“Educational technology” does not have a universal definition. It is a complex mix of hardware and software embedded in various educational contexts. The present study outlines Concordia University's definition, addressing those tools used by faculty and students in the service of education. Technologies integrated into this definition included course Web sites, PowerPoint, discussion boards, e-mail, library reserves, and use of the Web for research.

Faculty wanted to improve their ability to use educational technology effectively. Faculty reported in the surveys and interviews that they, as well as instructional design support staff, are being encouraged and even pressured to put increasing amounts of course content online. Sometimes this is for an online course, and sometimes it is for a “hybred course” which is being conducted partly in a campus classroom and partly on the Web. Faculty and staff who are only learning to integrate basic computer applications as part of their personal work such as word processors, PowerPoint and e-mail find themselves facing technical hurdles they had hoped to avoid. To add to this burden, faculty informants expressed concern about the additional requirement that this content has to be designed in such a way as to meet the technical requirements for that content to be accessible for students with disabilities using specialized interfaces. While open to doing what was necessary to make course content accessible, they felt that this added dimension was an overwhelming task for them. The result may be that many technically challenged faculty and content designers may not comply with such requirements.

One side of the equation for setting up new accessibility training for professors involves their current technical skills or predisposition towards using technology. The present study explored current technology practices by professors as well as the data for knowledge, attitudes and confidence when dealing with the needs of students with disabilities. As has already been noted, several faculty informants said that they, when confronted for the first few times by a student with a disability who said that they could not do something and asked for a particular dispensation, gave in to them, assuming that "that's got to be that way." This faculty view is consistent with a body of literature, that suggests that faculty in general are less comfortable with students with physical and learning disabilities and to have lower academic expectations in working with these students than with students without disabilities (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; Leyser, 1989; Minner & Prater, 1984).

My research findings also show, however, that faculty attitudes are not uniform. Significantly more positive attitudes were found among faculty informants who reported more than five prior teaching experiences with students with disabilities of various types throughout their teaching careers. The implication for training here is that those involved in developing professional development activities must factor in at the outset the general attitudes that faculty bring to the table, based upon their feelings about those with disabilities. It is a general starting point and needs to be addressed with activities designed to help individuals identify their culturally understood attitudes towards disability in general and those specific ones they will encounter in the classroom.

The present study confirms earlier studies (Banks & Coombs, 1998; Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey & DeSimone, 2000) that suggests that professors generally don't know what kinds of things to do to ensure that students have full access to their electronic course materials. It raises the question of how best to incorporate computer technologies into courses in specific disciplines at a time when such computer technologies are not yet evolved. More specifically, the present discussion gives us an opportunity to look at workplace learning - that is, the interplay between the workplace and the university in facilitating desired faculty training and learning that can lead to success. The role of the faculty is vital to providing educational experiences and programs that ensure equal opportunity for all students. The purpose of inservice training in this regard is to provide direction for positive interaction between faculty and students. Jastram (1979); Morris, Leuenberger, and Aksamit (1987); Mangrum & Strichart (1988); Fichten, C.S., Goodrick, G., Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R. & Libman, E. (1990) found a significant positive relationship between inservice training and faculty attitudes toward and knowledge about students with disabilities. The present study, along with others, provide substantial support for the importance of inservice training in increasing knowledge and improving attitudes of faculty toward students with special needs.

From the interviews it became clear that faculty wanted university technical support in a just-in-time basis. They also wanted to receive training to assist them in developing and using technology to enhance their pedagogy - that is, they were asking for training in how to effectively develop, use, and integrate educational technologies into their curricula. An institutional responsibility was identified-universities should consider assisting faculty with integrating technology uniformly across curricula. Faculty wanted the university to continue to support them in building information literacy skills into the courses they teach.

The findings, described above, highlight the need for an institutional response to the broad issue of providing support and training/professional development to faculty for the design and development of accessible e-learning materials within an electronic classroom. The suggestions below are not exhaustive, but are here to provide an overview of what an institution needs to consider when developing a support system to assist those faculty who wish to design and create accessible e-learning materials. Some of the suggestions have come from business literature, and have been adapted to an instructional institution's needs and concerns (Chiarelli, 2000, Chapter 3, “Computer technology and teamwork”).

Time frame

A problem that occurs for many organizations is underestimating the amount of time needed for the development of a support system to assist those faculties who wish to design and create accessible e-learning materials (Mason & Bacsich, 1998). Martin et al. (1997) suggest that the time needed for development can range from three to six months, if not more, and will be relative to the amount of preparation an institution will need to do. Development and preparation issues can include:

• Creating the organizational infrastructure to support those faculties who wish to produce accessible e-learning materials. This can involve developing, organizing and maintaining the administrative aspects of a system for those creating accessible e-learning materials.
• The amount of modifications and changes that will have to be made to the curriculum in order to make it accessible to a population of users-including those with disabilities (Martin et al., 1997).
• Developing and printing manuals (Mason & Bacsich, 1998), job aids and/or other text- based information (electronic or print-based).
• The time needed to train and/or hire staff or faculty to work within an electronic environment to create accessible e-learning materials (Martin et al., 1997). For an instructor developing an electronic classroom alone, time is still needed to learn and organize this new form of instruction.
• Organizing and providing learners with the technology they will need. This can include obtaining the technology (mainstream and adaptive hardware and/or software) (Martin et al., 1997) and preparing discs, etc. (Mason & Bacsich, 1998) in order to deliver the instruction (Martin et al., 1997)

Funding

Another important issue an organization needs to consider is whether or not there is enough funding to design and produce accessible e-learning materials for learners with and without disabilities (Martin et al., 1997). This funding could include the financial resources for:

• The number of personal that may have to be trained or hired to deal with the technology and the design and production of accessible e-learning materials (Martin et al., 1997)
• The cost of instructional materials that may have to be designed and/or developed (electronic and/or print-based).
• Technology to deliver the accessible e-learning materials. Both the software and hardware along with the technological infrastructure can be costly to set up and maintain.

Personnel

In order to produce accessible e-learning materials personal will be needed to restructure, redesign, implement, and deliver the design and produce accessible e-learning materials.

• Within the organization, who is available to assist in the development of production of accessible e-learning materials (e.g., faculty, instructional designers, graphic designers, computer technicians/programmers) (Martin et al., 1997)?
• Does the faculty (e.g., staff, instructor, understand the issues around the design and production of accessible e-learning materials? If this understanding is lacking it may be necessary to develop instruction and/or training for faculty (Woods, 1996).

Resources and Facilities

An organization needs to determine how resources and facilities will be used and distributed within the institution and to those designing and producing accessible e-learning materials. It is imperative that the organization provide easy access to information, resources and facilities that are essential for those engaged in this production process to complete their work objectives (Mankin et al., 1996). This can involve creating specific plans and strategies to deal with the allocation of both resources and facilities (Cleland, 1996). Both Mankin et al. and Cleland are speaking from a business point of view, but these same issues are relevant within a university instructional environment.

• What resources and facilities will be available for faculty (Cleland, 1996)? Some examples are: learning materials (text-based or electronic), access to electronic and/or traditional libraries, computers and software.
• How will resources and facilities be distributed to faculty (Cleland, 1996) such as printed material, software, computers etc..? Will informational materials (e.g., manuals, job aids or other instructional materials) be mailed out or sent electronically? Will the organization have software it can easily distribute to learners or will learners have to buy it themselves?

Technology adoption can thrive only in a culture that supports it. In the interviews with faculty the majority of informants described the present culture and support for appropriate educational technology use as still in its nascent form. Several faculty suggestions to enhance the culture of technology included curriculum awards, release time for technology change, or crediting teaching with technology in the tenure review process.

The present study indicates that faculty are still learning about the new technologies and are interested in receiving information on the hardware and software products out there on campus - what one faculty informant called “e-culture”. E-culture is a term that nicely describes:

• Information technologies
• Internet
• Communications and Telecommunications
• Intercom
• Telephone
• Instant Messaging
• Email
• Daily Living
• Appliances
• Audio visual
• Security system

The presence of this e-culture and its impact on faculty at today's universities and colleges is something the study informants commented on, indicating that they were struggling to integrate it into both their personal and working lives. E-culture, in all its forms, is found at:

• Work
• Workstation
• Copier
• Fax
• Public / Shared Systems
• ransportation
• Building Directories
• Phone in the office
• Podium and equipment

Libraries are rapidly evolving e-everything

• Library Catalogs
• Journals, Magazines & Newspapers
• Reference: Encyclopedias, Dictionaries . . .
• E-Books, E-Texts and Multimedia
• Reserves and Course Materials

At Concordia University-as well as at other colleges and universities today- students face e-culture from the time they think of admission to the time they graduate

• Academic/career advising
• Academic resources
• Admissions
• Financial aid/tuition
• Getting around campus
• Housing
• Student organizations
• Student services
• Student Life

Those involved in providing in service training to faculty must strive to equip course instructors so that they bring access to technology and learning to all students. One way for teachers to do that is to learn as much technology as they can, learn how to integrate that technology into their teaching and into their teaching practice and their subject curriculum. They should be familiar with technology in their own classrooms. The individual instructor's ability to embrace technology is key to changing access to online education. For working in the field of disability services to students in colleges and universities, accessibility is about “making sure that everyone has the same information.” The following two findings from the present study will be helpful to those involved in professional development activities: “new knowledge areas” and “accessibility topics”.

New Knowledge Areas

Universities need to allocate resources to research that assists in facilitating thoughtful, effective, and innovative educational technology uses. This research should assist the university in integrating technology in a manner driven by pedagogical objectives, institutional standards, and student learning. There are technologies widely accepted and desired by both faculty and students. Increasing the use of these technologies requires institutional change.

When looking at strategic implications, we must look at campus-wide institutional mission statements. Mission statements must be drafted for technology adoption - taking into account the special needs of both students and faculty with disabilities. Students and faculty have dramatically different expectations of appropriate levels of technology integration. Universities need to develop an institutional statement of expectations of technology integration and proficiency.

Higher education institutions need to consider developing detailed plans for assessing technology. Faculties are hesitant to adopt technologies that have not undergone enough research to demonstrate substantial learning gains. Universities need to develop strategies designed to assess learning gains when educational technologies are integrated into curricula and then use these strategies to assess technology in the classroom.

Educators need to assess their students' information literacy. They may wish to consider integrating content into their curricula aimed at developing their students' literacy skills. Higher education research needs to explore student uses of emerging technologies. To enhance the culture of educational technology requires facilitating clear communication among all community members. Higher education must not head blindly into the future. Large-scale institutional assessments of educational technology using multiple methods, such as this study, must be ongoing.

As part of this problem of understanding the needs of students with disabilities as faculty struggle with the emerging technologies is the need to train faculty to understand “universal design” and the benefits of these new technologies for all people with disabilities. While the philosophy and practice of Universal Design have been applied to the built environment in general, many people, particularly in Disability Support Services, see it as a means of making accessibility operational in both the online and classroom-based environment.

The significance of the present study - indeed its contribution to the body of knowledge in the fields of disability studies and educational technology - is to clearly state that universal Design is a conceptual framework for designing and developing inclusive environments. It stems from an attitude, not a prescriptive set of procedures. Its tenets challenge us to think beyond mere legal compliance by promoting new ways of viewing disability and access. Universal design reframes the concept of accessibility from “special features for a few” to good design throughout the lifespan. We are only beginning to explore the possibilities.

The present study is significant because it helps look with a fresh perspective on the question: How does the concept of “reasonable accommodations” fit in a universal design paradigm? The goal of universal design is to create environments that are usable by a variety of people to the greatest extent possible without modifications. However, we've learned from experience that no environment can ever be made completely accessible to all individuals; individual accommodations play an important role in these cases. Indeed, the second principle of universal design, “flexibility in use,” speaks directly to the need for environments to be designed in ways that are amenable to accommodations. Rather than expecting a cookbook remedy for all access questions, universal design presents a framework that incorporates accessibility at the design level and encourages constant attention to the ideal of universality.

The present study is important to those working directly with students with disabilities because it raises the general question: How would approaching my work from a universal design perspective make a difference to me: (Banks & Coombs, 1998; Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey & DeSimone, 2000; Bowe, 2000; Christophersen, 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2002)

• ...As a disability service provider? The role of a disability professional widens beyond the confines of the individual situation (documentation review, accommodation determination and coordination, funding requests for disability-specific changes, etc.). Attention shifts from individual accommodations that must be repeated each semester to sustaining, system-wide re-design aimed at increasing usability for all constituencies. Incorporating a universal design philosophy provides the opportunity to interact with the campus community in a variety of new and exciting ways: as a marketer, a coalition builder, a consultant, a specialist, etc.
• ...As an administrator? Universal design provides administrators at the highest levels of institutional governance with a framework to increase diversity, improve campus climate and reduce potential costs associated with retrofitting traditional designs. By adopting a universal design paradigm as an integral part of capital planning, maintenance, and growth, the campus community is encouraged to search for better, more inclusive ways of addressing all its constituencies. The result is that people all across campus spend less time, energy and money negotiating access, applying temporary “fixes,” retrofitting environments and navigating physical and virtual spaces.
• ...As a faculty member? Incorporating the principles of universal design into the design of a class enhances the accessibility of the curriculum to a variety of diverse learners: minority students, second-language learners, returning students, students with disabilities, etc. While re-envisioning the design of a course may seem overwhelming at first, experience has shown that once faculty members experience the increase in student engagement and learning that is achieved through a universally designed curriculum, they can't imagine returning to the traditional lecture format.

Where do we go from here? In recognition of the potential impact of a universal design paradigm on higher education, I am part of a new generation of scholars actively involved in universal design research and promotion.

With the present study as a starting point, the sites, listed below, give further support for the development of faculty in service training materials that incorporate dimensions of Universal Design highly relevant to educational settings:

• CAST ( http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=7) focuses on dissemination and professional development in Universal Design for Learning.
• Curriculum Transformation and Disability, University of Minnesota (http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad/) helps postsecondary faculty make their classes more accessible to all students, using a Universal Instructional Design model.
• The Facultyware Project, University of Connecticut (http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/) has the goal of using Universal Design to assure inclusive college teaching for students with learning disabilities.
• Ivy Access (http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_College/uid/), a joint endeavor of the Ivy League institutions, educates faculty to use Universal Instructional Design effectively in teaching students with non-visible disabilities.
• Universal Design Education Online (http://www.udeducation.org/) supports educators and students in teaching and studying Universal Design.

Institutional Coordination

One of the questions raised in the present study is how to develop institutional coordination processes that support accessibility in online teaching and learning. The faculty informants assert that universities and colleges need to develop plans that take into account the realities of how universities function and offer a direction with strategies on how to solve problems. (Paul Bohman, WebAIM, “University Web Accessibility Policies: A Bridge Not Quite Far Enough”, http://webaim.org/coordination/articles/policies-pilot)

• WebAIM, “Strategies for Coordination and Leadership,”
  http://webaim.org/coordination/
• Kristine Neuber, George Mason University, “Developing A Model to Support Web Accessibility at the Post-Secondary Level: A Case Study,”
  http://www.gmu.edu/accessibility/webreform

Faculty/Staff Professional Development

Another focus of the present study is collaborative and professional development models that often emerge from efforts by faculty and staff to redesign the learning environment. Numerous endeavours of this kind have been initiated at university campuses in the last five years. A short, very selective list of projects includes:

• AccessIT, University of Washington,
  http://www.washington.edu/accessit/index.php
• Georgia Tech Research on Accessible Distance Education (GRADE),
  http://www.catea.org/grade/
• Partnership Grant, Ohio State University,
  http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/grants/dpg/index.html
• PEEL Project, University of Arizona,
  http://www.utc.arizona.edu/utc_peel_main.htm
• Web Accessibility for All, University of Wisconsin,
  http://www.cew.wisc.edu/accessibility/

The results of this study confirm that learning technologies are rapidly reinventing themselves and that many faculties are coming to an understanding of this problem. An example of this may be found in the widespread use of streaming media in higher education. Many faculty members now enhance PowerPoint slides by webcasting lectures related to them. These present accessibility challenges to students who are unable to play video or hear audio. Rendering streamed PowerPoint lectures accessible requires much time and expertise.

Universities need to develop coordination plans that will not only implement accessibility but also take into account the pace of development in new technologies. Clearly they cannot do this in isolation from society. Great strides have already been made in developing ways to regulate and monitor information technology. The amended Section 508 standards (http://www.section508.gov/) developed by the Access Board in 1998 provide comprehensive guidelines for the formatting of Web content. The IMS standards (http://www.imsproject.org/) develop and promote the adoption of open technical specifications for interoperable learning technology.

Universities in Canada and the United States will need to work in partnership with these initiatives to ensure that all students have access to educational opportunities. These centers of excellence suggest models universities might follow in making online teaching and learning accessible while keeping pace with technological development:

• Center for Instructional Technology Accessibility (CITA), University of Illinois at
  Urbana/Champaign, http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
• Institute on Disabilities, Temple University,
  http://disabilities.temple.edu/index.htm
• TRACE Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
  http://trace.wisc.edu/

Banks, R. & Coombs, N. (1998). The spider and the fly. CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine), 5 (2), [online]. Available: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/feb/toc.html (August 25, 1999).

Bowe, F. (2000). Universal Design in Education: Teaching Non-traditional Students. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey.

Chiarelli, L. E. (2000). A literature review on facilitating on-line collaboration of learning teams: Can education learn from business and other disciplines, Master's thesis, Dept. of Education, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada

Christophersen, J. (2002). Universal Design: 17 Ways of Thinking and Teaching. Norway: Husbanken.

Cleland, D. I. (1996). Strategic management of teams. New York: Wiley.

Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M., Fossey, M., & De Simone, C. (2000). Access to Educational and Instructional Computer Technologies for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: Lessons from Three Empirical Studies (Canada) [online]. Available: http://evnet-nt1.mcmaster.ca/network/workingpapers/jemdis/jemdis.htm

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

Houck, C., Asselin, S., Troutman, G., & Arrington, J. (1992). Students with LD in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of LD, 25 (10), 678-684.

Jastram, P. (1979). The faculty role: New responsibilities for program access. In M. Redden (Ed.), New directions for higher education: Assuring access for the handicapped (no. 25) (pp. 11-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leyser, Y. (1989). A survey of faculty attitudes and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 7 (3 & 4), 97-108.

Mangrum, C., & Strichart, S. (1988). College and the learning disabled student. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

Mankin, D. A., Cohen, S. G. & Bikson, T. K. (1996). Teams and technology: Fulfilling the promise of the new organization. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Martin, B., Moskal, P., Foshee, N. & Morse, L. (1997). So you want to develop a distance education course: Here's how to design and manage a successful one. ASEE Prism, 6 (6), 18-22.

Mason, R. & Bacsich, P. (1998). Embedding computer conferencing into university teaching. Computers and Education, 30 (3/4), 249-258.

Minner, S., & Prater, G. (1984). College teachers' expectations of learning disabled students. Academic Therapy, 20 (2), 225-229.

Morris, M., Leuenberger, J., & Aksamit, D. (1987). Faculty inservice training: Impact on the postsecondary climate for learning disabled students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 5, 57-66.

Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning: Helping your students gain the most from PBL. (3rd ed.). http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/innov1.htm.