Who Teaches Accessibility?: A Survey of U.S. Computing Faculty
Abstract
Industry demand for software developers with knowledge of accessibility has increased substantially in recent years. However, there is little knowledge about the prevalence of higher education teaching about accessibility or faculty's perceived barriers to teaching accessibility. To address this gap, we surveyed 14,176 computing and information science faculty in the United States. We received a representative sample of at least one response from 318 of the 352 institutions we surveyed, totaling 1,857 responses. We found that 175 institutions (50%) had at least one instructor teaching accessibility and that no fewer than 2.5% of faculty overall teach accessibility. Faculty that teach accessibility are twice as likely to be female, to have expertise in HCI and software engineering, and to know people with disabilities. The most critical barriers to teaching accessibility that faculty reported were the absence of clear and discipline-specific accessibility learning objectives and the lack of faculty knowledge about accessibility. Faculty desired resources that were specific to the areas of computing in which they teach rather than general accessibility resources and guidelines.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Accessibility is still underrepresented in many curricula, and even when it is addressed, it is rarely taught in an applied, example-based way.
“Accessibility is still underrepresented in many curricula, and even when it is addressed, it is rarely taught in an applied, example-based way [17, 38, 40, 42, 48, 52, 56].”
From Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (2025) · cites this paper as [48]
Accessibility is often underrepresented in design education.
“Regarding students' prior knowledge, our findings support research showing that accessibility is often underrepresented in design education [17, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 52, 56].”
From Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (2025) · cites this paper as [48]
Accessibility instruction has been a growing focus of SIGCSE, highlighted by recent systematic reviews of accessibility topics in CS instruction.
“accessibility instruction has been a growing focus of SIGCSE, highlighted by recent systematic reviews of accessibility topics in CS instruction [4, 45]”
From Where are the Disabled Students?: A Literature Review of Disability Inclusion in Computing Education Research (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
Of these 23 papers, 18 (78%) focused on student-facing interventions, three offered guidance or curricular frameworks for faculty in computing, and two were systematic reviews that synthesized broader accessibility pedagogical trends in computing.
“Of these 23 papers, 18 (78%) focused on student-facing interventions, three offered guidance or curricular frameworks for faculty in computing, and two were systematic reviews that synthesized broader accessibility pedagogical trends in computing [4, 45].”
From Where are the Disabled Students?: A Literature Review of Disability Inclusion in Computing Education Research (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
Documented assignment-level pathways and program-level skill alignment exist to support curricular embedding.
“documented assignment-level pathways and program-level skill alignment exist to support it [4, 6, 10, 19, 21, 30, 31, 35].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
The results primarily speak to learner knowledge and collaborative practice, not downstream institutional or platform change.
“Our results primarily speak to the first step of this pathway, learner knowledge and collaborative practice, rather than downstream institutional or platform change; accordingly, we frame curriculum embedding as a necessary but not sufficient condition, to be complemented by policy, resourcing, and platform-level constraints [4, 10, 16, 19, 21, 30, 37].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Curriculum embedding is a necessary but not sufficient condition, to be complemented by policy, resourcing, and platform-level constraints.
“Our results primarily speak to the first step of this pathway, learner knowledge and collaborative practice, rather than downstream institutional or platform change; accordingly, we frame curriculum embedding as a necessary but not sufficient condition, to be complemented by policy, resourcing, and platform-level constraints [4, 10, 16, 19, 21, 30, 37].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Embedding these practices across the curriculum mitigates one-off participation and intermittent access to lived experience, supports recruiting more than one peer contributor per cohort, builds predictable reflection and feedback routines, and aligns skills with industry expectations for accessibility.
“Embedding these practices across the curriculum (rather than siloed in electives) mitigates one-off participation and intermittent access to lived experience, supports recruiting more than one peer contributor per cohort, builds predictable reflection and feedback routines, and aligns skills with industry expectations for accessibility [10, 21, 30].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 127
- Authors
- Shinohara, K., Kawas, S., Ko, A. J., & Ladner, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-02-21
- Pages
- 197-202
- OpenAlex
- W2793108745
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 13.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- NSF (1539179, 1314399, 1240786, 1153625)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- web accessibility, accessibility education, university faculty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
