ERIC EJ1164001: Universal Design and Disability: Assessing Faculty Beliefs, Knowledge, and Confidence in Universal Design for Instruction

2017·0.4 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3), 223-236 223
Universal Design and Disability:
Assessing Faculty Beliefs, Knowledge, and
Confidence in Universal Design for Instruction
Joseph K. Hartsoe1
Susan R. Barclay1
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate faculty belief, knowledge, and confidence in the principles of Uni-
versal Design for Instruction (UDI). Results yielded statistically significant correlations between participant’s
belief and knowledge of the principles of UDI. Furthermore, findings yielded statistically significant differ-
ences between faculty rank and the belief in the principles of UDI. Participants who identified as Professors
showed a strong belief in the principle of Course Modification whereas Assistant Professors showed lesser
belief in the same principle. Finally, all of the response means showed a statistical significance when compared
to population parameters from previous research.
Keywords: Universal Design for Instruction, disability, pedagogy
Students with disabilities are attending universi- does not necessarily meet the needs of a diverse and
ties at a greater rate than ever before, with an estimat- growing population of students who might not learn
ed 11% of the college population being comprised of in “traditional” methods (e.g., oral lecture; Burg-
individuals with disabilities (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). stahler, 2007; Cook et al., 2009; Gradel & Edson,
The data, which was collected in 2011-2012, suggests 2010; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Lombardi et
that with this significant enrollment, higher education al., 2013; McGuire & Scott, 2006; Pliner & John-
has struggled to meet the needs of such a growing son, 2004; Shaw, 2011; Skinner, 2007; Zeff, 2007).
population whose diverse needs do not always mir- Higher education has changed over the course
ror the needs of their peers without disabilities (Ban- of history, and students with disabilities have gained
field-Hardaway, 2010; Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin, a higher level of access to postsecondary education
2014; Pliner & Johnson, 2004). Due to the different through laws that recognize their rights (Dallas &
needs of students with disabilities, professionals with- Sprong, 2015). In a growing movement, disabili-
in higher education might struggle to integrate these ty advocates have called for truly equitable access
students successfully. Often, students with disabilities and total immersion in higher education for students
report feeling unsupported and underserved (Burg- with disabilities (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lom-
stahler, 2009; McGuire, 2014). bardi et al., 2013).
One of the best examples of how higher edu- Disability services has played an increasingly
cation has struggled to meet the needs of students significant part in the implementation of Universal
with disabilities in the college environment is the Design (UD) in postsecondary education (Gradel &
method of instruction faculty provide to their stu- Edson, 2009; Mole, 2012). Accommodations made
dents (Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin, 2015; Burg- on campus have not necessarily met the needs of stu-
stahler, 2007; Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009; dents with disabilities, and some argue that the time
Izzo, Murray, & Novak, 2008; Lombardi, Murray, has come to move beyond providing minimal legal re-
& Dallas, 2013). Many in the disability communi- quirements (Black, et al. , 2015; Mole, 2012). Instead,
ty argue that the pedagogical model used in higher disability services professionals have started to call
education perpetuates a learning environment that for a new way of making higher education accessible
1 University of Central Arkansas
224 Hartsoe & Barclay; Universal Design and Disability
to students through alterations to pedagogy (Gradel & array of students, including those of various ability
Edson, 2009; McGuire, 2014; Mole, 2012). levels (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lombardi et al.,
Universal Design originated as an architectur- 2013; McGuire, 2014). According to Scott, McGuire,
al concept focused specifically on making physical and Shaw (2003), those principles include:
structures accessible to individuals with disabilities
(Dallas & Sprong, 2015; McGuire, 2014; Zeff, 2007). 1. Equitable use—making classroom material
In the 1970s, Michael Bednar gave birth to the idea accessible to diverse learning needs and style.
that physical structures should be accessible to a di- 2. Flexibility in use—the practice of using a va-
verse population. A prime example of such architec- riety of instructional methods.
tural design is a sloped ramp leading to a building 3. Simple and intuitive use—teaching in a
wherein individuals using wheel chairs can access the straightforward and predictable manner.
door where stairs are also present. Access occurs not 4. Perceptible information—ensuring that course
only for the individual with a disability but also for material is accessible to students regardless of
someone pushing a cart full of items into the same their sensory abilities.
building using the same ramp. 5. Tolerance for error—building diversity of
With the original intent of UD being that a phys- learning pace and prerequisite skills into
ical structure should be accessible to anyone wish- course process.
ing to enter, much of the same intent lies behind the 6. Low physical effort—designing instruction to
implementation of Universal Design for Instruction minimize physical effort so that students can
(UDI) in higher education (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, attend to essential learning.
2003; McGuire, 2014). The intent behind UDI is to 7. Size and space for approach and use—instruc-
provide access for all students approaching course tion is designed with consideration for appro-
content, ideas, and themes, regardless of their various priate size and space for approach, reach, ma-
life experiences and backgrounds. nipulations, and use regardless of a student’s
Universal Design in the educational setting has body size, posture, mobility, and communica-
taken many forms (Edyburn, 2010; Rao, Ok, & Bry- tion needs.
ant, 2014). Frameworks include Universal Design for 8. A community of learners—the instructional
Learning (UDL) (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & environment promotes interaction and com-
Abarbanell, 2006), Universal Design for Assessment munication among students and between stu-
(UDA) (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002), dents and faculty.
and Universal Design for Instruction (McGuire & 9. Instructional climate—instruction is designed
Scott, 2006). All structures share characteristics that to be welcoming and inclusive. High expecta-
seek to enhance the pedagogical approach instructors tions are espoused for all students.
take to facilitate learning with the students they teach
(Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011; Lombardi et al., These principles are paramount for institutions of
2013; Shaw, 2011). Universal Design for Instruction higher education to move forward with a pedagogical
(UDI) is a framework that supports use of various in- model that meets the needs of students with a diverse
structional methods that serve to reach the greatest array of ability levels (Black, et al., 2014; Black et
number of students and learning styles (Rao, et al., al., 2015; Block, et al., 2006; Lombardi & Murray,
2014; Block, Loewen, & Kroeger, 2006). Use of UDI 2011). Without the principles of UDI, proponents
allows students of all abilities to have a more holistic could argue that pedagogical efforts in postsecondary
learning experience, produces greater outcomes, and education might become stagnant in a time that an
possibly decreases issues with persisting to gradua- increasingly diverse population of students is coming
tion (Block et al. , 2006; Izzo et al., 2008; McGuire & to college campuses. Furthermore, the use of the UDI
Scott, 2006). We elected to utilize the UDI framework principles engages all students in a more efficient way
because the first author has specific training in and because not all students learn and process presented
has worked in several disability resource centers that information in the same way (Black et al. , 2014; Plin-
utilized this framework. The concept of UDI in post- er & Johnson, 2004).
secondary education is to use nine basic principles UDI is an update to the pedagogy of postsecond-
that help make academia accessible to a much wider ary education long awaited by students, particularly
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3) 225
those with disabilities (Black et al. , 2015). One of Cook, 2011). Robinson and Hope (2013) argued that
the most significant reasons for the update to pedago- pedagogical training should begin in graduate degree
gy is that the shift in teaching methods will not only programs, and with a mean of 74.40, most participants
help students with disabilities, but serve a generation (n=200) agreed. Such research and education could
of college students better who learn and process in- serve to change the perspective and resulting attitudes
formation in a fundamentally different way from their of faculty concerning implementation of UDI.
peers and past generations of college students (Black, In their research, Lombardi and Murray (2011)
et al., 2014; Scott, Loewen & Funckes, 2003). researched central factors that highlighted three over-
Recognizing that UDI in higher education takes arching categories that determine a faculty member’s
an extensive amount of work and does not happen attitude, willingness to implement UDI in the class-
overnight is important (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; room, and disability that provides insight into how
Lombardi et al., 2013). To many, UDI is a way to faculty members might treat students with disabilities
navigate and move forward in higher education with in their class. Results yielded that faculty members in
the goal of including the greatest number of students the area of education (n=289) reported a more positive
with a greater number of varying cultures, learning attitude toward accommodating students with disabil-
styles, experiences, and ability levels. We argue more ities and an awareness of disability law. Results from
research and attention must be paid to the concept of a later study by Lombardi et al. (2013) were similar
UDI if institutions of higher education are ever to in that faculty participants (n=612) had positive at-
be truly accessible (Black et al. , 2015; Gradel & titudes toward accommodating students through var-
Edson, 2010; Scott et al., 2003; Stodden, Brown, & ious practices; however, faculty attitudes correlated
Roberts, 2011). directly with the level of training faculty had received
prior to the study.
Literature Flores and Rodriguez (2006) argued that since
One of the most critical components to implement- the passage of landmark Affirmative Action legisla-
ing UDI might be faculty attitudes toward a shift to tion, the acceptance of diversity on college campuses
UDI. LaRocco and Wilken (2013) discovered that fac- has increased. The increase in acceptance could be, in
ulty members (n=46) know the struggles students with part, due to faculty member’s realization that students
disabilities face in the postsecondary environment, but of diverse populations, including students with dis-
that faculty were focused more on how pedagogical abilities, can be successful, or perhaps such increase
changes would affect them personally (i.e., require- in acceptance could be simply because individuals in
ments concerning effort, time commitment, and skill higher education recognize that, regardless of their
development). Furthermore, LaRocco and Wilken’s re- personal opinions, trends in the education of college
search indicated that 46% of faculty surveyed indicat- students are changing (Scott et al., 2003). Regardless
ed they have an understanding of the basic principles of whether faculty are more accepting of diversity in
of UDI but were not implementing those principles in higher education, there is still a strong possibility that
their pedagogy or classroom. Gawronski (2014) had inequality in the attitudes and expectations of faculty
similar results in that almost 44% of his faculty par- towards individuals with disabilities exists and fur-
ticipants (n=179) believed inclusive instruction was ther presents a significant barrier that students within
important; yet, they either never or only sometimes im- this population must navigate to make it to graduation
plemented UCI practices in the classroom. Unlike La- (Black et al. , 2014; Flores & Rodriguez, 2006).
Rocco and Wilken's findings, Gawronski attributed this Exploring the correlation between a faculty mem-
discrepancy to a possible lack of knowledge or skills ber's use of UDI and their attitudes toward disabili-
for implementing such practices. ty is important. Pliner and Johnson (2004) explained
Although orientation of the principles of UDI is that a major challenge in changing the pedagogy to
important, more research and further efforts to imple- an UDI-friendly environment is the strong desire of
ment UDI education into faculty training is needed to faculty to maintain a long-standing status quo. Knoll
create a truly student-centered learning environment (2009) and Banfield-Hardaway (2010) attributed part
(Higbee, 2009; Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Pliner of the challenge of changing pedagogy in higher ed-
& Johnson, 2004; Scott et al., 2003; Stodden et al., ucation to the dominance of a particular culture in
2011, Black et al. , 2014; Roberts, Park, Brown, & higher education. Historically, such a culture has not
226 Hartsoe & Barclay; Universal Design and Disability
included individuals with disabilities or teaching in students' learning. The ability to comment and leave
a method that seeks to meet the learning needs of a comments on the video site or platform allows for real
broad range of students from various life experiences time feedback and promotes a community of learners.
or backgrounds (Banfield-Hardaway, 2010; Higbee, Vega and Tayler (2005) contended that the facul-
2009; Pliner & Johnson, 2004; Shaw, 2011; Vega & ty member’s role has shifted from solely transmitting
Tayler 2005). information to acting in the capacity of a facilitator.
Vega and Tayler (2005) discussed part of the chal- In this role, faculty members are not necessarily re-
lenge in changing the understanding of pedagogy in sponsible for ensuring a student learns the material,
higher education as being the way that faculty are so much as faculty are responsible for assisting the
trained and the pedagogical method that has been im- student with interpreting the information. Advocates
plemented, historically, in higher education. Although of UDI call for a redefinition of pedagogy that takes
faculty members are well trained to be experts in their the focus of education away from the information that
fields of study, traditionally, the classroom has been the faculty member transmits and places the focus on
a place where the faculty merely transmit knowl- the way students learn and the experiences they have
edge (Ertmer, 2005; Higbee 2009; Pliner & Johnson, in the classroom (Gradel & Edson, 2010; King-Sears,
2004; Shaw, 2011; Vega & Tayler, 2005). Rose et al. 2009; McGuire & Scott, 2006; McWilliam & Daw-
(2006) proclaimed, “Typical courses in universities son, 2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2004; Scott et al. , 2003;
are dominated by two types of media: lectures and Shaw 2011; Vega & Tayler, 2005; Zeff, 2007). Pliner
textbooks” (p. 140). The question then becomes: Are and Johnson (2004) explained, “UDI engages faculty
these methods effective in teaching students from in thinking more broadly about the following: what
various backgrounds and varying learning styles? For they teach; why they teach it; and, why and how they
students with learning disabilities or for students with assess student learning” (p. 107). Edyburn (2010)
disabilities that affect gross and/or fine motor skills, and Orr and Hammig (2009) argued that using UDI in
the answer is: most likely not. creating curriculum is of importance for individuals
Friel et al. (2009) and Vega and Tayler (2005) ar- with disabilities because changing the pedagogy to
gued that in a 21st century digital age, students should reach more students could lead to the day where ac-
have access to the information faculty teach. Accord- ademic accommodations afforded under federal law
ing to King-Sears (2009), Kinney and Kinney (2008), are no longer needed.
and Vega and Tayler (2005), the role of faculty, who The purpose of our study was to analyze the po-
served previously as the only means of information tential relationship between faculty members' knowl-
dissemination to students, is no longer necessarily edge, confidence, and beliefs in the principles of UDI.
true given technological development and extensive Specifically, we wanted to know whether faculty
use of technology of the current generation. As King- were knowledgeable of UDI principles, their belief
Sears noted, students have access to a myriad of in- in the implementation of UDI principles, and their
formation given the scope of the worldwide internet. confidence level in exercising such implementation.
Such advances in technology include the use of on- An additional purpose was to discover whether cer-
line platforms utilized by most postsecondary insti- tain demographic factors (i.e., faculty rank; biological
tutions wherein faculty have the ability to share dig- sex) had any influence on faculty members' beliefs,
ital content, such as lecture notes or digital copies of knowledge, or confidence in the principles of UDI.
readings with students. The dissemination of course We modeled our study after several prior studies, all
material in digital format gives students the flexibility with a similar premise.
to access information wherever they have access to In their study, LaRocco and Wilken (2013) sought
the internet. to assess the correlation between the level of concern
Outside of institution-controlled technology, the faculty had regarding teaching students with disabil-
advent of technological tools, such as YouTube or Vi- ities adequately and their use of UDI. These authors
meo, has provided faculty the opportunity to present used the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
ideas and concepts in multimodal approaches to facil- which, “focuses on describing, measuring, and ex-
itate learning. Providing captioned videos that cover plaining the experiences of those attempting to im-
course content, demonstrate concepts, and represent plement an innovation” to collect data (p. 2). This
ideas visually implements additional ways of aiding measurement scale comprised a portion of the survey
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3) 227
instrument and established a faculty member’s ini- To guide the current study, we focused on four hy-
tial level of interest in implementing change within potheses:
their course and overall curriculum to serve the edu-
cational needs of students with disabilities better. La- H1: There is no statistically significant relationship
Rocco and Wilken assessed and compared the faculty between the faculty members’ scores of the Beliefs,
member’s level of reported concern for students with Knowledge, and Confidence subscales concerning
disabilities to their use of UDI principles in creating Universal Design for Instruction practices.
curriculum for courses they taught. The current study H2: There are no significant differences between
complements the latter part of LaRocco and Wilken’s reported mean responses (population parameters)
survey instrument by assessing faculty belief of the and the responses of study participants on the Be-
principles of UDI. Results from LaRocco and Wilk- liefs, Knowledge, and Confidence subscales con-
en's study showed that faculty members were most cerning Universal Design for Instruction practices.
concerned with how implementing the updates to the H3: There are no statistically significant differences
curricula would affect them and how those updates between faculty scores on the Beliefs, Knowledge,
would affect their amount of work. and Confidence subscales of Universal Design for
In a similar study, Lombardi and Murray (2011) Instruction practices based on faculty rank.
focused on measuring faculty willingness to accom- H4: There are no statistically significant differences
modate students with disabilities and adopt principles between faculty scores on the Beliefs, Knowledge,
of Universal Design (UD) in building their courses. and Confidence subscales of Universal Design for
Lombardi and Murray utilized the Expanding Cultur- Instruction practices based on biological sex.
al Awareness of Exceptional Learners (ExCEL) sur-
vey, a precursor to the ITSI. The ExCEL was divid- Methodology
ed into three sections: (a) demographic information,
(b) questions about prior disability-focused training, Population
and (c) questions pertaining to the perception of dis- The population for this study comprised faculty
ability. The findings from Lombardi and Murray’s and instructors at a mid-sized, mid-south public uni-
study indicated that female faculty were more like- versity. A participation invitation was distributed to all
ly than male faculty to accommodate students with faculty members employed at the institution (N=653),
disabilities. Also, tenure-track faculty appeared to be of which 85 agreed to participate (13% response rate).
less accommodating and less willing to implement Sixty (71%) participants completed the survey leav-
principles of UDI in their courses than their non-ten- ing 25 (29%) who did not finish the survey. Of the
ure-track faculty peers were. Later, and utilizing the remaining 60 faculty members, 25 (41.7%) had ten-
newly revised ITSI, Lombardi et al. (2013) produced ure status, 12 (20%) were working toward tenure, and
research that indicated females with prior disability 23 (38.3%) were non-tenure track. Thirty-six (60%)
training had more positive attitudes than males in were female, and 23 (38.3%) were male. One partici-
the subscales of accommodations, disability law and pant (1.6%) did not indicate biological sex.
concepts, inclusive lecture strategies, and inclusive
classroom, whereas males with prior disability train- Instrumentation
ing showed more positive attitudes in the subscales of Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory ([ITSI];
accessible course materials, inclusive assessment, and Lombardi et al., 2013). The Inclusive Teaching Strat-
course modifications. Finally, results from a study by egies Inventory (ITSI) survey consists of 41 questions
Gawronski (2014) yielded findings that indicated age grouped into eight constructs under three domains:
and ethnicity made a difference in faculty attitudes; Beliefs–(a) Inclusive Classroom Strategies, (b) In-
however, results based on teaching status (i.e., full- clusive Lecture Strategies, (c) Accommodations, (d)
time or part-time) indicated no significant differences Course Modifications, (e) Inclusive Assessment, and
between the two statuses. Gawronski did not report (f) Accessible Course Materials; Confidence–(g) Dis-
findings based on biological sex (i.e., male/female). ability Law; and Knowledge–(h) Campus Resources
(Lombardi et al., 2013). Questions in the ITSI survey
solicit responses related to a faculty member’s belief,
knowledge, and confidence in the principles of UDI.
228 Hartsoe & Barclay; Universal Design and Disability
Lombardi and Murray (2011) conducted a field series of one-sample t-tests to compare the mean sub-
test of the ITSI’s predecessor, the Expanding Cultural scale responses to the published population parame-
awareness of Exceptional Learners (ExCEL) survey, ters. Finally, we applied the ANOVA procedures to the
to evaluate for validity and reliability. Setting the crite- demographic grouping variables and the sub-scales to
rion at a minimum of 0.70 for adequate reliability and analyze for differences among the identified group.
a minimum of .80 for preferable reliability, Lombardi
and Murray determined that the internal coefficient Results
alphas ranged from 0.60 to 0.85 across the factors;
the overall alpha coefficient was 0.88. In addition to a The first action completed to test our hypothe-
demographic section (e.g., gender, faculty rank, age), ses was to develop descriptive statistics for each of
the ExCEL contained sections regarding prior disabil- the scales and demographic metrics. The instrument
ity-focused training experience and faculty attitudes scales are reported as average item responses for each
and perceptions of disability. Lombardi and Murray scale. Frequencies are reported for the specific demo-
developed the faculty attitudes and perceptions sec- graphics of professor rank and participant sex.
tion based on Murray, Wren, and Keys' (2008) survey Next, we wanted to test the hypothesis that there
regarding faculty perceptions of students with learn- would be no statistically significant relationship be-
ing disabilities. In addition, Lombardi and Murray tween participant scores on the subscales of the three
derived items from literature related to Universal De- major ITSI scales (i.e., Beliefs, Knowledge, and Con-
sign for Learning (Rose, et al., 2006) and Universal fidence). Correlations ranged from r = .260 for the
Design for Instruction (Scott, et al., 2003). relationship between the belief in Accessible Course
Lombardi, et al. (2011) amended the name of the Content and belief in Accommodations to r = .542 for
ExCEL to ITSI during their research. This change the belief in Accessible Materials and the belief in In-
came after both rigorous development of the instru- clusive Classroom Strategies. Alternately, topics such
ment and multiple validation studies, including Lom- as Campus Resources, which is a subscale a partic-
bardi and Murray (2011). Results from a study by ipant’s knowledge of UDI, showed little correlation
Lombardi and Sala-Bars (2013) confirmed structure with other topics. Table 1 highlights the correlations
of the ITSI used in Lombardi et al.'s (2011) study, between the subscales.
which contained seven factors. The next hypothesis involved comparing scale
results to the original results reported by Lombardi
Data Analysis and SalaBars (2013). We used one-sample t tests to
We were interested in determining whether there compare the means to the reported parameters (Ta-
was a statistically significant correlation between a ble 2). The results indicated the subscale means were
participant’s beliefs, knowledge, and confidence in significantly different from the reported statistics of
the various principles of UDI. In addition, we were the instrument.
interested in potential differences between the sub- To test the next hypothesis, we compared scaled
scales of faculty participant belief, knowledge, and scores across various faculty ranks (Table 3). Due to
confidence in UDI and their reported professorial low frequency in two categories (visiting instructors
rank and biological sex. and adjunct professors), we combined those categories
To find the score scale for the beliefs, confidence, into a new category (Visiting/Adjunct) to represent
and knowledge questions of the ITSI survey, we more equalized group sizes. With this adjustment,
computed the scale scores first. The Belief scale con- the Levene’s test indicated that all variances were
sisted of the subscales, Accommodations, Accessible equal across the groups, specifying that the ANOVA
Course Materials, Course Modifications, Inclusive statistic was sound. The results of these comparisons
Lecture Strategies, and Inclusive Assessment. The indicated significant differences between both full
Confidence scale consisted of the Campus Resourc- professors and associate professors and associate pro-
es subscale. After computing the scale score for each fessors and Visiting/Adjunct instructors on the sub-
area pertaining to UDI, we calculated the means for scale of Course Modification. Associate professors (x̅
each subscale. =1.63) tended to rank lower than both full professors
The Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- (x̅=2.92) and Visiting/Adjunct instructors (x̅=2.89) on
cient (Pearson r) was used to study relationships be- that subscale.
tween the subscales of the survey. Next, we applied a
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3) 229
Finally, t-tests were utilized in the last hypothesis UDI is such a relatively new concept, experienced
by comparing scaled scores by participant sex (Table faculty might not have had much exposure to its con-
4). The results indicated females scored higher than cepts. This writing led us to believe that there was
males in three specific subscales: Inclusive Lecture going to be a difference between experienced faculty
(x=4.41 vs. x̅=4.04), Inclusive Classroom (x̅=4.31 (e.g., Professor) and faculty with less experience (e.g.,
vs. x̅=3.78), and Inclusive Assessment (x̅=3.58 vs. Visiting/Adjunct instructors or Assistant Professors).
x̅=3.11). Also, given King-Sears’ (2009) observation about the
Overall, the results from this study supported the use of technology to facilitate several of the principles
hypotheses partially by indicating there are signif- of UDI, we assumed, incorrectly, that experienced
icant differences on several scales when comparing faculty might not have exposure to technology. The
our sample to the reported population statistics. In assumption was that they might be more comfortable
addition, faculty rank comparisons resulted in sig- using low-tech strategies (e.g., lectures) to teach. The
nificant differences between both full professors and results of the present study suggest that, although
associate professors and associate professors and there is significance between the faculty ranks in one
Visiting/Adjunct instructors in one subscale. Associ- subscale (i.e., course modification), results indicated
ate professors scored lower in making modifications that associate professors were less likely than profes-
to course content for diverse learners than did both sors or Visiting/Adjunct instructors in making modi-
full professors and Visiting/Adjunct instructors. In fications to their courses to accommodate all learners.
addition, participant sex comparison indicated that A plausible explanation could be what Tunguz (2016)
females scored higher in the three scales related to called the investment of “emotional labor” between
inclusive strategies. faculty of various tenure statuses. Although not con-
nected directly nor guaranteed by most universities
Discussion necessarily, gaining both tenure and a promotion
from assistant professor to associate professor occurs
The purpose of this study was to analyze the poten- concurrently usually. Tunguz noted that male tenured
tial relationship between a faculty member’s beliefs, faculty were less likely to invest emotional labor in
knowledge, and confidence of UDI. An additional their students than male non-tenured faculty. Tunguz
purpose was to discover whether certain demographic noticed insignificant differences in female faculty.
factors (i.e., faculty rank and biological sex) had any More research is necessary to understand whether the
influence on a faculty member’s beliefs, knowledge, results of both our and Tunguz’s studies indicate sig-
or confidence in the principles of UDI. nificance or trend.
Numerous correlations from the data between Be- The results in our study, when analyzed based on
liefs (Accommodations, Accessible Course Materials, biological sex, are similar to those of Lombardi, et
Course Modifications, Inclusive Lecture Strategies, al. (2013), whose study suggested that women, over-
Inclusive Classroom, and Inclusive Assessment), all, had greater belief, confidence, and knowledge of
Knowledge (Campus Resources), and Confidence the principles of UDI compared to their male coun-
(Disability Law) showed significance at both the terparts. The results of Lombardi, et al.’s study in-
p=0.05 level and the p=0.01 level (Table 1). The num- dicated women were more likely to engage in both
ber of positive correlations is important because the inclusive classroom and inclusive lecture practices,
results support the belief of several researchers that but that men were more likely to engage in inclusive
UDI is gaining momentum as a viable pedagogical assessment practices. The results of our study sup-
approach (Higbee, 2009; LaRocco & Wilken, 2013; ported those findings partially. The results indicated
Lombardi et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2003; Tincani, women were more likely than men to engage in all
2004). The positive correlations found in this study three inclusive practices. From a stereotypical stand-
among the various subscales suggest that faculty point, one explanation could be that women are more
could be signaling their awareness of the needs of stu- sensitive to the needs of those around them; however,
dents and, therefore, might be more willing to consid- this explanation lacks support. Unfortunately, there
er implementing a new pedagogy that makes material appeared to be a dearth of research to offer a plausible
more readily accessible (Higbee, 2009; Shaw 2011). explanation of the differences found between the male
Pliner and Johnson (2004) suggested that because and female participants.
230 Hartsoe & Barclay; Universal Design and Disability
Of the subscales, Accessible Course Materials the university or in the region in which the university
had the most correlation with the other subscales. is located could have created a limited exposure of
Positive statistical significance was high for a ma- participants to the principles of UDI. This could have
jority of the relationships with other subscales indi- affected participant responses.
cating that most participants who responded to Ac- As discussed by Lombardi and Murray (2011), a
cessible Course Materials might believe positively limitation of the survey instrument used in this study
in the other subscales pertaining to UDI. There was is the potential for response bias on the part of facul-
only one subscale, Campus Resources, where the re- ty. The ITSI is a self-report survey; therefore, faculty
lationship was not statistically significant. Campus might have chosen to misrepresent their beliefs or ex-
Resources showed no correlation with any of the aggerate their knowledge regarding the principles of
other subscales used to assess a faculty member’s UDI. Additionally, given that the instrument relies on
beliefs, confidence, and knowledge of the principles faculty self-report of their beliefs, the results might
of UDI. A feasible conclusion is that faculty might misrepresent actual use of UDI principles in courses
be well informed about the resources on campus re- participants teach.
gardless of any other beliefs, knowledge, or confi- One final limitation could relate to institution
dence they have about UDI. type. Lombardi, et al. (2013) conducted their study
at a predominately research institution. One of the
Limitations factors that might have contributed to why the means
As with any study, this research contained sev- collected in our study are so markedly different from
eral limitations. Perhaps one of the most significant the population parameter in Lombardi, et al.’s study is
limitations to this research is the low response rate. because the institution where we conducted our study
Although distributed to 653 faculty members, only 85 is a predominately teaching institution. A differ-
(13%) started or partially responded to the survey. Of ence in the type of institution from previous research
those 85, 60 (71%) participants completed the entire might have affected faculty training and lead faculty
survey, thus, limiting the number of responses use- in Lombardi, et al.’s study to have a higher belief,
able for analyzing. According to Shih and Fan (2009), knowledge, and confidence in the principles of UDI
a low electronic survey response rate is not uncom- (Scott et al., 2003; Shaw, 2011).
mon when conducting research.
A second limitation is the method in which we Recommendations for Further Research
distributed the survey. The ITSI went to all 653 facul- Changing how higher education approaches the
ty members at the midsized mid-south teaching insti- education of students seeking postsecondary instruc-
tution where we conducted our study. In choosing to tion has, and will continue, to evolve (Mole, 2012;
distribute the survey to the entire 653-person faculty, Evans, 2008; Higbee, 2009; Izzo et al., 2008; LaRo-
we created a potential for strong response bias in this cco & Wilken, 2013). As the pedagogy changes, UDI
study. The potential for bias might have occurred be- will allow faculty to facilitate learning with a wider
cause distributing the survey to every faculty member array of students (Scott et al., 2003). Modifying the
allowed those with a passion for UDI or disability is- ITSI to assess a greater number of UDI practices and
sues to respond to the survey while giving those op- capture more participant responses on more college
posed to the topic the opportunity to ignore the invi- campuses will help solidify a research base that al-
tation to participate. lows for best practices to form.
The geographical location where this research Another suggestion for further research includes
was conducted could have presented a limitation to assessing the ITSI survey instrument against other
the research. The school is a midsized teaching insti- existing Universal Design (UD) survey instruments.
tution in the mid-south portion of the United States. For example, Black, et al. (2014) used a method of
Responses might have been different if conducting the combining research instruments from various au-
study in a different type of institution or geographical thors, such as Leyser and Greenberger (2008) and Van
location. Differences in environments and geograph- Laarhoven, Munk, Lynch, Bosma, and Rouse (2007),
ical locations were two of the explanations Gawron- to conduct their study of assessing the attitudes of
ski (2014) attributed to discrepancy in some of his faculty members toward UDI and disability in the
findings. Not having a strong research component to classroom. In comparing the survey instruments, re-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3) 231
searchers can consider and add further improvements a resource to faculty in implementing UDI in their
to strengthen the validity of the survey. courses, the office’s responsibility of implementing
Another recommendation for additional research accommodations could be reduced. Students would
is to differentiate between Universal Design for In- be served better by the pedagogical shift, and, poten-
struction (UDI), Universal Design (UD), and Univer- tially, the office could expand their mission in other
sal Design for Learning (UDL) more accurately, if ways to ensure that all areas of the university are more
possible, and clarify the attributes of each school of accessible to students with disabilities.
thought. At present, terms and theory are often used
interchangeably in postsecondary education. This Conclusion
might cause a significant issue for reliability and va-
lidity for the research and implementation of updates Many believe that the way students learn in the
to pedagogy. postsecondary setting has changed (Burgstahler,
A final recommendation is the expansion of facul- 2009; Cook et al., 2009; Edyburn, 2010; Ertmer,
ty education in the area of UDI. Instructional Devel- 2005; Evans, 2008; Gradel & Edson, 2010;; Higbee,
opment and Teaching Excellence Centers on college 2009; King-Sears, 2009; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Mc-
campuses could provide existing faculty with required Guire & Scott, 2006; Pliner & Johnson, 2004). The
training on UDI principles. In addition, graduate pro- departure from the school of thought that professors
grams, whose students are training to become faculty, needed knowledge only in their discipline has been an
could implement UDI awareness and principles with- on-going topic of debate in higher education (Major
in their college teaching courses (Robinson & Hope, & Palmer, 2006). Meeting this change and, therefore,
2003). Dallas and Sprong (2015) argued for universal meeting the needs of a diverse collection of students
design principles training for rehabilitation counsel- with a wide-array of abilities is through the knowl-
ors (RC) and, of course, that training could begin in edge and implementation of UDI in course curricu-
the rehabilitation counseling graduate programs. Im- lum (Lombardi et al., 2013; Pliner & Johnson, 2004;
plementation of those principles into course creation Zeff, 2007).
could aid graduate students and faculty in making ac- UDI is becoming as recognized as a practice that
cessible courses that benefit a greater number of stu- is in no way a legal requirement, but instead the best
dents. Because the principles of UDI are a relatively and correct thing to do to teach what is being called
new concept and each principle of UDI is extensive a new generation of learners (Edyburn, 2010; Gradel
and vitally important, Teaching Excellence Center & Edson, 2010; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008; Pace
staff could facilitate an ongoing series of courses with & Schwartz, 2008; Vega & Tayler, 2005). That is,
each session covering one principle. Such an approach students who have disabilities, as they are coming to
would allow faculty the opportunity to understand the campus in greater numbers, but also students who uti-
individual principles better and how faculty could in- lize technology to aid in their learning more so now
corporate specific practices of each principle in their than ever before. The new generation of learners does
course instruction. Multiple studies referenced in this not replicate previous models of education in which
article yielded results indicating that those faculty faculty are distributers of knowledge, but, rather, fa-
with prior disability-related training had more favor- cilitators of the knowledge and resources to which
able attitudes towards student with disability and im- students have access (Block et al., 2006; Burgstahler,
plementation of UDI practices (see Dallas & Sprong, 2007, 2009; Cook et al., 2009; Evans, 2008; Gradel &
2015; Lombardi et al., 2013). Edson, 2010; Higbee, 2009; King-Sears, 2009; Ma-
Campus communities would be well served by a jor & Palmer, 2006; McGuire & Scott, 2006; Pace &
refocusing of the Disability Support Services (DSS) Schwartz, 2008; Rose et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2003;
office on campuses. Often times, DSS offices focus Shaw, 2011).
on making appropriate accommodations for students Results to studies, such as this one, suggest that
with disabilities to make higher education accessi- faculty members are becoming increasingly aware
ble. A shift in the theoretical approach from a service of UDI and the practices that make the institution of
provision model to a resource model could aid DSS Higher Education accessible for a greater number of
in being better equipped to assist in the expansion of students (Ertmer, 2005; Gradel & Edson, 2010; Izzo
UDI on campus. If DSS was to focus more on being et al., 2008; Lombardi et al., 2013). Such practices
232 Hartsoe & Barclay; Universal Design and Disability
are hopeful as they show the commitment of a grow- Dallas, B. K., & Sprong, M. E. (2015). Assessing
ing number of faculty members in higher education faculty attitudes toward universal design instruc-
to provide course material in a way that is accessible. tional techniques. Journal of Applied Rehabilita-
With that increase, however, comes the recognition tion Counseling, 46(4), 18-28.
that there is still room for higher education to grow in Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize uni-
attaining a higher level of accessibility (McGuire & versal design for learning if you saw it? Ten
Scott, 2006; Scott et al., 2003). In fact, increasing the propositions for new directions for the second
incorporation of UDI training in faculty preparation decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly,
programs could boost the accessibility of instruction 33, 33-41.
significantly and reach a greater number of students Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs:
with diverse learning styles and needs (McWilliam & The final frontier in our quest for technology
Dawson, 2008; Pace & Schwartz, 2008). Such prac- integration? Educational Technology Research
tices are important as they show an institutional ded- and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
ication to UDI and accessibility for students from a Evans, N. J. (2008). Theoretical foundations of
wide array of abilities and life experiences (Black et Universal Design for Instruction. In J. L. Higbee
al. , 2015; Gradel & Edson, 2010). & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services
for institutional transformation: Implementing
References universal design in higher education (pp. 11-24).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Banfield-Hardaway, S. (2010). Universal instructional Flores, A., & Rodrigues, C. M. (2006). University
design: Tools for creating an inclusive educational faculty attitudes on affirmative action principles
experience. The Vermont Connection 31, 21-28. toward faculty and students. Equity & Excellence
Black. R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. in Education, 29, 303-312.
(2014). Universal design for instruction and Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch,
learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional K., VanTyle, W. (2009). Using pedagogical dia-
methods and attitudes related to students with logue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technolo-
disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality gy use. Computers & Education, 53, 300-307.
Education International. 24(1), 48-64. Gawronski, M.E. (2014).Universal design for learn-
Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. ing: Perceptions of faculty and students at a
(2015). Universal design for learning and in- northeastern community college (Unpublished
struction: Perspectives of students with disabil- doctoral dissertation). Colorado State University,
ities in higher education. Exceptionality Educa- Fort Collins, CO.
tion International, 25(2), 1-26 Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting univer-
Block, L. S., Loewen, G., & Kroeger, S. (2006). sal design for learning on the higher ed agenda.
Acknowledging and transforming disabling Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38,
environments in higher education: AHEAD’s 111-121.
role. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Hergenrather, K., & Rhodes, S. (2007). Exploring
Disability, 19, 117-123. undergraduate student attitudes toward persons
Burgstahler, S. (2007). Who needs an accessible with disabilities: Application of the disability so-
classroom? Academe, 93(3), 37-39. cial relationship scale. Rehabilitation Counseling
Burgstahler, S. (2009). Universal design of instruc- Bulletin, 50(2), 66-75.
tion (UDI): Definition, principles, gUDIelines, Higbee, J. L. (2009). Implementing Universal De-
and examples: DO-IT. sign for Instruction in postsecondary courses and
Cook, L., Rumrill, P. D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). curricula. Journal of College Teaching & Learn-
Priorities and understanding of faculty members ing, 6(8), 65-78.
regarding college students with disabilities. In- Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The
ternational Journal of Teaching and Learning in faculty perspective on universal design for learn-
Higher Education, 21(1), 84-96. ing. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 21, 60-72.