Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development
(USC Thesis Other)
Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Minimizing Academic Ableism and Maximizing Course Accessibility: A Social Justice
Pedagogical Approach to Faculty Development
by
Ingrid Steiner
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2022
© Copyright by Ingrid Steiner 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Ingrid Steiner certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Christine Street
Kenneth Yates, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The university in this study, referred to by the pseudonym University X, had recently
acknowledged the need to improve efforts to provide an accessible learning environment for all
students. Students requiring accommodations had encountered barriers to learning in their
courses, highlighting the need to train faculty to address academic ableism and course
accessibility. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the need for student accommodations and
access to digital content. Faculty were asked to interact more often with students with disabilities
and respond to requests for accessible course materials. Faculty’s lack of knowledge regarding
disabilities and course accessibility led to the creation of learning environments that denied
education to students with various abilities. The goal of this faculty training program is to
minimize academic ableism and maximize course accessibility. The foundations of this seven-
module, semester-long curriculum design derived from sociocultural, social justice, and
organizational learning theories. The aim is to create training that will enable faculty to identify
personal actions that contribute to academic ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette when
interacting with students with disabilities, and create course materials in accessible formats.
Participants will prepare work products, which will be assessed by experts who will provide
feedback, and a longitudinal evaluation plan will measure achievement of the desired outcomes.
This curriculum was designed to dismantle academic ableism by educating faculty on how to
reduce barriers to inclusive learning experiences.
Keywords: accessibility, faculty development, accommodations, academic ableism,
disability etiquette, document accessibility.
v
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my committee members for giving me the opportunity to share this
topic with them. Your time and commitment made this curriculum better. Thank you for your
patience and inspiration, as we all continue to navigate these unprecedented times in higher
education. You encouraged me to think more deeply and to challenge ableism in higher
education.
I could not have completed this dissertation without the guidance and expert advice of my
work colleagues and my mentors. I am grateful for the support you have provided to me in this
endeavor. In addition, I would like to thank my family, who, as always, listened and encouraged
me.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Project ............................................................................................ 1
Problem of Practice ............................................................................................................. 2
Evidence for the Problem of Practice ................................................................................. 3
Importance of Solving the Problem .................................................................................... 4
Alignment With the Curriculum Mission Statement .......................................................... 6
Instructional Needs Assessment ......................................................................................... 6
Curriculum Purpose, Goal, Assessment, and Outcomes..................................................... 7
Learning Environment ........................................................................................................ 8
Potential Issues With Power, Equity, and Inclusion ........................................................... 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Design Blueprint ............................................................................... 11
About the Author .............................................................................................................. 11
Organizational Learning Theory ....................................................................................... 12
Sociocultural Theory ......................................................................................................... 13
Social Justice Theory in Education ................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Prior Attempts ................................................................................................................... 15
The Content of the Curriculum ......................................................................................... 17
Chapter Three: The Learning Environment and the Learners ...................................................... 29
Description of the Learning Environment ........................................................................ 29
vii
Learner Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 32
Design Implications of the Learning Environment and Learner Characteristics .............. 39
Chapter Four: The Curriculum...................................................................................................... 41
Cognitive Task Analysis ................................................................................................... 42
Overview of the Units ....................................................................................................... 43
Delivery Media Selection ................................................................................................. 49
General Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Affordances ................................. 50
Specific Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Restrictions .................................. 52
Client Preferences or Specific Conditions of the Learning Environment......................... 54
Specific Media Choices .................................................................................................... 54
General Instructional Methods Approach ......................................................................... 57
Chapter Five: Implementation And Evaluation Plan .................................................................... 61
Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................... 61
Evaluation Plan ................................................................................................................. 62
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................ 75
References ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix A: Lesson Plan and Instructor’s Guide ........................................................................ 88
Unit 1a, Identifying Ableism in the Academy, Asynchronous Session ............................ 88
Unit 1b, Identifying Ableism in the Academy, Synchronous Session .............................. 95
Unit 2a, Respecting Students with Disabilities, Asynchronous Session ........................ 102
Unit 2b, Respecting Students with Disabilities Synchronous Session ........................... 110
Unit 3a, Creating an Inclusive Environment, Asynchronous Session ............................ 118
Unit 3b, Creating an Inclusive Environment, Synchronous Session .............................. 125
Unit 4a, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop, Asynchronous Session ..... 133
Unit 4b, Creating Accessible Word Documents, Synchronous Session ......................... 141
viii
Unit 5a, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop 2, Asynchronous
Session ............................................................................................................................ 148
Unit 5b, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop 2, Synchronous
Session ............................................................................................................................ 156
Unit 6a, Creating Accessible PowerPoint Documents, Asynchronous Session ............. 163
Unit 6b, Creating Accessible PowerPoint Documents, Synchronous Session ............... 170
Unit 7a, Creating Accessible PDF Documents, Asynchronous Session ......................... 177
Unit 7b, Creating Accessible PDF Documents and Implementation Plan,
Synchronous Session ...................................................................................................... 184
Appendix B: Asynchronous Materials for Unit 1 ....................................................................... 191
Appendix C: PowerPoint Slides for Unit 1 Synchronous Session .............................................. 195
Appendix D: Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................ 204
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. A Summary of the Curriculum Content Based on Knowledge Types ............................ 27
Table 2. A Summary of the Curriculum Content Based on Knowledge Types ............................ 48
Table 3. Key Considerations for Media Selection ........................................................................ 53
Table 4. Media Choices in Minimizing Ableism and Maximizing Accessibility ......................... 56
Table 5. Indicators, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .......................... 64
Table 6. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ................................ 67
Table 7. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ............................................................. 69
Table 8. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.......................................... 72
Table 9. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ........................................................ 74
Table A1. Instructional Activities, Unit 1A .................................................................................. 90
Table A2. Instructional Activities, Unit 1B .................................................................................. 97
Table A3. Instructional Activities, Unit 2A ................................................................................ 104
Table A4. Instructional Activities, Unit 2B ................................................................................ 112
Table A5. Instructional Activities, Unit 3A ................................................................................ 120
Table A6. Instructional Activities, Unit 3B ................................................................................ 127
Table A7. Instructional Activities, Unit 4A ................................................................................ 135
Table A8. Instructional Activities, Unit 4B ................................................................................ 143
Table A9. Instructional Activities, Unit 5A ................................................................................ 150
Table A10. Instructional Activities, Unit 5B .............................................................................. 158
Table A11. Instructional Activities, Unit 6A .............................................................................. 165
Table A12. Instructional Activities, Unit 6B .............................................................................. 172
Table A13. Instructional Activities, Unit 7A .............................................................................. 179
x
Table A14. Instructional Activities, Unit 7B .............................................................................. 186
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Visual Representation of the Curriculum Modules ....................................................... 47
Figure 2. Visual Representation of the Curriculum Modules ....................................................... 60
Figure 3. Perceptions of Wellbeing of Students Who Identify as Having A Disability ............... 77
Figure 4. Number of Student Accommodation Requests ............................................................. 78
Figure 5. Blackboard Ally Course Analytics ................................................................................ 78
Figure 6. Student Accessibility Complaints.................................................................................. 79
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Project
Christine, an online graduate student, identified as deaf. They took a course requiring
students to asynchronously view online lectures with Microsoft PowerPoint slides and prepare to
discuss the concepts during the weekly synchronous session. Christine struggled in the course
because the videos did not have transcripts and did not contain captions compliant with the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). They were an expert lip reader but could not translate
large amounts of content. The instructor did not open the course until the first day of the
semester, so Christine was unable to engage with the content prior to the start of class.
Additionally, the professor was not available to answer any questions until the class officially
began. Christine contacted the university disability services office, and they found it took a
minimum of 1 week to transcribe and caption the videos. The materials were released to students
on a weekly basis, so Christine received the captioned videos and transcripts after the
synchronous sessions. Those sessions were completely discussion-based. Although a sign
language interpreter was available during the class, Christine participated in a limited way
because she could not adequately prepare. Christine worried about her ability to complete a
graduate degree in this program and considered dropping out of the program.
Ken used a power wheelchair for mobility. They were a residential undergraduate student
starting their sophomore year. At the start of the semester, Ken reached out to their professor in a
required major course to discuss the accommodation letter he received from the university
disability office. This class’s professor thanked Ken for reaching out, but suggested they might
consider changing majors because this program was extremely intellectually rigorous. The
professor continued that he had never seen a person with a disability in the discipline and that
Ken would probably not be accepted by any graduate school program.
2
Historically, postsecondary environments have been designed as a space for the most
capable, able persons—reinforcing physical and cognitive supremacy (Dolmage, 2017). Higher
education institutions must address this issue to ensure they provide inclusive student learning
experiences, meet their legal responsibilities, and achieve organizational mission alignment. One
way University X could minimize academic ableism and create more accessible learning
environments was with a focus on faculty development.
Problem of Practice
University X is a private research university in the Western United States with a graduate
and undergraduate student population of more than 46,000. Of these students, University X
reported less than 10% of its undergraduate students requested official accommodations from
disability services in 2019. Leake and Stodden (2014) suggested this could be due to cultural or
social stigma in disclosing a disability. In 2015 The National Center for Education Statistics
reported 19.4% of undergraduate students identified as having a disability (National Center for
Education Statistics, n.d.). These data imply some students do not self-identify. Therefore, when
instructors fail to proactively make course content accessible or when they engage in other
ableist behaviors, they create barriers to the learning process. With the passage of the ADA in
1990, postsecondary enrollment of students who identify as having a disability has increased,
and students have access to legal support that was not available 30 years ago (Rao, 2004).
In various research studies, disabled students have identified faculty attitudinal barriers as
the most widely recognized impediment to their success (Rao, 2004; Sniatecki et al., 2015;
Wynants & Dennis, 2017). These attitudinal barriers can be defined as behaviors, perceptions,
and assumptions that lead faculty to discriminate against persons with disabilities and often
manifest from a lack of understanding or fear of improper interactions (Rao, 2004; Sniatecki et
3
al., 2015). Students with disabilities want access to a higher educational experience at an
institution that offers a barrier-free curriculum delivered using flexible approaches to teaching
and learning (Vickerman & Blundell, 2010). Students benefit when faculty have an increased
awareness and knowledge of the characteristics and needs of students with disabilities (Getzel,
2008; Morina, 2019).
Leaders at University X realized they needed to properly address accessibility on a
university-wide level. In an environment where learning and practice are paramount, they
recognized they should encourage a cultural shift in which educators would understand their
obligation to proactively improve accessibility and eliminate academic ableism (Brown & Leigh,
2020; Dolmage, 2017). Connor (2018) eloquently wrote about higher education ableism,
asserting educators should shift their gaze to the structures and systems within education and
how teacher disposition serves as the glue that keeps these systems in place. One approach to
dismantling academic ableism is to educate faculty on how to reduce barriers to an inclusive
learning experience (Carballo et al., 2019).
Evidence for the Problem of Practice
Students with disabilities in higher education have identified the top three barriers to
educational access as physical architecture, lack of accessible teaching resources and methods,
and social barriers (Aguirre et al., 2020; Kendall & Tarman, 2016; Sniatecki et al., 2015). Other
researchers have identified faculty as the number one barrier to student learning (Aguirre et al.,
2020; Lopez-Gavira et al., 2019). Studies on faculty attitudes have revealed variables and beliefs
that influence positive attitudes and actions toward students with disabilities (Lopez-Gavira et
al., 2019; Rao, 2004). Faculty who have had a professional or familial relationship with someone
with a disability, faculty from the social sciences and education disciplines, and faculty who have
4
a better knowledge of disability legislation have a more positive attitude toward students with
disabilities (Aguirre et al., 2020; Morina, 2019; Rao, 2004). Faculty who do not meet one or
more of these criteria have exhibited negative attitudes toward students with disabilities and have
hesitated to adhere to accommodations (Morina, 2019; Sniatecki et al., 2015). Student
perceptions not only include negative feelings toward faculty. They also involve negative views
of institutions that still rely on a medical model of disability or mandate self-identification,
which addresses the student individually, rather than proactively creating an accessible
environment (Holloway, 2001; Morina, 2019).
At University X, a 2019 undergraduate survey found that 50% of the survey participants
indicated they were not satisfied with the level of academic support and resources for
accessibility provided by the university, particularly when dealing with stigma and
discrimination by peers and faculty. Disability researchers have confirmed that faculty desire
professional development opportunities, including disability- or ableism- specific training
(Aguirre et al., 2020; Murray et al., 2009; Rao, 2004; van Jaarsveldt & Ndeya-Ndereya, 2015). It
is important to acknowledge that the majority of faculty development training opportunities in
higher education focus on pedagogical curriculum, which does not adequately address inclusivity
and disabilities (Morina, 2019). Murray et al. (2009) suggested that faculty can positively
influence student experiences with accessible course design and delivery. Evidence also exists
that training in disability and ableism can result in a greater adoption and implementation of
universal design for learning (UDL; Lombardi et al., 2011).
Importance of Solving the Problem
The creation of this curriculum was important to University X for a number of reasons.
First, there had been a lack of focus on faculty education related to accessibility at University X.
5
This gap in knowledge could have led faculty members to perpetuate non-inclusive
environments. Training can also provide an opportunity for faculty to reflect on their own
positionality and how it impacts their interactions with students with disabilities. General
knowledge of academic ableism can help practitioners identify ways to eliminate ableism in their
own classes. In addition, domestic and international researchers have shown that a lack of faculty
training results in faculty who are unaware of their legal obligation to create accessible materials
and make required accommodations in their course design and teaching practices (Aguirre et al.,
2020; van Jaarsveldt & Ndeya-Ndereya, 2015).
Secondly, addressing accessibility is necessary to guarantee equal access for students
with disabilities (Aguirre et al., 2020). Faculty behaviors that marginalize students with
disabilities can decrease student motivation and academic performance (van Jaarsveldt & Ndeya-
Ndereya, 2015). By providing information on how to proactively approach accessibility and
allowing for adequate practice in training, professional development opportunities can help
faculty build knowledge and confidence to overcome their own barriers to providing an inclusive
learning environment.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the need to address academic ableism represents a
social justice issue. Higher education institutions should provide a space where the distribution
of resources and experiences is equitable and sustainable, a place where all members of its
community have access to resources and curricula and are recognized and treated with respect
(Adams et al., 2016; Davis & Harrison, 2013; Dolmage, 2017; Evans et al., 2017; Freebody et
al., 2019). Universities should not be a place where any student wanting access to an education is
seen as a threat to the academic status quo.
6
Alignment With the Curriculum Mission Statement
The mission of the doctoral education program is to develop leaders who are accountable
educational practitioners with a focus on diversity to create equitable educational opportunities.
With the understanding that academic ableism is historically entrenched in educational
institutions, this curriculum was designed to minimize and ultimately solve this educational
problem by using the framework of social justice scholarship, education, and research. Aligning
with the organization’s mission to examine systems of power and privilege, University X faculty
who engage with this curriculum will identify and consider practices, structures, and policies that
create educational barriers for students with disabilities who have been historically marginalized
in academia. By recognizing the ways in which ableism is constructed in the institution and their
own classroom, faculty who are situated in positions of power can become institutional change
agents of ableism in the academy.
Instructional Needs Assessment
The goal for this faculty training program was to minimize academic ableism and
maximize accessibility by providing training in minimizing academic ableism and providing
information about student accommodations, UDL, and accessible course documents. The
resulting training program frames academic ableism in terms of a social justice issue that is an
important part of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Based on student experiences and accessibility
audits of course materials, this goal was set by the administration and the University X Office of
Institutional Accessibility. Multiple measures, including both qualitative and quantitative means,
can be used to track progress toward the goal. Focus groups with students and faculty, as well as
accessibility checkers integrated into the learning management system, will provide valuable
feedback. Plans are underway to implement formal training, focus groups, and course materials
7
audits. It is assumed that this will generally be new information to the over 4,600 teaching
faculty at the institution.
The issue of accessible content and its contribution to institutional academic ableism is a
combination of the innovation and problem model defined by Smith and Ragan (2005). I applied
an innovation model to this curriculum design at University X because it was a required
innovation of change, required specific technical training, and reflected a cultural shift in the
institution. This could also be viewed as a problem model because the problem had been
identified: students were experiencing reduced educational opportunities because of existing
accessibility barriers to content and learning experiences. The problem also persisted because
leadership had not yet addressed it.
The anticipated benefits of the training include the following: (a) increasing participant
self-efficacy when creating materials and interacting with students with various abilities, (b)
providing expert guidance for faculty to answer questions regarding their role in accessibility, (c)
addressing the lack of faculty development in accessibility by providing the first faculty-only
space for participants to engage with information regarding accessibility, and (d) minimizing
barriers to success for students with disabilities. Legal compliance issues existed regarding the
need to improve accessibility at the faculty level, and failure to address the problem would
continue to perpetuate academic ableism at the institution.
Curriculum Purpose, Goal, Assessment, and Outcomes
The goal of this curriculum (see Appendix A), which was developed and will be offered
for the first time at a University X semester-long teaching institute, is to assist faculty in
developing skills to minimize ableism and maximize accessibility in their courses. By the end of
seven modules, the aim is for participants to be able to
8
● identify actions that contribute to academic ableism,
● demonstrate disability etiquette when interacting with disabled individuals,
● identify ways to incorporate UDL into their courses, and
● create course materials in accessible formats.
In the blended evaluation, I will use data from multiple sources and methods to assess
participants’ achievement of the learning objectives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Participants will prepare work products throughout the curriculum, which will submit them for
assessment by and feedback from experts. There will be focus groups conducted with the
participants in 6 months, and then again in 1 year, after completion of the institute. By the end of
this experience, participants should be able to minimize actions that contribute to academic
ableism and accessibility barriers and create a learning environment based on disability justice.
Learning Environment
All faculty development at University X was informal (i.e., not mandated), and
participants received a certificate of completion for participating in a specific number of learning
activities. All work products submissions received suggested improvements for feedback, but
were not formally assessed. Participation in this course is voluntary and will be open to all
university faculty members, no matter academic rank or discipline.
Potential Issues With Power, Equity, and Inclusion
The fundamental aspect of academic ableism is that White, cisgender, heterosexual men
who are not perceived as disabled direct the academy (Kim & Aquino, 2017). Research has
shown that administrators and tenured faculty resist diversity training, particularly when focused
on topics such as long-standing privilege and oppression (Kim & Aquino, 2017). Holloway
(2001) stated that policy changes must be implemented at the institutional level for disability
9
change to occur at an institution. The accountability for change should apply to the individual
(i.e., faculty and staff), collective (i.e., faculty, staff, university, and students), internal culture
(i.e., university mission and values), and external incentive (i.e., compliance; Hehir & Katzman,
2012). Scholars have also proven that a lack of faculty and staff knowledge of the experiences of
students with disabilities has perpetuated academic ableism on the university campus (Holloway,
2001; Sniatecki et al., 2015). Tobin and Behling (2018) suggested that decreasing and ultimately
removing institutional resistance should begin with a focus on faculty in tandem with
administrative support.
Leaders at University X had never initiated a large-scale effort to train faculty, staff, or
students in academic ableism and accessibility. Disability had received little attention outside
incidents involving an issue such as a lawsuit. Faculty, staff, and students could have many
reasons for avoiding activism on this subject as many do not know how to argue for greater
diversity, do not want to organize with other vulnerable populations, and do not want to risk their
own disclosure. Dolmage (2017) predicted that communities would likely continue to show
allegiance to the exclusions that reinforce the privilege of those with existing power, supporting
the process that maintains academic ableism. The perpetuation of academic ableism at University
X can be defined as resulting from the limited availability of systems for accessing the learning
experience.
Definition of Terms
The following terms and definitions apply to the creation, implementation, and discussion
of this curriculum design.
Ableism refers to the phenomenon where a person, society, or environment positively
values able-bodiedness as the norm, ideal, and default (Dolmage, 2017, pp. 6–7).
10
Academic ableism is a system in higher education that justifies systemic and individual
biases, prejudice, and oppression against people with disabilities (Lawrence-Brown & Sapon-
Shevin, 2014)
Accessibility refers to the features of a place, material, digital environment, or experience
that enable people with varying disabilities to equally participate in experiences (Baglieri &
Shapiro, 2017, p. 75).
Assistive technologies are any devices, software, or equipment that help the user access
digital or physical content. Examples include voice recognition software, screen readers, and
pencil grips (Coombs, 2010).
Disability was defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act as a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of an impairment,
or being regarded as having an impairment (ADA.gov, n.d.). A disability can include differences
in communication, physical ability, vision, learning, and attention (Burgstahler, 2020).
Disability attitudes or disability-related attitudes refer to an individual’s thoughts or
feelings about people with disabilities, including a desire to learn about disability laws and
student support and the willingness to provide accommodations (Kim & Aquino, 2017).
Inequality refers to the perceived difference in resources and materials possessed by or
afforded to people (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017, p. 26).
Inequity, when used in social justice education, refers to the systemically unfair
distribution of resources and materials (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017, p. 26).
Oppression is a restrictive, pervasive, and cumulative process in which prejudice,
discrimination, and bias fuse with institutional practices (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017, p. 26).
11
Universal design for learning is a framework that eliminates learning environment
barriers by addressing all learner needs (Freebody et al., 2019).
Social justice was used in this context to refer to the fair and equitable distribution of
resources with the imperative to address those with the fewest advantages (Rawls, 2009).
Organization of the Design Blueprint
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In Chapter 1, the problem of practice is
presented along with institutional needs assessments, terms, and an exploration of institutional
and author power, equity, and inclusion. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on
academic ableism, social justice pedagogy, and faculty development for accessibility. Chapter 3
includes a discussion of the learner and learning context. I identify the learner’s abilities,
cognitive characteristics, and physiological characteristics in this chapter, along with providing a
suggestion for an ideal learning environment. Chapter 4 consists of the overall curriculum goal
and outcomes. In this chapter, I identify the summative assessments to be used in the curriculum.
Lastly, in Chapter 5, I discuss and conceptualize the implementation and evaluation plan.
About the Author
Curriculum creation involves inherent power and privilege. My identities not only shape
my internal truths, but how I interpret the truth of others. They offer me the lenses of empathy
and compliance. They offer me the lens of knowledge and the ability to recognize that every
ableist experience is unique. Atkins and Duckworth (2019) and Strunk and Locke’s (2019)
considerations of researcher—or designer—positionality informed my reflection process.
My interest in accessibility (i.e., abilities) arose from my desire to eliminate barriers to
the educational experience and to develop faculty knowledge in ways that would contribute to
this goal. As a faculty member at institutions similar to University X, I have personally
12
experienced what it is like when a student requests an accommodation, when a student cannot
access the course content, and how faculty bias can inform a response. As a University X
student, I have witnessed and experienced ableist attitudes from faculty and other fellow
students. As a staff member at University X, as a member of university-wide accessibility
committees, and as someone who has daily interactions with faculty, I was aware of the
perpetuation of institutional ableism. I had also spoken with students who had encountered
ableist behaviors from faculty, fellow students, and administrators. Although I do not file for an
official accommodation, I have a chronic condition where I sometimes need to use a mobility
support device, so I have experienced both faculty, student, and institutional ableism firsthand.
Having been trained extensively on accessibility compliance, accessible course design, and UDL,
I knew that academic ableism could be dismantled with knowledge. My decision to frame this
curriculum design within the inherent barriers of academic ableism and not just in legal
compliance resulted from my desire to incorporate knowledge of disabilities into the fabric of the
university to create a socially just educational experience for all students (Berger & Lorenz,
2016). Not only was my own positionality important for this design, but the theoretical
foundations of organizational learning theory, sociocultural theory, and social justice theory in
education, also informed my design approach for this project.
Organizational Learning Theory
Researchers in foundational and more recent literature have suggested learning can be
viewed as a socially constructed process within an organization when knowledge is interpreted
and shared collectively among individuals. Many organizational theorists believe the importance
of team learning takes priority over individual learning (Scott & Palincsar, 2013; Senge, 1997).
Senge (1997) went even further, suggesting that the collective intelligence of the team exceeds
13
the intelligence of the individual, so it is important that individual learning prepares students to
be part of a group. Fauske and Raybould (2005) supported Senge’s idea and wrote that individual
learning is a necessary precursor to organizational learning. Other scholars have asserted that the
focus must remain solely on the individual and not the team (Argyris & Schön, 1997). Although
scholars place differing levels of importance on individual and team learning within the
organization, effective organizational learning requires that individuals share ideas and take
actions in order to invoke change on the organizational level. If an organization is viewed as a
social environment, then sociocultural theory can provide context to learning.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theorist Vygotsky stated that learning occurs within a social environment,
and Scott and Palincsar (2013) defined the social environment by its cultural, institutional, and
historical context. The social interactions that occur within the environment inform individual
cognitive development, coconstructing knowledge through exchanges and observations between
individuals and groups (Schunk, 2020). Smith and Ragan (2005) suggested two ways to
approach sociocultural theory, one focused on development, and the other focused on cumulative
knowledge. Although theorists originally described sociocultural theory in relation to children’s
development, researchers can also apply its principles to adult learners with specific applications.
Many foundational beliefs are formed in childhood and during adolescence, but individuals are
dynamic, and beliefs can change with new knowledge and understanding (Alfred, 2002; Schunk,
2020). Scaffolded learning and assignments and peer collaboration both work well with adult
learners (Schunk, 2020; Villamil & de Guerrero, 2006). Schunk (2020) also believed that
learning can be effective when Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development has been implemented
along with instructor-facilitated experiences. To employ sociocultural theory in adult education,
14
educators must understand the culture of the learners, how they interpret their identities, and how
they learn to process their social environment. Otherwise, the learning environment can empower
some and silence others due to historical interactions (Alfred, 2002). Identifying how ableism is
socially constructed allows individuals to analyze their beliefs regarding what constitutes a just
society, which is a goal of social justice theorists in educational organizations.
Social Justice Theory in Education
Social justice theory presents a framework for learners to analyze socially constructed
systems of oppression and identify their position and role within those structures. In 1983,
Michael Walzer identified education as a social justice sphere. He argued that educational
organizations control resources, and if allocations of those resources are not equally accessible or
assessed and are not distributed equitably, then a gap can occur between the actual and the
perceived socially just environment (Resh & Sabbagh, 2016). Adams et al. (2016) stated that
society as a whole—and not individuals—enact social justice in education. In order for an
educational system to be socially just, educational leaders must analyze intersections of multiple
forms of justice and develop a sense of agency to dismantle oppressive systems (Adams et al.,
2016). Other scholars, such as Ayers et al. (2009), have suggested that social justice in education
is subjective because individuals and groups can perceive it differently; therefore, it is difficult to
define and assess. Nonetheless, it can be argued that social justice educators must recognize that
maintaining systems of oppression has consequences for all members of society. Both
individuals and institutions can perpetuate socially constructed perceptions of ability. These
theories provided the framework for the curriculum, but I based the actual training curriculum on
accessibility research outcomes from prior curricula and identified key components for effective
faculty development.
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review addresses a number of the existing research studies that helped
frame the approach and content of the curriculum. Although numerous approaches can be
applied to accessibility training in a professional development context, I selected the topics based
on the existing culture at University X. I set training objectives that involved identifying personal
actions that contribute to academic ableism, demonstrating disability etiquette when interacting
with disabled students, and creating course materials in accessible formats. Based on these
objectives, I selected the three main themes of academic ableism, disability etiquette, and
inclusive practices. During this process, I continually interrogated the research and outcomes for
inclusion as well as how they would apply to the university culture.
Prior Attempts
Previous researchers identified preferred modalities and designs for faculty professional
development. Although both online-only and in-person training have been effective, blended
modalities have led to increased knowledge, more positive faculty attitudes, and increased
confidence among faculty aiming to create an accessible course environment (Carballo et al.,
2019; Morina & Carballo, 2017; Sowers & Smith, 2004; Wynants & Dennis, 2017).
Researchers have made various suggestions for training topics, including student
experiences, addressing both the legal and social justice aspects of disability, providing
discipline-specific examples, and introducing the UDL framework (Burgstahler, 2020;
Chrysostomou & Symeonidou, 2017; Debrand & Salzberg, 2005; Getzel, 2008; Lombardi et al.,
2013; Marquis et al., 2016; Morina & Carballo, 2017; Sniatecki et al., 2015). Although prior
researchers identified topics, they did not provide extensive lesson plans or suggest curriculum
materials for faculty training as I have in this dissertation. The literature consistently lacked
16
faculty development material with a combined approach that included compliance, UDL, and
social justice (Burgstahler, 2020; Getzel, 2008; Lombardi et al., 2013; Sniatecki et al., 2015).
Holloway (2001) cited the limited understanding of access for students with disabilities and the
need for institutional support in order to promote accessible learning environments. Institutional
leaders must make accessibility a priority, in addition to providing needed personnel and
technology (Dallas et al., 2014). Prior training attempts also showed faculty felt positively
motivated when instructors discussed disability under the umbrella of diversity (Holloway, 2001;
Leake & Stodden, 2014).
Various perceived and actual barriers to creating faculty training on accessibility existed.
The training can be perceived as time-consuming, costly, and as promoting practices that will
lack support after training (Morina & Carballo, 2017; Murray et al., 2009; Wynants & Dennis,
2017). Indications also emerged that mandatory training is most effective because faculty who
need training often do not participate in voluntary offerings (Kendall & Tarman, 2016; Marquis
et al., 2016; Morina & Carballo, 2017). If mandatory training is impossible, a train-the-trainer
model has been found to be most effective (Murray et al., 2009; Rohland et al., 2003).
Although it was widely acknowledged in that accessibility should be part of faculty
professional development, a review of the research showed that a curriculum for translating
knowledge into action had not been developed. The training outlined in this dissertation provides
an actual curriculum that was implemented at University X. It can also be modified for
implementation at other higher educational institutions. Although the modality and format of the
curriculum were based on research outcomes from prior attempts, I customized the training
content to the University X community.
17
The Content of the Curriculum
This curriculum was designed by synthesizing outcomes from prior attempts at faculty
accessibility training in order to meet University X’s goals of teaching participants to
• identify academic ableism,
• demonstrate disability etiquette when interacting with and providing accommodations
for students with disabilities,
• and create course materials in accessible formats.
Previous, informal conversations with University X faculty and administrators also contributed
to this curriculum design. No detailed curriculum designs for this topic were addressed in the
literature. The three main themes of the training were ableism in the academy, respecting
students with disabilities, and creating an inclusive learning environment.
Ableism in the Academy
Academic ableism can be defined in multiple ways using various criteria. Evans et al.
(2017) suggested ableism can occur in multiple places in higher education, including interactions
among individuals, social systems, organizational systems, and individuals. It can also exist in
organizational or sociocultural norms, expectations, and assumptions. Harvard Professor Thomas
Hehir (2002) defined academic ableism as
the devaluation of disability that results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it
is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell
independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to
other disabled kids. (p. 2)
Ableism is often defined by teaching practices. Brown and Leigh (2020) suggested that
ableism is a lack or absence of recognition of students with disabilities. Dolmage (2017) argued
18
that teaching practices such as UDL are an acknowledgment of the previous bias in education. In
its simplest version, academic ableism is ableism within the structure of higher education.
Although the definition of academic ableism provides context, educators must still recognize
academic ableism to address it.
Academic ableism has historically existed in the academy, and it continues to be
perpetuated through institutional systems. Leading disability scholars have commented that the
perceived power and privilege of the academy has perpetuated it as a place for the most
physically and cognitively capable students (Dolmage, 2017; Evans et al., 2017). Historically,
higher education has been made available to the perceived deserving few rather than all citizens
(Dolmage, 2017). The models of student self-identification and retroactive accommodations
suggested that the current model is still being developed without considering student diversity
and the benefits of inclusive learning environments (Dolmage, 2017; Evans et al., 2017;
Lawrence-Brown & Sapon-Shevin, 2014). Brown and Leigh (2020) asserted this is not because
of malicious intent, but a general lack of understanding and awareness. Instructors use traditional
ways of teaching, and fear and vulnerability perpetuate the historical methods (Dolmage, 2017;
Evans et al., 2017). Nario-Redmond (2020) wrote that until educators change the “ABCs” of
academic ableism, individual students will see little change. The author defined the “ABCs” as
additional responses, behavioral actions, and cognitive beliefs and stereotypes (p. 6). Brown and
Leigh (2020) wrote that academic ableism presents a problem that cannot be resolved by one
individual even though it is consistently felt by individuals. Dismantling academic ableism
requires an understanding of what it is and how it presents at the university as part of the
organizational entity. By acknowledging that academic ableism exists in the academy, an
educator can begin to understand how they participate in and perpetuate it at the university and in
19
their courses. Then they can work with others to eliminate it. One way ableism manifests in the
academy is through perceptions of disabilities in the higher education community.
Models of Disability in the Academy
Although new models of disability have emerged, two models of disabilities prevail: the
medical model and the social model of disability. The medical model pathologizes disability,
focusing on identifying a diagnosis and a cure (Trybus et al., 2019). In this model, practitioners
suggest that disability is an individual’s problem, not created by culture, environments, or
politics (Evans et al., 2017; Trybus et al., 2019). In contrast, subscribers to the social model of
disability, originally named in 1976 in the United Kingdom, refer to the political, social, and
cultural oppression that people with disabilities experience, focusing on the construction of
disability within both physical and social spaces (Evans et al., 2017; Lalvani & Baglieri, 2019;
Trybus et al., 2019). Evans et al. (2017) believed that a social justice model applied to higher
education would help educators see that student barriers to success are embedded in the
structural, organizational, physical, and attitudinal aspects of the institution. Although the social
and medical models both apply to students who identify with disabilities, subscribers to newer
models, such as the disability justice and interactionist models of disability, focus on the
intersection of society and impairment (Evans et al., 2017). An understanding of how models of
disability present in higher education institutions is needed to make the required systemic
changes. Legal considerations also exist that faculty and institutional leaders must be aware of
and comply with when teaching students with disabilities.
Laws Impacting Students With Disabilities in Higher Education
Although a number of U.S. laws provide guidance for and protect people with
disabilities, two major pieces of legislation impact students with disabilities in the university
20
setting: the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA in 1990, which was amended to the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first
antidiscrimination law for persons with disabilities. The law prohibited discrimination in any
program or activity receiving federal funds in the form of grants, contracts, or general assistance
of $2,500 or more per year (Evans et al., 2017; Leake & Stodden, 2014). Most universities, both
public and private, receive federal funds through grants and other contracts, so universities have
been required to follow this legislative mandate. The 1973 Rehabilitation Act includes several
sections, but the primary section relevant to postsecondary settings is Section 504, which
mandates providing equal opportunity to qualified persons with disabilities (Evans et al., 2017).
Additionally, Subpart E of the Rehabilitation Act requires an institution to be prepared to
make reasonable accommodations to allow students with disabilities full participation in the
same programs and activities available to students without disabilities (Leake & Stodden, 2014).
There was minimal compliance among universities because Section 504 was costly and time-
consuming (Evans et al., 2017). Unlike Section 504, the ADA applied to all institutions of higher
education, regardless of receipt of federal funds (Leake & Stodden, 2014). The ADAAA
amended the ADA and other disability discrimination laws at the federal level. Legislators
passed the ADAAA in response to a number of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that had
interpreted the original text of the ADA, reversing those decisions by broadening the law,
specifically changing the definition of the term “disability,” thereby increasing the number and
types of persons protected under the ADA and other federal nondiscrimination laws (Evans et al.,
2017). With the increase in online course and program offerings, higher education institutions
and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights have paid increased attention to
the accessibility compliance of instructional technology and content (“Dealing With Office of
21
Civil Rights Complaints,” 2016; Evans et al., 2017). The laws described have created a legal
framework for institutions to provide services to students with disabilities. They also give
context and parameters for faculty to help them self-assess their own responsibility in providing
services to students with disabilities.
Individual Positionality
Although accessibility policies and models impact processes, acknowledging personal
perceptions regarding students with disabilities represent an important component in minimizing
learning environment barriers. Aguirre et al. (2020) cited faculty as the main barrier to learning
by students with disabilities. Van Jaarsveldt and Ndeya-Ndereya (2015) wrote that working with
students with disabilities can create feelings of vulnerability in faculty by forcing them to
recognize the impermanence of their able-bodiedness. Self-reflective educator practices are
necessary to help educators see and acknowledge perceptions of students with disabilities, but
self-exploration can be perceived as a threatening exercise (van Jaarsveldt & Ndeya-Ndereya,
2015). Acknowledging how lived experiences contribute to the development of attitudes, values,
and behaviors regarding ableness can impact course design, policies, and teaching practices
(Terrell et al., 2018). Reflecting on positionality represents an important process in minimizing
and eliminating academic ableism in courses and in the institution. Educators must also explore
their individual positionality to implement student accommodations.
Respecting Students With Disabilities: Accommodations and Disability Etiquette
Treating students with disabilities with respect comprises the foundation of disability
etiquette. When a student presents an accommodation letter to faculty, they must provide the
student with an opportunity to benefit from the educational experience that resembles the
opportunity experienced by their peers. Having a foundational knowledge of how to
22
communicate with and about people with disabilities ensures an inclusive learning environment.
Student Accommodations Process
Understanding the accommodations process can help faculty reduce barriers to learning
in their courses. The campus disability office assesses and approves reasonable accommodations
required by the ADA. These accommodations enable a student with a disability to participate,
work, and learn in a course (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017). Higher education students are
responsible for self-identifying and disclosing to disability services (Evans et al., 2017;
Kerschbaum et al., 2017). Further, students must complete the necessary steps, including testing
and providing documentation, in order to receive accommodations (Evans et al., 2017). Most
campuses offer services for students with financial challenges and provide information regarding
the accommodations process (Evans et al., 2017). In addition, institutional responsibilities can
include providing information during orientation, on syllabi, during faculty training and
consultations, and when negotiating reasonable accommodations that are provided in an equal
and timely manner (Evans et al., 2017; Kerschbaum et al., 2017). Evans et al. (2017) suggested
that faculty can take a proactive social justice approach to student accommodations by creating
universally designed curricula and a disability-friendly learning environment. Employing
disability etiquette behaviors in the learning environment is a way to create an inclusive
environment.
Interacting With Students With Disabilities
Although recommended practices for disability interactions exist, educators must take
care to honor the individual’s preference. Foundational considerations for communicating with
students with disabilities include respecting an individual’s multiple and intersecting identities,
respecting reasons for disclosing or not disclosing, and respecting the fluidity of disability
23
(Evans et al., 2017). Van Jaarsveldt and Ndeya-Ndereya (2015) claimed that faculty often feel
added pressure when interacting with students with disabilities because they worry about
offending the student, and Dolmage (2017) posited that faculty should acknowledge student
differences without fear of being discriminatory. Burgstahler (2020) and Evans et al. (2017)
suggested asking for individual preferences pertaining to identity and related language. Scholars
agreed that when speaking to students with disabilities, phrases that limit students’ agency
should be avoided (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017; Burgstahler, 2020; Evans et al., 2017; Kim &
Aquino, 2017). Examples of this type of language include “afflicted with,” “suffers from,” and
“overcome.” Burgstahler (2020) and Baglieri and Shapiro (2017) suggested removing any
outdated terms, such as “retarded” and positive patronizing labels, such as “alternatively abled.”
Language not only stems from historical legacies, but it reflects the values of the individual and
their perceptions (Nario-Redmond, 2020). Two accepted ways exist for addressing a student with
disabilities; one is person-first language, and the other is identity-first language. Disability
advocates who felt that other forms of address were dehumanizing insisted on person-first
language (i.e., a student with disabilities; Evans et al., 2017). Person-first language recognizes
the person first and not the disability. Use of identity-first language recognizes the discriminatory
and oppressive perceptions of disability and encourages those who identify to acknowledge that
disability is an inherent part of their identity (Evans et al., 2017). It is important to remember that
students with disabilities are individuals, not labels, and the best way to interact with them is to
build a relationship with them and to make them feel included in the learning environment.
Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment for Students With Disabilities
A misperception exists that all students in higher education are nondisabled; this idea
causes faculty to miss their obligation to proactively create an inclusive environment for students
24
with disabilities, both those who self-identify and those who do not. (Hehir et al., 2015, p. 221).
Research indicated that faculty perceive that the campus disability office provides all of the
necessary accommodations for the student, but providing an inclusive learning environment
requires faculty participation (van Jaarsveldt & Ndeya-Ndereya, 2015). A proactive approach
also necessitates professional development opportunities for faculty on the topic of accessibility
(Vance et al., 2014). Kim and Aquino (2017) wrote that a proactive faculty approach can
eliminate existing barriers rather than create new barriers, frame disability within diversity,
reduce the number of accommodations requests, and lead to social change. When environments
and activities are accessible, everyone benefits, regardless of their functional limitations. This is
the main foundation of a widely accepted inclusive framework, UDL.
Universal Design
When faculty adopt principles of UDL in their courses, learning experiences are diverse,
equitable, and inclusive. Use of UDL accommodates all students without compromising
academic standards and expectations (Wynants & Dennis, 2017). It also reduces
accommodations requests because students do not encounter barriers to access (Dallas et al.,
2014; Leake & Stodden, 2014; Lombardi et al., 2011). A reduction in requests not only helps
students, but faculty and campus services. Use of UDL can also reduce the need for students to
self-identify, which requires students to disclose information about themselves they may not
want to share (Leake & Stodden, 2014; Tobin & Behling, 2018). Additionally, instructors who
use UDL help the institution shift from a legal compliance model to one of social justice (Dallas
et al., 2014; Evans et al., 2017). Burgstahler (2015) wrote that faculty, staff, and administrators
have a responsibility to create accessible, usable, and inclusive environments and products, but
the author pointed out that challenges arise when encouraging faculty to adopt UDL in their
25
courses. Tobin and Behling (2018) explained that the main challenge relates to the fact UDL is
not a specific set of practices, but a mindset. No legal mandate exists for incorporating UDL into
course design and teaching practices, and faculty can be reluctant to incorporate something into
their courses that is not required (Dallas et al., 2014). Another major barrier is that faculty are
trained as discipline-specific experts and not in pedagogy, which indicates the need for additional
faculty to devote time they may not have to training (Dallas et al., 2014; Lombardi et al., 2013).
Educators using UDL must consider inclusion from the beginning, rather than retrofitting
teaching practices and content after being asked. A major component of UDL involves creating
accessible course materials.
Accessible Content
Identifying how and why accessible content can minimize academic ableism is necessary
before asking faculty to actually create accessible materials. Some faculty perceive that creating
accessible content is time-consuming and difficult, so leaders must encourage a proactive
approach while adopting a message about adequate support (Vance et al., 2014). Faculty must
understand that use of digital tools does automatically amount to access; students encounter two
potential barriers in courses. They are the container (i.e., the learning management system or
software) and the content, which is typically created and selected by faculty (Vance et al., 2014).
Introducing faculty to how some students use assistive technology to access course materials can
help faculty understand why accessible content is important and how students can become
technologically liberated (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2017). Creating accessible course content also
allows students to use alternative formats when necessary, without requesting them from faculty
or campus services. This ensures that the content is available to those who need alternative
formats without distracting those who do not need them (Rose & Meyer, 2006). Creating
26
accessible course materials is a necessary component of creating an inclusive learning
environment, which aligns with a social justice approach. Kat Holmes (2020) wrote: “For better
or worse, the people who design the touchpoints of society determine who can participate and
who’s left out. Often unwittingly” (p. xi). When instructors create course materials and learning
experiences with accessibility in mind, all students benefit, and faculty play an important part in
reducing barriers to education.
Summary of the Curriculum Content
Krathwohl’s four knowledge types and training outcomes were useful for examining the
main steps to identifying personal actions that contribute to academic ableism (i.e.,
demonstrating disability etiquette when interacting with disabled individuals and creating course
materials in accessible formats). Each of these steps contains substeps, which reinforce the main
steps and the desired learning outcomes. Table 1 provides a summary of the curriculum content
and how it aligned with factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types.
27
Table 1
A Summary of the Curriculum Content Based on Knowledge Types
Learning units Factual Conceptual Procedural Metacognitive
Identifying
academic
ableism
Define academic
ableism.
Examine higher
education laws
regarding
disability.
Evaluate various
models of
disability.
Analyze
disability as
part of DEI.
Examine
individual
positionality
toward students
with
disabilities.
Respecting
students with
disabilities
Summarize the
legal rights of
students with
disabilities.
Describe the
process of
student
accommodations.
Analyze how
language and
media
perpetuate
ableism.
Create and
demonstrate a
personal plan
for student
interactions.
Creating an
inclusive
learning
environment
for students
with
disabilities
Identify UDL
techniques and
behaviors.
Create accessible
course content.
Implement a
plan for
accessibility.
Note. DEI = diversity, equity, and inclusion. Based on the four knowledge types identified in “A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview,” by… Krathwohl (2002)
These knowledge types provided the foundation for the curriculum design in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3 addresses the learning environment and the learner characteristics I considered when
designing the curriculum.
I designed this curriculum in response to the stage of faculty development and culture
around accessibility that existed at University X at the time of development, so not all higher
28
educational institutions would use the instructional content and plans as proposed. Leaders at
other colleges and universities would need to consider prior accessibility training, campus
culture, and specific knowledge needs related to their faculty community. Additional
considerations would include staffing, collaboration between campus units, and funding.
Institutional leaders would also need to decide if they wanted to do a small cohort pilot program
and then scale for their community or if they would want to make the training available to
specific schools or departments with greater need for the training.
29
Chapter Three: The Learning Environment and the Learners
In this chapter, I examine the learning environment and the learners. Recognizing,
acknowledging, and planning for both the learners and the environment informed how the
curriculum was designed and delivered. I viewed the learning environment as a learning system
that operated on a microlevel with the learners and as a macroenvironment within University X,
where the training will be delivered as recommended by Smith and Ragan. In my examination of
learner characteristics, I focused on the cognitive characteristics I would need to consider when
designing the curriculum. In understanding these various attributes, I could design instructional
strategies to address the diverse needs and motivations of all learners (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
This chapter addresses the advantages and limitations that can impact a learner’s experience.
Description of the Learning Environment
My understanding of the learning environment was important to this curriculum’s
success. I designed it to be delivered at a specific university where multiple trainings had
occurred throughout the years, so faculty preferences for an optimal learning environment had
been shared with me. Preferences included workshop time with experts, microlearning materials
(i.e., short videos and written resources focused on one element), and using the virtual modality
for instruction. The goal of the learning environment was to create a space where the knowledge
and skills necessary to master content could be effectively delivered. To be inclusive of all
faculty ranks and disciplines, this training will be delivered in a virtual format. Comfort with
technology, equipment, and the virtual environment will be necessary for both the facilitators
and participants.
30
Teacher, Trainer, and Facilitator Characteristics
The facilitators of this curriculum will be familiar with various modalities of training and
technology at University X. They serve as faculty themselves and have taught both in-person and
online classes. Each facilitator also had a graduate degree in education or instructional design. In
addition to being the facilitators, they will also be responsible for revising the curriculum based
on continuous feedback from the participants. The lead curriculum designer and expert in
accessibility will facilitate the first time this training is offered. There will be a train-the-trainer
model employed for all future accessibility trainers. The facilitator will act as a learning guide
for faculty participants and help them develop knowledge and skills related to minimizing
academic ableism and maximizing accessibility in their courses and programs.
Existing Curricula or Programs
This curriculum aligns with both federal and University X policies and procedures to
ensure compliance with accessibility mandates. At the time of the curriculum design, University
X did not require participation in professional development, but I designed the training to
address the entire university community should that change. At the time of development, federal
and university policies existed for disability etiquette. These related to language, protected class,
and the accommodation letter process. I incorporated the development of skills and knowledge
surrounding this into the curriculum. This training will be conducted through a collaboration
between the center for teaching, institutional accessibility, and disabilities services. The content
and delivery will be based on recommended practices in learning and curriculum design.
Although this topic did not fit into an existing curriculum, I modeled the course design on other
successful institutes offered by the center for teaching. The teaching center institutes use a
flipped model of instruction, encouraging participants to engage with materials asynchronously,
31
complete a work product, and then actively apply the materials during the synchronous session.
This institute will follow the same model.
Available Equipment and Technology
For the asynchronous and synchronous curriculum, learners will need access to a
computer with internet connectivity. Access to an office suite of document creation software like
Microsoft Office 365 or Google Suite is essential for creating accessible content and for work-
product creation. Both of these software options are available to all faculty for free at the
university. I designed the curriculum in the university-supported Blackboard learning
management system. For synchronous training sessions, the university-supported Zoom video
conferencing system will be used. Participants should be familiar with the functions of the
necessary technology. Some faculty will not be familiar with the technology, training modules
and university support are available to all participants. Multiple support staff will attend each
synchronous session to address any technology and content issues, and they will also be
available outside of the scheduled sessions.
Classroom Facilities and Learning Climate
The virtual asynchronous content and synchronous sessions will accommodate many
different types of learners. This training is about accessibility, so all course materials are
compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards, the minimum level suggested for
higher educational institutions (“How to Meet WCAG,” n.d.). Virtual delivery also allows
remote faculty to take part in the training, creating an inclusive environment and demonstrating
its importance. University administration supports this training and understands its necessity to
introduce and advance institutional accessibility. Learning without barriers is central to the
university’s mission, and although accessibility had not been prioritized, the university has begun
32
investing time and resources to address the perpetuating inequity. Leadership purchased new
accessibility checking tools; they added personnel to the offices responsible for institutional
accessibility and accommodations, and the center for teaching has begun creating faculty
training.
Learner Characteristics
I examine the four major areas of learner characteristics for the curriculum in this section.
I first address cognitive characteristics followed by physiological characteristics. The affective
characteristics are addressed next. Finally, I describe learners’ social characteristics.
Cognitive Characteristics
The cognitive characteristics of the learners for this curriculum included general
characteristics and specific prior knowledge. According to Smith and Ragan (2005), general
cognitive characteristics of the learners include aptitude, developmental levels, reading levels,
and cognitive processing. Specific prior knowledge refers to the domain knowledge required to
access and understand the material being presented in the curriculum.
General Characteristics
For this curriculum, I considered both general and specific aptitudes. These characteristics are
important for curriculum designers to consider as they allow them to design and create
instructions that meet learners’ needs. More efficient, effective, and motivating content can be
designed and developed.
General Aptitudes
The participants in the institute are university faculty, and I assumed they are willing to
continuously learn and possess a capacity for learning. I designed the curriculum with the
perception that faculty have the general skills necessary to effectively engage with the content,
33
including reasoning and problem-solving skills. The faculty will be college graduates who hold
an advanced graduate degree in their field. Although the institute materials will be new to the
majority of participants, they will be able to grasp the basic legal information and ableist
concepts to effect change in their own classroom environment.
Specific Aptitudes
The specific aptitudes that faculty will need are grounded in emotional intelligence
skills of self-awareness, self-regulation, and social awareness (Golman, 1995). Participants will
also need to reflect on their own biases and perceptions in reaction to the institute content. This
includes any positive or negative experiences they have had with persons who were disabled.
They will also need the self-regulation skills necessary to manage their reactions to the case
studies and scenarios presented. Self-regulation is also important to understand in terms of
emotional reactions in a group setting and how individual participants can be open to the
perspectives and emotions of others. This institute will be offered as a cohort, so there will be
group work, requiring participants to engage social awareness skills and interact with colleagues
to create a space for effective learning.
Prior Knowledge
In creating this curriculum, I considered both the general world knowledge and specific
prior knowledge needs of the University X faculty. Considering prior knowledge allowed me to
address both those participants who might have more advanced knowledge and those who might
need more foundational knowledge support. This allowed for a varied curriculum that will be
both challenging and attainable, in keeping with Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal
development (Schunk, 2020).
34
General World Knowledge
Learners who participate in this training will have greatly varying general world
knowledge. This training will be open to all faculty ranks and disciplines, so some might be
brand new to the academy, and others will have decades of experience. The disciplines at
University X encompass the undergraduate and graduate study of arts and humanities; science,
technology, engineering, mathematics; the social sciences, and medical sciences. With the
potential for all of these disciplines to be represented in the training, each faculty member will
bring their own discipline-specific pedagogy to the course materials. Facilitators will ask them to
approach the curriculum with a critical eye toward the design, content, and implementation. In
acknowledgment of that reality, I created case studies and scenarios that represent and apply to
various academic disciplines. Faculty will also have various experiences with disabilities, both as
instructors and as members of society. Some might have had either positive or negative
experiences with students with disabilities, which will inform their approach to the training.
Others might have experience with disabilities on a personal level (e.g., through family, friends,
or perhaps their own disability). Some faculty could have engaged with training at previous
institutions, but I designed this curriculum with the assumption that learners will have limited
general world knowledge about academic ableism and accessibility at University X.
Specific Prior Knowledge
I did not assume participants would have prior knowledge of academic ableism, disability
etiquette, or the creation of accessible course content. The course content will introduce the
definitions and foundations of these topics. The instructor will facilitate discussion and
demonstrate basic-to-advanced concepts. Faculty were not expected to have a deep level of
understanding of disabilities, so the course was designed with this in mind. University X had
35
never offered this type of training before, so it may represent new information to most
participants. Those with previous knowledge will benefit from the addition of contemporary
research and advanced application of accessibility practices.
Physiological Characteristics
Having worked with University X’s faculty in training and consulting situations for a
number of years, I had a general understanding of the faculty’s physiological characteristics.
These were important to the creation of an inclusive and effective learning environment.
Examining sensory perception and age also created an opportunity to take a proactive design
approach to UDL.
Sensory Perception
I acknowledged that the sensory perception of participants would greatly vary. To
accommodate these variances, I created all materials to maximize access, complying with the
WCAG 2.1 standards. This involved including captions and transcripts for all videos, providing
screen reader capabilities for all written and Microsoft PowerPoint resources, and providing
access to accessibility information for all technology tools. I considered cognitive load and
chunking of course materials to align with UDL. All external resources will be tested for
accessibility. The learning management system and Zoom include accessibility features that
work with various assistive technologies. If participants do encounter a barrier to access, they
will be informed they can contact the facilitators, and proper accommodations will be
administered through the university human resources office. The virtual modality of the training
will allow participants to log in from any location, so they will be responsible for physical
access.
36
Age
Learners will vary in age from those with recent degrees to those with decades of
experience. The majority of learners will range from young adults to those later in life, and they
will possess the fluid reasoning skills necessary to identify and solve problems (Whitbourne &
Davis, 2019). Learners attending this training will function at a cognitively high level. They need
to have a certain level of hand mobility or be competent in using assistive technology. Faculty
can request accommodations from the central human resources office.
Affective Characteristics
Socioemotional feelings are just as important as cognitive capabilities in designing the
curriculum for this institute. Because the participants in this training will also be curriculum
designers themselves, they may have very strong responses to the learning experience. By
acknowledging these characteristics, the training designers and facilitators can proactively frame
the content.
Motivation to Learn
Generally, the faculty participating in this program will be interested in learning, but
might not be motivated to learn about academic ableism and accessibility. Two approaches
existed to help reduce barriers to motivation. These included allowing faculty to voluntarily
participate in the training, allowing participants to decide if they would like to complete the
work-product submissions to receive a certificate of completion, and designing an asynchronous
curriculum that allows faculty the choice to engage with specific material they deem relevant to
their needs.
Considering the type of learners motivated to enroll in this institute was also important.
University X has a range of faculty, including full-time, part-time, and adjunct. Although this
37
institute’s synchronous session will be offered during the day, other options might need to be
considered to be more inclusive of the adjunct and part-time faculty to motivate them to
participate. Options could include evening sessions, completely asynchronous instruction, or
financial incentives.
Attitude Toward Subject Matter
Participants might be reluctant to engage with the subject matter for a number of
reasons. University X had not held previous accessibility training, so many faculty will lack
awareness of academic ableism. They will also lack knowledge of the legal compliance
requirements related to accessibility. In the past, the process for accommodations at University X
had been reactive rather than proactive. There was a proposed shift to proactively improve
accessibility by creating accessible course materials prior to a student requesting
accommodations. This new process will necessitate an organizational change. Faculty may feel
they do not have the time to attend training with existing teaching, research, and service
responsibilities. In addition, attitudinal barriers may exist, such as perceptions of the level of
academic success a student with disabilities can achieve in the faculty member’s discipline. All
faculty training provided by the University X teaching center is voluntary, so those faculty who
decide to enroll in this institute are likely interested in the topic of academic ableism and creating
accessible course materials, or they may wish to learn how to better engage with students with
disabilities. These attitudes will inform their acceptance level related to the material.
Anxiety Level
Discussing accessibility can cause discomfort for a variety of reasons, which can
include lived experience with disabilities, relationships with persons who are disabled, and
previous negative or positive experiences with students who identified as disabled. This
38
discomfort can increase participants’ anxiety about the training. The anxiety level can also relate
to faculty self-efficacy when dealing with ableism and accommodations. Although some
participants will have been exposed to students with disabilities, others might not have
encountered self-identified students with disabilities in their classrooms. The fact that this
information could be new, coupled with the introduction of compliance components, will
undoubtedly increase some participants’ anxiety.
Social Characteristics
Facilitators will deliver the training in a cohort model with synchronous interactions
among participants, so it was important to reflect on the learners’ social characteristics. Feelings
toward authority and tendencies toward cooperation or competition determined the design of the
active learning experiences. It also helped the designer and facilitators anticipate any participant
reluctance to engage with the content.
Feeling Toward Authority
As the designer of this curriculum, my background lay in social justice education and
diversity, equity, and inclusion, not in compliance. Although compliance is a component of
accessibility, it did not constitute the prevalent approach. Accommodations policies existed that
faculty adhered to, but the university still determined responsibilities for course accessibility.
Therefore, a top-down, authoritative approach was not used. Based on previous professional
development training and evaluations, this would alienate the faculty. Instead of taking a
prescriptive approach, the training will be a facilitated process involving sharing knowledge
among equals, where participants will discuss various approaches to ableism.
39
Tendencies Toward Cooperation or Competition
During previous professional development opportunities, faculty noted they enjoyed
the interaction with faculty from other schools in the university. This curriculum includes many
opportunities for faculty to collaborate in groups and larger workshop settings. The training will
be available to anyone classified as a faculty member at University X, so it provides an
opportunity for not only interdisciplinary participation, but also different ranks. Options also
exist for faculty to help one another throughout the institute by working together, discussing
solutions to challenges, and providing feedback. If faculty desire, they can compete with one
another, or with themselves, on the accessibility of their course materials. Accessibility-checking
software and programs were available and could be used for feedback. I designed the curriculum
not to encourage competition, but to encourage personal improvement.
Design Implications of the Learning Environment and Learner Characteristics
Understanding the learners and the learning environment had extensive implications for
the curriculum design. Being aware of these characteristics informed not only the content, but the
facilitation of the training. Using John Keller’s ARCS model helped me categorize the learner
characteristics and environment into his four criteria of attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction (Keller, 2009). This will be new training for the majority of faculty at University X,
so it will be necessary to garner attention by using a variety of examples pertinent to them. I
believed it was important for them to see how the content would help them become more
effective and compliant instructors. I took the structure of the training, including the attention to
cognitive load, into account. The simplicity of the instruction media and modality was also
considered, so faculty will not have to overcome a steep learning curve to access the information.
Although there will be scheduled synchronous sessions, faculty can maintain control over their
40
engagement with the asynchronous materials. I took care to make the materials relevant to each
participant so they can make the association between the content and their discipline, their
experiences, and the outcomes they wish to achieve.
The suggestions for implementation needed to be concrete and achievable for the
participants in their own course. I addressed confidence throughout the design process by
including multiple ways participants will receive feedback and multiple times for them to
practice skills. This will help participants improve their self-efficacy. Confidence will also be
addressed by managing the amount of information presented, so participants will find the
training commitment manageable. Satisfaction will be determined during the evaluation phase.
Both the work-product submissions and subsequent follow-up sessions will inform future
training sessions. Positive outcomes can then be discussed after the faculty have had time to
implement the skills in their courses. Designing the training with these characteristics and goals
in mind will create a relevant learning environment for the participants and further progress
toward the goal of creating an inclusive culture for students with disabilities at University X.
41
Chapter Four: The Curriculum
This chapter focuses on a curriculum and individual lesson analysis of the design of the
accessibility institute. The goal of the learning experience is to help University X faculty and
staff develop skills to minimize ableism and maximize accessibility in their courses. The aim
was for participants to be able to identify personal actions that contribute to academic ableism,
demonstrate disability etiquette when interacting with disabled students, and create course
materials in accessible formats by the end of the seven modules.
Participants will be required to submit work products throughout the curriculum for
formative feedback that will constitute summative evaluations for each unit. Faculty
development is not mandatory, and no grades can be given for submission at University X, so the
follow-up focus groups will provide another part of the summative evaluation process. These
will be conducted with the participants after 6 months, and then again in 1 year, after completion
of the institute. By the end of this experience, the aim is for participants to minimize actions
contributing to academic ableism and accessibility barriers and create a learning environment
based on disability justice.
The design of the curriculum begins with a cognitive task analysis (CTA) contextualizing
academic ableism, identifying and demonstrating disability etiquette during student interactions,
and creating accessible course material. Using CTA methods will “facilitate the alignment
between learning objectives, knowledge (declarative and procedural) necessary for attaining the
objectives, and instructional methods appropriate to the required knowledge” (Clark & Estes,
1996, p. 587). This process will also ensure appropriate analysis of the impact, design, and
relevance of the curriculum.
42
Cognitive Task Analysis
CTA, which is also referred to as information-processing analysis (Smith & Ragan,
2005), is useful for identifying, designing, and evaluating the content required for the curriculum
once the learning objectives and outcomes have been determined (Clark & Estes, 1996). The
application of bootstrapping (Clark et al., 2010) was initially used for research purposes in this
process. It allowed me to create a preliminary list of steps that needed to be completed in order to
achieve the learning objectives and outcomes. I conducted the initial search in Google Scholar
using the search terms, how to minimize academic ableism, how to respect students with
disabilities, and how to create accessible course materials. This, along with a literature review,
provided the foundational steps prior to the CTA interviews.
I conducted two CTA interviews, one with a student disabilities professional and another
with a course materials accessibility professional, both of whom worked at University X. Both
concluded the purpose of the training should be an introduction to ableism and accessibility.
They agreed that because faculty training for accessibility had not been previously offered at the
institution, the training should provide a foundation for understanding academic ableism,
respecting students with disabilities, and creating accessible course materials. This plan aligned
with the research cited in the literature review. I determined the curriculum should also be
delivered online to facilitate the workshops, breakout rooms, and creation of accessible course
materials. Providing the training online made it accessible to all faculty, regardless of academic
rank or location. The relevant steps of the CTA follow:
● Objective: To minimize academic ableism and maximize course accessibility.
● Cue: There was no precedent for training, so the training will begin in January 2022.
Needs for the training have already been acknowledged by the administration.
43
● Condition: The institute will be performed asynchronously through the learning
management system and synchronously through Zoom.
● Standards: Participants will complete the training in an academic semester and then
begin implementation. Course design and interactions are an ongoing design process,
so it will not be expected that all course materials will be made accessible for the
students at the start of the next semester, but rather constitute an ongoing revision and
design process. Implementation will be measured via faculty feedback and using
technology tools to assess electronic materials accessibility.
● Equipment: Participation will require a computer, Microsoft Office 365, course
materials, access to the learning management system, and Zoom.
● Steps: The steps listed below are required to minimize academic ableism and
maximize course accessibility. The items in parens identify the source of the step.
o Interrogate ableism in the academy (literature review, CTA)
o Respect students with disabilities (literature review, CTA)
o Create inclusive learning environments (literature review, CTA)
o Create accessible course materials (CTA)
These topics formed the foundation of the curriculum units. Both the CTA and the literature
review supported the validity of the topics and the sequence.
Overview of the Units
The curriculum units were sequenced to introduce faculty members to the foundational
concepts of academic ableism, then address appropriate interactions with students who are
disabled, and finally, to create accessible materials that eliminate barriers to the classroom
learning environment. Researchers in the literature did not specify a specific sequence, and it was
44
difficult to determine the individual perceived level of difficulty for each concept, but the CTA
was helpful in determining the delivery. As stated, the concepts moved from foundational
theoretical knowledge to more practical knowledge that could be implemented in the learning
environment. This followed discipline-specific pedagogy and Bloom’s taxonomy, providing the
students with foundational knowledge of how to identify and define academic ableism and then
having them apply, evaluate, and create accessible learning environments. This also allows
declarative knowledge to be taught before advancing to procedural knowledge, a sequent that
lowers cognitive load and increases self-efficacy for the participants (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
List of Units
I designed this curriculum to be delivered in one academic semester, using a flipped
instructional module. This flipped model of instruction provides curated materials for
participants to review asynchronously before engaging with experts and colleagues during the
synchronous sessions. The design and sequence of these modules was based on a concept-related
structure, the foundational concepts are taught first, and then the application is taught later
(Smith & Ragan, 2005). The synchronous session will occur every other week for each of the
seven module topics. A description of the modules follows:
1. Module 1a: Identifying ableism in the academy (asynchronous materials)
a. Defining academic ableism and disability
b. History of disability
c. Models of disability in the academy
2. Module 1b: Identifying ableism in the academy (synchronous session topics)
a. Models of disability in the academy
b. Individual positionality on academic ableism
45
c. Institutional barriers (synchronous)
3. Module 2a: Respecting students with disabilities (asynchronous materials)
a. Rights of students with disabilities
b. Disability interactions
c. Accommodations process
4. Module 2b: Respecting students with disabilities (synchronous session topics)
a. Disability interactions
b. Accommodations process
5. Module 3a: Creating an inclusive learning environment (asynchronous materials)
a. Disability as diversity, equity, and inclusion
b. Universal design
6. Module 3b: Creating an inclusive learning environment (synchronous session topics)
a. Universal design
b. Accessible content preview
7. Module 4a: Creating accessible Microsoft Word documents Part 1 (asynchronous)
a. Color contrast
b. Creating document headings
8. Module 4b: Creating accessible Microsoft Word documents Part 1 (synchronous
session)
a. Expert review and feedback on color contrast
b. Expert review and feedback on creating document headings
9. Module 5a: Creating accessible Microsoft Word documents Part 2 (asynchronous)
a. Alternative text for images
46
b. Creating descriptive hyperlinks
c. Creating accessible tables in documents
10. Module 5b: Creating accessible Microsoft Word documents Part 2 (synchronous
session)
a. Expert review and feedback on alternative text for images
b. Expert review and feedback on descriptive hyperlinks
c. Expert review and feedback on creating accessible tables in documents
11. Module 6a: Creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoints (asynchronous)
a. Creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoints
12. Module 6b: Creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoints (synchronous session)
a. Expert review and feedback on creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoints
13. Module 7a: Creating accessible PDFs (asynchronous)
a. Creating accessible pdfs
14. Module 7b: Creating accessible PDFs (synchronous session)
a. Expert review and feedback on creating accessible pdfs
Visual Overview of the Units
Figure 1 represents the seven main modules that comprise this curriculum.
47
Figure 1
Visual Representation of the Curriculum Modules
Note. Author-created illustration, icons from www.freepik.com. These units are described in the
scope and sequence chart shown in Table 2. This chart visually represents the stages of the
planned learning experiences and scaffolding built into the curriculum.
Scope and Sequence Table
The scope and sequence table (see Table 2) is a tool that organizes the delivery of the
learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Table 2 provides a visual overview of the design of the
curriculum with the sequence representing the introduction, reinforcement, and assessment of
learning, and the scope represented by the learning outcomes. This tool was essential to helping
me consider cognitive load and identify gaps in the design and delivery of the instruction.
48
Table 2
Scope and Sequence Table for Minimizing Ableism and Maximizing Accessibility
Outcomes Module
1
Module
2
Module
3
Module
4
Module
5
Module
6
Module
7
Interrogate
academic
ableism with an
individual
positionality
statement
I(a)
R(a/s)
R(a/s)
R(a/s) M(s)
Identify
institutional
barriers to
overcome
academic
ableism
I(a)
R(s)
R(s) R(s)
M(s)
Identify models of
disability
I(a)
R(s)
R(s)
R(s) M(s)
Demonstrate
appropriate and
legally
compliant
interactions with
students with
disabilities
P(s) I(a)
R(s)
R(s) M(s)
Apply University
X policy to the
student
accommodations
process
P(s) I(a)
R(s)
R(s) M(s)
Identify steps to
create an
inclusive
learning
environment
using principles
of DEI and UDL
P(s) I(a)
R(s)
R(s) R(s) R(s) M(s)
49
Outcomes Module
1
Module
2
Module
3
Module
4
Module
5
Module
6
Module
7
Create accessible
word documents
P(s) I(a)
R(s)
R(s)
M(s)
Create accessible
PowerPoint
documents
P(s) I(a)
R(s)
M(s)
Create accessible
pdf documents
P(s) P(s) I(a)
R(s)
M(s)
Note. The letters in the table correspond to the following: previewed (P), introduced (I),
reinforced (R), or mastered (M). The asynchronous activities are indicated by an (a), and the
synchronous activities are indicated by (s). University X is a pseudonym. DEI = diversity,
equity, and inclusion; UDL = universal design for learning.
Delivery Media Selection
The main framework used to select media for this curriculum was originally proposed by
Clark et al. (2010). The authors stated that teaching methods and course design, not technology,
drive learning. Therefore, this curriculum was designed with technology as the container of the
content, which, in turn, drives learning in this training. The media selected was available and
supported by University X, and could be implemented at other institutions. Although the online
format will be used for the initial training offering, it is possible to retain the asynchronous
content and change the synchronous session to an on-ground experience. The flexibility of the
design allows it to be adapted to different needs and to be offered at scale at various institutions.
I also made this media selection with the participants’ prior knowledge in mind. The media
being used was familiar to the faculty at University X. The mix of asynchronous and
50
synchronous media also allowed for a curriculum design containing both supplantive and
generative content (Smith & Ragan, 2005). This is the first time the training will be conducted,
so the media selection was created to be efficiently revised in order to maximize learning.
General Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Affordances
The most important consideration in selecting media was the selection of instructional
methods that would support the learning and outcomes (Clark et al., 2010). After that was
determined, access, consistency, and cost could be considered. I also used these criteria to
determine which media should be used when multiple forms of media would generate the same
learning outcome. The decision to use an online synchronous–asynchronous curriculum design at
University X is detailed in the three criteria listed below.
Access
Access comprises an important part of the curriculum. Academic ableism and lack of
accessible course materials impact all students, so it was necessary for as many of the
university’s faculty members as possible to have the opportunity to take the training. University
X’s faculty worked from various geographic regions in the world. The university also employed
over 1,800 adjuncts who were often industry professionals unable to attend an on-ground training
in the middle of the day. Therefore, I designed this training to be delivered online. The online
modality also allows multiple experts to easily join a synchronous session. Due to the interactive
nature of the synchronous sessions, I planned to cap enrollment in this institute at 30 participants.
There was enough instructional support for multiple sections to be offered based on interest.
Consistency
The format of the content for this training was designed to be consistently structured in
both the synchronous and synchronous delivery. All sessions will be recorded, so if a participant
51
is absent, they will have access to the same information as those in attendance. If multiple
sections of the institute are offered, each will have the same content, and for the initial offering,
the same instructor. Although there might be revisions from semester to semester, I do not expect
them to be substantial. There will be personalization in the final four modules because small
groups of participants will work with an individual expert. The content discussed in these groups
will be the same, but the actual instructional delivery will be specific to the expert. If the institute
is successful and it is offered in subsequent semesters, the possibility exists that there will be
multiple or different instructors. The curriculum will remain consistent, but the individual
instructional delivery will be specific to the instructor. By creating consistency in the structure
and delivery of the content, I hoped to reduce the affective filter of the participants.
Cost
University X will bear the cost of delivering this training. The media creation,
technology, and learning management system costs were covered by university-wide licenses.
All faculty development offered through the University X Teaching Center is uncompensated by
the university. Individual schools determine compensation based on faculty classification for
professional development. When the institute uses university employee experts, the experts do
not receive any additional compensation above their university salaries. The institute might, at
times, require outside personnel for facilitation. Depending on the nature of the facilitation, the
costs are borne by the university, the teaching center, or the center for disability services. All
equipment and internet services to deliver the training are university property. Participants would
also save costs because parking and travel are not needed. If the training were to move on-
ground, the teaching and learning center has a physical space available for use that is paid for
52
and supported by the university. Food costs could be incurred by the teaching center for on-
ground delivery.
This is an initial training offering with no historical precedent, so changes to the
curriculum could occur based on participant feedback. Another reason for curriculum change
would involve changes to laws and procedures for students with disabilities. These changes were
not anticipated to be substantial, so the curriculum should have a long shelf-life.
Specific Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Restrictions
Clark et al. (2010) emphasized the three key factors that eventually determine media
selection: conceptual authenticity, the need for immediate corrective feedback, and determining
if the instruction requires more than visual and aural sensory information. This curriculum was
designed as a flipped learning experience incorporating both asynchronous and synchronous
content. Participants can engage with the asynchronous learning materials on their schedule and
self-regulate their own learning with practice of the concepts. The synchronous sessions allow
the learners to further reinforce the materials and gain immediate feedback from the instructor
and experts. The online format allows the inclusion of all University X faculty. Table 3 addresses
the synchronous and asynchronous media in terms of the three key restrictions that inform media
selection.
53
Table 3
Key Considerations for Media Selection
Key consideration Media considerations
Conceptual authenticity In the asynchronous environment, learners
will be able to apply practice knowledge on
their own, using the exact tools that are
available to them.
In the synchronous environment, learners will
engage with, apply, and ultimately create
materials and practices based on the course
content, using the exact tools that are
available to them.
Immediate feedback In the asynchronous environment, learners
will not receive immediate feedback from
the instructor or expert, but will receive
immediate feedback from the technology
tools embedded in Microsoft Office.
In the synchronous environment, learners will
receive immediate, personalized feedback
from the instructor and experts.
Special sensory requirements In the asynchronous environment, touch
would be required for creating digital
content in addition to visual and aural
sensory capabilities. The use of assistive
technology could also be used as an
accommodation for touch, visual, or aural
senses for any of the media.
In the synchronous environment, touch would
be required for creating digital content in
addition to visual and aural sensory
capabilities. The use of assistive technology
could also be used as an accommodation for
touch, visual, or aural senses for any of the
media.
54
Client Preferences or Specific Conditions of the Learning Environment
The audience for this training influenced the selection of media and the modality of the
curriculum delivery. Historically, training at University X was primarily synchronously on-
ground, with limited opportunities for participants to join remotely. Instructors presented course
content in the university’s learning management system. This excluded remote teaching faculty,
faculty located at remote campuses, and adjuncts who often had full-time industry job
responsibilities during the training times. With the onset of COVID-19 in Spring 2020, all
training shifted to online. Faculty became more comfortable with video conferencing and the
university’s learning management system. The teaching and learning center surveyed faculty and
determined a preference for online training opportunities. Remote instruction allows for greater
inclusion and efficiency during the last four modules of this training. Those modules were
designed as workshops for creating digital materials so participants can easily share their screens,
and instructors and experts can easily demonstrate digital processes. If needed, this curriculum
could be delivered in a synchronous on-ground format, but that would require each participant to
bring their own computer to a physical location. The specific media choices resemble those from
past trainings, so faculty who have previously participated in professional development at
University X will be familiar with the various types of media used.
Specific Media Choices
The media selected for this training vary with each synchronous and asynchronous unit.
This approach allows the participants to engage with the materials in ways that are most effective
for them. The use of asynchronous material allows participants to download and edit materials
for future use. The principles of cognitive load will be followed when creating any needed
materials (Schunk, 2020; Sweller, 1988). In addition, all Microsoft PowerPoints and videos will
55
be created and selected according to the 12 principles of multimedia design (Mayer &
Alexander, 2016). The mix of both external and internal creation allows for a diversity of voices
and approaches to be incorporated into the curriculum. This is a training on accessibility, so all
materials will be accessible. Table 4 provides information on the purpose and benefits of each of
the selected media modalities.
56
Table 4
Media Choices in Minimizing Ableism and Maximizing Accessibility
Media Purpose Benefits
Learning
management
system
This is a platform where
instructional content is structured
and organized so participants can
locate asynchronous material,
where the instructor can assign
work and communicate with
participants, and where students
can submit materials.
Is supported and paid for by
University X. All faculty at
University X have access to the
learning management system and
technical support. Content can be
edited and copied from semester
to semester.
Synchronous
facilitation by
instructor and
experts
The instructor and experts can
facilitate conversations, activities,
and knowledge acquisition.
Participants can receive guidance
and clarification just-in-time
during the synchronous session.
Enables students to build a
relationship with the instructor
and the experts for current and
future support.
Allows modeling and peer learning
to take place.
Videos Videos can provide participants
expert and external insights into
the curriculum topics.
Because guest speakers may not be
available during the synchronous
session, prerecorded videos can
include their expertise.
Videos allow participants to engage
with the content on their own
schedule.
Saves on internal production costs.
Provides various voices and
approaches to the topic.
Allows for a nuanced approach to
the topic that is specific to the
institution.
Written resources Resources can detail step-by-step
instructions.
Can manage information and
cognitive load effectively by
creating multiple resources.
Created by University X experts, so
specific to the institution.
Downloadable by the participants
for future use.
Can be easily modified as
information evolves.
Links to external
websites and
articles
Links provide peer-reviewed,
evidence-based information to
faculty.
Links provide contemporary
information.
Saves time and money because
resources are already created.
Provides various voices and
approaches to the topics.
Can be easily added or deleted as
information and the curriculum
evolves.
57
Media Purpose Benefits
PowerPoint during
synchronous
session
The presentations provide
organization and structure to the
session.
It also provides visual opportunities
to support the oral discussion and
lecture.
Collaboration between instructors
and experts is easily
accomplished.
Can be easily edited as topic
information changes.
General Instructional Methods Approach
The instructional methods approach to this curriculum involved a mix of generative and
supplantive activities (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Participants will be required to transfer, apply, and
create their own knowledge after engaging with the foundational principles of academic ableism
and accessibility facilitated by an expert. I anticipated that the majority of topics in this institute
would be new to the participants. This is a voluntary faculty professional development institute,
so one of the main concerns was how to motivate sustained change during the training and after
it concludes. To achieve sustained motivation, four theories comprised the foundation of the
instructional approach.
Cognitive load theory pertains to constraints on working memory to create effective
learning (Schunk, 2020; Smith & Ragan, 2005; Sweller, 1988). This was applied to the
curriculum design in numerous ways. The synchronous sessions of the institute were designed to
occur every other week, so faculty will have a chance to engage with the asynchronous content
prior to the collaborative sessions. This allows participants to review the materials, prepare their
work products, and identify questions and challenges on their own time. Segmenting in this way
breaks the information into smaller microlessons in both the asynchronous and synchronous
deliveries (Schunk, 2020) and allows participants time to process new material (Smith & Ragan,
58
2005). Pretraining during the synchronous sessions allows participants to prepare for what will
follow in the asynchronous content (Smith & Ragan, 2005). In addition to creating tasks and
experiences that are authentic to faculty experiences, all of these approaches reduce the cognitive
load (Schunk, 2020).
Smith and Ragan (2005) defined information processing as the traveling of information
through various parts of memory. The goal of the institute is to have knowledge in long-term
memory where faculty can recall it and apply it to various situations (Schunk, 2020). The
participants must pay attention to and engage with the material for it to enter their working
memory, and then the information must be meaningful to them for it to pass into long-term
memory (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory was also applied in the design of this institute,
including the use of case studies, role plays, and expert guest speakers and facilitators who will
model appropriate behaviors and strategic procedural steps (Schunk, 2020). The emphasis on
external and internal reinforcement will allow the faculty to engage in observational learning and
ultimately build their self-efficacy (Schunk, 2020).
The four methods in John Keller’s ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction) model will be incorporated to sustain participant motivation during and beyond the
institute (Keller, 2009). Participation in this institute is voluntary, so participants will already be
motivated and have an interest in learning more about ableism and accessibility. To achieve
relevancy, the curriculum was designed to bridge the gap between content and real-world
classroom application in alignment with andragogy, adult learning theory (Knowles, 1972). The
mix of asynchronous and synchronous content, as well as the availability to receive feedback
from experts, was designed to increase participant confidence. It also gives learners agency by
59
allowing them to control their learning process. The longitudinal focus group follow-ups were
included to assess learner satisfaction and identify gaps in the content or instructional design,
providing an opportunity to adjust the experience for future offerings.
This institute was designed to train faculty on how to minimize academic ableism and
maximize course accessibility. The first three modules will provide foundational information on
academic ableism, interacting with students with disabilities, and creating inclusive
environments for students with disabilities. The last four modules will provide a workshop
experience in remediating and creating accessible Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, and
Adobe PDF documents. This is a beginning training designed to acquaint faculty with academic
ableism and accessibility. It is not designed to be a comprehensive training in accessibility.
Figure 2 presents an introduction to the institute experience and what faculty participants can
expect during the training.
60
Figure 2
Visual Representation of the Curriculum Modules
Note. Author-created illustration. Icons from www.freepik.com.
61
Chapter Five: Implementation And Evaluation Plan
This chapter provides a discussion of the institute evaluation’s purpose and strategy.
University X was interested in improving accessibility in course design and teaching practices,
so a plan for data collection and evaluation was needed to ensure the training provides value to
all stakeholders, including faculty, administration, and ultimately, students. The institute
curriculum required clear objectives, planning, and a process for monitoring implementation
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These elements will ensure that informed decisions are made
for future accessibility training programs and that the organizational culture around accessibility
at University X improves.
Implementation Plan
Faculty adoption of accessibility at University X is expected to vary, which creates a
need for implementation to be a planned and strategic design of this institute (Smith & Ragan,
2005). Evaluation of faculty accessibility implementation will begin at the start of the institute
and continue past its conclusion. The evaluation of the institute will concentrate on the
implementation of accessibility practices into individual faculty’s teaching practices and course
designs. In the curriculum design, I assumed minimal-to-no participant knowledge of
accessibility.
The first institute will be advertised to University X faculty. The first 24 faculty to
register for the Spring 2022 semester will be enrolled as participants. Assessment data from the
first institute will be used to revise and improve future institutes. The formative assessments
conducted through expert and facilitator observations during the institute will focus on learner
knowledge and self-efficacy. This will allow for any immediate necessary revisions or content
reinforcement. The institute implementation plan will be used by the faculty to plan their own
62
adaptation of accessible techniques. Feedback for revision will be collected through an end-of-
institute evaluation given to all participants. Proactively creating accessible course materials can
take time, so a focus group will be held with institute participants 6 months after completion.
Evaluation Plan
Curriculum Purpose, Need, and Outcomes
The goal of this curriculum, which began in January 2022 at University X, was to assist
faculty in developing skills to minimize ableism and maximize accessibility in their courses. By
the end of seven modules, participants will be able to identify personal actions that contribute to
academic ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette when interacting with disabled individuals,
and create course materials in accessible formats. Participants will also minimize actions that
contribute to academic ableism and accessibility barriers, and they will understand how to create
a learning environment based on disability justice.
No formal faculty training existed at University X for accessibility, so this institute will
address a gap in faculty development. It is hoped that the faculty participants will become
advocates of accessibility at the university by encouraging colleagues to learn more about it. This
institute provides an important foundation for the university’s focus on accessibility and for
creating inclusive learning spaces for all students.
Evaluation Framework
This accessibility institute will be evaluated using the new world Kirkpatrick model,
which inverts the four levels of the previous Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). By focusing on Level 4 (L4) results, a more holistic approach to evaluate if the training
has been demonstrated by faculty, and if there is a positive change in accessibility culture at
University X, can be analyzed. The focus can then move to what really needs to occur in the
63
learning environment to produce positive change (L3). L2 will inform what training or other
support is required for faculty to implement accessibility changes in their courses. Finally, the
design and type of training that will be most effective in successfully teaching the required skills
will be examined in L1.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
L4 of the Kirkpatrick model pertains to the training purpose, bridging performance to
desired curriculum outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators are the
internal and external performance of behaviors that contribute to the identified outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Analysis of the leading indicators shows that critical
behaviors are on track, provides data to stakeholders, motivates participants, and demonstrates
the training’s success. Both short- and long-term observations and measurements such as data
collected from participants, students, and campus offices will be used to indicate to the
organization if the institute is achieving the desired outcomes. Table 5 presents the leading
indicators and the metrics and methods for determining progress.
64
Table 5
Indicators, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods of measure
External outcomes
Reduced or eliminated
possibility of costs from
lawsuits and review by
U.S. Department of
Education, Office of
Civil Rights.
Number of reviews and
lawsuits compared to previous
years.
Data collected by institutional
accessibility administration
and general counsel.
Increased perception of
prospective students
that feel University X is
an inclusive
environment for
students who identify as
disabled.
Increased enrollment by
students who identify as
having a disability.
Data collected by the university
disability office and student
focus groups.
Increased perception by
already enrolled
students that feel
University X is an
inclusive environment
for students who
identify as disabled.
Increased number of positive
student comments on access
and experiences in University
X learning environments.
Data collected by the student
government, university
disability office, and student
focus groups.
Internal outcomes
Increase in faculty
proactively creating
accessible course
materials.
Decrease in number of students'
requests for course material
accommodations.
Data collected by the
University Disability Office.
Faculty self-check using
available accessibility tools.
Increase in faculty who
demonstrate proper
etiquette when handling
student accommodation
requests.
Decrease in number of student
support requests for
interventions in student–
instructor interactions
regarding student
accommodations.
Data collected by the
University Disability Office
and student focus groups.
Increase in faculty who
demonstrate proper
etiquette when
interacting with
disabled students.
Decrease in number of reports
of
discrimination/inappropriate
student–instructor
interactions.
Data collected by the university
disability office, institutional
accessibility, Title IX office,
and student focus groups.
65
Outcome Metrics Methods of measure
Internal outcomes
Increase in faculty who
minimize their roles in
perpetuating academic
ableism in their
learning environment.
Decrease in number of reports
of academic ableism at
University X.
Data collected by campus
culture offices and Title IX.
Level 3: Behavior
L3 of the Kirkpatrick model pertains to evaluating the degree faculty will apply what they
learned about accessible practices to their course design and teaching (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). This institute’s curriculum provides a blend of both cognitive and behavioral
learning, which can be evaluated. Cognitive learning suggests that learning involves change, it
produces a change in the learner’s knowledge, and the cause of the change is the learner’s
experience (Mayer, 2011). The institute provides opportunities for faculty to gain new
knowledge about accessibility processes and policies throughout the semester. This acquisition
of knowledge differs from behavioral learning, which involves a change in the learner’s behavior
(Schunk, 2020). These behavior changes can come about from interactions with peers and the
environment (e.g., from a cohort-based model such as this institute). Although these are two
distinct approaches to learning, both are closely related because a change in knowledge can be
inferred from the learner’s behavior. Critical behaviors provide a way to monitor and assess a
participant’s performance of the course outcomes.
Critical Behaviors Required to Perform the Course Outcomes
Critical behaviors identify the faculty performance that need to be measured in order to
evaluate training outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Consistently monitoring these
66
behaviors can provide valuable feedback about the training and identify additional gaps in
knowledge, support, or resources. In this accessibility curriculum, the critical behaviors being
measured include faculty having (a) the information they need to create accessible course
materials, (b) the resources and support needed to properly provide accommodations and interact
with students with disabilities, and (c) the knowledge to identify how their own behaviors
perpetuate academic ableism. These critical behaviors and the metrics and methods used to
measure them are further described in Table 6.
67
Table 6
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior for
course outcomes
Metrics Methods of measure Timing
Faculty will
proactively address
accessibility in their
teaching practices
and course design.
The number of
student course
material
accommodations.
Accessibility analysis
of course materials
posted in the
learning
management
system.
Data analysis
comparison by the
university disability
office.
During the institute
and 6 months after
completing the
institute.
Faculty will
demonstrate proper
etiquette and
procedure when
handling student
accommodation
requests.
Number of comments
on student feedback
and formal
complaints.
Data analysis
comparison by the
University Disability
Office, Institutional
accessibility, and Title
IX office.
During the institute
and 6 months after
completing the
institute.
Faculty will
demonstrate proper
etiquette and use of
language when
interacting with
students with
disabilities.
Number of comments
on student feedback
and formal
complaints.
Data analysis
comparison by the
University Disability
Office, Institutional
accessibility, and Title
IX office.
During the institute
and 6 months after
completing the
institute.
Faculty will identify
and minimize their
roles in perpetuating
academic ableism in
their learning
environment.
Number of reports of
academic ableism at
University X.
Data collected by
campus culture offices
and Title IX.
During the institute
and 6 months after
completing the
institute.
68
Required Drivers
The required drivers are the things that motivate faculty changes to achieve the learning
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Drivers can take many forms and resonate with
individuals differently. Therefore, it is important to have a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor individuals. For this institute, the most
frequently used drivers will include resources provided to the learners, feedback and
demonstration review from facilitators and expert guests, and peer feedback and recognition that
occur throughout the learning experience. Learners will also have ample opportunity to self-
monitor with technology tools and develop a personalized implementation plan. Table 7 presents
a breakdown of these methods and which critical behaviors they support.
69
Table 7
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
Reinforcing
Individualized accessibility
support/consultations for
creating accessible course
materials.
Ongoing per semester, after
the conclusion of the
institute
1
Campus office support for
faculty questions regarding
students with disabilities
and academic ableism.
Ongoing per semester, after
the conclusion of the
institute
2, 3, 4
Institute content and job-aids
available to all participants.
During the institute and
ongoing into the future
1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Expert feedback provided to
faculty during the
synchronous sessions.
During the institute 1, 2, 3, 4
Peer feedback and
collaboration provided to
faculty during the
synchronous sessions.
During the institute 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Faculty will receive a
certificate of completion for
fulfilling participation and
engagement requirements.
At the conclusion of the
institute
1, 2, 3, 4
Peer and facilitator
recognition throughout the
institute for performance.
During the institute 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Faculty self-monitor creating
accessible course materials
with technology tools.
During the institute and into
the future
1, 4
Faculty self-monitor their
interactions with students
with disabilities and their
role in minimizing academic
During the institute and into
the future
2, 3, 4
70
Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
ableism based on their
personalized
implementation plan.
Faculty participate in
facilitator held focus groups
to monitor progress based
on personalized
implementation plans.
Six months after the
conclusion of the institute
1, 2, 3, 4
Campus offices monitor
students with disabilities'
data and feedback.
Ongoing per semester, after
the conclusion of the
institute
1, 2, 3, 4
Note. Column three aligns the driver methods with the critical behaviors listed in Table 6.
Organizational Support
The implementation and completion of the identified drivers will be managed by institute
facilitators from the University X Center for Teaching and Learning. The necessary campus
offices have agreed to collect and share data, as well as provide support when necessary during
and after the institute. The involved campus offices also play an instrumental role in advancing
accessibility at the university, so inherent buy-in already existed. The facilitator will coordinate
at the appropriate times with campus offices to adhere to the planned timeline. Sharing outcome
data and faculty improvements with the offices of the provost and president will encourage these
leaders to provide additional resources and support for future training. Faculty participants will
also act as peer advocates to motivate faculty colleagues to create accessible learning
environments.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick’s L2 pertains to measuring what participants have and have not learned, in
addition to measuring how the institute has developed their skills, attitudes, knowledge,
71
confidence, and commitment to change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). L2 involves the
learning objectives and the expected goals of an educational activity rather than the learning
outcomes, which reflect what the learner will be able to do after participating in the training.
Terminal Learning Objectives
To demonstrate the critical behaviors listed in Table 6, learners should be able to
complete the goals of the learning experience. The learning goals being measured for this
institute include the following:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty will be
able to define academic ableism, describe educational laws and policies supporting
students with disabilities, identify predominant models of disabilities, and analyze
their own positionality in relation to persons with disabilities.
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty will be
able to identify steps in the accommodations process and demonstrate proper
disability etiquette when interacting with students with disabilities.
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty will be
able to identify teaching practices and course design to create an inclusive learning
environment for students with disabilities.
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able
to create accessible documents in Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, and Adobe
PDF documents.
Components of Learning Evaluation
Evaluating at L2 assists in determining the suitability and number of the assessments and
evaluation instruments used in the training. To assess declarative knowledge, procedural skills,
72
attitude, confidence, and commitment related to the stated learning goals, this institute will use a
mixture of facilitator and expert feedback, surveys, and group activities. Table 8 shows a detailed
outline of which methods will support each component for learning and when they will occur in
the learning experience.
Table 8
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Faculty are asked to respond to questions
during the synchronous sessions of the
institute.
During the synchronous sessions.
Faculty are asked to use technology tools to
self-monitor.
During the institute and ongoing.
Procedural: skills “I can do it right now.”
Faculty demonstrate creating accessible
course materials.
During the asynchronous and synchronous
sessions.
Faculty demonstrate proper etiquette when
interacting with students with disabilities.
During the synchronous sessions.
Expert feedback on collaborative activities
during the breakout rooms.
During the synchronous sessions.
Faculty develop their own course
accessibility plan of how to implement
these techniques in their courses.
During the institute and ongoing revisions.
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Faculty are asked to respond to an
evaluation survey regarding their attitude
toward the training.
At the conclusion of the institute.
Expert and facilitator observation of
participants.
During the synchronous sessions.
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Faculty are asked to demonstrate confidence During the institute.
73
Methods or activities Timing
in doing the tasks “right now” throughout
the institute.
Faculty are asked to use technology tools to
self-monitor and create increased self-
efficacy.
During the institute, and ongoing.
Faculty are asked to respond to an
evaluation survey regarding their
confidence regarding accessibility.
At the conclusion of the institute.
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Faculty are asked to complete an
accessibility implementation plan.
During the institute.
Facilitator conducted focus group
interviews.
Six months after the conclusion of the
institute.
Level 1: Reaction
The objective for Kirkpatrick's L1 is to evaluate how individual participants react to the
training by asking questions. The answers can be sued to improve the curriculum for future and
more advanced learning opportunities (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The questions for this
accessibility institute were designed to evaluate if the faculty found the content of the institute
relevant to their course design and teaching practices and if they plan on implementing changes.
A positive reaction does not ensure learning, but a negative reaction makes it less likely that
faculty will implement the institute content in their courses. To measure engagement, facilitators
and experts will observe participant engagement in learning activities during the synchronous
sessions. Faculty satisfaction will also be evaluated with an anonymous survey evaluation at the
institute’s conclusion. Table 9 shows the methods and timing of their application.
74
Table 9
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Observe learners' engagement in all learning
activities.
During the institute
Perform “check-ins” during the synchronous
sessions.
During the institute
Relevance
Ask faculty if what they are learning is
relevant to their course design and
teaching practice.
During the institute, and at the conclusion
Ask faculty to share how they are
immediately implementing techniques in
their current course.
During the institute
Customer satisfaction
Ask faculty if they feel that this is valuable
information.
During the institute, and at the conclusion
Ask faculty in follow-up focus groups
whether their accessibility implementation
plan has been successful.
Six months after the conclusion of the institute
Evaluation Tools
This institute was designed to collect data throughout the learning experience and not just
at the conclusion. Gathering data and immediately analyzing it allows for maximizing the current
learner experience in addition to future programming (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
feedback data can be used to correct any issues in the current implementation and to
communicate successes that could motivate participants (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Blended evaluation will be used to survey the faculty with the inclusion of various Kirkpatrick
75
levels and learner-centric questions. Summaries of the evaluation instruments and sample
questions will be administered following the program implementation.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
This is the most common type of faculty training evaluation that the University X Center
for Teaching and Learning implements. Faculty rate how satisfying, relevant, and engaging they
found the learning experience. This evaluation indicates how the participants feel about the
institute, but this data is the least useful for maximizing the training’s impact because it does not
show if outcomes were achieved. In the instance of this training, accessibility practices take
strategy and time to implement in courses, so this evaluation shows how participants were
feeling at one moment at the conclusion of the training, which differs from the necessary
longitudinal evaluation. The focus of the evaluation questions (see Appendix D) draws from
Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Six months after the institute has concluded and the initial evaluation has been
completed, a longitudinal evaluation will be conducted. The format will involve a faculty
participant focus group led by the original institute facilitator. Questions focus on whether or not
participants made changes to their course design and teaching practices. This data, along with
data from partner campus offices, will provide an opportunity to assess if the institute succeeded
in producing the intended learning outcomes. The focus of the instrument questions (see
Appendix D) draws from Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Data Analysis and Reporting
In order to show how this training impacts the university, data will be presented to
stakeholders, including campus partners and university administration. Accessibility practices
76
take time to implement, so the data will be presented 7 months after the initial institute
completion. The results will (a) allow for a transparent flow of information through the necessary
administrative departments, (b) provide data that could assist other campus services, and (C)
inform future faculty training. Figure 3 provides a fictitious overview of the type of data that will
be produced to inform administration and to indicate changes in student perception of wellbeing,
accommodation requests, course accessibility, and complaints. Each shows a positive trend and
incremental improvements. This data also provides an overview of where further assessment
might be needed to speed up change or identify areas requiring further improvements. It is
important to note that these visuals need additional explanation during the presentation. For
instance, some faculty at University X do not use Blackboard Ally and, therefore, will not be
included in the course accessibility data. As this program evolves, the university will need to
implement additional evaluations to consider, including all faculty and courses. Figures 3–6 are
fictitious and are for illustrative purposes only.
77
Figure 3
Perceptions of Wellbeing of Students Who Identify as Having A Disability
78
Figure 4
Number of Student Accommodation Requests
Figure 5
Blackboard Ally Course Analytics
79
Figure 6
Student Accessibility Complaints
80
References
ADA.gov. (n.d.). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, AS AMENDED. (n.d.).
https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12102
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice
(3rd ed.). Routledge.
Aguirre, A., Carballo, R., & Lopez-Gavira, R. (2020). Improving the academic experience of
students with disabilities in higher education: Faculty members of social sciences and law
speak out. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(3), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1828047
Alfred, M. V. (2002). The promise of sociocultural theory in democratizing adult education. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(96), 3–14.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reis, 77/78, 345–348.
Atkins, L., & Duckworth, V. (2019). Research methods for social justice and equity in
education.
Ayers, W., Quinn, T. M., & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social justice in education.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887745
Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical
practices for embracing diversity in education (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Berger, R. J., & Lorenz, L. S. (2016). Disability and qualitative inquiry: Methods for rethinking
an ableist world. Routledge.
Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2020). Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and
chronic illnesses in higher education. https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/123203
81
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd
ed.). Harvard Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. (2020). Creating inclusive learning opportunities in higher education: A
universal design toolkit. Harvard Education Press.
Carballo, R., Morgado, B., & Cortes-Vega, M. D. (2019). Transforming faculty conceptions of
disability and inclusive education through a training programme. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 25(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1579874
Chrysostomou, M., & Symeonidou, S. (2017). Education for disability equality through disabled
people’s life stories and narratives: Working and learning together in a school-based
professional development programme for inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 32(4), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1297574
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis for training. International Journal of
Educational Research, 25(5), 577–593.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., Moulton, K., Silber, K. H., & Foshay, R. (2010). An analysis of
the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the
performance benefits of guided training methods. Handbook of Training and Improving
Workplace Performance, 1, 263–297.
Connor, D. J. (2018). Contemplating dis/ability in schools and society: A life in education.
Lexington Books.
Coombs, N. (2010). Making online teaching accessible: Inclusive course design for students with
disabilities (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Dallas, B. K., Sprong, M. E., & Upton, T. D. (2014). Post-secondary faculty attitudes toward
inclusive teaching strategies. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(2), 12–20.
82
Davis, T., & Harrison, L. M. (2013). Advancing social justice: Tools, pedagogies, and strategies
to transform your campus (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Dealing with Office of Civil Rights complaints: Advice for educational institutions. (2016). Level
Access.
Debrand, C. C., & Salzberg, C. L. (2005). A validated curriculum to provide training to faculty
regarding students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 18(1), 49–61.
Dolmage, J. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan
Press.
Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher
education: A social justice approach. Jossey-Bass.
Fauske, J. R., & Raybould, R. (2005). Organizational learning theory in schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510577272
Freebody, K., Goodwin, S., & Proctor, H. (2019). Higher education, pedagogy and social
justice: Politics and practice. Springer.
Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus. Exceptionality,
16(4), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830802412216
Golman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33.
Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. I. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide
programs. Jossey-Bass.
83
Hehir, T., Schifter, L. A., Harbour, W. S., & Rose, D. H. (2015). How did you get here? Students
with disabilities and their journeys to Harvard. Harvard Education Press.
Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled
students. Disability & Society, 16(4), 597–615.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120059568
Holmes, K. (2020). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. MIT Press.
How to meet WCAG (quickref reference). (n.d.). W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/
Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model
approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
Kendall, L., & Tarman, B. (2016). Higher education and disability: Exploring student
experiences. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1256142
Kerschbaum, S. L., Eisenman, L. T., & Jones, J. M. (Eds.). (2017). Negotiating disability:
Disclosure and higher education. University of Michigan Press.
Kim, E., & Aquino, K. C. (Eds.). (2017). Disability as diversity in higher education: Policies
and practices to enhance student success. Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1972). Andragogy. NETCHE.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212–218.
84
Lalvani, P., & Baglieri, S. (2019). Undoing ableism: Teaching about disability in K–12
classrooms. Routledge.
Lawrence-Brown, D., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2014). Condition critical: Key principles for
equitable and inclusive education. Teachers College.
Leake, D. W., & Stodden, R. A. (2014). Higher education and disability: Past and future of
underrepresented populations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4),
399–408.
Lombardi, A., Murray, C., & Dallas, B. (2013). University faculty attitudes toward disability and
inclusive instruction: Comparing two institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 26(3), 221–232.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction:
Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 4(4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024961
Lopez-Gavira, R., Morina, A., & Morgado, B. (2019). Challenges to inclusive education at the
university: The perspective of students and disability support service staff. Innovation:
The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(3), 292–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2019.1578198
Marquis, E., Jung, B., Fudge Schormans, A., Lukmanji, S., Wilton, R., & Baptiste, S. (2016).
Developing inclusive educators: Enhancing the accessibility of teaching and learning in
higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(4), 337–349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1181071
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
85
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Handbook of research on learning and instruction.
Taylor & Francis.
Morina, A. (2019). Learning from experience: Training for faculty members on disability.
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 86–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1534759
Morina, A., & Carballo, R. (2017). The impact of a faculty training program on inclusive
education and disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 77–83.
Murray, C., Lombardi, A., Wren, C. T., & Keys, C. (2009). Associations between prior
disability-focused training and disability-related attitudes and perceptions among
university faculty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 87–100.
Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2020). Ableism: The causes and consequences of disability prejudice.
Wiley-Blackwell.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts: Students with disabilities.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60
Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal, 38(2), 191–199.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Justice and education. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.),
Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 349–367). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_19
Rohland, P., Erickson, B., Mathews, D., Roush, S. E., Quinlan, K., & Smith, A. D. (2003).
Changing the culture (CTC): A Collaborative training model to create systemic change.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 49–58.
86
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Harvard Education Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories an educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. The Gale Group.
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed). J. Wiley & Sons.
Sniatecki, J., Perry, H., & Snell, L. (2015). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding college
students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability. 28(3),
259–275.
Sowers, J. A., & Smith, M. R. (2004). Evaluation of the effects of an in-service training program
on nursing faculty members’ perceptions, knowledge, and concerns about students with
disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(6), 248–252.
Strunk, K. K., & Locke, L. A. (2019). Research methods for social justice and equity in
education. Springer.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Terrell, R. D., Terrell, E. K., Lindsey, R. B., & Lindsey, D. B. (2018). Culturally proficient
leadership: The personal journey begins within. Corwin Press.
Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for
learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press.
Trybus, M. J., Breneman, D. L., & Gravett, E. O. (2019). Ableism, accessibility, and educational
development: A disability studies perspective. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2019(158), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20339
87
van Jaarsveldt, D. E., & Ndeya-Ndereya, C. N. (2015). “It’s not my problem”: Exploring
lecturers’ distancing behaviour towards students with disabilities. Disability & Society,
30(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.994701
Vance, M. L., Parks, K., & Lipsitz, N. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond the Americans With Disabilities
Act: Inclusive policy and practice for higher education (1st ed.). NASPA-Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education.
Vickerman, P., & Blundell, M. (2010). Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher
education. Disability & Society, 25(1), 21–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903363290
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for
understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. Feedback in Second
Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, p. 23–41.
Whitbourne, S. K., & Davis, C. R. (2019). Lifespan development: Biopsychosocial perspectives.
Wynants, S. A., & Dennis, J. M. (2017). Embracing diversity and accessibility: A mixed
methods study of the impact of an online disability awareness program. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(1), 33–48.
88
Appendix A: Lesson Plan and Instructor’s Guide
Unit 1a, Identifying Ableism in the Academy, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the first unit in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the
knowledge and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and
accommodations, and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare
faculty to be able to interrogate academic ableism and their role in perpetuating or eliminating it.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
define academic ableism, describe educational laws and policies supporting students with
disabilities, identify predominant models of disabilities, and analyze their own
positionality in relation to persons with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of academic ableism
○ Know the meaning of laws and policies supporting students with disabilities
○ Know the meaning of predominant models of disabilities
○ Be able to analyze their own positionality in relation to persons with disabilities
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of academic ableism, laws and policies supporting students
with disabilities, and various models of disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing positionality.
● Provide practice and feedback in evaluating how academic ableism, policies and laws,
and models of disabilities influence positionality.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to reflect on positionality.
Summative Assessment
● Given questions to consider for positionality, faculty will identify how academic ableism,
laws and policies, and various models of disabilities influence their positionality toward
students with disabilities.
89
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A1 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
90
Table A1
Instructional Activities, Unit 1A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Provide real-life
examples of
academic ableism.
Examples include
faculty comments,
policies, and
procedures that
perpetuate academic
ableism.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the following
question: How are
these examples
perpetuating
academic ableism?
Instructor provides
examples of academic
ableism.
Learners reflect
upon the
question of how
the examples
perpetuate
academic
ableism.
They self-reflect
on if and how
they contribute
to the
perpetuation of
academic
ableism.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of the
course content in
the module.
In order to establish
relevance and to
facilitate learning,
instructor asks learners
to read the terminal
and enabling learning
objectives and post
personal objectives to
the LMS discussion
board. Instructor can
respond and address
the objectives during
the synchronous
session.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling
learning
objectives for
themselves.
Learners post
their personal
objectives to the
discussion
board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are
Instructor encourages
learners to personalize
the experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
Learners
personally
reflect on the
risks and
benefits
91
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
presented.
Benefits:
Reducing or
eliminating barriers
to the student
learning experience.
Identifying one’s own
positionality toward
students with
disabilities.
Identifying policies
and laws pertaining
to students with
disabilities.
Identifying how
models of
disabilities can
perpetuate academic
ableism.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating
academic ableism.
associated with
academic
ableism.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
7 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling objectives:
meaning of
academic ableism,
laws and policies
for students with
disabilities, and
models of
disabilities.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will be
followed in this lesson.
Instructor reviews prior
knowledge in an audio.
Instructor describes new
knowledge that will be
learned and concludes
with the learning
strategies that will be
followed in the lesson
in a Microsoft
PowerPoint.
Learners see and
read
presentations
and have access
to download and
view supporting
materials and
handouts in the
LMS.
92
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 Definition of
academic ableism,
identification of
laws and policies
for students with
disabilities,
definition of models
of disabilities.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz.
Examples and
nonexamples will
be identified by the
participants.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
instructor by
performance on the
quiz.
Instructor uses quiz
performance to
identify gaps in prior
knowledge to address
in the synchronous
session.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz
with feedback
provided.
Learners reflect
on how
academic
ableism, models
of disabilities,
and policies and
laws influence
their own
positionality.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
15 Videos and written
resources define and
provide examples of
academic ableism,
policies and laws
for students with
disabilities, and
models of
disabilities.
Prompts to reflect on
positionality toward
disabled students.
Written resources and
website reference
Instructor encourages
participants to review
the resources.
Instructor provides a list
of definitions and
examples of academic
ableism and models of
disabilities. Instructor
provides the top 3
most important laws
and policies for
students with
disabilities.
Instructor uses a series
Learners review
the definitions
and examples.
Learners consider
how these
influence their
current
positionality.
93
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
links are provided
in the LMS.
of prompts to ask
learners to reflect on
how these impact their
positionality.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
15 Learners complete the
positionality
resource,
considering how the
definitions and
examples of
academic ableism,
laws and policies,
and models of
disabilities inform
their behaviors.
Instructor posts
assignment resources
on the LMS. Learners
complete the resource
asynchronous in
preparation for the
synchronous session.
Learners complete
the assignment
resource
questions in
preparation for
the synchronous
session.
Authentic
assessment
15
Learners are asked to
describe the laws
and policies for
students with
disabilities and
provide a definition
of academic ableism
and examples of
various models of
disabilities.
Learners are asked to
identify any
questions or
challenges they
have encountered
while defining the
terms and
completing the
positionality
resource.
Instructor asks learners
to complete a
positionality resource
with definitions,
examples, and
questions regarding
academic ableism,
models of disabilities,
laws and policies, and
positionality.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share them
during the
synchronous session.
Learners
demonstrate the
knowledge they
learned from the
course content
and have the
opportunity to
ask questions
about the
assignment in
the future
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
Learners reflect
on the objectives
for the lesson
94
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
identify and report
on what they have
learned.
learned to their course
materials.
Instructor reiterates in
writing the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson.
and identify
questions they
have about this
topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated: How
do we perpetuate
academic ableism in
courses and at the
university?
Instructor asks learners
to submit questions or
challenges
encountered, so the
facilitators can answer
them.
Learners submit
questions or
challenges they
had completing
the positionality
resource via the
LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous session
by providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated workshop
experience they
participate in.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
includes an agenda for
the synchronous
session. Instructor
prepares them by
including a checklist of
materials they should
have ready for the
synchronous session.
Learners prepare
for the
synchronous
session and
identify
challenges they
would like
addressed during
the synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
95
Unit 1b, Identifying Ableism in the Academy, Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the first in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
interrogate academic ableism and their role in perpetuating or eliminating it.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
define academic ableism, describe educational laws and policies supporting students with
disabilities, identify predominant models of disabilities, and analyze their own
positionality in relation to persons with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of academic ableism
○ Know the meaning of laws and policies supporting students with disabilities
○ Know the meaning of predominant models of disabilities
○ Be able to analyze their own positionality in relation to persons with disabilities
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of academic ableism, laws and policies supporting students
with disabilities, and various models of disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing positionality.
● Provide practice and feedback in evaluating how academic ableism, policies and laws,
and models of disabilities influence positionality.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to reflect on positionality.
Summative Assessment
● Given questions to consider positionality, faculty will identify how academic ableism,
laws and policies, and various models of disabilities influence their positionality toward
students with disabilities.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
96
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A2 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
97
Table A2
Instructional Activities, Unit 1B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Provide real-life
examples of
academic ableism.
Examples include
faculty comments,
policies, and
procedures that
perpetuate academic
ableism.
Learners are prompted
to reflect on the
following question:
How are these
examples
perpetuating
academic ableism?
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
Instructor provides
examples and asks
learners to consider
how academic
ableism is
perpetuated in the
university.
After reviewing the
examples, the
instructor asks the
guiding question to
activate learners’
thinking about their
own experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners listen to the
examples and read
them in the chat,
relating the
examples to their
own experiences in
the classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
examples.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning objectives
for the lesson are
reviewed and
discussed in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’ personal
learning objectives
posted to the
discussion board in
the asynchronous
content. Facilitator
discusses in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction. Learners
are encouraged to ask
clarifying questions.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and ask
for clarification on
any objectives.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
98
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Risks
avoided
associated with the
lesson are presented.
Benefits:
Reducing or
eliminating barriers
to the student
learning experience.
Identifying one’s own
positionality toward
students with
disabilities.
Identifying policies
and laws pertaining
to students with
disabilities.
Identifying how
models of disabilities
can perpetuate
academic ableism.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating academic
ableism.
describes the benefits
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials from the
asynchronous
Module 1 materials.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
course and share
their own risks and
benefits to the lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know,
what you
are going
to learn,
and how
you are
going to
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives: definition
of academic ableism,
definition of laws
and policies,
description of
predominant models
of disabilities.
Instructor summarizes
the process for this
synchronous session.
Instructor begins with
a review of prior
knowledge,
prompting learners to
provide examples of
academic ableism,
models of
disabilities, and laws
and policies for
students with
disabilities.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
Learners share
examples of
academic ableism,
various models of
disabilities, and
laws and policies
for students with
disabilities in the
chat. Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
99
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
learn it.) will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 Definitions and
examples of
academic ableism,
models of
disabilities, and laws
and policies for
students with
disabilities.
Learner self-identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
Instructor presents and
reviews definitions
and examples of
academic ableism,
models of
disabilities, and laws
and policies for
students with
disabilities.
Instructor addresses
self-identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learners share their
definitions and
examples of
academic ableism,
models of
disabilities, and
laws and policies
for students with
disabilities.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
12 Facilitator presents the
positionality
reflection questions
and presents
examples and
considerations for
participants to reflect
upon.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
reviewing the
positionality
reflection and
examples of how
academic ableism,
laws and policies,
and models of
disability influence
one’s own
positionality.
Learners refer to
questions and
follow along with
the examples and
questions.
Learners reflect on
how academic
ableism, laws and
policies, and
models of
disability influence
one’s own
positionality.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms with
one another to
complete the
positionality resource
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
Learners break into
small groups and
work with one
another to answer
the questions and
100
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
document. one another to
complete the
positionality resource
document questions.
Facilitators provide
immediate feedback
during the breakout
rooms sessions.
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback to address
their questions and
challenges.
Learners self-assess
their positionality
and readiness to
acknowledge how
they can minimize
or eliminate
academic ableism.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners demonstrate
that they can identify
how their own
positionality
influences academic
ableism.
Facilitators describe
the procedure to
faculty using the
resource document.
They encourage
learners to ask
questions.
Learners
demonstrate that
they can identify
how their own
positionality
influences
academic ableism.
They have the
opportunity to ask
questions about the
task.
Retention
and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned
and any remaining
questions.
Facilitator asks
learners to think
about how to apply
what they have
learned to their
teaching practice and
interactions with
students with
disabilities. They
show the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson and encourage
learners to create an
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
101
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
implementation plan
for teaching practice
they can use to apply
what they have
learned.
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways are
discussed:
How can you minimize
or eliminate
academic ableism in
your teaching
practice?
Ask learners to
generate at least one
“big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share their
ideas in Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the class
in Zoom chat.
Advance
organizer
for the
next unit
5 Instructor prepares for
the next module by
introducing the topics
covered and
reviewing the module
resources in the
learning management
system.
Instructor thanks
learners for
participating and
acknowledges
successful
completion of the
lesson. Instructor
briefly explains why
reflecting on
positionality is
important to
minimizing or
eliminating academic
ableism in teaching
practice.
Learners begin to
reflect and create
an individual plan
to minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism in their
teaching practice.
Total time 90
102
Unit 2a, Respecting Students with Disabilities, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the second unit in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the
knowledge and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and
accommodations, and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare
faculty to be able to describe the accommodations process and demonstrate proper disability
etiquette when interacting with students with disabilities.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
identify steps in the accommodations process and demonstrate proper disability etiquette
when interacting with students with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of academic accommodations
○ Know the process of the university accommodations process
○ Know the meaning of properly addressing student accommodation requests
○ Know the meaning of proper etiquette for interactions with students with
disabilities
○ Be able to analyze properly addressing student accommodation requests
○ Be able to analyze proper interactions with students with disabilities
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of the academic accommodations process and proper
interactions with students with disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing properly addressing student accommodation requests.
● Provide practice and feedback in demonstrating properly addressing student
accommodation requests.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to reflect on interactions with students with
disabilities in the learning environment.
Summative Assessment
● Given various student accommodations scenarios, faculty will demonstrate proper
disability etiquette when interacting with students with disabilities.
103
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A3 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
104
Table A3
Instructional Activities, Unit 2A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Provide real-life
examples of faculty
interactions with
students with
disabilities. Various
interaction/language/
accommodations
provisions will be
included in the
scenarios.
Learners are prompted
to reflect on the
following question:
How are these
examples
perpetuating
academic ableism?
Instructor
references
academic
ableism from
Module 1.
Learners reflect upon the
question of how the
examples perpetuate
academic ableism.
They self-reflect on how
to change the
interaction/language/
accommodations
provision to minimize
academic ableism.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of the
course content in the
module.
To establish
relevance and
facilitate
learning, the
instructor asks
learners to read
the terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and to
post personal
objectives to the
LMS discussion
board. The
instructor
responds to the
posts and
addresses the
objectives during
the synchronous
Learners read the
terminal and enabling
learning objectives for
themselves. Learners
post their personal
objectives to the
discussion board.
105
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
session.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are presented.
Benefits:
Describing the
accommodations
process.
Identifying ways to
properly interact
with students with
disabilities.
Demonstrating proper
interactions with
students with
accommodations.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating
academic ableism.
Addressing student
accommodations
with proper etiquette
and legal
compliance.
Instructors
encourage
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their
own risks and
benefits.
Learners personally
reflect on the risks and
benefits associated
with student
accommodations.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
7 Lesson overview
including a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling objectives:
meaning of student
accommodations,
meaning of proper
interactions with
The instructor
summarizes the
process for this
lesson.
The instructor
reviews prior
knowledge in an
audio.
The instructor
Learners see, read, and
hear the presentation
and have access to
download and view
supporting materials
and handouts in the
learning management
system.
106
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
(What you
already
know,
what you
are going
to learn,
and how
you are
going to
learn it.)
students with
disabilities.
Brief Microsoft
PowerPoint
overview of the
videos, written
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
describes new
knowledge that
will be learned
and concludes
with the learning
strategies that
will be followed
in the lesson in a
Microsoft
PowerPoint.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 Description of student
accommodations
process,
identification of
proper interactions
with students with
disabilities. Learners
conduct self-checks
of prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz.
Participants will
identify examples
and nonexamples.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
instructor by
performance on the
quiz.
The facilitator
identifies gaps in
prior knowledge
via quiz
performance and
addresses them
in the
synchronous
session.
Learners conduct self-
checks of prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz with
feedback provided.
Learners reflect on how
the student
accommodations
process and their
interactions with
students can decrease
or eliminate academic
ableism.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
15 Videos and written
resources define and
provide examples of
faculty responses to
student
accommodations and
The instructor
encourages
participants to
review the
resources.
The instructor
Learners review the lists
and examples.
Learners consider how
these influence their
current interactions
107
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
interactions with
students with
disabilities.
Prompts to reflect
upon interactions
with students with
disabilities are
provided.
Written resources and
website reference
links are provided in
the LMS.
provides a list of
recommended
ways to interact
with and respond
to students with
accommodations
requests.
The instructor uses
a series of
prompts to ask
learners to reflect
on how these
could be
incorporated or
included in their
own
positionality.
with students with
disabilities.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
15 Learners work
together with peers,
considering how to
respond to the
scenarios with proper
accommodations
processes and
disability etiquette.
The instructor
posts assignment
resources on the
LMS and asks
learners to
review the
scenarios
asynchronously
in preparation for
the synchronous
session.
Learners complete the
scenario resource
questions in
preparation for the
synchronous session.
Authentic
assessment
15
Learners are asked to
respond to
accommodations
requests and
demonstrate proper
disability etiquette
during those
interactions for
various scenarios.
Learners asked to
The instructor asks
learners to
respond to
accommodations
requests and
demonstrate
proper disability
etiquette during
those interactions
for various
scenarios.
Learners demonstrate the
knowledge they
learned from the course
content and have the
opportunity to ask
questions about the
assignment in the
future synchronous
session.
108
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
identify questions or
challenges
encountered while
engaging with the
scenarios.
The facilitator
encourages
learners to
identify and
share questions
during the
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned.
The instructor asks
learners to think
about how to
apply what they
have learned to
their course
materials.
The instructor
reiterates in
writing the
objectives listed
earlier in the
lesson.
Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
questions they have
about this topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways are
reiterated:
How do interactions
with students
regarding
accommodation
requests perpetuate,
minimize, or
eliminate academic
ableism?
Ask learners to
submit any
questions or
challenges they
had during the
process, so the
synchronous
session
facilitators can
answer those
questions.
Learners submit any
questions or challenges
they had completing
the positionality
resource. Submission
will be via the learning
management system.
Advance
organizer
for the
next unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous session
by providing an
agenda and
emphasizing the
The instructor
thanks learners
for their
participation and
includes an
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous session
and identify challenges
they would like
109
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner action/decision
(generative)
facilitated workshop
experience they
participate in.
agenda for the
synchronous
session. They
also prepare
learners by
including a
checklist of
materials they
should have
ready for the
synchronous
session.
addressed during the
synchronous session.
Total time 80
110
Unit 2b, Respecting Students with Disabilities Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the second in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
describe the accommodations process and demonstrate proper disability etiquette when
interacting with students with disabilities.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
identify steps in the accommodations process and demonstrate proper disability etiquette
when interacting with students with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of academic accommodations
○ Know the process of the university accommodations process
○ Know the meaning of properly addressing student accommodation requests
○ Know the meaning of proper etiquette for interactions with students with
disabilities
○ Be able to analyze properly addressing student accommodation requests
○ Be able to analyze proper interactions with students with disabilities
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of the academic accommodations process and proper
interactions with students with disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing properly addressing student accommodation requests.
● Provide practice and feedback in demonstrating properly addressing student
accommodation requests.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to reflect on interactions with students with
disabilities in the learning environment.
Summative Assessment
● Given various student accommodations scenarios, faculty will demonstrate proper
disability etiquette when interacting with students with disabilities.
111
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology. Participants can request necessary accommodations through the human resources
office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A4 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
112
Table A4
Instructional Activities, Unit 2B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain attention 8 Provide real-life
examples of
interactions
between students
with disabilities
who request
accommodations
and faculty.
Examples include
faculty comments,
policies, and videos
of interactions that
perpetuate
academic ableism.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the following
question: How are
these examples
perpetuating
academic ableism?
The instructor
welcomes learners
and provides
opening remarks.
They provide
examples and ask
learners to consider
how student–
faculty interactions
can perpetuate,
minimize, or
eliminate academic
ableism in the
university.
After reviewing the
examples, the
instructor asks the
guiding question to
activate learners’
thinking about their
experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners listen to
the examples and
read them in the
chat, relating the
examples to their
own experiences
in the classroom.
Learners share
their responses to
the examples.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
terms of what
learners will be
able to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’
personal learning
objectives posted to
the discussion
board in the
asynchronous
content. They
discuss in terms of
what learners will
be able to do after
instruction and
encourage learners
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and
ask for
clarification on
any objectives.
113
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
to ask clarifying
questions.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are
presented.
Benefits:
Describing the
accommodations
process.
Identifying ways to
properly interact
with students with
disabilities.
Demonstrating
proper interactions
with students with
accommodations.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating
academic ableism.
Addressing student
accommodations
with proper
etiquette and legal
compliance.
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
describes the
benefits and risks
associated with the
lesson. They refer
back to the earlier
institute materials
from Module 1 and
the asynchronous
materials for
Module 2.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their
own risks and
benefits.
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with
the course and
share their own
risks and benefits
to the lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives:
description of the
Instructor
summarizes the
process that will be
followed in this
synchronous
session. They start
with a review of
prior knowledge,
prompt learners to
describe the
Learners share
examples of the
accommodations
process,
addressing
student
accommodations
and disability
etiquette in the
chat. Facilitator
114
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
(What you
already know,
what you are
going to
learn, and
how you are
going to learn
it.)
accommodations
process and proper
disability etiquette
with students with
disabilities.
accommodations
process, how to
interact with
students who
request
accommodations,
and proper
disability etiquette.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be
followed in the
lesson.
summarizes the
answers.
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 Examples of student-
faculty interactions
for students with
accommodations.
Examples of
behaviors and
language that
exhibit proper
disability etiquette.
Learner self-
identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
Instructor presents
and reviews
examples of
student–faculty
interactions for
students with
accommodations
and provides
examples of
behaviors and
language that
exhibit proper
disability etiquette.
Address self-
identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learners share
their examples of
student–faculty
interactions for
students with
accommodations.
Learners provide
examples of
behaviors and
language that
exhibit proper
disability
etiquette.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
12 The facilitator
presents the
student–faculty
interaction,
Instructor reengages
learners in the
lesson objective by
reviewing the
Learners refer to a
scenario
document for
examples and
115
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Lecture
Demo
scenarios,
examples, and
considerations for
participants to
reflect upon.
scenarios and
examples of how
interacting with
students and
addressing
accommodations
can minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism.
questions. They
reflect on how
interacting with
students and
addressing
accommodations
can minimize or
eliminate
academic
ableism.
Practice and
feedback: The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms
with one another to
analyze and make
suggestions for the
scenarios
document.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
one another to
complete the
student–faculty
interaction
scenarios.
Facilitator provides
immediate feedback
during the breakout
rooms sessions.
Learners break into
small groups and
work with one
another to answer
the questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback to
address their
questions and
challenges.
Learners self-
assess their own
student-with-
disabilities
interactions and
readiness to
acknowledge
how they can
minimize or
eliminate
academic
ableism.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners demonstrate
proper disability
Facilitator describes
disability etiquette
Learners
demonstrate they
116
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
etiquette and
language for the
provided student-
faculty interaction
scenarios.
and language to
learners using the
scenario document.
Encourage learners
to ask questions.
can interact with
students with
disabilities using
appropriate
etiquette and
language.
and have the
opportunity to
ask questions
about the task.
Retention and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned and any
remaining
questions.
Instructor asks
learners to think
about how to apply
what they have
learned to their
teaching practice
and interactions
with students with
disabilities.
Instructor shows the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson
and encourages
learners to create an
implementation
plan for teaching
practice that applies
what they have
learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and
report on what
they have
learned. Learners
begin to reflect
on how they will
implement these
techniques in
their own course
materials.
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways
are discussed:
How can your
interactions with
students with
disabilities
minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism?
Instructor asks
learners to generate
at least one “big
idea” that emerged
from the lesson and
share their ideas in
Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the
class in Zoom
chat.
117
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Advance
organizer for
the next unit
5 Prepare for the next
module by
introducing the
topics covered and
reviewing the
module resources in
the learning
management
system.
Instructor thanks
learners for
participating and
acknowledges
successful lesson
completion.
Instructor briefly
explains why
reflecting on
student interactions
is important to
minimizing or
eliminating
academic ableism
in their teaching
practice.
Learners begin to
reflect and create
an individual plan
to minimize or
eliminate
academic ableism
in their teaching
practice.
Total time 90
118
Unit 3a, Creating an Inclusive Environment, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the third unit in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the
knowledge and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and
accommodations, and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare
faculty to be able to create an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities and,
ultimately, all students.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
identify teaching practices and course design to create an inclusive learning environment
for students with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of universal design for learning
○ Know the meaning of creating an inclusive learning environment
○ Be able to analyze universal design for learning practices
○ Be able to analyze inclusive learning environments
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of universal design for learning and inclusive learning
environments for students with disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing incorporation of universal design for learning and
inclusive teaching practices in a course environment.
● Provide practice and feedback in demonstrating incorporating universal design for
learning and inclusive course design techniques in a course environment.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to design an implementation plan to identify
universal design for learning and inclusive course design practices to incorporate into a
course environment.
Summative Assessment
● Given various student accommodations scenarios, faculty will identify universal design
and inclusive course practices to incorporate into their learning environments.
119
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology. Participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A5 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
120
Table A5
Instructional Activities, Unit 3A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Provide research data
on how universal
design for learning
can help students
with disabilities and
all students.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the following
question: How do
these teaching and
course design
techniques benefit
all students?
Instructor references
academic ableism and
accommodations
information from
previous modules.
Learners reflect
upon the
question of how
universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
teaching and
course design
can benefit all
students.
Learners self-
reflect on how to
incorporate
these techniques
in their teaching
and course
design practices.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of the
course content in
the module.
To establish relevance
and to facilitate
learning, instructor
asks learners to read
the terminal and
enabling learning
objectives then asks
learners to post
personal objectives to
the LMS discussion
board, so the instructor
can respond and
address the objectives
during the
synchronous session.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling
learning
objectives for
themselves.
Learners post
their personal
objectives to the
discussion
board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
Instructor encourages
learners to personalize
the experience by
Learners
personally
reflect on the
121
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Risks
avoided
associated with the
lesson are
presented.
Benefits:
Identifying universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
practices that
benefit all students,
not just those who
identify with
disabilities.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating
academic ableism.
Creating an inclusive
learning
environment for
some students, but
not all students.
generating their own
risks and benefits.
risks and
benefits
associated with
universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
design and
teaching
practices.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
7 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling objectives:
meaning of
universal design for
learning and
meaning of
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Brief Microsoft
PowerPoint
overview of the
videos, written
Instructor summarizes
the process that will be
followed in this lesson.
Instructor reviews prior
knowledge in an audio.
Instructor describes new
knowledge that will be
learned and concludes
with the learning
strategies that will be
followed in the lesson
in a Microsoft
PowerPoint.
Learners see, read,
and hear the
presentation and
have access to
download and
view supporting
materials and
handouts in the
LMS.
122
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 Description of
universal design for
learning.
Description of
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices. Learners
conduct self-checks
of prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz and
identify examples
and nonexamples.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
instructor by
performance on the
quiz.
Instructor identifies gaps
in prior knowledge via
quiz performance and
addresses them in the
synchronous session.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz
with feedback
provided.
Learners reflect
on how creating
an inclusive
learning
environment for
all students can
decrease or
eliminate
academic
ableism.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
15 Videos and written
resources define and
provide examples of
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Prompts to reflect
upon individual
inclusionary
teaching practices
are provided.
Written resources and
Instructor encourages
participants to review
the resources.
Instructor provides a list
of recommended ways
to include universal
design for learning and
inclusive design and
teaching practices in
their courses.
With a series of
prompts, instructor
asks learners to reflect
on how these can be
Learners review
the lists and
examples.
Learners consider
how these
techniques can
benefit all
students.
123
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
website reference
links are provided
in the LMS.
incorporated into their
own courses.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
15 Learners work
independently,
considering how to
incorporate
universal design and
inclusive course
practices in their
own courses
Instructor posts
assignment resources
on the LMS. Learners
review possible
techniques
asynchronously in
preparation for the
synchronous session.
Learners identify
universal design
and inclusive
course design
techniques they
can incorporate
into their
courses.
Learners
identify
questions in
preparation for
the synchronous
session.
Authentic
assessment
15
Learners are asked to
identify universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
design and teaching
practices they can
incorporate into
their course
environment.
They are also asked
to identify any
questions or
challenges they
have encountered
while engaging with
the materials.
Instructor asks learners
to identify universal
design for learning and
inclusive course design
and teaching practices
they can incorporate
into their course
environment.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share them
during the
synchronous session.
Learners
demonstrate the
knowledge they
learned from the
course content
and have the
opportunity to
ask questions
about the
assignment in
the future
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their course
materials.
Learners reflect
on the objectives
for the lesson
and identify
questions they
124
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
learned. Instructor reiterates in
writing the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson.
have about this
topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated:
How do universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
practices benefit all
students and
minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism?
Instructor asks learners
to submit any
questions or challenges
they had during the
process, so the
synchronous session
facilitators can answer
those questions.
Learners submit
any questions or
challenges they
had completing
the positionality
resource.
Learners submit
via the LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous session
by providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated workshop
experience they
participate in.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
include an agenda for
the synchronous
session. Instructor
prepares them by
including a checklist of
materials they should
have ready for the
synchronous session.
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous
session and
identify
challenges they
would like
addressed during
the synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
125
Unit 3b, Creating an Inclusive Environment, Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the third in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities and, ultimately, all
students.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
identify teaching practices and course design to create an inclusive learning environment
for students with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of universal design for learning
○ Know the meaning of creating an inclusive learning environment
○ Be able to analyze universal design for learning practices
○ Be able to analyze inclusive learning environments
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of universal design for learning and inclusive learning
environments for students with disabilities.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for analyzing incorporation of universal design for learning and
inclusive teaching practices in a course environment.
● Provide practice and feedback in demonstrating incorporating universal design for
learning and inclusive course design techniques in a course environment.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to design an implementation plan to identify
universal design for learning and inclusive course design practices to incorporate into a
course environment.
Summative Assessment
● Given various student accommodations scenarios, faculty will identify universal design
and inclusive course practices to incorporate into their learning environments.
126
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A6 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
127
Table A6
Instructional Activities, Unit 3B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Provide research data
on how universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
design and teaching
practices benefit
students with
disabilities and
ultimately all
students.
Learners are prompted
to reflect on the
following question:
How do universal
design and inclusive
course practices
benefit all students
and minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism?
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
Instructor provides
the research data and
asks learners to
consider how
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices benefits
students with
disabilities, and
ultimately, all
students. Instructor
asks how universal
design and inclusive
course design and
teaching practices
minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism in courses.
After reviewing the
examples, instructor
asks the guiding
question to activate
learners’ thinking
about their own
experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners listen to
and read the data.
Learners post in
the chat, relating
the research to
their own practices
in the classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
research.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
Facilitator addresses
participants’
personal learning
objectives posted to
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives. They
128
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
terms of what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction.
the discussion board
in the asynchronous
content. Instructor
discusses in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction and
encourages learners
to ask clarifying
questions.
ask for
clarification on
any objectives.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are presented.
Benefits:
Identifying universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
practices that benefit
all students, not just
those who identify
with disabilities.
Risks avoided:
Perpetuating
academic ableism.
Creating an inclusive
learning
environment for
some students, but
not all students.
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
describes the benefits
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials on
academic ableism
and accommodations
from Modules 1 and
2.
Encourage learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
course and share
their own risks and
benefits to the
lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
synchronous session,
starting with a
review of prior
knowledge, then
Learners share
examples of
techniques for
universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
design and
129
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
of the enabling
objectives:
description of
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
prompting learners to
describe universal
design for learning
and inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
teaching practices
they currently
implement in their
courses in the chat.
Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 Examples of universal
design for learning.
Examples of
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Learner self-identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
Instructor presents and
reviews examples of
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Instructor addresses
self-identified
learner challenges
from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learners share their
examples of
universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
design and
teaching practices.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
12 The facilitator presents
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices examples
and considerations
for participants to
reflect upon.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
reviewing the
examples of
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices.
Learners refer to a
techniques
document and
follow along with
the examples and
questions.
Learners reflect on
how universal
design for learning
and inclusive
course design and
130
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
teaching practices
can minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms with
one another to
analyze and identify
ways to incorporate
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices into their
courses.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
one another to
identify techniques
of universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices that can be
incorporated into
their courses.
Facilitators provide
immediate feedback
during the breakout
rooms sessions.
Learners break into
small groups and
work with one
another to answer
the questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback to
address their
questions and
challenges.
Learners self-assess
their own teaching
practice and course
design to
acknowledge how
they can minimize
or eliminate
academic ableism.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners identify
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices techniques
that can be
incorporated into
their courses.
Facilitators describe
universal design for
learning and
inclusive course
design and teaching
practices using the
techniques
document. They
encourage learners to
ask questions.
Learners
demonstrate that
they identify
universal design
for learning and
inclusive course
design and
teaching practices
techniques that can
be incorporated in
their courses.
131
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Learners complete an
implementation plan.
Learners have the
opportunity to ask
questions about the
task.
Retention
and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned
and any remaining
questions.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their
teaching practice and
course design.
Instructor shows the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson
and encourages
learners to create an
implementation plan
for their teaching
practice and course
design they can use
to apply what they
learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways are
discussed:
How do universal
design and inclusive
course practices
benefit all students
and minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism?
Instructor asks learners
to generate at least
one “big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share
their ideas in Zoom
chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the
class in Zoom
chat.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
5 Prepare for the next
module by
introducing the
topics covered and
reviewing the
module resources in
the learning
management system.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
acknowledges
successful lesson
completion.
Instructor briefly
explains why
reflecting on their
Learners begin to
reflect and create
an individual plan
to minimize or
eliminate academic
ableism in their
teaching practice.
132
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
student interactions
is important to
minimizing or
eliminating academic
ableism in their
teaching practice.
Total time 90
133
Unit 4a, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the fourth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft Word.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft Word.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft Word documents
○ Know the meaning of digital accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s heading structure
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s color contrast
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft Word document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of digital accessibility and accessible Microsoft Word
documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft Word document
headers and color contrast.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document headers and
color contrast.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible headers and color contrast.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document headers and
color contrast.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge and identify, diagnose, and solve
inaccessible Microsoft Word documents.
134
Summative Assessment
● Given a Microsoft Word document, faculty will be able to make it accessible using
headings and color contrast.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A7 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
135
Table A7
Instructional Activities, Unit 4A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Compare and
contrast video of
how a screen
reader would read a
Microsoft Word
document that was
not designed for
accessibility and
read a Microsoft
Word document
that was designed
for accessibility.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the following
question: Why are
heading structures
so important in
accessible
Microsoft Word
documents? How
do they help both
sighted and
blind/low vision
readers?
Resource: Screen
Reader User’s
Experience in MS
Word
Instructor provides
viewing prompts for the
video: As you watch the
video, consider why
heading structures are so
important in accessible
Microsoft Word
documents. How do they
help both sighted and
blind or low vision
readers?
Learners watch
and listen to the
video, reflecting
on the questions
being asked.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of
the course content
in the module.
In order to establish
relevance and to facilitate
learning, instructor asks
learners to read the
terminal and enabling
learning objectives.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling
learning
objectives for
themselves.
136
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Instructor asks learners to
post personal objectives
to the LMS discussion
board, so the instructor
can respond and address
the objectives during the
synchronous session.
Learners post
their personal
objectives to the
discussion board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are
presented.
Benefits:
Creating accessible
Microsoft Word
documents ensures
access to all
students.
Headings
Color contrast
Risks avoided:
Not creating
documents in an
accessible format
can create a barrier
to learning.
Encourage learners to
personalize the
experience by generating
their own risks and
benefits.
Learners
personally
reflect on the
risks and
benefits
associated with
creating
accessible
Microsoft Word
documents and
how they can
improve their
materials.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know,
7 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling
objectives: Why
creating digital
accessibility is
important and the
Instructor summarizes the
process that will be
followed in this lesson.
Instructor reviews prior
knowledge in an audio.
Instructor describes new
knowledge that will be
learned and concludes
with the learning
Learners see, read,
and hear the
presentation and
have access to
download and
read supporting
materials and
handouts in the
LMS.
137
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
what you
are going
to learn,
and how
you are
going to
learn it.)
definition of digital
accessibility from
the American
Consortium for
Equity in
Education.
Brief overview of the
videos, written
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
strategies that will be
followed in the lesson in
a Microsoft PowerPoint.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 The reasons to create
accessible
documents, both
from a social
justice and a
compliance
approach. Learners
conduct self-checks
of prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz that
will test the
definition of digital
accessibility, the
use of accessible
headings,
accessible color
contrast, and
Microsoft Office’s
self-check tool.
Examples and
nonexamples will
be identified by the
participants.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
Instructor creates a list of
reasons why accessible
documents are important
based on a social justice
and compliance
approach.
Instructor identifies gaps in
prior knowledge via the
performance on the quiz
and addresses them in the
synchronous session.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz
with feedback
provided.
Learners reflect on
how a social
justice and
compliance
approach can
influence their
course materials
creation.
138
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
instructor using
quiz performance.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
20 Videos demonstrate
how to create
accessible headings
and color contrast
in Microsoft Word
documents.
Written resources
and website
reference links are
provided in the
LMS.
Resources:
Using styles to create
headings
Using bullet,
numbering and
outlining
formatting
Creating columns
Considerations for
using color
Checking color
contrast
Instructor encourages
participants to review the
resources.
Instructor provides a list of
the three most important
considerations/techniques
when using headers and
color contrast.
Learners are asked to
reflect on how they will
incorporate these
techniques into their
future document creation.
Learners review
the content and
follow along
with the
description of
the procedure.
Learners consider
how this differs
from their
current practice
of creating
Microsoft Word
documents.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
10 Learners practice
revising headers
and color contrast
in a current
Microsoft Word
document.
Instructor posts assignment
prompt in the LMS.
Learners select a current
Microsoft Office
document or use a
sample document
provided.
Learners follow
the assignment
prompt to create
accessible
headers and
color contrast in
a Microsoft
Word document.
Learners self-
assess and
receive feedback
on header
139
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
creation with the
built-in
Microsoft Office
accessibility
tool.
Learners self-
assess and
receive feedback
on color contrast
with a web
resource
provided in the
course content.
Authentic
assessment
15
Learners are asked to
create accessible
headers and color
contrast in a
document prior to
the synchronous
session.
They are also asked
to identify any
questions or
challenges they
have encountered
while creating
accessible headers
and color contrast.
Instructor asks learners to
create a Microsoft Word
document with accessible
headers and color
contrast.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share them
during the synchronous
session.
Learners
demonstrate the
skills they
learned from the
course content
and have the
opportunity to
ask questions
about the
assignment in
the future
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they
learned.
Instructor asks learners to
think about how to apply
what they have learned to
their course materials.
Instructor reiterates in
writing the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify
questions they
have about this
topic.
140
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated:
Why is it important
to use accessible
headings and color
contrast in
Microsoft Word
documents?
Instructor asks learners to
submit any questions or
challenges they had
during the process, so the
synchronous session
facilitators can answer
those questions.
Learners submit
any questions or
challenges they
had making their
documents
accessible. They
submit via the
LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the
next unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous
session by
providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated
workshop
experience they
participate in with
guest experts.
Instructor thanks learners
for participating,
preparing them by
including a synchronous
session agenda and a
checklist of materials
needed for the
synchronous session.
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous
session and
identify
challenges they
need help in
remediating
during the
synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
141
Unit 4b, Creating Accessible Word Documents, Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the fourth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft Word.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft Word.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft Word documents
○ Know the meaning of digital accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s heading structure
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s color contrast
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft Word document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of digital accessibility and accessible Microsoft Word
documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft Word document
headers and color contrast.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document headers and
color contrast.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible headers and color contrast.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document headers and
color contrast.
Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
Microsoft Word documents.
142
Summative Assessment
● Given a Word document, faculty will be able to create accessible documents in Microsoft
Word.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended. This module
will include expert guest speakers to help participants workshop their Microsoft Word
documents.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A8 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
143
Table A8
Instructional Activities, Unit 4B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Clip of video from
asynchronous
material that
describes an example
of a student using
assistive technology
to read a Microsoft
Word document.
Learners are prompted
to respond to the
guiding question:
Why is creating an
accessible word
document important?
Resource: Screen
Reader User’s
Experience in MS
Word
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
They show the video
and ask learners to
consider the students
in their past, present,
future classes.
After showing the
video, Instructor asks
the guiding question
to activate learners’
thinking about their
own experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners watch and
listen to the video,
thinking about the
questions being
asked and relating
the questions to
their own personal
experiences in the
classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
question.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
terms of what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’ personal
learning objectives
posted to the
discussion board in
the asynchronous
content. Instructor
discusses in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction and
encourages learners
to ask clarifying
questions.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and ask
for clarification on
any objectives.
144
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed.
Benefits:
Eliminating barriers to
access for students
using an assistive
technology device to
read Microsoft Word
documents.
Risks avoided:
Compliance issues
and creating a
noninclusive
learning
environment.
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
describes the benefits
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials from
Modules 1–3.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
course and share
their own risks and
benefits to the
lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives: Why
digital accessibility
is important.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
synchronous session,
starting with a
review of prior
knowledge then
prompting learners to
define what digital
accessibility means.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
Learners share why
digital
accessibility is
important in the
chat. Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
145
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 The meaning of digital
accessibility,
accessible headers,
and accessible color
contrast.
Learner self-identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
Instructor presents and
reviews the meaning
of digital
accessibility,
accessible headers,
and accessible color
contrast.
Instructor addresses
self-identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learners share their
meaning of digital
accessibility.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
12 This guest expert
presentation
demonstrates how to
create accessible
headers and
accessible color
contrast in Microsoft
Word documents
using a worked
example.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
demonstrating the
procedure for
creating accessible
headers and
accessible color
contrast in Microsoft
Word documents
using a worked
example.
Learners refer to a
resource document
and follow along
with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners reflect on
how they will
create accessible
headers and
accessible color
contrast in their
documents.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms with
an accessibility
expert to create
accessible headers
and color contrast in
their Microsoft Word
documents.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
an accessibility
expert to address
their heading and
color contrast
questions.
Experts provide
immediate feedback
Learners break into
small groups and
work with an
accessibility expert
to answer the
questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
146
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
and solutions during
the breakout rooms
sessions.
feedback and
solutions to
address their
questions and
challenges.
Learners self-assess
their readiness to
create accessible
headings and color
contrast.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners demonstrate
that they can create
accessible headings
and color contrast to
their breakout room
expert.
Breakout room experts
demonstrate and
describe the
procedure to faculty
using the resource
document,
encouraging learners
to ask questions.
Learners
demonstrate the
assigned task and
have the
opportunity to ask
questions about it.
Retention
and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned
and any remaining
questions.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor shows the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson,
encouraging learners
to create an
implementation plan
for their materials
applying what they
learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
147
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways are
discussed:
Why are accessible
headings and color
contrast important
for your Microsoft
Word documents?
Instructor asks learners
to generate at least
one “big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share their
ideas in a Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the
class in a Zoom
chat.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
5 Prepare for the next
module by
introducing the
topics covered and
reviewing the
module resources in
the learning
management system.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
acknowledges
successful
completion of the
lesson. Instructor
briefly explains why
having a course
materials
accessibility plan is
important.
Learners begin to
reflect and create a
course
accessibility plan
to remediate and
create accessible
course materials.
Total time 90
148
Unit 5a, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop 2, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the fifth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft Word. It is a continuation of how to create
accessible Microsoft Word documents from the fourth module.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft Word.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft Word documents
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s alternative image text
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s descriptive hyperlinks
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s tables
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft Word document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible word documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft Word document
alternative text, descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document alternative
text, descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible alternative text, descriptive hyperlinks, and
tables.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document alternative
text, descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
Microsoft Word documents.
149
Summative Assessment
● Given a Word document, faculty will be able to create accessible documents in Microsoft
Word.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A9 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration, learning
activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and learner
actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
150
Table A9
Instructional Activities, Unit 5A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Compare and contrast
video of how a
screen reader would
read a Microsoft
Word document
with an image that
did not have proper
alternative (alt-) text
that was not
designed for
accessibility, and
read a Microsoft
Word document that
was designed for
accessibility.
Learners are prompted
to reflect on the
following question:
Why is proper alt-
text so important in
accessible Microsoft
Word documents?
How does it help
both sighted and
blind or low vision
readers?
Resource: Screen
reader alt attribute
accessibility test
Instructor provides
viewing prompts for
the video: As you
watch the video,
consider why proper
alt-text is so
important in
accessible word
documents. How do
they help both
sighted and blind or
low vision readers?
Learners watch and
listen to the video,
reflecting on the
questions being
asked.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of the
course content in the
module.
In order to establish
relevance and to
facilitate learning,
instructor asks
learners to read the
terminal and
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives for
themselves.
151
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
enabling learning
objectives. Instructor
asks learners to post
personal objectives
to the LMS
discussion board, so
the instructor can
respond and address
the objectives during
the synchronous
session.
Learners post their
personal
objectives to the
discussion board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are presented.
Benefits:
Creating accessible
Microsoft Word
documents ensures
access to all
students.
Alt-text
Descriptive hyperlinks
Tables
Risks avoided:
Not creating
documents in an
accessible format
can create a barrier
to learning.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
Learners personally
reflect on the risks
and benefits
associated with
creating accessible
Microsoft Word
documents and
how they can
improve their
materials.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
7 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling objectives:
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
lesson.
Instructor reviews
prior knowledge in
Learners see, read,
and hear the
presentation and
have access to
download and
view supporting
materials and
152
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
Why creating
accessible Microsoft
Word documents is
important.
Brief overview of the
videos, written
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
an audio.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson in a
Microsoft
PowerPoint.
handouts in the
LMS.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 The reasons to create
accessible
documents, both
from a social justice
and a compliance
approach. Learners
conduct self-checks
of prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz that tests
their understanding
of proper alt-text,
descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables. Participants
identify examples
and nonexamples.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
instructor by
performance on the
quiz.
Instructor creates a list
of reasons why
accessible
documents are
important based on a
social justice and
compliance
approach.
Instructor identifies
gaps in prior
knowledge via quiz
performance and
addresses them in
the synchronous
session.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz
with feedback
provided.
Learners reflect on
how a social
justice and
compliance
approach can
influence their
course materials
creation.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
25 Videos demonstrate
how to create
accessible proper
alt-text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
Instructor encourages
participants to
review the resources.
Instructor references
Learners review the
content and follow
along with the
description of the
procedure.
153
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Demo tables in Microsoft
Word documents.
Written resources and
website reference
links are provided in
the LMS.
Resources:
How to add alt-text to
an image.
Samples of accessible
alt-text descriptions
for various types of
images.
Creating descriptive
hyperlinks.
Creating accessible
tables.
Adding accessible
elements to a table.
the written
accessibility manual
for additional
support.
Instructor asks
learners to reflect on
how they will
incorporate these
techniques into their
future document
creation.
Learners consider
how this differs
from their current
practice for
creating Microsoft
Word documents.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
10 Learners practice
including alt-text,
writing a descriptive
hyperlink, and
making a table
accessible in a
current Microsoft
Word document.
Instructor posts
assignment prompt
in the LMS.
Learners select a
current Microsoft
Office document or
use a sample
document provided.
Learners follow the
assignment
prompt to create
accessible alt-text,
write a descriptive
hyperlink, and
make a table in a
Microsoft Word
document.
Learners self-assess
and receive
feedback from the
built-in Microsoft
Office
accessibility tool.
Authentic
assessment
10
Learners are asked to
create accessible alt-
text, write a
descriptive
Instructor asks
learners to create a
Microsoft Word
document with
Learners
demonstrate the
skills they learned
from the course
154
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
hyperlink, and make
an accessible table
in a document prior
to the synchronous
session.
They are also asked to
identify any
questions or
challenges they have
encountered while
creating accessible
elements.
accessible alt-text,
descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share
them during the
synchronous session.
content and have
the opportunity to
ask questions
about the
assignment in the
future
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned.
Instructor asks
learners to think
about how to apply
what they have
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor reiterates in
writing the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify questions
they have about
this topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated:
Why is it important to
use accessible alt-
text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables in Microsoft
Word documents?
Instructor asks
learners to submit
any questions or
challenges they had
during the process,
so the synchronous
session facilitators
can answer them.
Learners submit any
questions or
challenges they
had making their
documents
accessible. They
submit via the
LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous session
by providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated workshop
experience they
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
includes an agenda
for the synchronous
session. Instructor
prepares them by
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous
session and
identify
challenges they
need help in
155
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
participate in with
our guest experts.
including a checklist
of materials they
should have ready
for the synchronous
session.
remediating
during the
synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
156
Unit 5b, Creating Accessible Word Documents Workshop 2, Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the fifth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft Word. It is a continuation of the fourth module on
creating accessible Microsoft Word documents.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft Word.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft Word documents
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s alternative image text
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s descriptive hyperlinks
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft Word document’s tables
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft Word document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible word documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft Word document
alt-text, descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document alt-text,
descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible alt-text, descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft Word document alt-text,
descriptive hyperlinks, and tables.
Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
Microsoft Word documents.
157
Summative Assessment
● Given a Word document, faculty will be able to create accessible documents in Microsoft
Word.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended. This module
will include expert guest speakers to help participants workshop their Microsoft Word
documents.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A10 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration,
learning activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and
learner actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
158
Table A10
Instructional Activities, Unit 5B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Clip of video from
asynchronous
material that shows a
screen reader reading
an image. with
proper alt-text and
one without.
Learners are prompted
to respond to the
guiding question:
Why is creating an
accessible word
document important?
Resource: Screen
reader alt attribute
accessibility test
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
Instructor shows the
video and asks
learners to consider
the students in their
past, present, and
future classes.
After showing the
video, ask the
guiding question to
activate learners’
thinking about their
own experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners watch and
listen to the video,
thinking about the
questions being
asked and relating
the questions to
their own personal
experiences in the
classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
questions.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
terms of what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’ personal
learning objectives
posted to the
discussion board in
the asynchronous
content. Facilitator
discusses in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction,
encouraging learners
to ask clarifying
questions.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and ask
for clarification on
any objectives.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
3 The purpose for
learning risks and
benefits associated
with the lesson are
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
describes the benefits
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
course and share
159
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
avoided reviewed and
discussed.
Benefits:
Eliminating barriers to
access for students
using an assistive
technology device to
read Microsoft Word
documents.
Risks avoided:
compliance issues
and creating a
noninclusive
learning
environment.
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials from
Modules 1–3.
Encourage learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
their own risks and
benefits to the
lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives: Why
creating accessible
Microsoft Word
documents is
important.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
synchronous session,
starting with a
review of prior
knowledge then
prompting learners to
describe the elements
of an accessible
Microsoft Word
document.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
Learners share why
creating accessible
Microsoft Word
documents is
important and the
main elements of
an accessible
document in the
chat. Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 The meaning of proper
alt-text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables is
Instructor presents and
reviews the meaning
of proper alt-text,
descriptive
Learners share their
understanding of
digital
accessibility.
160
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
discussed.
Learner self-identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables.
Instructor addresses
self-identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
12 This guest expert
presentation
demonstrates how to
create accessible alt-
text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables in Microsoft
Word documents
using a worked
example.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
demonstrating the
procedure for
creating proper alt-
text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables in
Microsoft Word
documents using a
worked example.
Learners refer to a
resource document
and follow along
with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners reflect on
how they will
create alt-text,
descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables in their
documents.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms with
an accessibility
expert to create
image alt-text,
descriptive
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables in
their Microsoft Word
documents.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
an accessibility
expert to address
questions about
creating image alt-
text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables in
their Microsoft Word
documents.
Experts provide
immediate feedback
and solutions during
Learners break into
small groups and
work with an
accessibility expert
to answer the
questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback and
solutions to
address their
questions and
challenges.
161
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
the breakout rooms
sessions.
Learners self-assess
their readiness to
create image alt-
text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
accessible tables in
their Microsoft
Word documents.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners demonstrate
that they can create
accessible alt-text,
descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables for their
breakout room
expert.
Breakout room experts
demonstrate and
describe the
procedure to faculty
using the resource
document,
encouraging learners
to ask questions.
Learners
demonstrate the
assigned task and
have the
opportunity to ask
questions about it.
Retention
and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned
and any remaining
questions.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their
course materials.
They show the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson
and encourage
learners to create an
implementation plan
for their materials
applying what they
have learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways are
discussed:
Why are accessible
alt-text, descriptive
hyperlinks, and
tables important for
your Microsoft Word
documents?
Instructor asks learners
to generate at least
one “big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share their
ideas in Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the
class in Zoom
chat.
162
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
5 Prepare for the next
module by
introducing the
topics covered and
reviewing the
module resources in
the learning
management system.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
acknowledges
successful
completion of the
lesson. Instructor
briefly explains why
having a course
materials
accessibility plan is
important.
Learners begin to
reflect and create a
course
accessibility plan
to remediate and
create accessible
course materials.
Total time 90
163
Unit 6a, Creating Accessible PowerPoint Documents, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the sixth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint document’s themes
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint’s master slides and layout
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint’s reading order
○ Be able to analyze Microsoft PowerPoint best practices for accessibility
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft PowerPoint document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoint
documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
Summative Assessment
● Given a Microsoft PowerPoint document, faculty will be able to create accessible
documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
164
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A11 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration,
learning activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and
learner actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
165
Table A11
Instructional Activities, Unit 6A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Written resources on
why creating
accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoints is
important.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the following
question: How can
creating accessible
PowerPoints and
presentations help
all students?
Instructor provides
viewing prompts for
the written resource:
As you read the
information, consider
how creating
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoints and
presentations can
help all students.
Learners read the
content, reflecting
on the questions
being asked.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted at
the beginning of the
course content in
the module.
In order to establish
relevance and to
facilitate learning,
the instructor asks
learners to read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives. Instructor
asks learners to post
personal objectives
to the LMS
discussion board, so
the instructor can
respond and address
the objectives during
the synchronous
session.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives for
themselves.
Learners post their
personal objectives
to the discussion
board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
Learners personally
reflect on the risks
and benefits
associated with
166
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
avoided lesson are
presented.
Benefits:
Creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
accessible
presentations
ensures access to
all students.
Risks avoided:
Not creating
documents in an
accessible format
can create a barrier
to learning.
generating their own
risks and benefits.
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations and
how they can
improve their
materials.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
7 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling objectives:
Why creating
accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoints and
presentations is
important.
Brief overview of the
videos, written
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
lesson.
Instructor reviews
prior knowledge in
an audio.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson in a
Microsoft
PowerPoint.
Learners see, read
and hear the
presentation and
have access to
download and
view supporting
materials and
handouts in the
LMS.
167
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 The reasons to create
accessible
documents, both
from a social
justice and a
compliance
approach.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using an
online quiz that
tests their
understanding of
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoints.
Participants
identify examples
and nonexamples.
Gaps in prerequisite
knowledge are
identified by the
instructor by
performance on the
quiz.
Instructor creates a list
of reasons why
accessible documents
are important based
on a social justice
and compliance
approach.
Instructor identifies
gaps in prior
knowledge via quiz
performance and
addresses them in the
synchronous session.
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz with
feedback provided.
Learners reflect on
how a social
justice and
compliance
approach can
influence their
course materials
creation.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
20 Videos demonstrate
how to create
accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations.
Written resources
and website
reference links are
provided in the
LMS.
Instructor encourages
participants to review
the resources.
Instructor references
the written
accessibility manual
for additional
support.
Instructor asks learners
to reflect on how
they will incorporate
Learners review the
content and follow
along with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners consider
how this differs
from their current
practice of
creating Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents.
168
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Resources
Using slide themes,
layout, and master
slides for reading
order.
Best practices for
making
PowerPoints
accessible.
these techniques into
their future document
creation.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
15 Learners practice
making accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint slides
based on the
information shared
in the institute
content.
Instructor post
assignment prompt in
the LMS. Learners
select a current
Microsoft
PowerPoint or use a
sample document
provided.
Learners follow the
assignment prompt
to create an
accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint slide.
Learners self-assess
and receive
feedback on the
built-in Microsoft
Office
accessibility tool.
Authentic
assessment
10
Learners are asked to
create an accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint slide
prior to the
synchronous
session.
They are also asked
to identify any
questions or
challenges they
have encountered
while creating
accessible
elements.
Instructor asks learners
to create an
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoint slide.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share
them during the
synchronous session.
Learners
demonstrate the
skills they learned
from the course
content and have
the opportunity to
ask questions
about the
assignment in the
future synchronous
session.
169
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor reiterates in
writing the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify questions
they have about
this topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated:
Why is it important
to create accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
presentations?
Instructor asks learners
to submit any
questions or
challenges they had
during the process so
the synchronous
session facilitators
can answer those
questions.
Learners submit any
questions or
challenges they
had making their
documents
accessible. They
submit via the
LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous
session by
providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated
workshop
experience they
participate in with
guest experts.
Instructor thanks
learners for
participating and
includes an agenda
for the synchronous
session. Instructor
prepares them by
including a checklist
of materials they
should have ready
for the synchronous
session.
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous
session and
identify challenges
they need help in
remediating during
the synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
170
Unit 6b, Creating Accessible PowerPoint Documents, Synchronous Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the sixth in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible course material in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint document’s themes
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint’s master slides and layout
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PowerPoint’s reading order
○ Be able to analyze Microsoft PowerPoint best practices for accessibility
○ Be able to create an accessible Microsoft PowerPoint document
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible PowerPoint documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoint
documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible PowerPoint documents.
Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
Microsoft PowerPoint documents.
Summative Assessment
● Given a Microsoft PowerPoint document, faculty will be able to create accessible
documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
171
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended. This module
will include expert guest speakers to help participants workshop their Microsoft PowerPoint
documents.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A12 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration,
learning activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and
learner actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
172
Table A12
Instructional Activities, Unit 6B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Discussion of
accessible
presentation
techniques for
Microsoft
PowerPoint lectures.
Learners are prompted
to respond to guiding
questions: What
techniques do you
currently use? and
What techniques will
you incorporate into
your practice?
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
Instructor references
the institute material
and asks learners to
consider the students
in their past, present,
future classes.
After showing the
written resources,
instructor asks the
guiding questions to
activate learners’
thinking about their
own experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners read, think
about the questions
being asked, and
relate the questions
to their own
personal
experiences in the
classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
questions.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
terms of what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’ personal
learning objectives
posted to the
discussion board in
the asynchronous
content. Facilitator
discusses what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction,
encouraging learners
to ask clarifying
questions.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives. They
ask for
clarification on
any objectives.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
3 The purpose for
learning risks and
benefits associated
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
173
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Risks
avoided
with the lesson are
reviewed and
discussed.
Benefits:
Eliminating barriers to
access for students
using an assistive
technology device to
engage with
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations.
Risks avoided:
compliance issues
and creating a
noninclusive
learning
environment.
describes the benefits
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials from
Modules 1–3.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
course and add
their own risks and
benefits to the
lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives: Why
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations is
important.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
synchronous session,
starting with a
review of prior
knowledge then
prompting learners to
describe the elements
of an accessible
Microsoft Word
document.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
Learners share why
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations is
important and the
main elements of
an accessible
document in the
chat. Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
174
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Prerequisite
knowledge
10 The elements of an
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoint
document and
presentation are
identified.
Learner self-identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
Instructor presents and
reviews the meaning
of proper Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations.
Instructor addresses
self-identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
Learners share their
meaning of
accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
12 This guest expert
presentation
demonstrates how to
create accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents using a
worked example.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
demonstrating the
procedure for
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents using a
worked example.
Learners refer to a
resource document
and follow along
with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners reflect on
how they will
create accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents for
their courses.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
25 Learners work in
breakout rooms with
an accessibility
expert to create an
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoint slide.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
an accessibility
expert to address
questions about
creating accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoints slides.
Experts provide
immediate feedback
Learners break into
small groups and
work with an
accessibility expert
to answer
questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback and
175
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
and solutions during
the breakout rooms
sessions.
solutions to
address their
questions and
challenges.
Learners self-assess
their readiness to
create accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents.
Authentic
assessment
10 Learners demonstrate
that they can create
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoint slides.
Breakout room experts
demonstrate and
describe the
procedure to faculty
using the resource
document,
encouraging learners
to ask questions.
Learners
demonstrate the
assigned task and
have the
opportunity to ask
questions about it.
Retention
and
transfer
5 Learners reflect on the
objectives for the
lesson and identify
and report on what
they have learned
and any remaining
questions.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor shows the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson,
encouraging learners
to create an
implementation plan
for their materials to
apply what they
learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
176
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways are
discussed:
Why are accessible
Microsoft
PowerPoint
documents and
presentations
important for student
accessibility?
Instructor asks learners
to generate at least
one “big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share their
ideas in Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the
class in Zoom
chat.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
5 Prepare for the next
module by
introducing the
topics covered and
reviewing the
module resources in
the learning
management system.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
acknowledges
successful
completion of the
lesson. Instructor
briefly explains why
having a course
materials
accessibility plan is
important.
Learners begin to
reflect and create a
course
accessibility plan
to remediate and
create accessible
course materials.
Total time 90
177
Unit 7a, Creating Accessible PDF Documents, Asynchronous Session
Unit Duration: approximately 80 minutes asynchronous engagement
Introduction
This is the seventh in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible Adobe PDF documents.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible PDF documents
○ Be able to analyze a PDF document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze how to convert a Microsoft Word document to an accessible
PDF document.
○ Be able to analyze how to convert a Microsoft PowerPoint document to an
accessible PDF document.
○ Be able to create an accessible PDF document from Microsoft PowerPoint.
○ Be able to create an accessible PDF document from Microsoft Word.
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible PDF documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible PDF documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible PDF documents.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible PDF documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible PDF documents.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
PDF documents.
Summative Assessment
● Given a Microsoft Word or Microsoft PowerPoint document, faculty will be able to
create accessible PDF files.
178
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and asynchronously using the university learning
management system. Both the container (i.e., the learning management system) and the content
were created with accessibility in mind. Content accessibility was checked using Blackboard
Ally, and all content scored in the 90%+ accessible range. The learning management system also
works with leading assistive technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations
through the human resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the asynchronous session of a module for which learners will be introduced to topics and
will prepare for the synchronous session to be held the following week. It cannot be assumed that
participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so a general synthesis of the content
during the synchronous session is recommended.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing, but it could also be delivered on-ground if
participants bring their laptops. The asynchronous sessions are designed to be housed in the
university learning management system. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A13 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration,
learning activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and
learner actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
179
Table A13
Instructional Activities, Unit 7A
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
5
Written resources on
considerations
when using PDF
documents in a
course.
Learners are
prompted to reflect
on the question:
How can I make
sure the PDFs I
use in my course
are accessible?
Instructor provides
viewing prompts for
the written resource:
As you read the
information, consider
how you can make
sure your course
PDFs are accessible.
Learners read the
content, reflecting
on the questions
being asked.
Learning
objectives
5 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are posted
at the beginning of
the course content
in the module.
In order to establish
relevance and to
facilitate learning,
instructor asks
learners to read the
terminal and enabling
learning objectives.
Instructor asks
learners to post
personal objectives to
the LMS discussion
board, so the
instructor can
respond and address
the objectives during
the synchronous
session.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives for
themselves.
Learners post their
personal objectives
to the discussion
board.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
Risks
avoided
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
associated with the
lesson are
presented.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
Learners personally
reflect on the risks
and benefits
associated with
creating accessible
PDF documents
180
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Benefits:
Creating accessible
PDF documents
ensures access to
all students.
Risks avoided: Not
creating
documents in an
accessible format
can create a barrier
to learning.
and how they can
improve their
materials.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
7 Lesson overview
that includes a
brief content
outline.
Review of prior
knowledge of the
enabling
objectives: Why
creating accessible
PDFS is important.
Brief overview of
the videos, written
resources, and
preparation for the
future synchronous
session.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
lesson.
Instructor reviews prior
knowledge in an
audio.
Instructor describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson in a
Microsoft
PowerPoint.
Learners see, read,
and hear the
presentation and
have access to
download and view
supporting
materials and
handouts in the
LMS.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 Reasons to create
accessible
documents from a
social justice and
compliance
approach. Learners
self-check
prerequisite
knowledge of
creating accessible
Instructor creates a list
of reasons why
accessible documents
are important based
on a social justice and
compliance approach.
Instructor identifies
gaps in prior
knowledge via the
Learners conduct
self-checks of
prerequisite
knowledge using
an online quiz with
feedback provided.
Learners reflect on
how a social justice
and compliance
181
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
PDFs using an
online quiz.
Participants
identify examples
and nonexamples.
Instructor identifies
gaps in
prerequisite
knowledge by quiz
performance.
quiz performance and
addresses them in the
synchronous session.
approach can
influence their
course materials
creation.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
20 Videos and written
resources
demonstrate how
to create accessible
PDF documents.
Written resources
and website
reference links are
provided in the
LMS.
Resources:
Exporting accessible
PDFs from
Microsoft Word
written
instructions.
Exporting accessible
PDFs from
Microsoft
PowerPoint
written
instructions.
How to check for
PDF accessibility
if you have Adobe
Acrobat Pro.
Instructor encourages
participants to review
the resources.
Instructor references
the written
accessibility manual
for additional
support.
Instructor asks learners
to reflect on how they
will incorporate these
techniques into their
future document
creation.
Learners review the
content and follow
along with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners consider
how this differs
from their current
practice of creating
documents.
Practice and
feedback:
15 Learners practice
making accessible
Instructor post
assignment prompt in
Learners follow the
assignment prompt
182
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
The
learning
context
PDFs from
Microsoft Word
and PowerPoint
documents based
on the information
shared in the
institute content.
the LMS. Learners
select a current
Microsoft
PowerPoint or Word
document or use a
sample document
provided.
to create an
accessible PDF.
Learners self-assess
with the PDF
accessibility
checker if they
have Acrobat Pro.
Authentic
assessment
10
Learners are asked
to create an
accessible PDF
prior to the
synchronous
session.
Learners are asked
to identify
questions or
challenges they
encountered
creating accessible
elements.
Learners are asked to
create an accessible
PDF document.
Facilitator encourages
learners to identify
questions about the
process and share
them during the
synchronous session.
Learners
demonstrate the
skills they learned
from the course
content and have
the opportunity to
ask questions about
the assignment in
the future
synchronous
session.
Retention
and
transfer
3 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they
learned.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they have
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor reiterates in
writing the objectives
listed earlier in the
lesson.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify questions
they have about
this topic.
Big ideas
3 The key takeaways
are reiterated:
Why is it important
to create accessible
PDF documents
for students?
Instructor asks learners
to submit any
questions or
challenges they
encountered, so the
session facilitators
can answer them.
Learners submit any
questions or
challenges they
had making their
documents
accessible. They
submit via the
183
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
LMS.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
4 Prepare for the
synchronous
session by
providing an
agenda and
emphasis on the
facilitated
workshop
experience they
participate in with
guest experts.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
includes an agenda
for the synchronous
session. Prepare them
by including a
checklist of materials
they should have
ready for the
synchronous session.
Learners begin to
prepare for the
synchronous
session and
identify challenges
they need help in
remediating during
the synchronous
session.
Total time 80
Note. LMS = learning management system.
184
Unit 7b, Creating Accessible PDF Documents and Implementation Plan, Synchronous
Session
Unit Duration: 90 minutes
Introduction
This is the seventh in a seven-unit course to prepare higher education faculty with the knowledge
and skills needed to acknowledge ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette and accommodations,
and create accessible course materials. The purpose of this unit is to prepare faculty to be able to
create accessible PDF documents and create an accessibility implementation plan for their
courses.
Learning Objectives
Terminal Objective:
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create accessible documents in Microsoft PowerPoint.
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course materials, faculty will be able to
create an accessibility implementation plan for their courses.
Enabling Objectives:
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of accessible PDF documents
○ Be able to analyze a Microsoft PDF document’s accessibility
○ Be able to analyze how to convert a Microsoft Word document to an accessible
PDF document
○ Be able to analyze how to convert a Microsoft PowerPoint document to an
accessible PDF document
○ Be able to create an accessible PDF document from Microsoft PowerPoint
○ Be able to create an accessible PDF document from Microsoft Word
○ Be able to create an accessibility implementation plan for their courses
Learning Activities
● After introductions, attention activities, and learning objective review, assess prior
knowledge of the meaning of accessible PDF documents.
● Teach any necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions, examples, and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying and creating accessible PDF documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible PDF documents.
● Model the procedure for creating accessible PDF documents.
● Provide practice and feedback to create accessible PDF documents.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve inaccessible
PDF documents.
185
● Model the procedure for creating a course accessibility plan.
● Provide practice and feedback to create a course accessibility plan.
Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge to identify, diagnose, and solve course
accessibility in their courses.
Summative Assessment
● Given a Microsoft PowerPoint or Microsoft Word document, faculty will be able to
create an accessible PDF.
Lesson Materials
● Access to a computer with internet
● Access to the course in the learning management system
● Written resource: Accommodations decision document
● Video, written, and website assets
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
Learners will complete this lesson online and synchronously with Zoom. Holding these sessions
online allows access to the training for all of the university’s faculty because many are located on
additional campuses or live and work remotely. Zoom also works with leading assistive
technology, and participants can request necessary accommodations through the human
resources office if needed.
Facilitator’s Notes
This is the synchronous session of a module for which learners were asynchronously introduced
to topics. It cannot be assumed that participants will engage with the asynchronous materials, so
a general synthesis of the content during the synchronous session is recommended. This module
will include expert guest speakers to help participants workshop their PDF documents and
implementation plan.
This course is designed to be delivered in a blended format in which instruction will combine
synchronous face-to-face and asynchronous online delivery. The synchronous component is
designed to be delivered online for ease of sharing and inclusivity, but it could also be delivered
on-ground if participants bring their laptops. Applications used will include Zoom and Microsoft
Office.
Table A14 provides information about the instructional activities and sequence, duration,
learning activities, instructor actions and decisions (i.e., supplantive events of instruction), and
learner actions and decisions (i.e., generative events of instruction).
186
Table A14
Instructional Activities, Unit 7B
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Gain
attention
8 Discussion of
consideration when
using PDFs in
course materials.
Learners are
prompted to
respond to the
guiding question:
What considerations
should you make
when using PDFs in
your course
materials?
Instructor welcomes
learners and provides
opening remarks.
Instructor references
the institute material
and asks learners to
consider the students
in their past, present,
and future classes.
After showing the
written resource, the
instructor asks the
guiding question to
activate learners’
thinking about their
own experiences as
learners and
instructors.
Learners read, think
about the questions
being asked, and
relate the questions
to their own
personal
experiences in the
classroom.
Learners share their
responses to the
questions.
Learning
objectives
3 The learning
objectives for the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed in
terms of what
learners will be able
to do after
instruction.
Facilitator addresses
participants’ personal
learning objectives
posted to the
discussion board in
the asynchronous
content. Facilitator
discusses in terms of
what learners will be
able to do after
instruction,
encouraging learners
to ask clarifying
questions.
Learners read the
terminal and
enabling learning
objectives and ask
for clarification on
any objectives.
Purpose for
learning
Benefits
3 The purpose for
learning and risks
and benefits
Instructor states the
purpose for learning
the material and
Learners state the
risks and benefits
associated with the
187
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
Risks
avoided
associated with the
lesson are reviewed
and discussed.
Benefits:
Eliminating barriers
to access for
students using an
assistive technology
device to engage
with PDF
documents.
Risks avoided:
compliance issues
and creating a
noninclusive
learning
environment.
describes the benefits
and risks associated
with the lesson.
Instructor refers back
to the earlier institute
materials from
Modules 1–3.
Instructor encourages
learners to
personalize the
experience by
generating their own
risks and benefits.
course and share
their own risks and
benefits to the lists.
Overview
Prior
knowledge
New
knowledge
Learning
strategies
(What you
already
know, what
you are
going to
learn, and
how you
are going
to learn it.)
4 Lesson overview that
includes a brief
content outline and
an overview of the
approach to
instruction. Review
of prior knowledge
of the enabling
objectives: Why
creating accessible
PDF documents is
important.
Instructor summarizes
the process that will
be followed in this
synchronous session,
starting with a review
of prior knowledge
then prompting
learners to describe
the elements of an
accessible PDF
document.
Facilitator describes
new knowledge that
will be learned and
concludes with the
learning strategies
that will be followed
in the lesson.
Learners share why
creating accessible
PDF documents
and presentations is
important and the
main elements of
an accessible PDF
document in the
chat. Facilitator
summarizes the
answers.
Prerequisite
knowledge
5 The elements of an
accessible PDF
Instructor identifies the
main elements of
Learners share their
understanding of
188
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
document are
identified.
Learner self-
identified
challenges from the
asynchronous
engagement are
addressed.
accessible PDF
documents. Instructor
addresses self-
identified learner
challenges from the
asynchronous
submissions.
accessible PDF
documents.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
10 This guest expert
presentation
demonstrates how
to create accessible
PDFs from a
Microsoft Word and
PowerPoint
document using a
worked example.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
demonstrating the
procedure for
creating accessible
PDFs from Microsoft
Word and
PowerPoint
documents using a
worked example.
Learners refer to a
resource document
and follow along
with the
description of the
procedure.
Learners reflect on
how they will
create accessible
PDF documents for
their courses.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
10 Learners work in
breakout rooms
with an accessibility
expert to create an
accessible Microsoft
PowerPoint slide.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
an accessibility
expert to address
questions about
creating accessible
PDFs.
Experts provide
immediate feedback
and solutions during
the breakout rooms
sessions.
Learners break into
small groups and
work with an
accessibility expert
to answer the
questions and
challenges they
identified during
the asynchronous
material.
Learners hear
informative
feedback and
solutions to address
their questions and
challenges.
Learners self-assess
189
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
their readiness to
create accessible
PDF documents.
Authentic
assessment
5 Learners demonstrate
that they can create
accessible PDFs
from a Microsoft
Word or
PowerPoint
document.
Breakout room experts
demonstrate and
describe the
procedure to faculty
using the resource
document,
encouraging learners
to ask questions.
Learners
demonstrate the
assigned task and
have the
opportunity to ask
questions about it.
Learning
guidance:
Learning
context
Lecture
Demo
10 The facilitator
explains the
questions and the
process for the
implementation
plan.
Instructor reengages
learners in the lesson
objective by
demonstrating the
procedure for
creating an
accessibility
implementation plan
for their course.
Learners refer to a
resource document
and follow along
with the
description of the
questions and
procedure.
Learners reflect on
how they will
create incorporate
accessibility into
their courses.
Practice and
feedback:
The
learning
context
10 Learners work in
breakout rooms
with peers to create
an accessibility
implementation
plan.
Instructor breaks
learners into small
groups using Zoom
breakout rooms and
has them work with
peers to complete the
implementation plan.
Peers provide
immediate feedback
and suggestions
during the breakout
rooms sessions.
Learners break into
small groups and
work with peers to
create an
implementation
plan for their
course.
Learners hear
informative
feedback and
suggestions.
Learners self-assess
190
Instructional
sequence
Time
(min)
Description of the
learning activity
Instructor
action/decision
(supplantive)
Learner
action/decision
(generative)
their readiness to
incorporate
accessibility in
their courses.
Authentic
assessment
5 Learners demonstrate
that they can
complete the
accessibility
implementation
plan.
Facilitator comments
on the identified
actions from the
implementation plan,
encouraging learners
to ask questions.
Learners complete
the implementation
plan and have the
opportunity to ask
questions about the
task.
Retention
and
transfer
7 Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they have
learned and any
remaining
questions.
Instructor asks learners
to think about how to
apply what they
learned to their
course materials.
Instructor shows the
objectives listed
earlier in the lesson
and encourages
learners to continue
to revise their
implementation plan
applying what they
learned.
Learners reflect on
the objectives for
the lesson and
identify and report
on what they
learned. Learners
begin to reflect on
how they will
implement these
techniques in their
own course
materials.
Big ideas
5 The key takeaways
are discussed:
What is my plan for
increasing
accessibility in my
courses?
Instructor asks learners
to generate at least
one “big idea” that
emerged from the
lesson and share their
ideas in Zoom chat.
Learners generate a
“big idea” and
share with the class
in Zoom chat.
Advance
organizer
for the next
unit
5 Thank learners for
participating in the
institute. Remind
learners of
additional support
services.
Instructor thanks
learners for their
participation and
acknowledges
successful
completion of the
institute.
Learners begin to
implement their
course accessibility
plan to remediate
and create
accessible course
materials.
Total time 90
191
Appendix B: Asynchronous Materials for Unit 1
How are these examples perpetuating academic ableism?
● I am surprised at how well you are doing in my class. I’ve never had a wheelchair student
before.
● I will not allow a disabled student in my lab because they will hurt themselves.
● I will make my course materials accessible when I have more students in my class who
request accommodations.
● This is a rigorous academic program, so you might consider switching majors because
you need accommodations.
● You don’t look disabled to me.
Terminal Objectives
● Given the responsibility for designing accessible course environments, faculty need to
define academic ableism, describe educational laws and policies supporting students with
disabilities, identify predominant models of disabilities, and analyze their own
positionality in relation to persons with disabilities.
Enabling Objectives
● For a given learning scenario, faculty will be able to:
○ Know the meaning of academic ableism
○ Know the meaning of laws and policies supporting students with disabilities
○ Know the meaning of predominant models of disabilities
○ Be able to analyze their positionality in relation to persons with disabilities
Benefits
● Reducing or eliminating barriers to the student learning experience
● Identifying their positionality toward students with disabilities
● Identifying policies and laws pertaining to students with disabilities
● Identifying how models of disabilities can perpetuate academic ableism
Risks Avoided
● Perpetuating academic ableism
Overview
By the end of this module, you should be able to
● define disability
● describe academic ableism
● describe accessibility laws for postsecondary institutions
● apply models of disabilities
192
Defining Disability
The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a person with a disability as a person who has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This
includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a
disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a disability but are regarded as having a
disability.
“Regarded as” means that the person
● has an impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity;
● has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity only as a result of the
attitudes of others toward them; or
● does not have any impairment, but is treated by an entity as having an impairment.
An example of someone who is "regarded as" having a disability includes an employee, who is
in line for a promotion, has a history of cancer treatment, although their cancer is in remission.
They are not given the promotion because their bosses are worried that they won’t be able to do
the job if their cancer returns. The employee does not, at this point, meet the first part of the
definition of disability because they do not have a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities. However, based on their record of a
disability, they are being discriminated against.
Defining Academic Ableism
Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities or people who are
perceived to be disabled. Ableism characterizes people who are defined by their disabilities as
inferior to those without disabilities.
Academic ableism is the view that the disability of a student or an academic faculty or staff
member represents the antithesis of the expected participant in higher education. Those who
practice academic ableism position disabled individuals in higher education as a distraction, a
drain, a problem to be solved. The ethic of higher education encourages students and instructors
alike to accentuate ability, valorize perfection, and stigmatize anything that hints at intellectual,
mental, or physical weakness (Dolmage, 2017).
What is academic ableism?
● Not following a disability accommodations letter
● Not keeping a disability accommodations request private
● Providing inaccessible classroom materials
● Disparaging people with disabilities verbally, in writing, or in visuals
● Talking about a person instead of directly to them or speaking on their behalf
● Questioning if a person is actually disabled
193
What is not academic ableism?
● Referring to students using preferred language, either identify-first or person-first
● Asking questions about a disability or assistive technology in a respectful and meaningful
way
Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of
Michigan Press.
Why I work to remove access barriers for students with disabilities (video)
Legal obligations for higher ed (website)
Models of disability
There are many frameworks (i.e., models) to describe and conceptualize disability and the
environment. The two most common models are medical and social. Disability is on a
continuum, so the way that a person identifies disability can change over time. Also, these
models are not necessarily independent of one another.
Let's review an application of disability models:
Mark is an undergraduate residential student. He was involved in a car accident that resulted in a
lower limb amputation. He uses a motorized scooter to get around campus and drives an adapted
van. He has a secondary health condition of Type 2 diabetes. When visiting the university health
system, the care Mark receives is impacted by the way in which his disability is perceived. His
endocrinologist sees Mark’s physical disability as an illness or deficit that prevents him from
living a healthy life (i.e., medical model of disability) and does not recommend the same
interventions that he would for a person without disabilities, like a diet and exercise program.
His primary care doctor does not have an accessible examination table or wide enough aisles for
his scooter and views his difficulty getting on the examination table as a functional limitation
(i.e., functional model of disability). His dietitian recommends a program of diet and exercise as
an intervention for his diabetes, but the campus gym is not accessible for people with mobility
issues. This creates a barrier for him to exercise regularly (i.e., social model of disability).
Medical Model of Disability
According to the medical model, disability is a consequence of a health condition or disease or is
caused by a trauma that can disrupt the functioning of a person in a physiological or cognitive
way. This model is a conceptualization of disability as a condition a person has. Those
subscribing to this model focus on preventing, treating, or curing the disabling condition.
194
Functional Model of Disability
This model is similar to the medical model in that its subscribers conceptualize disability as an
impairment or deficit. Disability is caused by physical, medical, or cognitive deficits. The
disability itself limits a person’s functioning or the ability to perform functional activities.
Social Model of Disability
In this model, subscribers focus on barriers facing people with disabilities instead of
concentrating on impairments and deficits of the person with a disability. In this model, a
person’s activities are limited not by the impairment or condition but by environment, and
barriers are consequences of a lack of social organization.
In preparation for the synchronous session
During our synchronous session, you will be asked to reflect on how you perceive disability.
Please review the following questions and be prepared to share (what you feel comfortable
sharing) with colleagues in small breakout rooms. Please note that the synchronous sessions will
not be recorded.
● When you think of a student with a disability, do you focus on the things the student can
do or cannot do?
● Do you think of a student with a disability capable of succeeding in your academic
discipline? Why or why not?
● Do you believe that the academic capabilities of students with disabilities differ from the
academic capabilities of students without disabilities? If so, how are they different?
● Do you think students with disabilities receive special advantages or are held to a lesser
standard than students without disabilities? Please explain.
● Do you speak to and interact with students with disabilities differently than you do with
students without disabilities? If so, how and why?
● When you see a student with a disability, do you automatically want to help them?
● Do you think that students are disabled by their impairment or by society’s systemic
barriers, derogatory attitudes, and exclusion?
We will review key definitions and concepts from this module during the synchronous session.
We will also share how we individually perpetuate academic ableism in courses and at the
university. Please bring your questions or email the facilitator prior to the session.
195
Appendix C: PowerPoint Slides for Unit 1 Synchronous Session
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Appendix D: Evaluation Questions
Rating questions (L1, L2)
Please use the following rating scale. (1 for none or very low through 5 for very high level).
Indicate the appropriate rating before the training and after the training.
1. Knowledge of academic ableism
2. Knowledge of Americans With Disabilities Act laws and policies in higher education
3. Knowledge of the accommodations process
4. Knowledge of disability etiquette
5. Knowledge of inclusive course design and universal design for learning
6. Knowledge of how to create accessible Microsoft Word documents
7. Knowledge of how to create accessible Microsoft PowerPoint documents
8. Knowledge of how to create accessible PDF documents
Open-ended questions
1. Please provide comments to explain your ratings. (L1, L2)
2. How relevant do you feel this training will be to your course design and teaching
practices? Why? (L2)
3. How can this institute be improved? (L1)
4. Please share any additional comments you may have regarding this or future accessibility
training. (L1)
Instrument Questions
1. How are you currently using what you learned during the accessibility institute? (L2, L3,
L4)
2. Have you implemented your course accessibility plan? Why or why not? (L2, L3)
205
3. What positive outcomes are you seeing as a result of implementation (for both students
and yourself)? (L1, L2, L3, L4)
4. What institute experiences can you identify that contributed to that success? (L1, L2, L3)
5. What additional support or resources are needed to assist you with accessibility
implementation in your course design and teaching practices? (L1, L2)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The university in this study, referred to by the pseudonym University X, had recently acknowledged the need to improve efforts to provide an accessible learning environment for all students. Students requiring accommodations had encountered barriers to learning in their courses, highlighting the need to train faculty to address academic ableism and course accessibility. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the need for student accommodations and access to digital content. Faculty were asked to interact more often with students with disabilities and respond to requests for accessible course materials. Faculty’s lack of knowledge regarding disabilities and course accessibility led to the creation of learning environments that denied education to students with various abilities. The goal of this faculty training program is to minimize academic ableism and maximize course accessibility. The foundations of this seven-module, semester-long curriculum design derived from sociocultural, social justice, and organizational learning theories. The aim is to create training that will enable faculty to identify personal actions that contribute to academic ableism, demonstrate disability etiquette when interacting with students with disabilities, and create course materials in accessible formats. Participants will prepare work products, which will be assessed by experts who will provide feedback, and a longitudinal evaluation plan will measure achievement of the desired outcomes. This curriculum was designed to dismantle academic ableism by educating faculty on how to reduce barriers to inclusive learning experiences.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Supporting learners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a professional development curriculum for elementary teachers
PDF
A curriculum for faculty implementation of culturally relevant instruction in a community college classroom
PDF
Preparing critically conscious counseling instructional faculty in the California community college
PDF
Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior
PDF
Students with disabiltiies and identity development: higher education, ableism, meritocracy, and meaning making
PDF
Digital portfolios for learning and professional development: a faculty development curriculum
PDF
Bridging theory and practice: developing children’s mathematical thinking through cognitively guided instruction
PDF
A curriculum for higher education faculty to reimagine learning in a postpandemic world
PDF
Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies
PDF
Graduate academic advisor training course
PDF
Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency
PDF
Speech language pathologist professional evaluation curriculum: an administrative approach
PDF
Faculty research performance evaluation with the gap analysis framework
PDF
Literacy across the disciplines
PDF
Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties
PDF
A curriculum to integrate social justice anchors standards into K–5 curriculum
PDF
Practical data science: a curriculum for community colleges
PDF
Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses
PDF
Pathway to inclusivity: a curriculum to transition students with disabilities into college
PDF
The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction
Asset Metadata
Creator
Steiner, Ingrid
(author)
Core Title
Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
02/28/2022
Defense Date
02/04/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic ableism,accessibility,accommodations,disability etiquette,document accessibility,faculty development,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Yates, Kenneth (
committee chair
), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee member
), Street, Christine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ingridst@usc.edu,steineringrid@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110765144
Unique identifier
UC110765144
Legacy Identifier
etd-SteinerIng-10407
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Steiner, Ingrid
Type
texts
Source
20220301-usctheses-batch-914
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic ableism
accessibility
accommodations
disability etiquette
document accessibility
faculty development