Increasing faculty’s competence in digital accessibility for inclusive education: a systematic literature review

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of review results.

	Objective of the study	Methodology of training faculty members (who conducted, how it was conducted)	Sample size and characteristics	Country of the study	Covered areas/topics	Methodology of evaluating training outcomes
Burgstahler (2003)	To increase faculty members’ knowledge and skills in supporting students with disabilities (SWDs)	Administrators and instructors from 23 higher education institutions A curriculum with different delivery options: on-site presentations, electronic mail, and videotapes on public television stations	More than 5000 for models 1, 2, and 3; not stated for models 4, 5, and 6 Faculty members from higher education institutions nationwide	US	Six models including topics such as academic accommodations for SWDs, campus resources, and legal issues; model 3, which comprised training sessions designed to make accessible web pages and develop accessible distance-learning courses	Survey The participants felt better prepared to accommodate SWDs in their classes and were more aware of campus resources
Regadas and Ribeiro (2011)	To provide training to teachers on working with students with special needs in a classroom setting	Department of New Technologies in Education & Disabled Students Service An e-learning course with seven modules	10 All academics with backgrounds concerning students with special needs	Portugal	Disabilities, general accessibility, and university policies on accessibility and inclusion; optional activities, including topics on web accessibility	Not specified The contents of the course were deemed over-simplistic due to the background of the participants
Hope (2020b)	To improve the accessibility of the online courses at a university	Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and the Accessibility Resource Centre Accessibility training on professional development for faculty	Three in the first year Participation was expected to grow	US	Accommodations for SWDs: creating fully accessible PDFs and links to resources for captioning videos, and incorporating universal design (UD) into classroom and online settings	Survey assessing participants’ understanding of accessibility No results were presented
Kontio and Radtke (2019)	To increase the awareness of faculty members and build accessibility liaisons in a campus community	Rutgers University: Office of IT Accessibility (OITA) Weekly workshops and webinars (continual, linear curriculum and once-off training) Princeton University: User Experience Office (UXO) A curriculum of online courses and instructor-led meetings	Rutgers University: size not specified University personnel Princeton University: 10–20 University staff	US	Rutgers University: general and web accessibility, making digital contents accessible, and laws and guidelines (web content accessibility guidelines [WCAG]) Princeton University: disabilities and assistive technology (AT), UD, accessibility, laws, and organisational strategies, among others	Rutgers University: not specified Not specified Princeton University: not specified Not specified
Pearson (2003)	To use developed guidelines as a basis for staff development and to encourage designers to develop inclusive and accessible courses for all students	Educational Development & Technology Centre (EDTeC) at University New South Wales (UNSW) and Special Needs Computing Research Unit (SNCRU) at University of Teesside (UoT) A face-to-face workshop and an online course	Sample size and characteristics of faculty members not specified	Australia and UK	Legal or quality assurance requirements, available guidelines and protocols, ATs used by SWDs, designing for inclusion, and available tools and mechanisms for checking the accessibility of web pages	Not specified The training has helped the academic staff from novice to competent designers of accessible online courses. The participants had possibility to revisit and re-examine the online courses after training. Based on feedback, the authors refined activities for online courses.
Pearson and Koppi (2003)	To evaluate a mixed-mode course with regard to designing accessible and inclusive learning environments and raising staff awareness	EDTeC at UNSW and SNCRU at UoT A six-month mixed-mode course (online and face-to-face) consisting of four types of weekly activities (group topics, such as workshops, project development, project groups, and online activities)	45 (15 in each of the 3 cohorts) A mixture of academic, IT, and library staff	Australia and UK	Accessibility issues in online learning for SWDs, AT, accessibility barriers in existing websites and online courses, accessibility guidelines, checking mechanisms, and development of accessible online courseware	Feedback given during and after the course, paper evaluation, online discussion and survey, and email request for feedback Most participants gained new knowledge and skills. The online course was integrated well into the face-to-face workshops, although there was insufficient time for the workshop activities. Access to the specialist software was helpful, and awareness increased.
Fraser and Sanders (2004)	To present a case study introducing academics to concepts and issues involved in teaching SWDs	Central Higher Education Development Unit & Disability Liaison Unit A module with reflective report writing, face-to-face workshops, brochures, and assessment of peers’ reports	37 Teaching staff with teaching experience ranging from one year to more than 10 years	Australia and others not specified	Understanding of several disabilities, challenges experienced by SWDs at universities, ways to make classes more inclusive and accessible for SWDs, legislation and regulations, and web accessibility	Questionnaire The participants reported being more confident about accommodating SWDs. Most participants learned new knowledge –from understanding disabilities to assisting SWDs and having empathy. The peer assessment was deemed valuable by the participants.
Murray et al. (2014)	To evaluate the short-term effects of a disability-focused training program on faculty members’ disability-related self-efficacy	Disability Services Office’s director, one faculty member of educational leadership, and two faculty members from special education Training sessions with activities such as presentations, discussions, student panels, and group activities	102 Full-time tenure-track faculty members from 43 departments and programs	US	Awareness, laws, accommodations, university support, practice (including creating accessible digital documents), and institutionalisation strategies	Questionnaire measuring self-efficacy and participant satisfaction Self-efficacy (consisting of knowledge of UD, disability, services, and information sharing) increased among the participants. Overall, they expressed high satisfaction with their training experience
Spencer and Romero (2008)	To initiate change within higher education institutions via professional development on UD principles and strategies	Higher Education Disability Support–UD Principles (HEDS–UP) project team Workshops (smaller workshops offering hands-on opportunities) and large- and small-group presentations	Only reported increase in the number of faculty members participating in large or small workshops; otherwise not specified	US	UD, UD for instruction (UDI) across courses, fieldwork expectations, and survey results from students and faculty members about making syllabi and materials more accessible and universally designed	Survey The faculty members engaged more with UD, and there were more references to UD in a variety of curriculum and committee discussions. A rubric of UD principles was developed to enable the faculty members to apply UD in their teaching in systematic ways
Whiting (2018)	To develop and implement an accessible technology project and the framework of a university’s AT initiative	Representatives from computer services (CS), university counsel, human resource (HR), and Disability Resources and Services (DRS) A 20-minute course on learning management systems (LMSs)	15,223 (9755 completed, 726 in progress, and the rest not started) Adjunct and full-time faculty	US	Obligations, laws and policies, accessibility, accessible design, and instructional design practices (colour contrast, captioning, keyboard usability, alternative text, and document formatting)	Not specified The participants raised concerns regarding the policy, standard and workflows in the training being unfounded decisions because these decisions added various levels of effort and education on individual. There was a need for a broader dialogue and guidance on educating and integrating tasks for increasing accessibility into daily operations.
Slater et al. (2015)	To explore accessibility specialists’ experiences with production teams in making curricula accessible	Faculty accessibility specialists Workshops, seminars, presentations, talks, briefings, individual support, and adjustments for content and assessment after production	Not specified Participants across diverse faculties and roles	UK	Accessibility topics, such as inclusive design, anticipatory adjustments in curriculum production, and reasonable individual adjustments after production	Not specified Improved accessibility was observed in the works delivered by the working groups. The faculty members’ awareness increased, which resulted in considerable progress in bringing about institutional change to include the needs of all students, including SWDs, as a part of module design and production.
Heap and Thompson (2018)	To improve training workshops for faculty members and professionals working in e-learning- and massive open online course (MOOC)-based environments	Centre for Innovation in Teaching and Learning Accessibility and UD training workshops, and post-training services	30 targeted (ongoing) Participants in various roles and disciplines involved in creating and developing educational materials	US	Theoretical component: WCAG 2.0, section 508 (standards and best practices); practical component: production of accessible instructional materials in different LMSs and in various formats, and exposure to AT	Survey on participant opinions about the training This initiative has increased instructors’ awareness of the diverse needs of students, including SWDs, and competence in creating accessible content. One team of e-learning professionals created their own instruction manual on creating accessible educational materials.
Park, Roberts, and Stodden (2012)	To provide training to instructional faculty members to enhance their attitudes, knowledge, and skills in accommodating SWDs	Centre on Disability Studies project staff A three-day Summer Institute course with presentations, discussions, and group work	16, with 7 joining the follow-up case study Participants with varied experiences with SWDs, from colleges in different fields	US	Disability culture, student and faculty rights and responsibilities, accessible distance education and AT, UDI, hidden disabilities, and multiculturalism and disability	Case study (only reported interviews) The participants showed increased competence in instructing SWDs, meeting their needs, and accommodating them. The implemented strategies included reading written course content aloud, providing course materials in PDF format (can be easily enlarged), and developing a more welcoming accessibility statement.
Hsiao et al. (2019)	To enhance faculty members’ competence in inclusive practices via a training program; to ensure the program’s sustainability by having faculty members become trainers and liaisons	Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, Technology (DO-IT) Centre and cross-campus collaborations A year-long program in formats of live streaming (via WebEx) and LMS engagement (via Canvas) supplemented by Internet-based resources and individualised support	25, of which only 19 completed all the given modules Faculty members from various university units and with different teaching experiences (3–36 years)	US	UDI; characteristics of diverse learners; accessible online learning; disability-related laws and regulations; panel dialogue with SWDs; and a final project on disseminating, integrating, and applying the knowledge and skills learned during the program	Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) questionnaire and interview (pre and post) The questionnaire results indicated an improvement in the participants’ willingness to provide accessible and inclusive learning environments and to accommodate SWDs. The interviews revealed the most knowledge growth in legislation issues, characteristics of SWDs and reasonable accommodations, awareness of strategies, and instructional methods
Murray et al. (2009)	To present a model demonstration project aiming to promote disability awareness, understanding, and responsiveness among faculty members	Productive Learning u Strategies (PLuS) project team A workshop for instructors and a training institute for administrative staff using the train-the-trainer model (expected to impact institutional change) in the form of presentations, group activities, and provided training materials, among others	98Instructors from different departments of nine major colleges; administrative staff from over 45 different units that regularly interacted with SWDs	US	Characteristics of learning disability, history, laws, relevant accommodations, university advocacy and training peers, and institutionalisation strategies; participants expected to become trainers of others and asked to set training goals during the workshop	Follow-up face-to-face meeting; follow-up interview via phone and/or mail for those who did not attend face-to-face meeting. Survey across university. 77 participants provided follow-up data (attained 302 of 478 goals, assuming non-responders did not implement their goals). Faculty members attended the workshops had the most positive views, followed by those attended other trainings and then those who did not attend any training. Identified other predictors of attitudes & actions
Hope (2020a)	To increase staffs’ training program completion & skills in creating accessible online courses	Not specified Five redesigned modules in an instructor-facilitated online course	Not specified Instructional designers	US	Disability, web accessibility guidelines, legal standards, accessible digital materials (Word, PDF, and multimedia formats), and course design	Pre and post-course survey. Results not specified

Burgstahler, S. 2003. “10: Accommodating Students with Disabilities: Professional Development Needs of Faculty.” To Improve the Academy 21 (1): 179–195.

 Google Scholar

Regadas, Nuno, and Alice Ribeiro. 2011. “Accessibility Course: Training Higher Education Academics in the University of Porto.” EdMedia+ Innovate Learning 2781–2787.

 Google Scholar

Hope, Joan. 2020b. “Advocate for Universal Design Across Campus.” In Disability Compliance for Higher Education, edited by Joan Hope. New Jersey: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

 Google Scholar

Kontio, Jeffrey, and Preston Radtke. 2019. “An A11Y-ance.” Paper presented at the ACM SIGUCCS Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA.

 Google Scholar

Pearson, E. 2003. “Designing a Staff Development Course in Inclusive Design for Online Learning.” International Journal on E-Learning 2 (4): 52–59.

 Google Scholar

Pearson, Elaine, and Tony Koppi. 2003. “Developing Inclusive Practices: Evaluation of a Staff Development Course in Accessibility.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 19 (3): 275–292.

 Google Scholar

Fraser, K., and E. Sanders. 2004. “Educating University Teachers: Participation and Access Issues for Students Who Have a Disability.” In Education Development and Leadership in Higher Education; Developing an Effective Institutional Strategy, edited by K. Fraser, 129–155. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.

 Google Scholar

Murray, Christopher, Allison Lombardi, John R. Seely, and Hilary Gerdes. 2014. “Effects of an Intensive Disability-Focused Training Experience on University Faculty Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 27 (2): 179–193.

 Google Scholar

Spencer, A. M., and O. Romero. 2008. “Engaging Higher Education Faculty in Universal Design: Addressing Needs of Students with Invisible Disabilities.” In Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, edited by S. Burgstahler, 145–156. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

 Google Scholar

Whiting, Brent. 2018. “Institutional Accessibility Awareness.” In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, edited by M. Antona and C. Stephanidis, 591–601. Cham: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Slater, R., V. K. Pearson, J. P. Warren, and T. Forbes. 2015. “Institutional Change for Improving Accessibility in the Design and Delivery of Distance Learning – The Role of Faculty Accessibility Specialists at The Open University.” Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 30 (1): 6–20.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heap, Tania, and Marc Thompson. 2018. “Optimizing Accessibility Training in Online Higher Education.” March, 20–23.

 Google Scholar

Park, H. J., K. D. Roberts, and R. Stodden. 2012. “Practice Brief: Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development to Improve Efficacy When Teaching Students with Disabilities.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 25 (4): 377–383.

 Google Scholar

Hsiao, Feilin, Sheryl E. Burgstahler, Terri Johnson, Daniel Nuss, and Michael Doherty. 2019. “Promoting an Accessible Learning Environment for Students with Disabilities via Faculty Development (Practice Brief).” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 32 (1): 91–99.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murray, Christopher, Carol T. Wren, Edward B. Stevens, and Christopher Keys. 2009. “Promoting University Faculty and Staff Awareness of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Overview of the Productive Learning u Strategies (PLuS) Project.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 22 (2): 117–129.

 Google Scholar

Hope, J. 2020a. “Work with Academic Administration, Instructional Designers to Improve Digital Accessibility.” In Disability Compliance for Higher Education, edited by Joan Hope. New Jersey: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

 Google Scholar