Steering Committee Meeting Minutes March 16, 2011

10:00-11:00am (Schulz 2019)


  1. General Update
    1. Announcements
      1. Emiliano Ayala provided an update on the EnACT Project. EnACT has expanded to 7 other campuses with a focus on a new research piece. He distributed a rubric for course syllabus evaluation. This framework provides an at-a-glance matrix for evaluating a syllabus for accessibility and offers suggestions for faculty for effectively reaching students. It was affirmed that the syllabus is the ideal way to begin the accessibility conversation as it is already a requirement of course design.
      2. Paula Hammett provided an update of the Course Accessibility Checklist that she is drafting. She observed that in working on the draft, she was reminded first-hand of the challenge of creating accessible documents. Emiliano suggested that the checklist could highlight elements to indicate a minimum baseline of foundational skills. Another thought was to present the checklist in the larger context of emphasizing the pedagogical aspects of UDL, incorporating accessible elements into course design. The document might also contain links to available resources beyond the SSU and CSU.
        Paula invited additional comments to be sent to her so she can continue to incorporate feedback with a goal of having the checklist ready in August.
  2. Discussion of ATI Instructional Materials report template
    1. Barbara briefly reviewed with the Committee the ATI Instructional Materials report which campuses were asked to submit. All committee members received the report matrix that lists broad goals, objectives and success indicators. She will send out the PDF version of the SSU IM report which was received back from the CO. In completing the exercise, she felt that SSU may fall short on some of the objectives but so will other campuses. It is hard to know at this point what a baseline will reveal.

      There are certainly areas where SSU can show progress in the “Success Indicators”, for example, 3.0 Early Identification of Students with Disabilities and some progress, such as captioning, in 5.0 Accessibility Requirements for Multimedia. For other goals, activity may be in various stages of development. As the Moodle migration unfolds, SSU will make progress on objective 4.0 Faculty Use of LMS (or non-LMS) Course Websites.

      Regarding objective 7.0 Supporting Faculty Creation of Accessible IM, it is acknowledged that the availability of workshops has fallen off due to budget conditions and reassignment of staff. Embedding links to free resources within the Instructional Materials Accessibility Checklist would help achieve some of the “success indicators” for this objective.

      Richard suggested that providing training for faculty in a fashion similar to what is required for sexual harassment and security awareness (i.e., mandatory online training) would be a great way to introduce accessibility to the faculty. Barbara commented that the President had also favored this approach. It would require the support of the CO to develop this type of training to be applied across the system.

      A suggestion was made that Heather Smith, Chair of the Professional Development Subcommittee, should be brought up to date on Instructional Materials accessibility expectations as identified by the ATI report. Emiliano suggested providing a workshop during the faculty retreat and Bruce Carpe wondered if an update might be provided at Convocation.

      Cathy Kroll returned to the topic of the Course Accessibility checklist. She suggested that the steps in the checklist might be reordered to move Moodle higher up the list for prominence. Richard added that it might be useful to include more background on “why” these different practices are important to adopt. This supports the idea of highlighting the pedagogical advantages of adopting accessibility practices in course design. Paula thought it would also be helpful to include actual student experiences as a compelling way to get the attention of the faculty.
  3. Current status and efforts (time permitting)
    1. There were no individual reports given on the three priorities as meeting time ran out.
  4. Spring 2011 meeting dates, 10:00 – 11:00 am, Schulz 2019 Wednesday, April 27, 2011