Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3), 329-340 329 Disability Accommodations in Online Courses: The Graduate Student Experience Katherine Terras Joseph Leggio University of North Dakota Amy Phillips Minot State University Abstract Research is beginning to demonstrate that online learning may afford students with disabilities enhanced opportuni- ties for academic success. In this study, the authors interviewed 11 graduate students to determine their experiences with disability accommodations in online courses and their perceptions of the relationship between those accom- modations and their academic success. Although study participants indicated that disabilities presented concentration and scheduling challenges, the flexibility of online learning as well as participants’ skills at self-accommodation and self-advocacy were instrumental in students’ academic success. The article offers a set of recommendations for students, instructors, and institutions related to supporting the success of students with disabilities in online courses. Keywords: Online accommodations, students with disabilities, disability accommodations Research is beginning to demonstrate that online But even in online learning environments, stu- learning may afford students with disabilities enhanced dents with disabilities may become outpaced without opportunities for academic success (Burgstahler, Cor- assistive technologies (Barnard-Brak, Sulak, Tate, & rigan, & McCarter, 2004; Collopy & Arnold, 2009; Lechtenberger, 2010) or other accommodations. Of- Kinash, Crichton, & Kim-Rupnow, 2004; Roberts, ten the role of self-advocate is new to postsecondary Crittenden, & Crittenden, 2011). Since students with students with disabilities who have had accommoda- disabilities may have difficulty concentrating, staying tions provided and their parents as advocates prior on task, and adhering to a schedule (Roberts et al., to enrolling in college (Barnard-Brak et al., 2010; 2011), online settings (particularly those that are asyn- Barnard-Brak, Davis, Tate, & Sulak, 2009). College chronous) allow students to access courses anywhere, students with disabilities must request accommoda- anytime, and any place and provide “the personalized tions from their university (Barnard-Brak & Sulak, time they need to think, process, and respond” (Col- 2010), and it is rare for students with disabilities in lopy & Arnold, 2009, p. 85). In addition, assistive online courses to request accommodations from their technology such as text enlargement for students with instructors (Phillips, Terras, Swinney, & Schneweis, visual impairments may negate the need to disclose a 2012; Roberts et al., 2011). When students with dis- disability when no other accommodations are neces- abilities do approach faculty for accommodations, they sary (Roberts et al., 2011). Online instructors who discover that not all faculty understand their disability follow Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles nor know the appropriate accommodations to meet and practices also enhance the learning experience for the needs presented by the disability (Denhart, 2008; students with and without disabilities (Kinash et al., Getzel & Thoma, 2008). Roberts et al. (2011) found 2004; 2004; Roberts et al., 2011). that the majority of students with disabilities in online 330 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3) courses do not request accommodations. Even when experience making accommodations, they felt the most students perceive their disabilities to negatively impact comfortable making “common” types of accommoda- their academic performance, they may not know what tions, such as extended testing time, assignment exten- accommodations to request, or the technology available sions, and copies of notes. Faculty’s perception was in online courses (e.g., text enlargement) negates the that accommodating students with sensory disabilities need to request accommodations (Roberts et al., 2011). would be more challenging, and they would need assis- Students with disabilities in face-to-face and on- tance to do so. Faculty recommended ongoing support line courses who have more positive attitudes toward and training for new and experienced instructors and requesting accommodations are more likely do so for helping students be aware of resources and their (Barnard-Brak et al., 2009). Fear of being stigmatized own responsibilities. or having work devalued prevents some students with Most of the literature on accommodations in higher disabilities from requesting accommodations (Denhart, education references undergraduate students in face-to- 2008). Self-awareness and self-advocacy are vital face courses. As this review section indicates, however, skills that enable students with disabilities to request there is a growing body of research on accommodations appropriate accommodations and to persist in the in online courses. The authors intend for the current pursuit of educational goals (Denhart, 2008; Getzel study to contribute to this expanding scope of research. & Thoma, 2008). Some self-aware students with dis- abilities self-accommodate using visual strategies (e.g., Method multicolor highlighting, drawing outlines), and others self-advocate to request traditional accommodations Research Purpose and Question that include extra time on exams/papers, audio books, As discussed above, a previous study by two of and note-takers (Denhart, 2008). the current authors investigated faculty experiences Denhart (2008) found that, when college students providing disability accommodations in online courses with disabilities request accommodations, they are (Phillips et al., 2012). Since the 2012 study found that often granted. Despite these accommodations, students few online teaching faculty received accommodation with disabilities oftentimes feel that they experience requests from students with disabilities, the authors a heavier workload and put in longer hours than their wanted to better understand the experiences of students peers who are non-disabled. Yet students with dis- with disabilities in online courses. Of specific inter- abilities sometimes feel the extra effort yields a product est was gathering student comments on their beliefs that is still inferior to the output of their peers who are about and experiences of requesting and receiving not disabled. Some students with disabilities fear that accommodations. Given the authors’ particular access a mediocre product reflects laziness when in fact the to graduate students, the current study gathered data product was the result of hard work. related to the question, “What have been the experi- Phillips et al. (2012) examined the online accom- ences of graduate students with disabilities in receiving modation experiences of faculty at one public universi- accommodations in online courses?” ty who taught undergraduate and/or graduate students. Only 23.5% of faculty said they made accommodations Setting for students with verified disabilities and only 15.4% The setting for the research was a moderately sized reported experience with making online accommoda- public university of 15,000 students located less than tions for students who stated they had disabilities but two hours from the Canadian border in one of the most had not been verified through Disability Services for rural states in the country. Within the university's nine Students (DSS). These low numbers were mainly due schools and colleges, 220 fields of study are offered at to students not requesting accommodations in online the undergraduate and graduate levels. The university courses; in fact, it was faculty’s perception that students has been offering online courses for thirteen years, and chose to either accommodate their own learning needs, as of Fall 2013 offered 30 online degrees (20 graduate waited until they failed an assignment to make an ac- and 10 undergraduate) and 13 online, graduate cer- commodation request, or did not access any form of tificate programs. Four percent of the total student accommodation. Due to their limited experience at population is registered with Disability Services for making online accommodations, the majority (54%) Students, with 1% being graduate students and 3% of faculty was unsure whether they had the knowledge, undergraduate students. technology, and support to handle online accommoda- The study was situated in the College of Education tions, yet making appropriate accommodations for and Human Development (EHD), which was com- students was important to them. For those who had prised of five departments: Teaching and Learning, Terras, Phillips, & Leggio; Online Disability Accommodations 331 Counseling Psychology and Community Services, Because the interviews were conducted across the Educational Foundations and Research, Educational three authors, a semi-structured interview guide was Leadership, and Kinesiology and Public Health Educa- developed for consistency. Findings from the authors’ tion. Three of these departments offered online courses 2012 study on faculty experiences with disability ac- at the graduate level and were selected for the study: commodations in online courses were the framework Teaching and Learning, Counseling Psychology and for developing the interview guide. The guide con- Community Services, and Educational Foundations sisted of 27 questions equally distributed across three and Research. Within Teaching and Learning, three sections: Section 1. Participant Information; Section fully online master’s degrees are offered in special 2. Disability and Accommodations; and Section 3. education, elementary education, and early childhood Attitudes toward Accommodations and Receiving Ac- education. Counseling Psychology and Community commodations. The Appendix contains the questions Services offers an online master’s in counseling with for each section. a K-12 school emphasis. To assist with usefulness, clarity, and sensitivity of the interview questions, the guide was audited by one Study Participants participant-consultant prior to conducting the inter- After the project’s approval by the Institutional views. All recommendations made by this individual Review Board, a research announcement was sent were accepted. electronically to all students enrolled in the four online master’s degree programs via the program directors. Data Analysis The Educational Foundations and Research department To describe this natural phenomenon, data offered one graduate course online and the instructor were inductively analyzed using a combination of strat- sent the advertisement electronically to all students egies from Hill, Thompson, and William’s (1997) A enrolled. The advertisement was sent to 172 students. Guide to Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research The advertisement solicited students with disabilities (CQR) and Creswell’s (2007) Qualitative Inquiry & who had taken at least one online course. Students who Research Design. CQR is based on establishing the- were interested in participating emailed the principal matic consensus amongst the team of researchers, then investigator for more information. Twelve students having have one or two auditors check the consensus made contact. Students were initially screened via judgments of the primary research team. Creswell’s email to identify a diagnosed disability and to provide (2007) approach involved discovering the underlying a list of online courses taken at the University. Eleven meaning of the experience through analysis of spe- students met the criteria. If they had a diagnosed dis- cific statements resulting in clusters of meaning (i.e., ability and had taken at least one online course, they themes), while setting aside all prejudgments as one were electronically sent an information sheet delineating searches for all possible meanings. For this study, a the study’s purpose and benefits, participant role, confi- three step data analysis process was used: dentiality, and contact information. If they consented to participate, students were asked to email the principal 1. Bracketing (Creswell, 2007) was used to help investigator to set up a time to be interviewed. All 11 the researchers set aside any preconceived students participated in the study. Each participant was experiences about students and disability ac- mailed a $25 gift card following the interview. Each commodations. Each researcher was asked to interview transcript was assigned a code number (e.g., respond to the following statement in writing: S1) to protect participants’ confidentiality. In order to produce a valid body of research, please identify any values, biases, or experi- Data Collection ences about this topic that could influence Data were collected across one semester by con- how you collect, analyze, or report the data. ducting one semi-structured interview with each of the Responses were shared and discussed amongst 11 participants. Each interview was approximately researchers. In the consensual discussions that one hour and was conducted using phone or video ensued, researchers held each other account- conferencing (i.e., Skype) since most of the participants able for potential bias in their analyses. lived at a distance from the university. Interviews 2. The process of horizontalization (Creswell, were randomly divided amongst researchers resulting 2007) was employed for each question, which in a one-on-one grouping. Researchers took copious was to list significant statements from each notes during each interview, then emailed the interview participant. Next, Hill’s et al. (1997) pattern- transcript to the participant for member validation. ing strategy, representativeness to the sample, 332 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3) was utilized to determine frequency of partici- physicians and psychologists. Prior to enrollment at pants’ responses relative to the whole sample. the university, only two participants had received ac- For each question, if all 11 participants an- commodations for their disability. swered the question with the same response or experience, a general pattern was formed. If Presentation of Themes five to 10 participants had similar experiences, Upon completion of data analysis, three themes this was a typical pattern. A variant pattern emerged. Below, each theme is presented along with was established with three or four similar ex- supporting evidence. periences across participants. Two researchers collectively completed this step for eight of the Theme 1. Prior experiences with special educa- 11 transcripts. Their findings were sent to the tion motivated participants to pursue a graduate remaining researcher to analyze the last three degree. Nine of the 11 participants were enrolled in transcripts to test the stability of the findings the Master’s of Science in Special Education degree (Hill et al., 1997). The team met to discuss program (an entirely online program). For eight of them, the findings. No new patterns emerged with they either had: (a) personal experiences with receiving the inclusion of the final three transcripts, so (or not receiving) special education services for their dis- data were considered stable. There was con- ability, (b) a child or sibling with a disability who needed sensual agreement on the representativeness of special education services, or (c) work experience in the the sample: three general patterns, 15 typical field of special education. Participants used phrases such patterns, and 16 variant patterns. as “paying it forward” and “enjoys helping students.” 3. Next, researchers independently analyzed gen- One noted she wanted to “give back” to students like eral and typical patterns for clusters of mean- her who had disabilities so they could receive special ing. Variant patterns were “dropped” at this education services, because she never did. stage of analysis because they were “not con- Theme 2. Pre-enrollment fears of academic sidered to be descriptive of the sample” (Hill failure were minimized once in the program due to: et al., 1997, p. 551). Data were grouped by (a) the flexibility afforded by online classes; (b) the “meaning units” (Creswell, 2007) to identify willingness of instructors to provide accommoda- themes that captured the essence of the par- tions; and (c) the personal efforts of students via ticipants’ experiences. The research team met self-accommodation. The leading fear amongst par- a second time to present and discuss themes. ticipants was “keeping up” due to the characteristics of There was a high degree of consensus among their disability. Increased time needed to read materials researchers on individual themes. Ample time was specifically noted. One participant explained how was spent converging these similar themes it took her three times longer to read in order to get the into three essence-capturing statements. An “materials registered in my brain.” The increased time analytic schema is presented in Table 1. needed for reading and writing was a common fear for those with learning disabilities. For participants who Results had psychological disorders, lack of time was also a fear, mainly due to the inability to concentrate. As one Participant Information participant illustrated: As can be seen in Table 2, the 11 participants were women who ranged in age from 22 to 55 and I did have some concerns because when I was an mostly resided in the Upper Midwest region of the undergrad I had to take a semester off because of United States. Nine were working toward a Master’s my disability, and I knew that the stress of being of Science and two toward a Doctor of Philosophy. in school would impact my disability. Just with the At the time of the study, participants had been taking increased stress it impacts my ability to concentrate graduate coursework for one to six-and-a-half years for a period of time and my ability to slow down and had collectively taken 67 asynchronous and 30 my thoughts enough to do the school work. synchronous online courses. Six of the 11 participants were registered with DSS. Three participants had psy- Intriguingly, none of the participants mentioned that chological disorders, four had learning disabilities, two these fears delayed or derailed their scholarly pursuits. experienced chronic health conditions (i.e., diabetes, One participant offered her explanation for this: migraines), and two had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The disabilities were diagnosed by Terras, Phillips, & Leggio; Online Disability Accommodations 333 Table 1 Analytic Schema General Patterns (11 participants) • 11 participants accepted responsibility for knowing their needs and communicating them to Disability Services for Students and/or instructors for necessary accommodations. • 11 participants self-accommodated. • 11 participants felt they were successful in their online courses. Typical Patterns (5 to 10 participants) • 8 participants who enrolled in the special education master’s program had experience with the special educa- tion population resulting from personal, parental, and/or work experience. • 5 participants stated online program met personal needs or preference. • 9 participants were concerned about “keeping up” due to disability prior to starting program. • 5 participants felt their disability does not impact ability to succeed. • 6 participants felt their disability does impact ability to succeed. • The 6 participants who asked instructors for accommodations had their requests granted. All 6 participants requested extra time on assignments. • 5 participants said when they requested accommodations didn’t vary across courses. • 6 participants stated course content does not affect their need for accommodations. • 7 participants requested accommodations before or early in the semester. • 7 participants were open about their disabilities and comfortable asking for accommodations. • 8 participants felt it was the instructors’ responsibility to meet their needs by providing accommodations. • 6 participants wanted instructors to be sensitive to their disabilities. • 6 participants felt it was the university’s responsibility to have disability policies/services for documenting disability and ensuring instructors are making accommodations. • 6 participants felt their success was not affected by lack of/quality of accommodations. • 8 participants felt understood by instructors and/or disability services for students. Themes 1. Prior experiences with special education motivated participants to pursue a graduate degree. 2. Pre-enrollment fears of academic failure were minimized once in the program due to: (a) the flexibility afforded by online classes; (b) the willingness of instructors to provide accommodations; (c) the personal efforts of students via self-accommodation. 3. Successful online accommodations are a result of specific efforts made by students, instructors, and the institution. I was filled with fear when starting, but along with I’m an audio and visual learner and I can feel alone that fear, I had a strong determination to succeed. I in the online classes. I feel like I ‘bug’ my instructors wanted to prove to myself that I could do it. It was a although I do not mean to. I feel this is because I do fear of failure, not keeping up, not being able to do it. not see the instructor or my peers. By not seeing my peers face-to-face and interacting with them inside None of the participants mentioned fearing the technol- a classroom it causes me to feel intimidated. I do ogy aspect of an online course. not mean to talk negative about online classes. I’m All 11 participants concluded they had been suc- thankful for online, but it’s not the route I would cessful in their online courses, as personally measured choose but it’s allowed me to learn. by having a high GPA, earning the degree, learning, or getting a job. Although still successful, six said their Six participants declared their disability through DSS, disability did impact them. One participant reflected: yet 10 participants received accommodations from 334 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3) Table 2 Participant Information (N=11) Age 22–55 Gender Women (n=11) Region of United States Upper Midwest (n=10) West (n=1) Graduate Academic Program M.S. in Special Education (n=9) Ph.D. in Educational Leadership (n=1) Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning (n=1) Years of Graduate Coursework 1 to 6.5 Number of Online Courses Taken 4 to 25 (67 asynchronous and 30 synchronous) Registered with Disability Services for Students Yes (n=6) No (n=5) Categories of Disabilities Psychological Disorders (n = 3) Learning Disabilities (n = 4) Chronic Health (diabetes, migraines) (n = 2) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (n = 2) Professional Who Diagnosed Physician (n=5) Psychologist (n=6) Accommodations for Disability Prior to Enrolling No (n=9) Yes (n=2) their instructors. The main reason for declaring was The primary accommodation made by instructors was that it guaranteed accommodations to prevent failure. extended time on assignments (received by nine partici- One student wanted to ensure her instructors knew pants). Additionally, one participant requested study she was not trying to “put something over” on them. guides while another requested work samples to serve Seven requested these accommodations early in the as models for assignments. Some students stated they semester, with participants noting the importance of did not need the same accommodations as when they ongoing communication with instructors regarding were undergraduates because of the nature of online extensions and clarifications. One participant shared: learning. For example, copies of notes and lectures were not needed because they could print material My professors have been wonderful. I tell them posted in the course management system, as well as the truth. I say that I didn’t understand it or I’m listen to lectures multiple times. Alternative settings not filling out the form quite right. It’s strange…I were also not needed because of being able to complete understand something’s missing but can’t figure assignments within their home setting. Participants out what. I let them know that I have trouble found most instructors willing to work with them and keeping up with the reading. to be supportive. One even complimented the sustained efforts of her advisor for helping her throughout the process and for being her “go-to-person.” Terras, Phillips, & Leggio; Online Disability Accommodations 335 The flexibility of asynchronous, online courses was I just know where I need the extra help, or time, influential for some participants’ success. They found and so I think it’s the fair thing for me to do…to online courses to be “easier” because they could review seek out the help. I don’t think it’s fair for me to the content multiple times, unlike a face-to-face course. struggle and get upset and flustered and go to a Others operationalized flexibility by being able to: (a) professor and try to get help when I could have lie down while doing lessons due to migraines, (b) do helped myself at the beginning of the year by let- lessons when mood was more elevated so “missing ting the school and the professors know that I have class” was not an issue, and (c) “attend class” after a disability and that maybe I will need extra help or supper which was more convenient for managing blood will struggle because maybe then they’ll think of sugar. A participant made the following comparison other things. I’m doing a disservice all aroundto between online and face-to-face delivery: “I would do myself and professorsif I don’t seek out accom- much worse in face-to-face classes. I would have to modations. In college, before accommodations I get up and get to class at a certain time. Online meets got a 2.78, after accommodations it went up to 3.9. my needs better and that course has modules that are Huge difference! And it’s not like I’m asking for clearly organized.” One participant liked the conve- someone to do my work, all my accommodation nience of online, but found it easier to “procrastinate.” is doing is giving me an extended time on tests so She also felt: I can process the information. Being face-to-face and seeing them [instructors], Student responsibility. All participants felt it they get a sense of who you are. In an online course was their responsibility to be knowledgeable about it is hard to do. The connecting can be difficult disability-specific needs and to initiate communication in the online course with my struggle in writing. with instructors and/or DSS about how their needs Your character is part of who you are and affects could be met through accommodations. Even with all learning and grading. participants reporting they self-accommodated, not one explicitly mentioned it as every student’s responsibil- Another participant did not feel there were a lot of ser- ity. One participant explained, “My responsibility is vices for online students and shared she did not know to talk with my instructors and discuss my needs with about DSS until the time of the interview. However, she them. They’re not mind readers. And I need to put admitted she probably would not make a contact because forth an effort and take ownership for my learning….” she questioned how “anonymous” it was with it being on Another concluded, “Most fall on me because I am an her record. She wanted “to make it on her own without adult and in charge of my own destiny.” Although all being labeled and wanted to avoid instructors thinking, participants accepted this responsibility for initiating ‘Oh great, we have one of these students.’” the accommodation process, only seven were open All participants self-accommodated in their online about their disabilities and felt comfortable request- courses. Some participants sought assistance from ing accommodations. One participant explained how individuals whom they knew personally to read to disclosure was dependent on the relationship with the them or to edit writing. Others asserted themselves instructor: by seeking additional assistance from the instructor for clarification of nebulous content. Organizational It varied because for the one course I had had the systems were constructed for due dates. Some pre- same instructor I had had before and I had a rela- ferred hard copies of course materials to employ a tionship with her and the other instructor I didn’t highlighting strategy. Online tutorial services made know her. I guess I was more willing to share available by the university were accessed. Lastly, information with what was going on with the first some self-accommodated by simply being “up front” instructor than with the other instructor. I was with instructors about their disability. really vague and said there was some tough stuff Theme 3. Successful online accommodations going on and was just vague. [Why were you more are a result of specific efforts made by students, vague with the second instructor?] I didn’t know instructors, and the institution. Participants were her and didn’t know if she would judge me for queried about perceived responsibilities of students sharing the full reason. [Why were you concerned with disabilities, instructors, and the university. To about being judged?] Because it had happened to capture the essence, they perceived it as a joint effort. A me in my undergraduate school and it wasn’t in 34-year-old student with dyslexia explained it like this: a special ed program. I had requested more time for assignments because they were changing my 336 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3) anxiety medication and the instructor didn’t un- while students come along who need something extra, derstand and said I needed to try harder or find and they don’t just think of us as lazy.” another place to study and the instructor wasn’t University responsibility. As for the institution, going to give me more time. it was their responsibility to establish policies and procedures for communication and accountability For those who were not comfortable, their reasons purposes. Providing a disability service was essential included: (a) became “anxious” about requesting for documenting disability and upholding the rights of accommodations because of a history of not getting students. One student declared, “I am blessed to have work done and concerned a “disposition form will be DSS in my academic life, and I feel they’ll go the extra completed” on her, and (b) did not want to be “set apart mile for me. They have; it’s been amazing!” Some from the others,” and participants mentioned the university needed to “look critically at how to improve” and to ensure instructors (c) I like to think I’m above my disability. I don’t are providing accommodations. want it to stop me or don’t want other people to know. Maybe it’s an embarrassment thing. I don’t Summary want pity or special treatment because of this. I All participants felt they successfully completed want to go to someone if I need the help. I feel their online courses, in spite of their pre-enrollment like I’m judging [How?] I’m judging everyone fears and disability-related challenges. All participants else who uses it….. Yeah, I don’t want people to self-accommodated and almost all requested accom- know because I don’t want special treatment. It modations from instructors. Nevertheless, a little over sounds weird because I ask for it [accommodation] half the participants felt their level of success was not from time to time. I don’t want special favors. I affected by the quality of accommodations they re- want to struggle with it on my own. When I read ceived but was a result of their individual efforts. Most something and I get it, the reward is huge. It’s a participants felt understood by instructors, and almost confidence boost. all were satisfied with their online learning experience. Instructor responsibility. Most of the participants Discussion (eight) believed it was the instructors’ responsibility to meet their needs by providing accommodations. In contrast to an earlier study by two of the authors Participant comments included: “fulfill needs within (Phillips et al., 2012) in which few faculty reported reason,” “ensure they are fair to all students,” “read being asked by students to provide accommodations in and follow the plan developed with DSS,” “allow self- online courses, this study of online graduate students accommodations,” “provide clear expectations about with disabilities found that almost all participants (10 what instructors are willing to do,” “allow assignments of 11) requested accommodations from their instruc- to be redone,” and “work with students in the area of tors. No doubt the particular characteristics of the disability.” Slightly over half (six participants) felt it participants contributed to this outcome, with 82% of was also the instructors’ responsibility to perceive them students (n=9) seeking a master’s degree in special as hard working and fulfilling the same obligations as education and eight of them having prior personal or other students. Supporting remarks were as follows: work experience with special education. It may be that (a) “Not asking someone to do my work. Don’t think degree choice and a personal history with receiving or of us as lazy;” (b) “I don’t want to be perceived as one providing accommodations in pre-college educational of those people or that I’m using my disability as a experiences determines a comfort level with requesting crutch…fulfilling the same obligations;” (c) “I didn’t accommodations in online college classrooms. ask for this [disability];” (d) “Instructors’ responsibility Consistent with Roberts et al. (2011), students in is to ensure that they are fair to all students and that this study indicated that their disabilities presented they do not give an unfair advantage to any student.” concentration and scheduling challenges, but simi- She felt receiving extra time on assignments/tests was lar to Collopy and Arnold (2009), students asserted fair because the “student is producing the same work;” that online courses offered them the flexibility and (e) “…should not assume that if a student is requesting individualized pacing to be academically successful. help they’re lazy. See the student for who they are Most of the classes taken by students in this study before seeing their disability. See what the student were asynchronous online courses, as opposed to can do before seeing what they can’t do;” and (f) “I live web-cam facilitated courses. The flexible, self- think as long as the teachers know that every once in a directed nature of these asynchronous courses may Terras, Phillips, & Leggio; Online Disability Accommodations 337 make them a more comfortable learning environment “every instructor is different, so be straightforward.” for students with disabilities, compared to the syn- If the course is asynchronous, students could request chronous online courses. that this, and additional communications with instruc- Self-accommodation and self-advocacy stand out tors, take place via phone or by Skype (or some other as important to the academic success of students with video-conferencing system). However, a participant disabilities. The students in this study were adept at opposed the use of email because it was not as effective self-accommodation, felt comfortable requesting ac- when discussing disability accommodations. commodations from instructors, and knew what type of accommodations would be most beneficial to request. Recommendations for Instructors This finding supports that of Barnard-Brak et al. (2009) Although non-contact with instructors may mean who found that students who had positive attitudes that there are no students with disabilities in the class or toward accommodations felt comfortable requesting that students with disabilities are self-accommodating, them. (In this study, only one student expressed concern it is important that instructors make every effort to be that an accommodation request might result in stig- approachable and to create a learning environment matization.) In addition, because of the increasingly which avoids barriers to accommodation requests. A ubiquitous and commonplace nature of online educa- study participant with Bipolar Disorder shared how tion, faculty are increasingly seeing students (with or an occasional contact from instructors to see how she without disabilities) who are skillful users of online was doing would have made her feel more comfortable technology and who know how technology and/or the asking questions and for extensions. online learning environment can best accommodate Syllabi should list clear due dates and assignment their needs, with or without the assistance of faculty. expectations and course assignment directions should Ultimately, however, the academic success of stu- all be in one place (on the syllabus and/or the course’s dents with disabilities is a joint responsibility of online online management system). One participant with instructors, university systems, and the students them- dyslexia explained why detailed syllabi are important: selves. This collaborative effort requires intentional- “I think having the syllabus clear, in black and white ity and should result in an educational environment as, and as simple as possible as far as due dates and which ensures that each group has the opportunity to expectations on a weekly basis, because that’s like develop and exercise their individual responsibilities. everyone’s Bible; that’s what everyone lives by.” All The students in this study articulated a number of rec- syllabi should contain a disability disclaimer which, at ommendations for each group which can enhance the minimum, provides contact information for the univer- online experience for students with disabilities. The sity’s disability services center and which encourages authors support and have themselves implemented contact with the course instructor. some of these recommendations, and offer them here Instructors need to ensure that students have for the readers’ consideration. mastered one level of material before moving on to more difficult material. Smaller, more frequent as- Recommendations for Students signments should be required (rather than one or two Although this may be difficult for some students larger assignments) so as to minimize the chance based on personality, background, or educational of “falling behind.” Additionally, all assignments history, developing and exercising the skills of self- submission procedures should be in the same format. advocacy can be critical to the outcome of the online These aforementioned recommendations mainly focus learning experience. In fact, one participant with a on “consistency” in course management, which was learning disability felt that to be an online student, “you paramount for one participant with ADHD. must advocate for yourself.” To keep pace with the Although study participants did not explicitly rhythm of a course, it is helpful if students converse mention Universal Design for Learning (UDL), their with instructors at the beginning of an educational recommendations reflect the principles and guidelines term about course and instructor expectations, student of UDL. As articulated by the National Center on Uni- disabilities and their impact on learning, needed ac- versal Design for Learning, “UDL provides a blueprint commodations, and any other issues of concern to the for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, student. A participant illuminated the importance of and assessments that work for everyone--not a single, communication because she felt “that if you have that one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches communication at the beginning, you’re more willing that can be customized and adjusted for individual to reach out to them and them to you because you’ve needs” (NCUDL, n.d.). UDL offers research-based made that connection already.” Another suggested that guidelines for providing multiple means of represent- 338 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3) ing content, multiple means for students to express students. The fact that these students with disabilities and manage their learning, and multiples means to had already acquired undergraduate degrees and were encourage student engagement with course content successfully engaged in graduate education (with nine and the classroom community. The authors of this of them working on a degree in special education) indi- article recommend that online instructors become cates a level of motivation, self-direction, and comfort familiar with UDL guidelines and, with support from level with accommodation requests that may or may their institution’s disability services department and not be present in the general population of students feedback from students, begin a process of shaping with disabilities in postsecondary, online courses. their instructional design to reflect the guidelines. In- Finally, the data collected are in need of validation structors will find assistance with implementing UDL since they are based on self-reports that may reflect guidelines at the National Center on Universal Design socially-desirable responses. for Learning website (www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/ Additional studies are needed in order to validate udlguidelines) and at www.ualr.edu/pace/tenstepsud/ the findings of this project and to better understand (a resource of the Disability Resource Center at the the perspectives and needs of online students with dis- University of Arkansas at Little Rock). abilities. It would be particularly important to gather data from graduate students in disciplines other than Recommendations for Institutions special education and to also ensure the inclusion of It is important that the institution’s disability ser- male graduate students to determine any differences vices center or department ensure that disability ser- these factors may make on the accommodation experi- vices are advertised across campus in a variety of ways ences of students with disabilities in online classes. and venues and across all online academic programs Additional research would also be useful related to (including undergraduate, graduate, and certificate). In university “best practices” for institutional advertising, addition, the disability services unit should advertise development, and implementation of disability services all services, tools, programs, and technologies it has for online learning. Disability services staff rarely have available to students. One study participant noted that the time or resources to conduct in-depth and routine if DSS had “advertised a little differently” she would evaluations of their services to faculty and students. have heard about them and looked in to services. Researchers with an interest in online learning could Without this advertising, students may not know the provide an invaluable service to their institutions and extent of supports available to them. Moreover, one the students they serve by advancing the literature rela- participant specified how the graduate school needs to tive to successful institutional practices that ensure the “get the word out” so students know accommodations academic success of all online learners. are available in graduate, online courses. In addition to participant comments and recom- mendations, this study’s authors recommend that academic departments engage in annual reviews of their compliance with UDL principles and practices (in both online and face-to-face courses) and offer routine training to instructors in UDL and accommodation tools, expectations, and resources. The authors also recommend that universities routinely and critically assess their institutional responsiveness to students with disabilities in the online environment. Such an assessment could involve a collaborative process with staff, student, and instructor participants. Limitations and Future Research This study offers additional insights about student experiences of online accommodations. It is limited, however, in that it addresses student experiences and perspectives at only one institution and the participant sample is small (only 11 students). In addition, the study sample consisted entirely of female graduate