Creating a Culture of Inclusion: Respectful, Intentional, Reflective Teaching

Creating a Culture of Inclusion: Respectful, Intentional, Reflective Teaching

Jeanne L. Higbee
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The use of Universal Design (UD) within higher education has primarily been directed towards students with disabilities. In recent years, research has proposed that UD is beneficial to a wide range of students, including but not limited to students with disabilities. Students not speaking English as their first language, students who are nontraditional in age, and students with varied learning styles may all benefit from the infusion of UD within higher education. In light of the far reaching potential for access and inclusion that is associated with UD, the ACPA Standing Committee on Disability (SCD) has proposed that UD become a standard framework for designing learning environments within ACPA and for individual member use. In this Series, the SCD spotlights the use of UD from various perspectives within higher education including: (a) a disability resource provider, (b) a faculty member, (c) an individual with a disability, and (d) a student affairs professional. This article highlights the perspective of a faculty member.

In their contributions to this series, Melanie Thompson, Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, and Karen Myers have traced the origins of Universal Instructional Design (UID) and provided guiding principles, so I would like to address my approach to UID and why it matters. To me it is important to consider the unique expressions of different aspects of social identity that play such an important role in how individual students construct and demonstrate knowledge. UID involves first considering the diversity of the students who might enroll in my courses and then how pedagogical choices can advantage or disadvantage students. I am not exaggerating when I assert that implementing UID benefits all students

When I first began writing about UID, reviewers would respond by asking, “How is this any different from good teaching?” (Hodge & Preston-Sabin, 1997). They were right to ask; with its foundation in Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,” that is exactly what UID is, but too often our implementation of these guidelines is superficial. We still tend to teach the way that we were taught without thinking critically about how each decision we make as we develop our curricula, syllabi, lesson plans, assignments, and assessments of learning may impact individual students.

My Own Story

I have been exceptionally fortunate to have been engaged, for almost 40 years, in a career I love that has spanned academic affairs and student affairs, and that has provided the privilege of interacting on a daily basis with students throughout the United States and the world. When I think back to my educational beginnings, I realize that it is only because, at various points along my path, teachers took a special interest in me and advocated for me that I have had the opportunity for such a full and fulfilling professional life. Over the years I have written and edited publications that have featured students’ and colleagues’ stories. This is the first time that I am sharing my own story in print.

I have never been diagnosed with a disability. I had already completed my doctorate before I became knowledgeable about learning disabilities (LDs). In elementary school in the 1950s, I annually scored at the 99th percentile in math on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skill, but below the 20th percentile on the verbal measures. My younger siblings were both in “accelerated” classes. In my family I was the “dummy”—my siblings’ term, not mine (and one I would like to see eliminated from contemporary use, especially considering the historical roots of the term dumb). If not for my fifth grade teacher’s support and unconditional belief in my abilities, and my tenth grade geometry teacher who saw my potential, I would not have been placed in the appropriate mathematics courses that paved the way for completing calculus as a senior in high school.

I continued to score at the 99th percentile in quantitative areas, including on the SAT and GRE, but my verbal scores had a devastating impact on my cumulative test scores. I began college as a Home Economics major because I liked to sew and wanted to help people in a practical way. During my first two years at Iowa State University, I changed majors within the College of Home Economics six times and finally realized that I was unsuccessfully trying to make a hobby into a career. No one ever thought to discuss mathematics-based career options, which despite gender stereotyping still prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, might have been open to me.

As I began to explore alternative college majors, it was the professor in my elective sociology course on institutionalized racism who encouraged me to consider graduate school. After 2 years in Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), I pursued a Master of Science in Counseling and Guidance with an emphasis on college counseling. At the end of that program, my advisor told me that I was “not Ph.D. material.” However, another professor in educational administration/higher education, advocated for my admission to the doctoral program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, thereby changing my career path.

As I begin to plan for retirement and look back on my educational and professional journey, I do realize just how fortunate I have been. In my decades of working in higher education in the United States, I have encountered many students who were brighter, more capable, and more motivated than I was at their age—students who have unnecessarily faced one seemingly insurmountable barrier after another when trying to pursue a college education. Despite the supposed paradigm shift from teaching to learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995), many university classes still depend on the dissemination of knowledge through textbooks and lectures and assessment via high-stakes objective examinations. These methods do not consider individual students’ strengths and challenges.

We can claim that we have moved beyond the medical model that views disability as a condition that needs to be cured, fixed, or mediated, to understanding disability as a social construction. At the same time, we endeavor to move forward to viewing disability from a social justice perspective (Evans, 2008); yet services for college students with disabilities are still dependent on a “diagnosis.” This assumes that there is something wrong with the student rather than with our educational systems. For faculty, UID promotes looking within ourselves—being more intentional and reflective—rather than putting the burden or “blame” on the individual student based on one aspect of the student’s complex social identity.

Accommodations as De Facto Segregation

When I transitioned from student affairs to a teaching role in 1985, my first position was as an assistant professor, counselor, and advisor in the Division of Developmental Studies at the University of Georgia, which at that time had a separate admissions process and served students who would not otherwise have been admitted. From my experience, a disproportionate number of students with disabilities—diagnosed or previously undiagnosed—are likely to be placed in developmental education courses because of the role that standardized testing plays in the admissions process, particularly at large, “selective” research institutions. As assistant professor, I followed up with both the student and the assigned advocate when receiving letters from Disability Services to request accommodations for individual students and I sincerely, but misguidedly, thought that I was doing everything I could to ensure their success.

Over time I realized that many of the proposed accommodations, such as extended time for exams, resulted in students being segregated from their peers. I was aware of the impact that being segregated in K-12 special education classes could have on how children were perceived by their peers, and ultimately how they would come to view themselves. Even without a diagnosis, I had experienced what it was like to be the slow reader, the “dummy,” and I understood why first-year college students did not readily disclose their disabilities (Uncertain Welcome, 2002). I also became aware of the high cost to students and their families of documenting “hidden” disabilities such as LDs, an expense that discriminated against less affluent students and put accommodations outside their reach.

Recent documentation of the disability diagnosis—even for students who had been receiving special education services throughout their elementary and secondary school experiences—was the necessary first legal step in the provision of accommodations, and many institutions were not equipped to provide their own diagnostic services. I began to explore other options for inclusion such as how to provide less distracting testing environments for students with Attention Deficit Disorder, but I was still approaching the task from the perspective of providing individualized accommodations to students who disclosed a documented disability, despite all the potential barriers to student success inherent in that process.

Reducing the Need for Accommodations through UID

In fall 1999 I transitioned to a new faculty position at the University of Minnesota, where I became immersed in Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD; Higbee, 2003), a model demonstration project funded by the U.S. Department of Education to provide professional development in the implementation of UID. I had always considered myself student-centered, but my eyes were opened as I began to realize just how far I still had to go to achieve a fully accessible classroom. Such a classroom involved more than how furniture was placed in the classroom, or what technology was used in the teaching process. A primary goal of UID is to enable students to participate fully without the provision of accommodations that can mistakenly be perceived as “making exceptions” for student with disabilities. UID is not equivalent to the elimination of sign language interpreters, note takers, or textbooks in Braille, which I refer to as “structural accommodations.”

One of the common misunderstandings about UID is that the term universal as applied to education is not intended to imply that one size—or educational practice—fits all, but instead that universal access should be our goal. In fact, I like to characterize UID as giving all students the option to choose to learn in the manner that best accommodates their own ways of knowing, and also provides the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned through mechanisms that showcase their strengths, not their perceived deficiencies. No exceptions are being made because the same choices are being provided for everyone and everyone benefits. Furthermore, students engage in activities that may be more pertinent to their careers and future lives than multiple choice tests, for example.

Karen Myers asks, “Have you excluded anyone today?” In addition to first-year courses, I now teach graduate courses in multicultural pedagogy. I ask of future faculty, “Have you thoroughly examined your activities, assignments, and assessments to consider how an individual student might be excluded because of an aspect of that student’s social identity?” And after teaching, “Have you engaged in deep reflection of how your methods might marginalize some students while privileging others?”

Thoughts on the Future of UID

I acknowledge the many advantages I have had, including having a network of allies who opened doors for me when I might not have been able to open them for myself. I know many students who have not been so fortunate. I cannot claim to have known all students equally well—especially in large classes—to be aware of the challenges they may have faced. I do know that many students appreciate being able to learn in different and creative ways that accentuate their strengths and enhance their communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

At a point in my career when I might have started slowing down, I have been energized and have found new fulfillment as a faculty member through implementation of UID. Currently I am involved in the development of an expanded model, integrated multicultural instructional design (IMID) (Barajas & Higbee, 2003; Higbee & Barajas, 2007; Higbee, Goff, & Schultz, in press; Higbee, Schultz, & Goff, 2010). IMID picks up where UID leaves off, adding explorations of what we teach to the UID model that already addresses how we teach, how we support learning, and how we assess learning. There is always more work to be done in creating a culture of inclusion.

Discussion Questions

  • Have attitudes toward people with disabilities really changed over the last century, or do people—including professionals working in college student development—still look upon people with disabilities with pity?
  • Why might students hesitate to disclose a disability, whether to a faculty member or to a counselor, academic advisor, or residence hall staff member?
  • Recognizing that students do not necessarily disclose hidden disabilities—or other aspects of their social identities, for that matter—how can faculty and student development professionals ensure that all students are included and have equal opportunity to participate in programs and services? What are first steps you might take in your own position to enhance access and engagement?

References

Barajas, H. L., & Higbee, J. L. (2003). Where do we go from here? Universal design as a model for multicultural education. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing Universal design in higher education (pp. 285-290). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, Retrieved from http://ilte.ius.edu/pdf/BarrTagg.pdf

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Evans, N. J. (2008). Theoretical foundations of universal instructional design. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing Universal Design in higher education (pp. 11-23). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/passit/docs/PASS-IT-Book.pdf

Higbee, J. L. (Ed.). (2003). Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing Universal Design in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.

Higbee, J. L., & Barajas, H. L. (2007). Building effective places for multicultural learning. About Campus, 12(3), 16-22.

Higbee, J. L., Goff, E., & Schultz, J. L. (in press). Promoting retention through the implementation of integrated multicultural instructional design. Journal of College Student Retention.

Higbee, J. L., Schultz, J. L., & Goff, E. (2010). The pedagogy of inclusion: Integrated multicultural instructional design. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(1), 49-66.

Hodge, B. M., & Preston-Sabin, J. (1997). Accommodations—Or just good teaching? Strategies for teaching college students with disabilities. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Uncertain welcome

. (2002). Minneapolis, MN: Curriculum Transformation and Disability, General College, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/passit/videos.html

About the Author

Jeanne Higbee, Ph.D., currently serves as Director of Graduate Studies for a new Master of Arts program in Multicultural College Teaching and Learning at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, where she is a recipient of the Horace T. Morse – University of Minnesota Alumni Association Award for Outstanding Contributions to Undergraduate Education. ACPA has recognized her with the Voice of Inclusion Medallion (2005), Diamond Honoree (2007), and Disability Ally Award (2008).

Please e-mail inquiries to Jeanne Higbee.

Disclaimer

The ideas expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Developments editorial board or those of ACPA members or the ACPA Governing Board, Leadership, or International Office Staff.

Creating a Culture of Inclusive Leadership: The Intersection of Student Affairs and Universal Design

Creating a Culture of Inclusive Leadership: The Intersection of Student Affairs and Universal Design

Jaci Jenkins Lindburg
University of Nebraska-Omaha

The use of Universal Design (UD) within higher education has primarily been directed towards students with disabilities. In recent years, research has proposed that UD is beneficial to a wide range of students, including but not limited to students with disabilities. Students not speaking English as their first language, students who are non-traditional in age, and students with varied learning styles may all benefit from the infusion of UD within higher education. In light of the far reaching potential for access and inclusion that is associated with UD, the ACPA Standing Committee on Disability (SCD) has proposed that UD become a standard framework for designing learning environments within ACPA and for individual member use. In this Series, the SCD spotlights the use of UD from various perspectives within higher education including: (a) a disability resource provider, (b) a faculty member, (c) an individual with a disability, and (d) a student affairs professional. This article highlights the perspective of a student affairs professional.

As a student affairs professional, I have the opportunity to mentor and advise student leaders who are frequently impressionable young people full of vast potential and seemingly limitless capabilities. During their undergraduate experiences, student leaders are exposed to many things, including different religious and cultural ideologies, lifestyles, ways of thinking different from their own, and political viewpoints and values that may vary greatly from those of their parents or guardians. As student development theorists describe, it is not uncommon for college-age students to challenge many of the beliefs they previously held to be true as they open up to uncertain and ambiguous possibilities for their futures (Josselson, 1987; King & Kitchener, 1994).

As many students seek to find clarity in their own identity, the academic discussions and co-curricular programs an institution offers play a critical role in exposing students to new knowledge that can either affirm or change previously held beliefs. Thus, during this impressionable time for students, creating a dialogue relating to concepts of social justice, inclusion, and access is paramount; for example, through the co-curricular leadership programs I coordinate, I recognize the importance of appropriately shaping the next generation of leaders. I want these leaders to truly understand how important it is to be inclusive of all types of people. I strive to help students find their passion in life and to not be afraid to advocate for fairness in the world. But above all, I want students to be aware of the social injustices that exist and learn how they can play a role in creating positive change. In order to achieve these goals, I integrate the concepts of Universal Design into my leadership development work.

In this article, I will explain the central concepts of Universal Design and relate its principles to student leadership and student affairs. In addition, I will provide support for creating an institutional-wide culture of inclusion that starts with senior administrators and is embraced by faculty, staff, and students. Finally, I will encourage readers to take steps that will help their own institutions implement and incorporate Universal Design in programs and initiatives across campus.

Universal Design (UD) and Universal Instructional Design (UID)

A great first step toward enhancing social justice, advocating for change, and striving for inclusion is to improve accessibility of resources and services for all students on campus. The concept of open access closely relates to the idea of Universal Design. Universal Design was originally an architectural concept focusing on ways to plan and design spaces to meet the needs of all potential users; however, Universal Design has more recently been extended to the educational sector, where it supports the notion that “when providing an architectural feature— or educational service, for that matter—to enhance accessibility and inclusion for one population, we are often benefiting all occupants or participants” (Goff & Higbee, 2008a, p. 1). In its extension to the educational sector, Universal Instructional Design (UID) focuses on universal access to course content, seeks to ensure that no students are excluded or marginalized, and reduces the need for individualized academic accommodations (Goff & Higbee).

In a formal classroom setting, UID can be ensured by posting all course readings and web links online, using a sans-serif 14-point font on all handouts, utilizing multi-modal teaching techniques, and offering students multiple avenues to demonstrate learned knowledge. But in the more informal settings in which student affairs professionals typically interact with students, UID is not always as straightforward: we must re-think commonplace practices, such as campus tours, student meeting spaces, student teambuilding activities, and the communication practices we use to promote all campus programs, meetings, and events.

To make a diligent commitment to UID as a student affairs practitioner, Myers (2009) suggested asking yourself, “Who have I excluded today?” Similarly, Higbee (2008) suggested asking the following questions whenever engaging in the planning of campus events and services:

  • “How can we ensure that everyone who wants to participate will have the opportunity to do so?
  • What steps can we take to ensure that everyone will feel included?
  • What do we need to do to ensure that everyone will benefit to the greatest extent possible?” (p. 200)

Students with disabilities are frequently excluded, even if done so unintentionally. Each year, an increasing number of students with disabilities enter postsecondary institutions in the United States (Lehmann, Davies, & Laurin, 2000). In the academic year 2008-2009, approximately 707,000 students with disabilities were enrolled in post-secondary institutions in the United States (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Students with disabilities experience exclusion when they encounter physical, intellectual, or attitudinal barriers in higher education. Higbee (2008) stated that “These barriers to learning must be assessed, examined, and removed wherever possible” (p. 197). Furthermore, Denny and Carson (as cited in Wisbey & Kalivoda, 2008) posited that even if members of the campus community “do not see themselves as having social barriers or discriminatory attitudes towards students with disabilities, social distance, avoidance, and lack of foresight in planning can lead students with disabilities to perceive barriers from them” (as cited in Wisbey & Kalivoda, 2008, p. 261). Minimal efforts such as having posters in large font, making newsletters available in alternative formats, or moving meeting locations to accessible buildings and rooms demonstrates regard and recognition for each individual.

Student Leaders and UID

Not only is it important to model best practices of UID in our work as professionals on campus, but it is also important to advise student leaders to incorporate UID within their leadership roles in campus groups, organizations, and teams. One way student leaders can immediately have an impact on campus is to promote open access to all other students. Many student groups unknowingly exclude other students simply by the way in which promote their organization and where they hold group meetings.

Higbee (2008) offered several Universal Design guiding principles to help student leaders focus on enhancing accessibility. First, “develop, implement, and evaluate pathways for communication among students. Communication should be encouraged through methods that are appropriate, comfortable, and accessible to all, with appropriate accommodations readily available” (p. 196). Second, “promote interaction among students. Once channels for communication have been established, the next step is to encourage their use. Why? These interactions lead to students feeling a sense of connection to the institution and foster the belief that someone cares about them” (p. 197). Third, “Ensure that each student has an equal opportunity to learn and grow” (p. 197).

Consider the following example of how student affairs professionals are putting those principles into practice. Staff working on the Pedagogy and Student Services for Institutional Transformation (PASS IT) project at the University of Minnesota issued a guidebook that featured a student checklist for community awareness of UID. By adhering to the points on this checklist, “students can make a difference in the university community with regard to accessibility for all individuals regardless of learning style, background, culture, age, language, and ability” (Goff & Higbee, 2008b, p. 47). Key points of the checklist are:

  1. Promote an inclusive community grounded in the concepts of Universal Instructional Design and Social Justice.
    1. Share cultural experiences and seek out opportunities to learn about diversity through the perceptions of other students.
    2. Question events and programs that do not promote inclusion in a professional and appropriate manner.
  2. Plan and develop accessible programs and events that welcome all students.
    1. Ensure that event, program, and meeting locations allow all students to engage and socialize equally.
    2. Support written announcements and posters with audio versions.
  3. Promote Web site, online registration and surveys and other web-based student information sites that are accessible for all students.
    1. Multi-media: Provide captioning and transcripts of audio and descriptions of video.
    2. Tables: Make line-by-line reading sensible. Summarize. (Goff & Higbee, 2008b, p. 47)

Student leaders can easily learn key points for Universal Design and Universal Instruction Design if student affairs practitioners model Higbee’s (2008) principles through our work and if we take the time to stress the importance of inclusion within the roles student leaders take within student organizations. Throughout the collegiate student experience, student leaders should learn these valuable tools that promote to inclusion and welcoming environments. As Cullen (2008) noted, “To build inclusive organizations, there must be a shift from ‘me’ to ‘we’” (p. 117). I believe UID is an outstanding avenue to push our students toward social justice on their home campuses.

Creating a Culture of Inclusive Leadership

Gibson (2005) developed a Disability Identity Development Model in an effort to help practitioners and educators understand better the development of people with disabilities. Gibson (2005) posited that understanding a person’s development is necessary for practitioners and educators to support the person fully. Gibson (2005) outlined three stages of disability identity development. Stage one, called “passive awareness” typically happens during the first part of someone’s life, but can continue into adulthood. This phase is marked by a denial of the social aspects of disability, shying away from attention, and lacking a role model of disability. Phase two, called “realization” typically occurs in adolescence or early adulthood and is demonstrated through a high degree of concern with appearance and how others perceive self. Stage1 three, called “acceptance,” typically emerges in adulthood and shifts the focus from being different toward embracing oneself. The “acceptance” phase also is marked by involvement in disability advocacy and activism and the beginning of incorporating others with disabilities into one’s life (Gibson, 2005).

In creating inclusive campus environments, I argue that an entire institution moves through a similar process of learning and become aware and accepting of students with disabilities as the three-stage model presented by Gibson (2005). Students easily adopt the ideals and values that faculty, staff, and administrators demonstrate on a conscious or subconscious level. If upper-level employees of an institution are merely passively aware of disability—meaning that they do not utilize UID, they do not creative inclusive environments, and they do not advocate for the needs of all students—then it becomes easy for students of that institution to take the same approach and fail to be inclusive.

If administrators are in the second “realization” phase and have a heightened sense of awareness about students with disabilities, the culture of the entire institution begins to shift. But it is not until the institution’s faculty, staff, and administrators truly embody the stage three “acceptance” that the members of the campus community will begin to embrace concepts of acceptance, universal design, and inclusive leadership. As Myers (2008) questioned, “When do thoughts of inclusion become second nature?” (p. 291). At an institutional level, I believe that moment occurs when we move to stage three, “acceptance,” and incorporate Universal Design and Universal Instructional Design into our courses, co-curricular programs, office designs, campus layouts, and residential hall facilities. I believe wholeheartedly that student leaders are ready for the challenge, but we have to push them to learn and develop a skill set that includes UID, access, and inclusion.

Call to Action

There should be nothing stopping student affairs professionals from creating inclusive campus climates. I believe our student leaders are ready to embrace the culture of a universally-designed institution if our faculty, staff, and administrators place accessibility as a priority. As noted leadership researchers Bennis and Thomas (2007) described, a key to effective leadership is the ability to create shared meaning amongst a group of people: “A leader’s first and, in many ways, most important task is articulating their vision and making it their followers’ own…effective leaders don’t just impose their vision on others, they recruit others to a shared vision” (Bennis & Thomas, 2007, p. 137).

Regardless of your role and level of responsibility at the institution, I encourage you to utilize concepts of Universal Instructional Design in your day-to-day programs, events, classes, and physical spaces. Talk to your student leaders about what it means to be inclusive in their roles on campus, role-model best practices for these student leaders to follow, and do your part in creating this shared meaning regarding UD/UID. Incorporating Universal Instructional Design strategies can and will enhance accessibility and inclusion on campus, but only if we take the time and make the effort to use it in our daily practices.

Discussion Questions

  • How is your campus currently using Universal Design strategies within student leadership programs and student affairs?
  • What obstacles and/or difficulties do you foresee in implementing Universal Design principles and practices into your student affairs programs and initiatives?
  • What resources or tools would you need to help create an institution-wide commitment to Universal Design?
  • In what ways do you role model inclusion and accessibility to the students you work with each day and how can you help these students begin to use principles of Universal Design in their own outreach as student leaders?

Notes

1. The theory uses “phases” and “stages” interchangeably.

References

Bennis, W.G., & Thomas, R.J. (2007). Leading for a lifetime. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cullen, M. (2008). 35 dumb things well-intended people say. Garden City, NY: Morgan James Publishing.

Gibson, J. (2006). Disability and clinical competency: An introduction. The California Psychologist, 39, 6-10.

Goff, E., & Higbee, J.S. (2008a). Introduction. In J.L. Higbee and E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 1-8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Goff, E., & Higbee, J.S. (Eds.). (2008b). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementation guidebook for student development programs and services.Minneapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.

Higbee, J.S. (2008). Universal design principles for student development programs and services. In J.L. Higbee and E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 195-203). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself; Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lehmann, J.P., Davies, T.G., & Laurin, K.M. (2000). Listening to student voices about postsecondary education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(5), 60-65.

Myers, K.A. (2008). Using learning reconsidered to reinvent disability education. About Campus, 13, 2-9.

Myers, K.A. (2009). A new vision for disability education: Moving on from the add-on. About Campus, 14(5), 15-21.

Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with Disabilities at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions (NCES 2011–018). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wisbey, M.E., & Kalivoda, K.S. (2008). Residential living for all: Fully accessible and ‘liveable’ on-campus housing. In J.L. Higbee and E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 255- 266). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

About the Author

Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, PhD, is the Manager of Academic Affairs for the Division of Continuing Studies at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. She earned her PhD in Higher Education Administration from Saint Louis University in 2010 and has previously served as the Director for Student Development and Leadership at McKendree University in Lebanon, Illinois, and as the Associate Director of the Leadership Institute at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. She has been recognized by ACPA as a 2012 Annuit Coeptis Emerging Professional, the 2011 Standing Committee for Graduate Students and New Professionals Outstanding New Professional, and the 2010 Disability Ally Award Recipient.

Please e-mail inquiries to Jaci Jenkins Lindburg.

Disclaimer

The ideas expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Developments editorial board or those of ACPA members or the ACPA Governing Board, Leadership, or International Office Staff.