ERIC EJ1026882: University Faculty Attitudes toward Disability and Inclusive Instruction: Comparing Two Institutions

2013·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 221 - 232 221
University Faculty Attitudes Toward Disability and
Inclusive Instruction: Comparing Two Institutions
Allison Lombardi
University of Connecticut
Christopher Murray
University of Oregon
Bryan Dallas
Northern Illinois University
Abstract
It is increasingly important for postsecondary disability services personnel to provide targeted disability-related
training to faculty rather than support college students with disabilities on a case-by-case basis. In this study, we
examined faculty attitudes toward disability-related topics and inclusive teaching practices at two public four-year
institutions using the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI). Findings suggest that malleable factors such
as training opportunities positively affect faculty attitudes toward disability and inclusive instruction based on the
tenets of Universal Design. Implications for practice specifically related to disability services personnel and faculty
outreach strategies are discussed.
Keywords: Universal design, college faculty, college students with disabilities, college teaching, diversity, climate
assessment, professional development
Today, students with disabilities comprise approxi- for student participation and success without extensive
mately 11% of the overall college student population individualized accommodations and support. The
(Horn, Peter, Rooney, & Malizio, 2002; Newman, various UD frameworks, such as Universal Design for
Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009; Raue & Lewis, Assessment ([UDA]; Thompson, Johnstone, & Thur-
2011). As this population continues to expand on most low, 2002), Universal Design for Instruction ([UDI];
college campuses, disability is a growing facet of diver- Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003), and Universal Design
sity in higher education (Stodden, Brown, & Roberts, for Learning ([UDL]; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley,
2011). The majority of students with disabilities in & Abarbanell, 2006), promote faculty use of inclusive
postsecondary schools have learning disabilities (LD), instructional practices. Therefore, many DS providers
Attention Defi cit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and are redefi ning their roles to help faculty take respon-
mental health disorders (Raue & Lewis, 2011). These sibility for supporting the learning needs of students
“nonvisible” disabilities typically require adaptations with disabilities (Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 2000).
in instruction, course content delivery, and assessment. Thus, postsecondary DS providers face challenges
As such, college faculty face new challenges in plan- in providing direct support to faculty to proactively
ning for, delivering, and evaluating instruction. support the learning needs of college students with
Historically, university faculty have relied on dis- disabilities particularly in the areas of (a) knowledge
ability services (DS) personnel for supporting students of disability-related laws and processes (e.g., accom-
with disabilities. However, funding for DS on most modations) and (b) inclusive and accessible teaching
campuses has not kept pace with the rapid expansion of practices (e.g., UD).
this population of students. Moreover, new innovations Recent evidence suggests that college faculty and
such as Universal Design (UD) provide opportunities teaching assistants place a high value on training that
222 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3)
focuses on inclusive instruction. In fact, Izzo, Murray, 1,621 faculty and 19,817 students. Overall, 78.2% of
and Novak (2008) found that faculty rated UDL as the faculty were white, 11.8% were Asian/Pacifi c Islander,
most needed training topic. Other fi ndings suggest that 3% were Hispanic, 6.1% were African American, 0.3%
faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities and were Native American, and 0.6% were two or more
the provision of accommodations can be improved by races. There were more male (56%) than female (44%)
providing faculty with disability-related training based faculty. The student population was 64.5% white, 2.1%
on UD principles (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Murray, Asian/Pacifi c Islander, 4.6% Hispanic, 18.6% African
Lombardi, Wren & Keys, 2009; Murray, Lombardi, American, 0.4% Native American, 2.2% two or more
& Wren, 2010; Park, Roberts, & Stodden, 2012). races, 6.7% International, and 0.8% did not disclose
However, despite the positive benefits associated race or ethnicity.
with faculty training in UD principles, recent fi ndings At the time of the study, there were more male (54%)
indicate that most postsecondary institutions devote than female (46%) students. The DS offi ce served 457
limited resources to faculty training in this area (Raue students (approximately 2.3% of the overall student
& Lewis, 2011). population). Of the students with disabilities, 45% were
The current study was designed to develop further diagnosed with either a learning disability (LD) or At-
understanding about disability-related training and fac- tention Defi cit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 14.6%
ulty-reported use of inclusive instructional practices. with a psychological disorder, 13.8% with a mobility
Faculty attitudes were assessed using a “climate assess- impairment, 4.6% with a visual impairment, 3.7% with
ment” approach (Stodden, et al., 2011) to gain a greater a brain injury, 3.5% with a hearing impairment, and 8%
understanding of the quality of university life for stu- were diagnosed with either a chronic health, speech/
dents with disabilities. The survey was administered to language impairment, or “other” condition.
faculty at two different institutions and included items University 1 had “typical” or business-as-usual
that assessed prior participation in training, type of processes in place in regards to supporting students
training, along with items that assessed the provision with disabilities. The DS offi ce contacted faculty
of inclusive teaching practices including the provision through departmental memorandums to inform them
of accommodations, knowledge of disability law, ac- of procedural changes in the test accommodations pro-
cessible course materials, inclusive lecture strategies, cess. New faculty were provided training on mandated
inclusive classroom, inclusive assessment, and course accommodations by an Americans with Disabilities Act
modifi cations. We anticipated that prior participation (ADA) compliance offi cer. The DS offi ce routinely of-
in disability training would be associated with faculty fered training with new teaching assistants on the aca-
attitudes towards inclusive instruction at two universi- demic accommodations process. These topics and other
ties, and we also expected training type (e.g., more or resources were made available on the DS website under
less intensive) would be differentially associated with a specifi c “For Faculty” link. The website included
faculty attitudes. Finally, due to differences in funding UD information and procedural information regarding
faculty outreach initiatives, we anticipated possible the provision of accommodations. Lastly, at Univer-
differences due to institutional context. sity 1, all faculty were invited to attend a 90-minute
workshop that provided an introduction to Universal
Methods Design methods used in instruction. Approximately
30 faculty members attended the workshop and lunch
Participants was provided for all attendees.
This study was conducted at two four-year univer- Twenty-four percent (n = 381) of faculty at Uni-
sities. University 1 is a medium-sized, public Midwest- versity 1 responded to our survey. The study sample
ern university that has a long history of inclusion. The refl ected the population and included 203 males (53%),
institution admitted students with physical disabilities 156 females (41%) and 22 declined to report (6%).
prior to the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 78.7% of respondents were white, 6.3% were Asian/
Act of 1973. The university has a nationally recognized Pacifi c Islander (4%), 2.5% reported 2 or more races,
Rehabilitation Institute with many academic programs 2.4% were Hispanic, 0.5% were American Indian/
that aim to better the lives of individuals with disabili- Alaskan Native, and 6% declined to report race.
ties. At the time of data collection, the University had
Lombardi, Murray, & Dallas; Comparing Two Institutions on Inclusive Instruction 223
University 2 is a medium-sized, public institution large number of faculty would become more informed
located in the Pacifi c Northwest. At the time of the about disability-related topics.
study, there were approximately 21,000 students and Second, researchers and DS staff collaborated
approximately 1,200 tenure-line and instructional in writing regular issues of an e-newsletter. These
faculty. Overall, 82% of faculty were white, 7% were newsletters were emailed to all faculty and staff at the
Asian/Pacifi c Islander, 3% were Hispanic, 1% was university. There were six issues per academic year,
African American, 1% was Native American, and and each issue focused on a specifi c topic area. Some
1% was Multi-ethnic. Approximately 4% declined to examples of e-newsletter topics are procedural infor-
report racial identity, and there are slightly more male mation from the DS offi ce in terms of accommodations,
(54%) than female (46%) faculty. At the time of study, assistive technology, inclusive strategies for planning
there were 765 graduate and undergraduate students and delivering instruction, inclusive assessment strate-
with disabilities (approximately 4% of the student gies, and disability-related laws and concepts. Third,
population). At this university, the majority (70%) of the DS offi ce was “rebranded” with a new name- the
students with disabilities were diagnosed with either a Accessible Education Center- and a new website that
LD or ADHD, 10% were diagnosed with a psychologi- was completely overhauled to be more user-friendly
cal disorder, and the remaining 20% were diagnosed and features an extensive faculty resource section.
with another disability type, such as mobility, hearing, At University 2, the survey was administered to
visual, speech impairments, health disability, brain 1,011 tenure-line and instructional faculty. From this
injury, or seizure disorder. This distribution refl ects population we received responses from 23% of the
national trends that show the fastest growing subgroup target population (n = 231). The study sample included
of college students with disabilities are those with LD 115 males (49.7%) and 116 females (50.3%). Consis-
or ADHD (Wolanin & Steele, 2004). tent with the overall demographics of the university,
At the time of this study, University 2 was in the 86% of respondents were white, 4% were Asian Ameri-
process of implementing new resources for teaching can (4%), 3% reported Multiple Races, 2% were Latino
faculty. These resources were meant to support fac- less than 1% were American Indian/Alaskan Native,
ulty in teaching students with disabilities, emphasized and 5% declined to report race.
inclusive instructional practices, and were delivered in Thus, during the time of the current study, both uni-
three forms: (1) workshops, (2) print resources deliv- versities were in the process of implementing faculty
ered online as e-newsletters, and (3) website resources. outreach programs. Inclusive instruction based on UD
The funding source behind these initiatives was the was at the forefront of these initiatives. University 1
U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Postsecondary was not funded for specifi c targeted outreach to faculty,
Education’s Demonstration Projects to Ensure Quality while University 2 was funded through the Offi ce of
Higher Education for Students with Disabilities. Postsecondary Education.
First, faculty were invited to attend an intense
four-day workshop in the summer. The workshop Measure
content focused on disability defi nitions, legal obli- The Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI)
gations, providing accommodations, promotion of was administered at both universities. The ITSI mea-
inclusive strategies in the planning for and delivery sures seven constructs in the broad areas of disability-
of instruction, as well as alternate, inclusive strate- related knowledge and laws, and inclusive instructional
gies for assessing student knowledge and acquisition practices based on the tenets of Universal Design
of course content. Sixty-fi ve faculty participated in across several frameworks. These constructs are: (a)
these workshops over a three-year period and were Accommodations, (b) Accessible Course Materials, (c)
compensated for their time. In addition to attending Course Modifi cations, (d) Inclusive Lecture Strategies,
the 4-day summer institute, these participants were (e) Inclusive Classroom, (f) Inclusive Assessment,
asked to disseminate the workshop content to their and (g) Disability Laws and Concepts. The ITSI has
colleagues in their respective departments. Participants undergone multiple development phases and valida-
were given resources specifi cally for the purpose of dis- tion studies (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lombardi,
semination. Essentially, this was a “train-the-trainer” Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). In the most recent phase,
approach to changing the university culture so that a fi ndings from a crossvalidation study using exploratory
224 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3)
and confi rmatory factor analysis confi rmed this seven- ther, we include items about students with disabilities
factor structure (Lombardi & Sala-Bars, 2013). Each and any students on this subscale because we anticipate
item begins with the stem “I believe it’s important to”. that if faculty are fl exible in these areas, they tend to be
The response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) fl exible for students regardless of whether they have a
to 6 (strongly agree). disability. While these modifi cations may not always
The fi rst subscale, Accommodations, contains be appropriate, we believe it is important to measure
eight items specifi c to accommodations requests from the willingness of faculty to provide these types of
students (e.g., “make individual accommodations for modifi cations for students with and without disabilities.
students who have disclosed their disability to me). By measuring this willingness, DS providers can get
The second subscale, Disability Law and Concepts, a better sense for areas where faculty may be more or
contains six items that relate to knowledge of Section less fl exible with course requirements.
504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Reliability of the ITSI subscales was examined
Disabilities Act, as well as understanding of the terms with Cronbach’s alpha. These values ranged from .70
“disability” and “Universal Design”. The third sub- to .87. All values met acceptable criteria for internal
scale, Accessible Course Materials, contains four items consistency, with four of the seven subscales meeting
relevant to use of a course website, posting electronic preferable criteria of .80 or greater (Nunnally, 1975).
course materials, and allowing students to submit as- Alpha values for each subscale, in descending order,
signments in electronic formats. were as follows: Disability Law and Concepts ( =
The fourth subscale, Inclusive Lecture Strategies, .87), Accommodations ( = .85), Inclusive Classroom
contains four items that measure teaching strategies ( = .84), Inclusive Lecture Strategies ( = .80), Course
specifi c to a typical postsecondary lecture-style class, Modifi cations ( = .76), Inclusive Assessment ( = .71),
including simple strategies faculty may utilize to as- and Accessible Course Materials ( = .70).
sess student comprehension such as repeating student Along with the survey, faculty were asked to report
questions to the class before answering and periodi- prior disability-related experience. Prior disability-
cally summarizing key points throughout the lecture. related experience was measured with two variables:
The fi fth subscale, Inclusive Classroom, contains nine prior training (yes/no) and type of training, which
items related to presentation of course content with a included more intensive training opportunities (work-
particular emphasis on fl exibility, use of technology, shops and courses) and less intensive opportunities
and various instructional formats (e.g., small group (read articles or books, visited websites).
work, peer-assisted learning, and hand-on activities).
This subscale also includes items that measure willing- Procedures
ness to make announcements in class or include written At University 1, faculty were emailed the survey
statements in the course syllabus that encourage stu- during the Fall 2011 semester. The email contained the
dents to disclose a disability or any barriers to learning purpose of the study, an informed consent statement, a
they anticipate they might have. The sixth subscale, link to the survey, and a link to “opt-out” of the survey.
Inclusive Assessment, contains four items pertaining No incentives were offered or provided in this study.
to fl exible response options on exams, non-traditional Non-respondents were contacted with email reminders
exams, and fl exibility with deadlines. an additional three separate times over a six-week pe-
The seventh subscale, Course Modifications, riod during the semester. A memorandum regarding the
contains 4 items related to major changes in course availability to participate in the study was also handed
assignments or requirements for students with and out at one faculty senate meeting and individuals that
without disabilities (e.g., “allow a student with a took a copy were asked to relay the information to their
documented disability to complete extra credit assign- department’s faculty members.
ments” and “allow any student to complete extra credit At University 2, an email list of 1,011 faculty was
assignments”). These are called modifi cations because obtained from the Offi ce of Institutional Research on
they are not typical accommodations that faculty are campus. During the Spring of 2011, all full-time teach-
required to provide, and in some cases faculty might ing faculty received a recruitment email that described
see these changes as going above and beyond what they the research project and a link to the online ITSI. Partici-
ought to do to support students with disabilities. Fur- pants were asked to complete the survey on a voluntary
Lombardi, Murray, & Dallas; Comparing Two Institutions on Inclusive Instruction 225
basis and were offered a $5 coupon to a campus café was agree to strongly agree in rating the importance
regardless of whether they completed the survey. Prior of using inclusive lecture strategies, such as repeating
to participating in the survey, participants completed an student questions to the class before answering and
online consent form. If participants did not consent, they periodically summarizing key points throughout the
were not able to advance to the survey. Following the lecture. There were four subscales with overall mean
initial contact, three additional follow-up requests were scores between somewhat agree and agree, which were
sent spaced approximately two weeks apart. Inclusive Assessment, Inclusive Classroom, and Ac-
cessible Course Materials. Overall, the mean score for
Data Analysis Disability Law and Concepts fell between somewhat
Analyses were designed to evaluate associations disagree and somewhat agree, indicating some faculty
between participation in prior training, training in- still are unsure of legal mandates around disability in
tensity, and the implementation of inclusive teaching higher education.
practices. Although we were primarily interested in Mean subscale scores by institution, gender, and
training as potential infl uence on faculty attitudes prior training were compared. A trend level analysis
toward inclusive instruction, prior research suggests shows at both institutions, females with prior disability-
that faculty gender is often related to faculty attitudes related training scored the highest on Accommoda-
about students with disabilities (Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, tions, Disability Law and Concepts, Inclusive Lecture
& Brulle, 1998; Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lombardi, Strategies, and Inclusive Classroom. On two other
Murray, & Gerdes 2011, Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008; subscales, Accessible Course Materials and Inclusive
Skinner, 2007). Therefore, in our analyses we exam- Assessment, males with prior training scored highest at
ined gender differences toward disability-related topics University 1 whereas females with prior training scored
and inclusive instruction. To examine the infl uence of the highest at University 2. In fact, faculty with prior
institutional context on faculty attitudes, we compared training, regardless of gender and university, scored
the descriptive statistics of compared subgroup scores higher on all ITSI subscales.
according to gender and prior training. Also, we con- Of those faculty who self-reported they received
ducted hierarchical regression models to determine prior training, we examined type of training. For these
whether these demographic characteristics and self- comparisons, we selected variables from the set of
reported training opportunities positively infl uenced items on prior training in the survey. We coded these
faculty attitudes pertaining to (a) Accommodations, variables as more intensive training opportunities
(b) Accessible Course Materials, (c) Course Modifi - (workshops and courses) and less intensive training
cations, (d) Inclusive Lecture Strategies, (e) Inclusive opportunities (read articles or books, visited websites).
Classroom (f) Inclusive Assessment, and (g) Disability Table 2 shows the frequency of responses for more
Laws and Concepts. We selected hierarchical multiple and less intensive training opportunities by gender and
regression in order to control for the effects of gender university. Respondents were coded as “yes” if they
and isolate the unique variance associated with institu- selected at least one type of training opportunity. For
tional factors that pertain to training opportunities. example, if a faculty member reported they read a dis-
ability-related article, this response was coded as a “yes”
Results under the less intensive training category. For more and
less intensive training opportunities, roughly one quarter
Descriptive Statistics of faculty in both university samples reported “yes”.
First, we examined mean subscale scores by This fi nding suggests there is no striking difference
institution, gender, and prior training (See Table 1). between more and less intensive training opportunities
Overall, mean scores ranged across the ITSI subscales and faculty willingness to participate. In other words,
from 2.70 (Course Modifi cations) to 5.16 (Inclusive whether a workshop or online article is offered, faculty
Lecture Strategies). Thus, the mean response of all are not necessarily more or less likely to participate.
faculty in our sample indicated they disagree to some- Thus, it is especially important for DS personnel to of-
what disagree with providing extra credit opportuni- fer a range of training opportunities that are fl exible to
ties to reducing the reading load for students with and meet the various needs of faculty schedules.
without disabilities. The overall faculty mean response
226 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3)
Table 1
Itsi Subscale Mean Scores by Gender and Prior Training Experience
n ACC DLC ACM ILS IC IA CM
University 1 381 4.79 3.85 4.65 5.17 4.63 3.83 2.67
(.90) (1.12) (1.06) (.72) (.87) (1.11) (1.08)
Females with training 55 5.13 4.83 4.65 5.36 5.09 4.12 2.90
(16%) (.76) (.93) (1.16) (.73) (.68) (.99) (1.08)
Females without training 85 4.63 3.64 4.41 5.14 4.55 3.78 2.60
(25%) (.88) (1.06) (1.11) (.78) (.78) (1.16) (1.00)
Males with training 50 5.03 4.57 4.93 5.23 4.90 4.16 3.03
(15%) (.82) (.95) (.95) (.60) (.73) (.92) (1.02)
Males without training 145 4.65 3.37 4.75 5.09 4.46 3.68 2.56
(43%) (.95) (.97) (.95) (.73) (.94) (1.11) (1.14)
University 2 231 5.01 3.81 4.81 5.14 4.28 4.22 2.72
(.74) (1.06) (.81) (.73) (.65) (.99) (.99)
Females with training 55 5.35 4.38 5.18 5.47 4.70 4.66 2.91
(24%) (.66) (.83) (.68) (.52) (.45) (.89) (.90)
Females without training 60 4.93 3.46 4.63 5.18 4.26 4.17 2.77
(26%) (.80) (.84) (.77) (.62) (.50) (.91) (.91)
Males with training 37 5.00 4.09 4.65 5.10 4.31 4.19 2.47
(16%) (.57) (.73) (.94) (.65) (.60) (.92) (.92)
Males without training 78 4.84 3.40 4.74 4.91 3.97 3.95 2.64
(34%) (.76) (.94) (.78) (.87) (.72) (1.05) (1.12)
Overall 565 4.87 3.82 4.72 5.16 4.50 4.00 2.70
(.85) (1.07) (.95) (.73) (.80) (1.07) (1.05)
Note. ACC= Accommodations, DLC= Disability Law and Concepts, ACM= Accessible Course Materials, ILS=
Inclusive Lecture Strategies, IC= Inclusive Classroom, IA= inclusive Assessment, CM= Course Modifi cations.
Standard deviation in parenthesis (SD)
Lombardi, Murray, & Dallas; Comparing Two Institutions on Inclusive Instruction 227
Table 2
The Number of More and Less Intensive Training Opportunities by University
University 1 University 2
More Intense Training
Yes 91 (26%) 73 (32%)
No 264 (74%) 158 (68%)
Less Intense Training
Yes 74 (21%) 67 (29%)
No 281 (79%) 164 (71%)
Predictors of Faculty Attitudes = .10, p < .05), institution (β = -.09, p < .05), and prior
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted training (β = .35, p < .05) made unique contributions
to evaluate the extent to which faculty gender and prior to this equation. After controlling for gender, institu-
training experiences predicted their attitudes toward tional factors (step 2) contributed approximately 24%
disability and inclusive instruction as measured by of the variance to the equation, Δ R2 = .239, F(4, 559)
the seven ITSI subscales. For these analyses, sub- = 38.97 p < .001. Of the institutional factors, institu-
scale scores were regressed on gender at step 1 and tion (β = -.09, p < .05), and prior training (β = .35, p <
institutional factors at step 2. We constructed our .05) both made unique contributions to the equation.
regression models in this way so that we could isolate These fi ndings suggest that training opportunities, if
the unique variance associated with gender and specifi c taken advantage of, could play a signifi cant role in
contextual factors such as institution, whether or not infl uencing faculty attitudes regarding disability law
they had received disability-related training, and type and concepts regardless of gender.
of training (see Table 3). Moving to the fi fth equation in Table 3, Inclusive
The fi rst equation presented in Table 3 shows the Classroom, the combination of gender and institutional
associations between predictor variables and the provi- factors accounted for approximately 18% of the vari-
sion of Accommodations. The full model accounted ance in scores R2 = .18, F(5, 559) = 19.61, p < .001.
for approximately 9% of the variance in faculty percep- The standardized beta weights showed gender (β =
tions of accommodations, R2 = .09, F(5, 559) = 10.78, .13, p < .05), institution (β = -.26, p < .05), and prior
p < .001. An examination of the standardized beta training (β = .25, p < .05) made unique contributions
weights indicates that institution (β = .11, p < .05), and to the equation. After controlling for gender, institu-
receiving less intensive training (β = .17, p < .05) were tional factors (step 2) contributed approximately 15%
the only variables that made unique contributions to of the variance to the equation, ΔR2 = .149, F(4, 559)
the equation. Essentially, these fi ndings suggest that = 20.82, p < .001. These fi ndings suggest that insti-
faculty at University 2 reported greater willingness to tutional factors play a signifi cant role in infl uencing
provide accommodations than faculty at University 1. faculty attitudes regarding inclusive classroom factors
Also, faculty who had received less intensive training regardless of gender.
(e.g., read books, visited websites) were more willing Finally, the overall combination of gender and
to provide accommodations to students than faculty institutional factors accounted for 11% of the vari-
who reported they received no prior training. ance in the sixth equation, Inclusive Assessment, R2
The second equation presented in Table 3 is Dis- = .11, F(5, 559) = 10.21, p < .001. After controlling
ability Law and Concepts. The combination of gender for gender, institutional factors (step 2) contributed
and institutional factors accounted for approximately approximately 9% of the variance to the equation,
27% of the variance in Disability Law and Concepts ΔR2 = .09, F(4, 559) = 16.78, p < .001. As with the
scores R2 = .27, F(5, 559) = 35.19, p < .001. Gender (β Inclusive Classroom scores, these fi ndings for Inclusive
228 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3)
*AN H T
p < .05. **CM= Accote. Stand Total R2 trainingintensive Less trainingintensive More training Prior Institution infl uencesContextuaStep 2: Gender Step 1: Block ierarchica able 3
p <essard l l R
.001.ible Courseized beta w .09** .08** .01* ΔR2 1. AC egression M
Materieights a .17* .08 .03 .11* .04 β C odel R
ar e
ls, ILS= Ine shown w .27** .24** .03* ΔR2 2. D sults and S
ch L t
lusiveen all .07 .08 .35** -.09* .10* β C andar
Lecture Stra variables we .03* .02* .01 ΔR2 3. A dized Beta W
tr C e
ee i
gies, IC= included .08 -.02 .07 .06 -.07 β M ghts for I
In in TS
clusive Classro the equation. A .05 .03 -.06 .16* -.04 .03 .12* .02* ΔRβ2 4. ILS I Subscales
oC
m
C
, IA= in= Acco .18** .15** .03* ΔR2 5
clumm . IC
sive Assodation .02 .01 .25** -.26** .13* β
es
ssment, DLC= .11** .09** .02* ΔR2
, CM Dis 6. IA
= Couability .15* .05 .03 .15** .07 β
rs L
ea
Mw
odifi ca and Co .02 .01 .01 ΔR2 7. C
tionc M
ns.epts .09 -.01 .04 -.01 .04 β
,
Lombardi, Murray, & Dallas; Comparing Two Institutions on Inclusive Instruction 229
Assessment suggest that institutional factors play a ters, website) regarding academic accommodations and
signifi cant role in infl uencing faculty attitudes. The UD considerations as well as grant funding to provide
standardized beta weights showed institution (β = .15, fi nancial incentives for many faculty to participate. In
p < .05), and less intensive training (β = .15, p < .05) comparison, University 1 provided business-as-usual
contributed signifi cant unique variance to the equa- services to students with disabilities through the DS
tion. Thus, faculty at University 2 were more likely offi ce, and provided online resources to faculty that
to positively endorse inclusive assessment practices, included UD-related topics.
and faculty who reported reading books and websites We were particularly interested to learn about the
on disability-related topics scored signifi cantly higher role of gender and institutional factors in predicting
on Inclusive Assessment. faculty attitudes given mixed fi ndings in the current
In summary, gender, institution, and prior train- literature (Leyser, et al., 1998; Lombardi & Murray,
ing contributed unique variance in three of the seven 2011; Lombardi, et al., 2011; Murray et al., 2008;
models. After controlling for gender, the institutional Skinner, 2007; Zhang, et al., 2010). To summarize our
factors at step 2 contributed signifi cant variance to the fi ndings, females with prior disability-related training
equation in fi ve of the seven models, which were for scored the highest on Accommodations, Disability
the ITSI subscales Accommodations [ΔR2 = .082, F(4, Law and Concepts, Inclusive Lecture Strategies, and
559) = 12.13, p < .001], Disability Law and Concepts Inclusive Classroom. On two other subscales, Ac-
[ΔR2 = .239, F(4, 559) = 38.97, p < .001], Accessible cessible Course Materials and Inclusive Assessment,
Course Materials [ΔR2 = .022, F(4, 559) = 2.92, p < males with prior training scored highest at University 1
.001], Inclusive Classroom [ΔR2 = .149, F(4, 559) = whereas females with prior training scored the highest
20.82, p < .001], and Inclusive Assessment [ΔR2 = at University 2. Faculty with prior training, regardless
.088, F(4, 559) = 10.79, p < .001]. Finally, the less of gender and university, scored higher on all ITSI
intensive training predictor added signifi cant unique subscales. These fi ndings confi rm the importance of
variance to two of the seven models, which were for training opportunities for college faculty in increasing
the subscales Accommodations (β = .17, p < .05) and awareness and support to students with disabilities.
Inclusive Assessment (β = .15, p < .05). These fi ndings While gender also played a role in shaping these at-
suggest that training opportunities at both institutions titudes, males with prior training opportunities scored
positively impacted faculty regardless of gender. highest on two of the inclusive instruction constructs.
The combination of gender and institutional factors These results suggest that regardless of gender, training
did not account for signifi cant variance in the third equa- is most crucial in infl uencing faculty attitudes.
tion, Accessible Course Materials, the fourth equation, The regression model results further confi rmed the
Inclusive Lecture Strategies, and the seventh equation, importance of training opportunities at both institutions.
Course Modifi cations. These fi ndings suggest there are Institutional factors were modeled at step 2 in order to
other factors that explain faculty attitudes in these areas examine the cumulative variance separate from gender
that were outside the scope of this study. to better understand what malleable factors could mean-
ingfully infl uence faculty attitudes toward disability and
Discussion inclusive instruction. The institutional factors contrib-
uted signifi cantly to fi ve of the seven models, which
The purpose of this study was to assess faculty were for the ITSI subscales Accommodations, Disability
attitudes toward disability-related topics and inclusive Law and Concepts, Accessible Course Materials, Inclu-
instruction at two universities. In both settings we used sive Classroom, and Inclusive Assessment. Essentially,
the same measure, the Inclusive Teaching Strategies In- these fi ndings suggest faculty attitudes in these areas are
ventory. The survey instrument included items pertain- infl uenced by support and training opportunities at their
ing to prior training received, amount, and type, which institutions regardless of gender.
allowed for comparisons between faculty who had and In two of the models, specifi cally Accommodations
had not been exposed to disability-related training. and Inclusive Assessment, the less intensive training
Specifi c differences existed between University 1 and variable contributed signifi cant unique variance, which
University 2. University 2 had more extensive, ongoing suggests faculty may be more responsive to books and
outreach to faculty (e.g., four-day workshop, newslet- articles if made accessible (e.g., on a dedicated faculty
230 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3)
resource web page). However, the overall fi ndings re- decisions are emphasized through these pre- and post-
ported in Tables 2 and 3 show there are no particularly test processes, and resources are more effi ciently allo-
striking differences between more and less intensive train- cated. In this study, the ITSI was administered across
ing opportunities. Ultimately, these fi ndings are promising all departments at both universities and the data were
and suggest faculty attitudes could improve if a variety analyzed at the university level. However, the survey
of training opportunities are available. Specifi cally, the could easily be administered at the academic school or
intensity of the training matters less than simply providing departmental level in university settings, which may be
a wide range of training opportunities to faculty. useful for DS providers who wish to assess departments
in order to better target outreach efforts.
Limitations and Future Directions Provide a range of resources. It is always diffi cult
There are several limitations to consider when to know how much time to allocate to faculty trainings.
interpreting the results of this study. First, although the We recommend DS providers plan for one large train-
universities were similar in some respects (e.g., size, ing event to last 2 to 4 days, while at the same time or-
public institutions, research based), the researchers did ganize the training content so that it could be delivered
not compare faculty across departments. Future studies in small modules online or in print materials. With this
comparing institutions should examine differences in strategy, consistent messages will be delivered across
study participants based upon prior disability-related/ multiple formats. This strategy is benefi cial because a
UD training and their academic affi liation (e.g., Spe- wide range of faculty may access the resources accord-
cial Education versus Science). It will be important ing to their time and needs, and DS providers will not
to document the number of study participants from have to duplicate efforts in creating resource materials.
specifi c academic disciplines, as it will provide insight It is also be helpful to later follow-up with faculty who
into faculty attitudes and actions based upon their participated in training. Or, provide campus resource
academic backgrounds and teaching areas. Second, contact information to faculty in case they have ques-
self-reported attitudinal data was collected in which tions in the future. Most importantly, the fi ndings
some participants may have provided socially desirable from this study suggest that more and less intensive
responses that were not exactly their true beliefs. Con- training opportunities are equally effective for faculty.
fi dentiality was assured to all participants to decrease Thus, breaking up the training content into large and
the likelihood of socially desirable responses. Third, small chunks is especially important so that faculty
a large majority of faculty at both institutions did not may access it in different ways.
participate in the study. Both samples represented Use scenarios as exemplars. A major critique of
about one-fourth of the entire faculty. Therefore it may the UD frameworks refers to challenges in transfer-
be diffi cult to generalize fi ndings to other institutions ability to instructional planning (Edyburn, 2010). Of-
beyond the two compared institutions in this study. tentimes, faculty know they must incorporate inclusive
instructional practices but are not sure of how to go
Implications about this process. Faculty may even have positive
These fi ndings are signifi cant for postsecondary attitude toward disability-related themes and inclusive
DS providers. Specifi cally, based on the activities instruction but are not actually embedding the prin-
that occurred at both institutions, we recommend the ciples into their teaching practices (Cook et al., 2009;
following possible faculty outreach strategies: Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). We recommend
Use climate assessments. Climate assessments using scenarios to help illustrate inclusive classrooms.
provide a data-based snapshot of the culture on uni- Scenarios provide ready examples that allow for faculty
versity campuses (Stodden et al, 2011). In this study, to visualize their own classrooms. Scenarios could
we used the ITSI to explore faculty attitudes toward be described in newsletter or website content, or they
inclusive instruction and disability as a type of climate could be used as part of a workshop activity.
assessment. At both participating universities, the ITSI Provide incentives. Faculty may have to decide
results gave postsecondary DS a better sense for how to which training opportunities to attend at their institu-
target training efforts. Further, the climate assessment tions. Providing incentives for faculty to attend may
could be used again as a type of “post” test to determine increase attendance at trainings focused on inclusive
effectiveness of training efforts. Importantly, data-based instruction. For example, incentives such as a certifi cate