Partnering with Faculty to Infuse Disability Studies into the General Curriculum

1. Partnering with Faculty to Infuse Disability Studies into the General Curriculum 2011 AHEAD Annual Conference Kimberly Tanner, Ed.D Valdosta State University and Katheryne Staeger-Wilson, MSW Missouri State University

2. Agenda Introductions Overview of Project ShIFT Partnering with Faculty Faculty Book Series Co-designing and co-teaching Future Directions Questions and Answers

3. Project ShIFT…. • Federally funded three-year grant program • Works with selected colleges and universities across the country to: • Examine the policies and practices of the DS office • Integrate the values of a social construction of disability and universal design into each office • Work with selected faculty to integrate UD

4. Medical Model vs. Social Model Medical model Socio-political model Disability is a difference Being disabled, in itself, is neutral Disability derives from interaction between individual and society • Disability is a deficiency or abnormality • Being disabled is negative • Disability resides in the individual

5. Medical Model vs. Social Model Medical model Socio-political model The remedy for disability-related problems is a change in the interaction between the individual and society The agent of remedy can be the individual, an advocate, or anyone who affects the arrangements between individual and society (Gill, 1994) • The remedy for disability-related problems is cure or normalization of the individual • The agent of remedy is the professional who affects the arrangements between the individual and society

6. Core Beliefs 1. Human variation is natural and vital in the development of dynamic communities 2. Disability is a social/political category that includes people with a variety of conditions who are bound together by common experiences 3. Inclusion and full participation are a matter of social justice 4. Design is powerful and profoundly influences our daily lives 5. Good design is essential for achieving inclusion and full participation 6. Creating usable equitable, sustainable, and inclusive environments is a shared responsibility

7. Book Series • “Disability: the social, political, and ethical debate” • Edited by: Baird, Rosenbaum & Toombs • Selected authors: Carol J. Gill, Paul Longmore, Harriet McBryde Johnson, etc.

8. Faculty Development Objectives • Learn about disability history and culture • Discuss how disability and this information intersects your field of study • Consider how this information could be infused into your curricula

9. Outcomes Successful faculty development program Faculty hosted and driven Faculty identified how disability intersected their field of study and left with ideas of how to implement the information into their curricula Faculty reported being more aware of disability issues

10. Outcomes (cont.) Living website created to provide further resources to faculty: http://www.missouristate.edu/fctl/disability.htm (under construction) Further disability awareness programming created Exploring Disability Studies minor DRC perceived as a resource for faculty

11. Our Plan • VPAA offered for Project ShIFT Partners to co-design and co-teach an online course. • Teach a pilot course with no more than 25 students in Spring 2011. • Design the course inclusively so that other faculty would be able to use the course shell to create additional accessible courses, preferably in the area of disability studies according to their field.

12. Our Challenges • Learning Management System (LMS). • Learning curve on technology (faculty & students). • Students did not expect course to be academic or challenging (many dropped) and had trouble accessing the films on their own. • While we thought the course would be accessible for students who are Deaf, there was a barrier that remained due to English comprehension.

13. Our Successes • Students learned to identify stereotypes of disability in film including “Supercrip”, “Better-off Dead” and “Pitiable & Pathetic” (Black & Pretes, 2007) and discussed the implications of these stereotypes. • Students understand the various models of disability (religious, charity, medical, social) and can identify these models in film (and in TV ads, PSAs, personal experiences, etc.).

14. More Success • The experience of co-teaching across “disciplines” has been exceptional. • Imbedded a technology person in the course who tested our materials with adaptive technology and assisted with any barriers. • Students are beginning to see themselves as allies and understand how they might be able to use their knowledge to impact society in a positive way.

15. Lessons Learned • Will never again tell a faculty member to “just make sure it is accessible.” They need a lot of guidance and training on how that is done. We need to know how it is done. • We can no longer ignore the technological aspects in our roles as a service providers. We cannot serve our institutions unless we know what we need to know and what we don’t know we need to know.

16. More Lessons Learned • Use Adaptive Tech to test out materials when possible. For example, PowerPoints read as one long sentence without punctuation. • Faculty want information on accessible design and they want it fast and easy. They also want to know that their needs and preferences are included in the discussion. • Collaboration has resulted in more credibility with faculty (OSM & “boots on the ground”).

17. Future Steps • We are hoping to get support for a steering committee to make a plan for inclusive design of online courses using new LMS as a vehicle. • E-Learning Advisory Board. Quality Matters. • Course designers? • Plan to teach a section in face to face format in the Fall (and until we get a new LMS). • More presentations, more writing and more faculty on board.

18. What are your questions or comments?For more information on ShIFT: http://www.lanecc.edu/disability/shiftgrant.htm

19. Reference • Black, R. & Pretes, L. (2007). Victims and victors: Representation of physical disability on the silver screen. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 32. 66-83. • Gill, C. (1994). Two models of disability. Chicago Institute of Disability. University of Chicago.