Institutional Change Associated With DO-IT Interventions

DO-IT projects have contributed to implementation of changes that make postsecondary campuses more inclusive of students with disabilities nationwide. Listed below are examples of changes at DO-IT's host institution, the 糖心原创 (UW), and of other postsecondary institutions participating in DO-IT projects. Although all changes are associated with DO-IT efforts, no cause-effect relationship can be determined. These examples can be used to stimulate inclusive practices at other schools.

糖心原创

Data routinely collected at the UW that suggest impacts for DO-IT interventions to create a more welcoming and accessible environment for students with disabilities in general and specifically for the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

DO-IT efforts have contributed to systematic changes at the UW that include:

  • diversity issues are more broadly defined to include disability in the College of Engineering and the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity (which instituted an Advisory Committee on Disability Issues);
  • a course syllabi statement was adopted that encourages students with disabilities to talk to the professor about accommodations;
  • a user group and website were developed to guide UW webmasters on accessible web design;
  • the Adaptive Technology Lab grew into the Access Technology Lab to increase consulting on accessible design;
  • videos of campus leaders on the UW website include captions; technology units routinely develop web-based tools with accessibility features;
  • sign language is accepted for language credit; a disability studies program was established; disability-related content is included in new faculty orientations;
  • technology fee funds collected from students are used to purchase assistive technology; and
  • the distance learning program adopted universal design policies.

Systemic Changes at Partner Institutions

Numerous systemic changes that have resulted from project participation have been reported by institutional representatives of DO-IT partners. Interventions have been employed as part of specific projects and programs hosted by the DO-IT Center and its partners, including AccessCollege, AccessSTEM, and . Examples of institutional changes reported include those listed at the web page entitled Systemic Changes at Partner Institutions.

Published Articles about Institutional Change Resulting from Practices of DO-IT and Its Partners

Listed below are references to publications that report institutional changes related to projects supported by the DO-IT Center.

  • Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2010). . Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(2), 108-114. Link to one of these:
  • Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and accessible through accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3), 151-174.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2008). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 23-44). Boston: Harvard Education Press.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2008). Universal design of student services: From principles to practice. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 167-175). Boston: Harvard Education Press.
  • Burgstahler, S., Slatin, J., Anderson, A., & Lewis, K. (2008). Accessible IT: Lessons learned from three universities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 12(1).
  • Burgstahler, S. (2007). Accessibility training for distance learning personnel. Access Technologists Higher Education Network (ATHEN) E-Journal, 2.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2007). Lessons learned in The Faculty Room. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 18(3), 103-128.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2006). The development of accessibility indicators for distance learning programs. Research in Learning Technology, 14(1), 79-102.
  • Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 135-147.
  • Vogel, S., Leyser, Y., Burgstahler, S., Sliger, S., & Zecker, S. (2006). Faculty knowledge and practices regarding students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 109-123.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2005). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty. In To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 179-195). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
  • Burgstahler, S. (2005). Preparing faculty to make their courses accessible to all students. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 16(2), 69-86.
  • Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2005). Steps toward making distance learning accessible to students and instructors with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 11(1).
  • Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2004). Disability-related simulations: If, when, and how to use them. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 1(2), 4-17.