# data[].attributes.headline
Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. Hockings, C. (2010).

# data[].attributes.subject
Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. Hockings, C. (2010).

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr Colin Cameron Overview of the Social Model of Disability

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr Colin Cameron Overview of the Social Model of Disability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Language is important. It is through language that we come to relate to and understand ourselves and other people around us. We use language to make sense of the way other people relate to us. Through language we construct expectations of each other, assign roles to each other and make meaning of the roles assigned to us.

Language shapes the way we see and think about and experience the world. It makes possible who it is possible for us to be, and also makes it possible for us to resist what we have become.

As Titchkosky and Michalko (2014:101) have pointed out, disability is lived in the midst of the meanings given to it. The meaning of disability, they say, is given whenever we speak of it, act upon it, or even think of it:

People may subscribe to one particular story of disability. An important story today says that disability is a social phenomenon produced by a society's failure to respond adequately to impairment... This story, however we judge it, does not eliminate other dominant storytellers, such as medicine, that tell the story of disability as something unwanted that lurks in an individual and must be rooted out or managed.

In other words, disability is a contested identity. It has been a major focus of the disabled people's movement since the 1970s to try and shift the way that disability is talked about, acted upon and thought of in everyday life. The problem has been that traditionally disability has been regarded as an embodied characteristic, as something wrong with the bodies of some people. This is expressed in the following definitions set out by the World Health Organisation, the first from 1980 and the second from 2012. Within these, disability is understood as:

any restriction or lack (resulting from impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being (Cameron, 2014:99)

an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions (Mallett and Slater, 2014:92).

These definitions express the individual model of disability, sometimes also known as the medical model. Within the individual model, disability is regarded as resulting from impairment, or being the same as impairment. It is identified as an individual problem, as something that people 'have' or that is 'part' of a person, and is described in fairly negative terms of deficit, abnormality, limitation and restriction. It is this negative characterisation that causes many people to avoid association with the term and to embrace what Michalko (2002:10) has termed 'person-first ideology':

Suggesting that disability is merely a secondary feature of one's identity and that we are persons first and persons with disabilities disavows both deviance and disability. It refocuses attention from the disability to the person who happens to have it (Michalko, 2002:11).

The social model, developed initially by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, challenged the dominant individual model view by identifying disability as an unequal social relationship. Within the social model disability is:

the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities (UPIAS 1976:14).

This definition was broadened by Disabled People's International in 1981 to include people with sensory, emotional and cognitive impairments. Here, disability is:

the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers (Barnes, 1992:2).

From a social model viewpoint, disability is not something people have (we are not people with disabilities), but is something done to people with impairments. People with impairments are disabled by poor or non-existent access to the public places where ordinary life happens and by the condescending or unwelcoming responses of those who occupy these places. 'Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.' (UPIAS, 1976:14).

For example, in 2014 a UK university campus underwent a complete redevelopment of its main reception and teaching building. This would have involved spending a great deal of money. When the brand new refurbished building was opened it became clear that the door to the shop that sells sweets and stuff was not wide enough for someone using a power wheelchair to get into. A student who is a power wheelchair user would be unable, then, to go in to buy a curly-wurly, a bottle of water or a pack of Always Ultra. At best, she would have to ask a friend to go in and buy these for her. An individual model view would say that this student cannot get into the shop because she has a disability which means she has to use a power wheelchair. A social model view would say she is disabled by poor access and the lack of thought/ignorance of the people who commissioned, designed and built the place.

Whether we have physical, sensory, emotional or cognitive impairments, as disabled people we have a right to regard these as being a core part of what makes us who we are, not as something to distance ourselves from or be ashamed about. While impairment can sometimes be nasty, messy, painful, and certainly isn't all we are about, it is a big part of us. It needs to be recognised, affirmed and included on that basis. It isn't our bodies that we need to be angry at, but the treatment dished out to people with impairments in a disabling society.

As a distinct cultural practice, Disability Arts has its roots deeply embedded within the disabled people's movement and in disabled people's struggle for equality. As Allan Sutherland has commented:

I don't think disability arts would have happened without disability politics coming first... Our politics teach us that we are oppressed, not inferior... Our politics have given us self-esteem. They have taught us, not simply to value ourselves, but to value ourselves as disabled people (Sutherland, 1989: 159).

Disability Arts has played, and continues to play, an important role in the ongoing campaigning activity of disabled people for inclusion as equals on their own terms in ordinary community life. In its widest sense it is about the creative expression of a social model view. It involves a rejection of narratives which tell us that impairment can only be experienced as limiting inconvenience and an affirmation of difference. It is not therapy, which has its place (Barnes and Mercer, 2010) and it is not art for art's sake, which might be characterised as self-indulgent. It is art produced by disabled people that is critically and socially engaged.

Heaton (2014) has warned that it is a dangerous position to think that everything is in place to ensure disabled people have an equal opportunity to take part in society. Partial access hints at the possibility of inclusion but remains frustratingly out of reach.

Tregaskis (2004) describes the way in which, while practising inclusion in terms of providing access, service providers often continue to hold stereotyped and belittling attitudes towards disabled people, shaping their words and behaviours.

In the face of new assaults upon disabled people in terms of cuts to welfare entitlements, increasing media demonisation and 'Othering', and the continuing rise of disablist hate crime, there is an ongoing need for vigilance in our words, actions and thoughts about disability. The distinction between being 'disabled people' and 'people with disabilities' might seem a small thing, but it isn't.

Colin Cameron is a senior lecturer in Disability Studies at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne. Email: colin.cameron[at]northumbria.ac.uk

References
Barnes, C. (1994) Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti-Discrimination Legislation. London: Hurst and Co. in association with BCODP
Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2010) Exploring Disability, Cambridge: Polity
Cameron, C. (2014) 'The Medical Model', in C. Cameron (ed.) Disability Studies: A Student's Guide, London: Sage, pp 98-101
Heaton, T. (2014) 'Access', in C. Cameron (ed.) Disability Studies: A Student's Guide, London: Sage, pp.1-3
Mallett, R. and Slater, J. (2014) 'Language', in C. Cameron (ed.) Disability Studies: A Student's Guide, London: Sage, pp 91-94
Michalko, R. (2002) The difference that disability makes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
Sutherland, A. (1989) 'Disability Arts, Disability Politics', DAIL Magazine, September 1989, reprinted in A. Pointon and C. Davies, (eds) Framed: Interrogating Disability in the Mediam London: BFI, p.159
Titchkosky, T. and Michalko, R. (2014) 'Narrative' in C. Cameron (ed.) Disability Studies: A Student's Guide, London: Sage, pp 101-103
Tregaskis, C. (2004) Constructions of Disability: Researching the Interface Between Disabled and Non-disabled People. London: Routledge
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) (1976) Fundamental Principles of Disability, London: UPIAS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we are disabled people, not people with disabilities - Disability Arts Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Language is important. It is through language that we come to relate to and understand ourselves and other people around us. We use language to make sense of the way other people relate to us. Through language we construct expectations of each other, assign roles to each other and make meaning of the roles assigned to us.

# data[].attributes.headline
The inclusive learningand teaching handbook - University of Sheffield

# data[].attributes.subject
The inclusive learningand teaching handbook - University of Sheffield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kent Inclusive Practices (KIPs) offer guidance on simple but powerful mainstream adjustments to learning and teaching delivery at Kent and are informed by analysis of our most frequently requested Inclusive Learning Plan (ILP) adjustments. Embedding these adjustments will improve the learning environment for all students, reduce the need for retrospective adjustments and lessen the reliance upon Inclusive Learning Plans (ILPs).

KIPs reinforce the measures for inclusive module design described in the University of Kent Code of Practice for Quality Assurance: ANNEX B: Approval and Withdrawal of Modules (Appendix A) and have been endorsed by the University of Kent Education Board (June 2017) who highlighted the key role KIPs will play in quality assurance measures such as the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

The guidance for delivering Kent Inclusive Practices (KIPs) in academic roles document indicates how to embed KIPs within a school to help everyone access the resources and information they need to study independently.

If you are unsure about any of the inclusive practices please contact Student Support and Wellbeing (SSW): opera@kent.ac.uk

Maximise electronic resources

Give preference to electronic ('born-digital') resources that meet minimal accessibility standards and support the use of productivity tools (assistive technologies).
Making material available online (e.g. electronically) is one of the best things you can do to make learning and teaching experiences more accessible to all. Electronic documents can be far more easily made to suit individual requirements using assistive technologies (e.g. the Sensus Access file conversion tool). The fact that electronic materials can be accessed remotely and at any time also mean that they are very helpful to part-time, distance and commuting students too.

Make module outlines accessible electronically (e.g. via Moodle) at least 4 weeks before the module starts.

Make lecture/seminar slides accessible electronically (e.g. via Moodle) at least 24 hours before the session to enable all students to prepare (particularly students with notetaking difficulties).

Make prioritised reading lists available at least 4 weeks in advance to accommodate the provision of alternative formats and support those with slow reading speed. Clear indication of the importance of readings e.g. core (must read), recommended (should read) and background (could read) to allow prioritization by those with reading difficulties.

Use lecture capture to assist notetaking, ideally for everyone, but at least for students with relevant Inclusive Learning Plans (ILPs).

Creating accessible resources.

Accessing alternative formats.

Make documents easy to navigate and understand

For maximum accessibility material should be presented electronically. An accessible document should have a clear structure and easy navigation so that it can be understood by screenreaders and other assistive technologies:

Make presentations meaningful

For maximum accessibility material should be presented electronically. An accessible presentation should have a clear structure and easy navigation so that it can be understood by screenreaders and other assistive technologies:

Provide alternative media but make it accessible

Make assessments accessible

Vary assessment methods and make them appropriate to learning outcomes. When you assess a disabled student, make sure you're assessing their knowledge, skill and understanding, not their disability.

Consider if assessment methods are varied and appropriate to learning outcomes:

Do the number and timing of in-class assessments for the module take into account the practicalities of students with extra time arrangements? (E.g. timing of laboratory practical assessments).

Are spelling, punctuation and grammar an appropriate part of the assessment criteria? If these are critical to the learning outcome (e.g. language studies), can this been clearly stated in advance in the module specification? If not, can marking schemes allow exclusion of this criteria where this is required as a reasonable adjustment (e.g. for students with specific learning difficulties)?

It may be helpful for schools to bear in mind the kinds of alternative assessments most frequently requested when completing module specification documents. Of course, it is not possible to anticipate everything in advance but schools may have an idea what assessments have been most frequently requested in the past (for example exams, presentations and group work).

Guidance inclusive assessment activities (pdf)

Jisc advice on accessible assessment.

Assessment and feedback at Kent.

Promote productivity tools (assistive technologies) to everyone.

Promote the use of productivity tools (assistive technologies) for all.

Assistive technology is any device or system that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do, or which increases the ease and safety with which the task can be performed. In an educational capacity this relates to equipment or software designed or modified to enable disabled people to gain access to curriculum content or assessments, such as the use of text-to-speech (TTS) or speech recognition software.

More information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
provide alternative media but make it accessible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
promote productivity tools (assistive technologies) to everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kent Inclusive Practices (KIPs) offer guidance on simple but powerful mainstream adjustments to learning and teaching delivery at Kent and are informed by analysis of our most frequently requested Inclusive Learning Plan (ILP) adjustments. Embedding these adjustments will improve the learning environment for all students, reduce the need for retrospective adjustments and lessen the reliance upon Inclusive Learning Plans (ILPs).

# data[].attributes.headline
US National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE) - 9 steps to address accessibility at an institution.

# data[].attributes.subject
US National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE) - 9 steps to address accessibility at an institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: WCET and the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), in conjunction with the National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE is a partner with WebAIM), jointly offer this blog on a topic of national interest to education communities.

In recent years, education entities have seen a rise in complaints coming from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) specifically on the accessibility of web and digital materials. I recently heard of one advocate who has initiated almost 1,500 complaint letters into OCR. The momentum is not likely to decrease, even as the current administration shifts some funding away from these offices. The advocacy groups, and the attorneys, are still out there working to strengthen accessibility for their constituents. As a team of technical assistance providers on this issue, both WebAIM and NCDAE see a fair number of districts, boards of education, colleges, and universities who need to respond to complaints or to a formal resolution letter from OCR about the inaccessibility of their web content. When this happens, they are under the gun to make fixes, and make them fast.

About a year and a half ago, a colleague from the California Community Colleges Online shared a unique activity he had performed with OCR complaint and resolution letters. He engaged in a content analysis on letters he had seen come out of the California regional office in San Francisco. He shared 6 components that were common across these letters at the time (Sean Keegan, personal communication, 2016).

As WebAIM and NCDAE have performed technical assistance on this topic with several entities across K-20 we took a similar tactic. Performing a content analysis on complaint letters or resolution letters yielded a common set of action items that should be shared more broadly. While our list contains 9 items, and not 6, we recognize that regional offices write letters unique to their region. We have shared this list in the past via presentations, panels, and webinars. Yet the opportunity to host a joint blog with WCET and OLC is a perfect opportunity to get the message out broadly to education communities seeking focus on their accessibility efforts.

Below are the 9 items we routinely see in letters from OCR:

1. Designate a person to coordinate IT accessibility. Accessibility across the organization is a complex process with many moving parts. As such it is vital to have an individual who, as part of their role, is responsible to coordinate accessibility activities and engage in continuous improvement on behalf of the enterprise. They can coordinate and document committee meetings, identify and track issues, locate needed resources, recommend budgets, and oversee the process. They can also provide annual reporting. Moreover, this is the person who can speak to broad issues of how much progress has been made, and where you continue to be most vulnerable.

2. Define a policy specific to IT accessibility. Organizational policy is critical to sustained progress in accessibility. Far too long, local champions made headway without placing the work inside of a policy realm. When those individuals left the organization, the work often fell to the wayside. Inculcating a specific policy enables work, and budgets to be aligned with that policy. Finally, it is also a manifestation of accessibility as a priority and a value across the enterprise. You can read more about typical elements of a policy on the NCDAE site

3. Provide a public link to an accessibility page and describe the process for submitting complaints and feedback. Having a place to communicate your commitment to, and work toward, accessibility is important for the community that needs access. Yet, you have to remember that your journey towards accessibility will take years. Because of this, it is vital that users with disabilities have a place they can go to submit feedback or a complaint. This enables you to make a rapid (i.e., within a day or less) fix for them. It is vital that where you link the accessibility and feedback page is itself accessible; of course, the accessibility and feedback page must be accessible as well. Some letters require this notice or link be placed on every page rather than in one place. When this happens, organizations choose to put it in their footer. If you go this route, be careful that the template itself is accessible and individuals would be able to get to the footer to use the intended link.

4. Develop a Plan for New Content. This is essentially your implementation plan. Drawing a line in the sand, what is your specific plan for the future to make sure your content is accessible? This should be in contrast to what is happening now. This is a complex endeavor and is often done in conjunction with policy development. NCDAE has resources helpful in writing an implementation plan and many others, including University of Montana publicly share their strategy.

5. Develop a Corrective Action Plan. OCR has been quite clear that they don't just want to know what you are going to do to assure that no new inaccessible content is added to your site, but what are you going to do about the inaccessible content you have right now? There are many ways organizations are addressing the need for a Corrective Action Plan. Some plan to fix it all on a specific timeline and include this in their implementation plan (above, in item 4). Some identify what will be fixed and what will be placed as an archival element in a separate part of the website. Everything but the archive is then fixed on a specific timeline. If you do this, know that archival documents cannot be edited or updated in any way. If they are, you must make them accessible and they lose their archival designation. Also, you need to have a process in place to address any accessibility requests about your archival content; these requests must be addressed in a timely way (i.e., rule of thumb, under a day is best but more than 3 days could create trouble). Finally, some have constituted a rapid response team to address any request for accessibility of existing content within a day during the period where they transition to new accessible content. These individuals are given an administrative blessing to drop whatever they are doing to address accessibility requests that come in. They are also given whatever resources they need to get the job done. It seems like the IT equivalent of a SWAT or SEAL team who could be deployed at a moment's notice. A good solution only if you can truly constitute your staff and their assignments in such a fashion.

6. Define a process for evaluating accessibility as part of procurement. Educational organizations procure many things that are used online. Some of these are purchased (e.g., the LMS of the organization), but some procurement is free and simply pulled in for use (e.g., Google Docs for collaborative work), or developed internally (e.g., open education resources for online chemistry lab activities), or even selected but the low dollar amount puts them below a purchasing threshold for review (e.g., a $50 history curriculum put out by a professional organization). Making sure accessibility is part of any organizational plan to procure, develop, use, or maintain is vital. The first rule when you want to get yourself out of a hole is to "just stop digging". Continuing to bring inaccessible items into your enterprise for which you have accessibility responsibility creates vulnerability you do not need. It also shifts the responsibility away from the vendor or creator. At the end of the day we all want accessible products we can select to use. NCDAE has an article on the criticality of accessibility in procurement. PEATWorks publishes some great resources on procurement as well. Making sure you have accessibility requirements in all RFPs and all contract language will be critical as you turn this around.

7. Perform a technology audit on accessibility. Certainly, if you want to know where your efforts are taking you, you must first understand where you are now. Performing an audit will give you a sense of how localized or widespread issues of accessibility are for you, and the types of issues you will need to prepare to address. Moreover, the data can be helpful as you create your implementation plans (e.g., you may choose to first fix highly visited public or student-facing pages or large courses). It can also be helpful as you look at how you will fix some issues (e.g. if 5 errors appear in your web template, fixing those will positively affect thousands of pages simultaneously). Audits are typically performed on an annual basis yet some large organizations perform them in smaller units across the enterprise throughout the year with a larger sweep once a year. Be aware, however, that NO automated tool can fully identify accessibility issues. Not all errors can be programmatically determined with today's heuristics. WebAIM and NCDAE share a recommendation that you should consider a blend of human-evaluation along with broader automated samples. The first should give you issues of depth, the second should help you understand issues of breadth. Both are useful.

8. Specifically seek out feedback from those with disabilities. While you have a mechanism for collecting complaints and fielding issues as they come along (i.e., See item 3 above), solicit user feedback. This shows that you are being both proactive as well as appropriately reactive. Make sure to do this across those with different types of disabilities. Find individuals that experience different types of access issues. They will most likely be persons with (1) vision problems including those who are blind, have low vision, or are color blind, (2) hearing problems including those who are deaf or have poor hearing, (3) fine motor problems such that they have a difficult (or impossible time) using a mouse or keyboard, (4) cognitive or learning disabilities, (5) multiple disabilities, such as someone who is deaf-blind, or someone who has cerebral palsy and is deaf, and finally, (6) while you may have individuals with photoepilepsy, you would not want to test blinking or marquee elements on these individuals, as it could cause a seizure.

9. Provide training to individuals consistent with their role as they create digital materials or web pages. Today, training is required well beyond web developers. That is because, quite simply, web content is being created by many. For example, a faculty member who creates a PowerPoint presentation and uploads it into the LMS has created web content. This must be accessible. The staff member who creates a PDF on employment and links it to the HR website has created web content. This must be accessible. In both instances these individuals need to understand their obligation, and be given appropriate training and support to fulfill their new role. Of course, those individuals who have technical jobs are most likely developing or creating web designs, applications, or content as well. Finally, others may require training too. This would need to be consistent with their role and your overall plans for accessibility (e.g., procurement staff, contract staff).

The OCR letters we have seen require the organization to initially complete the issues above in about 18 months once approved. However, if you were to make a decision now to address these common OCR requests, you would create greater control and flexibility over the process. It is worth it in the long run to take this important matter into your own hands as soon as possible.

Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D., Executive Director,
WebAIM; National Center on Disability and Access to Education
Utah State University

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Cyndi. Bookmark the permalink.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Cyndi. Bookmark the permalink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steps You Can Take Now to Address Accessibility at Your Institution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: WCET and the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), in conjunction with the National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE is a partner with WebAIM), jointly offer this blog on a topic of national interest to education communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Remember, it's likely that there'll be students with a range of disabilities and conditions (disclosed and undisclosed) of different genders, ages and religions.

Accessibility of resources

Materials available prior to teaching sessions: all students, including those with a modified assessment provision, benefit from being able to access teaching materials in advance of a session. The Teaching and Learning Committee (May 2008 and reviewed in January 2014) agreed that materials should be made available electronically at a minimum of 48 hours in advance of a session. The minimum standard to be adopted includes the following:

The outline and scope of a session

Preparatory reading

Key teaching materials e.g. PowerPoint presentations, support documentation, podcasts etc. should be uploaded in advance of the teaching session

This should be available a minimum of 48 hours before the teaching session, but a period of 7 days before the teaching session is recommended

All teaching materials must conform to the University's guidance on copyright and intellectual property rights

You can achieve this by posting materials for sessions on the DLE. We know that in some circumstances it may not be possible to provide all materials in advance and academic staff may use their professional judgement; however this needs to be weighed against our obligation under the Equalities Act (2010) to make reasonable adjustments to prevent unfair treatment and to achieve equal opportunities for all our students.

Research has shown that posting of lecture materials in advance of the lecture does not have an impact on attendance. To view Babb & Ross (2009), go to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131508002029. Their findings suggest that attendance and participation are both improved by having slides available to students before classes.

By providing materials in advance of your teaching sessions, you'll help cater to individual working styles. You should also consider how you present your information e.g. the style of paper you're using, font and clarity of text.

Students with a Student Support Document will be able to record lectures and they'll sign a copyright declaration as part of their enrolment process.

Inclusive teaching environments and method

Some conditions are variable and can be affected by the time of day, medication or temperature; this may occasionally result in absences.

Any comments or questions from the group should be repeated by the tutor so that no information is missed.

Try and face the class as much as possible and avoid turning away to write while speaking.

Use microphones in lecture theatres wherever possible as Loop systems (for hearing impaired students) are dependent on this.

Verbalise any information you write, draw or show your class.

Write new terminology or unfamiliar names on the board.

Be mindful that some students may need to go out or have a break during sessions.

Encourage ground rules e.g. only one person can speak at a time.

Where possible give lists of specialist words with meanings.

Group work

Working well within a group is considered a key graduate skill but it's one that many students can find difficult to master. The following points can help make this learning process easier:

Encourage group members to be open about any disabilities or specific learning difficulties they have and the implications that these may have for their group work.

Group arrangements sometimes require formal allocation to ensure that students don't get left out.

Some groups may also need assistance with the allocation of roles.

Some groups may require a higher degree of informal supervision than others.

Suggest having a clear point of contact throughout the tasks, and a process for students to discuss concerns relating to disability and the group work.

Presentations

Please be mindful that some students may need reasonable adjustments due to a disability, providing the learning outcomes can be maintained.

Consider the environment that the student is presenting in, particularly for students with hearing impairments, visual impairments, speech and language difficulties or social phobias. An example of a reasonable adjustment would be to allow a student to present to a smaller group or solely to the tutor(s) involved.

Placements

If you're a placement tutor, you should have a pre-placement discussion with your students regarding placement issues e.g. location, accessibility, health and safety and other reasonable adjustments.

Placement tutors, staff and students can also liaise with Disability Services for further advice, information and guidance if needed.

Occasionally an enabler may be required to support a student on a placement. The placement tutor should liaise with Disability Services at an early stage to ensure appropriate support can be arranged.

Fieldwork and off campus activities

As a module leader you should discuss fieldwork content and off campus activities with students to establish any support requirements, if an enabler is needed, appropriate transport and health and safety.

Module leaders can then liaise with Disability Services if appropriate.

Enabling and study skills support

Some students may be receiving support which can include enabling (note taking, mentoring etc), learning support and communication support workers. Take a look at the University's enabling guidelines to find out more.

Modified assessment provision - for exams and in-class tests

Some students are recommended assessment provisions such as additional time or use of a smaller or separate room. These provisions are detailed on their Student Support Document as well as being recorded on Unit-E.

For in-class assessments, students can expect modified assessment provision (such as extra time) in line with those recommended in formal examination. However there may be some in-class assessments and environments where these modifications may not be appropriate or necessary. The module leader should discuss the format or style of the in-class assessment with the student in order to determine appropriate provision in good time. Please note that responsibility for modified in-class assessments rests with the department (module leader) concerned.

Workshops, labs and studios

We recommend that you consider any health and safety requirements.

Please be mindful that some students may need reasonable adjustments due to a disability, providing the learning outcomes can be maintained.

Some students may require consideration regarding seating e.g. requiring a specific seat in a lab which is close to an exit or in a quieter area.

Some students may require additional space to work or an extra seat for an enabler.

Alternative assessment

Due to their disability, some students may be unable to complete standard assessments. In these cases an alternative assessment is usually explored through the case conference process.

Know your University

Know what other information, advice and guidance is available to support your students, such as counselling, Library Special Support Services, SU Advice and Welfare, Chaplaincy, Disability Services and Learning Development.

Students who have a Student Support Document will be contacted by Library Special Support Services to discuss the support that they can offer.

More specific information about teaching requirements will be linked to the Student Support Document.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating an inclusive learning environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remember, it's likely that there'll be students with a range of disabilities and conditions (disclosed and undisclosed) of different genders, ages and religions. Materials available prior to teaching sessions: all students, including those with a modified assessment provision, benefit from being able to access teaching materials in advance of a session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accessibility practitioners and researchers can incorporate usability techniques to improve 'usable accessibility'. User experience designers and researchers can incorporate accessibility to make their designs work better for more people in more situations. Addressing accessibility, usability, and inclusion together can more effectively lead to a more accessible, usable, and inclusive web for everyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Complexities of Teaching 'Inclusion'

# data[].attributes.subject
The Complexities of Teaching 'Inclusion'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Complexities of Teaching 'Inclusion' in Higher Education - Journal of Pedagogic Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The aim of this action research project was to study both teaching practices and the student learning experience and use findings to inform, modify and improve the unit. The objectives were to improve students' knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding 'inclusion' and 'exclusion' in education by concentrating on definitions of inclusion and exclusion and the use of appropriate and inappropriate language.

# data[].attributes.headline
Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Six individual trajectories of digital technology are enabling the ambitious goal of a responsive, personalized digital learning environment for higher education.
Malcolm Brown is Director of the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI).
"We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future."
-Marshall McLuhan

When we consider the future roles of digital technology in higher education, it is often helpful to think in terms of trajectories rather than predictions. Predictions are remarkably fragile things. Any unforeseen factor will render the prediction false or off-target, and as those variables increase, so too does the likelihood that the prediction will fail. Predictions also tend to be projections of the current and the known, ornamented with something that provides a futuristic hue. In the case of digital technology, given the acceleration of change-enabled by the very things whose course we are trying to predict-the conundrum of predictions may be at its most acute.

It is thus more practical to work with trajectories. With a trajectory, we know where something is headed, but we cannot say-or we refrain from guessing-where it will end. Working with trajectories is an admission that we cannot foresee the unanticipated factors and developments that might influence the trajectory, accelerating it or perhaps instead derailing it entirely. In this sense, working with trajectories is a more humble and realistic way of facing the future. A trajectory is also far less fatalistic than a prediction. The latter asserts that this is where we will end up, whereas a trajectory shows where we might end up.

In terms of teaching and learning, I would like to suggest three characteristics that provide context for the following discussion of six digital technology trajectories. The first characteristic is personalization: the growing capabilities and willingness to use digital resources to create custom pathways for learning and degree success. One of the clearest illustrations of developments in this area may be MIT's exploration of breaking its courses down into modules and enabling students and instructors to "reassemble" the modules to construct personalized educational pathways-a process likened to constructing a playlist in iTunes. ¹ Developments such as these lend credence to the suggestion that we have entered the "post-course era" in higher education: the course is no longer the curricular atom or fundamental building block. ²

The second characteristic is the adoption of hybrid learning models. ³ The footprint of the online dimension is expanding across all venues of higher education, including institutions that have traditionally valued intimate, face-to-face learning. Higher education's "affair" with the MOOC, though now waning, has had one lasting impact. It has greatly accelerated the migration of higher education into online education. ⁴ In addition, this characteristic is intertwined with the first as instructors, instructional designers, and students are starting to invent and modify learning models and pathways as needed to achieve more personalized learning goals.

The third characteristic is the analysis of ever-increasing amounts of data and the increasing influence those analyses have in the conduct of higher education. This use of "big data" affords much more nuanced and timely insights into all kinds of learning processes. It enables the creation of custom reports tailored to specific learning contexts, ranging from institutional dashboards to personalized assistance for learners. It provides the basis for measuring progress toward institutional strategic goals. Equally important, analytics enables interventions in nearly real time. This contributes greatly to learner and instructor success, as it allows the institution to assist students at the very moment they are falling behind.

Clearly, digital technology is the fabric of nearly everything associated with teaching and learning. We can think of this fact as an overarching trajectory: digital technology is the core strategic enabler of learning in higher education. But there's a twist. Our thinking about digital technology in higher education is shifting away from seeing it as IT infrastructure and instead toward conceiving it as a digital learning environment. ⁵ For those of us who have worked in higher education information technology, this is a significant shift in our thinking. It means that the technology is no longer in the foreground; instead, our attention is focused on the learners and the learning experiences that the technology enables. ⁶ It sets for all campus players the ambitious goal of a learning ecosystem that is responsive and can be personalized. Enabling that ambitious goal are six individual trajectories of digital technology: device ownership and mobile-first; the textbook and open educational resources (OER); adaptive learning technology; learning spaces; the next-generation learning management system (LMS); and learning analytics and integrated planning and advising services (IPAS).

Device Ownership and Mobile-First

In the past, there was much discussion of the digital divide: the situation in which some students were able to afford digital equipment whereas others could not. Although the problem has not been fully resolved, the picture has shifted. The combination of lower costs for hardware and the mobile computing revolution of the past decade has altered the landscape. Mobile computing is a key technology in teaching and learning, and the trajectory is that it will continue to be so.

One way to appreciate this trajectory is by taking a look at results of the annual student study conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR). In 2004, the study revealed that student technology ownership was divided between desktop and laptop computers. Most students owned only a single device. The ownership of "personal digital assistants" was just under 12 percent. If we jump to the most recent studies, we see how thoroughly this landscape has changed. According to the results of the 2013 study, 30 percent of the respondents owned 4 or more Internet-capable devices. In 2013, ownership of smartphones and tablets had increased by 14 percent and 15 percent, respectively, over the previous year. According to the 2014 study, ownership of smartphones jumped to 86 percent and is projected to be 90 percent in 2015. Tablet ownership in 2014 jumped to 47 percent, and its 2015 trajectory is 58 percent ownership. Significantly, the percentage of students using these devices directly for academics is increasing: moving from roughly 50 percent (2013) to 70 percent (2014) for smartphones and from 12 percent to close to 50 percent for tablets. ⁷

Such ubiquity enables institutions to leverage the mobile environment. Many are moving to a mobile-first approach. One of the first schools to move to mobile-first was Abilene Christian University, which has integrated mobile technology into its courses. Lynn University is moving its LMS functionality off the traditional LMS application and onto a component-based approach, one informed by this mobile-first approach. Tennessee Technical University's Mobile Learning Environment and Systems Infrastructure (MoLE-SI), first introduced in the College of Engineering, is now poised to be introduced more broadly throughout the curriculum. ⁸

Mobile technology affords students and instructors an unprecedented degree of independence from the campus IT organization. Certainly they need campus networking, but even here, their cell phone connectivity can provide Internet access. It is helpful if the campus has an agreement in place for Google Docs, but if it doesn't, they can use Google Docs anyway. The use of apps, such as VoiceThread for audio annotations or Diigo for collaborative tagging, requires neither permission from nor enablement by the campus IT organization, again apart from networking. To access resources from iTunes U or to participate in a MOOC requires only the campus network; instructors' and students' devices do the rest. Hence mobile technology permits students and instructors to personalize their environment, which puts their relationship with the campus IT organization on a slightly different footing.

The Textbook and Open Educational Resources (OER)

This trajectory is surprising. The textbook is undergoing a remarkable bit of evolution: it's vanishing, as least in its traditional form as a book whose text is furnished by a third-party company and is sold at the campus bookstore. As paradoxical as it sounds, this is due largely to the companies that have in the past provided textbooks for higher education, companies such as McGraw-Hill, Cengage Learning, and Pearson. These companies are coming to see that profits lie in adding value to the core text and not in providing the texts themselves. According to Michael Feldstein, these companies "just want to be out of the textbook business. They want to sell software and services that are related to educational content, like homework platforms or course redesign consulting services." Jonathan Band similarly noted that the textbook publishers "are well aware of the expanded competition presented by the Internet, and have begun to adjust their business models accordingly. Pearson, for example, is shifting from the supply of educational materials to the provision of education services. Such services include testing, assessment, student information systems, and course management platforms." ⁹

One dimension of this trajectory is the decline in the purchase of commercial textbooks, driven largely by their increasing costs. According to information from the U.S. Census Bureau, the price of textbooks rose 812 percent between 1978 and 2012. By contrast, over the same period, the cost of medical services rose 575 percent, new home prices 325 percent, and the consumer price index 250 percent. ¹⁰ This has motivated students and instructors alike to seek alternatives. According to the ECAR 2013 student study, 71 percent of students used OER in 2013 (up from 25 percent in 2010) and 54 percent said that open resources are extremely important. The ever-growing abundance of ancillary content relevant to education (e.g., iTunes U, MOOCs, and repositories such as OpenStax CNX) enables students to skip the purchase of core textbooks altogether and instead seek basic explanations of content from these open resources. The course textbook is no longer a requirement but, rather, an option.

There are also initiatives entirely devoted to enabling students to create their own custom course content, largely from OER. The company Boundless will mimic the table of contents of a commercial textbook and supply OER alternatives for each chapter of the book. A Pearson project uses a specially designed search engine, called Gooru, to enable anyone to find appropriate OER. As an indication of how rapidly untraditional all of this is becoming, this is a Pearson project, but at the same time, Pearson is one of the major companies suing Boundless. ¹¹

This trajectory seems to counsel us to expect that the classic higher education textbook will vanish, replaced by a variety of resources, the most important of which is OER. We may also expect that the traditional commercial companies will continue to invest in services such as adaptive learning technology (see the following section).

Adaptive Learning Technology

Situated "next door" to OER is adaptive learning technology. ¹² This appears to be the core service that publishers are betting on. Adaptive learning technology is in its start-up phase, much as where learning analytics technology was two years ago. Although its trajectory is not fully established, adaptive learning technology certainly has the potential to exert a forceful influence on teaching and learning over the next three to four years.

Adaptive learning technology takes a "non-linear approach to instruction and remediation, adjusting to a learner's interactions and demonstrated performance level and subsequently anticipating what types of content and resources learners need at a specific point in time to make progress." ¹³ It is, then, a kind of automated tutor. What is fascinating is how quickly the major textbook publishers have cast an anchor into this technology:

Pearson has teamed with Knewton, enabling Pearson to offer its MyLab and Mastering adaptive learning tools for a broad range of subjects, mostly in the sciences.

McGraw-Hill has introduced ALEKS and Smartbooks, the latter based on its LearnSmart adaptive technology.

Macmillan's New Ventures division has a partnership with Knewton and has access to PrepU's technology.

Wiley has announced a partnership with Snapwiz to produce a new product offering called WileyPlus.

There are other companies and even universities in the mix here as well:

The companies include Smart Sparrow, CCKF, and ScootPad.

Brightspace by D2L acquired the startup Knowillage and its adaptive learning technology called LeaP.

In Europe, roughly a dozen institutions have formed INTUITEL, with the objective "to enhance e-learning content and Learning Management Systems (LMS) with features that so far have been provided only by human tutors."

The University of Phoenix has invested considerably in its adaptive learning technology Academic Activity Stream.

Professors at Ohio State University created an adaptive learning module (called MOOCulus) that they grafted onto the Coursera platform for their MOOC on calculus.

Adaptive technology has established a beachhead in higher education practice. Notable early projects include Arizona State University's use of Pearson's MyLab and Essex Community College's use of ALEKS. ¹⁴ Reports from these projects are mixed, as is to be expected with a young technology that is just getting going, but the blend of considerable interest ¹⁵ and investments promises to make this a key technology for the foreseeable future.

Learning Spaces

Learning spaces is an umbrella term referring to the physical spaces specifically designed to accommodate learning activities, including (but not limited to) formal classrooms, the learning commons, labs, and makerspaces. The trajectory here, as explored more fully by Mark Valenti in his article in this issue of EDUCAUSE Review, "Beyond Active Learning: Transformation of the Learning Space," is that these spaces are evolving away from being places of presentation and toward being places of discovery, invention, and knowledge construction. ¹⁶

The makerspace is perhaps the clearest example. ¹⁷ Currently makerspace rooms are places for invention using physical objects. Often these rooms house a variety of equipment, available to students individually or in teams. As always, technology provides a very wide range of possibilities. 3D scanning and printing technologies are common to almost all makerspaces, enabling students to capture and reproduce objects in three dimensions. Programmable circuit boards, such as Arduino and Raspberry Pi, enable a variety of projects. Some schools, seeking to enable as wide a range of projects as possible, provide equipment such as sewing machines, miter saws, computerized routers, 3D microscopes, large sheet printers, oscilloscopes, and soldering irons. The idea is to provide raw materials and tools to foster discovery and invention. ¹⁸

This trend toward discovery, content sharing, and knowledge creation is not limited to makerspaces but also informs formal and informal learning space design, and once again digital technology is the enabling agent. Wireless projection is a good example. Until recently, access to projection on the main classroom screen was limited to the person at the podium, reinforcing the message that the classroom was more about presentation than participation. But institutions are increasingly installing wireless projection capabilities, which enable any participant, appropriately equipped, to project his/her material on the main screen. Wireless projection also allows the instructor to roam the room, controlling the display of his/her content using a tablet.

Technology further enables team-based classroom design, also called scale-up or active learning classrooms (see, e.g., SCALE-UP). Traditional classroom design provides seats arranged in rows, with a podium for the instructor at the front. This design is informed by the idea that the primary purpose of the room is to enable presentations by the instructor. By contrast, team-based classrooms provide seating at circular tables, with six to ten seats per table. Most often the room has no "front" in the traditional sense. The team-based room is designed to make collaborative student work the focus of face-to-face class sessions. The instructor functions more as a guide or mentor and less as a presenter. Students, in teams, learn by actively working in collaborations and partnerships. These designs are enabled by extensive wireless networking, display screens distributed around the room, room-wide access to electrical power, and mobile furniture.

The learning space trajectory clearly embodies the "new" priorities of learner-centeredness, the social/collaborative dimensions of learning, and the importance of active learning engagements. ¹⁹ The built environment is particularly conspicuous, both because of its cost and because it physically affords certain kinds of usage while discouraging others. Classrooms are "architectural embodiments of educational philosophies." ²⁰ The new classroom designs offer clear evidence that the trajectory is indeed moving away from presentation and toward knowledge construction by all course participants.

The Next-Generation Learning Management System (LMS)

Much like an institution's student information and fiscal administration applications, the LMS is now a fixture of the higher education technology landscape. Since its inception in 1997, the LMS has matured to the point that nearly every higher education institution runs at least one LMS. A 2014 ECAR study revealed that the current model of the LMS has been very effective-both in its design and in the way faculty use it-for the administration of learning, especially in the conduct of a course. According to the study, 99 percent of institutions have an LMS in place, and on average, 85 percent of faculty use it, whereas 56 percent of students report using the LMS in most if not all of their courses. For postsecondary teaching and learning, this level of adoption is unprecedented. But in contrast to these high numbers, the percentages of students and faculty who use the more advanced LMS features are low. According to the ECAR study: "Faculty and students value the LMS as an enhancement to their teaching and learning experiences, but relatively few use these systems to their full capacity." ²¹

In spite of these high adoption percentages, there is widespread impatience with what we might call the "LMS 1.0." The trajectory here is the collective anticipation of, and investigation into, an entirely new model for this function-one that is, from the ground up, learner-centered, unlike the LMS 1.0's orientation around the instructor and the course. The community is clearly seeking to replace the current LMS with a robust and comprehensive digital learning environment. As the ECAR study reports, 15 percent of institutions intend to replace their LMS in the next three years. ²² Compared with the turnover rate of administrative enterprise applications, this is a significantly large percentage, suggesting a fair degree of restlessness.

What would an "LMS 2.0" look like? EDUCAUSE, in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has been conducting research into this very question, as outlined further in an article in this issue of EDUCAUSE Review: "What's Next for the LMS?" ²³ To achieve this next version of the LMS, however, higher education will need a new paradigm. In the past, the instinct of the IT community, when confronted with a challenge like this, would have been to build a new and "large" enterprise application to meet the new requirements. But it is no longer clear that this traditional approach will work. The construction of a single application assumes that one design can meet the needs of the majority of schools, instructors, and students-an idea that seems dubious, especially in a post-course era in which personalized, custom education pathways are emerging as the priority.

One sign of out-the-box thinking about the future LMS is the formation of Unizin, a consortium of universities "coming together in a strategic way to exert greater control and influence over the digital learning landscape. [Unizin] enables each institution, its faculty, and students to draw on an evolving set of tools to support digital learning for residential, flipped classroom, online courses/degrees, badged experiences for Alumni, or even MOOCs if desired. Unizin supports the differing missions and strategies of universities." Almost exactly a decade ago, at a similar moment of restlessness with the LMS, several higher education institutions pooled resources to build their own LMS application, called Sakai. Today, Unizin is taking a very different approach: it consists of a set of pooled resources and volume-purchasing discounts. The key is Unizin's goal to facilitate the promotion of a digital learning environment, while at the same time recognizing that institutions will have different cultures and priorities. Each institution in the Unizin consortium will blend the components in a way that is appropriate to its culture and its strategic ambitions.

Learning Analytics and Integrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS)

All analytics for teaching and learning is intended to increase student success. A key ingredient is sustaining student "momentum." ²⁴ Research indicates that students who experience early success in a learning endeavor tend to complete courses and degree programs at higher rates. By contrast, students who do not have early success are much more likely not to complete their courses and degrees. It is also now becoming clear that students who are metacognitively participatory in their learning achieve higher success rates than students who are not. Analytics for teaching and learning seeks to promote learner success by providing near real-time information to instructors and advisors, helping them build and sustain positive learner momentum. Student-facing analytics also seeks to address the metacognitive dimension by providing data to the learner so that he/she has a more objective basis for learning decisions. I will focus here on two types of analytics for student success: (1) learning analytics, which enables instructors and students to monitor engagement and progress at the course level; and (2) integrated planning and advising services (IPAS), an enterprise-level technology that blends data from a variety of campus systems.

Learning Analytics

The adoption of learning analytics has been accelerated by the integration of these capabilities into the major LMSs. This enables a campus to license a learning analytics module, flip the "on" switch, and quickly provide this service. For example, Blackboard, D2L, and Canvas have released learning analytics modules for their LMS applications (all called "Analytics," as in "Blackboard Analytics" and "Canvas Analytics"). All of these modules provide similar capabilities: identifying at-risk students, measuring student engagement and participation, and offering ways to see which curricular activities seem to be producing the best results.

Although integration with the core LMS makes the task of providing learning analytics services relatively straightforward, questions remain. One question is what use students, instructors, and advisors will make of the information. In the past, most instructors have confined their use of the LMS to its more basic functions. Another question is how much support will be provided to conduct the interventions needed when a student is flagged as being at risk. A final question concerns the sophistication of learning analytics. Some object that the current set of mainstream learning analytics functions, such as counts of how often a student logs into a course website, is at best only a proxy for how much they are learning. In spite of these questions-or perhaps because of them-learning analytics will see increasing adoption over the coming years.

Integrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS)

Learning analytics can be seen as a part of the larger IPAS suite of student success services. According to the 2014 ECAR IPAS benchmarking study, these services seek to realize a comprehensive vision of a technology-enabled and integrated digital environment that provides students, advisors, and faculty with the following capabilities:

Education planning (identifying the degree and the best path to its achievement)

Progress tracking (asking whether the learner is on course toward degree completion)

Advising and counseling (offering services such as mentoring and tutoring)

Early-alert systems (initiating proactive intervention with at-risk students)

The top drivers for investing in an IPAS system are "the strategic priority of student success and the desire to reorient the institution from an enrollment to a completion culture." ²⁵

At the technology level, IPAS requires a fluid exchange of data between major applications such as the student information system (SIS) and the LMS. At the level of institutional culture, IPAS requires a viable cross-institutional partnership between the IT organization and other campus offices. The key stakeholder groups are faculty (who often have workload concerns) and, of course, students.

The IPAS trajectory shows growing adoption. In light of this momentum, it is likely to be a key and increasingly ubiquitous academic technology in the future. As noted in the ECAR study: "IPAS is coming to a student success effort near you. Our study-group institutions overwhelmingly said it is important to their efforts and that they plan aggressive adoption and investment." ²⁶

Conclusion: Swirl

"We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us."
-Marshall McLuhan

In higher education, student swirl refers to the practice of students formulating a custom, multi-institutional pathway to a degree. This is not a recent term: it appears to have been coined in 1990 by administrators at Maricopa Community College. But the practice is gaining momentum. ²⁷

Student swirl is essentially a disaggregation/reaggregation cycle. Traditionally, the learning process and the degree conferral were aggregated into a single institution. The hop from a two-year institution to a four-year institution was the nearest thing to student swirl. Today, however, the aggregation of the learning process and the degree conferral has broken apart. Students now have more options. In short, the path to the degree is no longer linear or uniform in the traditional sense, nor does it need to be. In addition, the tempo of progress toward academic goals can accelerate or decelerate, depending on the requirements of the learner. Indeed, there are already indications that shifts in pacing have "arrived": the NYU School of Medicine, for example, now offers an accelerated track to the MD degree. ²⁸ Schools are also exploring badging and micro-credentialing as ways to mark progress toward an academic goal, especially in the domain of competency-based education. ²⁹ Obviously, we need to have discussions and debates about the quality of these new, swirled academic pathways, but the options have emerged and are being explored.

Digital technology in postsecondary education is undergoing swirl as well. Consider some of the key trends:

The evolution or morphing of the campus IT organization, in its role as the provider of the IT environment and also with respect to its role in teaching and learning

The increased independence of instructors and students, using their own tools to form their connections, resulting in custom pathways to achieve learning goals

The trend away from large central applications, run on campus servers, in favor of confederations of apps, many of which run in the cloud

The growing importance of interoperability and interface standards

The increase in multiple mobile device ownership

The capacity of data analytics to proffer custom portraits of learners and to make predictions and suggestions based on those portraits

In each case, there is a similar pattern: an individualization or fragmentation, together with a reassembly of the micro-units into new, custom configurations. This swirl in postsecondary educational technology is perhaps the most important trajectory of all. We have entered into a period of both dislocation, when the known and familiar begin to disappear, and relocation, when we invent new methods, techniques, and configurations. But perhaps what characterizes our current situation best is the rapid tempo of these swirl processes-a tempo that shows no sign of abating.

It is a time that is both stressful and energizing, with both loss and new opportunity. Our task as educators is to carefully sift through these new options, being wary not only of clinging to the past but also of embracing digital snake oil. The fundamental challenges to us are to not look into the future "through a rear-view mirror" and to not have our "tools shape us." Change in higher education is inexorable, as evidenced by these six trajectories for digital technology. The only way forward to a digital learning environment is through thoughtful participation in the swirl.

1. See Steve Bradt, "The Future of MIT Education Looks More Global, Modular, and Flexible," MIT News, August 4, 2014.

2. Randy Bass, "Disrupting Ourselves: The Problem of Learning in Higher Education," EDUCAUSE Review 47, no. 2 (March/April 2012).

3. This is sometimes called blended learning, but the term hybrid better suggests the evolution and experimentation of this characteristic.

4. As a vivid reminder of this, we need only recall the circumstances surrounding the resignation and reinstatement of Teresa Sullivan as president of the University of Virginia in the summer of 2012. See Sara Hebel, Jack Stripling, and Robin Wilson, "U. of Virginia Board Votes to Reinstate Sullivan," Chronicle of Higher Education, June 26, 2012.

5. I owe this insight to Diana Oblinger, EDUCAUSE president (2008-2015).

6. On the future of the academic computing architecture, see Rob Abel, Malcolm Brown, and Jack Suess, "A New Architecture for Learning," EDUCAUSE Review 48, no. 5 (September/October 2013): "Specifically, this new open architecture for connected learning needs to support and enable unprecedented agility, flexibility, and personalization."

7. Robert V. Kvavik, Judy Caruso, and Glenda Morgan, "ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control," October 4, 2004; Eden Dahlstrom, J. D. Walker, and Charles Dziuban, "ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013," September 16, 2013; Eden Dahlstrom and Jacqueline Bichsel, "ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2014," October 30, 2014.

8. "Abilene Christian University," NMC Spotlights; Carl Straumsheim, "Build It Yourself," Inside HigherEd, September 24, 2014; see the Tennessee Tech University website: MoLE-SI.

9. Michael Feldstein, "A Weird but True Fact about Textbook Publishers and OER," e-Literate, November 19, 2014; Jonathan Band, "The Changing Textbook Industry," Disruptive Competition Project blog post, November 21, 2013, (emphasis added).

10. See Mark J. Perry, "The College Textbook Bubble and How the 'Open Educational Resources' Movement Is Going Up Against the Textbook Cartel," Carpe Diem, December 24, 2012.

11. Kevin Carey, "Never Pay Sticker Price for a Textbook Again," Slate, December 20, 2012.

12. This technology is also called intelligent tutoring systems. For an introduction, see the ELI publications "7 Things You Should Know About Intelligent Tutoring Systems," July 9, 2013, and "7 Things You Should Read About Intelligent Tutoring," April 1, 2014.

13. Tyton Partners, "Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape," April 2013.

14. For a contextualized look at adaptive learning, see the case study concerning Essex Community College's use of this technology in its mathematics curriculum.

15. Paul Fain, "Gates Foundation Helps Colleges Keep Tabs on Adaptive Learning Technology," Inside Higher Ed, April 4, 2013; Roger Riddell, "Adaptive Learning: The Best Approaches We've Seen So Far," Education Dive, October 31, 2013.

16. Mark Valenti, "Beyond Active Learning: Transformation of the Learning Space," EDUCAUSE Review 50, no. 4 (July/August 2015).

17. See the ELI publications "7 Things You Should Know About Makerspaces," April 9, 2013, and "7 Things You Should Read About Makerspaces," October 25, 2013.

18. Two useful examples of makerspaces include the makerspace at the North Carolina State University Hunt Library and Case Western Reserve University's think[box].

19. The Learning Space Rating System, an ELI initiative, provides a set of measurable criteria to assess how well the design of classrooms is supporting and enabling active learning activities.

20. Torin Monahan, "Flexible Space and Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments," Inventio 4, no. 1 (2002).

21. Eden Dahlstrom, D. Christopher Brooks, and Jacqueline Bichsel, The Current Ecosystem of Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives, research report (Louisville, CO: ECAR, September 2014), 4, 10.

22. Ibid., 6. For a useful summary of the current LMS market in higher education, see Phil Hill, "State of the US Higher Education LMS Market: 2014 Edition," e-Literate, October 22, 2014.

23. Malcolm Brown, Joanne Dehoney, and Nancy Millichap, "What's Next for the LMS?" EDUCAUSE Review 50, no. 4 (July/August 2015).

24. Ronald Yanosky, Integrated Planning and Advising Services: A Benchmarking Study, research report (Louisville, CO: ECAR, March 2014), 3-4.

25. Ibid., 10, 7.

26. Ibid., 42.

27. Alfredo de los Santos Jr. and Irene Wright, "Maricopa's Swirling Students: Earning One-Third of Arizona State's Bachelor's Degrees," Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal 60, no. 6 (June/July 1990); National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, "Transfer and Mobility: A National View of Pre-Degree Student Movement in Postsecondary Institutions," February 2012 (at the time the report was published, 24 percent of students had changed schools more than once).

28. See the description of this accelerated track on the NYU School of Medicine website. For some reservations about this approach, see Stanley Goldfarb and Gail Morrison, "The 3-Year Medical School-Change or Shortchange?" New England Journal of Medicine, September 19, 2013.

29. A prominent example is College for America at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU).

EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 50, no. 4 (July/August 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
six trajectories for digital technology in higher education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six individual trajectories of digital technology are enabling the ambitious goal of a responsive, personalized digital learning environment for higher education. Malcolm Brown is Director of the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI). "We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future."

# data[].attributes.headline
UK GOV - Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a route to Excellence

# data[].attributes.subject
UK GOV - Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a route to Excellence

# data[].attributes.headline
 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

# data[].attributes.subject
 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E-learning Accessibility - Research and Development Working Group Wiki

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
E-learning accessibility involves different technologies and standards. First of all, both the e-learning content and the e-learning platform should be accessible, in order to be effective. Several standards have been defined to provide an accessible e-elearning. This page aims to describe such standards, how existing e-learning platforms and technologies are compliant with them and how they apply accessible funcionalities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glossary - Digital Accessibility - University of Southampton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glossary of digital accessibility related terminology

# data[].attributes.headline
The Social Model of Disability - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
The Social Model of Disability - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the social model of disability? - Scope video

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment -  University of Plymouth 

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment -  University of Plymouth 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Remember, it's likely that there'll be students with a range of disabilities and conditions (disclosed and undisclosed) of different genders, ages and religions.

Accessibility of resources

Materials available prior to teaching sessions: all students, including those with a modified assessment provision, benefit from being able to access teaching materials in advance of a session. The Teaching and Learning Committee (May 2008 and reviewed in January 2014) agreed that materials should be made available electronically at a minimum of 48 hours in advance of a session. The minimum standard to be adopted includes the following:

The outline and scope of a session

Preparatory reading

Key teaching materials e.g. PowerPoint presentations, support documentation, podcasts etc. should be uploaded in advance of the teaching session

This should be available a minimum of 48 hours before the teaching session, but a period of 7 days before the teaching session is recommended

All teaching materials must conform to the University's guidance on copyright and intellectual property rights

You can achieve this by posting materials for sessions on the DLE. We know that in some circumstances it may not be possible to provide all materials in advance and academic staff may use their professional judgement; however this needs to be weighed against our obligation under the Equalities Act (2010) to make reasonable adjustments to prevent unfair treatment and to achieve equal opportunities for all our students.

Research has shown that posting of lecture materials in advance of the lecture does not have an impact on attendance. To view Babb & Ross (2009), go to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131508002029. Their findings suggest that attendance and participation are both improved by having slides available to students before classes.

By providing materials in advance of your teaching sessions, you'll help cater to individual working styles. You should also consider how you present your information e.g. the style of paper you're using, font and clarity of text.

Students with a Student Support Document will be able to record lectures and they'll sign a copyright declaration as part of their enrolment process.

Inclusive teaching environments and method

Some conditions are variable and can be affected by the time of day, medication or temperature; this may occasionally result in absences.

Any comments or questions from the group should be repeated by the tutor so that no information is missed.

Try and face the class as much as possible and avoid turning away to write while speaking.

Use microphones in lecture theatres wherever possible as Loop systems (for hearing impaired students) are dependent on this.

Verbalise any information you write, draw or show your class.

Write new terminology or unfamiliar names on the board.

Be mindful that some students may need to go out or have a break during sessions.

Encourage ground rules e.g. only one person can speak at a time.

Where possible give lists of specialist words with meanings.

Group work

Working well within a group is considered a key graduate skill but it's one that many students can find difficult to master. The following points can help make this learning process easier:

Encourage group members to be open about any disabilities or specific learning difficulties they have and the implications that these may have for their group work.

Group arrangements sometimes require formal allocation to ensure that students don't get left out.

Some groups may also need assistance with the allocation of roles.

Some groups may require a higher degree of informal supervision than others.

Suggest having a clear point of contact throughout the tasks, and a process for students to discuss concerns relating to disability and the group work.

Presentations

Please be mindful that some students may need reasonable adjustments due to a disability, providing the learning outcomes can be maintained.

Consider the environment that the student is presenting in, particularly for students with hearing impairments, visual impairments, speech and language difficulties or social phobias. An example of a reasonable adjustment would be to allow a student to present to a smaller group or solely to the tutor(s) involved.

Placements

If you're a placement tutor, you should have a pre-placement discussion with your students regarding placement issues e.g. location, accessibility, health and safety and other reasonable adjustments.

Placement tutors, staff and students can also liaise with Disability Services for further advice, information and guidance if needed.

Occasionally an enabler may be required to support a student on a placement. The placement tutor should liaise with Disability Services at an early stage to ensure appropriate support can be arranged.

Fieldwork and off campus activities

As a module leader you should discuss fieldwork content and off campus activities with students to establish any support requirements, if an enabler is needed, appropriate transport and health and safety.

Module leaders can then liaise with Disability Services if appropriate.

Enabling and study skills support

Some students may be receiving support which can include enabling (note taking, mentoring etc), learning support and communication support workers. Take a look at the University's enabling guidelines to find out more.

Modified assessment provision - for exams and in-class tests

Some students are recommended assessment provisions such as additional time or use of a smaller or separate room. These provisions are detailed on their Student Support Document as well as being recorded on Unit-E.

For in-class assessments, students can expect modified assessment provision (such as extra time) in line with those recommended in formal examination. However there may be some in-class assessments and environments where these modifications may not be appropriate or necessary. The module leader should discuss the format or style of the in-class assessment with the student in order to determine appropriate provision in good time. Please note that responsibility for modified in-class assessments rests with the department (module leader) concerned.

Workshops, labs and studios

We recommend that you consider any health and safety requirements.

Please be mindful that some students may need reasonable adjustments due to a disability, providing the learning outcomes can be maintained.

Some students may require consideration regarding seating e.g. requiring a specific seat in a lab which is close to an exit or in a quieter area.

Some students may require additional space to work or an extra seat for an enabler.

Alternative assessment

Due to their disability, some students may be unable to complete standard assessments. In these cases an alternative assessment is usually explored through the case conference process.

Know your University

Know what other information, advice and guidance is available to support your students, such as counselling, Library Special Support Services, SU Advice and Welfare, Chaplaincy, Disability Services and Learning Development.

Students who have a Student Support Document will be contacted by Library Special Support Services to discuss the support that they can offer.

More specific information about teaching requirements will be linked to the Student Support Document.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating an inclusive learning environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remember, it's likely that there'll be students with a range of disabilities and conditions (disclosed and undisclosed) of different genders, ages and religions. Materials available prior to teaching sessions: all students, including those with a modified assessment provision, benefit from being able to access teaching materials in advance of a session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A learner has special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability which requires special educational provision.

In order to support learners and meet their needs, you must have some understanding of the difficulties they face. In this guide we outline different needs and consider:

How users can understand and meet their own needs

How tutors can appreciate learner needs

The range of adjustments that could make a difference for the learner, and the benefits and barriers associated with those adjustments

The importance of joined up policies and procedures which support individual user needs.

While learners should always be consulted on how best to meet their needs, it is wrong to assume that they are aware of all the possibilities available to them.

Accessible teaching

There are some general recommendations that will help all learners, but particularly those with disabilities. These include:

A clear outline of each lesson

Clear, unambiguous language

Information in a variety of forms

Repetition

Signpost changes to:

Routines

Class or group work

New or additional content

New language or concepts.

Learning technology

A well developed virtual learning environment () can provide a substantial framework to support teaching, learning and assessment. It allows learners to access or revisit learning sessions, materials and resources at a time that they choose.

Interactive whiteboards allow learners to contribute to lessons providing relevance and authenticity. Learners can revisit captured lessons or lectures and staff can review the session or provide staff development and quality assurance. Enabling learners to revisit the whiteboard content may help them to understand the lesson objectives that may not have been clear within the live session.

There are benefits for all learners in creating and developing accessible content. Installing and supporting content creation tools like Xerte Online Toolkits allow tutors to create visually rich and stimulating learning resources.

Technology provides opportunities for communication, collaboration and sharing that enable the leaners to participate in their learning rather than simply receive it. Enabling staff to use collaborative applications proficiently and well is crucial to providing this essential aspect of learning.

Using their own devices will allow students to access rich content or use it to provide evidence in the form of audio, photos or video.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meeting the requirements of learners with special educational needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A guide to understanding the difficulties faced by learners with varying disabilities and how you and your organisation can support them.