Instructional Materials Self-Study
Third Draft 2007-03-14
Mark Turner, Director, Center for Accessible Media
Dr. Wayne Dick, Academic Technology Coordinator, ATI
Overview
This document is specifically geared toward exploring key business processes that
impact the accessibility of campus instructional materials as well as in identifying
potential tools and metrics that can facilitate ATI campus team efforts. It is organized
around the Instructional Materials Accessibility Plan (IMAP) items specified within Code
Memo AA-2007-04 though it should be noted that some questions may have relevance
across multiple IMAP items. ATI campus teams are encouraged to utilize this document
as one part of a larger strategy to evaluate the scope and nature of accessibility issues
associated with instructional materials and to customize their efforts to meet the unique
needs of each campus community. Use of this document by ATI campus teams is
entirely voluntary. Campuses who would are interested in receiving individualized
feedback regarding the results of this self-study may submit their findings to the ATI
staff. Once the results have been reviewed, the ATI staff will coordinate a conference
call to discuss any recommendations or comments with the ATI campus team.
Summary of Changes from Prior Version






Further information and clarification added throughout
Question K added under IMAP Item 1.
Question F removed from IMAP Item 2.
Question I added under IMAP Item 4.
IMAP Item 6 Notes and Questions now developed.
Questions H-J added under IMAP Item 7.
IMAP items
(1) A process for timely adoption of textbooks by faculty.
Notes
For purposes of this document, the term textbooks shall apply to all print-based
materials including both conventional hard-copy books as well as reader packets
and library reserves. If business processes differ depending on the format of the
instructional material, evaluate all unique processes.
Questions
A. Does the campus have an established deadline for submitting textbook
requisitions (TRs)?
B. Is the deadline for submitting TRs at least 6 weeks prior to the start of the
following academic term?
C. Has the campus academic senate passed either a resolution or policy in support
of timely submission of TRs?
D. Does the campus currently measure faculty timeliness in submitting TRs?
E. Does the campus currently share data related to timeliness of TRs with the
academic administration (e.g. Deans, Provosts)?
F. Over the past 3 academic terms, what percentage of TRs were submitted in a
timely manner (defined as either before an established deadline or at least 6
weeks prior to the start of the following academic term)?
G. What steps has the campus taken to inform faculty of the importance of
submitting TRs in a timely manner?
H. What steps has the campus taken to encourage faculty to submit TRs in a timely
manner (e.g. incentive plans, reminder memos, new faculty training information)?
I. Who is responsible for monitoring whether faculty submit their TRs in a timely
manner and what types of actions may be taken?
J. Does the campus have a central method for submitting and tracking TRs (e.g. a
web-based database)? Can alternate media staff access this information?
K. How many departments have long-term textbook adoption plans? If so, has the
department shared this information with the textbook vendor (e.g. bookstore,
Graphics department)? New to this version
Additional considerations



Has the campus established other methods to streamline book adoption?
Does campus have an established deadline by which other instructional
materials (e.g. reader packets, electronic reserves) are selected?
Is the deadline for submitting requests for other instructional materials at
least 6 weeks prior to the start of the following academic term?
(2) A process for identification of textbooks for late-hire faculty.
Notes
As with the previous item, textbooks shall refer generically to all text-based
instructional materials.
Questions
A. How long prior to the academic term are part-time faculty members hired?
B. How many departments have procedures in place for ordering textbooks prior to
hiring part-time faculty members? What percent of departments use this
procedure? How is this done?
C. How many departments allow part-time faculty to choose their own books? How
is this done?
D. Identify the elements of your later hire practices that may interfere with ordering
textbooks in time to permit production of alternate media prior to the start of
class.
E. Does a part-time faculty have the ability to complete a TR without being
physically present on campus (e.g. travel to campus to personally sign the form)?
(3) A process for early identification of students with disabilities who
require instructional materials to be provided in an alternate format.
Notes
Addressing this item involves not only tracking these students but also ensuring that
they are empowered to submit early requests for alternate formats. This
necessitates a review of early registration procedures associated with students with
disabilities.
Questions
A. How many students on your campus required instructional materials in an
alternate format over the last 3 terms? In how many courses did these
students enroll during that period? How many requests for alternate media did
your campus receive over the last 3 terms?
B. What types of alternate formats are currently produced and delivered on your
campus? What is the breakdown of formats utilized (e.g. Braille, etext, audio,
large-print)?
C. What is the average amount of time necessary to convert instructional
materials into an alternate format on your campus over the last 3 terms?
What percentage of alternate media requests were delivered in a timely
manner over the last 3 terms (defined as delivered either by the first day of
class, or within 2 weeks of receiving the alternate media request)?
D. Is a student’s eligibility for alternate media services used to determine
eligibility for early (priority) registration on your campus?
E. What business processes are in place to encourage alternate media-eligible
students to utilize early registration and to submit alternate media requests in
a timely manner?
F. Does the campus track whether alternate-media eligible students followthrough and utilize priority registration? What is the rate of follow-through for
the last 3 terms? How does the campus use this information to increase
student follow-through?
(4) A strategy to increase faculty use of the campus learning
management system (LMS) for delivering technology-enabled
courses, and for posting syllabi and instructional materials online for
traditional face-to-face and hybrid or blended courses.
Notes
A. This item is not intended to require all faculty members to use the LMS. Instead,
it is here to serve two purposes: (1) to encourage faculty with non-professional web
development skills to use an accessible infrastructure and (2) to increase electronic
access and to course materials by alternate media production staff.
B. While accessibility is currently a problem with many commercial LMS
implementations, it will be addressed and remedied as part of the administrative web
accessibility component of the ATI.
Questions
A. What percent of course offerings currently use your campus LMS over the
last 3 terms? What percent of offerings use individualized websites? How is
this usage distributed across departments?
B. What courses on your campus may require individualized websites instead of
the campus LMS (such as for pedagogical reasons)?
C. How many faculty members would prefer to use their own website instead of
the campus LMS? How many of these faculty members are capable of
producing, technical standards valid and Section 508 compliant websites?
D. How do faculty members use the LMS? (e.g. traditional course support,
hybrid courses, online instruction, other)? Also, which LMS modules are used
by faculty members? Try to be as specific as possible.
E. Are faculty members satisfied with the service provided by your campus
LMS? Does the campus provide any incentives for faculty to use the LMS?
F. Does your campus currently give alternative media production experts access
to instructional materials that appear on the campus LMS?
G. Is a campus LMS site established automatically for each course in order to
streamline Faculty use of the site? Is LMS course enrollment tied to student
enrollment dynamically such that new students are automatically added to
LMS course rosters?
H. Does the campus specifically encourage faculty to post their text-based
materials in an electronic form as well? Are the electronic formats
accessible?
I. How does your campus evaluate whether authors of instructional websites
are able to produce accessible websites?
(5) A process to incorporate accessibility requirements in the
purchase of digital or multimedia instructional materials (captions on
videos, for example).
Notes
This item is principally focused on the procurement of Section 508-compliant
instructional materials (e.g. transcripts for audio, synchronized captions for videos),
additional issues. However, there may be times when campuses are faced with
adopting instructional materials that are not natively accessible. For this reason,
campuses should explore ways in which they have will codify and develop business
processes around the transformation of these materials.
Questions
A. Does the campus provide information to faculty and staff who procure digital
or multimedia instructional materials that highlights the importance of
incorporating accessibility in their decision-making process?
B. Has the campus created any materials for faculty and staff to use when
evaluating multimedia instructional materials (e.g. accessibility checklists)?
C. Do any departments have procedures for reviewing and approving the
adoption of digital or multimedia instructional materials? Are there specific
timelines associated with this approval process?
D. Does the campus Disability Services office provide consultation to
departments that are considering the adoption of digital or multimedia
instructional materials?
E. Has the campus procurement office established business processes to review
and to provide guidance to those who procure digital or multimedia
instructional materials?
F. Does the campus have formal procedures and timelines in place for
converting digital or multimedia instructional materials? Are there redundant
systems in place to ensure the campus can respond quickly to unexpected
requests?
G. Do faculty and staff who procure digital or multimedia instructional materials
know the campus procedures associated with converting them into an
accessible format?
(6) A process to incorporate accessibility as a required component in
the curriculum review and approval processes educational policy
addressing course development and delivery.
Notes
This is a key academic governance problem. Faculty are responsible for delivering
accessible instructional materials and thereby ensuring that the curriculum is usable
by all students. This specifically refers to those policies that govern the instructional
materials associated with delivery of curriculum.
Questions
A. What educational policies on your campus address delivery, production, sale or
structure of instructional materials?
B. Do you have a syllabus policy? Does it address accessibility?
C. Do you have policies that govern the electronic delivery of course materials for
distance learning, hybrid courses, or traditional courses? Is there a mechanism that
requires production of accessible instructional materials for electronic delivery?
D. Does educational policy governing instructional material inform faculty members
that delivery of accessible instructional materials is a legal responsibility under
California Code 11135? In particular, do faculty know that all instructional materials
delivered using electronic or information technology must satisfy Section 508
whether students with disabilities are enrolled in a class or not?
E. What educational policies on campus may need to change in order to
successfully transition from an accommodation model to a universal design model
for delivery of instructional materials?
(7) A plan to support faculty in the creation of accessible course
content.
Notes
While campuses are encouraged to focus their early efforts on print-based materials,
they should also carefully consider the unique accessibility issues associated with
other, more diverse forms of instructional materials as outlined below.
Questions
A. Does the campus provide training on authoring accessible electronic
documents (e.g. syllabi, handouts) for commonly-used formats such as
Microsoft Office and PDF? Does the training address both creating new
documents and modifying existing documents?
B. How will campuses support and train faculty to convert existing instructional
materials that only exist in paper form? For example, does the campus
provide training and support for faculty who need to digitize paper-based
documents in an accessible manner for use as instructional materials?
Alternatively, does the campus provide this service to faculty members
through another mechanism?
C. If faculty elect to utilize reader packets, does the campus have the technical
infrastructure in place to capture and store digital copies of these packets?
Are there procedures in place to make these copies available to staff who will
convert them into an accessible, alternate format?
D. Has the campus established timelines and procedures for faculty to follow
when delivering content to be shared via Library reserves? Who is
responsible for converting these materials into an accessible format? What
metrics are used to determine whether these materials are 508-compliant?
E. How will the campus support faculty in addressing the accessibility of their
laboratory-based instructional materials (e.g. photographic slides, microscope
images)?
F. Does the campus provide any training or support to faculty who are
evaluating software for use as an instructional component? How does the
campus confirm (and document) that an accessibility evaluation of the
software has occurred?
G. What training and support has the campus given to faculty to address the
accessibility of off-campus course content (e.g. assignments to review/critique
commercial films or texts)?
H. Does AV equipment used in campus classrooms support accessibility
features (e.g. captions on DVD players)? Do faculty know how to activate and
use these accessibility features?
I. Are computers within campus classrooms configured such that users can
activate accessibility features of multimedia players (e.g. captions on
streaming web-based videos)? Are these features enabled by default when
the computer is initially configured? Do faculty and students know how to
activate and use these accessibility features?
J. How do these efforts align with other campus initiatives (e.g. the Student
Success Initiative)?