What Government, Agencies, and Organizations Can Do To Improve Access to Computers for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: Recommendations Based On Canadian Empirical Data

Catherine S. Fichten, Maria Barile, Jennison V. Asuncion, Myrtis Fossey
Adaptech Project - Dawson College, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Abstract

Computer, information and adaptive technologies have the potential both to enhance the lives of people with disabilities as well as to deny them equality of access to education, jobs, and community life. In a series of three studies we investigated the computer technology needs and concerns of approximately 800 postsecondary students with disabilities. Our data, show that the vast majority of college and university students, regardless of sex, age, program of study, or type of disability, can and do use computer technologies to help them succeed. A variety of government and non-governmental organizations provide computer supports for postsecondary students with disabilities. Here, we describe key aspects of our findings concerning what these organizations can do to improve the availability of these technologies to students with disabilities in postsecondary education and formulate recommendations based on an environmental barriers perspective on disability. Although the research is focused on the experiences of Canadians, many of the findings and recommendations are relevant for other countries.

Computer and information technologies are rapidly expanding in all fields and are becoming important tools in the new economy. Because computer and technology literacy is a necessity for effective functioning in the new millenium, these competencies must become part of everyone's education. To ensure that people with disabilities can participate fully in all aspects of society, it is important that new computer and information technologies are accessible to them.

But how well have we succeeded in doing this and what changes need to be made to improve the situation? To answer these questions, we conducted three studies between the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1999 where the focus was on evaluating the computer, information, learning and adaptive technology needs and concerns of Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten, Barile & Asuncion, 1999a, 1999b). Our purpose here is to share the findings and to make data driven recommendations to governments and to organizations which help these students obtain the technologies they need. Although our research focused on the experiences of Canadians, many of the findings and recommendations are likely to be relevant for other countries.

Use of computer, information and adaptive technologies by people with disabilities

Because these lack accessible features, the characteristics of some existing computer technologies prevent access by people with various disabilities (cf., Banks & Coombs, 1998; Waddell, 1999). For example, most internet videoclips have no closed captioning. Some people have difficulties accessing internet web sites due to screen sizes and colors (Schoffro, 1996), while others, most notably people who are blind, have difficulties because graphic images do not have verbal descriptive tags for text based browsers and screen readers (Vanderheiden, Chisholm, & Ewers, 1996).

Such disabling environments need not exist. In the past, technologies have worked in the service of people with disabilities by reducing or eliminating barriers and by improving a variety of aspects of quality of life (Day & Jutai, 1996). Computer technologies can continue this trend by working for - rather than against - people with disabilities. Bissonnette's review (1995) shows that the use of technologies to advance the education of people with disabilities has been an ongoing successful process for some time. The benefits of online education for students with disabilities have been described extensively (e.g., Shumila & Shumila, 1998) and there are data available which suggest that participation by students with disabilities in computer supports provided in offices for students with disabilities was related to better academic performance (Shell, Horn, & Severs, 1988). Moreover, people with disabilities who have a high level of computer skill were shown to have more favorable employment outcomes (Pell, Gillies, & Carss, 1997). Clearly, new information and learning technologies used for the purpose of assisting all people through life-long learning must continue to be inclusive of people with disabilities.

Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, and Apple have built in adaptations for people with disabilities (Apple & Special Needs, 2000; Adobe, 1999; IBM, 1999, 2000; Microsoft, 1999b). People with various physical limitations in both academic and employment settings are becoming aware of the availability of ergonomically designed hardware such as keyboards that are easier to use for people with carpal tunnel disorders. In addition, new specialized technologies have emerged: these include Aurora's communication station - a system of components that can be used to attach augmentative communication devices, laptop and other equipment suitable for mounting on wheelchairs, beds, and tables (e.g., Aurora, 1996a, 1996b). Increasingly, specialized adaptive products are taking advantage of new developments in the industry, making them less expensive and more compatible with mainstream software and hardware (e.g., Henter-Joyce, 1998). In addition, a variety of free and inexpensive programs which are of interest to students with disabilities have become available (Fichten, Lavers, Barile, Asuncion, Généreux, & Robillard, 1999).

Postsecondary education

Canada's community colleges and universities provided postsecondary education to well over a million Canadians in 1998-99 (Statistics Canada, 1999a, 1999b). "Postsecondary education has been targeted as one of the key vehicles for providing a labour force ready to meet the challenges of the new workplace. Human Resources Development Canada estimates that nearly half of the jobs created in the next decade will require a minimum of 17 years of education" (Butlin, 1999, p. 9).

It is only in the past two decades that postsecondary education institutions have begun to recognize the need to grant accommodations to people with disabilities (Fichten, Bourdon, Creti, & Martos, 1987). During this time, the number of students with disabilities in postsecondary education has increased dramatically (Henderson, 1992; Hill, 1992, 1996; Lavoie, 1986; Leitch, 1995; Louis Harris & Associates, 1994; McGill, Roberts, & Warick, 1994; Tousignant, 1995; Wolforth, 1995). Indeed, the 1999 Louis Harris & Associates poll in the United States (cited by the National Organization on Disability, 1999) showed that, "by 1998 more than half of adults with disabilities (51%) had completed some college - a proportion almost identical to that for the nondisabled population."

Postsecondary education for people who have a disability is important for the same reasons as it is for nondisabled people. It helps to fulfill personal goals, allows for effective competition in the job market and contributes to independence and financial security. American data show that graduation rates are similar for students with (54%) and without disabilities (64%) (Horn & Berktold, 1999). It has been shown, for example, that although employment figures for university graduates with disabilities is somewhat lower than that of their nondisabled peers (e.g., Horn & Berktold, 1999), once employed, salaries are similar, and their rates of employment are still substantially higher than that of students who did not complete university, who, in turn, fare better than those who never went to college (Government of Canada, 1996; Louis Harris & Associates, 1994).

Research Program of the Adaptech Project

The Adaptech Project consists of a team of academics, students and consumers. Based at Dawson College in Montreal, Canada, the project is funded by government grants. The project's research endeavors are guided by an active cross-Canada bilingual Advisory Board. Additional information about the Adaptech Project is available on the project web site: <http://www.adaptech.org/pubs.htm>.

In the context of the Adaptech Project's ongoing research we recently completed three investigations assessing the computer, information and adaptive technology needs and concerns of Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten, Barile, & Asuncion, 1999a). Our goals in doing this research were two-fold. First, we wanted to evaluate the use and the utility of computer technologies in the postsecondary education of students with disabilities. Second, we wanted to make empirical data available to better advise students, professors, and other members of the higher education community, as well as planners, policy makers, and developers and suppliers of mainstream and adaptive technologies.

In Study I we conducted four focus groups involving 31 individuals: one with postsecondary students with various disabilities, one with personnel who provide services to students with disabilities at colleges and universities, one with professors, and one with academics and computer technologists and other concerned individuals. From these meetings we obtained broad notions about what some of the key issues of interest to students with disabilities are. In Study 2 we went across Canada and conducted structured telephone interviews with 37 students with various disabilities and with 30 postsecondary disability service providers representing colleges and universities nation-wide. Again, the main focus was on the needs and concerns of students. These interviews gave us much more detailed information on such issues as: what computer, information and adaptive technologies students have, use, and want; how students get funding for computer technologies, and what kinds of access to technology postsecondary educational institutions provide to students with different types of disabilities. Study 3 was conducted in the spring of 1999 with the help of more than 200 college and university disability service providers as well as our student group partners, the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS) and the Association québécoise des étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire (AQEIPS). In this study 725 Canadian students with various disabilities from 156 universities and colleges from all of Canada's provinces and territories completed a questionnaire concerning their experiences with computer, information and adaptive technologies.

Selected Aspects of the Findings

Our data suggest that the vast majority of college and university students, regardless of sex, age, program of study, or type of disability, can and do use computer technologies to help them succeed in school. Personnel who provide support services to these students at colleges and universities also see the use of computers as beneficial since these allow students to become independent by giving them access to information. College and university personnel responsible for providing services to students with disabilities also pointed out that the use of computers is cost effective for the institution, but that they experienced problems with adequate funding for computer technologies for institutional use. The number and nature of the advantages that computer technologies had for participants show how critical computers are to the success of students with disabilities.

When students were asked about disadvantages, the most common problem noted was that computer technologies are costly. This is consistent with other investigations of learners with disabilities (e.g., Lee, 1999) as well as with economic realities of persons with disabilities in Canada (Fawcett, 1996). Other problems include: the need for continual upgrading, few opportunities for training on adaptive technologies, hardware and software compatibility problems, and computer labs where courses are held lacking appropriate adaptations.

Less than 5% of students surveyed indicated that they did not use a computer. When asked why, their answers reflected neither computer anxiety nor difficulties in learning. Students indicated that computers cost too much, were unavailable and too expensive to maintain, and, for many, were impossible to acquire through a government subsidy program.

Approximately 40% of students in our samples stated that they needed adaptations such as screen magnification, dictation software, or Braille to use a computer effectively. Fewer than 60% of them reported that they actually used the needed adaptations. This finding is consistent with results of another study carried out for the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (Behnia, Lemieux-Brassard, Lockheed, Schellenberg, & Smith, 1993). When asked why they did not use adaptations, the overwhelmingly endorsed answer was that these costs too much. Other reasons cited include: it is unavailable to students, they are uncertain about where to buy these, they don't know how to use the equipment, and equipment is too expensive to maintain.

Although provincial governments are a likely source (25%) and many students borrowed equipment from family or friends (14%), the most common way for students to obtain computer technologies was to buy it for themselves (34%) or to have their families buy it for them (30%).

The majority of students surveyed (58%) did not avail themselves of a government program to help them obtain a computer or adaptive computer technologies. When asked why, the most common answer was that students were not aware that there were any programs out there for them. Students who chose not to apply even though they knew about the availability of programs, indicated that there were too many restrictions, or that their family income or the nature of their disability excluded them from eligibility to existing programs.

Recommendations to Government and to Organizations Which Help Postsecondary Students Obtain Computer, Information And Adaptive Technologies

It is clear that we are moving into an exciting age where new learning technologies and the internet are providing educational possibilities that did not exist before. What makes these developments troubling to us is the absence, in many cases, of planning for access for students with disabilities. The implications of this omission are obvious. New technological and policy-related barriers are slowly being erected where others have fallen.

Perhaps the most outstanding finding of our studies relates to students' concerns over the cost of computer technologies. Regardless of how questions were formulated, the high cost of acquiring and maintaining computer technologies was the single most important and common issue noted by computer users and non-users alike. Despite this, the majority of students who had computer equipment at home indicated that they or their families had paid for these. When asked why they did not apply to a government program to help them obtain a computer or adaptive technologies, as noted earlier, the single most popular answer was that students simply did not know about that any special government programs existed.

Recommendation 1: Make the postsecondary education community more aware of the programs available to them

Recommendation 2: Clarify and make transparent the rules and criteria for eligibility

Recommendation 2: Simplify the application process and make application information and forms available in alternate formats

The solution to the problem is obvious: organizations/agencies that provide money, loans or computer technologies to students with disabilities need to do more effective "outreach." More broadly based information dissemination about available opportunities is clearly needed to better inform students, financial aid offices, postsecondary personnel who provide services to students with disabilities and rehabilitation professionals. The information should be provided in alternative formats (e.g., in Braille, on tape).

Our research shows that both students with disabilities as well as personnel responsible for providing services to them are poorly informed about rehabilitation/government programs which help students acquire computer and adaptive technologies. Specific rules and eligibility criteria for these programs are also not well known.

To rectify the situation, we recommend that agencies make the effort to inform the postsecondary education community about the full range of programs, the rules and regulations, and the eligibility criteria. Provide all information that could be helpful to potential applicants and to the personnel who advise students with disabilities concerning financial matters.

Information packages should be sent to organizations for students with disabilities as well as to personnel responsible for services to students with disabilities for broad based dissemination to students and other concerned professionals (e.g., financial aid officers). Material should be made available, of course, in alternate formats (i.e., Braille, tape, diskette, regular and large print). Information should also be posted on accessible web sites, and the location widely publicised.

Recommendation 4: Leverage computer infrastructure grants to postsecondary institutions

Another common complaint of students concerned overcrowding in laboratories and facilities where computer equipment for students with disabilities is housed. Similarly, many service providers noted that they encountered serious problems with funding for computer technologies located on campus for students with disabilities.

To increase the availability of computer technologies for students with disabilities on campus, we recommend that governments, when providing funds to colleges and universities to purchase computers or to experiment with new learning technologies, make funding conditional. Institutions should meet specific provisions for ensuring that equipment purchased with government funds contain appropriate accessibility features. Additional information about this topic can be found in the following American resources: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 (c.f., Fonosch, 1980) and Sec. 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Department of Justice, 2000). For example, asking for a detailed outline of steps taken to ensure accessibility for students with disabilities on institutional grant applications and taking responses to this question into consideration in the review process are likely to be helpful.

Recommendation 5: Treat different impairments on equal terms

To encourage equity in education, all impairments should be recognised on equal terms. Personnel providing services to students with disabilities are often limited in their ability to provide computer, information and adaptive technologies to students with disabilities due to lack of government funding for students with specific impairments. The situation is similar to funding programs for the students themselves. This limits students with "unrecognised" disabilities in the pursuit of higher education.

Recommendation 6: Shorten waiting periods and fund training

Courses at colleges and universities have firm start and end times. Exams and assignments are scheduled with fixed dates. Students who need to use computer and adaptive technologies must be able to access these in a timely manner. Our data suggest that waiting periods related to government computer subsidy programs are often too long to meet the needs of postsecondary students with disabilities. Shorten waiting periods and ensure that equipment and training are consistent with the schedules of students in colleges and universities.

Conclusions

When reviewing the commonalties among all three studies upon which these recommendations are made, it is evident that the potential of computer, information and adaptive technologies to remove barriers to students with disabilities is enormous. Nonetheless, environmental barriers are continually being created. It is imperative that solutions are identified and implemented while the technologies and their implementation in postsecondary educational institutions are still in a developing stage.

The argument that, "granting equality to the disabled population group is not justifiable because of the cost, because of opposing values, or because of the inconvenience to mainstream society" (Nagler, 1993, p. 33) is often made in this context. We contend that this type of argumentation needs to be rebutted wherever it surfaces. A small investment today is likely to pay handsome dividends in the long run. Not only is universal design cheaper than retrofitting (Coombs, 1998; Ekberg, 1999; Falta, 1992; Jacobs, 1999; Node Networking, 1998), but computer and information technology accommodations made today for students with disabilities will benefit many sectors of society in the long run. This includes the aging baby-boomers, many of whom are computer literate and will soon find themselves in need of adaptations due age related disabilities. It is well to remember that ramps and curb cuts intended for people in wheelchairs have also benefited people with baby carriages, those moving equipment, rollerbladers, etc. (cf. Coombs, 1998).

Where government or other programs exist to either provide or subsidise computer technologies for students with disabilities, it goes without saying that these should reflect the current needs of students. Unless the aim is to quietly provide such programs to those who happen to find out about them through word of mouth or by accident, much more needs to be done to ensure that information, rules and regulations are made available across the postsecondary education community. Where current eligibility criteria bar students with certain disabilities from applying, these must be carefully reviewed and ultimately eliminated.

Limitations in access to computer and information technologies was a central issue in all three of our studies. Consistent with views promoted by social and environmental views of disability (c.f., Boschen & Krane, 1992; Fine & Asch 1988; Oliver, 1990, 1996; Swain, Finkelstein, French, & Oliver, 1993; Whiteneck & Fougeyrollas, 1996), the solution seems to be that various groups work together to provide better access. This includes policy makers who create laws regarding information technologies, and those officials who plan programs which provide access to computer technologies for students with disabilities. These people all have a role in ensuring that computer technologies are accessible and affordable. If these issues are not considered and changes in existing procedures are not made, we will start the new millennium with a technological society wherein people with disabilities will again be segregated by virtue of an inaccessible environment

References

ADA (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Public Law 101-336. Washington, D.C.: Government of the United States.

Adobe. (1999). Acrobat 4.0 and PDF accessibility. Available August 26, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://access.adobe.com/access_state.html.

Apple & Special Needs. Available March 26, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://www.apple.com/education/k12/disability/message.html

Aurora Systems Inc. (1996a, Dec.). The communication station on the web. [on-line] Available: http://www.djtech.com/Aurora.

Aurora Systems Inc. (1996b, Dec.). The great talking box. [on-line]. Available: http://www.djtech.com/Aurora.

Banks, R. & Coombs, N. (1998). The spider and the fly. CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine), 5(2), Available August 25, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/feb/toc.html

Behnia, B., Lemieux-Brassard, L., Lockheed, C., Schellenberg, G., & Smith, F. (1993). Study of financial assistance available to post-secondary students with disabilities: Accommodating individual needs for the future. Ottawa, ON: NEADS.

Bissonnette, L. (1995). Tutorial in distance education: Study of telecommunications, the disabled and futures and implications for education. Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec.

Boschen, K.A & Krane, N. (1992). A history of independent living in Canada. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 6(2), 79-88.

Butlin, G. (1999). Determinants of postsecondary participation. Education Quarterly Review, 5(3), 9-35. Statistics Canada Cat. No. 81-003,.

Coombs, N. (1998, Feb.). The underprivileged and universal access to distance learning: Disabilities and beyond. Presentation at the 1998 EvNet Conference, Montréal, Québec. Available May 20, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/srnet/confabstracts/coombsab.htm.

Day, H. & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9(3), 159-168.

Department of Justice (2000). Section 508 Home Page. Available April 9, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html.

Ekberg, J. (1999). A step forward: Design for all. Helsinki, Finland: Include. Available from the author at STAKES, PO Box 220, SF-00531, Helsinki, Finland. Available e-mail: jan.ekberg@stakes.fi

Falta, P.L. (1992, November). Vers l'accessibilité universelle. Presented at the Colloque scientifique international "10 ans de recherche à partager." Montreal, QC.

Fawcett, G. (1996). Living with disability in Canada: An economic portrait. Hull, Quebec: Human Resources Development Canada, Office for Disability Issues.

Fichten, C.S. Barile, M. & Asuncion, J.V. (1999a, Spring). Learning technologies: Students with disabilities in postsecondary education (190 pages). ISBN 2-9803316-4-3. Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Fichten, C.S. Barile, M. & Asuncion, J.V. (1999b, Spring). Appendix to: Learning technologies: Students with disabilities in postsecondary education - Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies. (107 pages). ISBN 2-9803316-5-1. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Fichten, C.S., Bourdon, C.V., Creti, L., & Martos, J.G. (1987). Facilitation of teaching and learning: What professors, students with a physical disability and institutions of higher education can do. Natcon, 14, 45-69.

Fichten, C.S., Lavers, J., Barile, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C. & Robillard, C. (1999). Mainstream and "free" computer information and adaptive technologies revisited. Alert: The Official Newsletter of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), 23(2), 12-14.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 3-21.

Fonosch, G.G. (1980). Three years later: The impact of section 504 regulations on higher education. Rehabilitation Literature, 41, 162-168.

Government of Canada. (1996, Oct.). Equal citizenship for Canadians with disabilities. Ottawa: Federal Task force on Disability Issues: Canada.

Henderson, C. (1992). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Centre, American Council on Education.

Henter-Joyce, Inc. (1998). JAWS for Windows (Version 3.2 - Demo) [Computer software - CD ROM]. St.-Petersburg, FL: Author. Available: World Wide Web, http://www.hj.com. Available address: 11800 31st Court North, St.-Petersburg, FL 33716.

Hill, J.L. (1992). Accessibility: Students with disabilities in universities in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 22(1), 48-83.

Hill, J. L. (1996). Speaking out: perceptions of students with disabilities at Canadian universities regarding institutional policies. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11(1), 1-13.

Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: a profile of preparation, participation and outcomes. (NCES 1999-187). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education - National Center for Education Statistics.

IBM. (2000). IBM special needs systems guidelines. Available March 26, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://www-3.ibm.com/able/guidelines.htm

IBM. (1999). IBM special needs system. Available August 26, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/index.html.

Jacobs, S. (1999). Section 255: Fueling the creation of new electronic curbcuts. TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association) Access, 07/16/99. Available December 5, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access. Available e-mail at steve.jacobs@daytonoh.ncr.com

Lavoie, H. (1986). Expérience d'intégration des personnes atteintes de déficience sensorielle profonde: Rapport d'évaluation. Québec: D.G.E.C.

Lee, L. (1999). On line, in business, at home: Final report to the Office of Learning Technologies Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada. [Internet] Available World Wide Web: http://olt-bta.hrdc.gc.ca/publicat/olaexe.html.

Leitch, D. A. (1995, Nov.). Canadian universities: The status of persons with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, Halifax, NS: Saint Mary's University.

Louis Harris & Associates. (1994). N.O.D./Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. N.Y.: Louis Harris & Associates.

McGill, J. Roberts, S. & Warick, R. (1994). Post-secondary education and persons with disabilities: Canadian annotated Bibliography. Vancouver B.C.: Disability Resource Center, University of British Columbia.

Microsoft Corporation (1999a). Accessibility & Microsoft: What is accessibility? Retrieved June 6, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/microsoft/overview.htm.

Microsoft Corporation (1999b). Accessibility & Microsoft: Microsoft accessibility technology for everyone. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/microsoft/default.htm.

Nagler, M. (1993). The disabled: The acquisition of power. In M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability (2nd. Edition) (pp. 33-36). Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.

National Organization on Disability. (1999, Spring). Education and disability. Disability Agenda: A Quarterly Publication Of The National Organization On Disability, 3(4).

NEADS (1997). Transition from school to work : Current choices for youth with disabilities. Ottawa, ON: NEADS.

NODE Networking. (1998, August). Universal design for the information highway [Internet]. Available: World Wide Web: http://node.on.ca/networking/august1998/feature1.html.

Oliver, M. (1990). Politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability from theory to practice. New York: St. Martin Press.

Pell, S.D., Gillies, R.M., & Carss, M. (1997). Relationship between use of technology and employment rates for people with physical disabilities in Australia: Implications for education and training programmes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19 (8), 332-338.

Schoffro, M. J. (1996). Internet empowerment. Disability Today, 5(3), 70-71.

Shell, D.F., Horn, C.A., & Severs, M.K. (1988). Effects of a computer-based educational center on disabled student’s academic performance. Journal of College Student Development, 29 (5), 432-440.

Shumila, D. & Shumila, J. (1998). A review of online education for students with print impairments. CSUN 98 Papers. Retrieved October 3, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.dinf.org/csun_98/csun98_090.htm.

Statistics Canada (1999a). Institutions, enrolments and teachers, 1996-97 to 1998-99 - Table 1. Education Quarterly Review, 5(3), 56-57. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-003.

Statistics Canada (1999b). Canadian statistics: Education: Enrolment. Available August 11, 1999 on the World Wide Web: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/educat.htm.

Swain, J. Finkelstein, V., French, S., & Oliver, M. (1993). Disabling barriers enabling environments. London: Sage Publications.

Tousignant, J. (Oct., 1995). La vie étudiante des personnes handicapées dans les établissements d'enseignement universitaire Québécois: Un bilan des années 1989 a 1995. Québec: Ministère de l'Éducation.

Vanderheiden, G.C., Chisholm, W.A., & Ewers, N. (1996). Design of html pages to increase their accessibility to users with disabilities. [on line]. Available Web site: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/world/web/index.html.

Waddell, C.D. (1999). Understanding the digital economy: Data, tools, and research. The growing digital divide in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation. [Internet] Retrieved July 9, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/access/waddell.htm. Available address: Office of Equality Assurance, city manager department, 801 North First Street, room 460, San Jose, California 95110-1704. Available telephone number: (408) 277 4034. Available fax number: (408) 277 3885. Available TTY number: (408) 971 0134.

Whiteneck, G. & Fougeyrollas P.(1996). Environmental factors task force position papers. ICIDH Environmental Factors International Network, 8(3), 14-18.

Wolforth, J. (1995). The provision of support services for students with disabilities in Canadian universities: The example of McGill University. Japanese Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 27, 20-28.

Author Notes

The main source of financial support for the research on which these recommendations are based was the Office of Learning Technologies (OLT). Specific aspects and activities were supported by grants provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Concordia University's Dean of Students' Project Fund and Rector's Office, Dawson College, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, Human Resources Development Canada, le Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'œuvre pour personnes handicapées, and the Programme d'aide à la recherche sur l'enseignement et l'apprentissage (PAREA). We are grateful to these agencies as well as to our partners, in particular, the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS) and the Association québécoise des étudiants ayant des incapacités au postsecondaire (AQEIPS).

We are also grateful to the students and student services professionals across Canada who helped with the distribution of questionnaires and who took the time to complete our measures and provide us with feedback and commentary. We are also grateful for the support received from members of our active Advisory Board and of our electronic discussion forum "Adaptech." We are indebted to the dedicated members of our research team, which includes a multi-talented group of students, research assistants, and professionals: Iris Alapin, Christian Généreux, Jean-Pierre Guimont, Darlene Judd, Jason Lavers, Evelyn Reid, Chantal Robillard, and Fay Schipper.

For additional information contact one of the authors:

Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D
Maria Barile, M.S.W.
Jennison V. Asuncion, B.A. (with distinction)
Myrtis Fossey, B.A.

Adaptech Project
Dawson College
3040 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3Z 1A4
(514) 931-8731 (voice)
(514) 931-3567 (fax)
http://www.adaptech.org (Adaptech Project Web Site)