Keywords

1 Temple University Background

Facts and Figures

  • Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  • 1 of 3 state research universities

  • Approximately 40,000 students and over 6,500 FTE employees

  • 17 schools and colleges including 8 professional schools

  • 150+ bachelor’s degree programs

  • 160+ master’s degree programs

  • 4 Pennsylvania branch campuses (Ambler, Harrisburg, Center City Philadelphia, and North Philadelphia Health Science Campus)

  • 2 International campuses: Tokyo, Japan and Rome, Italy.

1.1 Abridged History of Accessibility at Temple University

Temple University (TU) has historically prided itself in the diversity of it’s student body, and as listed below, several centers and initiatives built a foundation for accessibility considerations of students and employees that are the foundation of many of the current efforts.

Institute on Disabilities

The Institute on Disabilities at Temple University is one of the sixty-seven University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Established in 1974, the Institute has mirrored the changes in the field of developmental disabilities, evolving into a model of self-determination and individualized supports in the community [1].

Office for the Disabled/Disability Resources and Services

Disability Resources and Services (DRS) at TU grew out of The Office for the Disabled, student organization founded in 1976. TU formally established Disabled Student Services in 1977, and the office adopted its’ current name, Disability Resources and Services in 1993.

Accessibility of Information and Technology Policy

In November 2012, in response to recommendations provided by an external accessibility evaluation, TU formally adopted Policy Number, 04.71.13 - Accessibility of Information Technology [2].

The policy defined two core tenets:

  1. 1.

    The Accessible Technology Compliance Committee (ATCC) was formed to develop, review, and approved all guidelines and standards related to the policy.

  2. 2.

    The person (or department) responsible for the information or technology must undertake reasonable efforts to make it accessible in a timely manner upon becoming aware of non-compliance with university standards and guidelines.

The Vice President of Computer Services (CS)/Chief Information Officer was stated as the responsible officer for the policy.

2 Accessibility of Information and Technology Policy

2.1 Justification

Awareness of the topic and concerns around the accessibility of technology at TU was brought to the attention of the CIO in response to the Resolution Agreement between The Pennsylvania State University and the National Federation of the Blind [3].

Greater Reliance on Technology

The rapid expansion of technology across higher education has expanded concerns about discrimination against students and/or faculty required to use inaccessible systems and software to complete coursework and job functions. Education accreditation bodies are requiring instruction and use of certain technology systems and products. However, it’s necessary that universities continue to provide these resources to students in an equitable manner regardless of disability. Notable technologies being used extensively in higher education include:

  • Learning Management Systems

  • Smart classroom technologies

  • Online learning and processes

  • Electronic textbooks and corresponding digital ancillary content.

Service Demand on Disability Resources and Services

The volume of students registering and requesting course accommodations with DRS is growing each year in numbers and percentage of the student population. Additionally, the scope of DRS has grown to require a broader understanding of more technology systems to appropriately support accommodation requests (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The chart illustrates the growth of student enrollment in and test accommodation requests processed by DRS over a recent five year span.

Full size image

2.2 Foundation

The foundation of the TU Accessible Technology Initiative was established in and originally funded by TU Computer Services (CS) but connected with stakeholders from across university leadership for applicable content expertise. CS staff were involved in the remediation of several topics, but there was a concentrated effort to include other departments to minimize the appearance that the initiative was being dictated by a single central unit.

External Review

The first formal process of the initiative solicited an external review of TU’s current state of accessible technology systems and services. The primary recommendations of the review were to establish an appropriate policy to set an internal governing committee comprised of department leadership across the institution. Additional areas of focus from in the review included:

  • Computer Labs

  • Classrooms and Learning Spaces

  • Instructional Materials

  • Library Services and Systems

  • Procurement of Technology

  • Web Based Content and Systems.

Leadership, Collaboration, Participation

Initiative participation fell within one of the primary roles below:

  1. 1.

    Project Management and initiative coordination was provided by designated staff from CS.

  2. 2.

    ATCC membership was comprised of executives within their organizational unit to provide appropriate guidance on accessibility considerations for topics related to their university responsibilities.

    Committee Representation includes: Faculty, University Counsel, Human Resources, Facilities Management, Computer Services, Disability Resources and Services, Center for the Advancement of Teaching, Office of Digital Education, Library, Provost’s Office, School/College Technical Staff, University Marketing.

  3. 3.

    School, College, or Campus Liaisons are designated by leadership of each school, college, and campus that are responsible for educating and supporting their organization with standards, guidelines, and procedures supporting the initiative.

  4. 4.

    Working groups incorporate broad participation from staff and students involved in daily tasks related to the topic of the specific working group. These groups are formed as result of action items defined by the ATCC to generate guidelines and communications on the related topic. Each working group has at minimum one participant from the ATCC that reports back on the development and suggestions from the group (Table 1).

    Table 1. Foundational working group topics and participants
    Full size table

2.3 Communication and Training

Initiative communications and training sessions were facilitated by CS and were live events where the CIO and Project Manager presented to large meetings of organization leadership, such as Collegial Assemblies, Council of Deans, and Administrative Council meetings.

Once the initiative was introduced to leadership, liaisons were designated for each area. School, College, and Campus liaisons were provided several training sessions to cover relevant accessibility topics related to the above-mentioned working group tasks.

Additionally, a university website was developed [4] as a clearing house to provide supporting documentation and communication for standards, guidelines and actions of the initiative.

2.4 Training

Initial training focused on the school, college, and campus liaisons with the intention that they train their constituents as needed. The topics included in the trainings included:

  • Understanding the role and responsibilities of DRS

  • Remediating Instructional Materials

  • Learning Space and Computer Lab Guidelines

  • Purchasing/Procurement Process

  • Web auditing.

3 Institution Accessibility Awareness Training

As outlined above, the substantial efforts and education related to making technology and content accessible for students, faculty and staff was presented to appointed representatives in the various organizations, but not in a general/consistent presentation to the entire university population. As the preliminary work of the initiative subsided and became operationalized, it became apparent that additional effort was necessary to ensure a uniform awareness of policy, standards, and guidelines.

The university had a need for a comprehensive presentation of the state of accessibility at the institution and responsibilities of employees that could not be delivered in a circulating seminar to the schools, colleges, and departments. The most consistent method to deliver the content to the full audience was through an asynchronous online course that could be used for training and recalled for reference as needed. Fortunately, there were already similar trainings required of employees coinciding with workplace regulations and policies.

3.1 Participant Survey Providing Recommendations

Part of the school, college, and campus liaison responsibilities is to respond to an annual survey from the ATCC to evaluate communication, growth and success of the initiative. As part of to our initiative annual survey competed in June 2016, a college liaison suggested creating an awareness course similar to other regulation-based HR deployed training and onboarding content (Making Our Campus Safer, Preventing Discrimination and Harassment, HazCom/Right to Know).

3.2 Building the Training

The ATCC recommended a small working group of six participants to develop the course. Representatives from CS, University Counsel, HR, and DRS were selected to form the content and deliver the course utilizing the existing learning management system used by the Learning and Development Office in HR. The working group solicited peripheral help from students and faculty to produce faculty success videos to be included. Lastly, the group obtained a letter from the University President as a welcome statement to the training emphasizing its importance to the mission of the university.

An initial loose framework for the training and content was recommended by the working group and approved by the ATCC in Fall 2015.

The approved primary framework included:

  • Content: Since one training course was developed for all participants, the content needed to be generalized so ensure broad understanding.

  • Duration: The training needed to be designed so that it could be completed in approximately 20 min. The training contains full narration requiring participants to remain on a slide/topic until the narration completes. If an individual completes the training, they need to be able to return to the course and freely navigate the course without waiting for the initial timings.

  • Engagement: Media and participant interaction was discussed as a critical component to reinforce practical understanding and/or examples in support of the overall content.

3.2.1 Training Project Timeline

  • July 2015 - ATCC set a priority on the training and established the working group

  • November 2015 - Initial draft outline was accepted by the ATCC

  • April 2016 – First rough draft of the training was presented to the ATCC

  • July 2016 – ATCC provided final revision requests

  • August 2016 – ATCC approved final revisions

  • September 2016 – Finalized and executed communication strategy

  • November 2016 – Distributed training.

3.2.2 Abridged Outline of Training Content

Obligation

Temple University’s obligation statement:

“We have a legal obligation to make our programs and services accessible to students, faculty, and staff. Accessibility on our campus is a shared responsibility.

Each school, college, and department is responsible for making its programs and services accessible with guidance from campus experts.

Inaccessible design, or an act of discrimination, however inadvertent, can violate university policy and subject the university to liability under the law.”

Law and Policy

Overviews of the applicable federal laws and university policies with reference links to external web resources.

  • Rehabilitation Act of 1973

  • Americans with Disabilities Act

  • Temple University Policy: Preventing & Addressing Discrimination and Harassment

  • Temple University Policy: Accessibility of Information and Technology

  • Temple University Policy: Course Syllabus Policy.

What is Accessibility

For this training broad definitions of accessibility and accessible were provided:

  • Accessibility is the ability to engage with, use, participate in, and belong to the world around us.

  • Definition of Accessible provided by the Office of Civil Rights to the South Carolina Technical College System, OCR Compliance Review No. 11-11-6002 “Accessible means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use. The person with a disability must be able to obtain the information as fully, equally and independently as a person without a disability” [5].

The training outlines and defines accessibility for the following areas.

  • Physical Accessibility

  • Technology Access

  • Instructional Design Practices

  • The Learning Environment

  • University Programs and Services.

Physical Accessibility

As a result of this training development the central Helpdesk ticketing system was expanded to provide a direct platform for students, faculty and staff to offer feedback on physical barriers across campus.

Included were physical spaces, technology services and systems, and providing appropriate accommodations as well as a variety of other issues. Therefore, colleges and universities need to expand their role in providing accessible technology to their students, staff, faculty, and visitors.

Technology Access

Assistive Technology is generally defined, and practical examples given to illustrate some commonly in use across universities.

Instructional Design Practices

An overview of common accessibility considerations in designing course content were provided and covers: Color Contrast, Alternative Text for Images and Illustrations, Captioning, Document Formatting, and Keyboard Usability.

The Learning Environment

A deliberate attempt is made in this section to strictly follow the current university workflow and responsibilities in courses where students need and/or request accommodations. The relationships between the student, faculty and DRS office are documented to minimize confusion. It is reinforced that DRS is the university content experts on these matters and faculty and staff should not make unilateral decisions to approve or deny any requested accommodation or modification to coursework.

Taking the training a step further, the training presents recommendations directly for faculty to create a welcoming classroom environment to encourage individuals to request help whenever appropriate. A very brief overview and mention was made for universal design of courses to connect faculty to the broader understanding to the value to designing accessible courses can bring to many different types of learners.

Programs and Services

Organizations and individuals sponsoring internal or external events, hosted at or affiliated with the university, are required to abide by the same accessibility standards and guidelines as set forth for the university.

Quiz

In an effort to further reinforce the topics of the training, three open ended quiz questions are given to each participant simulating a practical experience where they offer suggestions to resolve an accessibility conflict.

3.3 Training Development Challenges

The training itself needed to model accessible design, and prior trainings had not been scrutinized for accessibility as thoroughly. To make the training both fully accessible and user friendly took several iterations of development and direct support from the training platform vendor. As further reinforcement of the initiative, the staff designing future trainings now had experience developing a fully accessible course. The course provided a navigational instruction slide that read aloud and displayed onscreen methods to advance through the course via mouse or keyboard, and a full transcript was provided on each slide and included with a downloadable/offline version of the entire training.

In addition to following system requirements to ensure the training was properly designed for use with a screen reader, keyboard-only navigation, and other assistive technology, usability testing of the course was conducted by volunteers through the Institute on Disabilities, staff in CS and school/college/campus liaisons.

3.4 Training Communication Strategy

Near the completion of the development of the course, the team reached out to the Senior Vice Provost for Strategic Communications, who is another member of the ATCC, to provide guidance on a communication strategy to make the community aware of the upcoming training. The strategy was segmented by roles and was implemented chronologically with communication starting at the leadership levels and progressing through levels of organizational management.

In addition to emails announcing the training, TU has a system configured in a university wide portal/intranet titled “NextSteps” that is a central notification and task list exposed to all students, faculty and staff. The training launch was published to this distribution channel and would not disappear from the list until the action was complete.

3.5 Training Deployment and Participation

The final course developed by the group is titled Disability Inclusion and Accessibility at Temple University and was distributed to all full-time staff, and both adjunct and full-time faculty in November 2016. Additionally, the course has been incorporated into HR onboarding materials and has been required for all new staff and faculty hires since launch.

As of February 28, 2018, the training had been assigned to 15,223 employees, had been completed by 9,755 employees, and 726 employees in progress (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Awareness training monthly participation and completion percentages

Full size image

3.6 Training Licensing

To reinforce the spirit of the overall initiative and the training, a non-Temple version of the training was developed in PDF form and was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License [6]. This version of the training is freely available, upon request, for other universities to modify for their own use.

4 Training Feedback and Responses

One of the results from distributing the training to all employees was that we received a notable amount of feedback on both the training and the initiative as a whole. One concern was that the policy, standards and workflows referenced in the training were all unfunded decisions that added various levels of effort and education on individual units. The feedback didn’t directly resist the topics or need for the work but were looking for a broader dialogue and guidance on how to better educate and integrate these tasks into daily operations. Additionally many respondents, notably faculty members, were not aware of who their liaison was and didn’t receive the level of assistance from the liaisons that was originally intended.

Based on the feedback and acknowledgement that the policy was now five years old, the ATCC made the recommendation to have another third-party review conducted in Spring 2017 with CS agreeing to provide the funding.

4.1 External Review - 2017

A request for proposals was submitted and processed in March 2017 and vendor selected in April. Upon selection of the vendor the review project started immediately and was completed by the end of June. The review consisted of staff and faculty interviews, standards and guidelines document evaluations, workflow assessments, and selected website reviews.

Recommendations

The core recommendation from this external review was that the current accessibility efforts were defined for compliance, but we needed to encourage broader understanding and acceptance of the efforts by broadening and re-establishing the initiative as a program. One recommendation suggested expanding to two committees with one remaining focused on compliance and the other focused strategy, development, and communication. The compliance committee would still effectively function similar to the defined ATCC and the second committee (TU defined as culture committee) would work more directly with faculty, build out role-specific on-demand self help resources, and foster a more concerted effort to directly empower and educate faculty.

The review also suggested that by implementing a program structure, accessibility support would become more proactive, foster partnerships of expertise, build a community of practice, and further build institution-wide awareness and skills.

Actions From Review Recommendations

The following actions are complete or in process in direct response to the recommendations provided to progress university accessibility awareness further.

  • The ATCC expanded to create an Accessibility Program titled Accessible Temple that primarily functions out of a co-chairs group composed of leadership from the Center for Advancement of Teaching (CAT), DRS, and CS. The CAT co-chair member is the committee lead for a newly defined “Culture” committee focused on training, communication and development and the CS co-chair member is the lead on the updated “Compliance” committee that maintains the majority of the roles previously supplied by the ATCC.

  • The university is investigating the appropriate location of a broad Accessibility Compliance Officer since the new program is more expansive than the original leadership within CS.

  • The program is revisiting the role of liaisons and has proposed placing two liaisons in each school, college and campus with one designated as a faculty liaison to foster accessible design in course development and the other specifically responsible for the accessibility of the information technology infrastructure and complying with the defined standards and guidelines.

  • A structure of working groups has been defined to achieve current annual defined goals.

  • Communication and education strategies are being developed to incorporate outcomes of the annual working groups topics.