University of Potomac: Tech Changes and Student Impact - COMP640

This capstone project investigates the multifaceted effects of technological advancements on students, focusing on the increasing dependency on technology and its implications for learning and daily life. The project explores the problem of technology overuse and its impact on students' cognitive abilities and learning outcomes. The research includes a literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusions. It examines the role of technology in education, including e-learning and the use of artificial intelligence, and discusses the impact of technology on students in higher education. The project aims to analyze the positive and negative impacts of technology, providing insights into the ways technology shapes the student experience. The project also includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, conclusions and a list of references.

45© The Author(s) 2020
J. Seale (ed.), Improving Accessible Digital Practices in Higher
Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37125-8_3
CHAPTER 3
Accessibility Frameworks and Models:
Exploring the Potential for a Paradigm Shift
Sheryl Burgstahler, Alice Havel, Jane Seale,
and Dorit Olenik-Shemesh
Abstract The focus of this chapter is accessibility frameworks and mode
that have the potential to promote a paradigm shift whereby the design o
ICT and related practices that ensure the needs of students with disabili-
ties are fully addressed. In order to examine the potential of models and
frameworks to bring about such a paradigm shift and transform practice
this chapter will: (1) review common frameworks and associated models
that influence the design and delivery of accessibility services, (2) discuss
S. Burgstahler (* )
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
e-mail: [e-mail]
A. Havel
Adaptech Research Network, Montreal, QC, Canada
J. Seale
Faculty of Wellness, Education and Language Studies, The Open University,
Milton Keynes, UK
e-mail: [e-mail]
D. Olenik-Shemesh
The Open University, Ra’anana, Israel
Burgstahler, S., Havel, A., Seale, J., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2020).
Accessibility frameworks and models: Exploring the potential for a
paradigm shift. In J. Seale (Ed.), Improving accessible digital practices in
higher education – Challenges and new practices for inclusion (pp.
45-72). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37125-8

46
whether something other than (or in addition to) existing frameworks and
associated models is needed in order to activate a paradigm shift toward
more inclusive ICT and practices, and (3) discuss the implications fo
future research and practice.
Keywords ICT • Disability • Higher education • Accessibility •
Models • Frameworks
Common Frameworks ThaT InFluenCe The DesIgn
oF aCCessIbIlITy servICes
While many commentators in the field use the terms model and frame-
work interchangeably, we use the term “model” to refer to a practical or
conceptual representation of systems and processes; in our case, those t
are relevant to the provision and support of ICTs that contribute to suc-
cessful educational and employment outcomes for students with disabili-
ties. Models may describe existing practices (what is currently happening
or prescribe practices (what should be happening). “Frameworks” provide
foundational elements (e.g., principles or assumptions) of a model.
Adoption of frameworks and models on a campus can contribute to
“paradigm,” which refers to a widely accepted group of ideas about how
something should be done or thought about as an organization routinely
conducts business. The paradigm provides an almost unconscious, inter-
nalized way of thinking about how things should work, and what prob-
lems should be addressed. Common frameworks within higher education
(HE) reflect different views of disability, accommodation, and inclusion.
“Medical” or “deficit” views of disability rely on a medical diagnosis
and build on the assumption that the problems and difficulties that peopl
with disabilities experience are a direct result of their individual physical,
sensory, or cognitive impairments. As a response to this view, the major
task of professionals is to adjust the individual (e.g., through surge
medication, rehabilitation) or, at institutions of HE, provide accommoda-
tions that allow the person with a disability to access instruction and othe
campus offerings as much as is reasonable (Shakespeare, 1996). The locu
of change is the individual. In contrast, in the “social” and related views o
disability, barriers faced by people with disabilities are caused, to a large
part, by the failure of designers of social, physical, and technological prod
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

47
ucts and environments to take into account the needs of individuals with
a wide range of abilities. The locus of change is mainstream produ
environments, and related policies and social structures (Oliver, 199
Shakespeare, 2010). Acceptance of this view has resulted in disabili
related legislation in many countries requiring the accessible design
physical spaces including those in HE.
Disability service offices within HE institutions tend to rely on a medi-
cal view of disability, which can lead to an individualistic framework for
service provision, where the focus is on determining the functional limita-
tions of individuals with disabilities and then providing reasonable accom
modations to facilitate their access to a facility, service, course, or
technological resource. The provision of such services is typically depen-
dent on the person with a disability securing a “diagnosis” of a disability
by a recognized professional, providing a disability services office w
documentation of the disability, and securing approval for reasonabl
accommodations. An accommodations-only framework for service deliv-
ery with respect to ICT can lead to a focus on providing assistive technol-
ogy (AT) for specific individuals with disabilities, rather than on reducing
accessibility barriers imposed by mainstream ICT. A framework that relies
only or mainly on accommodations in institutions of HE today has been
criticized for focusing only on the perceived “deficit” of an individua
rather than looking to designing or redesigning educational products and
environments to be more accessible to individuals with disabilities (Loewe
& Pollard, 2010). Most proponents of the social view of disability in HE,
however, recognize that sometimes there is still a need to provide accom
modations to individuals in specific circumstances (e.g., sign langua
interpreters for students who are deaf attending lectures); suggesting tha
there is value in combining both frameworks, but where the social view o
disability is more dominant or prevalent.
Universal Design: An Example of Combining Frameworks
One well-known approach to service provision that prioritizes social and
related views of disability, while acknowledging accommodations may sti
be needed sometimes, is commonly labeled universal design (UD). UD is
the general term, and other terms are used when it pertains to specific
applications. For example, applications to teaching and learning have bee
referred to with labels that include Universal Design of Learning (UDL),
Universal Design for Instruction, Universal Design of Instruction,
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

48
Universally Designed Instruction, Universally Designed Teaching, and
Inclusive Design for Learning. These practices build on, to varying
degrees, the work of the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North
Carolina State University, which defines UD as “the design of products
and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possi
ble, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for
Universal Design, 1997). Each approach has adopted principles for the
design of inclusive practices. For example, the Centre for UD proposes
seven principles that guide UD applications to products and environment
(flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, toler-
ance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and
use). The Centre for Applied Special Technology (CAST) proposes that
teaching and learning practices apply three principles of UDL—multiple
means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (Black,
Weinberg,& Brodwin, 2015; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, &
Abarbanell, 2006).
Common characteristics of any UD practice are accessibility, usability,
and inclusiveness, as illustrated in Fig. 3.1. UD is positioned as inclusive
because it values diversity, equity, and integration (Hockings, 2010). This
approach provides a way to conceptualize these common characteristics
a routine part of the design of campus-wide applications rather than bein
Fig. 3.1 Characteristics
of a UD strategy: It is
accessible, usable, and
inclusive. (Burgstahler,
2015, p. 15)
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

49
considered as after-thoughts once an individual with a disability encoun-
ters a barrier (Burgstahler, 2015).
Universal Design in Higher Education (UDHE): A Specific
Application of UD
The terminology: ‘Universal Design in Higher Education’ (UDHE) was
adopted by a team of collaborators in several projects at the University o
Washington (UW) that were funded by the US Department of Education
(grants OPE #s P33A990042, P333AO20044, and P333A050064).
UDHE builds upon a total of ten principles drawn from UD and UDL
that allow for a wide range of possible applications in HE, not only in
teaching and learning, but also in other functional areas such as outdoor
spaces, administrative websites and services (Burgstahler, 2015). For all
specific applications, the ultimate goal of these proactive practices is acc
for everyone. The UDHE Framework makes clear that applying UD and
UDL principles campus-wide does not eradicate the need for accommoda
tions; it minimizes their necessity and thus reduces the need for students
with disabilities to make special requests for them (Hadley, 2011). As the
two images presented in Fig. 3.2 illustrate, greater applications of UDHE
(including those relevant to ICT) on a campus result in the provision of
fewer accommodations (including the provision of AT).
The Disabilities,Opportunities,Internetworkingand Technology
(DO-IT) Center at the UW provides an example of how the UDHE
UDHE
Accommodations
UDHE
Accommodations
Fig. 3.2 Relationship of the level of access provided through UD versus accom-
modations of a campus that primarily embrace the accommodation framew
compared to one that promotes UD
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

50
Framework can be applied to ICT in its process for the development and
delivery of its collection of videos.1 Its practices are designed to ensure the
content of its videos are accessible to and usable by everyone. The webs
on which the DO-IT videos are hosted is fully accessible and the videos
play on a custom accessible media player, developed by DO-IT staff, that
allows full operation by people with a variety of disabilities. Each video is
provided with closed captions, audio description, and transcripts, and can
be downloaded, viewed on DO-IT’s YouTube channel, or ordered on
DVD. The Search Video Library feature enables users to search the full
text of all videos and to begin playing videos at specific start times based
on the search results. Most videos are accompanied by a brochure that
includes content presented in the video, along with additional resources.
UD and UDL principles are applied in all phases of the design process for
each video. The amount of content that is not presented orally is mini-
mized to reduce the need for audio description; for example, the credits,
pointers to resources, acknowledgments, and copyright notices at the en
of the video are spoken by the narrator and thus do not require the addi-
tion of audio description. Filming is done in anticipation of captioning by
making certain that valuable visual content is not presented at the bottom
of the screen.
The Inclusive Campus Model: An Example of How a Framework
Can Underpin a Model
At the first Ed-ICT symposium in Seattle, Sheryl Burgstahler described
how a UDHE Frameworkunderpinsan Inclusive Campus Model.
Dimensions of the UDHE Framework, as summarized in Fig. 3.3, include
scope, definition, principles, guidelines, practices, and process.
If the scope of applications is all products and environments campus-
wide, an institution might choose a definition slightly modified from the
UD definition established by the CUD: The design of products and envi-
ronments in HE to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible
without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The principles are
combination of the seven principles of UD established by the CUD and the
three principles of UDL established by CAST, along with the four—perceiv
able, operable, understandable, and robust—that underpin the Web Cont
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) of the World Wide Web Consortium, an
international community that develops open standards to ensure the long
term growth of the Web (World Wide Web Consortium, n.d.). From this
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

51
foundation, a campus could adopt overall practices and processes design
to ensure accessibility, usability, and inclusion for all students and lead to
paradigm shift to a more inclusive campus.
This UDHE Framework underpins the remaining work and evaluation
steps of the Inclusive Campus Model. As presented in Fig. 3.4, to further
develop the Inclusive Campus Model, campus leaders representing mul-
tiple stakeholders at an institution can begin by reviewing their existing
Scope
Definition
Principles
Guidelines
Practices
Process
Fig. 3.3 Dimensions
of a UDHE Framework
Fig. 3.4 Inclusive Campus Model underpinned by the UDHE Framework
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

52
institutional vision and values statements in order to determine if t
reflect high values with respect to diversity, equity, inclusion, and compli
ance with the Americans with Disabilities legislation (United States
Department of Justice, 1990) or if the statementsshould be
adjusted to do so.
After fleshing out the UDHE Framework, the next two steps in apply-
ing the Inclusive Campus Model are to identify current practices and to
describe new practices with respect to relevant issues that include stake-
holder roles, funding, policies, guidelines, procedures, training, and sup-
port. Outputs and outcomes should be measured as new practices are pu
in place; tasks in this area include creating measures, collecting data, ana
lyzing results, and producing reports. In addition, indicators should be
identified that measure overall impacts of changes with respect to
established campus values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and compliance
Once the model is fully implemented, the institution can assure continu-
ous improvement by fine tuning new practices and measuring outputs,
outcomes, and impacts.
The Inclusive Campus Model can be adapted by campus leaders who
wish to apply a set of principles that is not the collection of UD, UDL, and
WCAG principles used in the basic UDHE Framework. For example,
some practitioners embrace Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), an
approach developed by the Centre on Postsecondary Education and
Disability at the University of Connecticut (McGuire & Scott, 2006), that
applies the basic seven UD principles along with two others, in order to
make UD more applicable to instruction in HE. The Inclusive Campus
Model can be modified for a campus committed to UDI by simply restrict-
ing the scope to include applications to instruction and the changing prin
ciples of UD, UDL, and WCAG to those of UDI in the Framework.
The UW employs the Inclusive Campus Model for ICT procured,
developed, and used at the University. Much of the work of the Access
Technology Center (ATC) promotes the proactive design and remedia-
tion of videos, documents, websites, commercial software, and other ICT
to minimize the need for accommodations (UW, n.d.). In spite of these
efforts, each academic term, the most expensive accommodations p
vided by Disability Resources for Students with respect to online learning
are for remediatinginaccessibledocumentsand captioningvideos
(Burgstahler & Greear, 2017). The UW continues to make gradual steps
toward focusing more on the accessibility of the products (e.g., websites)
and environments (e.g., computer labs) and how ICT can be proactively
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

53
designed to be accessible to a broad audience. Nationwide, resolutions to
the hundreds of lawsuits and civil right complaints brought to the Office
of Civil Rights, the Department of Justice, and courts of law have pro-
moted this approach, as legislation has required that associated institu-
tions proactively design their websites, videos, documents, and other ICT
to be accessible(Beaver, 2017; Sieben-Schneider& Hamilton-
Brodie, 2016).
Anecdotal evidence gleaned from the Ed-ICT collaborative meetings,
at conferences, and from reports in the literature suggests an increasing
interest in UD, UDL, UDHE, or similar frameworks built on UD. For
example, in the first Ed-ICT symposium in Seattle, Alice Havel presented
another example of a framework that integrates medical and social mode
of disability, along with the addition of accommodations and univers
design.2 The Human Development Model-Disability Creation Process
(HDM-DCP) is based on the work of Fougeyrollas (International Network
on the Disability Creation Process, n.d.). This conceptual model, not well
known outside Quebec, does not downplay the impact of an impairment
itself and expounds that life skills are achieved not only by enhancing abi
ties and compensating for disabilities, but also by reducing environmenta
obstacles. It is similar to the International Classification of Impairments,
Disabilities, and Handicaps published by the World Health Organization
(World Health Organization, 2018), which is still used in some countries
today. Although the HDM-DCP model, along with its classification sys-
tem, is employed by many health, rehabilitation, and social service organ
zations in Quebec, it has had limited influence on HE. This may be due to
a pragmatic reason: eligibility for government funding of disability service
in colleges and universities is based exclusively on a medical model. In
addition, the complexity of implementing the HDM-DCP model brings
no obvious advantages for students, faculty, or service providers. For var
ous reasons, mostly financial, government guidelines for service delivery
strongly suggest a needs-based organizational model when determining
accommodations, taking into account a student’s strengths, abilities, and
needs, while at the same time emphasizing the necessity to eliminate en
ronmental barriers. In spite of the energy dedicated to developing a uniqu
Quebec approach, due to the significant increase in the number of stu-
dents with disabilities in HE, the prohibitive cost of psycho-educational
assessments for diagnosing a learning disability and the desire for a more
diverse and inclusive society, many service providers and a growing num
ber of faculty are now seriously exploring the UD framework. Sever
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

54
province-wide organizations have created websites to support this trend
implement UDL across French and English Quebec colleges and universi-
ties (CAPRES, 2015; Portail du réseau collegial du Québec, 2016; McGill
University3).
Despite the increasing interest in UD or similar frameworks, the vast
majority of campuses world-wide primarily adopt an accommodation
only framework in their designs of disability service offerings. Even when
there are widely accepted guidelines, such as WCAG in the case of ICT,
focus is on compliance (e.g., what do we need to do to be “ADA compli-
ant”?) rather than moving beyond compliance and accommodations to
embrace UD practices to ensure ICT is not just accessible, but also usable
and inclusive.
Do we n eeD someThIng o Ther Than (or In aDDITIon
To ) exIsTIng Frameworks anD assoCIaTeD moDels
In o rDer To aCTIvaTe a ParaDIgm shIFT TowarD more
I nClusIve ICT anD PraCTICes ?
In the first Ed-ICT Symposium, Jane Seale (2017) proposed that existing
frameworks and associated models might be replaced, or at least enriche
if they incorporated wider views of the HE context. She presented the
results of a literature review that identified additional models that were
considered relevant to the provision of ICT in HE, but which were cur-
rently widely ignored. She argued that the field might further progress if
practitioners and researchers considered how aspects of models could co
tribute something beyond accommodations-only and UD frameworks for
underpinning practices toward a stance that considers the possibility that
best practices might emerge from combining a number of frameworks an
models that take into account issues perhaps not yet widely considered.
this section, we briefly outline seven frameworks and models and contras
them to one another and to the Inclusive Campus Model (which is under-
pinned by a UDHE Framework) and share how additional views on acces-
sibility—such as adaptability, integration and segregation, change agents
and holistic approaches—can inform future research and practice.
The Holistic Model of Accessibility for e-Learning Applications
Kelly, Phipps, and Swift (2004) proposed a holistic model for e-learning
accessibility, which places the learner at the center of the developm
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

55
process, as indicated in Fig. 3.5. Positioning their model as an alternative
to UD, they argue for solutions that are tailored to an individual’s specific
needs, institutional factors, subject discipline, and broader cultural a
political factors. Kelly, Nevile, Draffan, and Fanou (2008) refine their
model to argue that a learner-centric model replaces learner needs with
learning objectives at the center. They also articulate in more detail the
context in which this model might be useful by emphasizing that e-learning
solutions need to take into account both online and offline learning activi
ties and resources (blended learning). The holistic model appears to igno
the perspectives of stakeholders other than students as well as the inclu-
siveness consideration included in the UDHE Framework. Although it is
designed for e-learning applications, this model may also be more gener-
ally applicable to ICT access.
The VIVID (Vision Impaired Using Virtual IT Discovery) Model
for e-Learning Applications
Permvattana, Armstrong, and Murray (2013) also offer an alternative
holistic model, one that they developed specifically for e-learning environ
ments for the vision impaired, as illustrated in Fig. 3.6. The stimulus for
this development was the argument that while models such as those pro-
posed by Kelly et al. (2008) provide valuable input into the design
specialized e-learning environments for the vision impaired, they are ope
Examples of learning
Activities or resources
Fieldwork Web Resources
Online Discussion
fora
E-learning
Objects
E-mail, wiki’s
and Blogs
Computer Based
Assessment
Tutorials
Library
Lectures
Groupwork
Labwork
Problem Based
Learning
Classroom Activities
Examination
Assessment
Distance Learning
Viva Voce
Work Based
Learning
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
itha
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
n
e
e
d
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
c
u
l t
u
r
a l , e c o n o
m
i
c
,
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
)
.
Learning
Objective
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
s
suran
c
e
Accessibility Usability
Infrastructure
Learner
NeedsLearning
Outcomes
Local
Factors
Fig. 3.5 Early and later versions of holistic model of e-learning accessibility
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

56
to too much “subjective interpretation” when applied in practice. They
therefore attempted to provide a more detailed model, which they assert
would make it easier to identify potential solutions to the access barriers
commonly faced by vision impaired students. The model they propose is
underpinned by insights gained from observations and interviews wi
vision impaired students and teachers. At the center of the model are the
components or resources that need to be made accessible: the physical
classroom, the virtual classroom, and the curriculum. Around this core is
a layer of local factors that influence accessibility decisions: learning out-
comes, learner characteristics, and social elements. The external layer of
influencing factors or drivers includes legal requirements, standards, and
Fig. 3.6 The VIVID (Vision Impaired using Virtual IT Discovery) model
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

57
guidelines; institutional factors; and evaluation, feedback, and enhance-
ment. While this model focuses on visual impairment, it appears to
adaptable for students with a wider range of characteristics.
The Composite Practice Model for AT Service Delivery
Disabled students do not just interact with faculty in physical or virtual
classrooms. They often interact with ICT or access services personnel who
support them to acquire and use ATs or other accommodations, and it
would therefore make sense for models to exist that guide these processe
Leung et al. (1999) developed a composite model to describe and explain
practice in regard to the AT service delivery in HE settings across Australi
There were three main components to the model: (1) policy funding, (2)
the stakeholders, and (3) the process of assessing students for their AT
needs. Leung et al. (1999) argued that this model can serve as a checklis
for institutions in assessing their response to AT needs of students with
disabilities. It recognizes that there are multiple factors to consider; that
assessment for AT may involve a diagnostic evaluation; that there is a ful
range of available AT, from low tech to high tech, that varies in cost; and
that there should be utilization of mainstream service provision wheneve
possible. While this model narrowly focuses on acquisition of AT, it high-
lights the contribution of a range of stakeholders including administrators
student services, librarians, ICT services, and AT specialists. In addition,
like the Contextualized Model (see later section), the Composite Model
acknowledges the powerful influence of external drivers such as policy an
funding. Furthermore, although not clearly expressed, the model acknow
edges that a cyclical process exists of eligibility, assessment, select
training, and reassessment, which has the potential to be useful in a prac
tice model of service delivery.
A Staff Development Model
The development of accessible practices within HE relies on faculty and
other staff having the knowledge and skills necessary to change an
improve what they do; therefore, staff development is an important ele-
ment of accessible practice. For example, in 2011, while director of the
Office for Students with Disabilities at McGill University in Montreal,
Fovet and his colleagues led a whole-campus implementation drive
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

58
apply UDL. His experience led him to conclude that “The model is often
seen as a new concept, and this in itself creates resistance factors related
the management of change process.” (Fovet, Mole, Jarrett, & Synco
2014, p. 71) He found that resistance from faculty was the greatest barrie
encountered as they were fearful of feeling less competent, anxious abou
the innovative use of ICT, and concerned about insufficient resources and
time. One way to address such concerns was by providing pedagogical
support through the Teaching and Learning Support Unit of the univer-
sity. It therefore makes sense that models to guide the design and delive
of staff development initiatives could be incredibly valuable.
Papadopolous, Pearson, and Green (2012) proposed a provisional
staff development model (they called it a framework, but we think
more accurate description would be model) for supporting academics to
develop accessible and inclusive e-materials. There are four main e
ments to their framework, as illustrated in Fig. 3.7. The first they call
framework components: raising awareness, enhancing understanding,
and improving skills. The second element is the processes, which a
required to raise awareness, enhance understanding, and improve skills.
Thirdly, they proposed a training procedure comprised of two main ele-
ments: Accessibility Simulations and a Tutor Accessibility Support Kit
(TASK). Finally, they argue that culture change within an institution will
not occur without individual self-reflection and collaboration with oth-
ers. Like other models, the staff development framework acknowledges
the influence of external drivers such as legislation and internal drivers
such as institutional or individual intentions. Unlike other models, it
does not explicitly incorporate different stakeholders, nor does it posi-
tion itself in relation to universal or accommodation approaches to acces-
sibility. Although this framework is applied to instructional practices, it
holds promise for guiding accessible ICT-related staff development
on a campus.
A Model of Accessibility Services
The model of accessibility services attempts to describe how a range of
services within an institution might support disabled students.
Kouroupetroglou, Pino, and Kacorr (2011) propose a model of accessibilit
services that they argue takes into account both “Design for All” (a term
used synonymouslywith UD) and “Individual Accommodation”
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

59
approaches. However, they do not explicitly illustrate how the two
approaches underpin their model. The main pillar of this model is t
“Accessibility Unit,” which provides a number of supportive services
arranged in a three-tier architecture according to their “proximity” to the
student: (1) accessibility services addressed directly to the student;
accessibility services applied to the student’s environment; and (3) acces
sibility promoting services which disseminate good accessibility practices
in the university community and beyond. Like the contextualized model
Fig. 3.7 A staff development model for inclusive learning design
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

60
of accessibility (see later section), this model seeks to identify the stake-
holders who mediate the relationship between a student with disabilities
and the different service providers: Academic advisors, librarians, studen
representatives, and so on (see Fig. 3.8). But, unlike the contextualized
model of accessibility, Kouroupetroglou, Pino, and Kacorr have for severa
years implemented their model in practice in the Accessibility Unit of the
University of Athens (The largest institution of HE in Greece). Although
the model does not directly address ICT, its application in this area seems
plausible.
A Contextualized Model of Accessible e-Learning Practice
Seale (2006) proposed a model of accessible e-learning practice tha
takes into account all relevant factors that mediate an institutional
response to accessibility: the stakeholders, the context (drivers and medi
ators), and how the relationship between the stakeholders and the con-
text influencesthe responsesmade and the accessibilitypractices
Librarian Volunteer
Representative
Student
: Interaction Pool
: Affiliation
: Information & Training
Channel
Accessibility Unit Staff
Faculty
Secretariat
Library
Students
Community
Accessibility
Committee
Accessibility Unit
Disabled Student
Secretary
Academic Advisor
Faculty
Fig. 3.8 The stakeholders who mediate the relationship between a student with
a disability and an accessibility unit
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

61
developed (see Fig. 1.1 in Chap. 1). While the model of accessibilit
services is descriptive, reflecting existing practice within one institution,
the contextualized model is conceptual, that is, suggesting an ideal prac-
tice. This model stipulates that the extent to which e-learning material
and resources are accessible will be influenced by how all the stakehold-
ers within an institution respond to external drivers for accessibility such
as legislation, guidelines, and standards. Unlike UD, this model does not
take a stance on how a student’s disability or learning needs should be
perceived.Instead it arguesthat institutions’accessibilitypractices
should be mediated by all stakeholders’ views and understanding of dis-
ability, accessibility, and inclusion; duty and responsibility; autonomy
and freedom; and teamwork and community. The accessibility practices
that develop out of these responses vary, depending on the stakeholders
and the context in which they are operating, but they essentially depend
on stakeholders taking ownership and control as well as developing per-
sonal meaning from externally imposed mandates. As with other models
already discussed, although broadly applied to disability services, th
contextualized model of accessible e-learning practice also holds promise
specifically for ICT practice.
The EU4ALL Model
The EU4ALL model (the authors called it a framework, but we think a
more accurate description would be model) emerged from a four-ye
European project that developed a general model to address the needs o
accessible lifelong learning in HE. It consists of several standards-based
interoperable components integrated into an open web service architec-
ture aimed at supporting adapted interaction to guarantee students’ acce
sibility needs (Boticario et al. 2012). The model aims to (1) enhance the
learning experience, by presenting learning materials that are appropriat
for and matched to modality and end-user device preferences, such
mobile devices or a desktop computer, perhaps with AT; and (2) provide
a wide range of services that an institution can adopt to ensure that the
needs of learners who have disabilities are most appropriately supported
Conceptually, the EU4ALL model does not explicitly take a position
regarding conceptual views of disability, but it claims to go beyond typica
UD and UDL practices where designs anticipate the needs of a bro
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

62
range of users and strive to meet these needs. The EU4ALL approach aim
to adapt or customize digital resources for students at the point of delive
(e.g., through a virtual learning environment so that offerings meet a stu-
dent’s exact needs).
Through a study of different organizations and interviews with ke
stakeholder groups across Europe, the EU4ALL team identified a broad
ontology of services that they suggest as a conceptual map or presentati
of ideal institutional processes, which has the potential to inform the cre-
ation of new services. This conceptual map underpins the technical
practical aspects in which existing standards are used to define and imple
ment an open and extensible architecture of services for Accessible Lifelo
Learning as illustrated in Fig. 3.9. Like the contextualized model, th
EU4ALL model emphasizes the involvement and co-operation of a num-
ber of different stakeholders.
Fig. 3.9 The EU4ALL model
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

63
An Overview of the Characteristics and Potential of Accessibili
Models Presented
To help practitioners decide which of the models might be potentia
more useful or relevant than others in certain practice contexts, in this se
tion we offer a comparative overview of the models focusing on what the
have to say about approaches to access (Table 3.1a); engagement, chang
and responsibility (Table 3.1b); and approaches to ICT support, student
support, and stakeholder engagement (Table 3.1c).
I mPlICaTIons For FuTure r esearCh anD PraCTICe
In this chapter, we have examined the potential of models and framework
to bring a paradigm shift toward more inclusive practices in HE institu-
tions. In this section, we will discuss the implications of implementing any
or all of these models in practice and how research might contribute to
such implementation.
Table 3.1aComparing the nine models based on their approach to access
Characteristic Options Models that incorporate
option in part or whole
Approaches to
access
Accommodation for specific students Composite Practice
Model
Model of Accessibility
Services
Inclusive Campus Model
Adaptability EU4All Model
Holistic Model
Inclusive Campus Model
UD (that maximizes adaptability and
includes but minimizes need for
accommodations)
Inclusive Campus Model
Staff Development
Model
Segregation, (i.e., having students with
disabilities do something different than
other students)
VIVID
Mainstream, engaging students with and
without disabilities together
Contextualized Model
Holistic Model
EU4All Model
Inclusive Campus Model
Model of Accessibility
Services
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

64
Table 3.1b Comparing the nine models based on their views of engagement,
responsibility, and change
Characteristic Options Models that
incorporate option
in part or whole
Views of
engagement
Atomistic, specific parts of an institution Composite
Practice Model
Holistic, the whole institution Contextualized
Model
EU4All Model
Inclusive Campus
Model
Model of
Accessibility
Services
Views on who is
responsible for
accessibility
Requires leadership Inclusive Campus
Model
Requires staff development Inclusive Campus
Model
Staff Development
Model
Disability service unit(s) Composite
Practice Model
Holistic Model
EU4ALL Model
Model of
Accessibility
Services
All campus faculty and service providers Contextualized
Model
EU4ALL Model
Inclusive Campus
Model
Model of
Accessibility
Services
Views of changeBuilds on campus vision and values; is
underpinned by a comprehensive framework
(UDHE); requires leadership, involves and
supports many stakeholders; requires
development of policies, guidelines, and
practices; measures results; and ensures
continuous improvements
Inclusive Campus
Model
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

65
What Approaches to Implementing Accessibility Models
and Frameworks Are Required?
Practitioners are cautioned to be careful about only partially applying a
framework or model. For example, Thomson, Fichten, Budd, Havel, and
Asuncion (2015) provide the example that, within the UDL model,
“offering students a video as an alternative to text provides multiple mea
of representation but will not provide full access for a student who is deaf
unless the video is captioned” (p. 277). And, written content will not be
available to a student who is blind or has a reading-related disability unle
the text provided is in an accessible format. In summary, besides offering
multiple ways to gain access to content, practitioners should ensure that
each individual option is universally designed, so that it is also accessible
Table 3.1cComparing the nine models based on ICT support, student support,
and stakeholder engagement
Characteristic Options Models that incorporate option
in part or whole
ICT supported All EU4ALL Model
Inclusive Campus Model
Only ICT used in e-learning Contextualized Model
Holistic Model
VIVID Model
Only assistive technology Composite Practice Model
Model of Accessibility Services
Types of students
supported
All students EU4ALL Model
Holistic Model
Inclusive Campus Model
Staff Development Model
Only students with disabilitiesContextualized Model
Model of Accessibility Services
Only students with visual
impairments
VIVID Model
Campus stakeholders
engaged
All Contextualized Model
EU4ALL Model
Inclusive Campus Model
Model of Accessibility Services
Disability service units only Composite Practice Model
E-learning course instructors
and developers only
Holistic Model
VIVID Model
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

66
usable, and inclusive. In addition, it is wise for stakeholders who imple-
ment models to check that their actual practices and procedures are in lin
with those intended by their chosen models. For example, in 2013, a UD
audit was conducted on a large Canadian campus where a disability servi
unit decided to impose the UD lens on its own service provision (Beck,
Diaz del Castillo, Fovet, Mole, & Noga, 2014). They selected this model
as the university had recently participated in a broad campus-wide drive
implement UDL in teaching practices. However, as a service unit, the staff
were increasingly concerned with a disparity between their external cam-
pus message of promoting UD and their actual internal practices. F
example, although they encouraged the use of online tools at the time of
audit, they still relied heavily on paper-based procedures and offered no
alternative to in-person appointments.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the frameworks and models
that have been described in this chapter probably do not capture all stak
holder views and the respective roles necessary to bring about a significa
transformation in accessibility practice. For example, participants at the
Ed-ICT symposium on “Effective Models, Frameworks and Approaches”
in Seattle (University of Washington, 2017) concluded that it was
important to adopt both top-down and bottom-up approaches to prac-
tice, where “top” is associated with legislators, managers, and leade
while “bottom” is associated with stakeholders that work more close
with students, such as in a disability services office. At the Ed-ICT
Montreal Symposium on Stakeholder Perspectives (Jorgensen, Fichten
King, & Havel, 2018), government officials, although invited, were
noticeably absent. During discussions, some participants also commented
that some senior administrators are not easily convinced to take on leade
ship roles when it came to ICT accessibility. To facilitate a paradigm shift
toward more inclusive campuses, the models adopted by an instituti
need to clearly incorporate roles for those stakeholders who have the infl
ence to bring about changes and be persistent in seeking their engageme
A review of the frameworks and models reveal specific aspects related
accessible ICT and related practices that practitioners may find it helpful
to consider as they embrace a model that best fits their campus. It is our
claim that practitioners would potentially benefit from considering the fol
lowing factors:
• The strengths and weaknesses of each model
• Campus values and culture
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

67
• Views of stakeholder representatives (e.g., on integration and segre-
gation, duty and responsibility, teams and community, autonom
and freedom)
• Implementation of a process to reach a shared vision
• Potential roles of a large number of stakeholder groups
• Application of holistic practices
• Processes for acquiring AT as well as the procurement, development
and use of accessible mainstream IT
• External drivers and mediators to change
• Training and support issues, tailored to specific audiences and
efforts to promote awareness and increase specific knowledge, skills
and procedures
• Potential barriers or resistance factors (e.g., funding)
• Culture changes and a paradigm shift to a more inclusive campus
• Development of strategic partnerships and implementation plans
• Benchmarks to measure progress toward a vision of a more inclusive
campus with respect to ICT
How Can Research Help to Measure the Success of Any Paradig
Shift?
In preparation for the first symposium of the Ed-ICT International
Network, Seale (2017) developed a list of questions that she suggested
should be asked to evaluate the potential of the range of models that exi
in the field of disability, ICT, and HE. She argued that it is important to
examine both the validity and efficacy of models for the purpose of devel
oping informed practice.
The validity of models can be judged based on whether or not they are
logical, factually sound, and convincing. This involves examining how the
models are derived, as well as looking for evidence that the models have
positive impact on practice and outcome. In evaluating the efficacy of the
models, she proposed that two components be addressed: the level
details within the model and how widely a model is being implemented.
She presented her findings based on her literature review of nine selected
models and the application of her framework of questions. As there is a
dearth of critical analyses of models, additional research is warranted. Th
could entail others using the same framework of questions, to replicate
Seale’s research from their unique perspectives. As well, there may
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

68
future opportunities to examine models other than those already studied
but again applying the same criteria regarding validity and efficacy.
If the common goal of the models we have examined is to facilitate the
successful inclusion of disabled students in HE through provision of
accessible and inclusive ICTs, an obvious research question to ask
whether any of the models actually accomplish this? Mole (2013, p. 76),
in her examination of UD as a model for inclusion of disabled students in
HE settings, concludes that “Despite the emerging popularity of UD
with disability service provision, there is a notable lack of research with
regards to outcomes for stakeholders.” The same can be said for any of
the models presented here. In conducting further research, the first chal-
lenge would be to define indicators of successful inclusion of disabl
students, followed by identifying the means by which to measure them.
Should one be looking at retention/graduation rates of students, the
competency levels of students’ ICT use, a reduction in the need fo
accommodations, student satisfaction, and so on? Some stakeholders ma
have a very different perspective in terms of efficacy. For example, senio
administrators of an institution may be interested in what impact a mode
has on the financial and human resources required to sustain the provi-
sion of accessible and inclusive ICTs. In other words, the question for
future research needs to revolve around “which model work best fo
which stakeholder”?
According to Radermacher (2006, p. 23) “Engaging in a participatory
action research approach can provide a practical way in which to embrac
a social model of disability.” It can easily be rationalized that it also pro-
vides an excellent approach to further examine other models that relate
disability. This might be particularly true if the largest participant group
were composed of students with disabilities who are ICT users and who
could benefit the most from the findings. Seale (2017) has already
expressed concern about researchers and practitioners who have been cr
ically silent by either criticizing other models in a superficial way, or by
focusing only on the strengths and not the weaknesses of their preferred
model. Students in HE, who are unlikely to hold such biases, are ideally
positioned to participate in the whole research process, from selecting th
models to be studied, setting the research questions, gathering and analy
ing the data, and most importantly, advocating that the research findings
be implemented in practice.
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

69
ConClusIon
In this chapter, we discussed various approaches to accessibility practice
in institutions of HE that might promote a paradigm shift to a more inclu-
sive campus, especially with respect to the procurement, developme
and use of ICT. We also made the case for the benefits of exploring a vari
ety of potential frameworks and models for service provision and perhaps
even combining them to best fit a specific institution, where the selection
is informed by views of disability, accessibility, inclusion, responsibil
and change. And, of course, selection of frameworks or models will not
instigate a paradigm shift unless they are actually implemented and eval
ated in practice.
Acknowledgements Thischapteris basedon work supportedby the UK
Leverhulme Trust and the US National Science Foundation (grant numbers CNS-
1539179 and DRL-1824540). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-
mendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy or
views of the funding sources, and you should not assume their endorsement.
n oTes
1. https://www.washington.edu/doit/videos/
2. http://ed-ict.com/workshops/seattle/programme/
3. https://alludl.ca/
r eFerenCes
Beaver, A. (2017). Creating a culture of sustainable accessibility: Stakeholders, m
els, and methods for change. Presentation at the Ed-ICT Montreal symposium
on Stakeholder perspectives. Resource document. Ed-ICT. http://ed-ict.
com/workshops/montreal/programme/
Beck, T., Diaz del Castillo, P., Fovet, F., Mole, H., & Noga, B. (2014). Applying
universal design to disability service provision: Outcome analysis of a universa
design (UD) audit. Journal of PostsecondaryEducation and Disability,
27(2), 209–222.
Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2015). Universal design for
learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in high
education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 1–16.
Boticario, J. G., Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Santos, O. C., Raffenne, E., Montandon,
L., Roldán, D., & Buendía, F. (2012). Accessible lifelong learning at higher
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

70
education: Outcomes and lessons learned at two different pilot sites in
EU4ALL project. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(1), 62–85.
Burgstahler, S., & Greear, K. (2017). Tips for collaboration between disability &
technologyservices.Accessing Higher Ground conference, Boulder,
CO. Resource document.AHEAD. https://accessinghigherground.org/
tips-for-collaboration-between-disability-and-technology-services/
Burgstahler, S. E. (Ed.). (2015). Universal design in higher education: From prin-
ciples to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
CAPRES. (2015). La conception universelle de l’apprentissage – CUA. Resource
document. CAPRES. http://www.capres.ca/dossiers/la-conception-
universelle-de-lapprentissage-cua/
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Resource
document. CUD. https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/about_ud/udprin-
ciplestext.htm
Fovet, F., Mole, H., Jarrett, T., & Syncox, D. (2014). Like fire to water: Building
bridging collaborations between disability service providers and course instruc
tors to create user friendly and resource efficient UDL implementation mate-
rial. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 68–75. https://doi.
org/10.22329/celt.v7i1.3999.
Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabilities: A student development
perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 154, 77–81. https://doi.
org/10.1002/he.436.
Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A syn-
thesis of research. Resource document. Evidence Net. http://www.advance-he.
ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-
synthesis-research
International Network on the Disability Creation Process. (n.d.). The model.
https://ripph.qc.ca/en/hdm-dcp-model/the-model/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
Jorgensen, M., Fichten, C., King, L., & Havel, A. (2018). Proceedings of the
Ed-ICT International Network Montreal Symposium: Stakeholder Perspectiv
Resource document. Montreal, Canada: Adaptech Research Network. https://
eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580147
Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Draffan, E., & Fanou, S. (2008). One world, one web but great
diversity. Paper presented at the 2008 international cross-disciplinary worksho
on Web accessibility(W4A), Beijing, China. https://eprints.soton.ac.
uk/267205/1/p141-kelly.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
Kelly, B., Phipps, L., & Swift, E. (2004). Developing a holistic approach for
e-learning accessibility. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30, 3.
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26513/19695. Accessed
26 Sep 2019.
Kouroupetroglou, G., Pino, A., & Kacorr, H. (2011, February 8–11). A model
of accessibility services provision for students with disabilities in higher educa
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.

71
tion. Proceedingsof the InternationalConferenceUniversal Learning
Design, pp. 23–33, Brno. http://access.uoa.gr/Unit%20Publicity%20Files/
Kouroupetroglou_Brno_2011.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
Leung, P., Owens, J., Lamb, G., Smith, K., Shaw, J., & Hauff, R. (1999). Assistive
technology.Canberra,Australia:Departmentof Education, Training and
Youth Affair.
Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.
McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2006). Universal design for instruction: Extending
the universal design paradigm to college instruction. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 19(2), 124–134.
Mole, H. (2013). A US model for inclusion of disabled students in higher educa-
tion settings: The social model of disability and universal design. Wideni
Participation and Lifelong Learning, 14(3), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.5456/
WPLL.14.3.62.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York: St
Martin Press.
Papadopolous, G., Pearson, E., & Green, S. (2012). A provisional framework for
supporting academics in accessible and inclusive e-materials developmen
Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference,
pp. 459–468. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262203038_A_
provisional_framework_for_supporting_academics_in_accessible_and_
inclusive_e-materials_development. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
Permvattana, R., Armstrong, H., & Murray, I. (2013). E-LEARNING for the
visually impaired: T A holistic perspective. International Journal of Cyber
Society and Education, 6(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijcse.1029.
Portail du réseau collegial du Québec. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL
in postsecondary education. Resource document. Portail du réseau collegial du
Québec. http://lescegeps.com/recherche_et_innovation/le_numerique/pra-
tiques_sociales_et_educatives_novatrices/universal_design_for_learning_udl_in
postsecondary_education
Radermacher, H. L. (2006). Participatory action research with people with disabili
ties: Exploring experiences of participation. Doctoral dissertation. http://vuir.
vu.edu.au/484/3/484whole.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L.
(2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections
on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education a
Disability, 19(2), 135–151.
Seale, J. (2006). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility theory
and practice (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Seale, J. (2017). Issues of stakeholder engagement: Who are the stakeholders of
ability and ICT related practice in postsecondary education and how can they b
3 ACCESSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS: EXPLORING…

72
effectively engaged? Resource document. Ed-ICT. http://ed-ict.com/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2017/03/Seale_Ed_ICT_paper_03032017.pdf
Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity and difference. In C. Barnes &
G. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide: Illness and disability (pp. 94–113)
Leeds, UK: The Disability Press.
Shakespeare, T. (2010). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The
disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 266–273). New York/London: Routledge.
Sieben-Schneider, V., & Hamilton-Brodie, J. (2016). Doing the right thing: One
university’s approach to digital accessibility. Journal of Postsecondary Educatio
and Disability, 29(3), 221–230.
Thomson, R., Fichten, C., Budd, J., Havel, A., & Asuncion, J. (2015). Blending
universal design, e-learning, and information and communication technolo
gies. In S. E. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: Fro
principles to practice (2nd ed., pp. 275–284). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
University of Washington. (2017). Symposium one: Effective models, frameworks
and approaches. Proceedings from the Ed-ICT International Network: Disabled
students, ICT, post-compulsory education & employment: In search of new
solutions. Seattle, WA. Resource document. Ed-ICT. http://ed-ict.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Symposium-Effective_models_frameworks_and_
approaches_0.pdf
University of Washington. (n.d.). Accessible technology at the UW. Resource docu
ment. University of Washington. http://www.washington.edu/accessibility/
US Department of Justice. (1990). American with Disabilities Act. Resource
document.US Departmentof Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/
pubs/ada.txt
World Health Organization. (2018, March 2). International Classification of
Functioning,Disability and Health (ICF). Resourcedocument.WHO.
https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines
(WCAG) overview. Resource document. W3C. https://www.w3.org/WAI/
standards-guidelines/wcag/
S. BURGSTAHLER ET AL.