Inclusive practice as the standard in higher education

Inclusive practice as the standard in higher education

October 11, 2019 0 By Ronny Jaskolski


DARLENE: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s Darlene McLennan here. We currently have you all on mute. This session we plan to have a very
interactive session. We will look to have hands up in the session and you to ask questions. Before that we have some housekeeping information
and also to welcome Professor Denise Wood. This webinar is titled: “Inclusive Practice as the Standard in Higher Education. Opportunities and Challenges” We’re very excited to actually have this topic. Recently on ADCET statistics, we actually
are seeing there’s quite a lot of demand around inclusive practices and teaching. I think
this topic is really timely. I’d also like to offer a warm welcome and
thank you to Professor Denise Wood. Denise has come with a wealth of information and knowledge. She is a Professor of Learning, Equity, Access and Participation at Central Queensland University. And Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the University of South Australia. Having a brief conversation with Denise before this session, I’m getting quite excited about the next hour. very knowledgeable and passionate about a
whole range of areas in the equity space. Before we make a start, there are a few house keeping items: This webinar is being live captioned by Bradley Reporting and is being recorded. We will try to endeavour to
get the recording on ADCET in the coming weeks. There are some down sides, for those who have been on the webinar before and some accessibility issues for people who are using screen readers. As I said at the beginning, we have muted
all participants. This is to ensure as little background noise is received during the webinar.
Denise is wanting an interactive Webinar and encourages all participants to ask questions throughout the session by raising their hand. What we will do is either, when you raise your hand Denise will try and keep an eye on that section and will unmute you or Jane and I will also be
able to unmute people. If you have any issues you can also use the chat pod to ask some
questions or raise any concerns. For people who are blind or vision impaired
that are online, once again the accessibility issues with this technology, it is hard to
– I don’t think you can actually raise your hand. You are able to email [email protected]
and be asked to be unmuted. For people who are deaf and are wanting to
ask some questions, please feel free to use the chat pod. If there are any technical difficulties
during the webinar, once again Jane is in the background and happy to assist anybody
with any issues they may have. That’s it for housekeeping. So now I’ll hand it over to Denise and look
forward to the presentation. Thank you, Denise. DENISE: Thank you, Darlene and everyone for
attending the session today which, as Darlene mentioned, I would like to be as interactive
as possible. I am conscious that the concept of inclusive practice as a standard is one
that I’m assuming all of you who are attending, are hoping to see happen in your own institutions
and we recognise that there are many opportunities that arise from that but also some challenges
that we need to address and overcome. I hope that this presentation will stimulate
some discussion, some sharing of ideas of practices that are effective and ideas of
how we might go forward in sharing our experiences in aspiring to this principle. I will draw on some research that’s been funded
by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching, which is about the inclusive
design of technology enhanced learning. I will also be drawing on some of the recent
work that has been undertaken at Central Queensland University through Higher Education Participation
Program funding. As we move to our first slide, it really
just sets the context which I’m sure all of
you are familiar with the implications of the review of the Australian higher education,
commonly referred to as the Bradley Report which was commissioned by the Australian Government to look at the ways in which Australia could increase the number of skilled people by increasing
the opportunities of those under represented within the system of higher education. Just moving to the next slide where some of
the targets, I’m sure you’re all familiar with these targets that were set as a result
of the review and transforming Australia’s higher education system reforms that occurred
in 2009. That included seeking to increase the number of 25 to 34-year-olds with a qualification
at Bachelor level or higher. 20% of those enrolments of the undergraduate level to be from a low SES background. Of course,
that’s come to be recognised as representing a range of different equity groups, including
those in regional and remote locations, those people with disabilities, those with nonEnglish
speaking backgrounds, Indigenous students and women in nontraditional careers and professions. Along with that was allocated some sums of
money through renewed higher education participation program initiative and, of course, we’re all
anxiously awaiting news of the future of that program funding in future years. Moving on to the next slide, this summarises
the impact of those Reforms and many authors have noted and drawn on the Department of
Education’s figures. We’ve now got the 2014 figures. What that trend is showing is that
indeed since 2009 there has been a steady increase of the number of domestic and international
students and enrolments, in particular, of domestic students as well as post-graduate
students. Very small but nevertheless a gradual increase of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students still way below parity and also small increases again, not as significant
as we’d like to see in the number of students with disabilities. Moving on to the next slide, those who are
visually impaired will not be able to see the graph but basically it’s a visual representation
that shows that the students from regional areas, those from lower SES areas saw the
most significant increases but we also can see a slight trend upwards for those with
disabilities, nonEnglish speaking background, Indigenous students and the least growth has
been in remote locations, which for a university such as CQU is of concern, and it also highlights
some of the issues of equity overlap that occur when you have students who tick the
boxes on all of these aspects of diversity. Moving on to the next slide, the impact of
the Reforms according to King and James as reported in 2013 really just highlight the
impacts that I’ve already talked about. I believe everyone is getting a copy of the
accessible version of this presentation so I won’t go through in detail all of the changes
and the impacts but they do reflect the sorts of trends that I’ve already talked about. There is a couple of points from this slide
though that I do want to highlight and that is that we also recognise that there has also
been a noticeable increase in the number of students with low to lower tertiary entrance
scores or ATARs depending on which State you’re in. That has also raised a number of concerns.
King and James highlight them. They’re not the only authors that have talked about whether,
you know, universities are equipped to support the number of students from more diverse backgrounds
who are entering higher education. I guess more controversially they ask whether universities are recruiting students capable of higher education pathways. Which is a reasonable question to ask, and I will come back to that point as we talk about some of the issues we have to think through very carefully and how we deal with this principle or how we
aspire to this principle of inclusion being the standard. Moving on to the next slide which is slide
7 if you’re following on your own version of this presentation. At the same time there
have been many changes, of course, in the way in which we engage with students. As authors
have noted, the distinction between online and on campus is blurring. We also know that
many students now, most students, in fact, would be undertaking study whereby there’s
a mix of face-to-face or residentials and the use of online technologies. Keppell and Riddle in 2012 talked about HIgher Education and Learning, as no longer being a typified by a single place of learning but a range of places and spaces
that students seamlessly move through. Of course, those of us thinking about inclusive
practices, that also brings with it a number of opportunities as well as challenges. Those
challenges include remoteness, so accessibility in the broadest sense of the word. It’s about
whether students do have access to the level of band width and to the affordability that
goes with interacting with increasingly media rich environments. It also highlights the
importance for students with diverse needs to be able to access learning materials, from
the point of view of whether they’re made accessible in accordance with the worldwide
web’s accessibility guidelines, web accessibility potential that arises when we start to look
at developing our learning materials to be more inclusive. Keppell also notes the importance of developing
digital literacy skills. So the previous misconception that Cransky controversially raised many years
ago, we know it has been debunked and we know from our own experiences that the diversity
of student’s experiences with technology are quite significant. So really what that highlights is the need
for inclusive online environments to be accessible to such a broad demographic of our students. I’ll come back to thinking through what that
means if we think about inclusivity as being a standard and who benefits from that kind
of approach later in the presentation. In order to unpack what we mean by inclusive
environments, we really, and particularly, certain groups of students, for example those
with disabilities, we really have to think through what we mean when we talk about diversity
and disability, in particular. I’m sure all of you are aware of the long history of development
and theorisation around the language of hand capped, disability and impairment. Moving
from the historical charity model to the medical model and now to the social model of disability. In recent years the social model also has
been challenged with many academics arguing that, in fact, that creates an illusion of
trying to separate impairment and disability rather than thinking about disability and
diversity as part of a social framework – within a social framework and from there emerge a
concept or theorisation of the biopsychosocial model which recognises that it is a combination
of the biopsycho and social processes that can lead to oppression. In fact, we see that
reflected in the world health organisation’s ICF, the international classification of functioning
disability and health. Moving on to the next slide, which is slide
9, thinking in those terms makes us also think about how people differ in the way in which
they identify and the very fluid nature of identity. So we identify with different groups
and in different ways in different situations. So Beckettt and Watson have highlighted not
all individuals with disabilities identify as having a disability. Some resist identification
and others identify very proudly with particular aspects of their diversity which may also
include gender, ethnicity and so on. So Wendell really sums that up by saying individuals
choose to emphasise sameness or difference, depending on whether or not they perceive
to be something that they want to engage in, either temporarily or the longer term. So
we really need to think through about how we label students according to particular
equity groups. We are all under the pressure to do that,
in terms of government reporting requirements and so forth, and again I’ll come back to
the point when we start to think about inclusive practices, of course, then we end up with
a situation where particular kinds of media and teaching materials are made accessible
only if students identify as belonging to a particular equity group and that’s contrary
to the principles really of appreciating that diversity is indeed the standard. So in the next slide it really begins to unpack
what that means when we talk about more inclusive approaches. It really problematises and challenges
this concept of deconstructing – the need to deconstruct the binaries between normal/abnormal,
able-bodied/disabled, black/white, male/female and so on that have been sustained or challenged in teaching and learning. The ways in which technology could help to support breaking down those binaries or alternatively can continue to reinforce them. So really when we talk about the model of
inclusive design and very specifically of technology enhanced learning then we need
to think in a more holistic way also, just like our model of thinking about diversity
as the standard as a holistic social framework. So the model that we’ve developed through
our OLT funded project looks at four components recognising that we all need to work together.
Those being accessibility in the broadest sense of the word. Usability, personalising
the learning experience and also thinking about the way we transform our pedagogical approaches. Moving to our next slide is again not going
to be accessible to those of you with vision impairment but it really unpacks the model
in a visual way. To try to describe that for those of you who may not be able to see the
model, it’s basically concentric circles. On the inner concentric circle is the focus
or core of what we’re trying to achieve in inclusive design of technology enhanced learning. I would say it is inclusive design of learning and teaching in general. Then the next concentric circle radiating
outwards has four segments to it. Those being those four components, accessibility, usability,
personalisation and transformative pedagogical practices. Then we have another concentric
circle into which each of those four components are further subdivided. So, for example, with
accessibility we’re drawing on the W3C’s principles. We talk about the overarching principles of
content being perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Then the next segment of usability, learning
materials need to be learnable and memorable, flexible and adaptable, efficient and satisfying
and again robust. So you can see there’s synergies between accessibility and usability. One might
argue that you can’t have an accessible environment that isn’t usable and conversely a usable
environment isn’t usable to many people unless it’s accessible. Personalisation means different things to
different people. One of the ways of defining it is that learning environments are selectable,
interoperable which means they can function on a number of different platforms and technologies.
Customisable to individual’s needs and responsive to those needs. Again you can see synergies with accessibility and usability The final segment that is often overlooked is
the need to engage all students in discovering their assumptions, assessing those assumptions,
challenging them, taking informed actions when we think about social justice issues.
For example, if one is teaching a course on web design. Then transformative pedagogy would
seek to engage students in an appreciation of why their professional skills in developing
websites that are inclusive are critical. So it would take them through that process
of critical thinking that is what we’re really talking about when we talk about that transformative
pedagogical approach. Moving on to slide 12, that just really defines
how I think about inclusive education. I’ve drawn on an Arabic researcher’s work who was referring more about inclusive education for children I’ve adapted that definition to talk about the right of every person to access mainstream
education, regardless of their abilities, race, gender, nationality or any other factor.
By mainstream education we therefore also mean that all of the mainstream education materials that go with that. We know it’s been an increasingly important
global policy issue. There are a number of United Nations conventions that accentuate
that, including the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and particularly article
24 of interest to this presentation. It recognises the rights of persons with disabilities, as
well as relevant articles that talk about the importance of access to all information,
which is consistent with W3C web accessibility initiative guidelines. Moving to the next slide, I’m really summarising
what I think about accessible design when we talk about technology enhanced learning.
Making the learning materials accessible for any one, any time, any place for millions
of people worldwide. So we know that online learning and the Internet
in general can improve communication and increase independence of those who are isolated for
a number of reasons. It’s important when we talk about, as we’ve noted before, the blending
of online and face-to-face as well as the increase of fully online courses that these
issues of accessibility become particularly salient. The next slide really summarises what I know
all of you are well aware of, the number of people who benefit from accessible design.
This comes from the W3C but why I think it’s particularly relevant to highlight these points
in this presentation is when we talk about diversity as the standard and therefore the
corollary that inclusive practices should be the standard, we recognise that while accessible
design does accommodate people with particular kinds of sensory, physical and cognitive disabilities,
it also accommodates people who are in particular situations where it’s difficult for them to
access material in a particular way and while we recognise that people with sensory impairments
may have challenges, in terms of videos, audio material and those obviously who are visually
impaired will have challenges with some of the visual materials, there are many groups
of people who are in situations, in different situations at different points in time, where
they don’t have access to audio or they’re in an environment where they can’t listen
to audio, for example. We know that students of nonEnglish speaking
background also benefit from captions. There are situations where all of us may find ourselves
without access to a mouse. I’m sure all of you have experienced at some point in time the frustration of trying to navigate your way around certain websites using a keyboard alone. Increasingly
we’re seeing so many different technologies, particularly mobile technologies, being almost ubiquitous now for our students and therefore the importance and therefore our environments to also be responsive design to the different
kinds of technologies. So that just really summarises why inclusion as a standard is
so important. The next slide really is just again highlighting
what you know already, in terms of the large number of Australians who have a disability –
estimated to be one in five. We know that roughly 2.1 million Australians of working
age between 15 and 64 years have a disability and so on. It breaks down those details again
even further if we move on to the next slide. Again I won’t go through in detail because
you will have access to this presentation later on. It’s not really necessary to go
through the detail except to really highlight yet again that we are talking about a very
diverse population and a significant proportion of the population, especially when we think
about disability but then when we think about all of the other areas of equity overlap that
go with that go with that. The next slide reinforces that we do operate
within a legal context. The Australian Human Rights Commission, of course, reinforces the
importance of providing equal access to online information and, of course, section 24 of
the Disability Discrimination Act makes it very clear that it is unlawful for a person
to provide goods or services which discriminate against any person on the grounds of disability.
We, of course, have test cases in Australia and overseas and more recently MIT and Harvard
with their MOOC learning environments now coming under closer scrutiny and legal action. Moving on to the next slide, I’ve already
talked briefly about the W3C and the context of accessibility. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the W3C web accessibility initiative and the areas of work in which they’re involved. Moving on to the next slide, you will see,
for those that can see, what this slide summarises again is those four W3C web content accessibility
guideline principles of information needing to be perceivable, operable, understandable
and robust. We’ll unpack that further as we go. I think we have someone from Vision Australia,
so this is a plug from Vision Australia’s 10 quick tips which really, I think, is a
great initiative in making those complex guidelines less jargonistic and really highlighting
the core things that we need to think about in terms of accessibility. Making sure
images have text equivalent. Using structural mark up to give meaning to content. The need
for that will be highlighted when I give a particular case study shortly. Create consistent presentation and navigation which is, of course, also about usability. As is making links really
identifiable according to their destination. Using colours with sufficient colour contrast
benefits everybody. Building pages to work with keyboard as well as mouse is what I’ve
already highlighted. Allowing users to customize and be responsive
to their needs was a point I raised earlier as well as usability. Personalisation, so
you can see that all of these principles actually overlap. Marking up forms and data tables
appropriately. That is quite challenging in the learning management system such as Moodle. Using scripting such as Java scripting with care. Often these media rich and interactive environments use extensive
use of JavaScript which can make those technologies less accessible for a number of students.
Of course, it goes without saying that multimedia, particularly as we move to the automatic recording
of lectures which is common practice in universities today, becomes quite a challenge because in
pretty much I think most cases of universities around the world, we operate on the exception
is the rule that students do need to identify as having a need for those materials to be
accessible. So that is one of the real challenges, I think, that are facing educators as they
try to move towards this more inclusive model. The technology, while it’s getting better,
is a little way off from being easy for everyone to caption those videos and create transcripts. I don’t want to go through in detail, because
again you can refer to the materials afterwards, but just to highlight that the issues around
ensuring that other formats such as Microsoft Word and PDF files are accessible is equally
important and often overlooked. Those same principles apply to Word and PDF documents,
to PowerPoint documents, Excel documents and so on which, of course, academics are increasingly
making available online and often without the awareness that there are features within
all of those authoring environments that make it possible for an academic to make them more
inclusive. So that really highlights the need for better
education professional development within our universities. I said I would come back to talking about
our OLT funded project and the second component of that being the usability testing. We have been exploring the accessibility, the usability, customisability of a number of core sites across a number of disciplinary areas across a number of universities of Australia. We’ve looked at the different accessibility
of the different learning managing systems as well as the context produced by the academics. This slide is talking about usability testing. So accessibility testing is reasonably common place now when
we look at our corporate websites and our learning management systems. Perhaps less
so for academics who are not familiar with the importance of accessibility and the guidelines
but perhaps less often looked at is the usability. As I highlighted before, there is a close
relationship between accessibility and usability. One of the things we’ve been doing about our
project is also undertaking usability testing with the students enrolled in those courses.
I’ve mentioned before that it is about learnability, how easy the material and the website, for
example, the learning management system is in terms of the learnability, how quickly
students can learn to navigate. The efficiency for them, how easy it is to be able to remember
the different ways of accessing the different components and modules within a learning management
system. How it traps for errors, enables productivity. Part of that the learning effects, how long
it takes to complete tasks and also considers information literacy, the acceptance of the
user as well as their satisfaction with the experience. All of those things are clearly
really important when we’re designing an inclusive learning environment. The next slide really talks about a particular
case study taken from all of the work that we’ve been doing through that project. We’ve
been doing the accessibility and usability testing with students from a large number of diverse
groups. Certainly with students with disabilities and Indigenous students and nonEnglish speaking
background and so on. This draws on a particular case study where
we had a mature aged student who was enrolled in a course which I was coordinating. It was
designed really specifically to be as accessible as possible. The student identified as blind
but also as a proficient screen reader. The next slide talks about some of the challenges
that we observed. I should say the way in which we did the testing with this student
varied from what we had done for a number of students. For a number of usability testing that we had done we have used TechSmith’s Moray software. You can check it out on the web if you’re
interested. That software has a number of limitations. It’s platform specific. It also
proved to not be particularly accessible for this student’s assistive technology. In this case we simply shared our Skype screen.
We recorded the student going through a number of tasks, which we identified at the outset
and asked her to think aloud and talk about what she was experiencing with each task.
One might identify five tasks that are core to that course and then ask the student to step through the process and share those experiences with us. One of the very first things we asked the student
to do was find contact details. It should have been a simple task. Because the student relies on a screenreader and short cuts she was looking to TAB through by heading level. Because there wasn’t a heading called contacts, she missed the link completely. It created unnecessary time and wasted effort
by requiring that student to then skim through. She wasn’t able to skim. She had to go link
by link until she found it. The recommendations arising from that, also
consistent with W3C web content accessibility guidelines, the need to make sure that headings
applied all the sections of the online course materials. I had certainly done that in the course but
what I hadn’t thought through was where I label a block of links that by default wasn’t
creating a heading. I needed to go in and make those labels headings. That also has
implications. Most of what we’ve uncovered has implications also for the administrators
of learning management systems who could modify the template, the CQU has, to make sure
assigned headings were labelled when created. The next slide and issue was we asked the
student to go to the Wiki and find a group that she wanted to work with for the final
assessment. That required her to go into the Wiki and add her name to the members of the
group. This created numerous challenges which didn’t present with accessibility testing.
First off in retrospect and having watch what happened and having listened to this student’s
experience was a no brainer. What I’d overlooked was a sighted person could see links that
were listed in succession. I had an assessment 3 section. Then I had a number of links under
assessment 3. The first going to the criteria, the second link to the actual Wiki. Of course, the student navigated to the assessment
3 section, found the first link. Said the Wiki would be in there, went into that link
and said there’s no Wiki. Of course, she couldn’t see the link following that. What that tells
us from usability testing, which is good practice for all students, logically the Wiki ought
to have been in one link to avoid all of that unnecessary scrolling and navigation to find it. So the implications of that, in terms of recommendations, is to ensure that links relating to sections are located within that section and also the other issue that we found was the Wiki itself wasn’t accessible because from the student’s
perspective it was one huge form with no fields indicating names. So once she finally found
the Wiki couldn’t sign up because she didn’t know where to type within the Wiki. Now, these sorts of issues only became apparent
to me because of the usability testing. The next slide is the third of the issues and
that relates to pop-up windows in discussion forums. The final task we asked her to do
was make a posting to the discussion forum. Actually there were a number of other tasks,
these are the only highlighted ones. She found the discussion forum. She found
the thread and the message she wanted to reply to. When she went into reply she navigated
into the section where you can upload a file as an attachment, pop-up window opened. She
didn’t know she was in a pop-up window and couldn’t get out. The W3C guidelines state that web pages need
to operate in predictable ways and also to warn users if a new window is going to open. Other issues that we discovered were things
like the ruberik is that is one of the assessment components. They’re colour coded and in a
table format which is completely inaccessible to students with vision impairments. Another
accessibility challenge was the text chat functionality. While there’s an accessible
version of the chat for Moodle, the problem with the accessible version is the screen
doesn’t refresh unless the student chooses to do so. So they don’t actually know that
someone has posted a new chat message because the screen hasn’t refreshed and read it aloudem. Even the accessible version create
to ths some barriers. The third components is personalisation of the learning environment. Commonly that’s thought about the ways in which the student can customize and shape their own learning environment.
Perhaps use different modes for engaging with learning material and so forth. Some authors, such as McLoughlin and Lee have
argued that most of the learning management systems as they’re constructed are still largely
institutionally controlled and content-centric. Which is certainly not consistent with the principle of personalisation. But in all of the discourse around personalisation,
there is very little in the literature that talks about personalisation to accommodate
diversity and personalisation to accommodate students, for example, with disabilities and
those with nonEnglish speaking language backgrounds. Moving to the next slide is a visualisation
of how one might go about designing a personalised learning environment. For those that can’t
see the diagram, it is basically a venn diagram of three circles. One is saying we can draw
on learning analytic data to inform the design of a more personalised environment. It should adapt to the learner’s accessibility and usability needs. And also accommodate different learning styles. So, conceptually that’s what I think a more holistic understanding of personalisation means. Next is a screen shot taken from CQ university Moodle activity viewer, which is its learning analytics interface for academics which over lays heat maps. That’s not terribly accessible and needs to be worked on because it relies on colour coding, which of course
is not accessible. So the functionality and idea is great. It does need work. What it’s
designed to do is provide a bird’s eye view for the academic on which aspects of the course
site are being engaged with and which are not. Of course, the implications for that
is early intervention. CQU does have another related system which allows academics to send
personal emails to students who appear to not be engaging. Most universities have some
kind of system that allows for that tracking. What’s important is we use the learning analytics
to inform the design of the core site. Clearly if there are particular groups of students
who are not engaging with particular modules or components within the learning management
system, it signals possibly some problem with accessibility of that material. Particularly
if they’re engaging in other components of the website. The next slide is again another diagram. I
apologise to those who can’t see it but it’s just a schematic visualisation of a way in
which one might think about responsive learning through the lens of the work of raising the
floor initiative in the US. Professor Gregg Vanderheiden has been leading that initiative and in particular the global public inclusive infrastructure, and that’s still a long way off being a reality In terms of how that might translate to a responsive learning environment, is the idea that the user
could log into a database which is secure, store their profile including their learning needs,
preferences, accessibility needs and so forth in the Cloud. Log in with any device, the Cloud
would marry the information about the technology they are using to log in with their profile and deliver
the learning materials in the format that best meets their needs. That’s a conceptualisation. Work is happening
in the US and it’s really great to see that trend. We’re not at the point of being able
to implement something as ambitious as that as yet. There are other options which we are
testing and trialling at CQU. One of those and probably the most accessible to any educator
is flexible learning for open education as shown on the next slide. Acronym is FLOE It’s based on this
idea that you can have an integrated component or a tool bar at the top of a website or within
the learning management system that allows the customization that I talked about before
in terms of text size, style, line spacing, colour contrast, whether a table of contents
is shown and whether the text is read aloud. Whilst someone with a visual impairment would
no doubt use their own screen reader, other groups of students, nonEnglish speaking background for example, who may not have a screen reader but would still benefit by having the content read aloud for them. That’s something we’re
looking at at the moment. We’re trialling something which is an accessibility
component for Moodle. This FLOE project which is open source is something that any university
might like to look at. The next slide is the final component which
I mentioned before. It’s really about it doesn’t stop with just making sure that learning environments
are accessible, usable and personalised. It also means we need to engage all our students
with thinking through what diversity means and what it means to work within an inclusive
environment as a professional, as a graduating professional. Moving on to the next slide is… SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve got 10 minutes to go. DENISE: Yes, I can see that. We’re moving
to the end. Thank you. Really, if you want to read some of the quotes and look at some
of the references in your own time, I would encourage you to do so. Encourage your colleagues
to do so. I won’t go through the next slides in any
detail, simply because it’s really there just to reinforce the need for transformative pedagogy
to be part of the model. I’ve given an example before of how I’ve tried to do that in a web
design course. I’m moving now to slide 36 which is another
visualisation. This is now looking at what it looks like to have an institutional approach
to inclusive practice. It sounds complex. You can see I like concentric circles and
components. Again a number of concentric circles. Learning centred focus in the centre. The
next core the three components. The individual factors we need to consider. The institutional
processes and policies we need to consider and the program requirements. The outer circle
in terms of the individual just reinforces when we are thinking about how we are inclusive of
our students, we need to consider their profile, that is their diversity, their motivations
and their aspirations, their culture context and the workplace. We need to consider the
institutional policies, the promises, systems and processes and how we monitor the progress
of our students and within the program there are a number of things that we need to consider,
in terms of the learning and teaching standards. The graduate attributes. Critically for many
of you tackling inherent requirements of the program and of the profession and the program
outcomes. Moving to slide 37, this model is based on
David Kalsbeek’s 4Ps framework. Profile, promise, processes and progress. We’ve added in our
model policies and whether those policies are implemented in practice. Moving to slide 38 really summarises those
components again. You can read that at your convenience. Slide 39 talks about an institutional approach
needing to be founded on an ethic of care. The importance of marketing delivering realistic
mess sages about what prospective students should expect in transition and what supports
will be available. One of the things we’ve been trialling at CQU is
a pre-enrolment interview process where students – we don’t rely on them ticking a box but
we rather go through the program requirements, the inherent requirements, and then work through
what aspects of diversity they think might make it difficult to meet those requirements
and what supports they require and what we may do to help them. Following that we have follow-ups and monitor
the student progress. We’re trialling that with all students. So again I come back to
the point that this isn’t about a check box exercise of finding the students and then
focusing in on them. What we’re trying to do is provide a cost benefit case analysis,
this is the outcome of the trial is to be debated, about the affordability of front
ending that process to better support students to help them make the right career decisions,
the right decisions about their program and ensure they have the right services. Beyond that there are a number of issues that
I’ve highlighted which I know many of you are encountering. Now if we open up for those
discussions. I’m sorry I didn’t see much interaction on the way through but I hope we’ve got about
six minutes left for people to raise those questions and share their experiences. So
thank you. So anyone – can we unmute people? SPEAKER: Do we want a whole unmute, Jane? SPEAKER: I’ll leave it to you guys. SPEAKER: So Jane, did you have a question
at all? Jane Affleck? I’ll ask your questions. Can you ask it, Jane, I can’t find it? SPEAKER: With the pre-interview process, is
this a new program? It would seem very staff intensive and how is this being managed? Thanks.
That’s from Jane. DENISE: I knew that would be the burning question
because, of course, it’s the burning question of senior management. At CQU we have very
high attrition rates. We have implemented many initiatives over the years that do not
appear to have made any significant impact. So what we have been trialling is to get a
good sense of just how resource intensive it is, how long the interviews take and particularly
with a large population of students we’ve been doing the cost benefit analysis. We will
do a follow-up evaluation with two groups of students from the same program, nursing
and midwifery. So it’s a Bachelor of Nursing. Those who did have the initial interview and
those that did not, to find out how they’re progressing, whether they’re in fact continuing.
So we’d like to do a longitudinal tracking of the two groups to identify what the impact
has been of those pre-enrolment interviews. Yes, it is time intensive. What we’re trying
to show is that front ending that process may, in fact, be a better use of resources
than spending significant funding on initiatives on students who perhaps could have had the
supports they need early on and saved a lot of time for themselves and the academics and
the support staff who learn about those challenges later on. Really it’s become very important with inherent
requirements as well because we do have situations in many of our programs. I know all of you
do as well. Where students get to a critical point in their career where at the university
they have to go on placement and they can’t meet the requirements for that because they can’t get police clearance or they can’t meet the safe environments requirements for working in a clinical setting. So we have
yet to finalise our cost benefit analysis. That will take us another year probably to
do all of the complete evaluation and follow up but what we’re trying to argue is perhaps
it’s better front loading some of that effort and redistributing where the effort is placed
in return for longer term gains, in terms of retention and successive and more diverse
students. SPEAKER: Excellent. Thank you for that. We’ve
had another question about sharing your contact details. That’s okay to do. DENISE: Absolutely. Yes. SPEAKER: Rachel one of our participants has
just said that the university she works at is at the start of the process of online subjects.
They would greatly appreciate your advice and it’s good timing. I don’t think anybody
else has braved the chat, the talking. That’s absolutely wonderful. I’ll give you one more
minute if anybody does want to ask Denise a question. DENISE: I know you had some questions on your
list. Have we ticked off all of those questions? SPEAKER: Jane, have you got them handy at
all? Is there anything that needed answering? SPEAKER: Denise, do you want me to read them
through to you again? DENISE: Yeah. SPEAKER: So one of them was interested in
how to engage faculties to change their practices? DENISE: Okay. So I’ll do that one straight
away. We are choosing to do that through this testing within the programs looking at providing
an evidence based to help academics think through how they might adopt a more consistent
approach for the whole program. So an all program approach but what’s driving that is
the evidence by sharing the results of the testing and the videos that are taken with
the usability testing with the academics. As I gave you a reflection on my own experience,
that’s a pretty salient message when you see your own course and a student struggling to
manage to get through the material. So that’s one of the ways. Yeah. SPEAKER: I think that was a brilliant example.
I think even just to be able to see the experience, what a screen reader experiences is pretty
powerful stuff. I think we think we’ve done it right until it actually gets down to seeing
how it actually is. SPEAKER: Would you like another one, Denise? DENISE: If we’ve got time. Yeah. SPEAKER: What are some successful methods
used to get staff thinking about inclusive practice, not just for minority cohorts such
as students with a disability, as the norm during curriculum design? DENISE: So I think beginning with professional
development around, and we’ve yet to scale this out, but certainly we’ve begun with education
at the senior management level. It really needs to be a top down bottom out middle out
approach which is one of Sally Kift’s sayings when she talks about transition pedagogy.
It’s this idea that we need to get the senior managers engaged with what we mean by inclusion
as the standard and why it’s important. Then we equally need to work at the team level,
program team and school level, which we’re trying to do as I mentioned with this pilot
and working with those teams. At that level, of course, we’ve engaged the
Deans and Deputy Deans of learning and teaching so they very much understand what we mean
and the benefits of inclusive practice. As well as the education that needs to go with
that. So one of the things that we are developing is online website which we hope to have completed
by the end of this year which will really flesh out what we mean by inclusive practice
as well as particular techniques which are focused on what you as an academic can do
to make your own learning environments more inclusive. Of course that’s driven from the
evidence base that we’re collecting through the current testing. SPEAKER: That was brilliant. All right. We
might need to end it there just because we’ve gone over time. I just want to take this opportunity
to thank you, Denise. It’s been fantastic and thought-provoking for me. I’m sure for
everybody online. As I said we’ll have a copy of this video up on the website next week
or the week after depending on poor Jane’s time. Also Denise’s details will be made available
for those who have participated and also a copy of the presentation will be online. I’d just also want to take this opportunity
to thank Jason for doing such a fantastic job, Bradley Reporting. I wish you all the
best for the day. I hope it is sunny in your part of the world as it is here in Launceston.
Again thank you very much, Denise. DENISE: Thank you very much Jane and Darlene for your assistance and for everyone attending. SPEAKER: Cheers, Bye.