evidence of our values: disability inclusion on library ... · a variety of learning needs, from...

Stephanie J. Graves and Elizabeth German 559

portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2018), pp. 559–574.Copyright © 2018 by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 21218.

Evidence of Our Values: Disability Inclusion on Library Instruction WebsitesStephanie J. Graves and Elizabeth German

abstract: Libraries are called to serve users with diverse needs and a wide range of abilities and disabilities. The library literature includes much about services to persons with disabilities but says little about programmatic efforts in library instruction and accessibility design at an organizational level. This study looks for visible evidence of inclusive practices in library instruction programs through a content analysis of library instruction websites and instruction request forms, examining instruction-related pages for accessibility language. Results show little evidence of programmatic disability inclusion on library websites.

Introduction

Libraries are called to serve users with diverse needs and a wide range of abili-ties and disabilities. In 2001, the American Library Association (ALA) approved the Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy, which explicitly directs

libraries to provide inclusive services and programming for users, regardless of their disability status.1 The policy encompasses a broad spectrum of library facilities and services, from collections to facilities access. Included in the policy is a specific call for libraries to consider “providing an interpreter or real-time captioning services” to en-sure equitable access to instructional programming.2 The adoption of this policy closely follows the rise of information literacy policies, namely the “Information Literacy Com-petency Standards for Higher Education,” approved in 2001, and the “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” adopted in 2016.3 A focus on the education of library users has dominated the professional conversation at conferences, in com-munities of practice where librarians interact to add to their professional knowledge, and within the disciplinary literature. As information literacy has matured, so also have the principles and practices of accessibility. How do these two trends intersect in library This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.3.

Evidence of Our Values: Disability Inclusion on Library Instruction Websites560

organizations? Do library instruction units address accessibility at the programmatic level? Do they provide equal access to instructional programming, and what does that look like in our institutional practices?

This study looks for visible evidence of inclusive practices in library instruction programs by analyzing library websites, specifically examining instruction-related pages for evidence of accessibility language. The analysis focuses on touch points related to library instruction, such as areas where an individual would exchange information, request services, or learn about a service. By analyzing library instruction websites, instruction request forms, disability service pages, and library workshop calendars, this study reveals evidence about the adoption and maturity of disability inclusion in library instruction programs.

Literature Review

Why Does Disability Inclusion Matter?

Librarians have engaged in extensive dialog regarding inclusive and equitable access in libraries, not only because information access is fundamental to the role of librarians but also because it is required by law. Academic libraries, in particular, contend with several interlaced policies regarding equitable access for library users. The United States Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability by federal agen-cies or organizations that receive federal funds.4 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protects against discrimination in employment but also ensures equal access to government facilities, transportation, and services.5 Both apply to a large majority of educational institutions, particularly public universities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 includes the term “reasonable accommodation” to elucidate that institutions must provide sensible, appropriate assistance or changes to ensure equal access for per-sons with disabilities.6 Educational institutions have since arrived at best practices for

reasonable accommodations for a variety of learning needs, from physical access such as wheelchair ramps to technical solutions such as screen reading software. Sec-tion 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1998 applies to accessible information technology

systems, such as closed captioning.7 In addition to federal legislation, academic libraries are commonly held to Web accessibility standards, either through state mandate, uni-versity policy, or compliance with federal policies. Many higher education institutions subscribe to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), created by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an organization that works to promote international standards for Internet software.8 Professional organizations have also taken a stance on the creation of guidelines and policies, such as the ALA’s Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy in 2001.9

. . . academic libraries are commonly held to Web accessibility standards, either through state mandate, university policy, or compliance with federal policies.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Laws, policies, and guidelines that protect and advocate for persons with disabilities are salient in higher education. As a service provider in a complex higher education en-vironment, academic libraries should pay note. A recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics observed, “Almost all public 2-year and 4-year institutions (99 percent) and medium and large institutions (100 percent) reported enrolling students with disabilities.”10 Many students in higher educational institutions, however, are not obligated to disclose their disability or to seek services. There are also differences in the types of formal and informal documentation accepted by educational institutions.11

Disability Inclusion in Libraries

The library literature has much to say about providing library services to persons with disabilities. Peter Hernon and Philip Calvert offer a broad perspective on the issues, both from the standpoint of policy and that of service design.12 Their work reflects general trends in the field, focusing on traditional library services, such as collection develop-ment, access to library materials, reference, and physical access to library facilities. The literature rarely brings up library instruction, and when it mentions the topic, it often refers to orientations to disability services provided by the library. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has also produced several SPEC (Systems and Procedures Exchange) Kit surveys aimed at gathering data from academic libraries over the past 30 years.13 Unfortunately, the SPEC Kits make few connections between accessibility for library patrons and library instruction programs. In the 1999 SPEC Kit, only one inter-viewee recognized the need for a link between accessibility and library staff training, saying: “All reference librarians should be ready to engage with all students. Such effort should not the responsibility of one person alone, but should be institutionalized as part of an ongoing program.”14 Staff training is indeed vital to providing quality services to all patrons and should extend beyond reference services to the library classroom and other service areas.

In the last 20 years, many studies looked at the accessibility of library websites. In a content analysis of the literature, Heather Hill found that the majority of library dis-ability research focused on issues of access and its relationship to technology, such as websites, databases, and equipment.15 Rebecca Power and Chris LeBeau reviewed 33 library disability support services pages for common elements such as contacts, services, facilities, and accessibility of technology and databases.16 They reported, “Some libraries mentioned interior accessibility, usually elevators, but details about bathrooms, water fountains, the stacks, classrooms, and study areas were rarer.”17 Mary Cassner, Charlene Maxey-Harris, and Toni Anaya reviewed 99 ARL library websites for elements related to disabilities or distinct disability pages.18 The authors did not directly investigate in-formation literacy instruction, but they found some instructional elements included on library websites. Although a review of library websites for elements of inclusive design is important, such content audits do not consider the library website as an instructional tool or its relationship to an information literacy program.

Any review of library instruction should not ignore the profound shift in libraries in the late 1990s and early 2000s evidenced by the ALA’s adoption of the “Information Lit-eracy Competency Standards for Higher Education” and the “Guidelines for Instruction

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Programs in Academic Libraries.”19 These documents point toward a shift in considering library instruction as a sustained and systematic program, rather than an unconnected series of events and classes. The literature connecting information literacy and accessibil-ity, however, still assumes an individual librarian’s perspective on inclusive teaching.

A few studies suggest best practices in individual learning environments. Angie Brunk and Dale Monobe recommend modifications for common library active learning games to meet the needs of all learners, and Rebecca Schriff discusses the use of screen

reading software in a library classroom of blind students.20 Katy Webb and Jeanne Hoover apply multiple means of representations to a library tutorial to meet the needs of students with learn-ing disabilities.21 Mary Beth Applin provides a list of best practices for teaching librarians to meet the needs of special learners in their biblio-graphic instruction sessions.22 Many librarians have adopted the principles of Universal Design

for Learning (UDL) to meet the needs of diverse learners. Anne Meyer, David Rose, and David Gordon provided a framework for UDL in the 1990s, and the principles aid teachers in developing learning opportunities for all students, regardless of abilities.23

Despite the considerable attention given to case studies and specific learning objects, the literature says little about programmatic efforts in library instruction and accessibility design at an organizational level. Katherine Miller-Gatenby and Michele Chittenden provide one of the few studies that examine institutionalized practices, creating a checklist for accessible instruction and making suggestions for implementing organizational improvements throughout the library.24 Ruth Small, William Myhill, and Lydia Herring-Harrington give an overview of accessibility initiatives in libraries and professional organizations, calling attention to the need for application of UDL principles, accessible websites, and training programs for librarians and library staff.25 In one of the few articles to talk about accessibility in library instruction from a programmatic standpoint, Catherine Carter points out that bibliographic instruction is rarely designed for disabled students in academic libraries. Carter describes numerous solutions for more accessible instruction, including the design of accessible web pages; staff training; attitudinal coaching; facility training; and service and legal guidance.26

Many library leaders have adopted the principles of service design. One key prin-ciple of service design is “evidencing,” making tangible to users the intangible effort that goes into providing a service through cues given at service touch points.27 Evidencing can impact the user’s perception of the service and aid in managing the user’s expecta-tions. This study adds to the literature by bridging the gap between the espoused values of UDL, service design, and those of information literacy programming, looking for specific examples and evidence of libraries incorporating disability inclusion into their instruction programs.

Many librarians have adopted the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to meet the needs of diverse learners.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Methodology

This study employed an online content analysis methodology. The researchers analyzed websites of libraries belonging to ARL for evidence of programmatic inclusion of ac-cessibility within information literacy programs. The coding schema for the content analysis was developed by considering the instruction program’s website from a user’s point of view to identify appropriate service touch points. The following users and scenarios were imagined as typical uses of library instruction services, and therefore a library instruction website: (1) a faculty member scheduling a class, (2) an undergradu-ate student attending an instruction session in the library, and (3) a graduate student at a workshop on an information literacy topic. Based on these user types and scenarios, the researchers identified four service touch points to examine instruction websites for evidence of disability inclusion. These four touch points are frequently found on library websites and represent common ways in which libraries describe the scope of their services to users. Once the touch points were identified, the authors developed a series of questions aimed at uncovering elements that indicate disability inclusion in library instruction program websites:

1. Disability web pages: Is there a distinct library web page for users with dis-abilities? If so, does it mention library instruction? Is the physical and technical accessibility of library classrooms addressed?

2. Library instruction web pages: Does the library have a web page dedicated to describing library instruction? If so, does the instruction website provide a link to the library or campus accessibility website? Does the instruction page include a statement on accommodations for users with disabilities?

3. Instruction request forms: Does the library have online forms for requesting a library instruction session? If so, do faculty have a method for mentioning or requesting disability accommodations on instruction request forms?

4. Library calendars: Does the library have an event calendar for library instruction activities? If so, does the event registration or calendar page offer a way for users with disabilities to request accommodations, participate in the programming, or both?

Determining the sample of library websites to study was an important factor in the methodology. Identifying libraries affected by U.S. federal law and funding was necessary to ensure that the same issues of mandatory compliance applied to the sample pool. ARL provides a list of all participating libraries, including those that are public institutions, making for an easily identifiable study group. The researchers derived a list of libraries and their corresponding websites from the ARL website. Private institutions, Canadian universities, and nonacademic institutions were removed from the pool. The remaining list included 68 public academic libraries, which constituted the data pool for analysis.

The researchers developed a rubric scoring tool using Google Sheets (see the Ap-pendix). Data fields in the rubric were used to record programmatic elements of library instruction websites and issues of accessibility. First, the researchers analyzed library websites to determine if a distinct library instruction program page existed and if it included any statements about accessibility. The presence of online instruction request

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


forms was noted on the rubric, as well as any text included on the form that mentioned accessibility concerns or accommodations for students of differing abilities. Next, the researchers identified library accessibility websites and recorded any references to library instruction. They then analyzed library workshop registration pages for references to accessibility and accommodations. These workshops mostly commonly exist in an event calendaring system that could include dozens of library events. To limit the scope of the analysis to a manageable size, a sample of the five most current library workshops was evaluated. Finally, library instruction websites and instruction request forms were run through an instrument called WAVE (Web accessibility evaluation tool).29 This free tool was created in 2001 by WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind), a nonprofit organization that develops tools and training to create accessible Web content. WAVE checks a web page for accessibility criteria based on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and on Section 508 guidelines. The tool flags areas of concern using icons and color coding that correspond to specific accessibility errors. The researchers noted the number of acces-sibility concerns identified by WAVE on the rubric.

To test the validity of the rubric, the researchers selected 10 institutions using a random number generator. Independent of each other, the researchers applied the rubric to the same 10 institutions. After two weeks, they held a norming session to compare scores and identified some minor issues. WAVE accessibility scores did not always match between the researchers. Accessibility scores could change depending on when the site was reviewed and if any changes to the site, even minor ones, had occurred. This shifting accessibility underscores the ephemeral nature of websites. Any comparison regarding the accessibility of websites must keep this limitation in mind.

The norming session also uncovered issues in the ways in which libraries represent their instruction programs. Some libraries had a distinct library instruction web page, but others included library instruction as one element on a page for faculty services. The norming session also highlighted the variant ways that libraries display events and workshops. Some libraries used an internal calendaring system, others interspersed instructional workshops among library events and exhibits, and still others combined library calendaring within a university-wide events calendar. To control for issues of inter-rater reliability, the researchers added a category for “unclear” to the rubric. The authors compared all results, particularly discussing any items coded as “unclear” to come to an agreement.

After the researchers had finalized norming, they divided the list of 68 public aca-demic ARL libraries between them. Each researcher completed the revised rubric for her assigned libraries, then the two compared results and discussed any categories marked as “unclear” in a follow-up meeting. After coding was completed, the researchers analyzed the data to identify frequencies and patterns in each category using SQL (structured query language), a standard language for storing, manipulating, and retrieving data in Microsoft Access.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Results

Accessibility and Instruction

The vast majority of library websites, 63 of 68 libraries reviewed (93 percent), provided information for users with disabilities. Only five libraries provided no mention of dis-ability services for library users. All 63 provided a distinct library web page for users with disabilities, the service touch point that libraries most commonly used to convey information about disability services. The other three service touch points were present on library websites but had far fewer references to disability services. Table 1 illustrates the frequency of accessibility elements within the four service touch points.

In the investigation of library instruction pages, fewer institutions had distinct library instruction pages, n = 59 (87 percent), than had library disability pages, n = 63 (93 percent). The analysis shows variance in how the library instruction pages referred to disability services. Eighteen instruc-tion websites provided a simple link to a library disability page. Fourteen of these 18 institutions, however, supplied this link within the footer of the instruction page, as opposed to presenting acces-sibility prominently among the services offered by the library instruction program or by instruction librarians. An additional six institutions also provided a link to an accessibility page, but it was a campus accessibility page rather than a library-specific one. Only four libraries explicitly give an accommodation statement for students with disabilities as an integrated part of their instruction web page. These statements varied considerably but tended to focus on asking that librarians be informed if accommoda-tions were needed. For example, one of the four instruction websites states, “Persons with Disabilities: It is possible to temporarily load assistive learning technologies in the Library’s instruction labs for students and faculty. Professors are asked to notify the li-brary faculty member of record two weeks prior to class if accommodations are needed.”

While 53 library websites included some type of online form that could be used to request an instruction session, three institutions required a log-in to access the instruction form and could not be coded by the researchers. Therefore, the researchers reviewed only 49 forms for evidence of accessibility statements. Results were disappointing. Only 10 of the reviewed forms included some sort of statement or request function about ac-commodation needs. This represents a 20 percent rate of accessibility language adoption in the instruction request forms analyzed.

The researchers also reviewed library workshops for evidence of accommodation statements. Of the library websites reviewed, 56 (82 percent) had some sort of online calendar of events. The five most recent events were coded for each institution. Evidence of disability statements or requests for accommodations were sparse. Only four libraries provided an accommodation statement for at least one event, and only two provided an accommodation statement for all five events. Accommodation statements are not a

Only four libraries explicitly give an accommodation statement for students with disabilities as an integrated part of their instruction web page.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Tabl

e 1.

Sum

mar

y of

freq

uenc

y of

resu

lts

N

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

Tota

l lib

rari

es re

view

ed: 6

8 Li

brar

ies t

hat m

entio

ned

acce

ssib

ility

on

at le

ast o

ne o

f the

four

touc

h po

ints

39

49

%Li

brar

ies t

hat m

entio

ned

acce

ssib

ility

on

all f

our t

ouch

poi

nts

0 0%

Dis

abili

ties

page

: 63

libra

ries

(93%

of t

otal

)

Dis

abili

ties p

ages

that

men

tion

inst

ruct

ion

11

17%

of i

nstit

utio

ns w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s pag

e (n

= 6

3)

Inst

ruct

ion

page

: 59

libra

ries

(87%

of t

otal

)

Libr

arie

s tha

t pro

vide

d lin

k to

libr

ary

acce

ssib

ility

pag

e

18

31%

of i

nstit

utio

ns w

ith in

stru

ctio

n pa

ge (n

= 5

9)Li

brar

ies t

hat p

rovi

ded

link

to ca

mpu

s acc

essi

bilit

y pa

ge

6 6%

of i

nstit

utio

ns w

ith in

stru

ctio

n pa

ge (n

= 5

9)Li

brar

ies w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

n st

atem

ent o

n in

stru

ctio

n pa

ge

4 7%

of i

nstit

utio

ns w

ith in

stru

ctio

n pa

ge (n

= 5

9)In

stru

ctio

n fo

rm: 4

9 lib

rari

es (7

2% o

f tot

al)

Fo

rms w

ith so

me

acco

mm

odat

ion

stat

emen

t or q

uest

ion

10

20

% o

f ins

titut

ions

with

a p

ublic

ally

vie

wab

le fo

rm (n

= 4

9)

Cal

enda

r eve

nts:

53

libra

ries

(82%

of t

otal

)

Libr

arie

s with

acc

omm

odat

ion

stat

emen

t or q

uest

ion

on a

t lea

st o

ne e

vent

4

7% o

f ins

titut

ions

with

cale

ndar

s (n

= 53

)Li

brar

ies w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

n st

atem

ent o

n al

l five

eve

nts

2 4%

of i

nstit

utio

ns w

ith ca

lend

ars (

n =

53)

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


matter of course for the posting of library workshops and other activities and programs. Instead, the inclusion of accommodation statements on library events seems to be ad hoc and possibly happens at the discre-tion of the workshop instructor or event organizer.

Forty-nine percent, or 33 li-braries, mentioned accessibility in relation to at least one of the four service touch points (disability web pages, library instruction web pages, instruction request forms, and library calendars). However, library web pages that correlated accessibility with library instruction tended to do so in only one of the four service touch points. For instance, 11 libraries (16 percent) included textual descrip-tions regarding instruction on their disabilities page, and one institution specifically mentioned accessibility of library classrooms. No institution mentioned accessibility in all four service touch points reviewed.

Web Accessibility Errors

Next, the researchers ran library instruction websites and instruction request forms through the Web accessibility evaluation tool, WAVE, to determine the number of con-trast errors and red flag errors. Contrast errors include instances in which the text and background colors may have too little contrast for users with visual disabilities. WAVE defines “red flag” errors as accessibility errors that may cause access difficulties for dis-abled users. For example, users with vision impairments commonly use screen readers. If a website does not include descriptive text for images and buttons, the meaning of those images is lost to the user. This can be particularly problematic when images or buttons are used for navigation or to convey meaningful content. Heading errors are another example of red flags. Correct headings aid users in navigating and understanding the structure of the website, and the proper use of heading tags is important for screen readers to distinguish headings from regular text. WAVE will record a maximum of 100 errors for each error type. There were wide variances in the data. Table 2 enumerates frequencies of accessibility errors and contrast errors in both library instruction pages and instruction request forms.

The average number of “red flag” errors on instruction pages was 4.92, with a me-dian of 3 errors per site. The maximum number of errors on any instruction site was 28, and the minimum number of errors was 0, with three libraries showing no accessibility errors on their instruction websites. The average number of contrast errors on library instruction websites was 12.55, with a median of 5.5 errors. The standard deviation was high at 24.28, with one particular instruction site garnering the maximum number of contrast errors at 100. The minimum number of contrast errors was 0, with four libraries having no contrast errors on their instruction websites.

Instruction request forms typically had more errors than did instruction web pages. The average number of “red flag” errors was 8.52, with a median of 5 and a standard deviation of 10.18. The maximum number of errors was 44, and the minimum was 0. Contrast errors averaged 15.78, with a median of 7.5. The maximum numbers of errors was 100, and the minimum was 0.

Accommodation statements are not a matter of course for the posting of library workshops and other activities and programs.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Discussion and Limitations

Evidence of accommodation statements was rare on library instruction websites and online instruction request forms. Correspondingly, library disabilities pages included few references to library instruction programs and services. This study found that, while

the library literature commonly discusses accessibility and ADA requirements, there is a lag between these espoused values and the reflection of these values on library in-struction websites. Many libraries have ac-cessibility pages and instruction pages, but the two services rarely reference each other. Users looking for information about library instruction services for disabled users will encounter difficulties finding information

on library websites. If any information is provided, it will most likely be included on a disability services page and not provided on instruction sites at the point of need.

While the authors wished to condcut an analysis of the language used to describe accessible instruction services, there were too few examples in the data to conduct a formal analysis. However, there were some findings of interest. For example, one form asked if the instructor required an accommodation to teach alongside the librarians. Two instances included a library value statement that supported disability inclusion, a welcome addition to library instruction web pages.

Table 2.WAVE (Web accessibility evaluation tool) errors in library Web content

Instruction pages Forms Red flags* Contrast errors† Red flags Contrast errors

Maximum 28 100 44 100Minimum 0 0 0 0Average 4.92 12.55 8.52 15.78Median 3 5.5 5 7.5Standard deviation 5.58 18.76 10.18 24.28

* WAVE defines red flags as accessibility errors that may cause access difficulties for disabled users.† Contrast errors include instances in which the text and background colors may have too little

contrast for users with visual disabilities.

Users looking for information about library instruction services for disabled users will encounter difficulties finding information on library websites.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Some practices have limitations. In 10 cases, library instruction request forms in-cluded an input box where faculty could indicate if a student required accommodations. However, many instructors are unaware of student accommodation requirements until after enrollment has closed and then only if the student has chosen to disclose his or her disability to the instructor. Not all students choose to disclose their disability, and many disabilities, such as learning disabilities, are not visually evident. In addition, because the one-shot instruction workshop model still dominates information literacy instruction, the librarian teaching the library session seldom knows the students. The complexities of how and when library instruction occurs reinforces the need for accom-modation information to be explicitly stated on library instruction websites. In addition, students need to find information on how to use the library and request accommodations independently of their course instructors.

Taken as a whole, this study provides a snapshot of the current status of disability inclusion in academic library instruction websites. The mark is very low. Not a single institution provided accessibility information at the perceived point of need in all four service touch points reviewed for library instruction. Library instruction programs have much work to do to demonstrate that their services are accessible and ready to engage learners of all abilities.

From a technological benchmarking point of view, library websites struggle with accessibility. The more complex the interactions, such as instruction request forms, the more accessibility errors may occur. It is possible to have an error-free page, as seen by the zero errors for several libraries in this study. It did not always follow, however, that a website with few ac-cessibility errors would not also have contrast errors. It is important to keep technical HTML considerations in mind along with design and color considerations. The majority of the sites had relatively few errors, however. No institution had zero errors on both its instruction web page and its instruction request form, evidence that there is more work to be done in the area of accessibility and library Web design.

The content analysis used in this study also has limitations that should be noted. The results are subject to the ephemeral nature of websites. Institutions could add, delete, or edit Web content at any point during the course of the data collection. Indeed, by the time this study comes to print, libraries will certainly have updated their instruction websites, event calendars, and library accessibility pages. The value of this research is not in its permanency but rather in its ability to provide a snapshot view of the inclusiveness of library instruction programs for users with disabilities. As such, it issues a call to action for library instruction coordinators to work with their Web developers to ensure that their commitment to inclusivity is expressed on their websites.

The data provided by this content analysis were limited because there was no method to analyze why accommodation statements were either included or excluded from library instruction websites. Websites are human creations, and each element on a page represents a conscious decision by a content creator. Further research would be

Not a single institution provided accessibility information at the perceived point of need in all four service touch points reviewed for library instruction.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


necessary to fully understand why the majority of library instruction sites lack evidence of disability inclusion. As a next step, instruction coordinators could be surveyed to determine if they have the requisite knowledge to assess their programs for accessibility inclusion. Do instruction coordinators receive training in UDL and Web design, acces-sibility policies applicable to higher education, and accessible pedagogy for inclusive classroom teaching? Are librarians aware of their local institutional policies, and do they follow best practices in their information literacy instruction? Do libraries systematically provide this training to their instruction librarians? Survey and focus group research might answer these questions to provide a clear path forward for library instruction coordinators and library leadership.

Recommendations

The data collected in this study indicate that library instruction programs are still in a developmental stage when considering evidence of accessibility inclusion. Inclusive-

ness and accessibility are ill-served when viewed as a destination to be reached or a checkbox to be ticked off on a to-do list. Rather, libraries should continuously strive to ensure that all their content and services meet the needs of the widest variety of users. Library instruction programs can and should lead these efforts. Instruction librarians can add to this conversation by analyzing their own local practices and identifying barriers.

A deeper analysis of specific institutional practices would greatly benefit local libraries and the profession at large.

Several best practices that can aid librarians emerged from this study. The following recommendations might help a library instruction program reflect its values to serve all learners:

• Library disability pages should include a statement about accommodations related to instruction programs. Library disability pages that ignore one of the major programs in the library, information literacy instruction, are problematic. The failure to mention such instruction could be harmful to academic libraries as institutions of learning, incumbent to federal law, state mandates, and instruc-tional best practices.

• The accessibility of instruction should be apparent on library instruction pages, rather than exclusively on a disabilities page. Students or faculty who visit

the instruction website need reasonable assurance that their needs can be met. Furthermore, library instruction typically lives outside the traditional domain of for-credit courses. Students of differing abilities may be unsure if accommodations

Inclusiveness and accessibility are ill-served when viewed as a destination to be reached or a checkbox to be ticked off on a to-do list.

The accessibility of instruction should be apparent on library instruction pages, rather than exclusively on a disabilities page.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


will be provided in the library instruction, which takes place away from their usual classroom and their regular instructor. The unique circumstance of the one-shot library instruction session makes it even more necessary for librarians to explicitly state their commitment to accessible practices.

• A statement about accommodations on the library instruction website can go a long way toward creating an inclusive environment. Any library instruction request forms should be checked in WAVE or a similar accessibility tool for compliance and should include a method for requesting accommodations.

• Finally, librarians must address the accessibility of learning spaces on the library websites. Specifically, the accessibility of any classroom spaces used for informa-tion literacy instruction needs to be made clear. This applies to both equipment (ADA-accessible desks, adaptive keyboards, and the like) and software (screen readers, zoom text, adaptive listening devices, and other aids). Students taking part in library instruction as a part of the information literacy program should be able to discover if the library has the capacity to fulfill their learning needs.

Conclusion

This study provides a baseline analysis of the disability inclusiveness of library instruc-tion websites. It gives a snapshot of how library instruction websites might be viewed from the perspective of an outsider, particularly a person looking for evidence that the library can serve diverse needs. Unfortunately, evidence of disability inclusion was not readily apparent on the majority of library instruction websites. As instruction librarians and as a profession dedicated to serving all users, we need to consider how information is disseminated and the implications of failing to indicate disability inclusion at the point of service. This study serves as a call to action. Librarians, particularly those involved in the administration of instruction programs, need to carefully consider how their instruc-tion website speaks to the diversity of their learners. Library instruction coordinators, website administrators, and library administration need to work collaboratively to include accessibility information on library instruction websites.

Stephanie J. Graves is an associate professor and the director of learning and outreach at Texas A&M University Libraries in College Station; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Elizabeth German is an assistant professor and the service design librarian at Texas A&M University Libraries in College Station; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Appendix

Rubric Used to Record Elements of Library Instruction Websites and Accessibility Issues

The rubric was designed in Google Sheets. The following table represents the columns in the spreadsheet.

Institution University library URL

Instruction page Is there an instruction page? [yes, no, unclear] URL of instruction page Is there a library ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] link? [yes, no, footer, unclear] Is there a campus ADA link? [yes, no, footer, unclear] Is there an accommodation statement? [yes, no, unclear] Text of accommodation statement Number of WAVE [Web accessibility evaluation tool] red flags* Number of WAVE contrast errors†Instruction form Is there an instruction form? [yes, no, unclear] Form URL Accommodation statement? [yes, no, unclear] How is it asked? [drop-down/free-form/statement/check box (y/n)] Text of statement or question Number of WAVE red flags Number of WAVE contrast errorsLibrary disability page Is there a distinct library disabilities page? [yes, no, unclear] Disability page URL Does it mention library classrooms? [yes, no, unclear] Text for library classroom [if applicable] Does it mention library instruction? [yes, no, unclear] Text for library instruction [if applicable] Does it mention course reserves? [yes, no, unclear] Text for course reserves [if applicable]Library workshops Is there a listing of workshops? [yes, no, unclear] URL of calendar Event 1—Accommodation statement? [yes, no, unclear] Event 1—How is it asked? [drop-down/free-form/statement/check

box (y/n)] Event 1—Accommodation text [if applicable] Event 2—Accommodation statement? [yes, no, unclear] Event 2—How is it asked? [drop-down/free-form/statement/check

box (y/n)]

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Event 2—Accommodation text [if applicable] Event 3—Accommodation statement? [yes, no, unclear] Event 3—How is it asked? [drop-down/free-form/statement/check



box (y/n)] Event 5—Accommodation text [if applicable]Notes Notes?* WAVE defines red flags as accessibility errors that may cause access difficulties for disabled users.† Contrast errors include instances in which the text and background colors may have too little contrast for users with visual disabilities.

Notes

1. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Libraries, American Library Association (ALA), “Library Services for People with Disabilities Policy,” 2001, http://www.ala.org/ascla/resources/libraryservices.

2. Ibid. 3. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), “Information Literacy Competency

Standards for Higher Education,” 2000, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

4. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112, 87 Stat. 355, H.R. 8070 (1973). 5. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Pub. L. 101–336, 42 USC § 12101 (1990). 6. Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112, § 504, 87 Stat. 355. 7. Section 508, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112, § 508, 87 Stat. 355. 8. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines,” working

draft, 2017, https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. 9. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Libraries, ALA, “Library Services for People

with Disabilities Policy.”10. Kimberley Raue, Laurie Lewis, and Jared Coopersmith, Students with Disabilities at

Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: First Look (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education, 2011).

11. Ibid., 3.12. Peter Hernon and Philip J. Calvert, Improving the Quality of Library Services for Students with

Disabilities (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2006).13. Francine DeFranco and Richard Bleiler, SPEC [Systems and Procedures Exchange] Kit 279:

Evaluating Library Instruction (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries [ARL], 2003), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/ mdp.39015053027887.

14. ARL, SPEC Kit 81: Services to the Disabled in ARL Libraries (Washington, DC: ARL, 1982), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011674606;view=1up;seq=5; GraceAnne A. DeCandido and Julia C. Blixrud, SPEC Kit 243: Transforming Libraries: Issues and Innovations in Service to Users with Disabilities (Washington, DC: ARL, 1999), https://arl.secure.nonprofitsoapbox.com/focus-areas/research-collections/special-collections/1748-spec-kit-243-service-to-users-with-disabilities-april-1999; Suzanne M. Brown and LeiLani

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.3

.


Freund, SPEC Kit 321: Services for Users with Disabilities (Washington, DC: ARL, 2010), http://publications.arl.org/Services-for-Users-with-Disabilities-SPEC-Kit-321/3.

15. Heather Hill, “Disability and Accessibility in the Library and Information Science Literature: A Content Analysis,” Library and Information Science Research 35, 2 (2013): 137–42, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.11.002.

16. Rebecca Power and Chris LeBeau, “How Well Do Academic Library Web Sites Address the Needs of Database Users with Visual Disabilities?” Reference Librarian 50, 1 (2009): 55–72, http://doi.org/10.1080/02763870802546399.

17. Ibid., 63.18. Mary Cassner, Charlene Maxey-Harris, and Toni Anaya, “Differently Able: A Review

of Academic Library Websites for People with Disabilities,” Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 30, 1 (2011): 33–51, http://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.548722.

19. ACRL, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education”; ACRL, “Guidelines for Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries,” 2011, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesinstruction.

20. Angie Brunk and Dale Monobe, “Don’t Make the Kid Who Is Blind Play Dodge Ball: Making Interactive Library Instruction Accessible to Students with Disabilities,” in Brick & Click Libraries: An Academic Library Symposium, ed. Frank Baudino and Carolyn Johnson (Maryville, MO: Northwest Missouri State University, 2013), 176–180, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545375; Rebecca Adler Schiff, “Information Literacy and Blind and Visually Impaired Students,” Urban Library Journal 15, 2 (2009): 62–72, http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=ulj.

21. Katy Kavanagh Webb and Jeanne Hoover, “Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the Academic Library: A Methodology for Mapping Multiple Means of Representation in Library Tutorials,” College & Research Libraries 76, 4 (2015): 537–53, http://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.4.537.

22. Mary Beth Applin, “Instructional Services for Students with Disabilities,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, 2 (1999): 139–41, doi:10.1016/S0099–1333(99)80015–9.

23. Anne Meyer, David H. Rose, and David Gordon, Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice (Wakefield, MA: CAST, 2014).

24. Katherine J. Miller-Gatenby and Michele Chittenden, “Reference Services for All: How to Support Reference Service to Clients with Disabilities,” Reference Librarian 33, 69–70 (2001): 313–26.

25. Ruth V. Small, William N. Myhill, and Lydia Herring-Harrington, “Developing Accessible Libraries and Inclusive Librarians in the 21st Century: Examples from Practice,” in Brian Wentz, Paul T. Jaeger, and John Carlo Bertot, ed., Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities and the Inclusive Future of Libraries, Advances in Librarianship, vol. 40 (Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group, 2015), 73–88, http://doi.org/10.1108/S0065–283020150000040013.

26. Catherine J. Carter, “Providing Services for Students with Disabilities in an Academic Library,” Education Libraries 27, 2 (2004): 13–18, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ983929.

27. Joe Marquez and Annie Downey, “Service Design: An Introduction to a Holistic Assessment Methodology of Library Services,” Weave: Journal of Library User Experience 1, 2 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/weave.12535642.0001.201.

28. March Stickdorn and Jakob Schneider, This Is Service Design Thinking: Basics—Tools—Cases (Amsterdam, Neth.: BIS, 2010); G. Lynn Shostack, “Breaking Free from Product Marketing,” Journal of Marketing 41, 2 (1977): 73–80.

29. WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind), “WAVE: Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool,” 2001, https://wave.webaim.org.This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.3.

evidence of our values: disability inclusion on library ... · a variety of learning needs, from...

Documents