Disability Services for Students
Assessment of: 1) quality of e-text services and Assistive Technology training
provided to students with disabilities; (2) student reaction to disability
self-disclosure for program modification
ABSTRACT
In order to better serve students with disabilities, Disability Services for Students undertook an
assessment of 1) the quality of electronic text (e-text) services and Assistive Technology (AT)
training provided to students with disabilities, and 2) students' reactions to a new approach for
self-disclosure of their disability in order to request reasonable program modifications. Though
the procedure had already been designed and implemented, the necessity for assessment was
heightened by complaints received by Disability Services from students during the spring
semester. The results of the assessment indicated that e-text production needs further
improvement, especially in quality control, and that assessment of AT training should continue
every semester. The results of the self-disclosure of disability survey revealed that this procedure
should be exclusively designed to facilitate effective communication between students and
faculty.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Disability Services strives to ensure that the University's programs are as accessible and useful
for students with disabilities as they are for students without disabilities. The goals of the
department are:
1. to coordinate reasonable program modifications for otherwise qualified students with
disabilities;
2. to advocate for an accessible and hospitable learning environment for students with
disabilities; and
3. to endorse self-determination by students with disabilities.
E-text is one of the alternative formats used frequently by students with disabilities as a means of
achieving equal access to print textbooks. Disability Services produces e-texts and provides AT
training so that students can effectively obtain access to print information. In fall 2007 Disability
Services created an online survey to assess the value of e-texts and AT training. In the following
semester the quality of e-texts was assessed online.
Separately, a group of undergraduate students in a Communication Studies course taught by Alan
Sillars (COMM 460) approached Disability Services with the assignment of conducting research
and an evaluation. Disability Services collaborated with the group to produce and conduct an
online survey in order to gather feedback from students registered with Disability Services.
Students were asked their opinions about the idea of self disclosing their disabilities to request
1
reasonable program modifications: writing their own verification letter with support from
Disability Services.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
Fall 2007 E-text and AT Training Survey
Participants
Disability Services sent a survey invitation on November 27, 2007 with a link to the online
survey via email to 45 students who used e-text services. A follow-up reminder was sent via
email a week later. Eleven (24%) responded to the online survey before the survey was closed on
December 6, 2007. Of those who responded, two were freshmen, five were sophomores, three
were juniors, and one was a graduate student. No seniors participated in the survey.
Three respondents indicated that they were enrolled part-time, and 8 were enrolled full-time.
Two respondents reported that they were 24 years old or younger; nine were 25 years old or
older.
Instrumentation
This assessment utilized a 41-item online survey constructed by Disability Services staff. The
Student Affairs Information Technology staff assisted in the set up of the survey by using the
Content Management System. As an incentive to participate in the survey, one randomly selected
participant received a $25 gift card at the Bookstore. The survey went live on November 27,
2007 and was taken offline December 6, 2007.
The first page of the online survey asked if the students agreed to participate anonymously in the
survey. Clicking "yes" linked to the survey questions on a separate page. Those who declined to
participate were linked to another page and thanked for their interest. Participants were asked to
respond to each question by rating the quality of the e-text and AT training (e.g. very effective,
effective, neutral, not effective, and not effective at all). In addition, the participants were asked
seven open-ended questions.
The survey consisted of four sections. The first section requested demographic information,
including level of study and age. The second section posed questions regarding students’ use of
the e-text in fall 2007 (e.g. how long the student used the e-text, how many titles in e-text the
student requested, and when the student requested and received the e-text). The third section
posed questions about the quality of the e-text that participants used in fall 2007. The fourth
section asked about the effectiveness of the AT training participants were provided in fall 2007.
Data collection
All responses from participants remained confidential and anonymous and were saved in The
University’s Content Management System (CMS). The responses were collected and saved
separately through CMS on two occasions: November 28 as a trial and December 7 as the final
2
report. The results were combined into one document and the rate of each response was
manually calculated.
Spring 2008 E-text Survey
Participants
Disability Services asked 32 students who used e-text services in spring 2008 to participate in an
online survey. The email invitation with a link to the survey was sent on April 21, 2008. The
second notice was sent via email four days later, and the last reminder was e-mailed a day before
the online survey was closed. Thirteen students participated in the survey (41%).
Four respondents were first-time e-text users during the spring semester, six reported they had
used e-text one to two years, one had used e-text for four years, and two had used e-text for more
than five years.
Instrumentation
The fall 2007 online survey was shortened for the spring 2008 survey. All AT-related questions
were separated into a distinct survey, which was not launched in the spring. The e-text survey
had 19 items with a combination of Likert scales and open-ended questions. Disability Services
used Select Survey to create the online survey in order to enhance accessibility and usability. The
Information Technology staff assisted Disability Services in setting up the survey. Unlike the
previous survey, an incentive was not provided for this assessment.
Data Collection
All responses from survey participants remained confidential and anonymous. The responses
were collected online and saved to the Select Survey site.
Self-disclosure of Disability Survey
Participants
Disability Services sent an email notice to 852 students registered with the office and opened the
online survey on April 9, 2008. A follow-up notice was sent on April 18. A total of 124 students
participated in the survey (15%).
Instrument
The students of COMM 460 created 13 survey questions, consisting of Likert scales, open-ended
questions, and closed-ended questions. The first questions inquired about demographic
information such as gender and the duration of registration with DSS, followed by a series of
questions about perceptions of the current and proposed procedure for disclosure of students’
disabilities. Disability Services assisted the students of COMM 460 in posting the survey
questions using Select Survey. The survey was open for ten days after the first notice was
distributed to registered students with disabilities.
3
Data Collection
All responses were collected online. They remained anonymous and were saved in Select Survey.
FINDINGS
E-text Survey
Duration and Timing for Requests and Receiving E-text
The results of the survey indicated that three students requested e-text services in fall 2007 from
Disability Services before the semester began; four requested services during the first week of
the semester; and three requested services the second week or later of the semester. Two
respondents did not answer this question for a total of ten responses. Five respondents (50%) felt
that they received requested e-text on time; two said they received it early and three reported
they had received it late, for a total of ten responses. One respondent suggested shortening the
waiting time for receiving e-text after they requested. Further assessment is needed to investigate
how timely Disability Services provides e-text services.
E-text Quality
Figure 1 indicates that fall 2007 saw the highest number of participants (9) responding that the
quality of e-text was at least acceptable (90%). Figure 2 indicates that 60% of respondents
indicated that their e-texts were at least readable in the spring of 2008. In both semesters, only
one student reported that her/his e-text was unreadable.
Quality of E-text Rated by Students in Fall 2007
Very Readable,
30%
Unreadable,
10%
Acceptable,
50%
Readable, 10%
Figure 1
4
Quality of E-text Rated by Students in Spring 2008
Unreadable,
20%
Very Readable,
10%
Neutral, 20%
Readable, 50%
Figure 2
E-text Usability
Overall usability rates were similar for the two semesters: 60% of the ten responses for both
semesters indicated that e-texts were ‘useful’ or ‘very useful.’ In fall 2007, however, a high
percentage of respondents rated their e-texts as very useful to them (40%), which decreased in
spring 2008 (10%).
Usefulness of E-text Rated by Students in Fall 2007
Not useful, 0%
Not useful at
all, 10%
Very useful,
40%
Acceptable,
30%
Useful, 20%
Figure 3
5
Usefulness of E-text Rated by Students in Spring 2008
Not very useful,
10%
Not useful at all,
10%
Very useful,
10%
Neutral, 20%
Useful, 50%
Figure 4
Student Comments
The students commented on the following issues that they experienced while using e-texts they
received from Disability Services:
Fall 2007
 experienced difficulty with navigating pages
 experienced difficulty understanding complex words, such as scientific terms, because
they were not correctly pronounced
Spring 2008
 could not find the right page because the page number in e-text did not match the actual
textbook
 boxed texts in e-text were inaccurate and unreadable
 received a format (PDF) with the image of charts, but could not hear the information.
When received another format (RTF), the format was readable but lost the visual
information.
This feedback emphasizes the importance of continuous e-text quality assessment.
The spring 2008 e-text survey included specific questions regarding spelling, chapters, and pages
in e-text. This survey also included recommendations for Disability Services. A summary of
each question follows.
Spelling Errors
Forty-four percent (4 respondents) reported that they noticed a few spelling errors in their e-text.
Twenty-two percent (1 respondent) found many spelling errors on every page, and these were
distracting and confusing. One student commented that there were words without spaces between
6
them, which made the sentences difficult to understand. Another student recommended that spell
check in the e-text process be improved.
Missing Chapter Headings and Pages
Sixty-seven percent (6 respondents) reported that they could not find chapter headings for some
of the chapters that they needed to read. Comments included the following: a tag (five colons)
was missing in e-text, the headings were located in a confusing location, and the page number
and the chapter number were missing. These absences made it difficult to navigate the chapter
and pages.
Page Breaks
Fifty-six percent (5 respondents) reported that they noticed missing page breaks throughout their
e-text and experienced difficulty skipping between individual pages.
Improvement of Disability Services' E-text Services
Five students (38%) made recommendations to improve Disability Services' e-text services.
These focused on improving spelling in e-text, faster e-text delivery to students, and accurate
information to students about their e-text status. One student suggested improvement of the
internal record, such as the record of what books Disability Services had already converted to etext and where in the process a student's e-text is at a given moment.
Assistive Technology (AT) Training Assessment
Eight respondents (89%) received AT training in fall 2007. Seven types of AT training are
available for access to print via e-text (JAWS, MAGic, Open Book, WYNN, Book Port, Victor
Soft, and Book Wizard Reader), and the majority of students reported that their AT training was
effective for the use of e-text. Respondents used a 5-point scale (very effective, effective, neutral,
not effective, and not effective at all) to evaluate their AT training experience. Most respondents
indicated that they received Book Port training, and six out of the seven respondents evaluated
this training as at least ‘effective’ (86%). One respondent commented that operating the Book
Port was confusing because of the symbol pads on the machine. WYNN was another AT for
which a large percentage of respondents received training. All of the seven respondents indicated
that this training was either ‘effective’ (43%) or ‘very effective’ (57%). Nine out of eleven
respondents reported that using e-text with AT devices or software was at least ‘effective’ (82 %).
One respondent reported that the overall effectiveness was neutral, and one respondent indicated
that these technologies were not effective at all.
Self-disclosure of Disability Survey
The Self-Disclosure of Disability Survey was designed to gauge students’ reactions to the change
in the disability verification process and to elicit suggestions for the system. The current process
7
requires students to inform their professors of their disability, which is followed by a verification
letter sent by the student’s DSS coordinator. The new system would place the responsibility of
providing professors with such a letter with the students themselves under the supervision of the
coordinators. The survey was emailed to all 852 students registered with DSS, and 124
responded (15%). The largest percentage (40%) of survey participants reported that they have
been registered with DSS for less than one year.
Students currently supply a verification letter written by a Disability Services coordinator to their
instructors in order to request reasonable program modifications. The majority of respondents
(45%) stated that they were satisfied with the current procedure.
Students were asked to indicate their preferences on how they want to disclose their disabilities
to instructors. The majority of respondents (47%) preferred using a letter written by Disability
Services. Twenty-six percent did not respond to this question and 14% indicated that they feel
neutral about writing their own letter. Only 13% reported that they would prefer writing their
own letter (Figure 5).
Students' Preferred Option of Self-Disclosure
DSS writes the
letter, 47%
No answer, 26%
Do not care,
14%
I write the letter,
13%
Figure 5
When students were asked about their initial reaction to the idea of writing their own letters to
faculty, their responses were diverse. Thirty-three percent reported that they ‘don’t like’ or
‘really don’t like’ the idea, 24% reported that they ‘like it’ or ‘really like it,’ 24% did not respond,
and 19% indicated they were unsure or neutral about the idea (Figure 6).
8
Students' Reaction to Writing Own Letter to Faculty
Really like it,
8%
No answer,
24%
Like it, 16%
Unsure, 19%
Really don't
like it, 20%
Don't like it,
13%
Figure 6
Some students who liked the proposal of writing their own letters commented that they would
enjoy the responsibility and they would enjoy more communication with faculty. They believe
that the proposed new procedure would make faculty more aware of students' disabilities.
Overall reactions to the self-disclosure pilot were diverse and polarized: the students either liked
or disliked the proposed self-disclosure method. The students who liked the idea reported that
they would prefer the autonomy provided by writing their own verification letters of their
disabilities. On the other hand, students who disliked the idea predicted additional stress to the
students, poor reactions from faculty, lack of credibility, and possible negative effect to the
relationship between the student and his or her coordinator. Some students predicted that the
proposed self-disclosure method would enhance faculty-student relationships, while others felt
that the method might be detrimental to those relationships. The findings of this study reveal the
importance of providing a clear description of the self-disclosure procedure and guidance to both
students and faculty. This proposal will be introduced as an option for students who feel
comfortable with the additional responsibility of writing their own letter, while other students
may follow the traditional route and request that their Disability Services coordinator draft their
letter of verification.
RECOMMENDATIONS
E-text and AT Training
Several revisions to current policy are either in the planning stages or in the process of
implementation based on the results of the e-text and AT training surveys.
9
First, Disability Services will continue to assess the quality of e-texts and AT training every
semester by asking the students for feedback after they receive e-text and/or AT training services.
Disability Services will send a notice to students via email in the middle of the semester, collect
responses, and analyze the data at the end of the semester. This will begin in fall 2008.
Second, Disability Services will implement an integrated e-text production tracking database that
is currently being developed with the help of Student Affairs IT. This database is scheduled to
be launched by the beginning of the fall semester of 2008.
Third, and most importantly, Disability Services will tighten quality control in its e-text
production starting in fall 2008. The spell check process, which was not included previously, will
be employed. Quality will be reviewed before Disability Services releases e-texts to students.
Self-disclosure of Disability
Disability Services is currently drafting an optional self-disclosure procedure that will be posted
on the department's website. Once the procedure is finalized, Disability Services coordinators
will notify students registered with the office and guide them through the process of notifying
instructors about the functional impact of their disability and requesting reasonable program
modifications for their classes. This change will go into effect in fall 2008.
10