Accessible Technology Initiative
Instructional Materials Accessibility Plan (IMAP)
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
SSU Accessible Technology Initiative, Steering Committee
Carol Blackshire-Belay, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (Co-Chair & Executive Sponsor)
Sam Scalise, Chief Information Officer (Co-Chair)
Brett Christie, Director of Faculty Development (ATI Coordinator)
Emiliano Ayala, Associate Professor, Special Education (Priority 2)
Brent Boyer, Disabled Student Services (Priority 2)
Bruce Carpe, Assistant Director of IT (Priority 2)
Dan Condron, Vice President, University Affairs (Priority 1)
Kathryn Crabbe, Vice President, Student Affairs (Priority 2)
Larry Furukawa-Schlereth, Vice President, Administration and Finance (Priority 3)
Paula Hammett, University Library (Priority 2)
Christine Hayes, Library Webmaster (Priority 1)
Aidong Hu, Assistant Professor, Business Administration (Priority 2)
Phil Huang, University Library (Priority 2)
Neil Markley, Director of Administrative Services (Priority 2)
Elaine McDonald, Chair of the Faculty (Priority 1)
Ruth McDonnell, Financial Services (Priority 3)
Barbara Moore, Director, Web Services (Priorities 1 & 2)
Jeffrey Reader, Associate Professor, Modern Languages (Priority 2)
Anna Reynolds-Smith, Administrative Project Manager (Priority 2)
Beez Schell, Chair, Professional Development Subcommittee (Priority 2)
Bonnie Sugiyama, Interim Director, Center for Culture, Gender and Sexuality (Priority 2)
Carol Tremmel, Program Manager, Extended Education (Priority 2)
Jason Wenrick, Finance Project Director (Priority 3)
Nic Werner, IT Network Analyst (Priority 3)
SSU Accessibility Website
http://www.sonoma.edu/accessibility
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
Message from Sonoma State University, President, Ruben Armiñana
March 26, 2007
TO: SSU Campus Community
RE: Ensuring Access to Electronic and Information Technology to Persons with Disabilities
Introduction:
Sonoma State University is committed to providing a fully inclusive environment responsive to the needs of all students. As such,
information technology resources, services and programs will be made accessible to persons with disabilities. This effort represents a
shared responsibility of all members of the campus and will require ongoing, overall institutional attention and commitment for its
success.
Electronic and Information Technology refers to all programs and services provided to faculty, staff and students through computer or
electronic media. This includes computer and network access and services, computer-delivered or enhanced instruction, library
electronic information resources, library online catalogs and homepages, campus informational websites, computer-delivered or
assisted administrative services, and voice and video programs and services.
Related Historical Context:
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require that qualified individuals with
disabilities be provided equal access to programs, services, or activities. California Government Code 11135 applies Section 508 of the
1973 Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998, to State entities and to the CSU. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in
information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies
that will help achieve these goals. The CSU policy statement on accessibility was articulated in Executive Order 926. The statements of
the SSU policy reflect implementation steps for EO 926.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
1. A process for timely adoption of textbooks by faculty.
1A. Overview
Main focus in this area was to establish deadlines that worked with the class schedule, registration periods, and bookstore procedures.
Emphasis was placed on accommodating Disabled Student Services in terms of timeline that would enable them to convert any instructional
materials to alternative formats, should the need arise. In addition, the committee worked with the University Scheduler, who was able to make
minor adjustments to respective course scheduling deadlines for departments. We found that the new textbook adoption deadlines do not differ
by more than one week from the present deadlines. However, the issue to date has been compliance, whereas only 17% of faculty submitted
their textbook orders on this deadline during Spring 2007 (for Fall 2007).
1B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
The establishment of a deadline to adopt
print-based instructional materials (and
associated business procedures)
The passage of academic policies or
resolutions of support for the timely adoption
of print-based instructional materials
The development of incentives to encourage
faculty and staff to adopt print-based
instructional materials in a timely manner
Status
(Y, N, IP)
Y
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
05/07
IP
02/07
09/07
IP
02/07
09/07
Discussion
Committee worked with University Scheduler, Disabled
Student Services, and Bookstore to establish deadlines
that will afford any necessary accommodations.
Interim policy has been approved by Academic Senate
Subcommittees. To be discussed at first meeting of
Senate in September, 2007.
Compliance measures in policy; no incentives yet.
Bookstore has offered incentives in the past and we will
continue this pattern in hopes that resources will afford
more in the future.
1C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
The ATI Steering Committee is working with SSU IT to develop an online textbook adoption system. SSU currently uses TextAid but found it
sorely inadequate. Therefore, a new system will need to be developed, with the hopes of having it ready in October 2007 for Spring 2008
textbook orders. Developing this system will involve extensive discussion, planning, technical specs drafting, development, user testing, and
articulation across multiple units. Specific resource commitments at this time are unclear, due to the project being in the early discussion and
planning stages. More will be determined in terms of project scope and resources during Summer 2007.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
1D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestone
The implementation of a deadline (and
associated procedures) supporting timely
adoption of print-based instructional materials
Status
(Y, N, IP)
Y
# of weeks
before term
15
Effective
Term
Winter or
Spring 2008
Discussion
Baseline Measures
Textbooks
The number of print-based instructional
materials adopted in the last year
890*
Course
Readers
55*
The percentage of print-based instructional
materials adopted in a timely manner in the
last year
20-30%*
Unknown**
Discussion
Actual implementation date will depend greatly on the
development of a new textbook adoption interface and
database. Resources toward this effort will significantly
impact rate of progress.
*These are distinct titles, not total copies of texts. Off-campus vendor
amount unknown, as some faculty direct students independently to
other sources (e.g., online). This will need to be tracked more closely
in the near future, with new instructional materials adoption database
beging developed.
**Total number unclear, as large number of faculty process these
through local copy establishments. This will need to be tracked more
closely in the near future, with new instructional materials adoption
database beging developed.
*This percentage is for the first deadline, historically a “loose”
deadline.
**Majority of readers process off campus and no data available. New
tracking procedures being added as new database is being built.
1E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If a student who requires print-based instructional materials in an alternate format enrolls in a course for which materials were adopted after the
deadline, how will the campus provide equally-effective access to this material?
If a faculty member does not order a textbook by the deadline, there will be a one-week period in which the faculty member must submit an order
or their department chair (or designee) is to make the order. Therefore, orders will made at or near the deadline established, with more than
enough time to make an alternate format accommodations. In addition, the campus bookstore will be ordering at least one copy of each text at
the deadline, regardless of whether that instructor has placed their order through the campus bookstore or an independent off-campus
bookstore. This will ensure that we have at least one copy in a timely manner, should another bookstore have issues with ordering, process, and
receiving text orders in a timely manner.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
(2) A process for identification of textbooks for late-hire faculty.
2A. Overview
This was an issue that came up for discussion several times during our ATI meetings, as well as presentations to committees and faculty groups.
In addition to late-hires, there is a fair amount of adjunct/part-time faculty whose assignments are not solidified until relatively late in the process.
However, the process and deadlines do not differ, in that if a faculty member has not been specifically designated for a course by the time of the
textbook adoption deadline, then it is the responsibility of the department chair (or designee) to order the text for the course. In the case of late
hires, this should just be a one-time scenario.
2B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
The establishment of specific procedures to
identify print-based instructional materials for
late-hire faculty
The development of a mechanism for
Academic Affairs to monitor this procedure
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
09/07
Discussion
IP
02/07
09/07
Awaiting final discussion at Academic Senate (approved
at all preceding levels to date). New database will
provide reports to Academic Affairs for compliance
monitoring.
Awaiting final discussion at Academic Senate (has been
approved at all preceding levels to date).
2C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
For the most part, this policy will involve improved communication and greater accountability for those ordering textbooks to actually meet the
deadlines. The ordering system and database being developed will require resources for development and maintenance and will support IMAP
items 1-3.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
2D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestone
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
# of weeks
before term
12-15
Baseline Measures
The number of departments with procedures
for ordering print-based instructional
materials for late-hire faculty
Response
No formal
policy.
The percentage of departments that have
these procedures
0
Discussion
Departments have reported varied methods for late-hire orders. Most typical has
been that the late-hire gets the order in under the wire. In some very-late-hire
scenarios, the department chair has made the order to ensure that the book arrives
by first week of class.
No policies found but rather a case-by-case scenario depending on who is the
department chair, how late the hire is, and for which course.
The implementation of a deadline to identify
print-based instructional materials for latehire faculty
Effective
Discussion
Term
Winter/Spring Awaiting final discussion at Academic Senate (has
2008
been approved at all preceding levels to date).
2E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If a student who requires alternate format print-based instructional materials enrolls in a section for which print-based instructional materials were
not selected on behalf of late-hire faculty, how will the campus provide equally-effective access to this material?
Unfortunately, this is a situation in which Disabled Student Services and University Bookstore have worked together in the past. Therefore, there
is at least a fall-back pattern if needed. As students register with DSS, they submit their schedules. DSS then contacts the Bookstore to acquire
the list of texts for those courses and instructors. If no text has been ordered/received, DSS contact program Chair re book assignment. If this
does not happen in a timely manner, DSS works with Chair and student toward enrollment in a course section for which a text has been
ordered/received. Conversion to alternate format begins as soon as possible. If there is not enough time before start of class, DSS
accommodates accordingly (e.g., human reader).
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
(3) A process for early identification of students with disabilities (SWD) who require instructional materials
to be provided in an alternate format.
3A. Overview
DSS has had a procedure for several years, in terms of identifying SWD. However, there has been no process for systematically beginning this
at registration, with tracking and articulation from there. The ATI Committee is currently working to implement changes, as well as better
leveraging CMS to identify and track SWD. This will enable better tracking of course sections for which SWD have enrolled and comparing
those data to textbook adoption and conversion status.
3B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
Status
(Y, N, IP)
Y
Initiation
Date
Pre-ATI
Completion
Date (exp)
N/A
The establishment of procedures to provide
alternate media-eligible students with
eligibility for early registration
The development of a plan to encourage
alternate-media eligible students to utilize
early registration and to submit alternate
media requests in a timely manner
Y
Pre-ATI
N/A
Y
Pre-ATI
N/A
The establishment of procedures to provide
data to alternate media producers which
associates course enrollment with
instructional materials listings
Y
Pre-ATI
N/A
The development of a system to track the
enrollment of students with disabilities who
require alternate format
Discussion
Working toward better articulation between online
registration, PeopleSoft, and textbook ordering
database. This will be referred to as the “tracking
system” for the rest of this IMAP Item.
SSU SWD are assigned Priority registration dates.
ATI committee reviewed this process and found that it is
compatible with the textbook adoption timelines.
Students will receive earlier notifications regarding
alternate-media process, procedures, and deadlines.
These notifications will be more efficiently generated via
tracking system. The tracking system will be able to
generate reminders for those students who do not
respond accordingly.
Currently, SWD physically submit their schedule to
DSS. DSS checks text adoption list and begins
alternate media production steps. Tracking system
should streamline the process so that DSS can do a
query on a given date and see a SWD’s course
schedule and status of text adoption and alternatemedia status, if applicable.
3C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
Will require significant discussion, planning, and development on behalf of ATI leadership, Bookstore, DSS, and IT to develop a tracking system
for textbook adoption, as well as articulation with PeopleSoft and Registration. Hardware needs include mainly a server, while human resources
toward planning and development will be significant. It is unclear whether additional resources will be made available or whether the effort will
be absorbed
within existing resources (bumping other efforts/priorities).
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
3D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestones
Effective
Term
Spring 2008
Discussion
Spring 2008
Integrated tracking system will provide on-demand, real-time reports of SWD and
their course enrollments, as well as status of instructional materials for the
respective course and sections.
Baseline Measure
The number of students who were eligible for
alternate format instructional materials in the
last year
Response
32
Discussion
Baseline Measure
The number of eligible students who requested
alternate format instructional materials in the
last year
The percentage of eligible students who
requested alternate format instructional
materials in the last year
eText
18
Audio
1
Braille
1
Large-Print
2
56
3
3
5
The implementation of procedures to provide
alternate media-eligible students with eligibility
for early registration
The implementation of procedures to provide
data to alternate media producers which
associates course enrollment with instructional
materials listings
Though a process is in place, it is hoped that SWD will be able to use a more
streamlined process of communication, registration and support.
Other (specify)
3E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If the campus elects not to provide early registration for students who require alternate format print-based instructional materials, how will the
campus provide equally-effective access to these materials?
Students registered with Disabled Student Services are accommodated with early/priority registration.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
4. A strategy to increase use of the campus LMS for delivering technology-enabled courses, and for posting syllabi
and instructional materials online for traditional face-to-face and hybrid and blended courses.
4A. Overview
Notes: This provision emphasizes providing students who require alternate format instructional materials with access to their materials through an
accessible, electronic infrastructure. This reduces the time necessary to convert instructional materials into an accessible format and provides
alternate media personnel with a central location to obtain these materials.
Given that WebCT is of reasonable accessibility, SSU has been engaged in encouraging all faculty to use the LMS as a way to more effectively
communicate with and engage students. The next step is to train faculty to make sure that the materials they post within the LMS are
accessible. In Spring 2007, SSU upgraded to WebCT CE6. As such, there has been a significant amount of training and demonstrations
provided as of November 2006.
4B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
The establishment of procedures to provide
faculty with access to an LMS course site (or
accessible website) into which they can post
instructional materials
The development of procedures to
encourage faculty to post their instructional
materials in an electronic format
The establishment of procedures to provide
alternate media producers with access to
these print-based instructional materials
Status
(Y, N, IP)
Y
Initiation
Date
Pre-ATI
Completion
Date (exp)
N/A
Discussion
Y
Pre-ATI
N/A
IP
05/07
12/07
IT has offered training sessions and drop-in help for
numerous years. In addition, IT and the Center for
Teaching and Professional Development now host a
Faculty Showcase, featuring effective ways in which
faculty across disciplines use WebCT.
Alternate media producers will be granted student
access to the instructor’s course in WebCT, acquiring
any materials with need to be processed. Discussions
are still taking place as to whether the faculty member
would instead have the option of sending the materials
via email or CD, should they not be comfortable with the
producer entering their WebCT course.
Since 2005, all courses are automatically given a
course shell in WebCT.
4C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
SSU will continue to utilize WebCT Campus Edition 6 for the immediate future. Any changes would be based on CSU contract with BlackBoard
and continual assessment of campus needs. This item is already part of the IT budget. Training will continue and will increase as faculty
interest dictates. As of November 2006, IT has hired an additional staff person, with a primary responsibility of supporting increased training and
use of WebCT.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
4D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestones
Effective
Term
Pre-ATI
Discussion
Spring 2008
If faculty member approves, will grant alt-media producer access to the class.
Otherwise, faculty member will need to provide to alt-media producer via other
electronic means.
Baseline Measure
The number of courses that used non-LMS
campus-hosted websites in the last year (note:
the number of LMS course sites will be pulled
from Measures of Success)
Response
Approx 160
The percentage of courses that used individual
websites in the last year
Unknown
Discussion
This number is difficult to determine, as faculty may place their web course in
different directories. Also, it is not known which of these 160 is for a single section
or multiple sections. In addition, there is no way to tell which of these course web
pages is currently being utilized or how many others are being utilized yet not on
the list. Source of this information is the “SSU Class Web Pages.” Usage statistics
are kept for the /users directory, yet some faculty post class web sites in other web
folders (e.g., department directory).
Unable to determine, for reasons described above.
The implementation of procedures to provide
faculty with access to an LMS course site (or
accessible website) into which they can post
instructional materials
The implementation of procedures to provide
alternate media producers with access to
these print-based instructional materials
Since 2005, all courses are automatically created in WebCT for faculty to begin
posting at least one month prior to the start of the academic term.
4E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If a student who requires alternate format print-based instructional materials enrolls in a section or course for which the instructional materials have
not been posted in an electronic format, how will the campus provide that student with equally-effective access to this material?
If a faculty member does not post their course and instructional materials in WebCT, they will need to make available their materials upon
request by a SWD who has registered with DSS. The request is authorized by DSS and goes to the faculty member. The faculty member will
then need to have the material available in an electronic via email or CD, so that it can be produced accordingly.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
5. A process to incorporate accessibility requirements in the purchase of digital or multimedia instructional
materials (captions on videos, for example).
5A. Overview
Note: This provision focuses on both developing 508-compliant procurement procedures for instructional materials and on codifying what campus
procedures will be used to handle the transformation of inaccessible instructional materials.
The ATI Priority 2 Committee is in the early stages of developing this policy, due to the quick timeline and related attention required of the
Textbook Adoption Policy and campus discussions/approvals. More focus will be placed here, as related to increased faculty training and
awareness related to the accessibility of their non-text instructional materials. Two open forums and two workshops took place in Spring 2007.
However, awareness is still on the risse and increased training and attendance is expected as of Fall 2007.
5B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
The development of procedures that address
accessibility during procurement of digital or
multimedia instructional materials
The establishment of an infrastructure to
IP
allow the conversion of digital or multimedia
instructional materials into accessible formats
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
12/07
Pre-ATI
07/08
Discussion
Several discussions, resulting only in policy
recommendations at this stage. Further guidance and
policy input sought from CO.
Further discussion and assessment necessary.
5C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
Administration and Finance plans to hire an additional employee whose primary task will be facilitating and screening procurement requests.
The ATI Committee is also working closely with the Library, as they acquire and host a substantial portion of instructional materials for the
campus.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
5D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestone
The implementation of formal procedures to
address accessible procurement of digital or
multimedia instructional materials
Baseline Measures
The number of academic units that have
established procedures for incorporating
accessibility into the procurement process for
multimedia instructional materials
The percentage of academic units
represented by this number
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
Initiation
Date
05/07
Completion
Date (exp)
05/08
Discussion
Response
0
Discussion
No officially adapted procedures. Awareness is rising but actual efforts vary greatly
and tend to be more independent than formalized by unit.
Currently, there are only procurement policies in
development as related to larger purchases (>$2500)
100
5E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If a student who requires digital or multimedia instructional materials in an alternate format enrolls in a section or course that has been granted an
exemption from accessible procurement procedures, how will the campus provide this student with equally-effective access to this material?
Faculty members are encouraged to implement accessible digital and multimedia instructional materials (e.g., closed-captioned video).
However, SSU does not currently have a supported means to effectively caption multimedia information. A faculty member requesting an
exemption on a particular multimedia resource must describe how they will provide equally-effective access toward the same learning outcomes
(i.e., not a filler activity).
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
6. A method to incorporate accessibility (where required) in the educational policy addressing course development
and delivery
6A. Overview
Note: This item addresses policies and procedures that exist, need to exist, or need to be modified in order to integrate equally effective access to
instructional materials into the general body of educational policy, procedure and practice.
In November 2006, the Coded Memorandum was presented to the Academic Senate. In addition, since February, subsequent policy related
discussions have taken place at Senate Subcommittees: Educational Policies Committee (EPC); Academic Planning Committee (APC); Faculty
Standards and Affairs Committee (FSAC); Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS). Specific examples provided below.
6B. Procedures/Practices
Procedures & Practices
The identification of all relevant curricular
and course policies (e.g. syllabus policies,
GE Approval or Renewal, Course Adoption,
Early Registration Policy, Policy Relating to
Equity and Diversity, Distance Learning, etc.)
for which accessibility language should be
incorporated
Status
(Y, N, IP)
Y  IP
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
05/07
through
05/08
Discussion
Course Outline policy modified to address accessibility
(via FSAC and Senate). New course/Course Revision
process modified to include statement from originator
that the course will be accessible from Fall 2008
forward. Timely Adoption of Textbooks policy approved
through Senate committees, with discussion at Senate
to take place Fall 2007. Priority registration for SWD
already in place.
6C. Resources
What processes (e.g. formation of committees, time allocations at leadership meetings, formal retreats) and resources will be utilized to develop and
implement these business procedures and academic practices?
SSU has formed ATI Steering Committee and 3 Priority committees. The Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from most/all
university-level committees. Executive Sponsor and ATI Coordinator work with committees and faculty leadership. Resources to date have
included assigned-time to the ATI Coordinator to work within existing committee structures and meeting times. Academic Affairs has sponsored
two open forums related to ATI, as offered by the ATI Steering Committee.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
6D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestone
Status
(Y, N, IP)
The incorporation of accessibility language in IP
all relevant curricular and course policies
which supports the goal of equally effective
access to instructional materials
Listing of specific curricular and course
N
policies impacted:
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
10/07
Discussion
09/07
05/08
Need to review how this may become part of Program
Review that is to take place by all programs at least
once every 5 years.
Has been approved by Senate subcommittees and
slated for discussion at Senate, September 2007.
6E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
Note: It is recognized that some types of instructional materials may not be readily made accessible or would require a fundamental alteration to the
manner in which they are taught. If this occurs, how will the campus provide this student with equally-effective access to this material?
For now, DSS will assist with conversion. In addition, several faculty members are going through in Universal Design for Learning training and
can model best practice methods toward equally-effective access.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
7. A plan to support faculty in the creation of accessible course content.
7A. Overview
Training and support will of all faculty will be a primary goal and should (granted resources) increase significantly as of AY 07-08. SSU is
fortunate to be the lead campus in a federal project to support secondary students with disabilities, called Ensuring Access through Collaboration
and Technology (EnACT; enact.sonoma.edu). This project began in Fall 2006 and will continue through at least September 2008. The main
focus of EnACT is on faculty development toward Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and development of Accessible instructional Materials
(AIM). Key partners in EnACT are faculty developers, DSS, Academic Technology, and faculty leadership. As such, EnACT is able to offer
quality training and resources in UDL and general accessibility training. To date, SSU EnACT leaders have offered multipled workshops open to
the campus, as well as a semester-long Faculty Learning Community related to UDL. This Faculty Learning Community offers an in-depth and
supportive interdisciplinary cohort that is led through fundamental changes in course design and resource development. The primary outcome is
to better support the learning of SWD, as well as all students, since UDL is about creating course content and experiences in ways that reach all
learners to their maximum potential. EnACT has developed extensive training materials for face-to-face training, as well as online materials that
will introduce faculty to the concept of Universal Design for Learning. To date, data gathered by the EnACT project show that faculty trained in
Universal Design for Learning (includes making content accessible) have had a significant impact on the Grade Point Average of SWD. In 2006,
baseline data gathered on all SWD at SSU showed a GPA of 3.00. Data collected in Spring 2007 showed that SWD who were in courses taught
by faculty who received training in Universal Design for Learning had a GPA of 3.22, a significant increase from the campus mean for all SWD.
In comparison, across campus, students without disabilities (SWOD) showed a mean GPA decrease from 3.40 to 3.26.
In addition, the SSU Center for Teaching and Professional Development offers weekly workshops related to Teaching and Technology. These
workshops all include at least a small component related to the technology, its resources, and creating accessible course content.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
7B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverables
The establishment of a plan to provide
training and technical support (e.g. help
desk, hands-on, and online resources) to
assist faculty with authoring accessible
instructional materials
The establishment of a plan to support
faculty in selecting accessible off-campus
instructional materials
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
Initiation
Date
Pre-ATI
Completion
Date (exp)
09/08
IP
02/07
09/08
Discussion
Training and resources primarily developed through
EnACT project. Looking to develop more support
through IT personnel as well. Opening a Learning and
Teaching Center in Fall 2007 and will be able to better
integrate accessibility as a support function there. Hope
to see systemwide resources become available (e.g.,
How-To’s, Toolkits).
Raising awareness of how to filter off-site resources
accordingly. How to have accessible equivalent
alternatives when the desired resources are not
compliant.
7C. Resources
What technical and financial resources will be utilized to implement these business procedures and academic practices?
Training faculty in how best to use common tools (e.g., MS Office; Dreamweaver; WebCT). Installation of and training on tools like LecShare to
make existing PowerPoint presentations accessible.
Need more high-speed scanners. Need a more fully equipped Assistive Technology Center. We have hired a new Assistive Technology
specialist (position vacant over 6 months) and hope to better equip his operation through a combination of SSU and EnACT funds. This person
was hired effective June 1, 2007 and should make significant contributions in this area.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
7D. Milestones/Measures of Success
Milestones
The implementation of a plan to provide
technical support (e.g. help desk, hands-on,
and online resources) to assist faculty with
authoring accessible instructional materials
The implementation of a plan to support
faculty in selecting accessible off-campus
instructional materials
Baseline Measures
The number of faculty who have received
training on authoring, evaluating, and
remedying instructional materials
The number of faculty who have received
training on selecting accessible off-campus
instructional materials
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
Initiation
Date
10/05
Completion
Date (exp)
09/08
IP
10/05
09/08
Response
50
Discussion
Some of this has occurred through sessions offered by IT, some by a collaboration
between EnACT and faculty development at SSU. One contributing factor to having
approximately 50 people trained is that EnACT is able to offer incentives, monetary
and otherwise, to those that complete training.
50
Discussion
There is a plan and needs have been discussed.
However, foreseen resources or significantly deficient
to realize the level of support necessary. Activity to
date has been greatly enabled by EnACT project
resources and goals that compliment ATI.
7E. Exemptions/Equally-Effective Access
If a student who requires instructional materials in an alternate format enrolls in a section or course that has been granted an exemption from
accessible authoring procedures, how will the campus ensure that this student has equally-effective access to this material?
If a faculty member does not post or provide accessible instructional materials, they will need to make available their materials upon request by
a SWD who has registered with DSS. The request is authorized by DSS and goes to the faculty member. The faculty member will then need to
have the material available in an electronic via email or CD, so that it can be produced accordingly.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
8. A communication process and training plan to educate students, staff, and faculty about the campus Instructional
Materials Accessibility Plan.
8A. Overview
Notes: The eventual goal is that all members of the campus community who produce, assign, deliver or receive instructional materials shall be
informed of their roles and responsibilities regarding equally effective access to course materials for persons with disabilities. Moreover, individuals
with roles or responsibilities in this enterprise shall receive appropriate training so that they can fulfill their roles and responsibilities.
SSU has had some communication and a modest amount of communication regarding since Fall 2005, when Ensuring Access through
Collaboration and Technology (EnACT) was funded by the federal government. Since CSU ATI was in its development stages, SSU has been
collaborating with EnACT to begin informing and training faculty. EnACT developed a website with information and training materials related to
Universal Design for Learning as of Fall 2005. In addition, SSU developed an Accessibility website during Winter 2007. Accessibility information
(e.g., training opportunities) is communicated on a regular basis through campus website, SSU ATI website, weekly newsletter, newsletter from
the Center for Teaching and Professional Development, and related email communications. Those needing information can contact the SSU ATI
Coordinator directly via phone, email, or instant messaging.
8B. Procedures/Practices
Deliverable
The development of a communication plan to
inform students, faculty and staff of their
roles/responsibilities regarding the provision of
equally-effective access to instructional
materials
The identification of how often these
communications will take place in the
academic calendar
DRAFT
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
Initiation
Date
02/07
Completion
Date (exp)
05/08
Discussion
IP
02/07
05/08
Goal is monthly. Effective method of reaching campuswide audience is main barrier.
Somewhat limited, as campus emails are only allowed
through University Affairs representative. The hope is
that information will be posted to enough locations that
everyone will notice it.
June 14, 2007
Note: Describe the specific training that the campus will provide for all stakeholders that are involved in providing accessible instructional materials.
Description of Training
Audience: Faculty
Plans to Frequency
Discussion (including modality e.g. in-person, online)
(FAC), Staff (STF), or
Provide
(e.g.
Student (STDT);
(Y/N)
quarterly)
Specify dept/division
Textbook adoption for assigned and
FAC, STF and
Y
Quarterly
All information will be available at SSU Accessibility
unassigned course sections
Chairs/Program
website, as well as in actual textbook ordering interface.
Advisors
Creating accessible print-based
FAC, STF
Y
Quarterly
Will offer instructional materials accessibility sessions
instructional materials
approximately every two weeks, as well as by
appointment or drop-in.
Distributing accessible print-based
FAC, STF
Y
Quarterly
Also, as needed by appointment or drop-in.
instructional materials via LMS & web
Creating accessible multimedia
FAC, STF
Y
Monthly
Also, as needed by appointment or drop-in.
instructional materials
Procuring accessible multi-media
FAC, STF
Y
Quarterly
Also, as needed by appointment or drop-in.
instructional materials
Requesting instructional materials in
STDT, FAC/STF with
Y
Quarterly
Also, as needed by appointment or drop-in.
alternate format
disability
Use of assistive hardware and
STDT, FAC/STF with
Y
Biannual
Also, as needed by appointment or drop-in.
software necessary for access
disability
Other:
How will those overseeing the implementation of these procedures be kept informed of campus progress toward meeting IMAP goals?
SSU ATI Steering Committee has multiple members who are primarily responsible for oversight, by nature of job assignment.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
8C. Resources
What campus communications channels (e.g. publications, governance bodies, policy retreats, professional development events, etc.) will be used
to coordinate and support the dissemination of information about the IMAP? (Note: campuses may adapt their responses to meet campus need)
Communication Content
Communication Channels
Responsible Party
Discussion
(Frequency)
(Admin Unit)
Timely adoption of textbooks by
Campus emails quarterly
Academic Affairs
Not to be responsibility of bookstore,
faculty
since it is Barnes & Noble operated.
Identification of textbooks for lateQuarterly emails
Academic Affairs
AA > Schools > Department Chairs
hire faculty
Identification of students with
Orientation
Student Services/
Hope to retrieve efficiently from
disabilities who need materials in
Online Registration
DSS
PeopleSoft
alternate format
Academic Advising
Instructional materials accessibility
Post note to instructors WebCT login
IT
Still to be discussed as an option.
page
Accessibility requirements when
Email
Academic Affairs
purchasing of digital or multimedia
Deans Council > Council of Chairs
instructional materials
Resources available to support
Center for Teaching and Prof Dev
Academic Affairs
faculty in creation of accessible
Information Technology
course materials
EnACT project
Which individuals and offices have responsibility for staff development, faculty development, and non-academic student training? Who among this
group will have responsibility for training for the Instructional Materials Accessibility Plan?
Faculty development comes through Academic Affairs, via Center for Teaching and Professional Development. Staff training (including student
assistants) comes primarily from Human Resources. Academic Affairs will have primary responsibility for IMAP training.
8D. Milestones/Measures of Success
All faculty, staff and students involved in production, assignment or delivery of instructional materials shall be informed as to their roles and
responsibilities regarding equally effective access to instructional materials. This process should be completed by 2010-2011 along with an ongoing
communications mechanism for new members of the campus community. Training programs shall exist for all faculty members, staff and students
involved in production, assignment or delivery of instructional materials that prepare them to satisfy their roles and responsibilities regarding equally
effective access to instructional materials. This process should be completed by academic year 2011-2012 along with an ongoing training
mechanism for new members of the campus community.
How will the campus monitor and evaluate the success of its training and communications actions for the Instructional Materials Accessibility Plan?
Monitoring and evaluation specifications to be developed during Fall 2007 and implemented in 2008.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
9. An evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the campus IMAP.
9A. Overview
Each campus should develop a campus-level mechanism for evaluating compliance levels regarding equally effective access to instructional
materials for every student regardless of disability. The structure and process for the evaluation should be consistent with campus culture. It should
be performed by a highly respected campus body that has the expertise to perform such an analysis and the campus-wide trust necessary to
ensure its internal credibility.
During the life of the Accessibility Technology Initiative (2007-2012), this accountability reporting process should be performed annually and an
annual report should be submitted to the President. Once the initiative has completed, the campus should have developed a regular periodic review
process for auditing campus compliance regarding equally effective access to instructional materials. This permanent periodic review process need
not be annual, but it must be frequent enough and complete enough to provide accurate and credible evidence of campus compliance.
These evaluation reports will be the primary mechanism for collecting and analyzing evidence of campus compliance with equally effective access
to instructional materials. If the campus is ever subject to a compliance investigation, these evaluation reports should serve as the primary roadmap
for demonstrating campus commitments to equally effective access for all students.
Each campus will also need to identify a campus agent who will be responsible for performing this evaluation. The campus agent, which may be an
office (e.g. internal auditor) or a special committee, should be selected base upon competence in performing the task and campus trust of the agent.
9B. Procedures/Practices
Describe the business practices that will be used at each phase of the evaluation process (data selection, collection, analysis, documentation,
dissemination, administrative review).
Discussion should evolve more quickly and completely now that full draft of IMAP has been completed and will serve to inform discussion among
ATI Steering Committee (includes Executive Sponsor and ATI Coordinator).
9C. Resources
Describe the staff resources that will be used at each phase of the evaluation process (data selection, collection, analysis, documentation,
dissemination, administrative review).
Resources will need to be discussed further among the Vice Presidents at the Cabinet Level. Discussions will also need to take place between
ATI Coordinator and Academic Planning Committee. Now that IMAP is complete, campus leadership should be able to begin addressing
resource needs to meet IMAP objectives.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
Describe the budgetary implications associated with conducting this evaluation. This includes accounting for the availability of personnel with the
necessary expertise to complete this task and any costs associated with providing assigned time (where applicable).
Too early to tell for sure, but safe to say, the need will significantly exceed the available resources.
9D. Measures of Success
Deliverable
The establishment of an evaluation process
The implementation of a process for producing
annual compliance reports
The development of a process for conducting
periodic annual compliance reports
Status
(Y, N, IP)
IP
N
Initiation
Date
06/07
Completion
Date (exp)
08/09
Discussion
Depends on the availability of resources to monitor,
measure, and report.
N
10. Identification of all campus personnel involved in implementing or overseeing the campus IMAP
Name
Carol Blackshire-Belay
Brett Christie
Title
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Director of Faculty Development
Sam Scalise
Kathryn Crabbe
Chief Information Officer
Vice President, Student Affairs & Enrollment Mgmt
Barbara Moore
Director of Web Services
Emiliano Ayala
Associate Professor and Director of EnACT
Brent Boyer
Scott Kupferman
Disabled Student Services
DSS/Assistive Technology Coordinator
DRAFT
Relationship to ATI
Executive Sponsor. Oversees entire SSU ATI effort
ATI Coordinator. Coordinates ATI efforts across campus. Works
closely with Executive Sponsor in strategic planning.
Co-Chair of ATI Steering Committee.
Member of ATI Steering Committee.
Oversight of enrollment, scheduling, DSS.
Priority 2. Main web support and LMS support person on
campus. Faculty training. Campus accessibility expert.
On ATI Steering Committee and Priority 2. Provides training and
resources related to Universal Design for Learning.
ATI Steering Committee and Priority 2
ATI Steering Committee and Priority 2
June 14, 2007
11. Chronological listing of all IMAP deliverables (policies, timelines, milestones)
Date
Activity
Relationship to ATI
Prior to launch of Accessible Technology Initiative yet directly linked to capacity building and ongoing Instructional Materials Accessibility
March 2005
Grant proposal submitted to US Department of
Project, Ensuring Access through Collaboration and Technology (EnACT)
Education, Postsecondary Students with
involves 8 CSU campuses and works directly toward improving accessibility
Disabilities program.
of resources and teaching methods via Universal Design for Learning
(UDL). This process initiated a strong commitment among these
campuses, toward improved success of SWD.
September 2005
Acceptance of EnACT project proposal and
EnACT funded for $1.05m, 2005-2008. Sonoma as lead campus.
funding notice
February 2006
Universal Design for Learning workshop offered Attended by 25 faculty.
to faculty
May 2006
Faculty Learning Community on Universal
Training and support for universally designing course and resources.
Design for Learning formed.
January 31, 2006
10 faculty and staff attend web conference on
Web conf covered web accessibility and instructional materials accessibility
accessibility offered by Academic Impressions
July 2006
EnACT Summer Institute
Training in UDL and creating Accessible Instructional Media (AIM)
September 2006
SSU group attends CalWAC
2-day hands-on workshops related to instructional materials accessibility.
March 2007
Federal accessibility project proposal submitted
Project is to support training STEM faculty in UDL, supporting SWD in these
to NSF
disciplines. Funding notification, Sept 2007.
August 2006 – January 2007
Faculty Learning Community process
Cohort of 7 interdisciplinary faculty members take UDL training and work
together to apply changes to their curriculum.
Since launch of Accessible Technology Initiative yet directly linked to ongoing Instructional Materials Accessibility
January, 2007 (ongoing)
SSU Accessibility website launched
Serves as informational outlet for campus efforts. All priorities posted with
meetings, minutes, working documents. Resources sections continually
developed toward supporting faculty and staff accessibility training.
February 16, 2007
ATI Open Forum
Presentations by ATI Priority Chairs. Open discussion with attendees; Q&A.
February 16, 2007
Universal Design for Learning workshop
All faculty invited to attend UDL workshop as related to UDL (Priority 2).
March 26, 2007
SSU President’s Message to campus re ATI
Raised awareness as to importance of and campus commitment to ATI.
April 26, 2007
Course Outline policy approved by Faculty
Policy was revised to include requirement that course outlines be available
Standards and Affairs Committee
in an accessible electronic format by start of course.
May 11, 2007
ATI Open Forum
Presentations/reports by ATI Priority Chairs. Open discussion with
attendees; Q&A.
May 15, 2007
Interim Policy for Timely Adoption of Textbooks
Strong relation to IMAP items 1-3
passed by Educational Policies Committee.
May 25, 2007
Transforming Course Design proposal funded
Project meets Transforming Course Design initiative goals, while also
training faculty to develop scaleable and reusable accessible instructional
media. Funded by CO for $16,330.
July 9-11, 2007
ATI/EnACT Summer Institute
Training in Universal Design for Learning and creating Accessible
Instructional Media (AIM). Twelve faculty and staff from SSU attending. In
addition to attending training sessions, multiple presentations to be given by
SSU contingent.
DRAFT
June 14, 2007
DRAFT
June 14, 2007