Focus Group on Alternate Format

Canadian Association of Disability Service Providers in Post-Secondary Education
Association Canadienne Des Conseillers en Services aux Etudiants Handicapes au Postsecondaire

November 12, 2004 Ottawa, Ontario

Facilitator: Gladys Loewen, Past President, CADSPPE

Gladys Loewen welcomed participants to the CADSPPE (Canadian Association of Disability Service Providers in Post-Secondary Education) Focus Group on Alternate Format. She then introduced the following members:
  • Vince Tomassetti and Yolaine Ruel, facilitators of the group discussions
  • Carolyn Wiebe, Laurie Keenan, and Kim Archer, CADSPPE Board members.
The meeting was designed to focus on how CADSPPE can move forward on the issue of access to alternate format for students with print disabilities, as all colleges and universities struggle with this issue. For the past few years, CADSPPE has offered several workshops and ad hoc committee sessions to this topic. It is time to compile a list of issues and ideas from a national perspective on what the next steps are in order to ensure access to academic material for students with print disabilities. This information will allow the CADSPPE Board to determine and prioritize activities needed to assist higher educational institutions across Canada.

Loewen noted that although the Focus Group is a CADSPPE-organized event, the proceedings will go to the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS), which will help with their project. The results of the focus group would also be presented at the NEADS conference the following day.

Loewen explained that the format of the meeting would consist of large group discussions, breakout discussions in 3 small groups with one bilingual group, and reports back on key priorities to guide CADSPPE.

Brainstorm Vision Statement

To envision learning communities in Higher Education that value the concept of equal access to print materials and work to ensure equal access to print information in campus learning environments.

Loewen invited the group to brainstorm and refine this Vision Statement to frame the day’s discussions. The following discussions and iterations ensued:
  • A participant suggested adding the critical concept of “timely access.” Although “equal access” encompasses timeliness, “timely access” is a key component that should be emphasized, especially when working with partners.
  • A delegate noted that “web materials” and electronic information should be included. The group decided to just use the word “information.”
  • A delegate suggested removing the “work to.”

A new version of the Vision Statement resulted:

To envision learning communities in Higher Education that value the concept of equal and timely access to information and ensure equal and timely access to information in learning environments.

The group noted that the word “information” was too general, as the issue is not about materials related to social life on campus but about materials for the learning environment only. These include courses, registration, and research materials, focusing on course materials. Participants suggested using “academic materials” or “information in the academic environment.”

The delegates discussed the purpose of the Vision Statement, whether it is for in-house use or to be disseminated and promoted widely. Loewen explained that it was primarily to guide the day’s meeting, although it may be used outside as well.

A participant suggested replacing the word “envision” with “promote,” “create,” or “have.”
A further refinement of the Vision Statement resulted:
To have learning communities in Higher Education that value the concept of equal and timely access to information in the academic environment.

Participants discussed the need to strengthen the message of “valuing” the access.

The resulting statement was as follows:

To have Higher Education value the concept of equal and timely access to information in the academic environment.

The group discussed the need to focus on the target population rather than on “Higher Education.”
The issue is related to “valuing” as well as “facilitating,” although the “facilitating” part is about how to do the work, which is beyond the scope of a Mission Statement.
Delegates agreed that this Vision Statement is about CADSPPE. It cannot include what we want other groups to do, such as publishers and government.
Participants decided to refer to “post-secondary education” rather than “Higher Education,” since “Higher Education” may not cover vocational programs. It was also decide to keep the word “environment” in order to cover the context surrounding academic courses.

A delegate said “equal and timely access” should be the subject of the sentence, not “postsecondary education.”

The resulting Vision Statement was unanimously approved:

To ensure equal and timely access to academic information in post-secondary educational environments

The group agreed to revisit this statement following the day’s discussions.

Breakout Groups

Identify signs of success in the provision of alternate format materials in campus learning environments

Notes from Breakout Group chaired by Vince Tomassetti. (Note: participants of this group were post-secondary disability service providers and represented 4 provinces).

“I will know that we have been successful in achieving our vision of offering alternate format materials in all campus environments when…”

Participants pointed to timeliness of receiving materials as a key sign of success. In discussing what would be a reasonable timeframe, they noted that it depends on the format and course content. Some formats take longer to convert. For example, documents for courses such as math or computer science that have unusual symbols would take longer to convert than an English novel.

A delegate commented that some professors create their course as they teach. Others responded that professors must be sensitized to students’ needs. They have a responsibility to provide materials in a reasonable manner. The universal design (UD) method is a good approach that professors should be urged to adopt.

Moreover, the internal structure of universities needs to be better organized and student-centred. Two weeks is a reasonable timeframe for receiving alternate formats, but the university should begin coordinating 6 months in advance of the course beginning. Ideally, various alternate formats should be available for disabled students at the same time that regular materials are available for non-disabled students. That would be equity. Also, disabled students should have the same access to last-minute course changes.

A participant noted that another sign of success is students taking responsibility: they come to the centre ahead of time with a plan.

The group then discussed whose responsibility it is to produce the alternate formats. Participants said that students should have a choice—it depends on the individual, the nature of the disability, and whether it’s seen to increase independence and vocational skills for life. However, delegates agreed that technology should primarily remain a learning tool for students, not a production tool. Students are there to learn, not to work, and the time they spend producing materials could be better spent studying. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that disabled students are already disadvantaged due to their disability. They face a host of systemic barriers and already have much more difficulty negotiating the environment than non-disabled students. Their critical study time should not be compromised.

The delegates also discussed the quality of the alternate formats produced. Student-produced materials are likely to be inferior to professionally produced materials. However, students must balance timely access with a less perfect product. As well, they must balance the time it takes to learn from a superior copy versus the time it takes to learn from an imperfect copy that might contain errors or incomplete information.

A participant noted that she has been receiving far fewer requests from students to write a letter asking for an extension for assignments and exams due to not having the materials to study. This is another sign of success.

Better coordination among different channels—publishers, bookstores, professors, etc.—is important. A “friendlier” Copyright Act would also help to support alternate formats, especially large print. More multimedia materials should have both open and closed captioning, particularly closed captioning for hearing impaired students. A related issue is real-time interpretation for all campus activities, including audiovisual multimedia such as live concerts and plays, perhaps provided in multimedia rooms. Websites and documents should also be totally accessible, for example through WebCT and PDF files.

Group Reports to Plenary; Summary of All 3 Groups

Signs of Success:
  • Students receive everything at the same time or within a reasonable timeline.
  • Disabled students have the same access to last-minute course changes.
  • Professors are more sensitized to disabled students’ needs.
  • Technology is used as a learning tool, not a production tool.
  • Student is viewed as a learner, not a worker.
  • Students have a choice to produce their own alternate formats or not.
  • Disabled students can choose to have imperfect materials immediately or perfect materials later, but there is recognition of their need for correct and equal information.
  • Students can purchase text in choice of format.
  • There is no need to defer exams due to late material.
  • Closed or open captioning is available for all students.
  • Accessible WebCT and PDF files are available.
  • There is universal access to technology, training, and materials to all people, not only disabled students.
  • Professors do not have to do more work to ensure access.
  • Disabled students would not have to ask for help, since materials will be available.
  • Everyone is happy.
  • Every need and environment incorporates accessibility, including research, the library, web, media, and lab.
  • Students do not have to wait.
  • Every student can find information efficiently.
  • Self-identification is no longer necessary.
  • Faculty practice UD. Only courses that are accessible and use UD are offered, and all class notes are posted on the web.
  • There is less demand on human and physical supports and services, such as research assistants and note-takers.

Summary of Key Points

  • Students are satisfied.
  • Students have the right information at the right time and place.
  • Disabled students can purchase/receive resources in the appropriate format at the same price in the same place (library, bookstore, etc.) at the same time as non-disabled students.
  • Post-secondary environments practice UD.
  • Self-identification is no longer necessary.
  • Identify barriers to achieve the signs of successes in the provision of alternate format materials in learning environments.

Notes from Breakout Group chaired by Vince Tomassetti

The following barriers came quickly to mind:
  • Last-minute students
  • Multiple requests from multiple students at the same time
  • Professors not thinking ahead and not providing materials until the last minute, such as Course Packs, or materials for exams and tests
  • Administration delaying in hiring professors and establishing time tables
  • Publishers frequently producing new editions that are 90% unchanged
  • Limited resources such as money, equipment, and technology
  • Lengthy production times that include scanning, editing, and reformatting
  • Lack of coordination and procedures to share resources nationally and provincially. A participant pointed out that the lack of coordination among disability service providers, libraries, publishers, etc., was a major barrier, as many books produced on campus are unsharable. He suggested, a website that maintains a collection of digital books for those who are blind or visually impaired for American citizens. Another participant noted that sharing materials has legal ramifications.
The group then discussed the quality of alternate format as a significant barrier. Tomassetti suggested a rating system—for example, to be accepted, a document must have at least a 75% accuracy rate. Another participant said the major issue is access to maps and graphs, such as tactile graphics. Another delegate added that although audiotape is no longer used very much, many readers are volunteers and the quality of the audio books produced is often low.

Technology presents another barrier. Sometimes there is no access to the needed technology, or the service provider or student is untrained in the use the technology. A student’s disability may also prevent him or her from accessing the technology.

Several delegates voiced frustration that these same issues have been lingering for so many years. For example, improvements such as online journals introduce additional barriers when they are not in accessible and sharable formats. However, other participants acknowledged that it is much easier now to obtain e-text from some major publishers; some even offer a choice between PDF and Microsoft Word format. One participant noted that of the students who have received e-text from a publisher, no complaints have been received so far as to inadequate quality or missing pages.

Returning to the topic of converting books that have graphs and tables into e-text, a delegate suggested a PDF Converter sold by the company ScanSoft. It converts PDF files into Word documents that look just like the original, including columns, tables, and graphics. Other participants mentioned other products, including a virtual printer from Abbey, products from Abbey Systems, and assistive technology products from Kurzweil that help with scanning and reading, Another barrier is the lack of trained people able to use these products and produce these materials, especially in the science and math fields.

The group then discussed who has the responsibility to provide the materials. There are human rights policies and legislation in place, but no enforcement. Filing a complaint to a publisher can take several years. As well, although it’s clear that colleges and universities have responsibility, it is not clear which entity is responsible within these institutions. Is it the bookstore, library, disability services office, or external agencies such as publishers?

Some say it’s the originator of the information who is responsible, i.e. the publisher. Others say that if a post-secondary institution chooses certain textbooks as part of its curriculum, it has a responsibility for making these books accessible. A delegate pointed out that a university is responsible for materials it owns, not those it doesn’t own, since copyright laws have jurisdiction over what a university can provide.

A significant and unfortunate barrier under Section 32 of the Copyright Act affects persons with perceptual disabilities. This section states that it is an infringement of copyright to make a large print book. This raises the question that the Copyright Act conflicts with human rights legislation. The Act also disallows reproducing cinematographic work.

A participant pointed out that there needs to be a way to catalogue and share information already converted and available in alternate formats, such as through the library systems. Sometimes only portions of books are available, and these should be catalogued as well. Moreover, equal access also means equal quality. The quality of e-files from publishers should match the quality of the original printed books. Yet how important the quality is also depends on the importance of the book in the course and the importance of the course to the student.

Finally, the group noted that publishers’ files are not always accessible. As well, many books are available but inaccessible because they are in the Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D) format, available to US citizens in different formats than those available in Canada.

Group Reports to Plenary; Summary of All 3 Groups

  • Barriers to achieving success include:
  • Publishers and professors who don’t plan ahead for accessibility
  • Administration’s late planning of schedules
  • Last-minute students
  • Frequent revised book editions
  • Materials coordination across Canada
  • Legal ramifications of productions
  • Limitations surrounding Course Packs
  • Students’ skills for technology
  • Lack of training on materials production
  • Lack of responsibility for materials production
  • Campus jurisdictional issues
  • Publishers’ files not always accessible
  • Lack of legislation to support access
  • Lack of standardized format across Canada
  • Lack of court challenges
  • Lack of integrated library systems across Canada
  • Lack of integrated standardized technologies to support access and format
  • Lack of collaboration with K-12 to prepare students for post-secondary education
  • Publisher fears regarding copyright infringement issues
  • American resources are not available to Canadians
  • Lack of training for faculty, administration, students, and disability service providers
  • Issues of funding as well as administrative prioritization
  • The need to wait for collaboration with adaptive software producers before launching software application development
  • Differences between national and provincial procedures and regulations
  • Lack of knowledge of alternate formats/bulletlist

Summary of Key Points

  • Training and attitude within and around the post-secondary environment
  • Timeliness, resources for production, retrofitting
  • Systemic barriers that students cannot control but are subject to and affected by, such as legislation.
  • Students having to produce their own materials and therefore losing critical study time
  • Identify goals/tasks that can be implemented in moving CADSPPE toward the Vision Statement

Notes from Breakout Group chaired by Vince Tomassetti

Vince Tomassetti invited the group to look at the previously identified barriers and determine the tasks required to overcome them, keeping in mind that change is inevitable and new technologies will always be appearing.

A delegate noted that CADSPPE really has no jurisdiction but perhaps can study existing systems and identify models of best practices to share with other post-secondary institutions, publishers, the federal government, provincial education ministries, etc. Perhaps standards for the production of materials can be identified.

Another delegate said that it is a matter of advocacy and sensitizing faculty to access and alternate formats issues. For example, to address faculty’s lack of knowledge, the models could be posed as “tips” for professors or information on how to create accessible websites and other information.

The next participant suggested providing additional training for professors on how to create WebCT etc. from scratch, without requiring them to redo existing work. CADSPPE should push existing standards and practices for creating accessible university websites and other information.

A delegate stressed the importance of coordination between NEADS and CADSPPE, and the merits of using existing channels.

Another participant suggested modeling UD after certain standards. Canada has a Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC); CADSPPE should try to get on the Council’s agenda. If the Ministers see as high priority the issue of equal access to web and electronic information for students with disabilities, they can influence policy within their own jurisdictions. Another channel might be the body of academic vice-presidents from universities across Ontario. A committee of Ontario disability service providers may request to do a presentation. There may be similar bodies in other provinces/territories. Beyond talking among this group, a participant recommended that CADSPPE tap into these decision-making processes and positions of power as a way to build clout.

A delegate said, “We should not start to disenfranchise.” CADSPPE should do both bottom-up and top-down work. Information does not flow up automatically.

Tomassetti agreed that it is a good strategy to lobby at higher levels, since adopting and agreeing on a standard must be a decision from these levels. The participant who suggested this strategy added that if the Ministers see the CADSPPE group as experts, they might ask it to create a standard that they will implement. This is what the group wants. The Ministers have the authority to make these decisions.

A participant noted that individual colleges and universities could coordinate their efforts and use their collective purchasing power to approach vendors to adopt standards. Tomassetti added that many government agencies would only buy from vendors that offer accessible products. These are different ways of enforcing standards.

Finally, the group expressed a strong interest in creating a website to share resources.

Identify strategies for achieving the goals previously identified, and identify who should be responsible.

Notes from Breakout Group chaired by Vince Tomassetti

A delegate reiterated that CADSPPE cannot impose responsibility on others, such as publishers or policy makers.

Another delegate said that he had collaborated with Neil Faba two years ago on a CADSPPE position paper on alternate format. It focused on broader materials than text. He suggested taking the issue back to a smaller working group and adopting it as a CADSPPE mission. It can then be promoted to groups such as the academic vice-presidents, the National Library Council, federal government ministries, etc.

A participant noted that bodies of responsibility vary from province to province. Some are more centralized than others. Tomassetti suggested that institutions as a whole are responsible, even if departments vary. Some provide very good disability services and many students go there for that reason. A delegate commented that they might end up with more students than they can handle.

Discussing further the idea of creating a smaller working group, the participants said that clear levels of communication and clear direction are needed, with a handful of people with strong interest and expertise in the issues. Such a group would need to define the strategy, take it forward to the Board, and then write the appropriate letters to get on the agenda of outside bodies.

The group also discussed who should be responsible when there are different partners producing alternate formats. Usually the publisher produces the original content material in house but hires outside for people and/or technology to create alternate formats. Due to economy of scale, it is common for publishers to outsource this work so that they do not need to hire permanent staff with specialized skills. This also allows more people to enter the market as producers of alternate format materials.

Another issue is that there should be legislation to pressure publishers to produce standards. However, there are several different existing standards. The issue of standardizing on specific formats must be resolved.

A participant said that a lot would change with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which stipulates that provincial standards committees will establish standards and that provincial authorities will enforce compliance. Publishers and institutions that do not comply can be fined.

The group also discussed copyright issues. The Copyright Act allows for conversion of print to alternate formats, but large print has been excluded.

A participant suggested lobbying bookstore managers as well as publishers. Another delegate said that CADSPPE should dedicate time and funding to hiring a professional lobbyist to lobby different bodies, as disability service providers themselves do not have time and resources to effectively do lobbying.

Group Reports to Plenary; Summary of All 3 Groups

  • Strategies to achieve success include:
  • Encourage CADSPPE members to embrace UD and infuse it on campus.
  • Encourage bookstores to only sell books that are available in alternate format.
  • Promote inclusive teaching practices and have faculty practice UD instructional principles.
  • Establish a resource sharing model. Discuss how to connect and share.
  • Promote institutional production standards to facilitate information sharing.
  • Promote SMIL standards. (SMIL stands for Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language. It is a mark-up language that facilitates the coordinating and synchronizing of multimedia on websites.)
  • Make it unacceptable to download responsibilities to students.
  • Develop a model of best practice.
  • Sensitize faculty to good teaching.
  • Coordinate the efforts of NEADS, CADSPPE, and CAER (Canadian Association of Educational Resources).
  • Approach federal ministries to promote issues.
  • Get information to flow up to people who can legislate and change standards.
  • Share resources on websites.
  • Have the group put collective pressure on vendors to standardize.
  • Promote the use of existing infrastructure, such as in library systems across Canada. CADSPPE should inform these institutions on the issues and help make these structures easier to use.
  • Lobby teaching centres to train faculty on technology, including UD and adaptive and learning technologies.
  • Promote inclusive teaching practices.
  • Educate departments and professors on accessibility and alternate format issues.

Key Summary Statements:

Making students produce their own alternate format materials is not acceptable. Students are there to learn and to engage in their learning environment, not to produce, although they should have a choice to produce their own materials if they so wish.

Develop universal standards for production across institutions so that materials produced in house can be registered, shared, and made accessible.

Use existing networks and services, such as national databases and library loans systems. They should be made more flexible and user-friendly.

Require publishers to provide an accessible e-file for all textbooks sold in post-secondary bookstores. (Materials and publishers outside Canada must be separately addressed.)

Expect CADSPPE members to shift to the paradigm of UD as their philosophical framework. Instead of accommodating one student at a time, this would make the environment accessible to all. Change the way accessibility is viewed on campus and the way faculty deal with courses. Create a procedure guide for national/universal use.

Offer training for faculty on inclusive teaching strategies to make the classroom accessible by all.

Identify Goals/Tasks that can be implemented in moving CADSPPE toward the vision statement.

Group Reports to Plennary: Summary of All 3 Groups

  • Provide workshops and training for CADSPPE members on UD. Build this into the five-year plan.
  • Require faculty to attend UD instruction workshops.
  • Teach existing campus structures, such as disciplinary/ombudsman offices that receive complaints, about UD and its promotion.
  • Produce an accessible books checklist to enable publishers, faculty, librarians, and bookstores to rate books before choosing, based on alternate format availability.
  • Distinguish between publishers’ responsibilities versus institutions’ responsibilities to produce alternate formats.
  • Lobby and collaborate with the federal government, provincial/territorial governments, NEADS and CAER, publishers, college/university administration and faculty, etc.
  • Request institutions to list students’ rights and responsibilities.
  • Create a national guide of resources and procedures for those who receive, catalogue, and produce academic information materials. This will facilitate and support their work in accessing, sharing, and producing alternate formats.
  • Produce a list of the rights and responsibilities of institutions.
  • Establish a smaller committee composed of members with strong interest to generate a list of strategies to present to the CADSPPE Board.
  • Pass legislation to require publishers to follow standards and use specific formats. (For example, promote SMIL. In theory an SMIL file can be converted into any other desired format.)
  • Dedicate funding to lobbying.
  • Publicize—for professors and others—the success stories and good initiatives at various institutions. Showcase adaptive/learning technologies in practice and establish a network of successful experiences and expertise.

Key Summary Statements:

  • Use the national library system and improve its usability for post-secondary. Specifically use AMICUS and CWIP (Canadian Works in Progress). All librarians need to be aware that many materials are already posted. They should check these systems before producing a book in alternate format. Also, if they are producing such a book, register with CWIP so that others know.
  • Develop a CADSPPE plan for action (five-year plan).
  • Establish a listserv to share transcription ideas, successes, and experiences across Canada. Ontario has a disability services coordinators listserv that can serve as a starting point.
  • Develop a national best practice guide. Ontario has such a guide.
  • Promote UD to CADSPPE members to change the approach to service delivery.
  • Showcase successes and initiatives.

Who is responsible?

  • CADSPPE Board
  • CAER
  • Individual students and disability service providers
  • Institutional administrators and faculty
  • Publishers
  • Legal environment
  • Federal government (e.g. Library and Archives Canada, also the Council on Access to Information for Print-Disabled Canadians plays a key role)

Recommendations and Next Steps

Key Recommendations for CADSPPE

  • Establish an action plan as part of a CADSPPE five-year plan.
  • Implement the actions.
  • Explore how UD can make a difference in the way disability service providers approach their jobs.
  • Focus on changes to the environment, not individual accommodations.
  • Establish a working group to guide the Board in further actions.

Next Steps

  • Circulate today’s proceedings to the group distribution list. Continue the momentum to share ideas and issues.
  • Provide NEADS with today’s proceedings for their Access to Academic Materials (ATAM) Project.
  • Embrace a systemic change and continue promoting universal access with the legal community, educational institutions, and all levels of government.

Closing Summary

The group discussed outstanding several issues. First, there are pros and cons to legal responsibility regarding standards. Each model has different issues, and each province has different disability acts. Perhaps just the platform should be legislated, not the output product. Also, legal requirements sometimes do not make sense, but in the end they may be required if voluntary compliance does not occur.

Second, funding is a major issue when discussing alternate formats. Funding for institutional as well as provincial and national resources is required to ensure access to the right academic materials at the right time for the right price.

Third, disability service offices across Canada have different delivery models. Despite the different models of service delivery, it is clear that institutional access to an accessible publisher’s file would assist all post-secondary disability service providers in ensuring full and equal access.

One suggestion is to have a national clearinghouse of standard publishers’ files so that all post-secondary institutions have easy access to the publisher’s file for all textbooks. The federal government is hoping to launch a pilot to test this model. The key is to have the alternate format with the accuracy and quality of the original. Publishers should be required to produce a format that meets the needs of all users.

A topic of this importance requires national and provincial action at many levels. If the enthusiasm captured in this group of 22 people can be maintained, CADSPPE will succeed in moving closer to providing academic materials to post-secondary students with print disabilities at the time in the right place in the right format at the right price.

In closing, Loewen noted that a great deal of commonality came from this meeting of representatives from five provinces and included disability service providers, librarians, and guests all who have an interest and a responsibility in working with the provision of materials in alternate formats. She thanked everyone for participating and assisting CADSPPE in moving forward in the struggle to ensure equal access for students with print disabilities.

Participants of the Focus Group

  • Elizabeth Walcot-Gayda Council on Access to Information for Print Disabled Canadians
  • Odette Raymond CEGEP du Vieux Montreal, QE
  • Karen Coffey Algonquin College, ON
  • Trisha Lucy Librarian, Library & Archives Canada
  • Ralph Manning Secretariat, Council on Access to Information for Print-Disabled Canadians, Library and Archives Canada
  • Laurie Keenan University of Victoria, BC
  • Leo Bissonnette Concordia University, QE
  • Maria-Teresa Zenteno Concordia University, QE
  • Kim Archer Concordia University, QE
  • Vince Tomassetti Assistive Technology-BC
  • Gladys Loewen Assistive Technology-BC
  • Jeff Kolesnikowicz Durham College, ON
  • Toni Connolly Algonquin College, ON
  • Carolyn Wiebe University of Manitoba
  • Ted Morrison Loyalist College, ON
  • Tim Nolan McMaster University, ON
  • Yolaine Ruel University of Ottawa , ON
  • Ryan Klomp University of Ottawa, ON
  • Halina de Maurivez University of Ottawa, ON
  • Mary Ann Epp College and Institute Library Services, Langara College, BC
  • Jean Jackson University of Alberta, AB
  • Laurie Alphonse National Educational Association of Disabled Students


CADSPPE Board of Directors wishes to thank the following:
  • The University of Ottawa for hosting this CADSPPE focus group
  • National Educational Association of Educational Students for providing transcription services to produce this document.

Facebook Twitter

Discover | Resources | Communities | Professional Development | Annual Conference