This session introduces AIM-HE, a modality-flexible accessibility implementation model organized around three recurring phases and six actions: Assess, Align, Imagine, Implement, Monitor, and Maintain. Attendees will examine how AIM-HE supports accessible course design, faculty development, digital learning, and quality assurance across online, hybrid, HyFlex, and face-to-face environments.

Accessibility in higher education is often treated as either a technical compliance issue or a reactive accommodation process. In practice, accessibility implementation is more complex. It requires alignment across course design, digital content, faculty practice, institutional support, technology systems, and continuous quality improvement. As institutions expand online, hybrid, HyFlex, and technology-supported face-to-face learning, accessibility must become a recurring design and quality process rather than a last-minute remediation task.

This session presents AIM-HE, the Accessibility Implementation Model for Higher Education, a modality-flexible conceptual model developed through an integrative review of literature focused on accessibility implementation in higher education. The model addresses a practical gap in the field: higher education has strong guidance on Universal Design for Learning, digital accessibility standards, and inclusive course design, but institutions still need implementation frameworks to help educators and support units translate those ideas into coordinated, sustainable practice.

AIM-HE organizes accessibility implementation into three recurring phases with six implementation actions. The first phase, Assess and Align, includes Assess and Align. Assess asks educators and support units to review current materials, technologies, course structures, and practices to identify barriers, gaps, risks, and readiness. Align focuses on establishing shared accessibility expectations, clarifying roles, and connecting the work to policy, legal responsibilities, and student success goals. The second phase, Imagine and Implement, includes Imagine and Implement. Imagine emphasizes planning inclusive learning experiences by envisioning accessible pathways, content formats, participation options, and assessments before course materials and activities are finalized. Implement focuses on creating or revising accessible content, media, LMS pages, documents, assignments, and course assets. The third phase, Monitor and Maintain, includes Monitor and Maintain. Monitor involves checking accessibility and usability through review, testing, feedback, and targeted remediation. Maintain focuses on sustaining accessibility through governance, procurement, professional development, course review, documentation, and continuous improvement. Together, these actions frame accessibility as a recurring cycle rather than a linear checklist.

The topic is relevant to the OLC community because accessibility remains central to online and digital learning quality. This session aligns directly with the Professional Development, Quality Assurance, and Support track by connecting accessibility implementation to faculty development, instructional design support, course review processes, technology adoption, procurement decisions, and institutional quality systems. Rather than treating accessibility as the responsibility of one office or one individual instructor, AIM-HE frames accessibility as shared work that must be assessed, aligned, imagined, implemented, monitored, and maintained across roles.

The session will be interactive rather than purely lecture-driven. After a brief framing of the accessibility implementation challenge and a concise overview of the integrative review process, attendees will work with a guided AIM-HE mapping prompt. Participants will identify one accessibility challenge from their own context, determine which AIM-HE action the challenge appears to fit, and then consider whether the visible barrier points to a deeper implementation gap. For example, inaccessible PDFs in a legacy LMS course shell may first appear to be an implementation problem, but discussion may reveal an alignment or Maintenance gap if accessibility expectations, review processes, faculty support, or maintenance routines were never clearly established.

Attendees will then participate in a short pair or small-group discussion to compare how accessibility work is currently distributed across faculty, instructional design, disability support, educational technology, quality assurance, procurement, and leadership roles. The discussion will use three guiding questions: Which AIM-HE action is strongest in your current setting? Where does accessibility implementation most often break down? What support structure would help the work become more consistent? A whole-group debrief will surface patterns and allow participants to test the model's usefulness across different institutional contexts.

The practical application segment will ask attendees to map one institutional or course-level challenge to the AIM-HE framework and identify one next action. For instance, a program that wants to add accessibility checks to its course review process may discover that it needs shared review criteria, faculty training, clear ownership, guidance on technology procurement, and a plan for ongoing updates. This activity helps attendees move beyond isolated barrier-fixing and toward a more systemic view of accessibility implementation.

Attendees will leave with three concrete outcomes. First, they will be able to describe accessibility implementation as a recurring process organized through Assess and Align, Imagine and Implement, and Monitor and Maintain. Second, they will be able to identify how accessibility responsibilities and risks shift across online, hybrid, HyFlex, and face-to-face learning environments. Third, they will be able to apply AIM-HE to at least one course-level, program-level, or institutional challenge related to faculty development, course review, digital content, accessibility support, technology use, or quality assurance.

This session is especially relevant for instructional designers, faculty developers, accessibility coordinators, disability services professionals, online learning leaders, quality assurance staff, educational technology professionals, and faculty members involved in course design or course quality processes. By combining research grounding with practical application and audience interaction, the session offers both conceptual value and immediately usable strategies for participants working across higher education settings.

Dr. Eunice Ofori

Associate Director for Instructional Design at Tulane University

Eunice Ofori holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on Instructional Design and Technology from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Eunice serves the Associate Director for Instructional Design at the Center for Engaged Learning and Teaching (CELT). She also serves as the Program Coordinator and faculty for the Master’s in Education program (Special Education Specialty) with the Teacher Preparations and Certification program at the School of Professional Advancement, Tulane University. She is an active member in the design of effective instruction in varied course modalities and provides advanced course development assistance across Tulane’s campuses. Eunice is passionate about providing equal access to education for ALL by engaging, nurturing, and supporting academic communities to develop and teach innovative research-based teaching and learning experiences using sound pedagogical strategies and instructional technology. Outside of work, you can usually find her writing, hanging out with her family, cooking, and connecting with friends.