TÍTULO NOVENO

Despite the increase in the numbers of students with disabilities attending PSE (Human Resources Canada, 2009), the retention of students with disabilities in Ontario remains an ongoing problem, with lower transition rates to university than for non-disabled populations (McCloy & DeClou, 2013). Numerous studies have connected faculty awareness and preparedness to teach as a factor impacting students with disabilities success in university, citing, for example, how faculty attitudes, teaching practices, knowledge of law, policy, processes, disability, and inclusive design can shape the educational experiences of students with disabilities and how a key component to supporting students with disabilities is understanding their learning needs (e.g., Blech, 2004; Burgsthaler & Doe, 2006; Denhart, 2008; Getzel, 2008; Hindes, 2007; Wessel, et. al, 2009). The calls for increased faculty development around disability and accessibility (e.g., CADSPPE, 1999; Hill 1996; Logan, 2009; LOTF, 2002; Prince, 2013), and recent provincial legislation requiring universities to “train” educators to adapt their instruction, programs, and courses to become more accessible are important steps forward (Section 16, IASR, 2011, under the A.O.D.A, 2005).

However, my research uncovers the limitations of the law, because despite directives for increased faculty development, what this faculty development should look like is not mandated. My study begins to fill that void by exploring best practices in faculty development the available research in the U.K./U.S.A (with respect to content, delivery methods, and time lengths), impediments to faculty development around disability, and by providing a snapshot of what is actually happening on the ground at one Ontario university. Focusing on Toronto’s York University as the site of my inquiry, this qualitative, arts- based research project examined the best practices, issues and challenges in faculty

development for preparing and raising university faculty awareness about accessibility, and the teaching of students with disabilities. Using the social model of disability as my underlying knowledge positon, this exploratory study helps initiate conversations about and contributes to, the limited research on faculty development practices supporting students with disabilities currently available in Canada.

I began by reviewing the literature on best practices and challenges for university faculty development around disability. I then investigated the York context specifically, drawing upon a mixed qualitative methods approach for my research design, one which braids case study (e.g., Bassey, 1999; Hammersley & Gomm, 2000; Yin, 2003; Stake, 2005) with arts based research [ABR] (e.g., Barone & Eisner, 2012; Norris, 2009; Irwin, et.al, 2006, Leavy, 2009). Twelve ABR monologues can be found throughout my thesis, each serving as a framing device or as provocation to address emergent issues. Using these forms of representation, my research explores and documents a pan- university portrait ofYork with respect to the development of faculty working with their students with disabilities. The voices of faculty are central to the examination and are particularly compelling, given that their perspectives on faculty development and disability are not often featured. These findings will be of interest to a variety of university stakeholders, including faculty, administrators, students, and their families, as well as government officials and policy makers. It is important to recognize that results are portrayed in both ABR monologue form and traditional research form, in order to offer multiple entry points into the research. Positioned as both findings and a form of analysis, the research-informed monologues woven throughout my thesis help to move the representation of the research beyond that of traditional text-based inquiries. The monologues also serve, in and of themselves, to illustrate the current fragmentation of dialogue around faculty development and disability. Indeed, the findings suggest that conversations around faculty development and disability exist, “but only in small pockets” or when you ask the right questions, as I have tried to do. The shaping of monologues, therefore, allows for the opportunity to build a community of voices; to begin to create conversations where now only fragments exist. Three (of twelve) monologues are also used to locate my own narrative in relation to the research, positioning my own

research that often assume a false neutrality, the ABR monologues that feature me as a character, remind readers that this thesis text has been shaped by me, the author, and that I am serving as both researcher and storyteller (Vickers, 2004).

My research has addressed an array of faculty development offerings at York University, including in-person development sessions, as well as resource materials, websites and other documents used to better educate and raise faculty awareness about accessibility, legal rights and responsibilities, and the teaching of students with disabilities. Data sources included key- informant interviews with senior administrators such as associate deans or program chairs of faculties and/or leaders in the university with respect to faculty development, disability or human rights, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with university faculty at different stages in their careers. Finally, an analysis of York University faculty development websites and guidebooks around disability and inclusive teaching was completed. These data sources were used to present an environmental scan of faculty development offerings, policies and programs around disability from across the university, providing the first comprehensive snapshot of York University faculty development offerings, including in-person, online, and print sources. Findings indicate that the information provided (e.g., about disability, the law, accessibility), the multiple formats offered, and the efforts put into delivering development are all areas of strength for faculty development around disability at York.

While findings indicate that developing faculty around disability at York is starting at a more informed level than in the past, my findings also highlight ongoing feelings of frustration, and issues and challenges that can impede the ability of faculty to become aware and better prepared to teach their students with disabilities. Key-informants spoke about struggles with awareness and communication of resources to the York community; frustrations with attempts to secure faculty “buy-in” and access of offerings and resources; and frustrations with time pressures and workloads. Similarly, faculty members spoke about the constraints of time pressures; frustrations with institutional priorities (particularly the prioritizing of research over teaching); gaps in their knowledge about available resources; frustrations with finite resources for faculty development or for supporting students with disabilities; and frustrations with what was perceived as a lack of awareness or negative attitudes of other faculty or students.

Faculty and key-informant perspectives, as well as my environmental scan, were all analyzed together in order to produce key areas of challenge for faculty development and disability that emerged in the York context. The first three challenge areas --low attendance rates at faculty development sessions; the lack of consideration for differences in faculty demographics and experience; and institutional and financial barriers-- were in-line with the reviewed literature on issues in faculty development. My research also revealed two other areas of challenge not taken up in the literature: the limitation of online and text-based resources, and the challenges of communication (i.e., the lack of a strategy to communicate development offerings and resources to faculty).

I have argued that York University has created strong policies and content-rich resources and offerings. However, they are not always effectively implemented or communicated. Thus, there was evidence of failed policy implementation or follow through with some of the faculty development and disability resources and a lack of infrastructure to support the ongoing advancement and efficacy of faculty development offerings and resources (e.g., the story of York’s Faculty Awareness website (2013)). My findings suggest the need for an institutional communication strategy for faculty development resources, and the inclusion of more UDL principles into online and text-based resources. In addition, my analysis demonstrates a large degree of non-uniformity in faculty development practices across campus, particularly when at local levels. On one hand, this points to the need for more research and clarity on what is or is not offered by each faculty or department, but on the other hand, it also signals the importance of offering development at these more localized levels, which could allow for faculty to more easily access and attend development sessions and also maximum flexibility (sessions could be tailored to disciplinary culture and needs).

This analysis is framed by social model of disability thinking and inclusive design approaches both on macro and micro levels. For PSE, in general, social model of disability thinking underscores the extent to which the lack of dialogue on faculty development and disability can be viewed as a gap or barrier that can impede the ability of faculty to effectively support students with disabilities, proving the importance of and the need for more dialogue about faculty awareness and education. On the micro level, my analysis of the York specific context draws attention to both the tensions and possibilities that can

extend from social model thinking or inclusive design approaches. The huge body of development resources that seem to focus on an accommodation approach (or medical model thinking), have been beneficial both for faculty understanding and student access, leading me to view the social and medical models of disability not in direct opposition to one another, but rather as approaches on a continuum, that can be useful in different contexts. Yet, my thesis also reveals the possibilities of social model thinking and inclusive design approaches for advancing faculty development in supporting students with disabilities. I contend that how universities position and think about disability matters. Thus, infusing more social model thinking and inclusive design approaches into faculty development practices, alongside accommodation or medical model approaches, could offer an important impetus for helping foster a university culture in which faculty development around UDL, disability and inclusion becomes an inherent part of the institutional fabric, and not simply an ‘after thought’; not only the responsibility of a specific centre; nor just the passion project of a small pocket of dedicated faculty activists. If the underlying understanding is one that acknowledges that access issues stem from society, then an institutional imperative for developing and sustaining a culture of inclusion through faculty development practices (and in our classrooms and teaching methods) can be established.

Finally, my research indicates how structural issues in PSE can impact and undermine faculty development initiatives (such as the lack of mandated faculty development or educator training in PSE, collective agreements, jurisdictional culture, as well as academic freedom, and strongly unionized and highly managerial environments). Since these structural issues at play are not easily solved without a complete systemic overhaul, I instead adopt a practical approach in my recommendations (below) that would be feasible within the current PSE environment. To this end, following Yager (2008), I focus on a practical approach of small steps of sustainable, incremental change.

My discussion and analysis conclude with offering five strategic next steps for faculty development supporting students with disability: (1) the need for more dialogue and research around faculty development and disability; (2) increased government funding targeted for faculty development; (3) the need to incentivize faculty development and reward teaching (as opposed to prioritizing just research); (4) the need for institutional communication strategies around faculty development opportunities in order to increase

awareness of available resources for faculty; and (5) the continued development of creative institutional responses and approaches that include policy implementation strategies. Examples include increasing faculty exposure to students with disabilities, and providing opportunities to hear student narratives, offering increased development at the faculty and departmental levels; exploring and increasing offerings of faculty development for different career levels, particularly new, incoming faculty; and using arts based approaches to open dialogue about these complex issues. These recommendations provide a starting point for moving forward the dialogue on faculty development and disability at York University specifically, and in Post-Secondary Education broadly.