English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We have examined the sustainability of providing services for students with disabilities in higher education in Canada and Israel. The two countries differ in their approaches: Israel subscribes to the accommodations model of service delivery; Canada, to the universal design approach. Case examples of services to students with disabilities in Canada and Israel are used to illustrate these approaches in a descriptive, illustrative study of 214 students with disabilities in Israel and the 127 in Canada who self-reported a disability and who had or had not registered for disability-related services from their school. Contrary to expectation, the Canadian sample (universal design) had a larger proportion of students with disabilities registered for disability-related services than the Israeli sample (accommodations model). Fichten, Heiman, Havel, Jorgensen, Budd, & King 20 Exceptionality Education International, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1 Moreover, in Israel, disability-related services were extended to more diverse populations. While the universal design model has the potential to enhance sustainability of disability-related services in higher education, this has yet to be demonstrated empirically. Recommendations for increasing sustainability through universal design are made. Canada and Israel differ in the approaches taken to address disability and discrimination in post-secondary education. There are two dominant service delivery models for how students with disabilities (e.g., physical, sensory, and specific learning disabilities) can effectively participate in college and university education: the accommodation model popular in Israel and several European countries—and the universal design framework (UD) that is rapidly gaining popularity in Canada and the United States. Here we compare the two views, examine their impact on sustainability, and illustrate how the two models are used in Canada and Israel. Principles and Frameworks Accommodation Model In many countries, including Israel, colleges and universities typically use accommodations to assist students with disabilities (Sachs & Schreuer, 2011). This practice reflects the “medical model” in which the emphasis is on managing the student’s disability (Shakespeare, 2010). Campus disability service providers arrange for accommodations for each student based on diagnosis and needs, with the goal of “leveling the playing field.” After receiving appropriate documentation, the disability service provider meets with the student to develop an accommodation plan that enables the student to participate fully in academic and campus life. Academic accommodations can include note takers; recording of lectures; captioning, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), infrared or FM listening systems, and language interpreting for students who are Deaf and hard of hearing; class relocations; ergonomic back support and priority seating in class; specialized wheelchair-accessible tables and workstations; reduced course load while maintaining full-time status; assignment substitutions; field or practicum placement supports; specialized learning skills services; and alternate format materials. In addition, a variety of testing accommodations can be offered, including: scribes, extended time, short supervised breaks, a distraction-reduced environment, and the use of assistive technologies such as computers (Barazandeh, 2005; National Educational Association of Disabled Students, 2012). Until relatively recently, North American schools, along with most European and Israeli schools, followed the accommodations model. Given the large numbers of students with disabilities enrolled in colleges and universities, the accommodation approach becomes unsustainable as it requires, “retrofitting, repeated each semester, for each course, for each individual student ... with the number of users exploding in an unprecedented way” (McGill Office for Students with Disabilities, 2015). Will the Real Universal Design Please Stand Up? Exceptionality Education International, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1 21 Universal Design (UD) Approach An alternate view of “leveling the playing field” is based on UD, a concept which originated in architecture. It offers a method for designing structures that work for everyone because the physical and sensory needs of all potential users are taken into account during the planning stages. Seven principles governing the design of universally accessible products and environments were proposed by Story, Mueller, and Mace (1998). These principles were subsequently adapted to post-secondary education and several frameworks for the application of UD to instruction have emerged (see Burgstahler, 2015b). UD principles follow the “social model of disability,” in which the focus is on making changes to the environment, not the person (Barnes, 2009). The UD approach avoids costly retrofits by responding to the potential diversity of users from the inception (e.g., make curb-cuts as the sidewalk is being built rather than after it is completed). The goal of UD is to create more inclusive environments for all learners, eliminating the need for expensive accommodations. Two complementary UD theoretical formulations dominate: Universal Design of Instruction (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2003; Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger, 2003) and Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2011). Universal Design of Instruction (UDI). McGuire et al. (2003) and Scott et al. (2003) added two principles to the original seven proposed by Story et al. (1998) and reformulated the UDI concepts to apply to post-secondary teaching. The objective of UDI is to design instruction to be accessible to all students from the outset. Table 1 shows the nine principles as applicable to post-secondary education. Universal Design of Learning (UDL). UDL is based on the work of CAST (2011) and focuses on flexibility in curriculum design (Alchin, 2015; Gravel, Edwards, Buttimer, & Rose, 2015). It proposes that three core principles need to be followed for diverse learners to benefit from instruction. Instructors need to provide multiple pathways for students (a) to learn, (b) to interact with peers and faculty, and (c) to demonstrate what they have learned (Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin, 2015). The three principles of UDL (i.e., Multiple Means of Engagement, Multiple Means of Representation, Multiple Means of Action and Expression) along with examples of how these can be applied to post-secondary teaching, are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that following the principles of UDL addresses the needs of diverse learners, but it does not ensure accessibility to all learners (Thomson, Fichten, Budd, Havel, & Asuncion, 2015). For example, watching a video to illustrate a point in the textbook provides for Multiple Means of Representation, but may not provide full access for a student with a visual impairment, who might benefit from having an audio description, or for a student with a hearing impairment, who might need to have the video captioned. Thus, UDL alone cannot eliminate the need for all accommodations, but combining UDI and UDL can abolish the need for many commonplace accommodations such as making alternate format materials on site or paying note takers. Fichten, Heiman, Havel, Jorgensen, Budd, & King 22 Exceptionality Education International, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1 Table 1 The Nine Principles of Universal Design of Instruction Principles and definitions Sample recommendations for adapting courses to a more diverse student population 1. Equitable Use The course does not penalize any group of students • Use different methods of delivering content (lectures, peer teaching, etc.). • Prior to each class, provide course notes online. 2. Flexibility in Use Instruction is designed to accommodate a wide range of individual abilities and take account of differences among students. • Give students several evaluation options (term work, oral presentations, portfolios, etc.). 3. Simple and Intuitive Instructions are easy to understand, and tools are simple to use. • Enhance instruction via visual representations such as diagrams. • Choose textbooks that include a summary and key words for each chapter. 4. Perceptible Information Essential information is conveyed effectively, so as to be understood by all the students independently of their sensory skills. • For slide presentations, use a large font and good colour contrast. • Supply all course visual and sound content (e.g., hard copies of slide shows in which image content is described). • Ensure that videos are captioned. 5. Tolerance for Error Possible variations in student learning rates are anticipated; risks of error due to accident are minimized. • Ensure that online examinations allow students who accidentally press the wrong key to go back and correct their mistake. • Put practice exams online. • Allow students to do written work in class on computer, so they can modify or revise without constantly having to erase and rewrite their texts. 6. Low Physical Effort The course minimizes the need for physical effort that is not essential to instructional objectives. • Let students submit assignments by e-mail. • Opt for several short exams rather than one long one. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use Space is organized so that all students, regardless of their size, posture or mobility, have enough room to move around. • Provide enough space for sign-language interpreters, guide dogs and various technologies. • Ensure that students’ visual field is unobstructed during demonstrations. 8. A Community of Learners The environment promotes interaction and communication between students and teachers. • Use various means to encourage the inclusion of all students in discussion groups (classroom teamwork, discussion forums, Facebook, etc.). 9. Instructional Climate The environment is conducive to learning and the inclusion of all students. • Maintain high expectations of students whil

Sustainability of Disability-Related Services in Canada and Israel: Will the Real Universal Design Please Stand Up?