2014 AHEAD Conference
Disability Resource Center
Culturally Responsive Evaluation: A Tool for
Assessing Faculty Understanding of Serving
Students with Disabilities
Disability Resource Center
2014 AHEAD Conference
Sacramento, CA
Susan A. Aase, J.D., M.S.Ed.
Donna Johnson, M.A., M.S.
Disability Resource Center (DRC)
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
July 18, 2014
Agenda

Introductions/Ground Rules

Learning Objectives

Culturally Responsive Evaluation

Application

Discussion

Wrap Up
Cautionary Tale
Participating in a 90-minute session on evaluation does not
make one an expert but…..
Learning Objectives

Participants will learn the differences between Culturally
Responsive Evaluation and traditional Western models.

Participants will learn how Culturally Responsive Evaluation
may be a useful approach in evaluating faculty understanding
of serving students with disabilities using the lens of strengths
of the communities served.

Participants will learn practical strategies for conceptualizing,
developing, and implementing a component of Culturally
Responsive Evaluation that may be implemented by a small
office at minimal cost.
Evaluation in the Context of the Office
for Equity and Diversity (OED)
At the University of Minnesota, the following offices
report to OED:
•Business Community Economic Development
•Conflict Resolution
•Disability Resource Center (DRC)
•Diversity in Graduate Education
•Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
•Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Ally
Programs
•Institute for Diversity, Equity, and Advocacy
•Multicultural Center for Academic Excellence
•Women’s Center
The OED Philosophy
By including disability as an aspect of
human diversity, OED views disability
through a “cultural lens.”
OED selected Culturally Responsive
Evaluation as the methodology that
worked for all OED units.
Your Program’s Philosophy
What is your program’s philosophy?
How is disability viewed?
Culturally Responsive Evaluation: What Is It?
Culturally Responsive Evaluation is a collection of
practical strategies and frameworks that attend to
culture and context when preparing for an evaluation,
conducting it, and disseminating and using the results
of the study.
(Samuels & Ryan, 2011)
Culturally Responsive Evaluation
Is new paradigm of evaluation
Utilizes cultural strengths in a community
Aligns assessment perspectives and methods
with traditional knowledge, values,
worldviews, lived experience and ways of
knowing
Is strengths-based and culturally meaningful
(White Shield, Justilien & Acharya, 2012)
Western Paradigm Methods
Quantitative: counting, checklists, surveys,
pre-post tests, analysis of statistics
Qualitative: case studies, anecdotes,
focus groups, observations, analysis of files
(White Shield & Acharya, 2012)
Non-Western Paradigm Methods
Focus on discovery of knowledge already
present within the community
Congruent with communities’ worldviews and
intrinsic cultural strengths
Rely on research/evaluator’s lived experience
to help inform the process
(White Shield & Acharya, 2012)
Non-Western Paradigm Methods
In what other settings might you
operate using a Non-Western
paradigm?
Created a Logic Model
A logic model is a tool used most often
by program managers to evaluate the
effectiveness of a program. Logic
models are usually a graphical depiction
of the logical relationships between the
resources, activities, outputs and
outcomes of a program.
What Is a Logic Model?
Cultural
Strenghts
Inputs
Outputs
Assumptions
Projected
Outcomes
Developed A Purpose Statement
A purpose of the Disability Resource Center is
to facilitate the University of Minnesota’s
recognition of disability as a natural part of the
human experience.
Purpose Statement
What is a purpose of your disability
services?
Explored Cultural Strengths of
People with Disabilities
•Resiliency – Ability to adapt to situation
•Flexibility – Ability to do tasks in different ways
•Diversity – People with disabilities are not a monolithic group
•Ability to move along a spectrum of cooperation to get things
done
•Ability to tap into unique perspectives on and experiences with
defining success and failure
Developed Assumptions (If/Then Statements)
 If the Disability Resource Center (DRC) approaches service
delivery from a continuous improvement standpoint, then
information is sought from its many stakeholders on what it
can do to better meet the needs of university students, staff,
faculty, and guests with disabilities.
 If the DRC considers disability to be an equity issue, then the
DRC will collaborate with campus partners to create an
accessible campus.
Developed Overarching Outcomes
The expectation is that the Disability Resource Center will:
 gather qualitative and quantitative data to modify our
decision-making based on evidence.
• be responsive to the needs of its users in the university
community.
 assist qualified people with disabilities to fully participate in
and contribute to the university community.
Overarching Outcomes
What might your overarching outcomes be?
Selected the Following Output/Activities
1. Develop Faculty Advisory Committee
2. The Disability Resource Center (DRC) will gather
data to modify its decision-making based on
evidence. The first priority addressed was the
exploration of faculty understanding of the student
role, the faculty role, and the DRC’s role.
Selected the Following Inputs
1. UM Faculty with disabilities
2. UM Faculty without disabilities
Data Collection Tool Development
Faculty Advisory Committee members developed the
questionnaire using an iterative process.
Created tool to assess faculty understanding of their role in
accommodating students with disabilities.
Met in person and then worked together remotely over the
course of several weeks.
Data Collection Methods
The Disability Resource Center (DRC) used a community
expert (kinship) model in which members of the DRC
Faculty Advisory Committee were asked to recommend 12 faculty to complete an e-mail questionnaire.
Data Collection Methods
These were sent to thirty-three (33) faculty in the College
of Liberal Arts, College of Science and Engineering,
Humphrey Center, College of Biological Sciences,
Academic Health Center, College of Education and
Human Development, and the School of Public Health,
Twenty-two (22) faculty completed surveys for a 66
percent response rate.
Sample Faculty E-mail
Dear Professor Aase,
Professor Fuller, a member of University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Disability Resource Center’s
advisory committee, recommended you to participate in a brief questionnaire to assist the
Disability Resource Center in assessing how faculty perceives the disability accommodation
implementation process. The questionnaire takes about 10 minutes to complete. Your answers
do not need to be lengthy. We are looking for key thoughts around each of the questions.
Please type your answers in the attached document and return it to Donna Johnson, Director,
Disability Resource Center at johns042@umn.edu by Tuesday, January 16, 2013.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-624-4120.
Sincerely,
Donna Johnson
Director
Disability Resource Center
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Sample Questions
1. Do you understand your role in implementing disabilityrelated accommodations in the classroom, labs, testing
environment, and/or course related experiences?
2. If yes, briefly explain your role.
3. If you are unsure as to how to support students with
disabilities, how might the Disability Resource Center assist
you in implementing disability-related accommodations in
the classroom, labs, testing environment, and/or in courserelated field experiences? Please be specific.
Sample Questions
4. How do you facilitate students with disabilities informing
you of their accommodation needs? (Check all that
apply):
•
I include a syllabus statement inviting students to
discuss their disability-related needs with me.
•
I discuss disability-related accommodations as part of
my introductory lecture on the first day of class.
•
I include a statement on my course Moodle site inviting
students to discuss their disability-related needs with me.
Sample Questions
5. On average, how many students with disabilities self-identify as needing
accommodations in a given semester? (Check the appropriate response):
• 1-2 students per semester
• 3-4 students per semester
• 5-6 students per semester
• 7 or more students per semester
6. Of the students who identified themselves as needing disability
accommodations, what types of accommodations have you implemented?
Sample Questions
7. Do you feel comfortable contacting the Disability Resource Center
regarding a question about a disability-related accommodation listed in a
student accommodation letter? Why/Why not?
8. Please briefly describe what has worked when when implementing
accommodations for students with disabilities at the University of
Minnesota?
9. Please briefly describe what has not worked well when implementing
accommodations for students with disabilities at the University of
Minnesota?
10. What recommendations do you have to improve communication between
faculty and the Disability Resource Center?
Sample Questions
Based on your overarching outcomes, what
questions might you ask?
Analysis Methods
A thematic analysis was used. Disability Resource Center
(DRC) staff compiled and reviewed the data to identify
themes. Peer and member checks were used to validate
the process by reviewing the findings with members of the
DRC Faculty Advisory Committee.
Key Findings
1.
Faculty are unclear regarding the DRC’s role – access vs.
success.
2.
Faculty need multiple methods of communication, regarding
providing accommodations to students with disabilities in their
courses (from DRC, Dept. Chairs, and Provost).
3.
Faculty consider DRC as a “just in time” service unit – contact with
DRC is initiated only when a problem or crisis occurs.
4.
Faculty have observed more students with mental health issues,
behavioral issues, and unrealistic expectations.
Key Messages
1.
Faculty want to know how many and what types of disability
conditions are present on campus.
2.
Faculty want a flow chart that outlines the faculty role, the student
role, and DRC’s role in providing accommodations.
3.
Faculty want additional information on how to approach students
who may have not disclosed the disability.
4.
Faculty want a list of frequently asked questions around disability
issues that are modified for specific academic audiences.
Key Recommendations
1.
DRC should tailor messaging for faculty based on faculty
needs/interests.
2.
DRC outreach efforts should include basic elements of what is a
disability, what is the purpose of the accommodation letter, what is
the student’s role, the faculty role, and DRC’s role in implementing
the accommodation, and what is the process to address issues if
the accommodation is not working?
Key Accomplishments
• Created Disability Toolkit for Faculty on DRC Website.

FAQs on testing accommodations.

Accommodation process flowchart.
• Revised accommodations letter.
• Established practice for emailing faculty.
• Participate in new faculty orientation.
Key Accomplishments
• Participate in Provost’s New Chairs Training.
• Developed video on the Interactive Process.
• Developing “Who is in Your Classroom video.
• Developing On-Line Training for Faculty with Data
Tracking Capabilities
The Culturally Responsive Evaluation Process
1.
Shifted the focus on understanding the “lived experience” of faculty – more
inclusive than asking faculty to complete the questionnaire.
2.
Community expert (kinship) method involved asking faculty to contribute
questions. Faculty reviewed the final questionnaire to validate that the
questions were reflective of their lived experience. Faculty took ownership
of the data gathering.
3.
Faculty Advisory Committee members completed the questionnaire and
then asked 1-2 other faculty colleagues to complete the questionnaire –
This was faculty led, using faculty voice, faculty-focused analysis with peer
member checks and outcomes.
The Culturally Responsive Evaluation Process
4. Faculty could see how their work lead to meaningful action to
improve communication around the role of student, faculty, and
DRC staff in the interactive process.
5. Faculty Advisory Committee serves as a Community of Practice
(Non-Western concept of shared knowledge).
6.The process of implementing Culturally Responsive Evaluation
strengthened the DRC’s reframing of disability as a aspect of diversity
and as an equity issue.
The Culturally Responsive Evaluation Process
7. Helped build trust and buy-in and was a way for faculty to feel
heard.
8. Helped the DRC have a better shared understanding of faculty
concerns.
9. Faculty advisory committee members had a vested interest in
“harvesting” information.
Evaluation
Thank you for your
participation!
Please complete the
evaluation.
Thank You!
Susan A. Aase, J.D., M.S.Ed.
Associate to the Director, Disability Resource Center
612-624-2993
aase0020@umn.edu
Donna Johnson, M.A.. M.S.
Director, Disability Resource Center
612-624-4120
johns042@umn.edu