By Katherine Inskip
Ensuring that our teaching materials are accessible to our students is absolutely critical. But, does everyone within a department know what that looks like in practice? The University's students have a diverse range of needs. Some needs are universal, others individual. Some are visible, others are invisible. Some are identified via Learning Support Plans [LSPs] and Exam Support Adjustments (ESAs). Some needs are undiagnosed or those that a student has chosen not to disclose. It is important that student learning needs are met as broadly as possible in order to create an inclusive and accessible learning environment. An example of this framework is Universal Design for Learning which aims to embed accessibility from the outset - “...to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn”.
High staff workloads, variations in engagement with equality, diversity and inclusion, established habits and inexperience can all present challenges when it comes to providing students with the learning environments, materials and opportunities they should expect from us. We should all be working towards full accessibility and best practice, but this process is a journey that requires investment of time and resources. Additionally, some individual needs, for both students and staff, may conflict with others. It is useful to understand how these situations may arise and where the usual approach or the best practice approach may be adapted due to necessity.
How to navigate these waters isn’t always immediately obvious. With this in mind, we (myself, the Department’s Disability Liaison Officer (DLO), our Director of Teaching and the Faculty Digital Learning Advisor for Science) have created a departmental resource that outlines my Department’s minimum expectations for accessibility of teaching materials. This provides a starting point for Physics academics: anything that goes beyond the basics should improve both individual practice and student experience, but may be balanced against other workplace priorities.
Providing Direction
The basic format of this resource is a set of guidelines for different aspects of teaching. In Physics & Astronomy, these aspects of teaching include the learning environment (physical and digital), group working, small- and large- class teaching, laboratory/practical work, student feedback, and awareness of student extenuating circumstances. For each aspect, staff are provided with two tiers of information: a list of clear pointers of what staff should be providing in terms of accessible teaching, and an additional list of ‘stretch goals’. The intent is not to overwhelm, but also to identify more aspirational aspects of teaching practice: what’s over the horizon, and worth voyaging for?
As an example, here’s the material for small group teaching in Physics and Astronomy:
Facilitated problem solving and small group tutorials are a key aspect of physics degrees. Academic staff should:
- Be aware of any LSPs that apply for a given group, respect student confidentiality, and action any essential accommodations.
- Make a good effort to know the names of all students, including correct pronunciation and pronouns.
- Understand and support the access needs of individual students in full, including different modes of participation.
- Make a good effort to facilitate beneficial participation for students to support learning and to model good scientific practice.
- Develop their ability to manage the social dynamics of small groups to foster positive, inclusive and equitable learning environments.
Charting local waters
For other departments, some aspects of teaching practice will be of higher profile than others, and expectations on staff may also differ. For instance, supporting Chemistry students may require more emphasis on specific chemical hazards and lab safety than that needed by Physics students, ethical concerns in teaching are less commonplace in the physical than the social sciences, and baseline expectations on facilitating social dynamics in small groups are arguably lower for the average physics academic than they would be for an experienced academic in the humanities! However, the principle of a resource such as this is readily transferable: some elements (e.g. expectations on accessible teaching locations) should apply to all departments in the University, whereas others can simply be customised to suit the needs of individual departments.
Dr Grant Hill is currently working on his own bespoke resource in the Department of Chemistry. He says: “A resource that details the minimum expectations for staff in terms of accessible teaching materials is incredibly useful - everyone is busy and having the information we need in one place, along with some suggestions for enhanced practice, smooths the process for everyone. As soon as I saw Katherine’s document I knew that we needed to create a version for Chemistry. Even better is that Katherine has been very supportive when it comes to us adapting the Physics-focused document into one that matches the teaching practice in Chemistry.”
If you’re interested in adapting this resource for your own department, you can find the original version at this link.