A Broadening Participation in Computing Alliance - AccessINCLUDES

Leading Practices for Improving Accessibility and Inclusion in Field, Laboratory, and Computational Science – A Conversation Series

FeedsImporter — Wed, 01 Jun 2022 23:55:01 +0000

Practices for Improving Accessibility and Inclusion in Field, Laboratory, and Computational Science: A Conversation Series

Five webinar-style conversations featuring leading experts on accessibility and disability inclusion recorded between December 2021 and April 2022.

What are tips for creating accessible social media posts?

FeedsImporter — Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:05:01 +0000

People of all ages, interests, and abilities use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms to share content and engage in conversations. Millions of social media participants have disabilities, including those that impact their ability to see, hear, and access a standard keyboard and mouse. Many use assistive technologies such as screen readers to read aloud content on the screen and alternate keyboards that emulate the computer keyboard but not the mouse.

Today, most popular social media platforms include some accessibility features and regularly roll out accessibility improvements. Current instructions for using accessibility features of a specific social media platform may be found on the platform website; if it can’t be found there, it is unlikely the tool developers have paid much attention to accessibility issues.

To ensure the accessibility of posts on social media, the authors of posts must use relevant accessibility features and employ other inclusive strategies that include the following.

Compose hashtags using upper and lower case letters—e.g., #BestTripEver rather than #besttripever. Individuals who have disabilities related to reading or sight are among the many beneficiaries of this practice.
Show respect to members of all groups of people. Avoid, for example, negative phrases that relate to disabilities, like “He’s crazy” or “What an insane thing to say.”
Address a wide range of language skills as you write content (e.g., use plain English, spell out acronyms, define terms, avoid or define jargon).
Use emojis sparingly. Although a screen reader may be able to read aloud descriptions of emojis—e.g., “Smiling face with sunglasses,”—it is time consuming to read aloud all the descriptions for a long list of emojis.
Use descriptive wording for hyperlink text (e.g., “DO-IT website” rather than “click here”).
Provide concise text descriptions of content presented within images.
Caption videos and, ideally, include audio descriptions. Often, you can find instructions for editing computer-generated captions on the website for the platform, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Facebook.

For more information about making online resources and engagement accessible to people with disabilities, consult Federal Social Media Accessibility Toolkit Hackpad, Introduction to Web Accessibility and Universal Design of Technology in The Center on Universal Design in Education.

How can I create a conference poster that is accessible to people with disabilities?

FeedsImporter — Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:05:01 +0000

Many conferences, both on-site and online, offer opportunities for researchers and practitioners to present their work. There are steps you can take to make your poster accessible to conference participants who have disabilities. The following tips apply to both on-site and online posters.

Use clear, consistent layouts and organization schemes to present content.
Provide information in multiple ways (e.g., use a combination of text, images, graphs, and tables).
Use plain English, spell out acronyms, define terms, avoid or define jargon.
Use color combinations that are high contrast and can be distinguished by those who are colorblind.
Keep text concise and graphics and tables simple.
Use large, bold, sans serif fonts on plain backgrounds.
Provide adequate white space, avoid clutter, and visually highlight sections with borders, colored headings, and white space.
Share with participants a concise description of the major points in the content of the poster.
Feature a tiny url or QR code that links to more information on the research being presented and an accessible, downloadable version of the poster.
Caption or title images.
Consider suggesting questions that people might want to ask (e.g., "Ask me about ...").

If your poster session is only electronic, there are additional tips for making your presentation accessible to people with disabilities.

Use accessibility tools and guidelines within the creation product you are using (e.g., PowerPoint) to develop the poster.
Use a text-based format and structure hierarchical headings, lists, and tables using style and formatting features of the creation product you are using; use built-in page layouts when available.
Provide concise alternative text descriptions of content presented within images, graphs, and tables.
Avoid creating PDF documents, unless you invest the time to learn how to design them in an accessible manner.
If a video presentation is available along with the poster, be sure that it is captioned and that all key content is spoken aloud.

Universal Design and Accessibility in Broadening Participation Efforts

FeedsImporter — Mon, 06 Jul 2020 08:25:01 +0000

Universal Design and Accessibility in Broadening Participation Efforts

20 Tips for Teaching an Accessible Online Course

FeedsImporter — Tue, 17 Mar 2020 08:15:01 +0000

20_Tips_Designing_Courses.pdf

I taught the first online learning course at the �r�� in 1995. My co‑instructor was Dr. Norm Coombs, at the time a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. We designed the course to be accessible to anyone, including students who were blind, were deaf, had physical disabilities, or had multiple learning preferences. Norm himself is blind. He uses a screen reader and speech synthesizer to read text presented on the screen. We employed the latest technology of the time—email, discussion list, Gopher, file transfer protocol, and telnet (no World Wide Web yet!). All online materials were in a text-based format, and videos, presented in VHS format with captions and audio description, were mailed to the students. When asked if any of our students had disabilities, we were proud to say that we did not know. Why? Because no one needed to disclose a disability since all of the course materials and teaching methods were accessibly designed.

Technology has changed dramatically since I first taught online, but the basic principles that can guide the design of accessible courses have not. The term UD was coined by Ronald Mace, an architect, product designer, and wheelchair user whose work led to the creation of the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University and its seven principles of UD. UD is defined as "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design." The UD definition, principles, and guidelines were created to make any application accessible, usable, and inclusive and, thus, are a logical choice to underpin practices that ensure that online courses meet the needs of potential students with a wide variety of characteristics that include those related to gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, marital status, age, abilities, interests, values, learning preferences, socioeconomic status, and religious beliefs.

For a history of UD, the basic principles of UD and those that later evolved to address issues specific to the design of learning activities and IT, consult my book Creating Inclusive Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Universal Design Toolkit and other resources presented in the Center for Universal Design in Education, which is hosted by DO-IT Center at the �r��—where DO-IT stands for Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology. For resources specific to applications of UD to online learning, including accessibility checkers, legal issues, technical details, and promising practices, consult AccessDL.

A statement about how students can request disability-related accommodations should be included in the syllabus. Then instructors can apply the 20 tips I list below, as they begin to work toward making their online courses more inclusive. The complementary video, 20 Tips for Instructors about Making Online Learning Courses Accessible, may be viewed online, along with a tutorial for further background and directions for implementing these tips.

Tips

Nine tips for course materials follow. Consult Accessible Technology at uw.edu/accessibility for details on the design, selection, and use of accessible IT as well as accessibility checkers that help you identify accessibility problems in materials you use or create:

Use clear, consistent layouts, navigation, and organization schemes to present content. Keep paragraphs short and avoid flashing content.
Use descriptive wording for hyperlink text (e.g., “DO-IT website” rather than “click here”).
Use a text-based format and structure headings, lists, and tables using style and formatting features within your Learning Management System (LMS) and content creation software, such as Microsoft Word, and PowerPoint and Adobe InDesign and Acrobat; use built-in page layouts where applicable.
Avoid creating PDF documents. Post most instructor-created content within LMS content pages (i.e., in HTML) and, if a PDF is desired, link to it only as a secondary source of the information.
Provide concise text descriptions of content presented within images (text descriptions web resource).
Use large, bold, sans serif fonts on uncluttered pages with plain backgrounds.
Use color combinations that are high contrast and can be distinguished by those who are colorblind (color contrast web resource). Do not use color alone to convey meaning.
Caption videos and transcribe audio content.
Don’t overburden students with learning to operate a large number of technology products unless they are related to the topic of the course; use asynchronous tools; make sure IT used requires the use of the keyboard alone and otherwise employs accessible design practices.

Eleven tips for inclusive pedagogy follow; many are particularly beneficial for students who are neurodiverse (e.g., those on the autism spectrum or who have learning disabilities). Consult Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction for more guidance.

Recommend videos and written materials to students where they can gain technical skills needed for course participation.
Provide multiple ways for students to learn (e.g., use a combination of text, video, audio, and/or image; speak aloud all content presented on slides in synchronous presentations and then record them for later viewing).
Provide multiple ways to communicate and collaborate that are accessible to individuals with a variety of disabilities.
Provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate what they have learned (e.g., different types of test items, portfolios, presentations, single-topic discussions).
Address a wide range of language skills as you write content (e.g., use plain English, spell out acronyms, define terms, avoid or define jargon).
Make instructions and expectations clear for activities, projects, discussions and readings.
Make examples and assignments relevant to learners with a wide variety of interests and backgrounds.
Offer outlines and other scaffolding tools and share tips that might help students learn.
Provide adequate opportunities to practice.
Allow adequate time for activities, projects, and tests (e.g., give details of all project assignments at the beginning of the course).
Provide feedback on project parts and offer corrective opportunities.

These tips apply to both synchronous and asynchronous teaching. Additional tips for synchronous presentations (e.g., speak all content presented visually, turn on the caption feature of your conferencing software, do not require students to have their cameras on) can be found in Equal Access: Universal Design of Your Presentation.

Acknowledgments

DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) serves to increase the success of individuals with disabilities. This publication was partially funded through DO-IT’s AccessCyberlearning project that is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant #1550477). Any questions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. More information about DO-IT can be found at uw.edu/doit.

Are Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles curricula accessible to students with disabilities?

FeedsImporter — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:15:01 +0000

Many different curricula are used to teach Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science Principles (CSP). Most of these curricula are not fully accessible to students with disabilities, largely because the programming tools that they utilize are not accessible to students who are blind or visually impaired and typically use screen readers to access content presented on the screen. Screen readers can read text aloud to users but cannot interpret content presented in images.

AccessCSforAll developed an accessible version of the AP CSP curriculum that uses the Quorum programming language, which is designed to be accessible to students with disabilities. The accessible curriculum is based on the Code.org curricula.

For more information about accessible K-12 computer science education, consult the following knowledge base articles:

AccessCSforAll is funded by the National Science Foundation (grant #CNS-1738252 and #CNS-1738259) and led by the �r�� and the University of Nevada Las Vegas. Its purpose is to increase the successful participation of students with disabilities in K-12 computing courses.

Making Videos Accessible

FeedsImporter — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:01 +0000

Making Videos Accessible

Learn what to consider when creating a video that it is accessible to all viewers, from pre-production techniques to the provision of captioning and audio description.

Project:

Large Image:

Quality Education Is Accessible

FeedsImporter — Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:05:02 +0000

Quality Education Is Accessible

Students with a variety of disabilities share strategies for making instruction more accessible to them.

Project:

Large Image:

2016 Report of the AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study (ALTS)

eol — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 19:27:49 +0000

This report is based on data collected within the AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study (ALTS). It tracks the college and career pathways of students with disabilities who have participated in activities sponsored by projects of the DO-IT Center at the �r�� (UW) in Seattle. Students are added to the study as they enter DO-IT programs and agree to participate in this research activity. To date, 472 students with a wide range of disabilities have agreed to participate in this ongoing study.

In the ALTS study participants are asked about educational and career pathways and outcomes. Additionally, they are asked to identify the DO-IT activities they participated in and rate the value of the activities. As this database grows, both in number of participants and number of interviews per participant, it is expected to reveal the long-term impact of DO-IT’s program activities. That is, it will indicate which activities participants consider most beneficial and which are most important for achieving positive postsecondary outcomes. This report is an update of the initial 2007 report, the 2009 report, 2010 report, and the 2011 report.

The AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study was developed with funding from the Research in Disabilities Education program of the NSF (award HRD-0227995 and HRD-0833504) for the Alliance for Student with Disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (AccessSTEM). The DO-IT Scholars program, in which many study respondents participated, has been primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, Microsoft, Boeing Company, and the State of Washington. The Alliance for Access to Computing Careers (AccessComputing), funded by NSF’s Directorate for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering (grant #CNS-0540615, CNS-0837508, and CNS-1042260). The ALTS continues to be maintained by AccessSTEM, AccessComputing, and the State of Washington.

Specific research questions of the ALTS are:

Educational Achievements
1. What are the educational achievements of participants in DO-IT interventions?
2. Do they differ from other youth with disabilities with regard to educational achievements?
Employment Outcomes
1. What are the employment outcomes of participants in DO-IT interventions?
2. Do they differ from other youth with disabilities with regard to employment achievements?
Interventions
1. Which interventions are regarded as most valuable?
2. Are patterns evident linking student demographics or interests with the intervention(s) used and their perceived value, or with student pathways?
3. Is there evidence of how interventions might be improved or expanded to be more beneficial or more broadly beneficial?

The ALTS tracks the progress toward degrees and careers of students with disabilities who had a goal of postsecondary education while in high school and received DO-IT sponsored interventions (e.g., internships, mentoring, college transition activities) in high school and/or in college. Many DO-IT sponsored interventions were funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The study is designed in such a way that respondent content can be updated and data can be analyzed at any time. The “on track” status of students is determined as they progress through critical junctures that lead to degrees and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), recognizing that at any point some respondents in the study are still enrolled in secondary school or are recent high school graduates.

The progress of ALTS respondents is compared with that of participants in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)(SRI International, 2001-2011) which is a follow-up of the original National Longitudinal Transition Study (SRI International 1985-1993). Although ALTS participants were not randomly selected and the two groups are not identical in characteristics, both groups are composed of college-bound youth with a wide range of disabilities and interests. The DO-IT Scholars program, for example, works with students who have many different academic and career interests; AccessSTEM participants are interested in careers in STEM; AccessComputing participants are interested in careers in computing and information technology (IT) fields. The ALTS Logic Model provides a visual representation of activities in which respondents were involved as well as project goals, outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts.

We intend to expand ALTS with new participants and with longer-term follow up to gather data that will enable us to evaluate both the short-term and the long-term impact of specific activities designed to increase the college and career success of individuals with disabilities, particularly in STEM fields. This study is responsive to the recommendation of the NSF Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (2004) to make an effort to collect more and higher-quality data about factors that promote the success of individuals with disabilities in STEM fields.

Procedures

Recruited through their participation in DO-IT activities, respondents in this study were interviewed in person, by email, and/or by phone. Their records were added to an online database. Content stored in the database includes demographics, assistive technology usage, involvement in program activities, stages of progress through critical junctures leading to STEM careers, participants' reasons for discontinuing progress toward a STEM career, and career outcomes. The ALTS database is analyzed by an external evaluator.

Since this is a longitudinal database, DO-IT staff strives to re-interview ALTS participants every other year (per stipulations of the UW’s Institutional Review Board) during their annual round of ALTS re-interviews. Additionally, records are updated between interviews with information gathered through other participant contacts. Of the 472 ALTS participants, about half (234) have participated in at least one formal follow-up interview and almost half of these (109) have participated in two to five follow-up interviews. Two hundred thirty-eight of the respondents have participated in only a baseline interview, though information about many of these participants has been updated through other types of contact.

It can be difficult to determine whether DO-IT has lost touch with a participant or whether that individual simply has been unavailable for interview during the interview period. Eighty-seven percent of the 472 participants have been confirmed as still being in touch with DO-IT, though for 10% of these, their most recent formal interview was prior to 2009. Informal contact has kept their records up-to-date.

The following paragraphs provide an overview of findings from some of the data collected thus far in the ongoing AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study.

Demographics

As of April 2016, the study included a total of 472 respondents. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents are male; 42% are female. Their mean age was 22.5 years (SD = 7.5) at the time of their first interview; their ages ranged from 15.8 years to 64.8 years. Respondents self-identified as:

Caucasian/White (71.2%),
Asian and Pacific Islander (11.5%),
Hispanic (5.8%),
African American/Black (5.4%),
American Indian (1.1%),
Multi-ethnic (5.0%), and
No response (2.1%).

Figure 1 illustrates the prevalence of different types of disabilities among ALTS participants. More than one-third of the respondents (37%) reported a mobility disability; nearly one-fourth (22%) are deaf or hard of hearing. Nearly as many (21%) reported psychosocial issues. Others reported a learning disability, low-vision or blindness, a chronic or acute health condition, or a communication disorder.

Males and females were about equally likely to have disabilities related to communication, chronic illness, hearing, vision, and learning issues. Female ALTS respondents were more likely to have a mobility disability (46% vs. 31%) while males were more likely to have a psycho-social disability (29% vs. 145).

Figure 2 shows the percentage of participating students reporting one (63%), two (30%) or three or more (7%) disabling conditions.

Figure 3 shows the participants’ educational status when they entered DO-IT. Six (1%) began participation in DO-IT activities in middle school, 306 (65%) in high school, 134 (29%) as college undergraduates or in their transition summer between high school and college, 21 (4%) as graduate or law students, and 3 (1%) as post graduates or job seekers.

Program Participation and Value of Interventions

Respondents participated in the following evidence-based practices.

Technology access. Although 91% of the respondents had access to a computer before they participated in program activities, 54% reported that DO-IT provided them with computer equipment after joining DO-IT. Further 49% said they received training from DO-IT on their computer or software and 44% said they received tech support from DO-IT. Eighty-six percent had access to the Internet before they joined DO-IT and 97% said they had Internet access after joining, 5% from DO-IT. The percentage of the respondents in the current study with access to assistive software or hardware was quite low before DO-IT participation (31%), up to 63% after participation in program activities. Forty-two percent reported that these assistive technologies were provided at least in part by DO-IT. Adaptive software available to project participants includes scanning/reading, word prediction, mind mapping/outlining, speech recognition, and screen magnification software. Adaptive hardware includes alternative keyboards and mice, use of a braille embosser, a portable digital assistant, and an augmentative communication device.
Internships and Other Work-Based Learning. Three-hundred and twelve (66%) of respondents completed at least one internship, and 76% of these students reported that at least one of their internships was provided by DO-IT. Of the 663 internships completed, 370 were developed through DO-IT projects. The total number of internships completed by each respondent ranged from one to ten. Fifty-nine percent of the participants with internships (39% of the participants overall) had paid internships.
Mentoring. Ninety-two percent of respondents reported having access to mentors during program participation, up from 55% with either an adult mentor or peer group support before participation. All 272 DO-IT Scholars indicated that they participated in internetworking and mentoring.
College and Career Transition Workshops/Camps. Eighty-two percent of the respondents indicated that they participated in a college or career transition workshop.
Other STEM Activities. In addition to the aforementioned experiences provided through DO-IT, 34% of the respondents reported that they were involved in extracurricular STEM service groups, clubs, or other activities that were not sponsored by AccessSTEM, AccessComputing, DO-IT Scholars, or other DO-IT programs.

Figure 4a summarizes respondent perceptions regarding the value of program activities as they prepared for college and careers, in order from most to least valued as indicated by the percentage of valuable and very valuable ratings. Access to technology was reported to be the most valuable intervention, with 74% of the respondents noting that that intervention was very valuable, followed by internship or other work-based learning, rated as very valuable by 61% of those who participated, and as valuable by another 29%. Next, 43% of participants rated college transition workshops or camps as very valuable and another 41% rated them as valuable. Mentoring was also seen positively, with 47% indicating that it was very valuable and another 33% saying it was valuable. However almost one-fifth (18%) found it somewhat valuable, a diversity of responses that may lead to some insight into the qualities of a valuable mentorship experience in future interviews. Similarly, additional feedback about career transition workshops and camps may yield ideas for improvements that will increase the value of those activities to more participants.

Nine DO-IT staff members who worked the most on multiple activities with DO-IT participants were also asked to rate the value of these program activities. Table 1 and Figure 4b show the results, with activities listed in the same order as above.

Table 1. Perceived Value of DO-IT Interventions as Rated by DO-IT Staff
Program activities	Not valuable	Somewhat valuable	Valuable	Very valuable
Note: Participants and staff rated all interventions highly; even the lowest rated item, career transitions workshops/camps, was rated valuable or very valuable by 75% of participants and 89% of the staff.
Access to computer technology	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	33.3% (3)	66.7% (6)
Internship, other work-based learning	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	22.2% (2)	77.8% (7)
Mentoring	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	11.1% (1)	88.9% (8)
College transition workshops/camps	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	100.0% (9)
Career transition workshops/camps	0.0% (0)	11.1% (1)	33.3% (3)	55.6% (5)

High School Completion

Overall, 424 ALTS respondents were known to have graduated from high school at the time of the most recent interview. Most ALTS respondents (313; 66%) enrolled in a DO-IT program prior to high school graduation. Of the 296 who were eligible both to graduate and participate in a second interview, 90% have confirmed high school graduation. The remaining 31 students have not yet been re-interviewed. Twenty-one of these remaining 31 students (68%) earned academic and other achievement awards in high school, suggesting school success. However, these students have not been available for a follow up interview. Thus the available data indicate a 100% high school completion rate of those who have been contacted and a 90% high school completion rate of all eligible students.

In comparison, according to the NLTS, the high school completion rate for youth with disabilities in 1987 54%, up to 70% in 2003 according to the NLTS2. A nationwide survey of individuals with disabilities (NOD, 2004) reported that students with disabilities drop out of high school at a rate that is double than that of the general population (21% vs. 10%). According to the National Center for Education Statistics the rate of high school completion in the general population was 83.9% in 1980, up to 89.9% in 2008 (NCES, NCES2). Among the ALTS respondents who completed high school, five (1%) mentioned completing high school by passing a high school equivalency exam (e.g., GED) as compared to the national rate of 5.5% in 2008 (NCES). These students entered the DO-IT program as undergraduates.

Postsecondary Education Participation and Graduation

The following data was reported by the 424 high school graduates interviewed:

96% (409) enrolled in college, with 79% of these attending four-year colleges and 52% attending two-year colleges.
52% (214) of the 409 ALTS respondents who have enrolled in college have each earned between one and three degrees for a total of 285 degrees. Eight individuals have each earned three degrees, 55 individuals have each earned two degrees, and 151 individuals have each earned one degree.
56% (230) were still enrolled or enrolled in another college or graduate program
A total of 37%/67%/58% of ALTS respondents at two-year/four-year/graduate schools majored or minored in STEM.
214 have earned 285 postsecondary certificates/degrees; 145 (51%) of these degrees were in STEM fields.

Table 2 provides more detailed information of participant passage through the "critical junctures" in the postsecondary educational process, including degree attainment and current status. Figure 5 summarizes this information. High school completers are defined as 18- through 24-year-olds not enrolled in high school that have received a high school diploma or equivalency credential.

The table reports accomplishments, degree attainment, and current status.

Table 2. Moving Through Critical Junctures in Education
Postsecondary education status	Number of participants	Percentage
Note: These 214 participants completed 285 programs: 88 at two-year schools, 156 at four-year schools, and 41 in graduate programs.
Transitioned to college	409	96%
Attending/attended 2-year college	214	52% of students who transitioned
Major/majored in STEM at 2-year college	79	37% of students at 2-year colleges
Attending/attended 4-year college	325	79% of students who transitioned
Major/majored in STEM at 4-year college	217	67% of students at 4-year colleges
Attending/attended graduate school	74	47% of 4-year graduates
Major/majored in STEM at graduate school	43	58% of graduate students
Graduate or completed	214 (285 graduations - see note)	52% of students who transitioned
Currently enrolled in 2-year college	48	22% of students who transitioned into 2-year college
Currently enrolled in 4-year college	140	43% of students who transitioned into 4-year college
Currently enrolled in graduate school	30	41% of students who transitioned

Comparisons between ALTS respondents and other datasets (NSF and the National Longitudinal Transition Study) (SRI International, 1987-1993) show:

ALTS participants attend college at a higher rate: 409 (96%) of ALTS' 424 high school graduates attended college; 374 (93%) of these, within two years from high school graduation. By comparison, 77% of the NLTS participants had postsecondary goals in high school, and fewer than one third of these (31%) took a postsecondary course within two years after high school.
ALTS participants are about as likely to start their postsecondary education at a technical or two-year college program as at a four-year institution (214 vs. 195). About half of both NLTS and ALTS participants who attended postsecondary school did so at a technical/two-year college.

Post-School Employment

One hundred forty-nine ALTS respondents reported employment in 213 post-high school positions. This category was defined using stringent criteria (e.g., current jobs that were permanent or part of the college curriculum, and not temporary to get through school). Sixty-four percent of these positions were career-related and 45% percent were STEM-related. Thirty-seven percent were tech jobs. Below are findings about employed participants in the ALTS study.

About half (52%) of the participants who were no longer enrolled in college were employed (n=100). These 100 participants had participated in significantly more internships than their 84 out-of-school counterparts who were not employed (2.4 vs. 1.4). Of those still enrolled in college (n=218), only 44 were employed and those 44 also had significantly more internships than their still-enrolled counterparts who were not employed (1.7 vs. 1.2).
Among those not still enrolled in college, 58% of those who participated in extracurricular STEM organizations and activities were employed, slightly more than those who did not participate in such organizations (52%). Among those still enrolled in college, 23% were employed, whether or not they participated in extracurricular STEM activities and organizations.
Sixty-three percent of participants who had transitioned to college had majored or minored in a STEM program. This figure was about the same for participants who were still enrolled or no longer enrolled (64% vs. 62%) and for participants who were employed or not (65% vs. 64%).
Employed respondents are older (27 vs. 24 years), and had completed significantly more years of college.

Additional analyses revealed some differences between ALTS participants who were employed during at least one of their interviews, and those who were not. Figure 6 shows that compared with ALTS respondents who are not currently employed, those who are employed entered DO-IT with less access to the Internet (80% vs. 89%), less use of an interpreter (7% vs. 17%), and less access to a mentor (32% vs. 42%).

In contrast, Figures 7 and 8 show that employed ALTS respondents were more likely to participate in DO-IT activities and they participated more often than those who were not yet employed. It should be noted that some of this participation may relate to other differences between the groups such as age or years in college. However, even controlling for those factors, the overall picture remains that employed respondents seemed to experience less support prior to DO-IT involvement, and once support is made available, they seem to engage more.

Specifically, Figure 7 shows that employed respondents were more likely to be DO IT Scholars; they received more training in hardware or software and more tech support; and they were more likely to participate in conferences, workshops, panels, and in pre-employment activities such as job preparation, informational interviews, and job shadows. Further, they were somewhat more likely to participate in all other activities, though the other differences did not reach statistical significance.

Figure 8 shows differences in level of participation in DO-IT activities. Though ALTS respondents who are not employed indicated more participation with DO-IT peers, employed respondents reported that they participated in more conferences, workshops, panels, informational interviews and job shadows.

Finally, employed respondents rated college transition workshops and/or camps (53% vs. 39% “Very valuable”) and mentoring (53% vs. 45% “Very valuable”) as significantly more valuable than did those who were not yet employed.

Summary and Discussion of ALTS Results To Date

Program Participation and Value of Interventions

Analysis of data collected in the AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study reveals that a large majority of respondents had access to computers and the Internet before participation in program activities. However, few had access to adaptive software or hardware before participation (31%) while most did after participation in program activities (64%).

Respondents made significant gains regarding access to mentors as a result of program participation (from 55% to 92%).

Respondents rated the evidence-based practices employed by DO-IT highly between valuable and very valuable to them in their pursuit of postsecondary studies and careers. Using a scale from 1 (not valuable) to 4 (very valuable), participants gave the following average ratings:

access to computer technology (3.7),
work-based learning (3.5),
college transition workshops/camps (3.3),
mentoring (3.3), and
career transition workshops/camps (3.0).

Staff rated all of these activities valuable or very valuable.

High School Completion

While 17 ALTS respondents are still enrolled in middle school or high school, another 424 have already graduated and the others have not been reached for an interview since they were due to graduate. Thus all ALTS participants have either graduated from high school, are still attending, or have not been re-interviewed. All but one graduate received a high school diploma, and the other earned a GED. This represents a much higher graduation rate than other students with and without disabilities nationwide. The high rate of high school diploma recipients for ALTS respondents suggests promising interventions for students with disabilities, as well as a promising future for these individuals, as research indicates that students who earn high school diplomas are more than twice as likely as GED recipients to enroll in college; they also earn higher incomes as adults (Grubb, 1999).

Postsecondary Education Participation and Graduation

As far as the type of postsecondary institution attended, ALTS and NLTS participants who attended college were similar. About half of each group began their studies at a technical/two-year college.

Nearly all (96%) of ALTS high school graduates attended a two- or four-year college, 93% within two years from high school graduation. This is a substantially higher rate of postsecondary participation compared to the transition rate of NLTS participants from high school into college. Although 77% of NLTS participants had postsecondary education as a goal in high school; only 31% actually took a postsecondary course within two years after high school. This finding is consistent with previous research that formed the basis of DO-IT’s various interventions. This study provides supporting evidence that the ongoing program supports developed from previous research made a difference in the ability of students with disabilities to successfully transition to and succeed in college and careers.

At the time when the current data were collected, 37%, 67%, and 58% of ALTS respondents at two-year, four-year, and graduate schools, respectively, majored or minored in STEM. Two hundred fourteen students have completed 285 postsecondary programs. Of those degrees/certificates reported by ALTS participants, 145 (51%) were earned in a STEM field.

A national postsecondary student aid study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, Berkner et al., 2005) found that undergraduate students with disabilities choose natural sciences and engineering at the same rate as students without disabilities (18%), and that graduate students with disabilities are less likely than those without disabilities to major in natural sciences and engineering (9% vs. 13%). In contrast, almost half (45%) of transitioning ALTS participants, all students with disabilities, are choosing natural sciences and engineering. (Unlike the STEM figures reported above, this classification excludes math and social science majors.) At the level of four-year colleges and universities, 45% of the students reported a major or minor in natural sciences or engineering, compared to the 18% reported in the NCES study above. At the graduate level, 49% of the ALTS students reported a natural science or engineering major, compared with 9% of the students with disabilities overall and even compared with 13% of students without disabilities. Students enrolling in two-year or technical programs also reported natural science and engineering majors or minors above the national rate (27% vs. 18%).

These results suggest that the DO-IT program is effective in promoting interest in natural science and engineering for students with disabilities, and, as a result is helping to fill the gap in natural science and engineering studies between youth with and without disabilities. Another DO-IT study suggests that DO-IT Mentors may be the single most effective intervention for stimulating an interest in STEM (Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Burgstahler & Doyle, 2005).

Another important impact of DO-IT programs is the increase in the sheer number of college graduates with disabilities as a result of program support, in STEM as well as in other fields of study. The total number of STEM degrees is likely larger than what it would be otherwise both because of the ability of DO-IT interventions to successfully encourage the exploration of STEM fields, but also because of the overall increase in the success of students with disabilities who participate in DO-IT programs, and the resultant increased size of the pool of college graduates with disabilities. Findings should be interpreted in light of the fact that DO-IT recruits students with disabilities into its activities even if they are not necessarily initially interested in STEM, though more than half (55%) reported a strong interest in STEM at recruitment. Of those students without a strong initial interest, more than four in ten (45%) majored or minored in a STEM discipline (compared with 78% of those entering the program with a strong interest in STEM). As noted in results of other studies reviewed in the "Summary of Earlier Research Results Regarding DO-IT Interventions" section of this report, research suggests that DO-IT interventions increase participants' overall perception of career options, particularly for girls, and the interest in STEM of those not initially interested in STEM.

Post-School Employment

Employed participants were older and had more years of education than non-employed participants, 65% of whom were still in school. About four in ten (40%) of the employed students were working in STEM fields or in fields with significant technology demands.

ALTS respondents who were employed seemed to have less support prior to their DO-IT participation and after enrolling, seemed more engaged in a greater variety of DO-IT activities, especially involvement in conferences, panels and job preparation activities.

Many participants who pursued careers that are technically non-STEM (e.g., accounting, law, education, journalism) benefited from the STEM interventions and encouragement they gained through DO-IT activities and continue to support NSF goals. For example, participants encouraged to take mathematics courses through DO-IT activities became prepared to pursue math-intensive careers such as accounting. Participants who became teachers are now in positions to encourage other young people with disabilities to consider STEM careers. And, those who have become attorneys and other professionals serve as role models to young people with disabilities, helping them see career options that they thought were unavailable to them. Based on their positive responses to ALTS questions about the value of DO-IT interventions, it is likely that AccessSTEM activities supported NSF's goal to expand the STEM literacy of all citizens.

Critical Junctures Analysis

Recognizing that at any point in time some respondents in the ALTS will be still enrolled in secondary or postsecondary studies, the researchers are developing measures and analysis for respondents considered "on track" with respect to their progress through critical junctures that lead to degrees and careers.

Two-year college: ALTS participants who attended or are still attending a two-year college (and may have gone on to additional education) have attended classes over the course of an average period of 6 years or a median of 4 years (ranging from finishing the same year as enrolling to still enrolled or re-enrolled more than 40 years after initially enrolling). Participants who graduated from a two-year college attended college for somewhat but not significantly longer than those who have not yet graduated from a two-year college (6.8 years vs. 4.8). ALTS respondents who completed their two-year college programs took between less than one year and 28 years to complete their college education (at the two-year school or in another program), while those who are still enrolled in their two-year college programs have been enrolled in college from less than one year to more than 40 years. Among those who graduate from high school after enrolling in DO-IT programs, graduates of two year institutions attended for somewhat (but not significantly) longer than those who had not yet graduated (5.3 years vs. 4.2).

Four-year college: ALTS participants who attended a four-year college and provided years of attendance data have attended college over an average period of 6.5 years (and a median of 5 years), with graduates having attended for significantly longer (8.2 years vs. 4.5 years). The number of years between enrollment and graduation (or year of survey if not yet graduated) ranges widely, from less than one year to more than 40. Restricting analysis to individuals who entered the DO-IT program prior to enrolling in college reveals that those who have graduated from a four-year institution have been enrolled for significantly longer than those who have not yet graduated (6.2 years vs. 3.0 years). Among ALTS respondents who started with DO-IT before enrolling in college, those who have already graduated attended college between two and 17 years, while those who were still enrolled at their most recent survey had attended between less than one year and 19 years.

ALTS participants who entered the DO-IT program after having enrolled in college were enrolled in postsecondary institutions for significantly longer than participants who entered DO-IT before enrolling in college (7.7 years vs. 4.5 years).

Summary of Earlier Research Results Regarding DO-IT Interventions

The DO-IT Scholars program, originally funded in 1992 by the National Science Foundation and now funded by the State of Washington, supports transitions from high school to college to careers for students with disabilities. DO-IT Scholars are college-bound high school students who face significant challenges in pursuing postsecondary studies and careers as a result of their disabilities. They are not necessarily initially interested in STEM fields, but program activities include those designed to increase interest in and knowledge about STEM. By providing on-campus summer study, year-round peer and mentor support, and work-based learning experiences, DO-IT helps these students develop self-determination, social, academic, technology, and career/employment skills to successfully transition to adult lives. A rich body of evaluation and research data has been collected on this program. It includes reports from Scholars, parents, and Mentors and analyzes the value of program interventions, perceived outcomes, and participant differences with respect to gender, disability, and STEM interest. Some of the results are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Parents of DO-IT Scholars reported that DO-IT increased their children's interest in college; awareness of career options; self-esteem; and self-advocacy, social, academic, and career/employment skills (Burgstahler, 2002).
DO-IT Scholars reported that DO-IT participation helped them prepare for college and employment; develop Internet, self-advocacy, computer, social, and independent living skills; increase awareness of career options; and increase self-esteem and perseverance (Burgstahler, 2003; Kim-Rupnow & Burgstahler, 2004).
DO-IT Scholars reported the greatest effects of the Summer Study to be the development of social skills, followed by academic and career skills; and the greatest effects of the year-round computer and Internet activities to be the development of career skills, followed by academic and social skills (Burgstahler, 2003; Kim-Rupnow & Burgstahler, 2004).
DO-IT Scholars considered themselves significantly improved in academic skills, social skills, levels of preparation for college and employment, levels of awareness of career options, and personal characteristics such as perseverance and self-esteem during the course of their participation in the DO-IT Scholars program, as demonstrated by their ratings at the following three time points—before their involvement in DO-IT, immediately following their first DO-IT Summer Study, and at the time they were surveyed (Kim-Rupnow & Burgstahler, 2004).
DO-IT Scholars reported positive characteristics of email communication for peer and mentor support. Positive aspects of email included being able to stay close to friends and family; to get answers to specific questions; to meet people from around the world; to communicate quickly, easily, and inexpensively with many people at one time; and to communicate independently without disclosing their disabilities (Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Burgstahler & Doyle, 2005). They predicted that access to the Internet would contribute to their success in college and careers, and reported that peer and mentor relationships provided psychosocial, academic, and career support, and furthered their academic and career interests (Burgstahler, 2003; Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Burgstahler & Doyle, 2005; Kim-Rupnow & Burgstahler, 2004). In particular, most reported that DO-IT Mentors stimulated interests in STEM (Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Burgstahler & Doyle, 2005).
Those who participated in work-based learning opportunities reported increased motivation to work toward a career; knowledge about careers and the workplace; job-related skills; ability to work with supervisors and coworkers; and skills in self-advocating for accommodations (Burgstahler, 2001; Burgstahler, Bellman, & Lopez, 2004).
DO-IT Mentors reported topics discussed with Scholars include STEM, college issues, disability-related issues, careers, computers, assistive technology, and the Internet (Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001).

Comparison of STEM and non-STEM-Oriented Participants

A recent study (Burgstahler & Chang, 2009) compared the perceived benefits of program participation of participants with interests/strengths and/or career goals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM group) and those without (non-STEM group). The current analysis shows that 55% of ALTS respondents indicated a “Strong interest” in STEM when they joined DO-IT; and 52% reported a STEM career goal.

Overall, current analysis shows that:

Nearly half (45%) of those who did not report a strong STEM interest when they joined DO-IT declared a STEM major or minor in college, as did about two-thirds (69%) of those who joined DO-IT with a strong interest.
Males and females were equally likely to indicate a strong interest in STEM; however, significantly more male respondents identified STEM career goals (60% vs. 42%) and significantly more males declared STEM majors or minors in college (72% vs. 53%).
Although respondents with learning disabilities were as likely as respondents with other types of disabilities to report a strong interest in STEM, significantly fewer reported a STEM career goal (42% vs. 54%) or declared a STEM major (51% vs. 66%). Respondents with a mobility disability were less likely to report a strong STEM interest (44% vs. 62%), a STEM career goal (37% vs. 62%), or declare a STEM major or minor in college (52% vs. 70%). Students with psycho-social disabilities were somewhat but not significantly more likely to have joined DO-IT with a strong STEM interest (63% vs. 53%), and significantly more reported a STEM career goal (67% vs. 48%) and declared a STEM major or minor (72% vs. 60%). Students with a visual disability were also somewhat more likely to indicate a strong STEM interest (67% vs. 54%), and significantly more likely to indicate a STEM career goal (67% vs. 50%) and declare a STEM major or minor (76% vs. 61%).
Participants with a strong STEM interest and with a STEM career goal were more likely to declare a STEM major or minor than other students (STEM interest: 78% vs. 45%; STEM career goal: 80% vs. 45%).
More students with a strong STEM interest rated mentoring as “very valuable” than those who did not indicate a strong STEM interest (54% vs. 40%). More of these students also rated access to computer technology as “very valuable” (79% vs. 68%).

STEM Majors and Degrees at UW

It is not possible to draw definitive and generalizable conclusions about the effect of DO-IT activities on the number of students with disabilities majoring in and graduating in STEM fields at the �r�� (UW) and other institutions. Research challenges include the following:

the lack of a control group;
UW records do not identify all students with disabilities. Only those students who request accommodations through Disability Resources for Students (DRS) are flagged in UW records as having a disability. These are estimated to be no more than one-third of the total number of students with disabilities at the UW. Thus two-thirds of the UW’s students with disabilities will appear in the "without disabilities" group. From the perspective of a between groups analysis, the effect is to blur the differences between groups such that approximately two-thirds of any differential impact on students with disabilities will appear in the group of students without disabilities;
Comparisons of percent changes can be misleading and must be made cautiously when comparing groups of dramatically different sizes. Small groups can show dramatic percentage changes more easily than large groups;
Finally, correlations between program participation and outcomes do not necessarily imply causation.

Despite these limitations, it is still of some interest to compare available data about STEM degrees and majors of UW students with documented disabilities and students who have not disclosed disabilities. However, findings must be interpreted cautiously.

It is important to keep in mind that most interventions undertaken by DO-IT since 1992 do not focus on the UW; instead, they reach out to students and institutions state-wide, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Some interventions encourage the participation of students with disabilities in STEM degrees (e.g., those funded by the National Science Foundation such as AccessSTEM,) but others are more generally focused on increasing the success of students with disabilities in college and careers; further, some STEM-related interventions reach out to students already interested in STEM fields, but most do not. It should also be noted that DO-IT interventions promote self-determination skills for students with disabilities and the application of universal design for instruction and student services. Together, these efforts can lead to fewer students reporting disabilities to DRS, as students make use of technology (e.g., Braille translation and speech output systems for students who are blind) and other interventions to gain access to curriculum and as faculty and staff make their resources (e.g., websites) more accessible to students who have disabilities. Table 3 below should be interpreted with these limitations in mind. It reports STEM degree and major information for UW students who disclose and for students who do not disclose disabilities.

This table provides the total number of STEM degrees and majors for �r�� students who disclosed disabilities and for those who did not in 1991, 2002, 2010, and 2016. For degrees, each of these categories is further sub-divided into Bachelors and Graduate; for majors the categories are sub-divided into undergraduate and graduate.

This table provides the total number of STEM degrees and majors for �r�� students who disclosed disabilities and for those who did not in 1991, 2002, and 2010. For degrees, each of these categories is further sub-divided into Bachelors and Graduate; for majors the categories are sub-divided into undergraduate and graduate.

Year	With Disclosed Disabilities				Without Disclosed Disabilities
	STEM Degrees		STEM Majors		STEM Degrees		STEM Majors
	Bachelors	Graduate	Bachelors	Graduate	Bachelors	Graduate	Bachelors	Graduate
1991	22	2	105	14	2,736	916	9,129	3,774
2002	52	5	129	26	3,648	1,190	11,320	4,361
2010	87	13	211	35	4,281	1,122	12,884	4,235
2015	214	30	899	122	5,287	1,9257	18,398	6,623

1991 (Pre-DO-IT) to 2015

Degrees: The number of undergraduates with disclosed disabilities receiving STEM degrees increased almost ten-fold (873%) since 1991, compared with an almost doubling (93%) of undergraduates without disclosed disabilities receiving STEM degrees. This change is more dramatic among graduate students where the number of students with disclosed disabilities earning a STEM graduate degree increased 15 times (1400%), compared with just over a two-fold increase (103%) among graduate students without a disclosed disability during the same period.
Majors: STEM majors among students with disclosed disabilities increased eight and one-half times for undergraduates (756%) and for graduate students (771%), while it doubled for undergraduates students without disclosed disabilities (102%) and increased 75% for graduate students without disclosed disabilities.

2002 (Pre-AccessSTEM) to 2015

Degrees: The number of undergraduates with disclosed disabilities receiving a STEM degree has increased more than four times (312%) since 2002 while the number of undergraduates without disclosed disabilities increased by 45%. At the graduate level, six times (500%) more students with disclosed disabilities received graduate STEM decrees in 2015 than in 2002, compared with a 62% increase among graduate students without a disclosed disability.
Majors: The number of undergraduates with disclosed disabilities declaring a STEM major has increased seven-fold (597%) since 2002 compared with a 63% increase among their peers without disclosed disabilities. The graduate level has seen an increase of four and one-half times (369%) in the number of STEM students with disclosed disabilities, compared with half as many again of graduate students without disclosed disabilities.

2010 to 2015

Degrees: The number of undergraduate students with disclosed disabilities earning STEM degrees increased two and one-half times (146%) between 2010 and 2015 compared with a 23% increase in STEM degrees among their peers without disclosed disabilities. A similar pattern emerged at the graduate level with a 131% increase in graduate STEM decrees awarded to students with disclosed disabilities, compared with a 72% increases in STEM degrees awarded to their peers without disclosed disabilities.
Majors: The number of STEM majors with disclosed disabilities increased more than four times (326%) between 2010 and 2015, compared with a 43% increase among their peers without disclosed disabilities. At the graduate level, three and a half times as many (or 249% more) students with disclosed disabilities declared STEM majors in 2015 than in 2010, compared with a 56% increase among their peers without a disclosed disability.

Figure 9 shows that the number of graduate and undergraduate students majoring in STEM fields, at the UW, has increased between 1991 and 2015, regardless of disability status. However, the increase for students with disclosed disabilities is much steeper than for students without disclosed disabilities. The number of STEM majors with disclosed disabilities increased much more sharply than the number of STEM majors without disclosed disabilities since the beginning of AccessSTEM.

Figure 10 shows a pattern of change in STEM degrees awarded similar to the pattern of change in STEM majors. All groups show an increase in the number of STEM degrees since 1991, with a much steeper increase among students with disclosed disabilities at both the graduate and undergraduate level, than among their classmates without disclosed disabilities. The increase in STEM graduate and undergraduate degrees among students with disclosed disabilities continued their sharp increases since the beginning of AccessSTEM, while the number of their peers without disclosed disabilities continued to rise more modestly.

References

Berkner, L., Wei, C. C., He, S., Cominole, M., & Siegel, P. (2005). 2003-04 National postsecondary student aid study (NPSAS:04): Undergraduate financial aid estimates for 2003-04 by type of institution (NCES2005-163). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005163.pdf

Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model promotes career success for students with disabilities: How DO-IT does it. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,16(129), 1-7.

Burgstahler, S. (2002). The value of DO-IT to kids who did it! Exceptional Parent, 32(11), 79-86.

Burgstahler, S. (2003). DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Research to Practice Brief, 2(3).

Burgstahler, S., Bellman, S., & Lopez, S. (2004). Research to practice: DO-IT prepares students with disabilities for employment. NACE Journal, 65(1).http://www.naceweb.org/Publications/Journal/2004october/Research_to_Practice__DO-IT_Prepares_Students_With_Disabilities_for_Employment.aspx?referal=

Burgstahler, S., & Chang, C. (2009). Promising interventions for promoting STEM fields to students who have disabilities. Review of Disability Studies An International Journal, 5(2), 29-47.

Burgstahler, S., & Chang, C. (2007) A preliminary report of the AccessSTEM/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study (ALTS) available at /doit/programs/accessstem/resources/accessstemdo-it-longitudinal-transition-study-alts/preliminary-report

Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the Internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 59-74.

Burgstahler, S., & Doyle, A. (2005). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication among adolescents with disabilities: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics case study. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/552/729

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE). (2004). Broadening participation in America's science and engineering workforce. The 1994-2003 Decennial and 2004 Biennial Reports to Congress.

Grubb, W.N. (1999). Learning and earning in the middle: The economic benefits of sub-baccalaureate education. New York: Columbia University, Community College Research Center.

Kim-Rupnow, W. S., & Burgstahler, S. (2004). Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the value of technology-based support activities on postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 43-56.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010028). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf

NCES. (2010, December). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2008, Compendium Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011012.pdf

National Organization on Disability (NOD). (2004). The 2004 National Organization on Disability/Harris Survey of Americans with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. https://www.mott.org/grants/national-organization-on-disability-2004-n-o-d-harris-survey-of-americans-with-disabilities-200302397/

SRI, International (1987-1993). National longitudinal transition study (NLTS). Menlo Park, CA: Author. https://nlts2.sri.com/reports/nlts_report.html

Equal Access: Universal Design of Your Project

FeedsImporter — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:58:52 +0000

EA_Project_06_07_19.pdf

A checklist for making projects welcoming, accessible, and usable

As increasing numbers of people with disabilities participate in academic opportunities and careers, the accessibility of classes, services, electronic resources, events, and specific project activities increases in importance. The goal is simply equal access; everyone who qualifies to use project resources or participate in sponsored activities should be able to do so comfortably and efficiently.

Legal Issues

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 mandate that no otherwise qualified person with a disability shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in public programs. This means that courses, student services, information resources, and project activities should be accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities.

Universal Design

An approach to making facilities, information, and activities accessible to and usable by everyone is called universal design (UD). Universal design means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities. Make sure that project staff and volunteers are trained to support people with disabilities, respond to specific requests for accommodations in a timely manner, and know who to contact regarding disability-related issues. The universal design of your project offerings will make everyone feel welcome and minimize the need for special accommodations for individual participants.

Guidelines and Examples

Addressing the following questions provides a good starting point for making your facility, information resources, and project activities universally accessible. This content does not provide legal advice. Contact the U.S. Office of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) about legal mandates.

Planning, Policies, and Evaluation

Consider diversity issues as you plan and evaluate project activities.

Are people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, men and women, young and old, first generation, low income students, and other groups represented in the project planning processes in numbers proportional to those of the whole campus or community?
Do project policies and procedures ensure access to facilities, events, and information resources for people with disabilities?
Are disability-related access issues and other diversity issues addressed in data collection, evaluation plans and instruments?
Do you address issues related to the inclusion of participants with disabilities in grant proposals, perhaps by partnering with an organization with expertise in this area?

Information Resources and Technology

If your project uses computers as information resources, ensure these systems employ accessible design, that staff members are aware of accessibility options, and systems are in place to make accommodations when requested.

Do pictures in your publications and website include people with diverse characteristics with respect to race, gender, age, and disability?
In key publications, do you include a statement about your commitment to access and procedures for requesting disability-related accommodations? For example, you could include the following statement: “A project goal is to make materials and activities accessible to all participants. Please inform organization leaders of accessibility barriers you encounter and request accommodations that will make project activities and information resources accessible to you.”
Are all printed publications available (immediately or in a timely manner) in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, and accessibly-designed electronic text?
Are key documents provided in languages other than English?
Are printed materials in your facility or at an event within easy reach from a variety of heights and without furniture blocking access?
Do electronic resources, including web pages, adhere to accessibility standards adopted by your institution, project or funding source? The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) created the guidelines most commonly used. For example, are text alternatives provided for graphic images on web pages? Can the content be accessed by using the keyboard alone? For general information about making your website accessible to everyone, consult the video and presentation World Wide Access: Accessible Web Design.
Do you include a statement on your website affirming your commitment to accessible design? For example, you could include the following statement: “We strive to make our website accessible to everyone. We provide text descriptions of graphic images and photos. Video clips are open-captioned and audio-described. Suggestions for increasing the accessibility of these pages are welcome.”
Do videos developed or used in the project have captions? Are they audio-described?
Is an adjustable-height table available for each type of workstation to assist participants who use wheelchairs or are small or large in stature?
Do you provide adequate work space for both left- and right-handed users?
Is software to enlarge screen images and a large monitor available to assist people with low vision and learning disabilities?
Do you provide a trackball to be used by someone who has difficulty controlling a traditional mouse?
Are staff members aware of accessibility options (e.g., enlarged text feature) included in computer operating systems and of assistive technology available in the facility?
Are procedures in place for a timely response to requests for assistive technology?

For more information, consult Accessible Technology.

Project and Activity Facilities

Ensure that facilities, activities, materials, and equipment are physically accessible to and usable by all participants, and that all potential characteristics are addressed in safety considerations.

Are all spaces welcoming, accessible, comfortable, and safe to a variety of abilities, racial and ethnic backgrounds, genders, and ages?
Are there parking areas, pathways, and entrances to the building that are wheelchair accessible and clearly identified?
Are all levels of the facility connected via an accessible route of travel?
Are aisles kept wide and clear of obstructions for the safety of users who have mobility or visual impairments?
Are wheelchair-accessible and child-friendly restrooms with well-marked signs available in or near the facility?
Is at least part of a service counter at a height accessible from a seated position?
Is adequate light available?
Are there ample high-contrast, large-print directional signs to and throughout the facility, including directions to accessible routes? When appropriate, are these signs marked in braille?

Consult the ADA Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal for more suggestions. For accessibility guidelines for specific facilities (e.g., engineering labs, makerspaces, computer labs), see the collection of DO-IT resources.

Staff

Make sure staff are prepared to work with all project participants.

Are staff members familiar with the availability and use of the Telecommunications Relay Service, assistive technology, and alternate document formats?
Do staff members know how to respond to requests for disability-related accommodations, such as sign language interpreters?
Are staff and contractors in specific assignment areas (e.g., web page development, video creation) knowledgeable about accessibility requirements and considerations?
Are staff members aware of issues related to communicating with participants who have disabilities? Do staff deliver conference presentations and exhibits that are accessible to all participants? See Communication Hints at the end of this publication. For further suggestions, consult Effective Communication: Faculty and Students with Disabilities. Also consult Equal Access: Universal Design of Your Presentation.

Checklist Updates

To increase the usefulness of this working document, send suggested improvements to doit@uw.edu.

Communication Hints

Treat people with disabilities with the same respect and consideration with which you treat others. Here are some helpful hints when it comes to delivering a presentation, hosting an exhibit, and otherwise relating to people with disabilities.

General

Ask a person with a disability if that person needs help before providing assistance.
Talk directly to the person with a disability, not through their companion or interpreter.
Refer to a person’s disability only if it is relevant to the conversation.
Avoid derogatory slang or negative descriptions of a person’s disability. For example, “a person who uses a wheelchair” is more appropriate than “a person confined to a wheelchair.” A wheelchair is not confining—it’s liberating!
Provide information in alternate means (e.g., written, spoken, diagrams).
Do not interact with a person’s guide dog or service dog unless you have received permission to do so.
Do not be afraid to use common terms and phrases, like “see you later” or “let’s go for a walk” around people with disabilities.
Do not touch mobility devices or assistive technology without the owner’s consent.
Do not assume physical contact—like handshakes, high-fives, or hugs—is okay.
Understand that not everyone uses eye contact.

Blind or Low Vision

Be descriptive. Say, “The computer is about three feet to your left,” rather than “The computer is over there.”
Speak all of the projected content when presenting and describe the content of charts, graphs, and pictures.
When guiding people with visual impairments, offer them your arm rather than grabbing or pushing them.

Learning Disabilities

Offer directions or instructions both orally and in writing. If asked, read instructions to individuals who have specific learning disabilities.

Mobility Impairments

Consider carrying on a long conversation with an individual who has a mobility impairment from a seated position.

Speech Impairments

Listen carefully. Repeat what you think you understand and then ask the person with a speech impairment to clarify or repeat the portion that you did not understand.

Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Face people with hearing impairments, and avoid covering your mouth, so they can see your lips. Avoid talking while chewing gum or eating.
Speak clearly at a normal volume. Speak louder only if requested.
Repeat questions from audience members.
Use paper and pencil, or type things out on your cell phone, if the person who is deaf does not read lips or if more accurate communication is needed.
When using an interpreter, speak directly to the person who is deaf; when an interpreter voices what a person who is deaf signs, look at the person who is deaf, not the interpreter.

Psychiatric Impairments

Provide information in clear, calm, respectful tones.
Allow opportunities for addressing specific questions.

Additional Resources

For more information about applications of universal design consult The Center for Universal Design in Education. The book Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, Second Edition published by Harvard Education Press shares perspectives of UD leaders nationwide.

About DO-IT

DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) serves to increase the successful participation of individuals with disabilities in challenging academic programs and careers such as those in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology.

For further information, to be placed on the DO-IT mailing list, to request materials in an alternate format, or to make comments or suggestions about DO-IT publications or web pages, contact:

DO-IT
Box 354842
�r��
Seattle, WA 98195-4842
doit@uw.edu
www.uw.edu/doit/
206-685-DOIT (3648) (voice/TTY)
888-972-DOIT (3648) (toll free voice/TTY)
509-328-9331 (voice/TTY) Spokane
206-221-4171 (fax)
Founder and Director: Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D.

Acknowledgment

This publication is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Education (FIPSE Grant #P116D990138-01) and the National Science Foundation (Cooperative Agreement #0227995). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding sources.