Accessing Higher Ground – 2015 Kelly D. Roberts, PhD robertsk@hawaii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. E. Syllabus Checklist Percent

22. Syllabus Checklist Continued Percent

23. F. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice: Percent of respondents who agree/strongly agree.

24. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice

25. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice

26. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice

27. F. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice

28. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice

29. Student evaluation of faculty participants’ UDI practice