicadjustments with the disability servicesoffice. This is based on student interviews,analysis of appropriate documentation,consultation with health professionals, andlegal guidelines.

Disability services offices are alsoencouraged to be actively involved ininstructional interventions, the fifthcategory. Shaw and Dukes (2001) state thatthis involves encouraging institutions toprovide “instruction in learning strategies(e.g., attention and memory strategies,planning, self-monitoring, timemanagement, organization, problem-solving)” (p.85). Most institutions have anacademic assistance program or learningcenter where students can either take classesor attend workshops on learning strategiesor work one-on-one with a counselor forcoaching. Hand-in-hand with this category,the sixth is counseling and advocacy,


through which disability specialists helptheir students to learn how to advocate forthemselves.

The seventh category addresses theimportance of developing policies andprocedures. Written policies and proceduresmay cover issues such as student rights andresponsibilities, institutional rights andresponsibilities, confidentiality, formalcomplaint guidelines, and the determinationof reasonable accommodations (Shaw &Dukes, 2000). Jarrow (1997) states that thedevelopment of written policies andprocedures is critical to “demonstrating agood faith effort on the part of the institutionto meet its responsibilities to persons withdisabilities in an equitable and consistentmanner” (p. 7).

Following up on the importance ofhaving an effective program, the eighthcategory involves program development andevaluation. Frequent evaluations to obtainstudent feedback on satisfaction withservices will help in identifying ways toimprove the program. Schuck and Kroeger(1993) emphasize the importance of acomprehensive evaluation plan that includesdata on students served to justify the needfor fiscal resources. The final category ofstandards involves the training andprofessional development of disabilityservices personnel.

Support Services

To guarantee students with disabilitiesequal access to higher education, manyinstitutions have or are establishing supportservices that uphold the nine categories ofAHEAD program standards. Marion &Iovacchini (1983) assert that basic servicesto assure program accessibility wereprovided by most colleges and universitiesin the early 1980s. Necessaryaccommodations and services will vary fromstudent to student and across institutions.The following, however, are commonservices available to students throughdisability support offices: (a) weeklymeetings with a counselor or disabilityspecialist to maintain support, monitoracademic progress, and provide an earlywarning system so that the student receivesadditional services as needed; (b) timeextensions on tests and assignments whenappropriate; (c) adjustment and restructuringof class assignments as individuallywarranted; (d) test taking in a separate andquiet location to reduce distractionscommonly associated with the classroomenvironment; (e) note takers in theclassroom to supplement the student’s notes;(f) the provision of assistive listeningsystems; (g) document conversion (e.g.,from print to Braille) services; (h) signlanguage interpreters; (i) real-timecaptioning; and (j) assistive technology,which will be discussed in the final sectionof this book.


192

Additional services provided are oftenabove and beyond legal requirements andare made available as resource allocationspermit. Programs that have acquired amplefinancial support from the institution,federal grants, or private developmentactivities, may develop exemplary programsand services for students with disabilities.These services constitute “best practices” indisability services offices and are offered inefforts to enrich the lives of students withdisabilities who seek the goal of highereducation (Shaw & Dukes, 2001). Servicesmay include the following: (a) studentsupport groups; (b) priority registration toease initial frustration and tension and toenable the student to select classes at timesof optimal concentration or to allow forscheduling of regular medical appointments;(c) curriculum counseling regarding courseselection and scheduling; (d) writtencontracts to assist the student in achievingacademic or personal goals; (e) academicsupport groups for review and discussion ofbarriers encountered on a college campus;(f) orientation to classrooms, buildings, andthe campus, and (g) coaching to helpstudents stay focused on specific goals, andovercome disability-related challenges (e.g.,organization, prioritization, follow-through).

Universal Design

In an ideal world, Universal Designwould provide access to all people inadvance rather than after the fact. Aune

(2000) states, “In universal design,environments and activities are designed insuch a way that they are accessible toanyone, regardless of the person’s functionallimitations” (p.57). The following case studyis offered to describe the application ofUniversal Design to a college setting.

Ideal Case Scenario

Caroline is a sociology major at a largepublic university. She is blind and obtainsmost of her texts and other readingassignments electronically. All her texts areavailable on e-text and her instructors useaccessible web designed course materials.Caroline scans last minute readingassignments handed out in class at variouscomputer labs on campus. She has acomputer and scanner in her residence hallroom but she often prefers to use thecomputer lab with her peers. Once thematerial is scanned and saved onto disk,Caroline uses a computer workstation at thesociology computer lab that is equippedwith speech output software. This allows herto listen to the printed materialindependently at her preferred time andpace.

Caroline independently navigates aroundcampus. All crosswalks have audiblesignals, drivers announce each bus stop, andall facilities have signs in raised charactersand Braille. Campus lectures andprogramming sponsored by campus


activities have handouts prepared in Brailleto provide Caroline the opportunity to fullyparticipate along with her peers. Theuniversity offers audible display for allvisually oriented communication (e.g.,maps, computer terminals, posters,newspapers, fliers, overheads), which makesCaroline feel welcome and included inuniversity-sponsored events.

Shared Responsibility for EqualAccess

In this scenario, there is little need fordisability services offices. Unfortunately,Universal Design is still an aspiration anddisability services offices are continuallyrelied upon to coordinate and provideroutine equal access requests. Establishingseparate administrative units to assiststudents with disabilities helps meet legalrequirements of equal access, but may alsoenable others to abdicate responsibility forinteracting with students who havedisabilities and providing equal access.Pinder (1979) cautions institutions aboutrelying excessively on disability supportoffices:

Special, separate offices such as thesealso tend to reaffirm the old standardsof segregation on the campus becausefaculty, students, and administratorsare simply not used to routinelydealing with disabled students—andit is much easier to delegate this

responsibility to a special office . . . .However, it is natural for people to bereluctant in dealing with new anddifferent things. The separate, specialbureaucratic units provide anyonelooking for such avoidance with theperfect method of dealing withdisabled students while not having todeal personally with them. (p. 9)

Hall and Belch (2000) concur that thesespecial offices can serve a well-needed roleof easing students into the college oruniversity and helping them feel that theymatter, but they also have to consider theunintended consequences, “. . . specialprograms and centers also relieve staff whoare not located in those centers from actingon their responsibility to understand andaddress the diverse needs of underrepresented groups” (p. 13).

This dilemma demands that disabilityservice professionals increase educationabout the responsibility of each faculty andadministrative unit in providing equalaccess. There are several steps thatadministrators, faculty, and staff memberscan take to reduce or eliminate potentialblocks to equal access. The topadministration should publish anddisseminate a policy statement regarding thelegal mandate to provide accommodations.The policy statement should clearly statethat the administration encourages and


194

supports accommodations for students withdisabilities and that the responsibility forproviding access to all programs andactivities resides with each department. Forexample, the administration could mail out abrochure to all faculty and staff,accompanied by a letter from the president’soffice. In addition, the institution mightsponsor professional developmentworkshops to educate faculty and staffregarding how to best meet the needs ofstudents who have disabilities. Prior toscheduling such workshops, it would behelpful to survey potential attendeesregarding their knowledge of legal andeducational issues. This will enableworkshop facilitators to prepare to addresspertinent questions or dilemmas fromworkshop participants. Staff and faculty mayalso provide scenarios for role plays orsmall group discussion that would offerpractical solutions to common problems.

Obstacles to Universal Design

The true concept of Universal Design isto create at the onset an educationalenvironment to meet all learners’ needs. Inreality, however, many institutions arefirmly established and have facilities andprograms that do not meet this ideal.Practical suggestions for architectural andprogram access needs of students who havedisabilities are addressed below.

Architectural Inaccessibility

Many older institutions have facilitiesthat were constructed before theimplementation of federal and staterequirements for architectural accessibility.The ADA does not require the installation ofelevators in all existing facilities; therefore,access to older structures may be limited tothe main floor via a lift or ramp. Programsor departments located on inaccessiblefloors must find alternative methods ofproviding accessibility. The law requireswhat is termed “programmatic access”(Office of the Attorney General, 1991). Thismeans that the program may be moved orthe information requested (e.g., financial aidforms, admissions applications) may bebrought downstairs or sent directly to thestudent. Equitable service needs to beprovided for students with disabilities; thismay require extra time and patience fromprogram staff. Suggestions that may assist inproviding programmatic access for programsand services located in facilities that arearchitecturally inaccessible are listed below(Kalivoda & Higbee, 1994):

1. Advertise in all publicationsand announcements (e.g., campusnewspaper, newsletters) thatprogrammatic access is guaranteedfor people with limited mobility.Provide the name of a contact personand telephone number for obtaininginformation about access. A general


access statement communicates topeople with disabilities that they arewelcome to participate in theprogram. The statement may read“Alternative access will be arrangedfor people with limited mobility. Call(person or office) by (date) forspecific requests.”

2. Equip the accessible floorwith a campus phone for students touse to call offices located oninaccessible floors. Assure thatexisting and newly installed phonesare at the appropriate height (48"forward approach, 54" sideapproach). Include the location of thephone on the building directory. Postphone numbers of offices located oninaccessible floors both on thebuilding directory and next to thetelephone.

3. Provide accessible locationsfor offices and services that meetimportant student needs and requirepersonal rather than mail or telephonecontact. Examples includecounseling, career planning andplacement, academic advising,multicultural affairs, languagelaboratories, tutorial services anddisability services.

4. Provide internal and externalsigns to direct people where to go to

obtain services or get the informationthey need. Buildings where there isaccess to at least one floor mustprovide accessibility informationabout the program on existingbuilding directories. Buildingswithout a directory should requestthat one be installed in order tocomply with the ADA. Buildings withno access should provide outsidesigns directing people either to anoutside phone line or to an accessiblebuilding where they can obtain theinformation they need. The phone lineshould automatically ring in adesignated office in the inaccessiblebuilding. A representative from thatbuilding would then meet the personat an accessible location.

5. Request a multi-useconference room to be made availableon the first floor of any building thatis otherwise inaccessible. If this is notpossible, network with offices on thefirst floor of the building and withoffices in accessible buildings in thevicinity to arrange for an accessibleand private meeting room.

6. Forward requests for modestrenovation projects (e.g., signs, curbcuts, door handles, grab bars) to theinstitution’s disability resource officeor physical plant.


196

7. Relocate programs and eventsthat are scheduled in buildings thatare architecturally inaccessible.

8. Provide access to alldepartmental information andresources, e.g., books, bulletin boardnotices and information on theinternet or web sites. This may entailsending a catalogue of resources topatrons.

9. Communicate to faculty andstaff in each department theirresponsibility to provide equal accessto all people, even if it poses aninconvenience. (pp. 135-136)

Providing Program Access

Removing architectural barriers is ofgreat importance, but it is only one of thecommonly recognized barriers to access forstudents with disabilities. The removal ofconcrete and obvious physical barriers onlyaffects a small subgroup of the disabilitypopulation. Commonly overlooked obstaclesthat impact students with a wide variety ofdisabilities are programmatic accessbarriers. Although these are critical toensuring equal access, they are oftenoverlooked because they are not the easiestto implement (Jarrow, 1993). The ADArequires us to move beyond the obviousneeds of students with mobility impairmentsand to address the highly individualized

needs of the entire population of studentswith disabilities (Office of the AttorneyGeneral, 1991).

Kalivoda and Higbee (1994) providesuggestions that may help in makingprograms accessible:

1. Include a general accessstatement in all publications andannouncements. This communicatesto people with disabilities that theyare welcome. The statement may read“Access provided for people withdisabilities. Call (person or office) by(date) for specific requests.”

2. Offer printed material inalternate forms. Taped versions, largeprint and Braille copies make visuallyoriented material available to peoplewith limited vision. Be aware ofresources for Braille printers in thecommunity or geographic area.

3. Communicate the availabilityof Assistive Listening Devices (ALD)for people attending programs. Onecommon ALD, the FM System, is asmall transmitter that amplifies thespeech of the speaker whileeliminating background noise. An FMsystem can be purchased for under$1000. Several can be made availablefor check out through a centralizedcampus audiovisual service.


4. Advertise that a sign languageinterpreter is available upon request.This offers people who are deaf equalaccess to programs. Major campus-wide events should recognize theneed for an interpreter andarrangements should be made well inadvance. The presence of aninterpreter also enhances awarenessand acceptance of students withdisabilities. Interpreters can bescheduled through the institution’sresource office if one exists, orassistance in locating a qualified freelance interpreter is available througheach state’s Interpreter ReferralService.

5. Relocate programs that arearchitecturally inaccessible. Developa close working relationship with theoffice on campus that assists in spaceallocation. Identify one of the mostmodern and convenient buildings oncampus for a possible meeting site.Assure that accessible parking spacesare readily available.

6. Secure accessibletransportation for programs that arereserving university vehicles. Contactthe campus department responsiblefor transportation or the off-campuscontractor to request a lift equippedvan or bus. (pp.134-135)

These suggestions are not limited toacademics. Noninstructional activities are avital aspect of college life and critical to thedevelopment of the student as a well-rounded individual; therefore, students withdisabilities should be incorporated intoprogramming available for the rest of thestudent body. Nutter and Ringgenberg(1993) emphasize the importance of theabove activities for student affairs units tosuccessfully invite, involve, and retainstudents with disabilities.

Suggestions toEnhance Learning

Functioning successfully at aneducational institution can be difficult forstudents who have disabilities that impactlearning, organization, and socialinteraction. Students with head injuries, forinstance, may have problems withcommunication, memory, comprehension(especially learning new information),organization, decision making, andflexibility. This can affect registration, studyskills, meeting class and administrativedeadlines, and establishing relationshipswith faculty, staff, and other students. Thefollowing strategies are offered to assistfaculty, counselors, advisors and studentdevelopment professionals:

1. Try to learn more about the needs ofstudents who have disabilities. In-service


198

workshops conducted by campus andcommunity disability professionals canenlighten both you and your staff.

2. Communicate your willingness towork with students’ different learning andorganizational needs. Express your supportboth in writing (e.g., on a course syllabus orin a brochure) and orally. Allow students toidentify themselves as having a disability inwriting rather than having to say it in thepresence of their peers.

3. Attend to a student’s concernscarefully and repeat back yourunderstanding of the student’s situation.When approached with a student problem,choose a quiet place to meet. Try to workthrough some alternatives and consequencesin a systematic way. Use your expertise tomake suggestions for solutions.

4. Meet with students you are instructing,counseling, or advising within the first twoweeks of the academic term to determinenecessary accommodations.

5. Give students step-by-step writteninformation about your program or policyand allow an opportunity for questions orclarification of procedures.

6. Learn what your campus offers forstudents with disabilities. Acquaint yourselfwith other campus resources and key peopleto contact so that you can offer clear andspecific referrals. It is helpful to supply the

name of a contact person and location of theoffice or department and phone number, sothat the student can schedule anappointment.

7. Post notices announcing deadlines foradvisement, registration, or various studentactivities in strategic places well before thedeadline, but also communicate thesedeadlines to all students via e-mail ifpossible.

8. Be flexible with students who mightneed alternative avenues for meeting classrequirements. For example, students withdisabilities such as visual impairments,attention deficit hyperactivity disorders,learning disabilities, acquired brain injuries,or psychological disorders might need tohave their tests provided on disk so that theprinted material can be converted into anaccessible form such as large print, Braille,digital format, or audiotape.

9. Put together a mediation programusing someone who understands disabilityaccess issues and is interested in workingout amicable solutions. Students who havedisabilities that affect communication,flexibility, and organization sometimesencounter difficulties with other students ingroup activities due to their disorganizationand poor communication skills.

10. Keep in mind that although studentswith disabilities are subject to the samestandards as any other college student, they


may need to take an alternative route toachieve those standards.

Conclusion

This chapter provides a brief overview ofthe mission of disability services offices,describes typical ways these offices assiststudents with disabilities and the campuscommunity, and proposes suggestions onhow to advance the concept of UniversalDesign. Universal Design considers theneeds of all learners prior to the beginningof classes rather than trying to accommodatethe needs of students on a case-by-case basiswhen requested. Regrettably, UniversalDesign is still an ideal. Until it becomesreality, institutions must assure that studentswith disabilities are provided equaleducational opportunity. That is whycolleges and universities have establishedseparate administrative units to ensure thatlegal requirements of equal access are met.

This chapter identifies and describescommon standards for disability servicesoffices and offers practical information forfaculty and administrators in the hope thatthey will step up and meet the challenge toenhance learning for students withdisabilities. The information this chapterprovides can help alleviate commonconcerns and questions about how toprovide equal access to all programs andactivities. In the meantime, both studentswith disabilities and their nondisabled peers

will benefit from an ongoing discussionabout Universal Design at institutions ofhigher education. Perhaps in the not toodistant future, college and universityrepresentatives will assume theresponsibility for meeting the needs of eachindividual learner rather than relying ondisability services offices to accommodatestudents with disabilities.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West 1993).

Aune, B. (2000). Career and academicadvising. In H. A. Belch (Ed.), Servingstudents with disabilities (pp. 55-67).New Directions for Student Services,No. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dukes, L. M. (2001). The process:Development of AHEAD programstandards. Journal of PostsecondaryEducation and Disability, 14(2), 62-80.

Hall, L. M., & Belch, H. A. (2000). Settingthe context: Reconsidering theprincipals of full participation andmeaningful access for students withdisabilities. In H. A. Belch (Ed.),Serving students with disabilities (pp. 5-17). New Directions for StudentServices, No. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


200

Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmenwith disabilities. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Jarrow, J. E. (1993). Beyond ramps: Newways of viewing access. In S. Kroeger &J. Schuck (Eds.), Responding todisability issues in student affairs (pp.5-16). New Directions for StudentServices, No. 64. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Jarrow, J. E. (1997). Higher education andthe ADA: Issues and perspectives.Columbus, OH: Disability AccessInformation & Support.

Jaschik, S. (1993, February). Backed by1990 law, people with disabilities pressdemands on colleges. The Chronicle ofHigher Education, 39(22), A 26.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1989).Students with disabilities in highereducation: Redefining access. Journal ofEducational Opportunity, 4(1) 14-21.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1994).Implementing the Americans withDisabilities Act. Journal of HumanisticEducation and Development, 32(3),133-137.

Marion, P. B., & Iovacchini , E. V. (1983)Services for handicapped students inhigher education: An analysis ofnational trends. Journal of CollegeStudent Personnel, 24(2), 131-138.

Nutter, K. J., & Riggenberg, L. J. (1993).Creating positive outcomes for studentswith disabilities. In S. Kroeger & J.Schuck (Eds.), Responding to disabilityissues in student affairs (pp. 45-58).New Directions for Student Services,No. 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Office of the Attorney General, Departmentof Justice (1991, July). Non-discrimination on the basis of disabilityin state and local government services;Final rule. Federal Register, 28 CFRPart 35.

Pinder, P. (1979). Obligation of the disabledstudent: Reasonable self-help. In M. R.Redden (Ed.), Assuring access for thehandicapped (pp. 1-10). New Directionsfor Higher Education, No. 25. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29U.S.C. § 794 as amended (1973).


Schuck, J., & Kroeger S. (1993). Essentialelements in effective service delivery. InS. Kroeger & J. Schuck (Eds.),Responding to disability issues instudent affairs (pp. 45-58). NewDirections for Student Services, No. 64.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaw, S. F., & Dukes, L. L. (2001). Programstandards for disability services inhigher education. Journal ofPostsecondary Education andDisability, 14(2), pp. 81-90.

Silver, L. B. (1992). Attention deficithyperactivity disorder: A clinical guideto diagnosis and treatment. Washington,D. C.: American Psychiatric Press.

U.S. Department of Education, Office forCivil Rights (1998). Auxiliary aids andservices for postsecondary students withdisabilities: Higher education’sobligations under section 504 and TitleII of the ADA. [On-line]. Available:www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/auxaids.html

Zirkel P. A. (2000) Sorting out whichstudents have learning disabilities. TheChronicle of Higher Education, 47(15),B15.


202


The First-Year ExperienceJeanne L. HigbeeUniversity of Minnesota

Karen S. KalivodaThe University of Georgia

This chapter discusses the implementation of Universal Design in a number of programs and services forprospective and new students, including admissions, orientation, registration, and first-year experience courses.

The importance of Universal Design ofprograms and services begins evenbefore students are enrolled. This

chapter will address admissions, orientation,and first-year experience courses andprograms.

Admissions

The admissions process can play asignificant role in students’ choice ofinstitution. A seemingly disinterested staffmember can dissuade a student frompursuing admission. An admissions web sitethat is difficult for anyone to navigate canfrustrate applicants and create criticalbarriers for students with some types ofdisabilities.

Students are not required to disclose adisability when applying. Some students

wait to share information regarding theirdisability until after they have been acceptedat an institution because they feardiscrimination. Even then, some studentswith disabilities are hesitant to make theirdisabilities known; they do not want to belabeled on the basis of disability. Some havebeen segregated into “special” classes ortracked in high school and are concernedabout college course placements. Studentshave the right to withhold this information,and when they choose to exercise this rightit can make planning difficult. UniversalDesign, planning for all potential situations,can prevent stumbling blocks from arisinglater, when there may not be adequate timeto address them appropriately.

On the other hand, it is helpful forstudents to contact the institution’s disabilityservices office as soon as they have been

CHAPTER 15First-Year Experience

204

admitted, or even before, so that they can beinformed about what services are available,procedures for arranging foraccommodations, testing policies, and so on.Disability services providers and studentscan then work together to ensure thatnecessary documentation of the disability ison file and develop a plan of action.Sometimes students will need to undergoanother evaluation to update theirdocumentation. For example, someinstitutions require that testing for a learningdisability be recent, occurring within aspecific time period. Students who wait tocontact disability services until theyexperience academic difficulty may find thatit is several months, perhaps even an entireterm, before they can receive services ormodifications or accommodations, becausethey need to seek further documentation.Thus, it can be beneficial for both theinstitution and the student to disclose adisability early in the process. It is up to theadmissions office to establish rapport, createan environment that welcomes diversity, andcommunicate that the decision toself-disclose will not have negativeramifications. It is also imperative that theadmissions office provides informationregarding how to contact the disabilitiesservices office to all new students. Someinstitutions include a separate postage-paidresponse form in all letters of admission toencourage students with disabilities toprovide information to the institution, or

even better, directly to the campus office fordisability services.

Orientation

Once admitted, the next contact studentshave with the institution is often newstudent orientation. Implementing UniversalDesign in orientation programs becomes acomplex process because orientation oftenincludes testing, advising, registration,campus tours, meals, and an overnight stayin a residence hall, as well as educationaland social programs. Arranging theseactivities is likely to involve peoplerepresenting a variety of functions andoffices in both academic and student affairs.It is critical for the planning process to beginwith consideration of the needs of allstudents. If the tenets of Universal Designare central to the development of theorientation program, it will be much easierto create an experience that is welcoming toall students. Accommodations added laterare likely to be perceived as afterthoughts,which indeed they are.

Testing

If placement testing occurs duringorientation, testing schedules must beflexible in order to provide extended timeand private testing rooms for students whosedisabilities warrant these accommodations.Faculty and administrators need toreconsider the role of timed tests in the


placement process. Is there any legitimatereason why students should not be allowedto complete a set of math problems or writean essay, rather than being assessedaccording to how much they can accomplishin a given amount of time? Would manystudents be likely to perform better onplacement tests if given the opportunity formore time if they need it? Even if studentsdo not need additional time, knowing that itis available can reduce stress. Would higherscores on placement tests be a negativeoccurrence? Have institutions conductedresearch to determine whether timedplacement tests are more accurate predictorsof academic achievement than untimedtests? At colleges and universities thatrequire standardized tests for admission,how much additional testing is reallynecessary for placement? These questionsare posed to encourage the reexamination ofplacement testing policies, not just in termsof accommodating students with disabilities,but to better serve all new students.

Advising

Aune (2000) suggests that application ofstudent development theory, includingAstin’s (1993) theory of involvement andTinto’s (1993) theory of integration, canassist advisors in using what they alreadyknow about all students to better servestudents with disabilities. Similarly,consideration of Chickering’s (1969;Chickering & Reisser, 1993) seven vectors

of college student development can remindadvisors that college students are faced withmultiple intersecting developmental tasks,and that although some of these tasks maypose greater challenges for students withdisabilities, just as they may for studentswho do not have a disability, facilitating thedevelopment of “the student as a whole”(American Council on Education, 1937;reprinted in National Association of StudentPersonnel Administrators, 1989, p. 39) is theprimary goal. Aune suggests that advisorstake the following steps to implementUniversal Design in providing services forall students:

Recognize their assumptions aboutdisability and how those assumptionsaffect their behavior toward studentswith disabilities. . . . Create anatmosphere of mutual respect andtrust. . . . Understand how disabilityand the environment interact to createbarriers. . . . Use flexibility andcreativity to solve problems. . . .Address disclosure issues. . . .Achieve a balance in focus betweendisability issues and issues allstudents face. . . . Balance supportwith fostering independence. . . . (p.58)

Unfortunately, the duration of advisingappointments during orientation is generallybrief, and students often go directly fromadvisement to registration. Advisors may


206

barely have time to point out options withinthe core curriculum, with no opportunity tobecome acquainted with the individualinterests and needs of the student. Thus, forthe most critical first term of college,students may be least prepared to makeknowledgeable choices when registering forcourses. There may be no time to addressissues like whether to enroll in a lecture-based section or a computer-assisted sectionof the same course; how a student’sinterests, skills, past educationalexperiences, or disability might affect thedecision to take art, music, or dramaappreciation to meet a fine arts requirement;where to look up class locations todetermine whether it is feasible to sign upfor classes during consecutive class periods;and how to decide what time of day toschedule classes. For students withdisabilities, not unlike student athletes,students who work, students who areparents, and many others, some of thesedecisions may have a significant impact onsuccess during the first term of college. Ifquestions like these are addressed ineducational sessions about core curriculumchoices during orientation or in advisors’groups or learning communities, advisorscan then focus more of their attention onindividualizing the advising process.

Registration

On-line options at many institutions haveenhanced opportunities to apply Universal

Design to registration policies andprocedures. However, registering on-linecan also be frustrating when it is unclearwhy some pathways become blocked.Similarly, if registration is web-based, it isimperative that the registration website beaccessible. (Further information on webaccessibility and assistive technology isprovided in the final section of this book.) Inaddition to providing computer stations withassistive technology to make on-lineregistration accessible to all students, it isimperative for support staff to be availableto answer questions during orientation. Ifregistration is completed from a distance,rather than at a centralized site duringorientation, individualized assistance shouldbe available, at least during regular workhours, on-line and via telephone, and alsovia telecommunication devices such as TTYfor students with hearing impairments.

Campus Tours

Walking or bus tours are commoncomponents of new student orientation.Tours must be designed so that they do notdiscriminate or segregate students andparents with disabilities, including mobility,vision, and hearing impairments. A commonsolution for accommodating students withmobility impairments, for example, is toprovide separate vans for the families ofwheelchair users. Thus, these students andtheir parents do not have the sameopportunities for interaction as other


families. If some participants must ride abus with a lift, all students and parents inthat group should ride the same bus.Creative approaches, such as the use of golfcarts and audiotaped narrativessupplemented by written text, can make thetraditional campus walking tour moreenjoyable for all, especially in inclementweather. Campuses can also provideuniversally accessible virtual tours on theirwebsites. Virtual tours would also bebeneficial to all students when planningcourse schedules that allow adequate time toget from building to building, and whenmaking housing decisions.

Housing and Meals

The residence halls used for orientationshould be chosen with the most flexibleroom arrangements and modern facilities(e.g., elevators, air conditioning) in order toaccommodate all participating students. (Aseparate chapter of this book providesfurther information regarding theimplementation of Universal Design inresidence life facilities and programs.)Meals and snacks should be planned toallow choices that accommodate diversestudent needs, which can be related to foodallergies, religious beliefs, and health issues.Dining facilities must be accessible tostudents with mobility, hearing, and visionimpairments. These students must not beplaced in a position in which they need toask other students to “wait on” them.

Educational and Social Programming

In addition to “ice breakers” and othersocial activities, it is not unusual fororientation programs to include educationalprograms on topics like alcohol and drugawareness and communication in roommaterelationships. Orientation is also an idealtime to provide programs that focus onmulticulturalism. Workshops that includediscussions of contemporary films or smallgroup consideration of case studies are just acouple of ideas for educational programsthat can be implemented in a way that isentertaining and fun. It is important that inprograms like this diversity be broadlydefined to include race, religion, ethnicity,home language, social class, gender, sexualorientation, and disability.

Freshman Seminars and OtherFirst-Year Experience Courses

There are myriad models for freshmanseminars and orientation-type courses. Onsome campuses freshman seminars aretaught by faculty from departments acrosscampus and are content-based. Manycampuses also have a diversity requirementfor graduation, meaning that all students arerequired to complete at least one course thataddresses diversity issues. Content-basedfreshman seminars with small enrollmentstaught by full-time faculty members provideanother ideal opportunity to engage students


208

in discussions of multiculturalism in anenvironment that establishes ground rulesand facilitates trust (Higbee, 2001, 2002;Jehangir, 2001).

First-year experience courses (e.g.,Gardner & Jewler, 2002) often focus on skilldevelopment and adjusting to college life.Many topics that are traditionally includedin these courses, such as time managementand relieving stress, can be of particularimportance to students with disabilities. Indiscussions of communication skills, anemphasis on self-advocacy assists allstudents in asserting themselves in a mannerthat commands respect and does not infringeon the rights of others. Elementary andsecondary school policies and procedures,especially for students with disabilities,often place the parent in the role ofadvocate. Students are not in charge ofrequesting services for themselves;generally a team that includes parents,teachers, a counselor, and perhaps a memberof the administration, decide what is best forthe student. This poses a considerablechallenge for new freshmen, who aresuddenly responsible for communicatingtheir own needs. For some students withdisabilities, who may have very specific andimmediate concerns, and may also fearbeing stereotyped or not being takenseriously, or who may be reticent aboutdiscussing their disability for myriad otherreasons, the inability, inexperience, or

unwillingness to communicate with facultyand staff may be the greatest barrier toachievement. Developing self-advocacyskills is crucial to college success.

Diverse Program Models

Hartman (1993) discusses the importanceof summer transition programs for studentswith disabilities and describes some of theearly model programs. She explains theimpact of major legislation on increasingaccess for people with disabilities atinstitutions of higher education. Once thedoors of educational opportunity wereopened for people with disabilities, collegesand universities saw the need for thedevelopment of transition programs. In the1980s, institutions such as Wright StateUniversity, St. Paul Technical College, theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotteand Central Piedmont Community Collegeall offered programs to students withdisabilities to help prepare them for collegeor to help them select the best collegeprogram for their needs. Although programssuch as these were instrumental inenhancing access and retention for studentswith disabilities, many still accommodatedstudents with disabilities by segregatingthem.

Samberg, Barr, Hartman, & Murray(1994) describe three model summertransition to college programs designedspecifically for students with learning


disabilities. These programs ranged fromthree days to seven weeks and were intendedto supplement the general orientationprogram offered at the institutions. Samberget al. identify common successful strategiesused by the projects, including “training inself-advocacy skills, instruction in studyskills, instruction in time management,learning strategies training, orientation todisability support services . . .” (p. 75). Inaddition to introducing students to academicskills for college success, these programsoffered an opportunity for social interactionwith peers with similar disabilities.

HORIZONS

Dale (1995) describes a federally-fundedTRIO program, HORIZONS, at PurdueUniversity, designed to facilitate transitionand to increase retention of students who arefirst generation, low-income, and havephysical disabilities. This program utilized afreshman orientation course titled“Strategies for Effective AcademicPerformance.” The class includedinstruction in effective study methods andinstruction on personal development. Thesuccess of the program is evident by thehigher retention rate reported for studentswho participated in HORIZONS. Also ofinterest are the results of the participantevaluation of the program. Althoughservices such as tutoring, study skillstraining, and computer training were valued,participants rated “just knowing that help

was available” on the evaluation form as themost important service. This highlights theimportance of making personal contactswith students and introducing them to avariety of available services.

Project Excel

The University of Arkansas developedProject Excel, a summer transition programfor students with disabilities. The purpose ofthe program was to facilitate transition andto promote academic excellence (Serebreni,Rumrill, Mullins, & Gordon, 1993). A smallgroup of 12 high-achieving students withvarying types of disabilities were chosen toparticipate in the program. The six-weekprogram included activities to addresspsychosocial adjustment, academicdevelopment, and orientation to the campusand community. The participants evaluatedProject Excel as “good” to “excellent.”Similar to other model programs, mostparticipants reported that the most beneficialfacet of the program was the opportunity tomake contact with new people.

Student Transition and RetentionProgram

The Student Transition and Retention(STAR) Program at the University ofGeorgia (UGA) was created to assist newstudents with disabilities in makingconnections at the university and in learninghow to utilize campus resources. The


210

theoretical foundation for the program isAstin’s (1984, 1985) theory of involvement.When students become involved in campuslife, they are more likely to be retained atthe institution and to be satisfied with theireducational experience. Astin (1985) notedthat one of the most critical factors iscontact with faculty, becoming acquaintedwith members of the faculty outside thetraditional classroom environment. It is notunusual for students with disabilities to feelisolated and reluctant to seek help. (Willis,Hoben, & Myette, 1995). A primary goal ofthe STAR program is to introduce studentsto one another and to some of the facultyand staff members who hold key supportpositions.

During the 1997-1998 academic year, theUGA Office of Disability Services (ODS)surveyed current students with disabilitiesregarding their adjustment to college life.Students were asked to makerecommendations for facilitating thetransition for new freshmen and transferstudents. The STAR program was designedto address those ideas and suggestions. Inorder to inconvenience families as little aspossible, five one-day sessions of STARwere piloted during summer 1998 inconjunction with the university-wideorientation program; families attendedSTAR for an additional day followingparticipation in orientation. Separateschedules of activities were established for

students and parents. The maximumenrollment per session was 10 students, sothat the program could be tailored to meetindividual student needs and so that eachstudent would have several opportunities forone-to-one and small group interaction withdisability service providers and a facultymember from the Division of AcademicAssistance (ACA). ACA provides learningsupport in the form of elective courses,workshops, tutoring, a learning center, andacademic counseling in such areas as settinggoals and objectives, time and stressmanagement, motivation, learning styles,career exploration, and adjusting to collegelife.

The schedule of activities included (a)introductions and a tour of the Office ofDisability Services, including private testingrooms and a computer laboratory that isequipped with virtually every form oftechnology available to accommodatestudents with disabilities; (b) a visit to theACA Learning Center (LC), including theopportunity to complete two instruments oncomputers in the center, one to assesspreferred learning styles and one to explorechoice of major and career opportunities,and group interpretation of the results; (c) avideotape that relates personal style tocareer choice, followed by exploration ofhow students use their five senses to learn,and how to use their perceptual strengths totheir advantage, applying this information to


specific study strategies such as the Cornellformat of note taking (Longman, 1999;Pauk, 1974); (d) a box lunch, which alsoprovided an opportunity to interactinformally with faculty, staff, and currentstudents; (e) a discussion of universitypolicies, procedures, curricula, andgraduation requirements; (f) individualmeetings between students and the ODSstaff member who would serve as theirdisability specialist in the fall; and (g) roleplays of self-advocacy skills.

Students and parents responded toseparate evaluation forms that asked them torate each activity on the schedule on a scaleof one (i.e., not at all helpful) to five(extremely helpful). Parents’ mean overallrating of the STAR program was 4.80 on ascale of one (i.e., not at all helpful) to five(extremely helpful); students’ was 4.47.Parents and students were unanimous inindicating that they would recommend theSTAR program to other new students withdisabilities and their parents. All of thestudents also responded “yes” when asked,“Do you think participation in this programwill help you feel more comfortable in thefall (a) seeking services at the Office ofDisability Services, (b) seeking services orattending programs in the Division ofAcademic Assistance, and (c) making thetransition to university life?” Arepresentative parent comment was “I amfeeling more confident that [student] has

made the correct choice of [institution] afterattending the STAR program.” Severalstudents expressed the importance of havingthe opportunity to meet other students withdisabilities. This program, which can beeasily replicated at other institutions, isconsidered by participants and faculty andstaff alike to be a very worthwhile additionto new student orientation for students withdisabilities.

Conclusion

Institutions are still grappling with howto design orientation and first-yearexperience programs for students withdisabilities that serve specific student needswithout segregating students. Althoughprograms like STAR can be instrumental inallaying student fears and responding toindividual concerns that cannot be addressedduring regular orientation sessions, they stillrequire an additional time commitment notasked of other students. On the other hand,they do not restrict students with disabilitiesfrom participating fully in the institution’sregular orientation program. Similar issuesarise when considering the possibility ofoffering separate sections of first-yearcourses for students with disabilities, or forstudent athletes, or for returning adultstudents, “underprepared” students, or anyother group for that matter. Administratorsmust weigh the potential advantages againstthe barriers erected when students are


212

segregated on the basis of any groupmembership. On the other hand, whenstudent development professionals creatingfirst-year programs consider the principlesof Universal Design early in the planningprocess, they can embed informationtargeted to specific groups in the contents ofintegrated courses and activities, enhancingthe first-year experience for all students.

References

American Council on Education. (1937).The student personnel point of view.Washington, DC: Author.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: Adevelopmental theory for highereducation. Journal of College StudentPersonnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educationalexcellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters incollege? Four critical years revisited.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Aune, B. (2000). Career and academicadvising. In H. A. Belch (Ed.), Servingstudents with disabilities (pp. 55-67).New Directions for Student Services,No. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education andidentity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993).Education and identity (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dale, P. M. (1995). A successful collegeretention program. College StudentJournal, 30(3), 354-361.

Ellis, D. B. (1985). Becoming a masterstudent (5th ed.). Rapid City, SD:College Survival.

Gardner, J. N., & Jewler, A. J. (2002). Yourcollege experience: Strategies forsuccess (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Hartman, R. (1993). Transition to highereducation. In S. Kroeger & J. Schuck(Eds.), Responding to disability issues instudent affairs (pp. 31-43). NewDirections for Student Services, No. 64.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Higbee, J. L. (2001). Promotingmulticulturalism in developmentaleducation. Research and Teaching inDevelopmental Education, 18(1), 51-57.

Higbee, J. L. (2002). Addressing currentevents in classroom discussions.Research and Teaching inDevelopmental Education, 18(2), 85-90.


Jehangir, R. R. (2001). Cooperative learningin the multicultural classroom. In D. B.Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.),Theoretical Perspectives forDevelopmental Education (pp. 91-99).Minneapolis, MN: Center for Researchon Developmental Education and UrbanLiteracy, General College, University ofMinnesota.

Longman, D. G. (1999). College learningand study skills (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

National Association of Student PersonnelAdministrators (1989). Points of view.Washington, DC: Author.

Pauk, W. (1974). How to study in college(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Samberg, L., Barr, V., Hartman, R., &Murray, T. (1994). Educating studentswith disabilities on campus: Strategiesof successful projects. Washington, DC:HEATH Resource Center, NationalClearinghouse on PostsecondaryEducation for Individuals withDisabilities, American Council onEducation. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED393254)

Serebreni, R., Rumrill, P. D., Mullins, J. A.,& Gordon, S. E. (1993). Project Excel:A demonstration of the higher educationtransition model for high-achievingstudents with disabilities. Journal ofPostsecondary Education andDisability, 10(3), 15-23.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college:Rethinking the causes and cures ofstudent retention (2nd ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Willis, C., Hoben, S., & Myette, P. (1995).Devising a supportive climate based onclinical vignettes of college studentswith attention deficit disorder. Journalof Postsecondary Education andDisability, 11, 31-43.


214


Residential Living For All: Fully Accessibleand “Liveable” On-Campus HousingMartha E. Wisbey and Karen S. KalivodaThe University of Georgia

On campus housing for college students is a critical part of postsecondary educational life. Residence hallfacilities and programs are typically located within the overall academic surroundings, thus making the location ofwhere students sleep, study, eat and live in close proximity to their classrooms and to campus resources andservices. Ideally, students with disabilities, like their peers, will be able to access their living spaces without anyinterruption or specific additional need for accommodation. The concepts of Universal Design features are thosethat are comfortably useable by all people, not just people with disabilities. Universal Design expands the scope ofaccessibility by suggesting that all spaces and environments in the community be useable by people withdisabilities. This chapter addresses various aspects of residential life from a Universal Design perspective. Theauthors provide student affairs professionals suggestions on how to create an environment that is optimal for allstudents, staff, and faculty working and living in residence halls on campus.

“Iknow this is a big campus but mydaughter uses a wheelchair for herdisability, what are the residence

hall buildings like? Does she have to live ina special place in a specific dorm or are allyour buildings equipped to handlewheelchair access? How close is she toclasses?” Just getting off the phone afterfielding several questions from a mother ofan incoming student at my university, I hadto take a minute to grasp the number ofspecific questions she had regarding herdaughter’s room assignment. I did not knowhow to respond, which was rather disturbingbecause I have been in the student services

field for over 15 years. I promised I wouldget back in touch with her after I talked withseveral other colleagues. I was unaware ofwhat our office could offer her daughter andhad honestly never thought about some ofthe issues she raised. During theconversation, it became apparent that Ineeded to gain some knowledge about howwe accommodate students with disabilitiesin our residence halls.

With over five different theme housingprograms, 20 different buildings ranging insize from 100 to 1000 students, and housingfacilities dating back to the early 1900s, I

CHAPTER 16Residential Living

216

knew we had isolated spaces that wouldoffer students with mobility impairments aplace to live on campus. These spaces weredesigned and planned with only the intent ofbeing able to get a wheelchair into aresidence hall room and a bathroom. Noother access issues were addressed in theseadaptations.

As a parent, this student’s mother wantedassurance that her daughter was not just inan accessible room, but also part of themainstream of the co-curricular life thattypically takes place in a residence hall.According to Ratzka (1994), when designingstructures for residences, do we look at thestructures for “visitability” or do we look atthem from a “liveability” criterion? Thismother wanted to be sure her incomingfreshman daughter would have liveabilitywith other new students. She soughtinformation not only about the actual roomwhere her daughter would live, but whereshe would eat, how she would get around oncampus, and other aspects of campus life.

As the Assistant Director for ResidenceLife, I knew some of our new buildings had“handicapped accessible” rooms, but theywere located across campus in buildingsdesigned for upperclass students, not inbuildings where first-year students primarilylived. I could tell from the mother’s tonethat she hoped her daughter was able toenter college just as any student would,without any extra obstacles. Her phone call

was intended to smooth the way and I knewthis was new territory for me, and maybe itwas new for most persons within ourdepartment. Student assignments follow astandard format for the institution; the signup process involves the following: get thename, roommate request, if applicable, anddesired building preference, thenassignments are made on a first come, firstserve basis. It is hard to state if the buildingshe would be placed in would be able toprovide the “seamless” entry into theUniversity that her family was seeking.

This chapter and my subsequent journeyinto gathering facts about accommodatingstudents with disabilities in residential lifeoffers student affairs practitioners someinsight into planning residentialcommunities that apply Universal Designconcepts. These universal concepts andprinciples allow students with differentabilities to live side-by-side and can offerdesigners of residence halls “an opportunityto engage them [students] within worthwhilelearning activities alongside their peers”(Blamires, 1999, p. 161).

Living Facilities for Students:Historical Overview

Residence hall facilities in the UnitedStates were established as student housingearly in the history of higher education. Theidea of residential colleges was broughtfrom universities in England and was seen


as places for educating the “whole” student.Faculty would spend hours after classsharing time with students in theirresidential living spaces (Winston &Anchors, 1993). During the period after thecivil war until the early 1900s, Germanuniversity influences were brought to manycampuses. Professors were returning fromGermany with the belief that housingstudents was not the intended mission of theuniversity. During this period residence hallsbecame less educationally defined and moredistinctive facilities for “out of class”activities to take place, and typicallyfocused on conduct issues unrelated to theoverall learning atmosphere. The termdormitory signified a living space for a bed,a desk, and a few other items for living as astudent on campus. The primary place forlearning was designated as the classroom.The dormitory-type barrack became astandard on many college campuses(Winston & Anchors).

Over the last half of the twentiethcentury, dormitories transformed from justrooms with beds into living communitieswhere students are encouraged to continuetheir learning process in their living spaces.Today, many residence hall buildingsprovide common areas where kitchens,laundry rooms, study halls, and living spacesfor students provide a greater level ofcomfort and services. In addition, studentaffairs professionals are hired as residencehall staff and offer intentional programmatic

opportunities for students. Programs offeredrange from social interaction activities toeducational seminars for students to gainknowledge outside the classroom. Professorsconduct lectures and informal chats withstudents in common areas of their residencesmirroring residential living in the early daysof higher education.

College Environment Issues

On large university campuses, residencehalls offer smaller communities for studentsto meet and get to know each other. Theeffort is made to create smaller communitieswithin the large campus setting to stimulateinteraction among students, especially newstudents, and create support systems thatwill offer students the chance to makeconnections with their peers. Peerinteractions, involvement on campus, andfaculty contact are all important parts ofstudent retention (Tinto, 1987). For studentswith disabilities, as for all students, these area critical components of their success asstudents. Happiness and satisfaction in theirsurroundings can lead students to getinvolved and feel as though they matter andbelong. “Students have feelings ofmarginality when they do not think theymatter; they feel out of place, alienated, notcentral, lack connections, or feel as if theydo not belong.” (Winston & Anchors, 1993,p. 464). Students with disabilities mayautomatically feel like they are differentbecause of their need for a special


218

accommodation, or because they have avisible disability that makes them lookdifferent than their peers, such as using awheelchair, a cane, or a guide dog.

On some campuses, residence halls areseen and utilized as extensions of thecampus experience; many colleges useresidential facilities to house other servicesfor students or to create areas aroundresidence hall buildings where recreationaland other activities take place. Housing canbecome an important part of a student’sdaily life and can offer a place for creatingfriendships, learning new things, anddeveloping their “home” away from home.Students with disabilities are looking for thesame opportunities as their peers. They mayneed to articulate their specific need foraccommodations, as evidenced in the initialstory in this chapter, but they are not seekingspaces that are separate or even “special,”they are seeking residence hall designs thatare universally useable (McGuinness, 1997).

Residence HallUniversal Design Features

What would universally designedresidence halls feature? In essence, anyaspect of the residential hall building can beused by anyone regardless of his or her levelof ability or disability. Universal features areintended to enhance building components toprovide flexibility for the user. Specificcomponents are placed in different places, or

carefully selected for a variety of useswithin the living setting. For example,electrical outlets can be placed higher thanusual above floors for access, standard butwider doors can be selected for installation,and steps into buildings can be eliminated(Ratzka, 1994).

The intent of Universal Design is tomake life simpler for everyone and makehousing usable for more people at the leastamount of cost to the institution. Lusher andMace (1989) define Universal Design as anapproach to design that accommodatespeople of all ages, sizes, and abilities.Housing professionals are faced withbuildings that reflect post-World War IIeducational standards (McGuinness, 1997).Two different perspectives have occurred inresponse to making modifications based onthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA;1990): (a) An institution makes permanentchanges by renovating a building space orroom to accommodate a student, or (b) aninstitution makes temporary adaptations toan existing space without expensiverenovation. Regardless of the response tocreating an environment that meets the letteror spirit of the law to allow a student toutilize a facility, a residence hall need notlook like it is designed for specific types ofusers. When applying Universal Designprinciples, planners are encouraged to startsmall and simple, and consider what issuesare related to the look, cost, safety, genderand cultural appropriateness. Typically, it is


much easier to accommodate the uniqueneeds of a student with a disability in anewly constructed residence hall than in anexisting building; however, both facilitiesneed some time and attention and should be“developed in a sensitive and sensiblemanner” (Rydeen, 1999, p. 56). The idea ofrenovating space for an individual specificstudent presents unique challenges forhousing professionals. For manypractitioners, the daily demands of their rolecan serve to limit their proactive response inmaking specific accommodation changes intheir buildings. Housing professionals mayonly react to the requests that they receiveand only respond based on the need.

When considering the universal design ofa space for all people with different abilities,housing personnel should address severaldifferent levels of design. Although it isn’talways possible to think of everything whenconsidering these issues, it is important tokeep some basic ideas in mind. In addition,consulting current students with disabilitiesto assist in creating this environment wouldbe an asset and a way to truly conceptualizesome of the needs that might not occur to anable-bodied person. It is easy to makeassumptions based on typical lifeexperiences and to overlook some obviousand easy ways to make changes in theoverall residence hall building. “Today’sarchitects address the life cycle of buildings.It is time that they began to address the lifecycle of people as well. Universal design is

considerate of the human lifespan and thecontinuum of abilities of all individuals”(Mace, 1990, p.2).

Architectural Suggestionsfor Universal Design

There are a number of common issuesrelated to moving through open spaces,including hallways, entrance ways, and openspace areas. The following suggestions areoffered to address possible obstacles relatedto moving through open spaces in hope ofenhancing Universal Design in residencehalls.

Moving Through Open Spaces

1. Avoid creating areas that are so smallthat persons cannot move back and forthwith ease.

2. Provide a full-length side light at entrydoor.

3. Ensure space utilization is orderly anddefined.

4. Install appropriate directional signs foruse of space or services.

5. Assist students with visualimpairments by using specific color schemesand providing Braille information.

6. Eliminate any sharp projecting objectsfrom wall space.


220

7. Place any decorative benches, plants,or furniture in areas other than the maincirculation routes.

8. Be sure doors have adequate width forconnecting hallways to common areas and toensure easy traffic patterns (consultarchitectural guidelines for requireddimensions).

9. Provide open access in and out of thebuilding via curb cuts, inclines, and rampsthat are easily maneuvered.

10. Place accessible water fountains,telephones, and other service machines (e.g.,vending, automated teller machine [ATM])at heights that enable easy access.

Residence Hall Doors

Entry into student space and any othercommon area space must have lever handlesand lighting above doorways. Automaticdoors and delayed action door closer devicesease access for all students.

Bathrooms

There should be at least one, andpreferably two accessible bathrooms forstudents on each floor. If renovations areneeded, utilizing a closet or utility space canusually offer additional square footage for auniversal shower stall and bathroom space.Guidelines for accessible bathroomsinclude: (a) slightly more square footage

than a conventional bathroom, allowing forfull mobility of a wheelchair; (b) fixturesprovided at appropriate heights; (c) grabbars on shower or tub walls; (d) faucets forshowers and tubs located at appropriateheights and close to the outside rim, makingthem easy for anyone to reach; (e) showerstall large enough for wheelchairs, (f) fulllength mirror, and (g) adjustable heightshowerheads.

Bedroom areas

Residence hall bedroom areas are theactual rooms where students sleep, study,socialize and spend a large portion of theirtime. Ideally, the space provides studentswith many options for creating acomfortable and easy to use environment fortheir clothes, books, computer, bed, anypermissible appliances, and other items suchas personal hygiene items, cleaning items,laundry, and trash. Beyond comfort andease, these spaces must also provide safetyfeatures.

Suggestions for bedroom areas include:(a) notched mounting blocks to allow forcloset rods to be lowered or raised,accommodating students of all heights, (b)light switches and electrical receptacleslocated at a height that is reachable forpersons at different heights, (c) widerpassageways from hallways leading intobedrooms, (d) moveable furniture that canbe removed or changed to accommodate any


specific furniture need, (e) desks and chairsthat can be raised or lowered, (f) sinks inrooms that are lowered to accommodatestudents in wheelchairs but also accessibleto students of all heights, (g) audio-visualfire alarm boxes, and (h) flexible lightingoptions for desk areas and overhead roomlights.

Kitchen Areas

Accessibility considerations are criticalfor students who want to use the residencehall kitchen. Suggestions to improve accessto kitchen areas for all residents include: (a)single-lever controls on kitchen faucets tofacilitate easy operation and adjustments ofwater temperatures and volume, (b) lightswitches and electrical receptacles located ata height that is reachable for persons ofdifferent heights (c) side-by-side refrigeratorin close proximity to the oven and stove, (d)front mounted controls on stove and oven,(e) adjustable height counters and cabinets,and (f) knee space under the sink and cooktop.

Some of the items listed for UniversalDesign architectural changes can be helpfulfor students with both temporary andpermanent disabilities. Universal Designprinciples in housing are also critical forresidence hall entrances, bathrooms, andother common areas like the lounges,academic spaces, recreational areas, andkitchens. This overall approach to making

changes throughout the building will allowall residents to remain in the communityrather than being confined to a specific areain the building.

Universal Programming

Lehmann, Davies, and Laurin (2000)reported that barriers encountered bystudents with disabilities in their studyincluded: (a) lack of understanding ofdisabilities in general on the part of fellowstudents, staff, and faculty; (b) lack ofadequate resources or services to tacklecollege challenges; (c) lack of financialsupport; and (d) lack of self-advocacy skills.Specific programs can be offered in theresidence halls to help educate peers andincrease student understanding aboutdisability related biases and stereotypes.Students with disabilities can be asked tohelp create programs to educate their peersalso. The support of students withdisabilities in offering programs can serve tohelp empower them. Students withdisabilities must be provided with equalopportunities to serve in leadership roles,such as officer and staff positions. Inclusionand involvement can offer students a voicefor sharing with their peers as well as staffand faculty. Also associated with this type ofinvitation is the chance for students withdisabilities living in a residence hall to beable to learn new skills in advocating forthemselves and taking a leadership role


222

within the campus community. By starting atthe level of their residential community,students can gain confidence in themselvesand their ability to confront attitudes oractions that occur throughout their collegecareer on campus or in society as a whole.

Residence hall staff are required to offerdiversity training programs on mostcampuses and their efforts should expandbeyond issues of race, ethnicity, and sexualorientation to include educational programson both visible and invisible disabilities.Vander Patten (1993) found thatparaprofessionals in residence halls caneffectively model favorable attitudes towardcollege students with learning disabilitiesand can facilitate development of theseattitudes among students on their floors andin their buildings.

Another aspect of Universal Designprogramming involves the inclusion of allpersons in programs that are offered in theresidence halls. For example, if a programon a floor is announced through a poster orwritten flyer advertising the date, time, andplace for the activity, how can a person whois visually impaired know about the event?Ideally, staff would leave an auditorymessage on the student’s answeringmachine, talk to the student personally, or ifappropriate prepare the flyer in Braille andput it in the student’s mailbox. However, amore universal approach might be toannounce the program to all students via

e-mail, especially on campuses that havedesignated e-mail as their official means ofcommunication with students. Students withvisual impairments can easily access e-mailwith the use of assistive technology.

Careful program planning also involvesidentifying a location for events wherestudents of all abilities can feel included. Ifthe residence hall common space is a roomthat has only steps leading to it, and no rampor elevator for access, it would be wise for astaff member to avoid using this location sothat all students can attend the event. TheADA requires programs to move beyond theobvious needs of the mobility impaired andbegin to address the highly individualizedneeds of the entire population of studentswith disabilities. Advertising the residencehall’s intent to provide access allowshousing staff to plan specific programs thatwill allow all students to participate in aprogram. Suggestions that may assist inmaking a program accessible are:

1. Include a general access statement inall publications and announcements. Thislets students with disabilities know they arewelcome and that they can contact a personplanning the event to make specific requests.

2. Offer printed material in alternateforms. Taped versions, large print, Braillecopies, and electronic media make visuallyoriented material available to people withvision impairments.


3. Communicate the availability ofassistive listening devices for peopleattending programs.

4. Advertise that a sign languageinterpreter is available upon request.

5. Relocate programs that arearchitecturally inaccessible.

6. Secure accessible transportation forprograms that require off-campus activitiesor programs in other areas beyond theresidence hall.

Even if staff do not see themselves ashaving social barriers or discriminatoryattitudes towards students with disabilities,social distance, avoidance, and lack offoresight in planning can lead students withdisabilities to perceive barriers from them(Denny & Carson, 1994). Subtle symbolssuch as providing alternative forms of anewsletter or including sign languageinterpreters for an event to be sure studentswith hearing loss can attend will reveal tostudents that the office of residence life trulyregards and recognizes each individual. Itmay take more effort and more time to beinclusive, but the messages sent to studentswith disabilities will factor into their overallsatisfaction with the campus environment.

Staff Development Issues

In creating residence halls that followUniversal Design principles, the

development and training of studentparaprofessional staff living with studentson the halls, as well as professional staff, iscrucial to the success of this concept. Thephilosophical aspect as well as the physicalsigns of change in the environment willdetermine how the atmosphere will impactall students in the development ofcommunity.

To fully understand and actualize theUniversal Design concept in the residentialliving environment, staff should becomeknowledgeable about Universal Design.Staff, especially student staff workingdirectly with students on the floor, need tobe educated about Universal Designprinciples and implementation. Ideally, afterthey gain this knowledge, they will developpositive attitudes that promote sensitive andproactive responses to a built environmentthat meets all students’ needs. The sevenestablished Universal Design principles thatthe Center for Universal Design at NorthCarolina State University established canguide the design process and help in theevaluation of design work (Story, 1998). Theprinciples are (a) equitable use, (b)flexibility of use, (c) simple and intuitiveuse, (d) perceptible information, (e)tolerance of error, (f) low physical error and(g) size and space for approach and use. Byusing these principles to train and teachstaff, residence life personnel can begin tosupport the goals for offering this type ofenvironment.


224

Students with disabilities, like othersubpopulations on college campuses, mayexperience prejudice, discrimination, andeven neglect in some cases when attemptingto obtain an education in a postsecondarysetting. Staff may get questions fromstudents on a floor about a student’sdisability. The more that is offered to helpstaff recognize and embrace students asindividuals, the more staff can offer inresponding to fellow students. “Reduction ofattitudinal barriers becomes more possiblewhen physical barriers in the environmentare removed” (Chang, Tremblay, & Dunbar,2000, p. 154). If the residence hall has thephysical indications of change to suitindividual students on a floor, discussionsmay occur with staff and other students onwhy this change and this design has becomea component of their living environment.The teachable moments or passive learningthat staff as well as students experience mayhelp them recognize the value and positiveaspect of these changes. This type ofintervention is critical to the overall successof this design approach.

Helping student staff develop a personalawareness of the environmental needs ofstudents with disabilities can add to theiroverall understanding of design changes.Simulated programs that have studentsexperience the use of a wheelchair, crutches,canes, darkened glasses, or other temporarydisability can add significance to the

understanding of accessibility needs forstudents with disabilities. Caution should betaken to advise students that because theyare “pretending” to have a disability for anexperience during training; they should nottake on any superior knowledge in respect toanother student’s experience. Even thoughyou might be in a wheelchair and gain someinsight about the challenges that a studentmay face, the fact that you as an able-bodiedstudent can get up and walk away from thechair separates you from the real day-to-daylife of a person who utilizes a wheelchair.This factor requires discussion and mayeven be strengthened by inviting studentswith disabilities to assist with the actualstudent staff training.

The ultimate goal in involving staff withknowledge and attitudes that mirror theoverall Universal Design concepts would beto have them engage in recognizing new andcreative ways to improve the actualenvironment in which they work as residentassistants, graduate residents, or hall orcomplex coordinators. Staff members setexamples for others students in the livingenvironment and typically serve as rolemodels. Ideally, students will gain aperspective in their residence that wouldextend to the rest of the campus, thusmaking the overall attitude towards thecreation of a universal environment acommon and expected part of life. “Therewill be direct benefits of increased


convenience, accessibility, and sociabilityfor [all] people… “ (Stone, 1998, p. 12). Theprevailing attitude the Universal Designphilosophy would provide is that functionalchallenges are simply part of the norm on acollege campus.

Housing and the Law

Discrimination has been a major barrierto access for persons with disabilities andothers seeking to obtain adequate housing insociety. In an effort to eliminatediscrimination and to support the right ofpeople with disabilities to live in thecommunity of their choice, Congressenacted the Fair Housing Amendments Actof 1988. Congress added some specialprovisions to the Fair Housing Act to protectpersons with disabilities and families withchildren (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,1994). It was intended to strengthen andenforce Fair Housing requirements and toextend civil rights protections for personswith disabilities. This Act covers mosthousing, but in some circumstances housingoperated by private clubs, organizations, orinstitutions that limit occupancy to memberscan be exempt. Institutions of highereducation should be responsive to thestandards set by the Act.

The Act provides that modifications to aresidential hall space for a student with adisability cannot be at the expense of thestudent. In addition, no institution can refuse

to make reasonable accommodations inrules, policies, practices, or services ifnecessary for a student with a disability. Forexample, “no pets” policies must allowstudents with a visual impairments to keep aguide dog in their residence hall space.There are specific legal guidelines foraccessibility features for new buildings after1991 that have an elevator and four or moreunits. Following the architecturalsuggestions for Universal Design listedpreviously in this chapter will assistuniversity personnel in complying withfederal regulations.

Two other legislative statutes that impacthousing professionals in relation to studentswith disabilities are the ADA and Section504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.Federal and state statutes constitute therelationship defining the rights andresponsibilities of students and theirinstitutions. Section 504 contains housing-specific requirements. Housing “shall beavailable in sufficient quantity and varietyso that scope of handicapped students’choice of living accommodations is, as awhole, comparable to that of non-handicapped students” (84.45[a]). The ADAexpands the rights granted under Section504 and applies to both public and privateinstitutions (Kalivoda & Higbee, 1989).Discrimination in public accommodationsincludes a failure to remove architectural orcommunication barriers unless the removal


226

is not readily achievable. The criteria forevaluating whether the removal is readilyachievable include the cost, the financialresources available to the facility, resourcesavailable to the entity, and the type ofoperation. Primarily, the law provides forthe goods, services, and accommodations tobe provided in the most inclusive way to fitthe needs of the individual (Winston &Anchors, 1993).

The Ideal Residence Hall

What would the type of hall described inthis chapter look like? How would studentswith visual impairments feel when enteringtheir assigned building, or how wouldstudents in wheelchairs make their wayaround their building? Let’s look at an idealday in the life of any new student enteringUniversity XYZ. Many of the featuresdiscussed go beyond the legal requirementfor a postsecondary educational institution;however, for residential living professionalswho embrace Universal Design policies, thesuggestions made are intended to providesome thought-provoking design ideas.

If all things were possible within aspecific residence hall, a resident assistant(RA) would greet students on opening day atthe side curb, complete with curb cutsappropriate for access and for allowingitems to be unloaded onto hand cranks andcarts for moving items to their rooms. A fewvolunteer student helpers would be available

for the unloading process also. Studentswould have received a time in theirassignment letter when they were asked toarrive so that traffic jams and chaos could beminimized. Upon getting things removedfrom their cars, they would go to the parkingareas adjacent to the buildings and park, orto the parking decks where accessible buseswould be driving back and forth to thespecific residential halls. Refreshments,including water, would be available in thelobbies of all buildings.

The entry way to each building would beflat, with no steps leading up to the building,and the doors would be wide andelectronically operated to open when aperson approached. On opening day, thedoors would be propped open for easy entryand the hallways and lobby would be clearof debris. Student staff would be available toanswer questions, serve cold drinks, andwalk parents and students around to specificservice areas within the buildings.

All bathrooms would have wideentryways for access and at least one sinklower and one restroom stall large enoughfor a wheelchair or scooter, with grab barsinstalled at functional heights. At least oneshower stall would be equipped withaccessible shower controls, a shower chairor bench, and grab bars, and have plenty ofspace for maneuverability. All signagewould also be in Braille and posted at


accessible height. The alarm system wouldinclude both strobe and sound alarms. Thewater fountains, vending machines, andtelephones throughout the building would beat different levels for access, at least two ofeach side-by-side to offer varying heights.

A student entering the building would beable to hear instructions on locations ofspecific services or see instructions throughappropriate signage. The actual residencehall rooms would have outlets and lightswitches at varied heights. Closet rods inclothes areas would be adjustable and desks,chairs, and beds would be moveable andable to be raised, lowered, or removed ifnecessary. Lighting would be offered on adimmer switch for students’ specific needsin providing overhead light beyond what isavailable via desk lamps. All doorknobsthroughout the building would be leverhandles facilitating use by people withmobility and dexterity impairments.Elevators would be available in all buildingsof more than one story.

Materials that would improve acousticconsiderations such as carpeting, furniture,and upholstery type, and curtains would beadded to assist in absorbing noisethroughout the facility. In addition,hallways would be wide and well lit forsafety and ease of moving through thefacility. All common areas would have openknee spaces under counters, sinks, and

desks. RAs and other staff throughout thebuilding would be representative of theoverall population of students at theinstitution and barriers of exclusion wouldbe removed to offer all students of allabilities the chance to get fully involved inresidence hall life.

During the evening of the first day,students would be invited to participate in awelcome activity at which all staff would bepresent and access to the event would beavailable for all students, regardless ofabilities. Interpreters would be present;assistive listening devices and enlarged printand Braille copies of any material handedout would be provided. The program wouldbe planned for the different abilities of allstudents living in the hall.

Conclusion

Returning to the story of the mother whocalled regarding her daughter’saccommodations, the overall barrier-freedesign of Universal Design would offer theresidence life program buildings thatnormalize living space for all students.“Instead of creating ‘special places’accommodating ‘special’ individuals”(Stone, 1998, p. 16), residence halls wouldbe built or renovated for students withvarying needs. This concept makes commonsense and helps provide residentialcommunities that are conducive to inclusion.The simple and practical mode of building


228

spaces that are light, spacious, minimallycluttered, and attractive for students doesnot need to result in extra cost or create“separateness” for a student with a disabilitywho is entering the institution. UtilizingUniversal Design principles also eliminatesthe possible embarrassment of theprofessional who is unprepared to respondin a personal and regarding way to a parentor student asking about the facilities.Universal Design promises to remove the“stigmatizing burden none of us need tocarry” (Stone, 1998, p. 14).

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West 1993).

Blamires, M. (1999). Universal Design forlearning: Re-establishing differentiationas part of the inclusion agenda? Supportfor Learning, 14 (4), 158-163.

Chang, B. V., Tremblay, K. R., & Dunbar, B.H. (2000). An experiential approach toteaching Universal Design. Education,121 (1), 153-158.

Denny, G. S., & Carson, E. K. (1994).Perceptions of campus climate forstudents with disabilities. Fayetteville,AR: Arkansas University (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED 380 929)

Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1998, 42U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. (2001,July 6) U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development [On-line].Available: http://www.hud.gov/fhe/fheact.html

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1989).Students with disabilities in highereducation: Redefining access. Journal ofEducational Opportunity, 4 (1) 14-21.

Lehmann, J. P., Davies, T. G., & Laurin, K.M. (2000). Listening to student voicesabout postsecondary education.Teaching Exceptional Children, 32 (5),60-65.

Lusher, R. H., & Mace, R. I. (1989). Designfor physical and mental disabilities. In J.A. Wilkes & R. T. Packard (Eds.),Encyclopedia of architecture (pp.748-763). New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Mace, R. (1990). Definitions: Accessible,adaptable, and Universal Design.[On-line]. Available: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/pubs/center/fact_sheets/housdef.htm The Center forUniversal Design, North Carolina StateUniversity.


McGuinness, K. (1997). Beyond the basics.American School & University, 69 (11),39-41.

Ratzka, A. (1994, June). Cost-benefits ofuniversal building design. Paperpresented at the International Congresson Accessibility, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Rydeen, J. E. (1999). Universal Design.American School & University, 71 (9),56-59.


Stone, K. (1998). Practical, beautiful,humane. Inside MS, 16 (3), 12-17.

Story, M. F. (1998). Maximizing usability:The principles of Universal Design.Assistive Technology, 10 (1), 4-12.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college:Rethinking the causes and cures ofstudent attrition. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1994).The Fair Housing Amendments Act of1988: The enforcement report.Washington, DC: Author.

Vander Patton, J. J. (1993). Residence hallstudents’ attitudes toward residentassistants with learning disabilities.Journal of Postsecondary Educationand Disability, 10 (2), 21-2.

Winston, R. B., Anchors, S., & Associates.(1993). Student housing and residentiallife. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


230


Implementing Universal Designin Learning CentersJeanne L. HigbeeUniversity of Minnesota

Shevawn B. EatonNorthern Illinois University

This chapter defines the mission, functions, and goals of college and university learning centers and then describeshow the implementation of Universal Design facilitates the achievement of these goals for all students. Theauthors also address testing services commonly provided by learning centers for students with disabilities. Thechapter concludes with a discussion of physical accessibility issues.

The primary mission of everypostsecondary institution is to educatestudents effectively. Early in the

history of American higher education, itbecame clear that effective learning alsomeant developing support services to meetthe academic needs of students (Enright,1994). College and university learningcenters have become home to a wide varietyof services that enhance learning among allstudents at the institution. In addition,learning centers often play a role in thedelivery of services for students who requiredevelopmental support, includingunderprepared students and students withdisabilities.

Mission, Functions, and Goals

The development of the learning centeron any given campus is grounded in thehistory and mission of that institution. Whena college or university provides access forstudents who have developmental needs,retention of those students often requiresprogrammatic support beyond thecurriculum. However, whether openadmissions or highly selective, institutionshave an obligation to engage in activitiesthat promote the intellectual development ofall students. Levels of student preparednessare always relative; at any given institutionthere will be students who are more talented

CHAPTER 17Universal Design in Learning Centers

232

in some disciplines than in others, andstudents who have developed skills andhabits that are more conducive to learningthan others. The nature of the supportneeded, the funding available, and thepolitical position of the institution allcontribute to decision-making regardinglearning center functions.

Changing demographics have alsoinfluenced the nature of academic supportsprovided in postsecondary education. AfterWorld War II, for example, the GI Billenabled many veterans to go to college. Alarge number of these students were notadequately prepared for the rigors of collegework. As a result, learning assistanceprograms and learning centers becameinstitutionalized to support veterans in theiracademic pursuits (Johnson & Carpenter,2000; Martha Maxwell, 2000). Similarly, inthe 1960s the initiation of manyaccess-oriented programs, such as financialaid, brought another wave of diversestudents to college for the first time.Meanwhile, the changing face of the workplace required more adults to return toschool following gaps in their education.The resulting diversity in skills andexperiences created an explosion of learningcenters and support services designed tomeet the broad range of academic needs ofstudents. Based on that historical change inhigher education, a majority of learningcenters evolved during the 1970s (Devirian

et al., 1975; Enright, 1994). The emergenceof learning centers has been reflective of thechanges in diversity and access on a campus.

Often the origin of a center defines itsfunction, at least initially. Prager (1991)cites three models that guide most centers:(a) those that emerged from the disciplines,such as math labs and writing centers; (b)those that grew as extensions of the library;and (c) those that were created as “stand-alone” programs, with no or limitedconnections to other institutional functions.Centers can provide a wide range ofactivities that include assessment;counseling-based services; academicassistance in mathematics, writing, reading,and the development of learning skills andstrategies; and technological support. Inaddition to traditional models such as peerand professional tutoring, service deliverysystems can include programs likeSupplemental Instruction (SI) andVideo-based Supplemental Instruction(Arendale, 1998; Peled & Kim, 1995) andpaired, linked, or adjunct courses (Blinn &Sisco, 1996; Bullock, Madden, & Harter,1987; Dimon, 1981; Resnick, 1993) thatattach instruction in strategies such as notetaking and preparing for exams to coursesconsidered “high risk” (i.e., with lowretention rates or high failure rates). Manylearning centers provide services such asworkshops on topics like time managementand test anxiety, computer tutorials in


subjects like mathematics and foreignlanguages, or the opportunity to participatein learning communities or collaborativestudy groups. Finally, centers may be thehome to developmental or basic skillscurricula.

Services may be provided in person, on-line (Johnson & Carpenter, 2000), or viavideotape or cable-access television(Thomas & Higbee, 1998). Learning centerswere initially born to meet the needs ofstudents who have the capacity to succeedacademically, but for a variety of reasonsmay require additional resources or differentapproaches to learning. For this reason,centers often have become the place oncampus to experiment and utilizenontraditional or cutting edge deliverysystems to assist students, looking totechnology and instructional innovations toprovide complementary ways to enhancelearning (Foelsche, 1999).

Goals for learning centers may includepromoting academic success, enhancingstudent learning, improving retention andgraduation rates, and providing services forstudents with disabilities (Kay & Sullivan,1978; Prager, 1991). Some learning centersare designed to support all students, andsome are targeted to meet the specific needsof particular populations. Students withdisabilities have long been considered oneof the primary target groups for learningcenters (Casazza & Silverman, 1996). Some

centers evolved initially to provide exclusiveservices to this population (Enright, 1994).It is imperative for all learning centeradministrators to maintain sensitivity andopenness to universal support for students.Students with hidden disabilities may cometo the center to seek help, sometimeswithout sharing information about theirparticular disability or needs (Eaton &Wyland, 1996). Planning for such situationswill help maintain the confidentiality of thestudent and create a center that is trulyaccessible to all students. Universal Design(UD) provides a means by which thecurriculum and educational tasks can beadapted and mastered more effectively by allstudents, particularly those with undisclosedinvisible disabilities, whose learning needsmight otherwise not be met.

The philosophy of UniversalInstructional Design (UID) is to designcurricula in such a way so thataccommodation is built into the program. Inthe learning center, materials and deliverysystems can also include Universal Designguidelines and assumptions. The myriadprograms and services that may be madeavailable by learning centers demonstrateUniversal Design because they providemultiple means of facilitating the acquisitionof knowledge. However, they also representnumerous challenges for planning andimplementation in a manner that isaccessible to all students.


234

Services for All Students

It is not difficult to adapt some of theindividualized services provided by learningcenters for students with virtually anydisability. One-to-one tutoring, for example,may require arranging for a sign languageinterpreter or real time captioning for astudent with a hearing impairment, but iftutoring appointments are scheduled inadvance for all students, making thesearrangements should not pose overwhelmingobstacles. Similarly, computer-assistedtutorials may require the provision ofassistive technology, but it is necessary toequip some computer stations in everylearning center with the technology to makeall programs and services accessible to anystudent. If students are able to sign up forcomputer time in advance, students withdisabilities will not have to wait for acomputer terminal. On the other hand, it isimportant to note that providing assistivetechnology does not guarantee accessibility.For example, a screen reader will readacross lines of columns in a table, ratherthan down the column. The final section ofthis book provides further information oncreating accessible tables. When possible,computer tutorials and other programs canbe placed on the server, providingaccessibility to all students, whetherworking within the learning center or from adistance.

As indicated in the next section of thisbook, the implementation of UniversalInstructional Design, whether within theclassroom curriculum or in learning centerprograms like workshops, SupplementalInstruction, and paired, linked, or adjunctcourses, will also require advance planning.Workshop facilitators, SI leaders, andinstructors must consider how to include alllearners by presenting information in avariety of ways. For example, materialprovided on overhead transparencies or viapower point slides should also be presentedorally, provided on handouts in both regularsize and enlarged print, and made availableon disks or to download from a web site.Workshops, SI sessions, and courses can bevideotaped so that students can view thetapes in the learning center, check them outto view at home, or if possible, watch onpublic cable access television. Videotapesshould include closed captioning.

Video services can be beneficial for allstudents who work, have familyresponsibilities that make it difficult toattend at the times that programs andservices are made available, or are not ableto attend due to illness. In addition,providing courses, SI lessons, or tutorialsessions on tape and TV through thelearning center can make it possible forstudents who have disabilities like asthma orcystic fibrosis, or require surgery during theacademic term, to maintain their academic


responsibilities (Thomas & Higbee, 1998).Many students also benefit from being ableto pause or stop videotaped lectures in orderto take more accurate notes or to ensure thatthey really understand the material.

On-line services can also benefit allstudents. However, for some students withdisabilities, synchronous discussions canbecome exclusive rather than inclusive. Justas in collaborative study sessions occurringin the learning center it may be necessary toallow time for “translation” so that studentswith auditory impairments can participatefully when assisted by a sign languageinterpreter or real time captioninginterpreter, synchronous on-line chats candisadvantage some students with visualimpairments, mobility impairments, andreading-oriented learning disabilities, toname a few. These factors must be takeninto consideration when creating on-lineprograms and services. Thinking inclusivelyin the planning stages makes all servicesmore accessible to all students.

All web information for students,including learning center information sitesas well as other on-line programmaticfunctions, must be given carefulconsideration for accessibility. Often,visually attractive or high tech websites canbe problematic for students with disabilities.Therefore, it is important that websites bemade with minimal graphic additions, or

offer a “text only” version of the site thatcan be downloaded or modified for studentswith visual impairments. Bobby Worldwide,for example, provides guidelines andevaluative tools for the accessibility ofwebsites (Center for Applied SpecialTechnology, 1999). Text versions of sitesalso provide an excellent way of developingsimple handouts for all students to use.

Finally, learning center administrators,expecting that students with disabilities willcome to the center, need to offer training andincrease sensitivity of staff throughprofessional development activities. Whenlearning center administrators anticipateneeds early, staff can be prepared to changedelivery systems or to direct students todifferent resources for assistance.

Disability Services HousedWithin Learning Centers

Some learning centers provide servicesspecifically for students with disabilities,while others physically house theinstitution’s disability services for students.Under the latter model, especially on smallercampuses, the learning center may be theonly location that provides computers withassistive technology. In this situation,students with disabilities may be lesssegregated than on campuses with separatefacilities for disability services. However,especially at larger institutions, if assistive


236

technology is not made available incomputer labs throughout the campus, it isimperative that the learning center becentrally located and make the samehardware and software provided aroundcampus accessible to all students. It is notappropriate, for example, for a student witha disability to be required to completestatistics assignments in the learning centerwhen all other students are doing theassignment in the statistics lab.

Testing Services

On some campuses the learning center isthe site designated for proctoring tests whenextended time or other modifications areindicated as part of a student’sindividualized plan for accommodation.Students with Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder, learning disabilities,acquired brain injuries, or somepsychological disabilities may require aprivate testing room in order to reducedistractions. Students with anxiety disordersmay require a testing environment thateliminates sources of stress, such as otherstudents leaving when they finish early.

It would be wonderful to be able toprovide extended time and a more conducivetesting environment for all students whocould benefit, including students who do nothave a documented disability but do sufferfrom test anxiety. In many classrooms, timelimits are placed on quizzes and tests

because of the length of standard classperiods, not because the time factor is anessential component of performance of thetask. The ability of learning centers toprovide testing with extended time for allstudents depends on the availability of spaceand staff.

Learning centers may also provide othertypes of testing services for students withdisabilities, such as reading a test aloud for astudent with a vision impairment, ortranscribing audio taped oral responses for astudent with a mobility impairment. Or thelearning center might provide assistivetechnology such as a screen reader or voicerecognition software to enable students withdisabilities to “read” or to respond orally toexams. At the present time the cost of thissoftware makes it prohibitive to expectlearning centers to provide thesetechnologies for all students. But as furthertechnological advances occur, and costsdiminish, it is not unreasonable to anticipatethat learning centers will be able to makemore choices for demonstrating knowledgeavailable to all students if faculty membersare willing to be flexible in their approaches.New forms of technology may make it easierfor faculty to test the use of higher orderthinking skills among students.

Physical Accessibility

Innovations in computer technology, asdiscussed in the final section of this book,


address many issues of accessibility forstudents with disabilities who want to makefull use of learning centers. Otherconsiderations include how spaces aredesigned, flexibility in furniturearrangements, and adjustable workstations.

Welcoming Reception Areas

Reception areas should be easilyaccessible and welcoming. Receptioncounters should be 28 to 34 inches tall, sothat students seated in wheelchairs haveready access to staff and to printed materialsprovided on the counter. Signage should beprovided in contrasting colors in raised textand Braille at appropriate heights. Trainedpersonnel should be ready to provideinformation about programs, make referrals,schedule appointments, and direct studentsto appropriate services and staff.Descriptions of services, staff directories,and handouts should be available in multipleformats, including large type, Braille, and onaudiotape and computer disk.

Use of Space

Learning centers should include bothindividual and group rooms for tutoring andstudy skills counseling, if provided, as wellas for testing. Entrances, corridors, rooms,pathways, and computer stations must besufficiently large to accommodate wheelchairs and scooters. Adjustable heightworkstations are more comfortable forpeople of various sizes as well as for

students with mobility impairments. Studycarrels provide a level of privacy that can beappreciated by any student. Circular tablesfor study groups facilitate communicationwhile also allowing flexible seatingarrangements.

Lighting

Windows that allow for natural lightingcan make learning spaces more welcomingif other factors are taken into consideration.Installation of windows that filter ultravioletlight will benefit all students, but areparticularly important to students withdisabilities like lupus and students whosuffer from migraine headaches. In additionto providing window blinds to reduce glareon computer screens at different times ofday, computer monitors should be equippedwith glare guard. It is preferable thatoverhead lighting not be fluorescent, butwhen there is no choice, it is important toproperly maintain fixtures and replace bulbsregularly. Flickering bulbs can triggerseizures. Adjustable individual workstation lighting can also be beneficial for allstudents. Task lamps should be equippedwith “soft” or “low light” bulbs.

Regulating Noise

Policies enacted to regulate noise levels(e.g., policies related to use of cell phonesand pagers) benefit all students, not justthose with hearing impairments. In addition,wall, ceiling, and flooring materials should


238

be selected to minimize noise. Study carrelsand partitions should be sound-absorbent.Separate spaces should be created for groupactivities so that the natural flow ofconversation does not disrupt theconcentration of individuals working oncomputer tutorials or studying alone.Implementing these practices to promoteUniversal Design creates a more welcomingand efficient learning environment for allstudents.

Conclusion

With forethought, learning centers are anideal place to implement the principles ofUniversal Design and UniversalInstructional Design. On many campuseslearning centers play a vital role inenhancing student retention. It is imperativethat learning centers be universallyaccessible.

References

Arendale, D. (1998). Increasing efficiencyand effectiveness of learning forfreshman college students throughSupplemental Instruction. In J. L.Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.),Developmental education: Preparingsuccessful college students (pp.185-197). Columbia, SC: NationalResource Center for The First-YearExperience and Students in Transition,University of South Carolina.

Blinn, J., & Sisco, O. (1996). “Linking”developmental reading and biology.National Association for DevelopmentalEducation Selected Conference Papers,2, 8-9.

Center for Applied Special Technology(1999). Bobby worldwide. RetrievedApril 25, 2002, from http://www.cast.org/Bobby/

Bullock, T., Madden, D., & Harter, J.(1987). Paired developmental readingand psychology courses. Research andTeaching in Developmental Education,3(2), 22-29.

Casazza, M., & Silverman, S. (1996).Learning assistance and developmentaleducation: A guide for effectivepractice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Devirian, M. C., et al. (1975). A survey oflearning program centers in U.S.institutions of higher education. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED112349)

Dimon, M. (1981). Why adjunct courseswork. Journal of College Reading andLearning, 21, 33-40. Reprinted in M.Maxwell (Ed.) (1994), From access tosuccess. Clearwater, FL: H&H.


Eaton, S., & Wyland, S. (1996). Collegestudents with Attention Deficit Disorder(ADD): Implications for learningassistance professionals. The LearningAssistance Review, 1(2), 5-22.

Enright, G. (1994). College learning skills:Frontierland origins of the learningassistance center. In M. Maxwell (Ed.),From access to success: A book ofreadings on college developmentaleducation and learning assistanceprograms (pp. 31-40). Clearwater, FL:H&H.

Foelsche, O. K. (1999). Implementation andimplications of digital services inlearning centers. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED450707)

Johnson, L., & Carpenter, K. (2000).College reading programs. In R. F.Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.),Handbook of college reading andlearning (pp. 321-363). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kay, R. S., & Sullivan, L. (1978). Learningcenters: Alternatives to bridging the gapbetween secondary and postsecondaryeducation. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED155574)

Martha Maxwell: An oral history. (2000). InJ. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Themany faces of developmental education(pp. 9-13). Warrensburg, MO: NationalAssociation for DevelopmentalEducation.

Peled, O. N., & Kim, A. C. (1995).Supplemental Instruction in biology atthe college level. National Associationfor Developmental Education SelectedConference Papers, 1, 23-24.

Prager, C. (1991). Learning centers for the1990s. ERIC Digest. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED338295)

Resnick, J. (1993). A paired reading andsociology course. In P. Malinowski(Ed.), Perspectives in practice indevelopmental education (pp. 62-64).Canandaigua, NY: New York CollegeLearning Association.

Stewart, T. C., & Hartman, K. A. (2001).Finding out what the campus needs: Theprocess of redefining a learning center.The Learning Assistance Review, 6 (1),39-49.

Thomas, P. V., & Higbee, J. L. (1998).Teaching mathematics on television:Perks and pitfalls. Academic ExchangeQuarterly, 2(2), 29-33.


240


Universal Design in Counseling CenterService AreasKathleen B. Uzes and Daley O. ConnellyThe University of Georgia

The implementation of the concept of Universal Design in counseling center service areas for students withdisabilities can increase the number and diversity of students served. This in turn supports the mission statementof the counseling center and the institution’s mission. By knowing and understanding the needs of students withdisabilities and incorporating the concept of Universal Design, counseling centers can provide services andaccommodations befitting the ever-increasing diverse populations on college campuses. This chapter will addressincorporating Universal Design into service areas such as outreach programming, consultation, groups, andindividual counseling. Case studies will be provided to demonstrate how students with disabilities can benefitfrom counseling provided by most counseling centers.

Counseling centers on university andcollege campuses have missionstatements that endeavor to support

the personal and professional growth ofstudents. It is the role of counseling centersto support the mission statement of theuniversity or college (Kiracofe et al., 1994)by facilitating the mental health of as manystudents as possible with the resourcesavailable to them. Many counseling centersare multifaceted, offering students directservices, personal, career, and groupcounseling, and broader outreachprogramming and consultation. According toArcher and Cooper (1998), there is a

continuing need to provide counselingfor traditional-age students with“normal” career and developmentalneeds and crises (identitydevelopment, value clarification,sexuality and intimacy, death,relationship endings, parentaldivorce) as well as the need to attendto the special concerns of returningadult students (career and lifechanges, family and relationshipissues, stress, time management).(p. 13)

Many problems and concerns are widelyshared by college students whether they

CHAPTER 18Counseling Center Service Areas

242

have disabilities or not (Cormin & Hackney,1993; Nutter & Ringgenberg, 1993), so thetypes of services already provided bycounseling services on many campuses willenhance the undergraduate experience of allstudents. For example, students withdisabilities seek time-limited individualcounseling services such as therapy, support,or personal development for many of thesame reasons that other students seekcounseling.

Counseling centers are also utilized inproviding consultation and support to thecollege or university community when astudent is in distress and for other campusemergencies. It is no surprise that, given thegreat need for mental health services oncampus and the ever-shrinking resourcesavailable to counseling centers, most centersadhere to different versions of what is calleda “short term model” of counseling. Thismodel allows services to the most students,while students needing years of care arereferred to community resources. It is,therefore, possible that a student who isbeing seen by a therapist in the communitycan also be seen at the counseling center forshort-term career counseling. Likewise,referrals can be made from agencies oncampus to the counseling center for thesame issues outlined by Archer and Cooper(1998). It would be important to have aconsultative relationship with the referringagency. For example, if the disability

services office were the referral source itwould be important in some cases to obtaina release of information so that thecounselor and disability specialist couldwork together in providing the best servicesfor the student. It would also assist bothagencies in keeping abreast of the currentissues, gaining feedback on programs thatare being offered, and looking forproductive means of working together. Inaddition the counseling center can be veryvaluable as a resource to help refer studentswith disabilities who need longer termcounseling that is not provided by thecounseling center.

Accessibility ofCounseling Services

Physical accessibility is one of the mostfundamental components of UniversalDesign. If the counseling center werelocated in an architecturally inaccessiblefacility, then alternative access would needto be provided (Kalivoda & Higbee, 1994).For example, if the counseling center werelocated on the second floor of a buildingwith no elevator and the student seekingcounseling used a wheelchair or was unableto ascend or descend stairs due to a mobilityimpairment, then an alternative accessibleplace to meet the student would be needed.It should be borne in mind that there areindividuals with mobility impairments thatare not obvious. These individuals might


have a prosthetic, be on medications, orhave a chronic illness that leaves themphysically weak. Any alternative meetingplace used to accommodate students withmobility impairments would need to providethe same fundamental environment thatwould be provided for other students. Ifclients were normally met in a quiet one-on-one setting, then a comparable site thatwould ensure the same degree ofconfidentiality would need to be provided.On the other hand, a universally designedcounseling service would be located whereall students have equal access to individualand group counseling spaces.

Along with one-on-one counseling, manycounseling centers also provide groups,outreach programs, and consultation withfaculty and student groups. There arespecific issues when presenting programs orgroups that can potentially arise when theaccessibility needs of the audience are notknown. For example, for workshops held inresidence halls, Greek organizations, or for adrop-in “lunch and learn,” the numberattending the programs or the needs of thoseattending would not necessarily be known inadvance. If the program were planned for atargeted group of students, it would beimportant for the presenter to inquire inadvance if anyone in the targeted audienceneeds accommodations. If the concept ofUniversal Design were alreadyimplemented, then not knowing the audience

needs would not be an issue. All the possibleneeded accommodations would already bein place.

In addition to meeting in an accessiblelocation, in a Universal Design settingcounseling staff would have developedalternative forms of all handouts, thusprepared should an individual who is blindor has a visual impairment decide to attendthe outreach program. Having the handoutsprepared in advance and available in Braille,large print formats, on tape, and on diskwould not only meet the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA 1990) requirements,but would also provide an open andaccepting environment. This allows studentsto feel valued (Schlossberg, Lynch, &Chickering, 1989). Also, small changes inpresentation style will aid people with visualimpairments. For example, when usingvisual aids like overhead transparencies orpower point slides, it would be helpful toreplace the nonspecific “this” and “that”with more specific descriptions of what isbeing discussed, and not to assume thateveryone in the audience is able to read thetext on the screen. This approach willbenefit not only those with a visualimpairment, but also those who are notvisual learners, as well as participants whodo not have a clear view of the screen. Inaddition, for each program a sign languageinterpreter would be provided in the eventthat a student with a hearing impairment


244

would be attending. If the presenter isutilizing a videotape, then the videotapewould be captioned and the television wouldhave captioning capability.

Of course, some of theseaccommodations may be impractical orsimply too costly, such as providing a signlanguage interpreter for all programs,whether needed or not. One alternativewould be to require all participants toregister in advance, and indicate if anyaccommodations are needed, thus allowingthe program to be accessible for all thosewho attend. Another suggestion, particularlyfor counseling workshops or programs to beheld in residence halls or Greek houses, is tohave a contact person who knows the needsof the audience relay any accommodationneeds to the presenter in advance.

The concept of accessible handoutswould also apply to brochures or any otherprint materials that are provided or used bythe counseling facility. In order to promoteprogram access and the option of alternativeformats, all advertisements of services in theform of publications and announcementswould state that these accommodations canbe provided. A contact person and contactinformation should also be provided(Kalivoda & Higbee, 1994) for all programsand services.

Counseling Concerns ofStudents with Disabilities

The following section presents casestudies of students who were referred to thecounseling center by campus agencies (e.g.,disability services, housing), friends, andfaculty. These case studies are examples ofstudents with disabilities who accessedcounseling services to address mental healthissues in the same manner as other students.They illustrate some of the developmentalconcerns of students with disabilities. It isour hope that the case studies will give thereader examples of how the counselingcenter can be of service to help studentswith disabilities deal with psychologicalconcerns.

Case Study One: Loss andAcceptance

A 24-year-old female diagnosed with adisease that caused her to become legallyblind during early adolescence was referredto the counseling center to cope with thereentry to school. She was experiencing agreat deal of anxiety about approaching herprofessors to discuss her needs foraccommodations in the classroom. Much ofher anxiety in these situations had to do withthe anger and grief she was feeling aboutlosing her sight, which was something shehad never been able to verbalize. Byworking on these issues, she was able to


gain more confidence in approaching othersand expressing what she needed in theclassroom situation. Although this issue wasrelated to the individual’s visual impairment,the counselor did not have to be an expert inthe field of blindness. The counselor was notthere to cure or to “fix it all.” Rather, therole of the counselor was to identify thesource of the difficulty and help the studentdevelop effective coping skills to functionmore productively.

Case Study Two: Personal and CareerAdjustment

A young man who started college as atypical freshman was involved in anaccident his second semester in school thatleft him paralyzed from the waist down.After a year in recovery, he returned to theuniversity using a wheelchair for mobility.He was still involved in physical therapy inthe hope that he would one day no longerneed to use a wheelchair. Upon returning toschool many unforeseen issues arose forhim. His relationships with his friends werenow very different. Going out with friendsto restaurants, bars, and sporting events wasno longer the casual event it once was forhim. He now had to deal with transportationand accessibility concerns. He becamedepressed as he compared the reality of hisnew situation to how he once functioned, aswell as the lack of understanding from hisfriends. In working with this student, it was

important to help him through the grievingprocess over the feeling of overwhelmingloss. The counselor also helped the studentbecome more assertive in identifying andaddressing his needs with his friends andfamily. There were also some career issuesinvolved in working with this client. Beforethe accident he was majoring in forestry andwas planning to be a forest ranger. Otheropportunities in the forestry field wereinvestigated to find a good match for him,taking into consideration his interest and hismobility issues.

Case Study Three: InterpersonalRelationships

A thirty-two year old female was referredto the counseling center to work on maritalproblems. She had been diagnosed withsevere carpal tunnel syndrome, whichresulted in surgery that left her with nervedamage to her dominant arm. Due to herlimited manual dexterity, she experienceddifficulty in many areas of her life, such ascaring for her young child, writing, or typingfor any length of time. She was also limitedin her ability to drive her car. Theselimitations resulted in her having to rely onher husband for assistance. The clientreported that her husband expressed a greatdeal of resentment concerning her requestsfor help. This ongoing situation left herfeeling frustrated with his lack of assistancein her day-to-day life, as well as the lack of


246

support for her career aspirations. Herhusband was not willing to take part incouple’s counseling; therefore, she was seenindividually. During the therapeutic processthe client became aware the absence ofsupport had been an issue for her and herhusband even before she experienceddifficulties with her arm. The client made adecision to divorce and terminatedcounseling shortly after her divorce wasfinal.

Case Study Four: BehaviorModification and Values Clarification

A twenty-year-old junior majoring inpsychology was referred to the counselingcenter to explore career issues. The clientreported that he wanted to continue hiseducation in a field of study that wouldenable him to work with people; however,he did not have a specific career objective inmind. He disclosed that he was diagnosedwith Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder at the age of nine and was placedon medication at that time. He had been onand off medication since then and wanted toexplore non-medical options to address thedifficulties with initiative that heexperienced with the Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder. In working with thisclient, certain considerations had to be takeninto account, based on his inability tosustain focus for extended periods of time.He was also able to identify areas that

caused him difficulty, such as his limitedattention span and his impulsive behavior.To accomplish the behavior modification,the client was instructed in self-relaxation,as well as how to anticipate instances thatwould exacerbate his hyperactivity. Careerbatteries were administered with specificemphasis on skills, abilities, and values todetermine the client’s strengths as well as toclarify his values. As a result, a field ofstudy was chosen that would enable him towork with people as well as tap into thestrength of his high energy level. In the end,he chose to pursue a career in working withjuvenile delinquents.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be kept in mindthat the principle of Universal Design isbased on obtaining the most ideal situationin implementing services to as manystudents as possible. With theever-increasing number of students withdisabilities on campus, the implementationof the concepts encompassing UniversalDesign into the counseling center servicearea would help support the counselingcenter in its goals and mission statement.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42U.S.C A. Section 12101 et seq. (West1993).


Archer, J., & Cooper, S. (1998). Counselingand mental health services on campus:A handbook of contemporary practicesand challenges. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cormier, S. L., & Hackney, H. (1993). Theprofessional counselor. A process guideto helping (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmenwith disabilities. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1994).Implementing the Americans withDisabilities Act. The Journal ofHumanistic Education andDevelopment, 32(3), 133-137.

Kiracofe, N. M., Donn, P. A., Grant, C. O.,Podolnick, E. E., Bingham, R. P.,Bolland, H. R., et al. (1994).Accreditation standards for universityand college centers. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 73,38-43.

Nutter, K. J., & Ringgenberg, L. J. (1993).Creating positive outcomes for studentswith disabilities. In S. Kroeger & J.Schuck (Eds.), Responding to disabilityissues in student affairs (pp. 45-58). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., &Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improvinghigher education environments foradults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


248

Resources and Future Directions


Universal Design and TechnologyKaren S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. TottyThe University of Georgia

Developments in technology promise new opportunities for all students both in higher education and theworkplace. It is incumbent upon everyone involved in higher education to assure that programs are accessible toall students. The purpose of this chapter is to acquaint educators with new technology available to accommodatestudents with disabilities, promote equal access and advance the concept of Universal Design.

Since the passage of the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990higher education administrators and

faculty are faced with difficult decisionsregarding how to provide the most efficientand cost-effective access throughout theinstitution (Dustin & Prolan, 1995). At thesame time, the introduction of technologyinto the teaching process has revolutionizedhigher education, opening new avenues forteaching and creating new opportunities forall students. Effective use of new technologyrequires a fundamental rethinking of howinstruction takes place (O’Donnell, 1996).The purpose of this chapter is to offerpractical information about how toincorporate new technologies in the collegeor university classroom, laboratories, andlearning centers. Now that advances in

computer technology have made adaptedcomputer products more efficient, practical,and cost effective, it is reasonable to expectinstitutions to take proactive steps toaccommodate students with disabilities(Wilson, 1992a, 1992b).

Responsibility for providing access to allprograms and activities resides with eachdepartment of a college or university as wellas with the institution as a whole. In order toprovide appropriate computeraccommodations, the faculty and staff mayneed support from other resources oncampus. Although some institutions mayhave a disability resource office with adesignated technology specialist to assistwith disability related computer needs,faculty members bear the responsibility for

CHAPTER 19Technology

252

ensuring that students with disabilities haveequal access to their classes, just as programdirectors are responsible for providing equalaccess to all programs and services undertheir auspices.

Legal Guidelines

The provision of educational auxiliaryaids to students with disabilities is necessaryso that they may enjoy equal educationalopportunity. Auxiliary aids include a widerange of services and devices for ensuringeffective communication. The Departmentof Justice provides a list of examples but itis not meant as an all-inclusive or exhaustivelist of possible or available auxiliary aidsand services. To do so would omit newdevices that become available fromemerging technology.

(1) Auxiliary aids and servicesinclude qualified interpreters,notetakers, transcription services,written materials, telephone handsetamplifiers, assistive listening devices,assistive listening systems, telephonescompatible with hearing aids, closedcaption decoders, open and closedcaptioning, TDDs, videotext displaysor other effective means of makingaurally delivered materials availableto individuals with hearingimpairments.

(2) Qualified readers, taped texts,audio recordings, Brailled materials,or other effective methods of makingvisually delivered materials availableto individuals with disabilities.

(3) Acquisition or modification ofequipment or devices and othersimilar services and actions. (Officeof Attorney General, 1991, p. 35717)

The Federal Register (Office of AttorneyGeneral, 1991) also provides guidelines toassist institutions of higher education indetermining necessary auxiliary aids, asfollows:

(A) A public entity shall takeappropriate steps to ensure thatcommunications with applicants,participants, and members of thepublic with disabilities are aseffective as communications withothers.

(B) (1) A public entity shall furnishappropriate auxiliary aids andservices where necessary to afford anindividual with a disability an equalopportunity to participate in, andenjoy the benefits of, a service,program, or activity conducted by apublic entity.


(2) In determining what type ofauxiliary aid and service is necessary,a public entity shall give primaryconsideration to the requests of theindividual with disabilities. (p.35721)

The preceding definition states that equalopportunity must be provided to any“service, program, or activity.” Therefore,auxiliary aids on a college campus are notlimited to the classroom but extend tolearning labs and computer sites, as well asstudent development programs and services.Understanding that access to technology isconsidered an “auxiliary aid” is of greatimportance to avoid litigation, but thisshould not be the driving force for providingstudents with disabilities with an equalopportunity to participate.

Universal Designfor Computer Access

The proliferation of computer labsthroughout institutions of higher learninghas been phenomenal. Many residence halls,student centers, administrative offices,classrooms, learning centers, and librarieshave computer labs of their own (Olsen,2001). The majority of the departmentallyoperated labs have specialized hardware andsoftware pertinent to their instructionalneeds. The use of these specific softwareprograms is integral to many classes and

must be accessible to students withdisabilities. In addition, many programs runoff a departmental server, which makes itnecessary for students to work on programsin the departmental lab. The progress inthese areas results in a system of extensiveand sophisticated computer facilities forstudents. If the growth occurs withoutconsideration of architectural ortechnological accessibility issues, studentswith disabilities will not have equalopportunity to participate. In the past,personnel from disability service officeshave handled the issue of disability access tocomputer labs on a case-by-case basis.Larger institutions of higher learningcommonly have a designated office forstudents with disabilities that offers someadaptive technology (Lance, 1996). Smallerinstitutions may incorporate the servicesinto another office, such as the offices ofstudent or academic affairs. The increasingnumber of students with disabilities as wellas the growing number of campus labsmakes the method of relying solely on theseoffices no longer feasible.

Committee for Computer Access

It is suggested that institutions of higherlearning establish a committee to explorecomputer access for students withdisabilities on their campus. The committeeshould include representatives from thefollowing areas: students with disabilities,disability service providers, faculty, campus


254

computer centers, learning center, andacademic affairs administration. Thecommittee charge should include surveyingall campus computer sites to determine thedegree of accessibility and to makerecommendations on how to improve accessand comply with the requirements for equaleducational opportunity as outlined in theADA. In support of these objectives, thecommittee should identify a list of problems,propose recommendations, and describe theminimum adaptive and assistive devicesrequired to make these labs accessible to allstudents. The committee should alsopropose recommendations for theimplementation and ongoing support of thecomputer facilities with the goals ofcontaining cost, providing a consistentcomputer environment between labs, andproviding continued compliance with theADA as the community with disabilitieschanges and technology advances.

The regulations of the ADA, recentOffice for Civil Rights decisions, and courtcases suggest appropriate assistivetechnologies for campus computer labs(Castorina, 1994; U.S. Department ofEducation, 1998). Rather than providingevery possible assistive technology in eachcomputer lab, it is proposed that allcomputer labs be upgraded to have aminimum standard of accessibility forstudents with disabilities. The minimumstandards will meet most students’ access

needs and demonstrate a good faith effort bythe institution to provide equivalent accessto computer facilities for students withdisabilities. However, additional adaptivetechnology may need to be provided inparticular circumstances.

Policy for Minimum Standards

It is proposed that institutions establish apolicy to require a minimum standard ofaccess compliance in all computer labs oncampus. The technology access standardswill then become fundamental whencreating or upgrading a lab. These standardsare not only for persons with visual andmobility impairments, but are also forpeople with a wide range of disabilities.Many of the adaptations proposed may alsoprove useful to students without disabilities.For example, Dragon Naturally Speaking,which converts speech to text, can beutilized by any student who is better able toexpress ideas orally as opposed to inwriting. Likewise, textHELP! Read & Writeis an advanced grammatical program thancould serve to assist any college studentwith the writing of papers. For the majorityof students with disabilities the minimumstandards will be sufficient to provide equalaccess to computers in the lab. Whenspecialized accommodations beyond theminimum compliance standards are needed,personnel from the disability services officemay provide assistance.


In an effort to ensure equal access to allcomputing facilities on campus, thecommittee may find it helpful to offersuggestions of software, hardware, andperipherals to accommodate students withvisual impairments, cognitive or learningdisorders, psychological disorders, mobilityimpairments and limitations in manualdexterity. Figure 1 illustrates an example ofminimal standards established for computer

labs on college campuses. Descriptions ofhardware and software are provided withinthis chapter. Vendors and costs should beincluded on each campus’s list for ease ofpurchase. However, it should be noted thatprices for technology can change drasticallyover relatively short periods of time, soinformation such as that provided in Table 1is time sensitive.

Figure 1. Proposed Minimal Standards for Campus Computer Labs: Adapted Software and Hardware, and Vendor. Software, Hardware and Peripherals Vendor Budget Estimate* ZoomText (magnification software) AiSquared $400.00 inLARGE (magnification for Mac) Alva Access Group 300.00 JAWS (screen reader software) Arkenstone 800.00 outSPOKEN (screen reader for Mac) Alva Access Group 700.00 Kurzweil 1000 (text to speech) Lernout & Hauspie 1,000.00 Kurzweil 3000 (text to speech) Lernout & Hauspie 2,000.00 Dragon Naturally Speaking (speech to text)

Dragon Systems 200.00

textHELP! Read & Write textHELP Systems Ltd. 125.00 Inspiration K - 12 Inspiration Software, Inc. 75.00 Scanner (use with text to speech software)

Hewlett Parkard/Epson 1,500.00

EZ Magnifier (screen magnifier) EZ-MAG 200.00 Ergonomic Adjustable Workstation Ergonomic Resources,

Inc. 700.00

Mice, Joysticks, Trackballs Logitech 100.00 Alternative Keyboards 250.00 Monitor (21 inch or larger) 750.00 *Budget estimates are listed to provide an overall perspective on the costs of assistive technology. Exact prices may fluctuate considerably over time.


256

Many disability service offices providedepartmental computing facilities withtechnical consultation and specializedtechnologies that are needed beyond theminimum standards. If available, theseoffices can also assist departmental labs ininitial setup, ongoing support, and use of theadaptive and assistive technologies. It is theresponsibility of each computer lab toprovide ample space and a computerworkstation that will accommodate therecommended hardware and softwareadaptations. Although disability servicesoffices will provide recommendations andadvice concerning the upgrade and set up ofvarious adaptive devices, the majorproprietor of the lab will be the primaryagent for the technical support (i.e.,installation and maintenance) of theadaptive hardware and software in the lab. Itis the responsibility of the major labproprietor to ensure that all adaptive devicesare installed and are working properly at alltimes.

Hardware and SoftwareAdaptive Technology

The introduction of computers intohigher education created a unique set ofproblems for some students with disabilities.Developments in adaptive technology,however, have helped to overcome most ofthese access problems. An understanding ofthe issues involved and the resourcesavailable to resolve them is essential for

ensuring equal access to higher educationfor students with disabilities. A list ofhardware and software resources, includingthose discussed in the above minimalstandards, is provided at the end of thischapter. The most common technologysolutions are described below.

Kurzweil

Kurzweil provides software packagesthat scan, read, and write. Available for useon a personal computer, Kurzweil 1000requires a scanner to provide textrecognition and voice synthesis for peoplewho are blind or visually impaired. To useKurzweil 1000, a person places a book ordocument face down on the scanner bed andpresses a scan button. The software readsthe printed material, recognizes the text, andspeaks the contents of the page using humansounding synthetic speech.

Although the Kurzweil 1000 isparticularly useful for students who havevisual impairments, the Kurzweil 3000 mayalso be helpful to students with specificlearning disabilities and other cognitivedisabilities, especially when combined withgraphic interfaces. The Kurzweil 3000 isanother text recognition and voice synthesissoftware package that addresses readingdifficulties such as dyslexia and readingproblems associated with cognitivedisabilities by improving readingcomprehension and providing assistance in


writing. The Kurzweil 3000 is alsobilingual, so it can assist all students in thelearning of foreign languages by ensuringcorrect pronunciation of words.

Screen Reader Software

The primary means of computer accessfor persons who are blind is screen readersoftware. Screen readers, such as JAWS andOutSPOKEN 3.0 on Windows/DOSmachines and OutSPOKEN 9.0 on theMacintosh, translate the screen contents intovoice output. The Macintosh requires onlythe software; Windows/DOS machinesrequire an external or internal voicesynthesizer, such as a DEC-Talk. Somenewer voice synthesis programs utilize asound card, such as SoundBlaster, as thevoice synthesizer. Many Windows machinesnow come equipped with these cards, so anadditional voice synthesizer may beunnecessary. Voice output with the oldcommand line interfaces, such as DOS, wasfairly simple. The situation has becomemuch more complex with the proliferationof graphic user interfaces (GUI), such asthose created for Macintosh and Windows.Users must now maneuver through menubars, icons, and folders. Fortunately, newlydeveloped screen reader software offers amultitude of navigational tools for thevirtual desktop. Screen readers not only givenavigational information but can also readthe contents of windows, such as a wordprocessing document. Key commands allow

the user to go backward and forward in thedocument and speech output allows the useof menus.

Braille Computer Output Devices

One consequence of the increased use ofcomputers is that knowledge and usage ofBraille has declined among young peoplewho are blind. Books on tape or books in adigitized format on a disk that can be readby a screen reader have provided an entirelynew avenue of access to materials. Braillecomputer output devices, such as those fromAlvaAccess, now translate what is on thescreen into a tactile Braille pad, but theeffectiveness of such devices is dependenton the user’s proficiency in Braille.

Screen Enlargement Devices

Persons with low vision can havecomputer access through hardware orsoftware screen enlargement devices. Thesoftware packages, such as ZoomText forWindows/DOS computers and CloseViewfor the Macintosh, enlarge the contents ofthe screen from 2 to 16 times. With bothsoftware and hardware screen enlargement itis advisable to have a larger monitor, aminimum of 17 inches, but preferably 21inches.

Auditory Signals

It has become the norm now forcomputers to give audible signals, such as a


258

beep, for alert messages. Macintosh andWindows can be set up to give a visualsignal, such as a flashing menu bar, alongwith the auditory signal. This innovationmay be particularly helpful for students withhearing impairments.

Dictation and Voice RecognitionSoftware Programs

Students with dexterity impairments,whether they have limited or no hand use,will find dictation software programs useful.A common dictation software program todayis DragonDictate Naturally SpeakingPreferred. Recently companies such asInternational Business Machines (IBM) andKurzweil Educational Systems haveintroduced similar packages. The basicnotion behind dictation software is thatanything entered by keyboard or mouse canbe accomplished via voice input.Navigational aspects of computer use can beachieved by voice command: opening,saving, and closing files; moving around indocuments and applications; and operatingcontrol panels. Text can be entered by voicealone without recourse to a keyboard. Voicerecognition software packages have becomemore sophisticated with the advent ofcontinuous speech recognition and requiremuch less training time to achieve goodvoice recognition. This newly improvedsoftware overcomes the need to useunnatural voice patterns and invites a

broader population of users. De La Paz(1999) supports this alternative mode ofcomposition for students with learningdisabilities and provides suggestions forenhancing successful text production.

Alternative Keyboards

Alternative keyboards, such as the onehanded BAT personal keyboard, provideaccess for students with limited handdexterity. The BAT personal keyboardcomes in a right or left-handed version. Thekeyboard has seven keys and the user learnsspecific chords for each character of thekeyboard. These keyboards require verylittle hand movement and, with a smallamount of training, users can achieve highrates of input. Ergonomically designedkeyboards, such as Maxim AdjustableKeyboards, can be beneficial to all users.

HeadMaster Plus

Students without any hand use can haveaccess to computers by means of devicessuch as the HeadMaster Plus. This device,which is worn on the head, consists of aninfrared sending unit and a receiving unithooked up to the computer. By means of asip and puff tube, the user can move aroundand operate the icons on the computerscreen. Virtual keyboard software, whichputs a keyboard on the computer monitor,will allow the student to type with theHeadMaster Plus.


Personal Digital Assistants

Students who have medical conditionssuch as fibromyalgia, muscular dystrophy,multiple sclerosis, post polio, carpal tunnelsyndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis may notbe able to use the traditional keyboard.Although these disabilities may inhibiteffective use of a keyboard, students maystill be capable of producing a handwrittenscript. Personal digital assistants (PDAs) areminiaturized hand-held computers that allowone to write directly onto the screen with astylus. These devices are equipped withhandwriting recognition software thatconverts the handwritten script to a typedformat. The user can perform typicalcomputer operations with the PDA such as avariety of software applications and e-mail.Students commonly use them in theclassroom setting for taking lecture notesand in computer labs to compose essays andterm papers.

Other Technologies

Assistive Listening Devices

Depending on the classroomenvironment, students with hearingimpairments, cognitive processing deficits,and attention deficit hyperactivity disordermay choose to use an assistive listeningdevice (ALD). The ALD amplifies andtransmits the instructor’s voice to students

anywhere in the lecture hall as if thestudents were situated in close proximity tothe instructor. The ALD reduces interferencefrom environmental noises such as airconditioners, conversation between otherstudents, shuffling of papers, and otherdistracting noises in a typical classroomsetting. Depending on institutional needssuch as size of classroom, number of users,and acoustics, a determination can be maderegarding which type of system would bemost beneficial to the student as well aspractical for the academic setting. The mostcommon types of ALDs are frequencymodulated (FM) systems, which operate onradio frequencies, and infrared systems,which operate on infrared light waves.

The FM system, which is comprised of apocket size transmitter and receiver, is aconvenient and transportable system forcollege students. The instructor wears alapel microphone attached to the amplifier.The amplifier unit can be placed in a pocketor clipped on a belt or waistband. If theinstructor intends to remain in one place, themicrophone can be clipped onto a podium orconnected directly to a sound system.Amplification occurs for the speaker only;therefore, the instructor must repeatquestions and comments from the otherparticipants. The student wears the receivingunit, which functions similarly to a powerfulhearing aid.


260

Real Time Captioning

Real time captioning, often referred to as“text interpreting,” is a recent developmentthat has made lectures and classroomdiscussion accessible to students who havehearing impairments. This development isespecially helpful for deaf students whonever learned sign language (e.g., studentswho have experienced a recent hearing loss)or in situations where there is a shortage ofsign language interpreters. A real timecaptioning apparatus consists of three parts:a computer, a translation and transceiverdevice, such as Rapidtext, and a displaymonitor. This apparatus can be made into aportable system by using a laptop computerand a liquid crystal display panel monitor. Atranscriptionist accompanies the student toclass and types the lecture or classdiscussion, which then appears on themonitor in front of the student. Computer-assisted note taking involves similarequipment and a transcriptionist, who musthave the ability to quickly condense andparaphrase lectures. Both systems haveadvantages and disadvantages and should bechosen based on the individual needs ofstudents.

Prototype speech recognition and textoutput devices under development maysomeday replace the need for atranscriptionist. These devices will take theform of a small hand held computer and willbe able to recognize speech and translate it

into text. Developers predict that several ofthe devices will also have the ability toproduce voice output of text that is enteredinto them by keyboard or stylus. Real timecaptioning and computer-assisted notetaking do not require any extra time or effortfrom that faculty member, and offer analternative to providing lectures on the web.

Document Conversion

The ADA (1990) requires that writtenmaterial be converted into alternativeformats such as audiotape, Braille, ordigitized text. Written materials includetextbooks, lecture handouts, brochures,handbooks, financial aid and admissionforms, and instructional manuals. Documentconversion may require optical characterrecognition software, scanners, four-tracktape recorders and duplicators, Brailleprinters, Braille translation software, andother devices. Although an institution mayhave a central resource office available toprovide this service, each department maybe responsible for converting its writtenmaterials to the requested format. Facultymay not put this responsibility on thestudent with a disability.

Telecommunication Devicesfor the Deaf

Students with communication disordersmay also wish to converse with faculty,staff, and other students over the telephone.


To place telephone calls, students with aspeech or hearing disability commonly use aTelecommunication Device for the Deaf(TDD). The TDD has a keyboard and visualdisplay to assist in the communication. Bothparties must have a TDD unless usingTelecommunication Relay Services (TRS).Further information about this service isavailable in the local telephone book. TRSallows a student using a TDD tocommunicate with people who only haveaccess to a standard voice telephone. Thestudent uses the TDD to call the TRS; thenthe TRS provider communicates thestudent’s message orally to the other personand vice versa. However, direct contact withthe student via a TDD is preferred. TDDsrange in cost from $300 to $700. For manystudents, staff, and faculty members,electronic mail has replaced the TDD.Faculty and staff often communicate with allstudents, not just those with disabilities, viae-mail. On some campuses all students arenow responsible for being cognizant of allinformation communicated via e-mail in thesame way that they have been heldaccountable for knowing the contents of thecollege catalog or student handbook in thepast.

Audiotape Recorders andBooks on Tape

Students with a variety of disabilities usetape recorders. Students with visualdisorders often tape record lectures as an

alternative to taking notes. Taped lecturesare also used by students with variouscognitive or sensory and perceptualdisorders such as acquired brain injuries orattention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Forinstance, students with significant andmeasurable impairments in processing andretaining information, problems with visualmemory, difficulties in rememberingimportant information, or severe attentionproblems often need both visual andauditory methods of learning.

Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic(RFB&D), a national nonprofit organizationbased in Princeton, New Jersey, providesbooks on tape to students. They have anextensive library of prerecorded books andprovide recordings of books or texts uponrequest. These materials are mailed directlyto the student. Complete contact informationfor RFB&D is provided at the end of thischapter.

Cognitive Aids

Other resources available for studentswith acquired brain injuries, attention deficithyperactivity disorder, or other learningdisorders include speller-thesaurus-dictionary devices such as WordSmith v2.0;writing assistants such as Co:Writer 4000;and grammar, punctuation, or style checkerssuch as those included in Microsoft Wordand Corel WordPerfect. Similarly,calculators assist students who have


262

dyscalculia and other learning disabilitiesthat may involve reversing digits or signs,scrambling fractions or exponents, or otherdifficulties in mathematical problemsolving.

The World Wide Web

The World Wide Web (WWW) holds thepromise of transforming curriculum andinstruction. The WWW is particularly proneto inaccessibility, not from intent or malice,but simply due to the lack of awareness onthe part of many web site creators. Web sitedesign requires an understanding of theneeds of students and the best ways toaccommodate them. A thoughtfully designedweb site can bring instructors closer tostudents with disabilities by facilitating theflow of communication without the metaprocesses of taping, Brailling, and signlanguage interpreting. In addition toinformation provided later in this book,Waddell (1998) outlines ADA accessibilityrequirements for web pages and offerspractical suggestions for creating accessiblesites. Additional resources that will assist inmaking web pages accessible are compiledby the federal government and provided inthe resource list at the end of this chapter.

Conclusion

As the participation of students withdisabilities increases, it is anticipated thatfaculty and administrators will encounter

more students with disabilities in theirclasses, learning centers, and computer labs.It is incumbent upon everyone involved inhigher education to assure that technology isaccessible so students with disabilities haveequal opportunity to participate in theacademic venture. The developments intechnology promise new opportunities forall students both in higher education and theworkplace.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West, 1993).

Castorina, C. (1994). Project EASI:Spreading the word about adaptivetechnology. Change, 26(2), 45-47.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing viadictation and speech recognitionsystems: Compensatory technology forstudents with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(3),173-182.

Dustin, R. L., & Prolan, R. (1995). Theperils of ignoring the Disabilities Act.The Chronicle of Higher Education,41(38), B1-B2.

Lance, G. D. (1996). Computer access inhigher education: A national survey ofservice providers for students withdisabilities. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 37(3), 279-288.


Office of the Attorney General, Departmentof Justice (1991, July). Non-discrimination on the basis of disabilityin state and local government services;Final rule. Federal Register, 28 CFRPart 35.

Olsen, F. (2001). Spending on informationtechnology rises 13%, survey finds.Chronicle of Higher Education, 97 (32),A53.

O’Donnell, J. J. (1996). The digitalchallenge. Wilson Quarterly, 20(1),48-49.


U.S. Department of Education, Office forCivil Rights (1998). Auxiliary aids andservices for postsecondary students withdisabilities: Higher education’sobligations under section 504 and TitleII of the ADA. [On-line]. Available:www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/auxaids.html

Waddell, C. D. (1998). Applying the ADA tothe Internet: A web accessibilitystandard [On-line]. Available: http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/weblaw1.html

Wilson, D. L. (1992a). New federalregulations on rights of the handicappedmay force colleges to provide betteraccess to technology. The Chronicle ofHigher Education, 38(21), A1.

Wilson, D. L. (1992b). System allows thedisabled to use computers. TheChronicle of Higher Education, 38(21),A22.


264


Technology Transformation and Disability:Universally Accessible Web TablesBrian ShapiroUniversity of Minnesota

Tables are extremely convenient for organizing data, text, and images on a World Wide Web (WWW) page.However, they can create significant accessibility barriers for persons who are blind and rely on serial assistivedevices such as screen readers to access Web content. This chapter discusses how the efficient and effective designof accessible Web content requires coordination among multiple emerging technologies and activities:governmental and private sector standard setting, Web authoring tools, graphical browsers, screen readers, andaccessibility evaluation tools. It then provides examples to illustrate the principles, accessibility tradeoffs, andimplementation difficulties that shape the design of accessible Web tables.

Accessible course content is acornerstone of UniversalInstructional Design (UID). The

World Wide Web (WWW) can promote UIDobjectives by making course contentaccessible to students from remote locationsaround the clock. Appropriately designedWeb documents employ useful pedagogicaltechniques such as adequate conceptualforegrounding, orientation information,hierarchical layout, and user-controlledhyperlinks to related Web content. To renderWeb content accessible to individuals whoare blind, electronic documents can be

converted to alternative formats such asBraille and synthesized speech. However,Web content can either promote or obstructaccess by individuals with or withoutdisabilities, depending on how the content ispresented, structured, and implemented inhypertext markup language (HTML). Webaccessibility barriers are especially acute forindividuals who are blind or visuallyimpaired, the groups most often excludedfrom Web sites.

This chapter examines how appropriatelydesigned Web tables can remove access

CHAPTER 20Universally Accessible Web Tables

266

barriers for persons who rely on screenreaders (i.e., speech synthesizing software)to access Web content. Tables are extremelyconvenient for organizing data, text, andimages in rows and columns on a Web page.Tables also facilitate configural processing(e.g., the identification of meaningfulpatterns across data rows and columns).However, if tables are not marked properlyin HTML or are not rendered with areasonably sophisticated screen reader,persons who are blind may be unable toaccess and use the table content.Unfortunately, even state-of-the-art Webtechnology and allegedly equivalentalternatives cannot render all Web tablecontent universally accessible for allpurposes. Persistent accessibility barriershave important implications forpostsecondary education and the federallaws that mandate universally accessibleWeb content.

The remainder of this chapter isorganized in three sections. First, itdescribes how the efficient and effectivedesign of accessible Web content requirescoordination among multiple Webtechnologies and activities: authoritativegovernmental and private sectoraccessibility standards, accessible Webauthoring tools, reasonably sophisticatedgraphical browsers and screen readers, andautomated accessibility evaluation tools.Second, it provides examples to illustratethe principles, accessibility tradeoffs, and

implementation difficulties that shape thedesign of accessible Web tables. Third, itprovides a summary and discusses theimplications of persistent accessibilitybarriers for postsecondary education.

Multiple Necessary Conditionsfor Universally Accessible

Web Content

Universal access requires Web content tobe accessible to all people, regardless oftheir disabilities and the devices they use tointeract with Web content. However, Webcontent authors cannot bear fullresponsibility for designing accessible Webpages (Paciello, 2000, p. 6). This sectiondescribes how evolving Web accessibilitystandards, Web authoring tools, user agents,and accessibility evaluation toolscollectively can promote universalaccessibility.

Government Legislation

Widely adopted and competent Webaccessibility standards help define andachieve universal access. Governmentlegislation provides authoritativeaccessibility standards, increases thepublic’s awareness of disability, andmotivates the design of accessible Webcontent. For example, Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protectspeople in federally funded programs fromdiscrimination on the basis of disability.


Under Section 504, colleges and universitiesthat receive federal funds must notdiscriminate in recruitment, admission, ortreatment of students. Section 508, a 1998amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of1973, mandates that electronic andinformation technology be accessible topeople with disabilities. Many Section 508requirements adopt the World Wide WebConsortium’s Web content accessibilityrecommendations and guidelines, discussedbelow. Finally, the Americans withDisabilities Act of 1990 mandates thatexaminations and courses be accessible.

The objectives of achieving reasonableaccommodations and finding equivalentalternatives make it necessary to identifyand prioritize accessibility objectives. Theseissues are discussed next.

Private Sector Standards: The WorldWide Web Consortium

The World Wide Web Consortium(W3C) leads the development ofinternational technical standards for webaccessibility. To help all interested partiesachieve accessible Web content, W3Cpublishes a series of documents to improvethe accessibility of Web content, useragents, authoring tools, and evaluation tools(W3C, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2000e,2000f). The W3C documents providetechnical specifications and guidelines toensure the interoperability of emerging Websoftware and hardware technologies.

Different degrees of accessibility. W3C(2000c, pp. 4-5) assigns each guideline orcheckpoint to one of three priority levels todesignate the likely impact on accessibility,as indicated in Figure 1. Web contentdevelopers must satisfy Priority 1 (i.e.,Essential) checkpoints because otherwiseone or more groups will find it impossible toaccess Web documents. Web contentdevelopers should satisfy Priority 2 (i.e.,Important) checkpoints because otherwiseone or more groups will find it difficult toaccess Web documents. Finally, Web contentdevelopers may address Priority 3 (i.e.,Beneficial) checkpoints because otherwiseone or more groups will find it somewhatdifficult to access Web documents. Byprioritizing the accessibility checkpoints, theW3C enables resource-constrained Webcontent authors to address the mostimportant accessibility barriers first.

Figure 1 gives examples of Table markupguidelines for each priority level. W3C(2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2000e, 2000f)also issued accessibility guidelines for otherWeb content (e.g., frames, forms, layers,style sheets, images, multimedia, andscripts), and for authoring tools and useragents.

Many features that make tabularstructures accessible to several disabilitygroups will also benefit the Web communityas a whole (cf., Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn,1998, pp. 47-48). To promote universal


268

access to web tables, the W3C providesguidelines for both structural andpresentation markup. Structural markuppertains to a table’s logical structure (i.e.,the structure of its row and column headers).Presentation markup pertains to visualformatting, such as text centering and

boldface text. Guidelines 5.1 and 5.2stipulate that structural markup for row andcolumn headers in data tables is essential(i.e., Priority 1), because otherwise personswho use screen readers will be unable toidentify a data cell’s row and columncontext. Missing headers impair some

Figure 1. W3C priority levels and table markup checkpoints. Priority levels1 Consequences of

nonconformance1 Table markup checkpoints1

5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers.

Priority 1 (Essential): A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint.

One or more groups will find it impossible to access Web documents. 5.2 For data tables that have

two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. 5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. If the table does not make sense when linearized, provide an alternative equivalent.

Priority 2 (Important): A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint.

One or more groups will find it difficult to access Web documents.

5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting. 5.5 Provide summaries for tables.

Priority 3 (Beneficial): A Web content developer may address this checkpoint.

One or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access Web documents. 5.6 Provide abbreviations for

header labels. Notes 1. Source: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (November 6, 2000c). Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3C Note, pp. 4-5, 8. Copyright © 2000 World Wide Web Consortium (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University). All rights reserved. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-TECHS-20001106/. Document status: produced and endorsed by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.


groups’ ability to locate a cell in a table’soverall structure, and can make it almostimpossible to identify patterns across rowand column data. To provide visual cues fora table’s hierarchical structure, someauthoring tools automatically format headersas centered and boldface text. To provide thesame visual formatting in layout tables thathave no true headers, Guideline 5.4stipulates that Web authors should directlyformat the text with presentation markuprather than with structural markup. The useof structural markup to achieve only visualformatting in tables that have no real tableheader structure might confuse individualswho rely on screen readers to access tablecontent. However, this confusion probablywould not prevent access entirely, soGuideline 5.4 is considered Priority 2.Finally, table summaries and abbreviationsfor header labels, as specified in Guidelines5.5 and 5.6, are considered only Priority 3(i.e., Beneficial) because they have a lesserimpact on accessibility.

The priority levels provide generalguidelines for deciding which accessibilityfeatures should be addressed first. However,the priority levels do not perfectly predicthow extensively a particular violation wouldimpair access. Accessibility barriers partlydepend on how users interact with thecontent. For example, even though missingcolumn headers are considered to be aPriority 1 (most severe) violation, they

probably would not prevent any users fromaccessing small and structurally simpletables. In contrast, even though a missingtable summary is classified as a Priority 3violation, it might make it very difficult forsome users to understand and navigatethrough large and complex tables.

W3C’s checkpoints, techniques, andpolicies for making Web content accessible.The W3C guidelines provide checkpointsand techniques organized by topic andpriority, and they currently representindustry best practices. The guidelinesexpress three important policy positions onthe design of universally accessible Webcontent. First, the guidelines generally donot discourage Web content developers fromusing any particular media, but ratherexplain how to make the media moreaccessible to a diverse audience. Forexample, the guidelines do not suggest thatWeb content authors should avoid usingtables, but rather explain how to usestructural markup and other techniques tomake tables more accessible (e.g., see W3C,2000c, pp. 8, 19).

Second, some W3C guidelinesrecommend HTML techniques that are notyet fully implemented in user agents (i.e.,graphical browsers and screen readers). Forexample, HTML 4.0 specifies standards fortable markup that can allow appropriatelydesigned user agents to associate a table cell


270

with any subset of its headers. For HTMLexamples of structural markup for tablecolumns and rows, see Paciello (2000, pp.112-118) and W3C (2000e, pp. 16-22;2000f, pp. 16-18). Such table markup isparticularly important for data tables withcomplex structures (i.e., nested column androw headers). However, until user agentsfully implement the most recent tablemarkup techniques, individuals who areblind will have difficulty accessing complexdata tables. Engelen et al. (1997, p. 37)recommend avoiding tables until HTMLtechniques and user agents ensure theiraccessibility, but effective alternativesunfortunately do not exist for many kinds oftabular data.

Third, the W3C recommends that Webcontent authors consider redesigning pagesto make them accessible before resorting toalternative pages. The rationale is thatmaking the original pages more accessible islikely to improve them for all users, andalternative pages tend to be less frequentlyupdated than the original pages.

Authoring tools. W3C (2000a, p. 4)defines “authoring tools” as any tools thatproduce Web content, including tools thattransform non-HTML documents intoHTML documents. Authoring tools createmost Web content, so it is important thatthey produce accessible Web content bydefault, make it easy for Web authors tocreate accessible content, and be accessible

to authors regardless of disability (W3C,2000a, pp. 4-6, 9-10). Authoring tools canhelp prevent, detect, and fix accessibilityproblems if they conform to accessibilitystandards, provide online documentation,and incorporate accessibility checks in theproduct (W3C, 2000a, p. 4). For example,some authoring tools enable authors simplyto check a box in order to insert appropriateHTML table markup for row and columnheaders. To be most effective, authoringtools should be designed for authors who arenot necessarily expert users of the authoringtool and not necessarily knowledgeableabout Web content accessibility.

User agents. W3C (2000b, p. 7)recommends that users be able to interactwith Web content with a variety of input andoutput devices, including visually displayedtext, synthesized speech, and Braille. If Webcontent developers and authoring toolsprovide markup for accessible content,appropriately designed user agents (e.g.,graphical browsers, media players, plugins,and assistive technologies) can then renderthat content accessible to users (W3C,2000b, pp. 29, 38). For example, users whocannot visually scan columns, rows, andtable headers might use a screen reader tonavigate through a table. However,sophisticated table navigation techniques arepossible only when a table is marked upproperly and user agents support recentHTML techniques for accessibility(Paciello, 2000, p. 96; W3C, 2000e, p. 4).


Accessibility evaluation tools. Automatedaccessibility evaluation tools help Webcontent authors identify potential problemsand provide hyperlinks to the W3C technicalspecifications and guidelines. Accessibilitysoftware tools include Bobby (Center forApplied Special Technology [CAST], 2000),Wave (Pennsylvania’s Initiative on AssistiveTechnology [PIAT], 2000), and a Webaccessibility checker for the Dreamweaver 4authoring tool (Macromedia, 2000). Bobbysorts a Web site’s accessibility violations byW3C priority level and provides links to theonline W3C checkpoints. Wave providessimilar information in a graphical format,and is particularly useful for identifying thereading sequence in tables rendered byscreen readers. The Dreamweaver 4accessibility checker is fully integrated withDreamweaver 4, but it provides a lessextensive evaluation than Bobby and Wave.The automated accessibility tools streamlinethe design of accessible Web content, butthey do not completely remove the need forhuman judgment. Thus, it is a good idea tohave individuals with various disabilitiescheck the web site for accessibility.

Summary

Universally accessible Web contentrequires coordination among Web authoringtools, user agents, and evaluation tools. Thetechnologies are rapidly changing and arenot fully synchronized. Web authors areimportant gatekeepers of Web accessibility,

but they alone cannot bear the fullresponsibility for designing accessible Webcontent.

Applications ofUniversal Design Principles for

Web-Accessible Tables

Web table content is accessible if userscan easily obtain and use it. Below, severalexamples illustrate how appropriatelydesigned Web tables can improve theiraccessibility for all user groups, regardlessof disability. However, Web tables cannot bemade universally accessible for all purposes.Some accessibility barriers are unsolvablebecause serial assistive devices such asscreen readers poorly support nonlinear orconfigural processing of tabularinformation.

Tables with Simple Structures

To make a table’s row and columnstructure accessible to persons who usescreen readers, Web authors should use thetable header (TH) element to explicitlydefine the table’s cell and row headers, andavoid using presentation elements such asbold and centered text to make cell contentsmerely look like headers in a graphical textbrowser. These prescriptions are describedin Figure 1, W3C Checkpoint 5.1. Toillustrate, Figure 2 displays MicrosoftCorporation’s income statement in parallel


272

columns. The table in Figure 2 has a simplestructure, with only one row header and onecolumn header for each table cell.

I clicked on a checkbox in Dreamweaver4 to designate the row and column headersin Figure 2. Dreamweaver automaticallyinserts the HTML code for the TH elementand formats the headers in bold and centered

text (I overrode the CENTER element forsome row headers in Figure 2). I created thetable caption by coding the TABLECAPTION element myself (Dreamweaver 4does not assist authors here). A table captioncould be created outside the table and placedright above it, so that it appears as it does inFigure 2, but the TABLE CAPTION elementis better because it enables the caption to be

Figure 2. A partly accessible large table with a simple structure.

The column and row headers are explicitly designated as column and row headers in the table’s structural markup.

The table caption is part of the table’s structural markup, and the table has a summary that can be rendered by a screen reader.


structurally related to the table. Finally, Icreated a table summary for Figure 2 usingthe TABLE SUMMARY element, again bycoding it myself. Table summaries should beplaced at the beginning of table markupbecause they provide important orientationinformation for individuals who use screenreaders.

JAWS for Windows 3.7 (FreedomScientific, 2000) screen reader softwarerenders the table caption just as it appears ina graphical browser. Although the tablesummary is not visible in a graphicalbrowser, JAWS renders the summary inInternet Explorer 5.5 as follows:

This table displays the IncomeStatements for MicrosoftCorporation, for the years ended June30 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively.The table has four columns and 18rows. The first column gives theaccount names. The next threecolumns give the account balances for1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively.All table values are stated in millionsof U.S. dollars, except earnings pershare data.

However, it should be noted that Jaws 3.7for Windows does not render the tablesummary for Figure 2 in Netscape 4.7. Thescreen reader performance variations acrossdifferent graphical browsers undermine thegoal of universally accessible Web content.

JAWS will render a table differentlydepending on how the user chooses tonavigate through the table. JAWSsequentially renders the third and fourthrows of the table as “Operating expenses:;Cost of revenue: 2,460; 2,814; 3,002.”When reading one cell at a time in the fourthrow, JAWS reads the column headers, dollaramounts, and row numbers (no row numberis given for the first cell), as follows: “1998:2,460; 1999: 2,814, row 4; 2000: 3,002, row4.” When reading down the year 1999column from the fourth row to the fifth row,JAWS reads the row header and then givesthe dollar amount followed by the columnnumber, as follows: “Sales and marketing:3,231, Column 3.” To summarize, when atable’s structure is coded using the HTMLtechniques specified in W3C (2000e, pp. 16-22; 2000f, pp. 16-18), a table cell’s headersand rows are accessible to persons usingscreen readers, albeit more slowly and lesscompletely than for persons using graphicalbrowsers.

Importantly, access to row and columnheaders is necessary but not sufficient forperforming certain essential tasks. Forexample, to perform financial statementanalysis, users must identify patterns acrossrow and column data, as well as use thetabular data to compute and analyzefinancial statement ratios. Even with properHTML techniques, pattern matching and


274

manipulation of tabular data remain largelyinaccessible to individuals who use screenreaders.

Tables with Complex Structures

More complex tables have nested row orcolumn headers. For example, the table inFigure 3 is small but it has a complexstructure, with three column headers for theyears 1999-2001 and two row axes forBusiness Segment and Account. In order tobe rendered properly by a screen reader, the

headers and axes must be coded using thetechniques described in Paciello (2000, pp.114-116) and W3C (2000e, pp. 16-22;2000f, pp. 16-18). Dreamweaver 4 does notautomatically insert the proper code fortable axes, so I inserted the code by hand.For the Year 2001 column, JAWS rendersthe third row of Figure 3 as follows:“Business Segment: Drugs; Account: Sales,$5,123, Row 3.” Shifting one cell to theright, JAWS reads “Year: 2000, $5,049,Column 4.” Shifting down one cell, JAWS

Figure 3. Accessible small table with a complex structure.


reads “Business Segment: Drugs; Account:Cost of sales, 2,891, Row 4.” AlthoughHTML standards for table axes and headersdo not completely eliminate accessibilitybarriers, they make it possible for users tolocate a table cell in the table’s overallstructure.

Accessibility Barriers Created by theHTML PRE Element andWord-Wrapped Columns

Figure 4 displays text in word-wrappedparallel columns using the HTML PRE (i.e.,fixed format) element. The text appears to

employ a table layout in a graphicalbrowser, but the tabular structure is notvisible to screen readers because the HTMLTABLE element is not used. The bottom ofFigure 4 shows that the text would berendered unintelligible by a screen readerwhich accesses the text left to right, top tobottom, one line at a time. In some cases, theaccessibility problem can be fixed by usingthe TABLE element (e.g., with two columnsand one row) to create text in parallelword-wrapped columns. Such a text layouttable can be rendered intelligible by recentscreen readers, which can be configured to

This table was created using

the HTML PRE element. The text

appears to be displayed in

parallel word-wrapped columns,

even though it does not use

the TABLE element.

However, this text layout

table would be rendered

unintelligible by screen

readers that access the text

one line at a time, from left

to right and top to bottom.

A screen reader would render the above text as follows:

This table was created However, this text layout using the HTML PRE table would be

rendered element. The text unintelligible by screen appears to be displayed readers

that access the in parallel word-wrapped text one line at a time, columns, even though

it from left to right and does not use the TABLE top to bottom element.

Figure 4. Inaccessible text layout table using the HTML PRE (fixed format) element.


276

read an entire table cell’s contents beforeproceeding to the next cell. However, textlayout tables are not rendered well in all

graphical browser and screen readercombinations. For example, JAWS 3.7 forWindows can render parallel word-wrapped

Figure 5. Some problems with tables and forms: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Edgar search dialog box (URL = http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar).

The link for “Search Help” is the same as for “Search String”. (above)

The search string example is out of sequence for left-to-right, top-to-bottom screen readers.

The first row elements (Edgar search..., Start:, End:, Mode:) are not defined as form control labels or table headers.

This sentence logically belongs before the search dialog table.

The textfield is uninformatively named and rendered as “text”.

The search button is located before the other search dialog controls and has no associated column header.


table columns properly in Internet Explorer5.5, but not in Netscape 4.7. Toaccommodate screen readers that do notcorrectly handle parallel column word-wrapped text, W3C (2000c, p. 12)recommends providing a linear textalternative for each text layout table.

Accessibility Problems withLayout Tables and Forms

Form controls such as text fields, comboboxes, drop-down menus, and submitbuttons enable users to interact with Webcontent. Tables are a convenient way toorganize form controls on a Web page. Toensure accessibility with nonvisual useragents, the controls must be properlypositioned and explicitly associated withtheir labels. Figure 5 illustrates a layouttable with form controls to search theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC)online database of corporate financialreports.

The SEC Web page creates severalaccessibility problems. First, the formcontrol labels in the first row of the searchtable are not formally designated as labels ortable headers. This makes it difficult orimpossible for screen readers to associateeach form control with its label. Second, theSearch button is located between the searchstring text field and the other searchcontrols, and it does not have a label.Consequently, the first row of the table givesthe mistaken impression that the second row

has only four form controls, when in fact ithas five. Third, the example search stringappears in the third table row, below thesearch string text field. Although theexample search string is logically positionedfor most users, it is poorly positioned forpersons who are blind because it would beread last by screen reader software. Fourth,the table does not use the TABLECAPTION element to designate a caption.The Web page does, however, give someorienting information above the table whereit states “Welcome to the archive of Edgardocuments. This is an index of all EDGARdocuments from 1993 through 2001.” Thetwo sentences that appear immediatelybelow the table also provide importantorientation information, and thus theylogically belong above the table.

Figure 6 uses output from Wave 2.01(PIAT, 2000) to illustrate how a screenreader would render the SEC Edgar layouttable sequentially, from left to right and topto bottom. Wave displays the table cellborders and reveals that the table consists of11 cells laid out in five columns and threerows. The arrows indicate the direction andthe numbers indicate the order in which ascreen reader would read the cell contents.When read sequentially, the labels in thefirst row are not explicitly associated withtheir corresponding form controls. Thus, itwill be difficult for those who use screenreaders to associate the labels with the formcontrols on the second row.


278

The form control accessibility problemscan easily be fixed by displaying the formcontrols in two columns and five rows, withthe labels in the left column and the controlsin the right column. This two-column layoutwould aid left-to-right and top-to-bottom

access (Paciello, 2000, p. 59), but it wouldnot serve all users equally well. Forexample, Figure 7 illustrates that thefive-column layout is better for users whorely on graphical browsers, because it leavesmore space to display the search results on

Figure 6. Wave (PIAT, 2000) demonstration of left-to-right, top-down screen reader sequence for Edgar search dialog (URL = http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar).

The numbers indicate the

sequence of elements read by screen readers. The search dialog is comprised of elements 21-30 and is read left to right, one row at a time from top to bottom.

People who rely on screen readers would find it difficult to access the controls because the labels in cells 21-24 are not directly associated with the form controls.

The boxes show each separate element read by a screen reader. The search dialog consists of eleven cells in five columns and three rows. .

The search button has no corresponding label and is out of sequence.


the bottom of the Web page. Rather thanmodify this format for all users, in this caseit might be better to provide an alternativeWeb page for screen reader access.

Figure 8 illustrates a revised SEC EdgarWeb page modified in Dreamweaver 4. Itincludes three principal revisions, startingfrom the top of the page. First, to provideadequate orientation information, the text

Figure 7. SEC Edgar search results are displayed below the horizontal search controls (URL = http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar).

This five-column search dialog table leaves more space to display search results at the bottom of the screen. However, transposing the table to consist of two columns (one column for labels and one for form controls) would make the form controls more accessible to screen readers (see Figure 6).


280

that appears at the top of the page nowincludes the two sentences that originallyappeared below the table. Alternatively, thissame information could be rendered with theTABLE CAPTION element. Second, theform controls and their labels are nowdisplayed in two columns. Until screenreaders support explicit associations

between labels and form controls, this two-column layout will make it easier toimplicitly associate each control with itslabel (W3C, 2000d, pp. 41-43). Third, thesearch button is now located after the otherform controls, so that persons who are blindcan more easily specify all of their searchparameters before they submit their search.

Figure 8. SEC Edgar search page modified in Dreamweaver 4 (Macromedia, 2000) to make it more accessible (original URL = http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar).

The last two sentences originally appeared after the search dialog table.

The search button is now located at the end of the table.

The two-column layout makes it easier for line-by-line screen readers to associate the form controls with their labels, but it leaves less space for displaying search results.


Summary

This section used several examples toillustrate some techniques for designinguniversally accessible Web tables.Universally accessible Web tables requirenot only appropriate HTML techniques, butalso user agents that fully implement thosetechniques. For tasks that mainly requireserial processing, appropriate HTMLtechniques will render table contentaccessible to persons who rely on screenreaders. For tasks that involve complexpattern matching or configural processing,Web tables will remain largely inaccessibleeven with reasonably sophisticated HTMLtechniques and user agents.

Discussion

An objective of Universal InstructionalDesign is to make Web content accessible toall people, regardless of disability. Thischapter argues that universal access requireseffective coordination among multiple Webtechnologies and activities. Although Webcontent authors are important gatekeepers ofaccessibility, they cannot satisfyaccessibility standards on their own. Othernecessary conditions include authoritativeaccessibility standards, user-friendly Webauthoring tools with integrated accessibilityevaluation tools, and reasonablysophisticated user agents that implement themost recent HTML techniques foraccessibility. This chapter used several

examples to illustrate how Web tables canbe designed to improve their accessibility topersons who are blind.

However, universal access to Web tablecontent is not perfectly attainable, for twoprincipal reasons. First, graphical Webbrowsers and assistive technologies such asscreen readers do not fully implement themost recent HTML accessibility techniquesfor table summaries, multiple row andcolumn headers, and form control labels. Itis not reasonable to expect Web contentdevelopers to avoid using tables until useragents can take full advantage of therecommended HTML techniques. Tablesoften are the most effective way to conveyimportant structural relationships among celldata, and approximately equivalentalternatives often do not exist. For example,the provision of linearized tables onalternative Web pages cannot conveyimportant relationships among multiplecells.

Second, even if all user agents were tofully implement the latest HTMLaccessibility techniques, some Web tablecontent still would not be fully accessible topersons who are blind. For example,financial statement analysis requires users toidentify unusual patterns across row andcolumn data, and to compute financialstatement ratios using data from multiplecells. Although Web tables can be coded so


282

that screen readers can appropriately rendertheir row and column headers, even the mostrecent HTML techniques do not enablepersons who are blind to quickly and easilydetect patterns and manipulate cell data.Linearized tables would only make suchtasks more difficult.

Such persistent accessibility barriershave important implications for education.First, whenever possible, educators stillshould attempt to employ the most recentaccessibility techniques. This not only willsatisfy the basic federal requirements foraccessibility, but it will also make itunnecessary to retrofit a Web site each timeuser agents more fully implement existingHTML techniques. Second, in order toanticipate accessibility barriers, educatorsneed to think carefully about how theirstudents must interact with Web content inorder to complete course assignments. Insome cases, full compliance withstate-of-the-art accessibility standards willnot sufficiently address the needs of studentswith disabilities. Although there are nosimple guidelines or heuristics to helpeducators identify discipline-specific Webaccessibility barriers, many of the mostpersistent barriers likely involve complexpattern matching and other kinds ofconfigural processing. Such problems existnot only for Web tables, but also for imagesand other structural elements not discussedin this chapter.

To promote awareness of persistentaccessibility barriers in postsecondaryeducation, I invite readers to submit theirinsights about Web accessibility barriers thatare not amenable to technological fixes [email protected]. Submitted ideaswill be posted at http://www.tc.umn.edu/~shapi007/access_barriers/index.htm.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42U.S.C. 12101 (1990).

Center for Applied Special Technology(CAST). (2000). Bobby v3.2. Peabody,MA: CAST, Inc. Retrieved January 30,2001 from http://www.cast.org/bobby/

Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Gladstone, K.,April, G., Allemeersch, F., Willems, D.,Wesley, T., & Becker, S. (1997). The artof providing access to electronicdocuments. Leuven, Belgium:Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Retrieved July 23, 2001 from http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/teo/index.en.htm

Freedom Scientific (2000). Henter-JoyceJaws for Windows. St. Petersburg, FL:Freedom Scientific.

Macromedia (2000). Dreamweaver 4. SanFrancisco, CA: Macromedia.


Paciello, M. G. (2000). Web accessibility forpeople with disabilities. Lawrence, KS:CMP Books.

Pennsylvania’s Initiative on AssistiveTechnology (PIAT). (2000). Wavev.2.01. Temple University: The Instituteon Disabilities. Retrieved July 23, 2001from http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Section 504 of United States RehabilitationAct of 1973. 29 USC §794.

Section 508 (Electronic and informationtechnology). (1998). 29 USC §794d.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.(1998). Universal instruction design inhigher education: An approach forinclusion. Equity and Excellence inEducation 31(2), 47-51.

United States Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29U.S.C. 701.

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000a, February 3). Authoring ToolAccessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3CRecommendation. Madison, WI: TraceR & D Center, University of Wisconsin.Retrieved July 23, 2001 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000b, October 23). User AgentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3CWorking Draft. Madison, WI: Trace R &D Center, University of Wisconsin.Retrieved July 23, 2001 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000c, November 6). Techniques forWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines1.0, W3C Note. Madison, WI: Trace R &D Center, University of Wisconsin.Retrieved July 23, 2001 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-TECHS-20001106/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000d, November 6). HTMLTechniques for Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3C Note.Madison, WI: Trace R & D Center,University of Wisconsin. Retrieved July23, 2001 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20001106/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000e, November 6). Core Techniquesfor Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines 1.0, W3C Note. Madison,WI: Trace R & D Center, University ofWisconsin. Retrieved July 23, 2001from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-CORE-TECHS-20001106/


284

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).(2000f, November 6). CSS Techniquesfor Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines 1.0, W3C Note. Madison,WI: Trace R & D Center, University ofWisconsin. Retrieved July 23, 2001from http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-CSS-TECHS-20001106/


Where Do We Go from Here?Universal Design as a Modelfor Multicultural EducationHeidi L. Barajas and Jeanne L. HigbeeUniversity of Minnesota

This chapter encourages educators to think more broadly about Universal Design and Universal InstructionalDesign as models for inclusion for all students in postsecondary settings.

When theorizing, conductingresearch, creating policy, andshaping practice, we often ask

questions like, “What is the next logicalstep?” “How can we expand into new areasof thought?” “Where do we go from here?”To those of us involved in the developmentof this book and in projects like CurriculumTransformation and Disability (CTAD), theanswer has seemed obvious. To dateUniversal Design as a model for inclusion inpostsecondary education has been appliedonly to disability. While Universal Design isstill a relatively new concept, it is time toexpand its implementation in keeping withits definition. If we are to succeed indesigning educational spaces in a mannerthat takes into consideration the needs of alllearners, then it is imperative to engage in a

paradigm shift that places the inclusion ofall students at the core of educationalplanning. Rather than an extension of amodel for accommodation, UniversalDesign should be perceived as a means foractively engaging all students in the learningprocess, regardless of age, gender, race,religion, ethnic origin, language, socialclass, sexual orientation, or disability.

Where Have We Been?

The terminology of inclusion haschanged over the last five decades, notbecause of political correctness, but becauseof an exploration and absolutely necessaryevolution of how we have perceived“difference.” In the 1950s and 1960s we“tolerated” (e.g., Chickering, 1969)

CHAPTER 21Where Do We Go From Here?

286

individual differences. The United Stateswas perceived as a “melting pot” (Park,1950), a term that assumes the assimilationof diverse cultures. Within this context,“universal” might imply “one size fits all.”Over the following decades we moved fromtolerance to “acceptance,” but why shouldthere be a need to “accept” who—or morepertinently to this model, what—someoneis? Our intentions may have been good; theshift from tolerance to acceptance was anhonest attempt to move in the rightdirection, but this focus still placeddifference in a negative light.

Indeed, in the process of writing aboutand conceptualizing a truly universalapproach to instructional design, we realizedeven the word “difference” is currently intransformation in terms of what we meanwhen we talk about difference and how ourpractice is affected by that discussion. Wecan predict the trajectory of what is meantby the word “difference” by looking atchanges in other signifiers that originated asa resistance to negative stereotypes. Theword “special,” for example, used to be apositive signifier indicating educatorsneeding to meet a particular kind ofeducational support (e.g., special education).Over time, the meaning and the practiceattached to “special” has been used tosegregate students. Sooner or later, if notpresently, the word “difference” will shift toa meaning that implies an outsider status

that is negative. Originally, the use ofdifference was a positive indicator ofvaluing people’s rights to their ownindividuality and positive self-definitionsthat replaced being stereotyped as the deficit“other.” In other words, there is value indifference as opposed to indifference ordisdain for difference.

The new millennium is a time ofacknowledging, rather than tolerating oraccepting, individual and culturaldifferences. Within this context, UniversalDesign in postsecondary education can takeon new meaning to create an expandedvision of inclusion, one that places theeducation of all individuals at the heart ofhow we as educators think, how we practice,how we talk, and how we approach research.

Implementing Universal Designas a Multicultural Phenomenon

A discussion of implementation mustbegin with a clear understanding of whathistorical ghosts we continue to deal with ineducation. One ghost we refer to is theassumption that our classroom policies andpractices are essentially neutral, and in placefor the fair and equal treatment of allstudents. We may recognize that educationalinstitutions inherently privilege studentswho own particular social characteristicsand ideology, and may even acknowledgethis creates some “climate” issues for what


we term “diverse” groups of students.However, what we may not identify is thatwe continue to see the core curriculum, andclassroom policies and practices, as neutralin terms of the gender, age, ability, race,home language, religion, and social class ofthe student. Our continued focus on theuniversal assumptions of assimilation isinevitable if we do not consider the morehidden assumption of neutrality. Even withsteadfast and earnest attempts to increase thesize of the schoolhouse door, to include oreven infuse multiple voices in our curriculaand practices, it is as if we do so with aninvisible weight around our neck that doesnot quite allow us to take a much neededstep forward. In her research that examineshow teaching practices are affected byteacher training in multiculturalism, Sleeter(1996) indicates that although

teachers were enthusiastic about theprogram because they were acquiringmuch new information . . . they wereadding that information intoconceptions they already had aboutthe workings of the social system,rather than reconstructing thoseconceptions. (p. 76)

Sleeter’s point is that we need to bereflective about how we make changes inwhat we think and do. However, part of thatreflective process is being critical aboutwhat we think and do. Otherwise, we end up

believing we have created a universal designbecause we have added some information toour classroom strategies, but few of us havesubstantially restructured our thinking,practices, and policies.

We suggest that a result of restructuringour thinking through a paradigm shift thatplaces UID into the instructionalmethodologies in the higher educationclassroom is that many kinds of accessissues may be addressed, includingmulticultural concerns (i.e., multiple racial,ethnic, cultural, gender, and class concerns).In addition, there is a relationship betweengeneral access, multicultural access, and theapplication of UID that strengthens thegeneral usefulness as well as the appeal of a“universal” model. However, thinkingthrough these relationships critically is anecessary step to synthesize multiple accessneeds into UID.

There is no better time to work throughshifting our thinking, curricula, practices,and policies in educational settings than atthe development stages of UID in highereducation. Although formal researchprovides important empirical examples ofstudents’ educational process, we aseducators sometimes forget to connect whatwe know to what we do in the classroom.Adding an alternative learning component isa step, but may remain a part of amechanical, normative education because


288

one of the assumptions of “neutral”institutions is that all students willparticipate in the new component in muchthe same way. In order to find a trulyuniversal model, we need to change ourdefinition of universal, beginning with theidea that centering our classroom activitiesand requirements around what we used toconsider “special needs” students in realitycreates a classroom that simply promotesstudent-centered learning for all students.

How do we begin to make the kind ofshift we have described? We know how todo so in words. Banks (2000) calls foreducators to

reform the cultures of the nation’sschools, as well as the curriculum, toinstitutionalize and legitimize theknowledge systems, perspectives,ideologies, and behaviors of diverseethnic, racial, cultural, social class,and language groups . . . that moreliberatory and multiculturalparadigms and canons be constructedand institutionalized. (p. 38)

The first step is agreement that this is thedirection our shift needs to take, and it is achallenging one. Banks, like many of us whoattempt to work from a “liberatory andmulticultural paradigm,” assumes educatorshave embraced the value of this kind ofthinking. Moore (2002) suggests thatcurricular transformation in the sciences

often begins “when students, faculty, andadministrators recognize that women, ethnicminorities, economically disadvantagedstudents, and others have been excludedfrom science and wonder how this hasaffected science” (p.86). In addition, wenow have some 25 years in whichmulticulturalism has been actively pursuedthrough textbook revision and curricularchanges to inform us. Many educatorsinvolved in attempting to address access andclimate issues through the multiculturalprocess are frustrated because the work doneto make the curricula multicultural, as wellas what appear to be well-integratedtextbooks, continues to be criticized(Sleeter, 1996).

Both Sleeter (1996) and Banks (1996)attribute the frustration of those attemptingto address multicultural issues in curriculaand classroom practices, and the criticismaimed at these changes, to the propensity ofeducators to produce multicultural changesthat adhere to White, conservative renditionsof what America is and who gets to definewhat “American” means. Although wewould agree that this continues to be at thecore of our inability to transform ourthinking, policy, and practice, we alsoacknowledge that what Sleeter and Banksidentify occurring in American education isalso about normative and conservativethinking affecting curricula and classroompractices globally. What remains constant in


either a global or American frame is thenecessity to consider that neutralized oreven invisible frameworks are driving whatwe think and do.

Finally, as we move forward in ourattempts to transform educational practices,we should do so learning fromtransformative processes that havesucceeded in bringing us to where we aretoday. Recollecting those processes remindsus that a paradigm shift is not a snapshot ofeducation we take, consider, and pronouncedone. Paradigm shifts are an ongoingprocess accomplished through small steps.Although we are critical of attempts toinstitutionalize and legitimize theknowledge systems, perspectives,ideologies, and behaviors of diverse ethnic,racial, cultural, social class, and languagegroups, the attempts have been good ones.And, being critical is what moves usforward. In addition, considering the newscholarship emanating from this country andthe rest of the world, particularly that by theincreasing numbers of scholars who havetraditionally been marginalized,transformative measures today should lookdifferent. Whatever we do to consider andimplement a more universal instructionaldesign, like other transformations before us,will look good but will not be what weultimately want it to be, or have the affectwe may have thought it would. But bytaking small steps to continue the

transformation of educational programs,services, curricula, pedagogy, and policy, wewill get closer to making our vision a reality.

References

Banks, J. A. (2000) The social constructionof difference and the quest foreducational equality. In R. S. BrandtEducation in a new era, (pp. 21-45).Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Banks, J. A. (1996). The Canon debate,knowledge construction, andmulticultural education. In J. A. Banks(Ed.), Multicultural education,transformative knowledge, and action(pp. 3-29). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education andidentity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, R. (2002). The lessons of history:Transforming science to includedevelopmental education. In D. B.Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.) Historiesof developmental education (pp. 83-94).Minneapolis, MN: Center for Researchon Developmental Education and UrbanLiteracy, General College, University ofMinnesota.


290

Park, R. (1950). Race and culture. Glencoe,IL: Free Press.

Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multiculturaleducation as social activism. Albany,N.Y.: State University of New YorkPress.

Appendices

293Implementing Universal Design

1. Assistive Listening Devices, such as theComtek AT_216 fm system, function as aremote microphone for users, enabling aperson with impaired hearing improvedlistening, clarity, and better understandingby subduing high levels of backgroundnoise, reverberation effects, and distancebetween the speaker and listener. Comtek,http://www.comtek.com/AT_216_system.html

2. ALVA Delphi 440 or 480 www.aagi.com(with 40 and 80 characters of Braillerespectively) “reads” text on the computerscreen line-by-line, then sends it to the useras Braille on a Braille display. This productis perfect for the student who is visuallyimpaired, and is fully compatible withJAWS, outSPOKEN, and many other screenreader software programs. ALVA AccessGroup, http://www.aagi.com/aagi/aagi_home.html

3. Anthro Carts are ergonomic, fullyadjustable workstations that easily adjust tothe needs of wheelchair users. Theworkstations are very durable. Anthro,www.anthro.com

Resources: Assistive TechnologyKaren S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. TottyThe University of Georgia

4. BAT Personal Keyboard is a fullyfunctioning keyboard for one hand. Thekeyboard is easy to learn and use, andoperates on an input system called“chording.” It is a good assistive solution fornot only one-hand keyboard users andindividuals with a limited range of motion,but for students with visual impairments aswell because the keyboard has only sevenkeys and finger location problems areeliminated. Infogrip, www.infogrip.com

5. Clearview 700 www.optelec.com is acomputer-compatible video magnifier. Thissystem displays magnified text andcomputer images simultaneously forstudents with visual impairments. OptelecUS, www.optelec.com

6. CloseView is a utility included in everyMacintosh computer that allows users tomagnify the screen up to 16 times. This is acost-free tool for individuals with visualimpairments not unlike the Display Settingsfunction found in Microsoft Windows.Apple Computer, www.apple.com/disability/easyaccess.html

Appendices294

7. Co:Writer 4000 is an assistive tool thathelps students during the writing process. Itsbuilt in writing assistant with “intelligentword prediction” alleviates some of the mostcommon frustrations for students withlearning disabilities, dyslexia, and ADHD.Don Johnston, www.donjohnston.com

8. DECtalk text-to-speech technologytransforms ordinary text intonatural-sounding speech. It provides a highlevel of speech quality and accuracy,producing clear, correct pronunciation ofsingle characters, words, phrases, and propernames. DECtalk offers personalized voices,and it has extensive user controls to ensureoptimum performance. DECtalk claims to bethe smallest, fully featured, format-basedsynthesizer offered in the world. ForceComputers, www.forcecomputers.com

9. DragonDictate Naturally SpeakingPreferred for Windows/DOS is a voice-recognition program that types as you speak.It is a great tool for students with mobilityimpairments, specifically those who areunable to use a standard keyboard. It is alsorecommended for students with visualimpairments, as it eliminates the need fortyping. Dragon Systems,www.dragonsystems.com

10. HeadMaster Plus is a head pointingsystem that provides full mouse control ofcomputers to persons who cannot use theirhands but who have good head control. As

the user moves his or her head, the cursormoves on the screen. It can be used inconjunction with on-screen keyboards, suchas WiViK, for word processing and othertext entry. This product is perfect for thestudent with severe mobility impairmentsand limited range of motion. PrentkeRomich, www.prentrom.com/access/hmaster.html

11. Inspiration is a program that facilitatesthe writing process for persons withcognitive disorders. It can also be used byall students by all students as an effectivestudy tool. Based on the visual learningtechnique known as concept mapping,Inspiration helps clarify thinking, deepenunderstanding, increase retention, anddevelop organizational skills. InspirationSoftware, www.inspiration.com

12. Job Access with Speech (JAWS) forWindows is an invaluable tool for studentswith visual impairments. It is a top of theline screen reader with Internet capabilities,e-mail access, and full compatibility withMicrosoft products such as Office 2000.Henter-Joyce, www.hj.com

13. Kurzweil 1000 scans, reads, and writesfor people who are blind or have visualimpairments. It functions in conjunctionwith a scanner and voice synthesis on apersonal computer to convert text intospeech. Kurzweil Educational Systems,http://www.lhsl.com/kurzweil1000/


14. Kurzweil 3000 provides an auditory andvisual presentation of scanned text andimages on the computer screen. It is simpleto use because all it takes is a basicknowledge of scanning, and is a useful toolfor people with learning disabilities, visualimpairments, or anyone with readingdifficulties. Kurzweil Educational Systems,http://www.lhsl.com/kurzweil3000/

15. Maxim Adjustable Keyboards areergonomic keyboards that alleviate strain onfingers and wrists. They are beneficial forpeople who have carpal-tunnel syndrome.Kenesis, www.kinesis-ergo.com

16. outSPOKEN 3.0 for Windows andoutSPOKEN 9.0 for MacIntosh are screenreader software programs with Braille and/or speech output. They are fully compatiblewith most Windows applications and arealso multilingual; the software is availablein a number of languages. These productsare mostly appropriate for the blind, but thescreen-reading feature may be helpful forstudents with reading problems, such asdyslexia. ALVA Access Group,www.aagi.com/aagi/aagi_home.html

17. Quicktionary ReadingPen is ahand-held, pen shaped, high-resolutionscanner with advanced text-to-speechtechnology. It functions as an assistivetechnology tool for people with visualimpairments or reading difficulties. It iscompletely portable and enables users to see

and hear the scanned text. WizcomTechnologies,www.seikosmart.comwww.wizcomtech.com

18. Raised Line Drawing Kit enables thestudent who is blind to do slope problems inmathematics and related fields. MaxiAids:Products for Independent Living, http://www.maxiaids.com/index/html

19. Rapid Caption is the most advancedWindows-based captioning system availabletoday. It is used with a steno machine andthe RAPIDTEXT paperless writer. It excelsin translation speed and ease-of-use forrealtime captioning. The Rapid Captioninterfaces to most steno machines and theRAPIDTEXT writer. RAPIDTEXT, http://[email protected]/

20. SoundBlaster is a type of sound card. Itis an expansion board that enables acomputer to manipulate and output sounds.Creative Technology Limited, http://www.soundblaster.com/

21. textHelp! Read & Write is an assistiveprogram designed specifically for studentswith varying degrees of reading and writingdifficulties, including ADHD and dyslexia.It contains a number of helpful features,including word prediction, screen reading,homophone support and a 180,000-worddictionary for use with spell check.textHELP Systems, www.texthelp.com

Appendices296

22. WiVik2 accesses any Windowsapplication with on_screen keyboardsoftware using any pointing device orswitches with scanning. WiViK 2 allows anypointing device to be used to enter text intoany Windows application. BloorviewMacMillan Centre, www.WiVik.com

23. WordSmith v.2.0 is an additional toolbarfor Word 97/2000/XP. Utilized primarily bypersons with cognitive disabilities as awriting aid, it can help develop wordrecognition and vocabulary, do advancedspell checking, provide audible definitionsfor homophones, increase literacy throughits thesaurus function and assist indeveloping sentences. textHELP Systems,www.texthelp.com

24. Write:OutLoud is a talking wordprocessor with a talking spell checker. It ismade for students with learning disabilitiesand students with visual impairments. Itspeaks while students write, so mistakes areeasily corrected as the student worksthrough a word processing document. DonJohnston, www.donjohnston.com

25. Zoomtext is another screenmagnification program that includes supportfor all Windows platforms and allowsmagnification up to 16 times with advancededge smoothing. This software is valuablefor students with low-vision and isextremely easy to use. Ai Squared, http://www.aisquared.com/


Abberley, P. (1987). The concept ofoppression and the development of asocial theory of disability. Disability,Handicap and Society, 2 (1), 5-19.

Academy for Educational Development(1994). Self-esteem: Issues for the adultlearner. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED374343)

Academy for Educational Development(1995). Adults with learning disabilities:Definitions and issues. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED387989)

Academy for Educational Development(1995). Screening for adults withlearning disabilities: The role of thepractitioner in the assessment process.(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED387988)

Aiex, N. K. (2000). Newspapers as ateaching resource for adult learners.ERIC Digest D150. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED440428)

Biography of Suggested Readings

Aksamit, D., Morris, M., & Leuenberger, J.(1987). Preparation of student servicesprofessionals and faculty for servinglearning-disabled college students.Journal of College Student Personnel,28(1), 53-59.

Asselin, S. B. (1993). Enhancing facultyawareness and knowledge of studentswith disabilities. Community CollegeJournal of Research and Practice,17(3), 283-289.

Aune, E. (1996). Successful strategies foraccommodating students withdisabilities. Disability Compliance forHigher Education, 1(3), 12-14.

Babbitt, B. C. (1998, March). Universitycurriculum project—Professors reflecton impact. Paper presented at theCalifornia State University-NorthridgeConference on Technology and Personswith Disabilities, Los Angeles, CA.

Appendices298

Bailey, J. (1994). Do students withdisabilities value college education?Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 35, 494-495.

Bardine, B. (1997). Working with learningdisabled writers: Some perspectives.Kent, OH: Kent State University, OhioLiteracy Resource Center. (ERICReproduction Service No. ED 406 554)

Barnard, J. (1997, May/June). The WorldWide Web and higher education: Thepromise of virtual universities andonline libraries. EducationalTechnology, 30-34.

Barr, A., Donahue, W., Podrid, A., &Seeling, S. (1987). Successful collegetutoring: Focusing on the learningdisabled student in the learning center.Brooklyn, NY: Long Island University.

Barrett, K. E. & Pullo, R. E. (1993).Attitudinal change in undergraduaterehabilitation students as measured bythe attitudes towards disabled personsscale. Rehabilitation Education, 7,119-126.

Beaubien, R. L. (1999, March). Adultlearning disabilities in intensive Englishprograms: A call for action. Paperpresented at the TESOL NationalConference, New York, NY

Berliss, J. (1994). Boon or bust? Access toelectronic publishing by individualsusing adaptive computer technology.Journal of the American Society forInformation Science, 45(10), 753-759.

Bigaj, S. J. (1995). Accommodationstrategies for postsecondary studentswith learning disabilities: A survey offaculty attitudes and use. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

Bohman, P. (2000) The applicability of theADA to the Internet. Center for Personswith Disabilities (CPD) News, 23(2),[Electronic Version]. Available: http://www.webaim.org/articles/ada

Bohman, P. (2000) Universal design anddisability access to the web. [ElectronicVersion]. Available: http://www.webaim.org/articles/webnet2000

Borland, J., & James, S. (1999). Thelearning experiences of students withdisabilities in higher education: A casestudy of a UK university. Disability &Society, 14(1), 85-101.


Bourke, A., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P.(1997). Tracing the links in the chain ofaccommodation: A study of university ofMassachusetts’ faculty members’provision of accommodations tostudents with learning disabilities.Paper presented at the Annualconference of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL.(Eric Reproduction Service No.ED408764)

Bourke, A. B., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P.(2000). Faculty members’ provision ofinstructional accommodations tostudents with LD. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 33(1), 26-32.

Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal Design ineducation - Teaching nontraditionalstudents. Westport, CT: Bergin &Garvey.

Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., &McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promotingaccess, accommodations, andindependence for college students withlearning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 25(7), 417-429.

Brochtrup, M., & Kelley, C. (1995, Fall).Strategies in math for college students.Latest Developments, 4-6.

Burgstahler, S., Comden, D., & Fraser, B.(1997). Universal access: Designing andevaluating web sites for accessibility.Choice, 34, 19-22.

Burns, J. P., Armistead, L. P., & Keys, R. C.(1990). Developing a transitioninitiative program for students withhandicapping conditions. Community/Junior College, 14, 319-329.

Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategiclearning by postsecondary students withlearning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 28, 170-190.

Carlisle, J. F., & Chang, V. (1996).Evaluation of academic capabilities inscience by students with and withoutlearning disabilities and their teachers.Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 18-34.

Cassuto, L. (1999) Whose field is it,anyway? Disability studies in theacademy. The Chronicle of HigherEducation. [Electronic Version].Available: http://chronicle.merit.edu/colloquy/99/disability/background.htm

Caudill, G. (1998). Matching teaching andlearning styles. Technology Connection,4(8), 11,24-25.

Appendices300

Chang, B., Tremblay, K. R, & Dunbar, H.(2000). An experimental approach toteaching Universal Design. Education,121, 153.

Chang, M. K., Richards, S. J., & Jackson A.(1996). Accommodating students withdisabilities: A practical guide forfaculty. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED404827)

Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about uswithout us: Disability oppression andempowerment. Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996,October). Implementing the sevenprinciples: Technology as lever. AAHEBulletin, 3-6.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987,March). Seven principles for goodpractice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.

Chubon, R. C. (1992). Attitudes towarddisability: Addressing fundamentals ofattitude theory and research inrehabilitation education. RehabilitationEducation, 6, 301-312.

Cohn, P. (1998). Why does my stomachhurt? How individuals with learningdisabilities can use cognitive strategiesto reduce anxiety and stress at thecollege level. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 31, 514-16.

Cokley, K. (2000). Perceived facultyencouragement and its influence oncollege students. Journal of CollegeStudent Development, 41(3), 348-352.

Collins, T. (1989). A summary of theLearning Disabled College WritersProject at the University of Minnesota–General College. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED303819)

Collins, T., & Price, L. (1986). A guide toselecting word-processing software forlearning disabled college writers.(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED267412)

Collins, T., & Price, L. (1986). Testimonyfrom learning disabled college writerson the efficacy of word processing intheir writing process. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED267411)

Collins, T., Engen-Wedin, N., Margolis, W.& Price, L. (1987). Learning disabledwriters and word processing:Performance and attitude gains.Research and Teaching inDevelopmental Education, 4(1), 13-20.

Conyers, L. M., & Szymanski, E. M. (1998).The effectiveness of an integrated careerintervention for college students withand without disabilities. Journal ofPostsecondary Education andDisability, 13, 23-34.


Corrigan, M. J. (1998). Counseling collegestudents with disabilities: Legal, ethical,and clinical issues. Journal of CollegeCounseling, 1, 181-89.

Cosden, M. A. & McNamara, J. (1997).Self-concept and perceived socialsupport among college students withand without learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 2-12.

Council for Exceptional Children (1989).College planning for students withlearning disabilities. ERIC Digest #466.(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED314917)

Cowen, S. E. (1988). Coping strategies ofuniversity students with learningdisabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 21(3), 161-164.

Cullen, J. P., Shaw, S. F. & McGuire, J. M.(1996). Practitioner support of self-advocacy among college students withlearning disabilities: A comparison ofpractices and attitudes. Journal ofPostsecondary Education andDisability, 12, 2-15.

Day, S. L., & Edwards, B. J. (1996).Assistive technology for postsecondarystudents with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5),486-492.

Demmans, D. (1993). Math and the learningdisabled student: A practical guide foraccommodations. Research andTeaching in Developmental Education,9(2), 95-96.

Dukes, L. L., & Shaw, S. F. (1999).Postsecondary disability personnel:Professional standards and staffdevelopment. Journal of DevelopmentalEducation, 23(1), 26-31.

Elacqua, T. C., Rapaport, R. J., & Kruse, B.G. (1996). Perceptions of classroomaccommodations among collegestudents with disabilities. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED400640).

Ellett, L. (1993). Instructional practices inmainstreamed secondary educationclassrooms. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 26, 57-64.

Fairweather, J. S., & Shaver, D. M. (1990).A troubled future? Participation inpostsecondary education by youths withdisabilities. Journal of HigherEducation, 61, 332-348.

Fast, M., & Cabal, T. (1997). Proposal formodification of Spanish instruction forstudents with learning disabilities.Amherst, MA: University ofMassachusetts.

Appendices302

Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEEPrism, 6(4), 18-23.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996).Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching,44, 43-47.

Fichten, C., Barile, M., & Asuncion, J.(1999). Learning technologies: Studentswith disabilities in postsecondaryeducation – Final report to the Office ofLearning Technologies, pp. 9-12;171-174. Montreal: Adaptech Project,Dawson College.

Fichten, C. S., Goodrick, G., Tagalakis, V.,Amsel, R., & Libman, E. (1990).Getting along in college:Recommendations for college studentswith disabilities and their professors.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,34(2), 103-125.

Finn, L. L. (1997). Critical support servicesfor college students with learningdisabilities. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED412712)

Finn, L. L. (1998). Students’ perceptions ofbeneficial LD accommodations andservices at the postsecondary level.Journal of Postsecondary Educationand Disability, 13(1), 67.

Fonosch, G. G. (1980). Three years later:The impact of Section 504 regulationson higher education. RehabilitationLiterature, 41(7-8), 162-168.

Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999).Inclusive instruction and learning fordeaf students in postsecondaryeducation. Journal of Deaf Studies andDeaf Education, 4(3), 225-235.

Freed, B. F. (1987). Exemptions from theforeign language requirement: A reviewof recent literature, problems, andpolicy. ADFL Bulletin, 18(2), 13-17.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J.,Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A.(1991). Identifying native languagedifficulties among foreign languagelearners in college: A “foreign”language learning disability? Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 4(9), 530-541.

Gentile, R. & Cox, L. (1994). The case forcriterion-referenced grading in college-level courses for students with learningdisabilities. Research and Teaching inDevelopmental Education, 11(1), 63-73.

Gerber, P. J, & Reiff, H. B. (1994). Learningdisabilities in adulthood: Persistingproblems and evolving issues.Stoneham, MA:Butterworth-Hinemann.


Gerber, P. J., Reiff, H. B., & Ginsberg, R.(1996). Reframing the learningdisabilities experience. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 29(1), 98-101.

Gordon, E. D., Minnes, P. M., & Holden, R.R. (1990). The structure of attitudestoward persons with a disability, whenspecific disability and context areconsidered. Rehabilitation Psychology,35, 79-90.

Gourgey, A., & Earisman, D. (Fall 1997).Getting students to think about theirown thinking in an integrated verbal-mathematics course. Research andTeaching in Developmental Education,14(1) 49-56.

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W.(1996). Adults with learning disabilities:Occupational and social status aftercollege. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 29(2), 167-173

Gregg, N. (1983). College learning disabledwriter: Error patterns and instructionalalternatives. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 16(6), 334-338.

Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics ofdisability: Definitions, disciplines, andpolicies. The Social Science Journal,22(4), 87-105.

Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physicaldifference: Disability anddiscrimination. Journal of Social Issues,44 (1), 39-48.

Hart, R. D., & Williams, D. E. (1995). Able-bodied instructors and studentswith physical disabilities: A relationshiphandicapped by communication.Communication Education, 44, 140-154.

Hebel, S. (2001) How a landmark anti-biaslaw changed life for disabled students.Chronicle of Higher Education.[Electronic Version]. Available: http://chronicle.merit.edu/free/v47/i20/20a02301.htm

Higbee, J. L. (1996). “Who Belongs?”versus “Who Gets to Stay?” Research &Teaching in Developmental Education,12, 81-86.

Higbee, J. L., Kalivoda, K. S., & Hunt P. A.(1993). Serving students withpsychological disabilities. In P.A.Malinowski (Ed.), Perspectives onpractice in developmental education(pp. 90-93). Canandaigna, NY: NewYork College Learning SkillsAssociation.

Appendices304

Hill, J. L. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptionsof students with disabilities regardingthe adequacy of services and willingnessof faculty to make accommodations.Journal of Postsecondary Educationand Disability, 12(1), 22-43.

Hitchings, W. E., Luzzo, D. A., Retish, P.,Horvath, M. & Ristow, R. S. (1998).Identifying the career developmentneeds of college students withdisabilities. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 39, 23-32.

Hodge, B., & Sabin-Preston, J. (1994). Yourteaching experience and students withdisabilities. National Association forDevelopmental Education ConferenceProceedings, 16-17.

Hodge, B. M., & Preston-Sabin, J. (1997).Accommodations—Or just goodteaching? Westport, CT: Praeger.

Holden, C. (1998). Leveling the playingfield for scientists with disabilities.Science, 282, 36-37.

Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. E., Troutman, G.G., & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Studentswith learning disabilities in theuniversity environment: A study offaculty and student perceptions. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 25(10),678-684.

Hughes, C. A. (1991). Studying for andtaking tests: Self-reported difficultiesand strategies of university studentswith learning disabilities. LearningDisabilities, 2, 65-71.

Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1993).Notetaking skills and strategies forstudents with learning disabilities.Preventing School Failure, 38(1), 7-11.

Ingstad, B., & Reynolds Whyte, S. (1995).(Eds.) Disability and culture. LosAngeles: University of California Press.

Isom, J. Web access for the blind: Freedom,frustrations, and fixes. [ElectronicVersion]. Available: http://www.webaim.org/articles/blind

Jarrow, J. E. (1997). Higher education andthe ADA: Issues and perspectives.Columbus, OH: Disability AccessInformation and Support.

Jarvis, K. (1997). Leveling the playing field:A comparison of scores of collegestudents with and without learningdisabilities on classroom tests. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED415261)


Jay, C., & Blackerby, C. (2000). Hope is nota method: How instructional strategiesand technologies for the learningdisabled can benefit traditionallearners. Houston, TX: North HarrisMontgomery Community CollegeDistrict. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 416919)

Jones, G. C., Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J.L. (1997). College students withAttention Deficit Disorder. NASPAJournal, 34, 262-274.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1989).Students with disabilities in highereducation: Redefining access. Journal ofEducational Opportunity 4(1), 14-21.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1994).Implementing the Americans withDisabilities Act. Journal of HumanisticEducation and Development, 32,133-137.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1998).Influencing faculty attitudes towardaccommodating students withdisabilities: A theoretical approach. TheLearning Assistance Review, 3(2),12-25.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1999).Serving college students withdisabilities: Application of the theory ofplanned behavior. Academic ExchangeQuarterly, 3(2), 6-16.

Kalivoda, K. S., Higbee, J. L., & Brenner,D.C. (1997). Teaching students withhearing impairments. Journal ofDevelopmental Education, 20(3), 10-12,14, 16.

Keim, J., McWhirter, J. J., & Bernstein, B.L. (1996). Academic success anduniversity accommodation for learningdisabilities: Is there a relationship?Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 37(5), 502-509.

Kelly, K., & Ranundo, P. (1993). You meanI’m not lazy, stupid or crazy? NY:Scribner.

Kerka, S. (1998). Adults with learningdisabilities. ERIC Digest No. 189.(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED414434)

Kincaid, J., & Simon, J. (1994). Issues inhigher education and disability law.Columbus, OH: Association on HigherEducation and Disability.

Knox, D. L., Higbee, J. L., Kalivoda, K. S.,& Totty, M. C. (2000). Serving thediverse needs of students withdisabilities through technology. Journalof College Reading and Learning, 30(2),144-157.

Koch, L. (1993). Writing for reasoning inmathematics. Research and Teaching inDevelopmental Education, 9(2), 87.

Appendices306

Kriegsman, K. H., & Hershenson, D. B.(1987). A comparison of able-bodiedand disabled college students onErickson’s ego stages and Maslow’sneeds levels. Journal of College StudentPersonnel, 28, 48-52.

Kroeger, S., & Schuck, J. (1993)Responding to disability issues instudent affairs. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kurtz, P. D., & Hicks-Coolick, A. (1997).Preparing students with learningdisabilities for success in postsecondaryeducation: Needs and services. SocialWork in Education, 19, 31-42.

Lawall, G. (1997, June). New approaches tolearning languages: Development ofpilot approaches to second languageacquisition for learning disabledstudents. Five College Workshop:Teaching and Learning at theIntroductory Level. Five CollegeNetwork, Inc. Northampton, MA: SmithCollege.

Lazzaro, J. (1994). Adaptive computing andthe internet: One step forward, two stepsback? Internet Research, 4(4), 2-8.

Lee, C., & Jackson, R. (1992). Faking it: Alook into the mind of a creative learner.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Lewis, M. L. (1998). Faculty attitudestowards persons with disabilities andfaculty willingness to accommodatestudents with learning disabilities in theclassroom. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Auburn University, Auburn,Alabama.

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle,A. (1998). Faculty attitudes andpractices regarding students withdisabilities: Two decades afterimplementation of Section 504. Journalof Postsecondary Education andDisability, 13(3), 5-19.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability:Knowledge and identity. New York:New York University Press.

Long, J. D., Riddle, D., & Knight, C. S.(1999). The teaching-learning process:Special students’ perceptions. Journal ofDevelopmental Education, 22(3), 16-20.

Lundberg, M., & Svien, K. (1088).Developing faculty understanding ofcollege students with learningdisabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 21(5), 5-19.

Marchant, G. J. (1990). Facultyquestionnaires: A useful resource for LDsupport services. Intervention in Schooland Clinic, 26(2), 106-109.


Mathematics and dyslexia. (1998).Perspectives. [Electronic Version].Available: www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/math_skills/ida_math_fall98.html

McAlexander, P. J. (1991). A comment on“Learning disabilities: New doubts, newInquiries”. College English, 53,224-226.

McAlexander, P. J., Dobbie, A. B., & Gregg,N (1992). Beyond the “SP” label:Improving the spelling of learningdisabled and basic writers. Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

McAlexander, P. J., & Gregg, N (1989). Theroles of English teachers and LDspecialists in identifying learningdisabled writers: Two case studies.Journal of Basic Writing, 8, 72-86.

McCarthy, M., & Campbell, N. J. (1993).Serving disabled students: Faculty needsand attitudes. NASPA Journal, 30(2),120-125.

McCormick, K. (1991). Myth #14: Allliteracy problems are the result oflearning disabilities. The Literacy Beat,4(2), 1-4.

McGuinness, K. (1993). Redesigning yourcampus for disabled students. Planningfor Higher Education, 22, 23-27.

McNead, A. O., & D’Avanzo, C. (1997).Innovations in college science teaching.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Michaels, C. (1986). Increasing facultyawareness and cooperation: Proceduresfor assisting college students withlearning disabilities. Proceedings of the1989 AHSSPPE Conference, 78-87.Columbus, OH: Association onHandicapped Student Service Programsin Postsecondary Education.

Molella, A. (1999/2000, Winter). The futureof design. Smithsonian Lemelson CenterNews, 4(2), 1.

Moore, H. L. (1995). Beyond architecturalbarriers: Accommodating collegestudents with disabilities. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Seattle University,Seattle, WA.

National Joint Committee on LearningDisabilities (1994). Secondary topostsecondary education transitionplanning for students with learningdisabilities. Collective perspectives onissues affecting learning disabilities, pp.97-104. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED385079)

Appendices308

Nelson, J. R., Dodd, J. M., & Smith, D. J.(1990). Faculty willingness toaccommodate students with learningdisabilities: A comparison amongacademic divisions. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 23(9), 185-189.

Norton, S. (1997). Examinationaccommodations for community collegestudents with learning disabilities: Howare they viewed by faculty and students?Community College Journal of Researchand Practice, 21, 57-69.

Pacifici, T., & McKinney, K. (1997).Disability Support Services forCommunity College Students. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED409972)

Peltzman, R. (1998). A learning disabledstudent twenty years later. Research andTeaching in Developmental Education,14(2), 101-102.

Polloway, E. A., Schewel, R., & Patton, J. R.(1992). Learning disabilities inadulthood: Personal perspectives.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(8),520-522.

Prichard, K. W., & Sawyer, R. M. (Eds).(1994). Handbook of college teaching.Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Quinsland, L., & Van Ginkel, A. (1990).Cognitive processing and thedevelopment of concepts by deafstudents. American Annals of the Deaf,135, 280-284.

Reamer, A. (1997) Transition to college.[Electronic Version]. Available: http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/postsecondary/reamer_trans.html

Richards, A. (1985). College composition:Recognizing the learning disabledwriter. Journal of Basic Writing, 4(2),68-97.

Riviere, A. (1996). Assistive technology:Meeting the needs of adults withlearning disabilities. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED401686)

Roessler, R. T., Brown, P. L., & Rumril, P.D. (1998). Self-advocacy training:Preparing students with disabilities torequest classroom accommodations.Journal of Postsecondary Educationand Disability, 13(3), 20-31.

Satcher, J. (1992). Community collegefaculty comfort with providingaccommodations for students withlearning disabilities. College StudentJournal, 26(4), 518-524.


Scheer, J., & Groce, N. (1988). Impairmentas a human constant: Cross-cultural andhistorical perspectives on variation.Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1), 23-37.

Schriner, K. F., & Roessler, R. T. (1990)Employment concerns of collegestudents with disabilities: Toward anagenda for policy and practice. Journalof College Student Development, 31,306-312.

Schwarz, R., & Terrill, L. (2000). ESLinstruction and adults with learningdisabilities. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED443298)

Scott, S. S. (1991). A change in legal status:An overlooked dimension in thetransition to higher education. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 24(8), 459-466.

Selected software for developing andremediating difficulties in mathematicsfor adults with learning disabilities.(1995, Fall). Latest Developments, 2-3.

Seymour, E., & Hunter, A. (1998). Talkingabout disability: The education andwork experiences of graduates andundergraduates with disabilities inscience, mathematics, and engineeringmajors. Boulder, CO: University ofColorado.

Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People withdisabilities forging a new civil rightsmovement. New York: Times Books.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.(1998). Universal Instructional Designin higher education: An approach forinclusion. Equity and Excellence inEducation, 31(2), 47-51.

Smith, C. M., & Wiener, J. (1999).Development and validation of SmithLearning Disabilities Screen. Journal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 30(1),62-83.

Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999). Section504 and the Americans with DisabilitiesAct: Accommodating the learning-disabled student in the foreign languagecurriculum. ADFL Bulletin, 30(3),37-44.

Sprague, C. A. (1999). Accessible webdesign. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED435384)

Starr, R. M., & Milheim, W. D. (1996,September/October) Educational uses ofthe Internet: An exploratory survey.Educational Technology, 19-28.

Swedorski, S. (2000). Accommodatingspecial needs: making your web siteviewable to all. Boardwatch Magazine,14(4), 129.

Appendices310

Thompson, A. R., Bethea, L., & Turner, J.(1997). Faculty knowledge of disabilitylaws in higher education: A survey.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,40(3), 166-180.

Thomson, R. G. (2000). The new disabilitystudies: Inclusion or tolerance? ADEBulletin, 124, 18-22.

Tinklin, T. & Hall, J. (1999). Getting ‘roundobstacles: Disabled students’experiences in higher education inScotland. Studies in Higher Education,24, 183-194.

U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission. (2000). Questions andanswers on amending the interpretiveguidance on Title I of the Americanswith Disabilities Act. Washington, D.C.:Author. [Electronic Version]. Available:www.eeoc.gov.

Ward, M., & Newlands, D. (1998). Use ofthe Web in undergraduate teaching.Computers & Education, 31, 171-184.

Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM).Acrobat and PowerPoint accessibilitywoes. [Electronic Version]. Available:http://www.webaim.org/articles/pdfandppt

Weber, M. C. (1999). Disabilitydiscrimination in higher education.Journal of College and University Law,26(2), 351-377.

West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., & Zhu, M.(1993). Beyond section 504:Satisfaction and experiences of studentswith disabilities in higher education.Exceptional Children, 59(5), 456-467.

Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999,August 6). Accommodating learningdisabilities can bestow unfairadvantages. The Chronicle of HigherEducation, B4-B5.

Winston, R. B., Vahala, M., Nichols, E.,Gillis, M., Wintrow, M., & Rome, K.(1994). A measure of college classroomclimates: The college classroomenvironment scales. Journal of CollegeStudent Development, 35, 11-18.

Web Sites

Association on Higher Education andDisability (AHEAD). www.ahead.org

Center for Applied Special Technology(CAST Website). www.cast.org

Equal Access to Software and Information(EASI). www.rit.edu/~easi/


HEATH Resource Center. www.acenet.edu/about/programs/Access&Equity/HEATH/home.html

National Center to Improve the Tools forEducators (NCITE). http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/

LD Online: The Interactive Guide toLearning Disabilities. www.ldonline.org

Cornucopia of Disability Information(CODI). http://codi.buffalo.edu/

The National Information Center forChildren and Youth with Disabilities(NICHCY). www.nichcy.org

National Center to Improve Practice inSpecial Education Through Technology,Media and Materials (NCIP).www.edc.org/FSC/NCIP

Education Resources Information Center(ERIC) Clearinghouse on Disabilitiesand Gifted Education. http://ericec.org

Appendices312


Heidi Lasley Barajas earned her Mastersdegree from the University of Utah and herPh.D. from the University of Minnesota insociology. While a Ph.D. student, she was aNational Science Foundation Fellow andwas awarded funding for her dissertationresearch from the Society for the Study ofSocial Problems (SSSP). She is currently anAssistant Professor in the General College atthe University of Minnesota. Dr. Barajasworks with the Career and CommunityLearning Center, the Youth LiteracyInitiative, and the Center for AppliedResearch and Educational Improvement(CAREI), as well as area schools.

Thomas Brothen received his B.A. inPsychology in 1967 and his Ph.D. in 1976 atthe University of Minnesota with aspecialization in Social Psychology. Dr.Brothen is currently a Morse-AlumniDistinguished Teaching Professor ofPsychology and Social Sciences, GeneralCollege, University of Minnesota. He haspublished two books and nine study guidesrelated to the teaching of generalpsychology and over 50 journal articles and

About the Authors

chapters including 21 specifically related toteaching psychology with the PersonalizedSystem of Instruction in a computer-basedenvironment.

Patrick Bruch received his Ph.D. fromWayne State University and is presentlyAssistant Professor of Writing Studies andCo-Director of the Writing Program in theGeneral College at the University ofMinnesota. He has published articles on thesocial dynamics of teaching writing in booksand journals including Rhetoric Review andJournal of Advanced Composition and isco-editor of the writing textbook Cities,Cultures, Conversations. His currentresearch explores the pedagogicalimplications of past and present theoreticalstruggles over literacy for equality.

Terry Collins received his B.A. in English in1968, followed by his M.A. in English in1971 and his Ph.D. in English in 1976 fromthe University of Minnesota, where hisservice has included Chair of SenateCommittee on Disability Services for twoterms and member of University Senate for

Appendices314

three terms. Dr. Collins served asCoordinator of the Basic Writing Programsin General College for 18 years. He iscurrently Director of Academic Affairs inGeneral College. He has been the recipientof numerous grants and awards, includingthe Horace T. Morse Award forUndergraduate Teaching. Professor Collinsserved as Co-Principal Investigator for theCurriculum Transformation and Disability(CTAD) project.

Daley Connelly is a Senior Specialist withDisability Services at the University ofGeorgia. She has been with the departmentsince 1993. Prior to being a Specialist, sheserved as the Reading and TestingCoordinator. As a senior staff member,Daley specializes in providing services forstudents with mobility impairments andchronic illnesses as well as working with ageneral caseload. She received her master’sdegree in Rehabilitation Counseling fromUGA in 1995 and is certified by theCommission on Rehabilitation CounselorCertification. Daley served on theAthens-Clarke Committee on Employmentfor People with Disabilities and as the VicePresident for Membership in the GeorgiaAssociation of Disability Service Providersin Higher Education.

Shevawn Eaton is the director of ACCESS,an academic services program, at NorthernIllinois University, where she has served onthe President’s Commission for Students

with Disabilities. She has a Ph.D. in HigherEducation Administration from IndianaUniversity, and an M.S. and B.S. fromPurdue University.

Judith A. Fox, Project Director forCurriculum Transformation and Disability,has had primary responsibility for thegrant’s administration and contributes toprogram development, research andevaluation, and dissemination. Previously,Fox taught in the writing program ofGeneral College. Prior to returning tograduate school at the University ofMinnesota, where she received a Master’sdegree in English, Fox worked in thenonprofit arts administration sector for morethan five years.

David Ghere received a B. S. in Educationin 1972 and a M. Ed. in Social Studies in1974 from the University of Illinois as wellas an M. A. in 1981 and Ph.D. in 1988 inHistory from the University of Maine. Hehas served as Assistant Professor of Historyat Jefferson Community College in upstateNew York (1985-1991) as well as Assistantand Associate Professor of History atGeneral College, University of Minnesota(1991-present). Dr. Ghere has created anddeveloped fifteen classroom simulations, hasconducted teacher workshops in the use ofclassroom simulations and has ninepublications about teaching and teachingmethods.


Jay T. Hatch holds a B.A. (1971) and M. A.(1973) in Zoology from DePauw Universityand a Ph.D. (1982) in Zoology from theUniversity of Minnesota. Currently he isAssociate Professor of Biological Scienceand H. T. Morse-Alumni DistinguishedTeaching Professor in the General Collegeof the University of Minnesota, where hehas been a faculty member for 19 years. Hehas received 5 awards for undergraduateteaching at the University of Minnesota andhas published over 30 scientific, educationaland popular works including articles onwriting across the curriculum andtechnology enhanced education.

Jennifer Hatfield holds a Master’s degreein Psychological/Educational Measurementfrom the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and, in 1998, began a doctoralprogram in Educational/PsychologicalMeasurement at the University ofMinnesota. She began working in GeneralCollege as a Graduate Research Assistant in1998. Currently, in addition to pursuing herdoctorate full time, she conductsinstitutional research projects to examineGeneral College’s effectiveness and toinform policy decisions. She is also theproject evaluator for CurriculumTransformation and Disability.

Jeanne L. Higbee serves as Professor andFounding Chair of the Center for Researchon Developmental Education and UrbanLiteracy (CRDEUL) in the University of

Minnesota General College. She earned herB.S. in Sociology from Iowa StateUniversity and her M.S. in Counseling andGuidance and Ph.D. in EducationalAdministration from the University ofWisconsin-Madison. She taughtdevelopmental education courses for 14years at the University of Georgia. She hasedited a total of 11 monographs for theNational Association for DevelopmentalEducation (NADE), the National ResourceCenter for the First-Year Experience andStudents in Transition, and CRDEUL, and isthe author of more than 100 publicationsrelated to access and retention in highereducation. Dr. Higbee was involved incurriculum development and disseminationfor the Curriculum Transformation andDisability grant.

Rashné Jehangir received her B.A. inPsychology from Lawrence University andher in M.A. in Counseling and StudentPersonnel Psychology from the Universityof Minnesota. She is currently working onher doctorate in Educational Policy andAdministration with a focus on HigherEducation. Over the past eight years she hasserved as a Counselor Advocate in the TRIOStudent Support Services program housed inthe General College. She has also taughtsocial science seminars on multiculturalissues independently and within learningcommunities at the General College whereher service has included Chair ofMulticultural Concerns Committee for two

Appendices316

terms. Her current publications focus oncooperative learning, learning communitiesand social justice and access to highereducation.

Katrina N. Jirik will graduate summa cumlaude with a B.A. in Liberal Arts from theUniversity of Minnesota in May 2003. Sheis a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and ispresenting an excerpt of her Honors thesis,titled “As American as Apple Pie: Eugenicsin American Culture,” at the 2003 NationalConference on Undergraduate Research. Sheis planning on pursuing doctoral studies ineither the History of Science andTechnology or Political Science at theUniversity of Minnesota, with a researchfocus on the interplay among science, publicpolicy, and ethics.

Donna Johnson holds a Master’s degree inCounseling Psychology and a Master’sdegree in Industrial Relations from theCarlson School of Management at theUniversity of Minnesota, where sheformerly served as assistant director ofDisability Services. Johnson has presentedat numerous national and internationalconferences, and has authored three trainingmanuals, two book chapters, and severalpublications focusing on studentdevelopment issues for college students withdisabilities. Johnson served as Co-PrincipalInvestigator of Curriculum Transformationand Disability.

Karen S. Kalivoda received her doctoratefrom the Institute of Higher Education atThe University of Georgia (UGA) in 1991.She has served as Director of DisabilityServices at UGA since 1985. Under herleadership, Disability Services hasexperienced dramatic growth and now offerssome of the most comprehensive services inthe southeast. Dr. Kalivoda is published inregional and national journals regarding thelegal ramifications of the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) and presents at thelocal, state, and national level.

Laura Smith Kinney received her B.A. inMathematics from the University ofMinnesota-Morris in 1985, followed by herM.S. in Mathematics from Iowa StateUniversity in 1988 and Ph.D. inMathematics Education from the Universityof Minnesota in 1998. Her dissertation studydocuments the mathematical experiences,voice, and self-images of nontraditionalwomen students in college developmentalmathematics and statistics. Dr. Kinneyjoined the faculty of Northland College ofAshland, Wisconsin in 1998, where shecurrently teaches mathematics.

Patrick Kinney received his B.S. inMathematics from the University ofWisconsin-Superior in 1984, followed by hisMasters of Education-ProfessionalDevelopment from UW-Eau Claire in 1988and Ph.D. in Mathematics Education fromthe University of Minnesota in 1997. Dr.


Kinney was an Assistant Professor indevelopmental mathematics in the GeneralCollege at the University of Minnesota from1998 to 2001. He currently teaches atWisconsin Indianhead Technical College inAshland, Wisconsin.

Jane Larson received her Bachelor ofScience in Economics from Iowa StateUniversity. Ms. Larson has been director ofthe Office for Students with Disabilities atMinneapolis Community and TechnicalCollege since 1994. Jane has managed twofederal grants, a cooperative educationgrant, “Staying on the Job,” to assistorganizations in retention of persons withchronic and progressive disabilities, and aSTAR (System of Technology for AchievingResults) grant. In addition to speaking tovarious groups about disability andpostsecondary education, Ms. Larson hasalso made presentations to employers ondisability in the workplace.

Patricia J. McAlexander has received threedegrees in English: a B.A. from theUniversity of New York at Albany, an M.A.from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. fromthe University of Wisconsin. She iscurrently an Associate Professor in theDivision of Academic Enhancement at theUniversity of Georgia. She has co-authoreda book, Beyond the “SP” Label: Improvingthe Spelling of Learning Disabled and BasicWriters (Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English, 1992), and authored orco-authored a number of articles on learningdisabilities.

Karen Miksch received her B.S. from theUniversity of California, Los Angeles in1986 and her Juris Doctorate (J.D.) from theUniversity of California, Hastings Collegeof the Law, in 1989. Prior to teaching at theundergraduate level, she was a civil rightsattorney for six years and lectured nationallyabout poverty law issues. She is currently anAssistant Professor at the University ofMinnesota General College, where sheteaches social science courses focusing onsocial justice, including Law in Society. Herresearch in developmental education,education policy and social justicecompliments her teaching mission.

Mark Pedelty earned his Ph.D. inAnthropology at University of California,Berkeley, in 1993. He taught at theUniversity of Minnesota, Morris and MiamiUniversity’s (OH) School ofInterdisciplinary Studies before joining thefaculty at the University of Minnesota,where he is currently an Assistant Professor.Pedelty’s research involves intersectionsbetween education, mass media, music,performance, and politics in El Salvador,Mexico, and the United States.

Judy Schuck received both her Master’sdegree and her Ph.D. in EducationalPsychology from the University of

Appendices318

Minnesota and is currently employed as aprivate educational consultant and as a leadtrainer for the Curriculum Transformationand Disability (CTAD) project at theUniversity of Minnesota.

Dr. Schuck was formerly employed as theDean of Students at MinneapolisCommunity and Technical College and hasover 20 years of experience in working withstudents with disabilities and administeringdisability services programs in communitycolleges. Schuck is the co-editor (with SueKroeger) of Responding to Disability Issuesin Student Affairs, a Jossey-Bassmonograph.

Brian Shapiro received a B.A. in AncientNear Eastern Studies and a B.A. in Latinfrom the University of Minnesota in 1981.He received his Ph.D. from the University ofMinnesota in 1990. He was an accountingfaculty member at the University of Arizonafrom 1991 until he returned to theUniversity of Minnesota in 1997. ProfessorShapiro currently teaches financialaccounting and auditing. His researchinterests include economic andpsychological perspectives on decisionmaking in both individual and marketcontexts, as well as critical essays in thephilosophy and sociology of financialaccounting standard setting and assuranceservices.

Margaret Totty joined the staff ofDisability Services at the University ofGeorgia in 1990 and became AssistantDirector in 2000. She is responsible forsupervising a staff of specialists whoprovide services to over 1,000 students whohave disabilities. Margaret also specializesin serving students with acquired braininjuries. Prior to joining the staff atDisability Services, she worked as StateCoordinator for United Cerebral Palsy ofFlorida and as Advocacy Specialist with theOffice of Protection and Advocacy inNevada. Margaret’s experience in the fieldof disability-related services andrehabilitation counseling plays an importantpart in her ability to effectively networkwith the campus and community.

Kathleen B. Uzes received her BA inPsychology, MS in Educational Psychology,and Ed.D. in Education Psychology(Counseling in Colleges and Mental Health)from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.She completed her internship at IllinoisState University. She was employed at theUniversity of Georgia Counseling andTesting Center for 22 years and served asAssociate Director, as well as TrainingDirector and Coordinator of CounselingServices. Dr. Uzes has been activelyinvolved in professional organizations at thelocal, regional, and national levels. She isnow employed as a Psychologist at theUniversity Health Center, University ofGeorgia.


Cathrine Wambach earned a Ph.D. inCounseling Psychology, with a minor inEducational Psychology, fromthe University of Minnesota in 1981. Shejoined the faculty of the General College ofthe University of Minnesota in 1984, whereshe is currently an Associate Professor. Herresearch interests include the evaluation ofdevelopmental education programsand research on factors that affect studentsuccess in college. Dr. Wambach is PastPresident of the Minnesota Association forDevelopmental Education.

Martha E. Wisbey received her Ph.D. inStudent Affairs Administration from theUniversity of Georgia (UGA) in 1993. Sheis currently working as a professionalacademic advisor for the Franklin College ofArts and Sciences at UGA. In addition, sheis working with Disability Services staff ongrant work related to increasing technologyaccess for students with disabilities atcolleges in the southeast region of the U.S.Her research interests are women’s identityand development, multicultural issues, anddisability education.

Documents

Universal Design of Student Development Programs and …Implementing Universal Design Disability Services as a Resource: Advancing Universal Design Karen S. Kalivoda and Margaret C