Multiple perspectives on the accessibility of e-learning in Canadian colleges and universities.

An exploratory study identified and compared the views of 77 campus disability service providers, 38 professors, and 45 e-learning professionals from Canadian colleges and universities regarding their experiences with e-learning and its accessibility to students with disabilities. Findings indicate that all groups saw benefit in having someone who makes e-learning accessible to students with disabilities on campus and that problems related to e-learning accessibility were most likely to go to campus disability service providers and least likely to e-learning professionals. Only half of the participants indicated that professors are taught about e-learning accessibility, that there is someone on campus who makes e-learning accessible, that accessibility is a criterion for selecting new types of e-learning, and that their school has e-learning accessibility guidelines or policies. These findings suggest that important e-learning accessibility problems remain. Recommendations for colleges and universities on how to increase e-learning accessibility are provided.

What happens after graduation? Outcomes, employment, and recommendations of recent junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities.

PURPOSE: The objective was to compare employment status of junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities. METHODS: We compared post-graduation outcomes of 182 graduates with and 1304 without disabilities from career/technical and pre-university programs from three junior/community colleges. Findings for graduates who had registered for disability related services from their school and those who had not were examined separately. Reported academic obstacles and facilitators were also compared. RESULTS: Few employment differences between graduates with and without disabilities were found. Two-thirds of career/technical graduates from both groups were employed, approximately 30% were studying, and less than 3% were either looking for work or "unavailable for work." Over 80% of pre-university graduates in both groups were continuing their studies; here, too, numbers of employed graduates (14% with and 13% without disabilities) were similar and very few in both groups (<2%) were either looking for work or "unavailable for work." Full versus part-time employment of these two groups was very similar and the same proportion of graduates with and without disabilities were working in jobs related to their studies. Only in "closely related" work did graduates without disabilities have the advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Employment prospects for junior/community college graduates with disabilities seem to be quite positive.