ÌÇÐÄÔ­´´

What Models, Approaches Or Frameworks Exist In The Field Of Disability, ICT, And Post-Secondary Education; Are They Successful In Transforming The Support And Delivery Of ICT For Disabled Students Or Do We Need New Ones?

By Jane Seale, The Open University, United Kingdom

The Leverhulme Trust has funded the International Network on ICT, Disability, Post-secondary Education and Employment (Ed-ICT) to find areas of research related to the network’s focus areas, specifically, the role that information and communication technologies (ICTs)—including computers, mobile devices, assistive technologies, online learning, and social networking sites—play or could play in creating barriers and mitigating disadvantages that students with disabilities experience in post-compulsory/post-secondary education both generally and specifically in relation to social, emotional and educational outcomes.

Practitioners in post-secondary education generally know they need to be more inclusive in their educational practices; however, awareness doesn’t always result in successful practice. Models and frameworks can work as tools to guide practitioners, as long as we are critical of these models and frameworks.

In of the same name as this presentation, I focus on nine different models or frameworks, most of which focus on accessibility. All fall within or across the following three areas:

• Micro Level—A focus on practices involved in making all resources and activities accessible (e.g., Universal Design, the Holistic Model)
• Meso Level—A focus on the delivery of services within an institution that play a role in promoting the use of supportive ICTs and contribute to successful educational and employment outcomes (e.g., Staff Development Model for Inclusive Learning and Teaching)
• Macro Level—A focus on the institution where those services and practices take place, including the internal and external factors that influence institutional development and organization (e.g., The Model of Professionalism)

Furthermore, we must ask how these models and frameworks transform practice. How valid and efficacious are these models and frameworks? Have we carefully examined the validity and efficacy or are we blindly following others? Have we considered all options?

All models and frameworks should be carefully examined for validity and efficacy, including the writings and work that underpin each model. For validity, we can ask the following questions:

• How were the models or frameworks derived? 
• What evidence is there that they have improved practice or outcomes for students with disabilities? 
• For efficacy, we can ask the following questions:
• How detailed are the models or frameworks- what is their level of granularity?
• Have the models and frameworks been implemented in practice? How widely have they been implemented?

Often models are criticized in a superficial manner, or, transversely, are championed without acknowledging their weaknesses. Is there really only one model or framework that can do the job, or do we need multiple models and frameworks? And, are we applying the right critical lens when analyzing these models?

Questions and comments from the audience included the following:

• What research is already being done for models? 
• Different backgrounds will create different models, and so if all models are coming from the same place, they may not fit for everyone.
• Can we have a large broad model that covers everything and then work backwards to cover the granularity as needed?
• The value of a model has to do with the hypothesis that it can be used to test—for these models, there hasn’t been much testing or practice.
• People don’t always know what model they are using.
• The cost of applying each model should be taken into account.
• Each model could have a range of options to be used for different problems.
• One problem can have multiple solutions—for example, all buildings can have ramps or all people could be given a flying wheelchair. Cost and ease of use must be considered.
• When choosing a model, unconscious bias should be reviewed. For example, a professor may think they know best about disability and choose a model based on their own experiences; however, it may be inappropriate for students with disabilities.
• What outcomes do we value? Policymakers and educators will want different outcomes and may value different results than other stakeholders.
• How are different researchers and practitioners considered in a model?

How Design Frameworks and Models Have Informed My Work

By Sheryl Burgstahler

At the ÌÇÐÄÔ­´´, we have two centers under Accessible Technology Services, the Access Technology Center funded specifically for the UW, and the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology) Center, which is funded by the state and various national and international grants. Universal design (UD) informs much of my work. UD can be viewed as an attitude, a framework, a goal, and a process. UD values diversity, equity, an