ERIC EJ844629: Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the Universal Design Paradigm to College Instruction

2006·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

Universal Design for Instruction:
Extending the Universal Design Paradigm to College
Instruction
Joan M. McGuire and Sally S. Scott
University of Connecticut
Abstract
Universal design for instruction (UDI) represents the systematic application of universal design, the construct from
architecture and product development, to instructional practices in higher education. In addition to a description of
the deliberative process by which UDI was developed, this article provides confirmatory evidence of the validity of
this construct in its details of three studies undertaken to explore its application. Readers are encouraged to reflect
upon the impact of UDI on the practice of disability services and the importance of examining its efficacy to sustain
its long-term relevance.
The new millennium marks a period in higher educa- Twenty-nine percent of these students earned a bachelor’s
tion that is increasingly different from the decades of the degree; 10% had an associate’s degree; 12% received a
1980s and 1990s during which postsecondary disability certificate of some sort; 14% were still enrolled. Alarm-
services were evolving and expanding. Changes involve ingly, 35% left without a degree and/or were no longer
diversity among college students, a more consumer-ori- enrolled. In an era marked by a more diverse student
ented clientele, demographic trends within the professo- population as well as a focus on accountability, consum-
riate, and the impact of disability legislation. These ers and government agencies are posing challenging ques-
changes have implications for the profession of tions about why students are leaving college before com-
Postsecondary Disability Services and the goal of uni- pleting their program of study and what efforts are un-
versal access to postsecondary education for individuals derway to address student retention (Tinto, 2004).
with disabilities (Association on Higher Education And Projections of faculty retirements in the new millen-
Disability; AHEAD, 2005). While it may sound radical, nium underlie the statements regarding the changing pro-
the time has come to move the paradigm relating to in- fessoriate. According to Morrison (2003), higher educa-
structional access from accommodation to full inclusion. tion is in a state of transition given that more than 20% of
Consider these facts. The profile of students enter- college and university faculty will retire within the next
ing higher education is changing, with growing numbers decade. The potential this trend may have for transform-
of older students, first-generation college students, and ing the instructional environment is powerful. Classes
minority students comprising a notable presence on cam- will be taught by faculty, instructors, and graduate assis-
pus. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education tants who will incorporate information technologies into
Almanac (2003), the 2001 demographic profile of stu- their teaching, and the more traditional focus on provid-
dents confirms this diversity: 40% of the student popula- ing instruction will change to one that focuses on pro-
tion was 25 or older; 12% more women than men were ducing learning (Fink, 2003). At the same time, as a group
enrolled; 31% were racial/ethnic minorities; and 34% today’s faculty are described as “not very well prepared
were attending college part time. In addition, there was a for their profession of teaching” often “armed with volu-
20% increase in the number of international students be- minous and intricate knowledge of their specialty … with
tween 1998-2000. Yet, data on outcomes raise concerns. little understanding of how students learn” (Cross, 1999,
According to a recent government study (National Cen- p. 38).
ter for Education Statistics, 2003), the outcomes for a Finally, legislation including the Individuals with
cohort of first-time beginning students who were followed Disabilities Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act
over a six-year period (1996-2001) warrant attention. has heightened consumer awareness about access to col-
124 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
lege where equal opportunities and classroom accommo- design features that benefit a broad range of users and
dations are assured. Trends of increased enrollment con- are built in rather than added as an afterthought. The
firm the impact of these legislative mandates. Data gath- value system of universal design, while not originating
ered by the American Council on Education and reported specifically to address access issues in higher education,
by Henderson (1999) underscore the changes that have clearly interfaces with the value system of our profes-
occurred: in 1978 2.3% of first-time full-time college sion: to promote full participation and universal access
freshmen indicated they had a disability; by 1998, that for persons with disabilities in higher education (AHEAD,
figure had risen to 9.8%. Yet, despite legal protections, 2005).
for some of these students there continue to be “formi- The notion of the fit between the concept of UD and
dable physical and learning barriers: students with dis- instruction in higher education was initially introduced
abilities encounter significant challenges of physical ac- by Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn (1998), who used the term
cessibility and access to curriculum and instruction” universal instructional design, “which places accessibil-
(Pliner & Johnson, 2004, p. 106). This is particularly the ity issues as an integral component of all instructional
case for students with cognitive disabilities by virtue of planning” (p. 47). Their exploratory work provided data
the intersection of the manifestations of learning, from a focus group of faculty who offered insights into
attentional, and other cognitive disorders and components some of the challenges of instruction for diverse learners
of the instructional process. as well as some of the benefits of more universally de-
Recognizing that historically the needs of students signed classroom approaches. Combining the paradigm
with cognitive disabilities in postsecondary settings have or model of UD and its seven principles with a value
been approached via legal mandates for nondiscrimina- system that embraces learner diversity in an era of chang-
tory treatment, we are proposing a different paradigm or ing demographics has led to the articulation, application,
model that is timely in light of changes in the current and exploration of UDI. In this article, we present the
climate of higher education. This model, universal de- rationale for the UDI approach and the process by which
sign for instruction (UDI), shifts the focus from retrofit- the concept has been developed at the University of Con-
ting accommodations to instruction (e.g., making arrange- necticut, including studies that address the validity of the
ments for copies of notes after a student self-identifies as concept. Implications for postsecondary disability ser-
having a learning disability and needing such) to vice providers and future directions are also presented.
proactively planning for instruction that anticipates di-
versity in learners. UDI is a framework built upon the Universal Design for Instruction
foundation of universal design (UD) and its principles
and comprises a value system that offers intriguing pos- Recognizing that the application of UD to higher
sibilities for faculty development as well as collabora- education instruction must be approached with thought-
tive partnerships between instructors and postsecondary ful attention to the primary users of UDI, college faculty,
disability service providers. activities in the development of UDI were consistently
planned and implemented with the perspective of this
Universal Design audience in mind. By virtue of two federally funded
projects from 1999 to 2005 under the U.S. Office of
Often, change is brought about by the articulation of Postsecondary Education, the process of defining, devel-
a value system with principles regarding a phenomenon’s oping, and disseminating UDI and its products and mate-
intrinsic worth or desirability (Merriam-Webster, 1995). rials proceeded with conscious efforts to seek faculty in-
UD emanated from a value system that espouses the re- put and recommendations.
sponsibility of architects and designers to consider hu-
man diversity in the design of products and spaces, re- What Is Universal Design for Instruction?
sulting in environments and goods that are usable by the UDI comprises a framework for faculty to use in plan-
intended audience: the diverse public (Welch, 1995; ning and delivering instruction and assessing of learning
Wilkoff & Abed, 1994). The Center for Universal De- outcomes. The underlying premise is a value system that
sign at North Carolina State University has developed a embraces heterogeneity in learners and espouses high
set of seven principles to guide designers as they create academic standards (McGuire & Scott, 2002) with the
accessible spaces and products. These principles, re- belief that faculty who anticipate diversity can intention-
garded as seminal in the field of UD (Adaptive Environ- ally build inclusive instructional approaches into their
ments Center, 2000; Follette Story, Mueller, & Mace, teaching. Just as the seven principles of UD comprise
1998; Null & Cherry, 1996), serve as tools to facilitate tools to assist designers in their work, the nine principles
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 125
of UDI© (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2001) comprise a flex- curricula and courses in postsecondary settings vary dra-
ible foundation to guide faculty in course design and de- matically across different postsecondary settings (Morelli,
livery. 1999). There is no mandate for students with disabilities
UDI is not viewed as a “quick fix” for ensuring in- for a free, appropriate postsecondary education. Colleges
clusive instruction. Rather, it is a tool that integrates the are not required to alter technical standards, and students
usability features of UD with research about effective must maintain their eligibility by meeting criteria for aca-
instructional strategies. The intent of UDI is to guide demic performance.
faculty in the process of reviewing their approach to teach- Yet, there are indicators that the climate in higher
ing and refining instructional strategies and methods in education is changing. Pressure for accountability from
recognition of the needs of diverse learners with diverse diverse sources such as the American Association for
experiences. Neither does it purport to represent a radi- Higher Education, state legislatures, and students under-
cally new way of teaching. The intuitive appeal of UDI scores the importance of teaching. Greene (1995) has
rests on the fact that its principles embody elements of observed that traditional methods of teaching are being
research and practice on effective approaches to enhance challenged more often and with more hostility. A
learning. Results of validation studies of UDI that are confluence of factors is creating opportunities for
described in this article confirm that many faculty who proactively designing approaches to college instruction
are recognized as outstanding teachers already incorpo- that incorporate flexibility, have relevance regardless of
rate elements of UDI into their craft although they are content, and are responsive to learners with divergent
not explicitly calling it that. learning styles and experiences. UDI is such an approach,
promoting faculty autonomy in the instructional planning
Who Is the Audience for UDI? process and respecting the expertise of the professoriate.
While approaches to disability services are expand- With an absence of legal mandates relating to planning
ing now to include collaborative strategies with faculty individualized instruction for students with disabilities
around instructional access, the primary audience for UDI at the postsecondary level, change will be fueled by
is clearly faculty. With changes in the demographics of thoughtful approaches that are responsive to the culture
college learners that include more students with of faculty and features of their work that are distinctly
nonvisible cognitive disabilities come both challenges and different from those of their colleagues in elementary and
opportunities for faculty who, according to Seldin (1995), secondary settings. Faculty development research by
“must learn to gear instruction to a new classroom dy- Ambrose (1995) offers key clues to factors that are criti-
namic” (p. 4). Yet, there is no unified approach to fac- cal for the success of efforts to improve college teaching,
ulty preparation or ongoing professional development that including: (a) start slow to build credibility and trust; (b)
includes preparation for teaching students with diverse enlist the support of key administrators and faculty about
learning needs. Extending the UD paradigm to instruc- the importance of teaching; (c) understand the culture of
tion in postsecondary settings must be carefully exam- the institution; and (d) identify a model for developing
ined in light of features that distinguish the instructional and changing teaching behavior that includes theory, prac-
milieu of college classrooms from other educational ven- tice, and feedback. It is the latter factor that captures the
ues. essence of UDI.
Unique elements of instruction at the college and With faculty as the audience, a current climate for
graduate school levels differentiate it from instruction in change based upon diversity and accountability, and in-
the K-12 system, where teachers must be certified and dicators of effective approaches to faculty development,
generally maintain their knowledge and skills through the UDI construct, an application of the UD paradigm,
professional development initiatives. Thus, classrooms holds promise for empowering faculty and future faculty
in the K-12 system include teachers and paraprofession- to refine their instruction to make it more inclusive and
als with specific responsibilities and training in working responsive to students with disabilities.
with diverse learners. In contrast, faculty are content ex-
perts, not experts in pedagogy. Historically, an effect of The Process for Developing UDI
the reward system for faculty that stresses research and
scholarship has been to minimize the importance of teach- The paradigm of universal design served as the theory
ing and ways to improve it (Seldin, 1995). In contrast to base for our work. Applying this to college instruction,
elementary and secondary settings where students with awareness of and anticipation of student diversity would
disabilities are assured of access to the general education guide the design of inclusive college instruction. As col-
curriculum as regulated through state education codes, lege faculty ourselves, we knew that an extensive body
126 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
of research already existed on related areas of effective Literature-Based Principles
teaching, diverse learners, and higher education, though The seven principles of universal design developed
little of this information had been cross-referenced and by the NCSU Center for Universal Design (see lead ar-
applied at the college level. In addition, making this in- ticle in this special issue for these principles) are widely
formation available in a format that would be usable by acknowledged and cited as seminal for guiding practice
faculty in diverse disciplines, at varying types of cam- in the field of UD (Follette Story, et al., 1998; Universal
puses with different missions pertaining to instruction, Design, 2000). The principles delineate considerations
and in different stages of career development, was a criti- for the “usability of an environment” based on a broad
cal variable in establishing a credible base for proposing spectrum of human abilities, including vision, hearing,
a model for college instruction. speech, body function, mobility, and cognition. We an-
Table 1
Research-based Recommendations for Effective Instruction and Universal Design
Authors Title Source Target Explicitly Recommends
audience: includes inclusive
College disabilities teaching
Students practices
Chickering & Seven principles for American Association of Yes No Yes
Gamson, 1987 good practice in Higher Education,
undergraduate education Washington, DC (ERIC
Document Reproduction
Service No. ED282491)
Chickering & Implementing the seven Available at: Yes No Yes
Ehrmann, 1996 principles: Technology as www.tltgroup.org/program
lever s/seven.html
Kameenui & Universal access Effective teaching No Yes Yes
Carnine, 1998 principles for designing strategies that
curriculum accommodate diverse
learners, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Swanson & Experimental Review of Educational No Yes Yes
Hoskyn, 1998 intervention research for Research, 68(3), 277-321
students with learning
disabilities: A meta-
analysis of treatment
outcomes
Center for Three essential qualities Available at: No Yes Yes
Applied Special of universal design for www.cast.org/udl
Technology, learning
2002
Center for Principles of universal Available at: No Yes No
Universal design www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/desig
Design, 1997 n/cud/index.html
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 127
ticipated that many features of UD would be applicable revised to reflect both UD and educational research. As
to the college classroom but that research on teaching a result of this process, the Nine Principles of UDI© (Scott,
and learning would allow us to expand the paradigm in et al., 2001) were articulated.
the areas of cognition that could guide college instruc- In order to examine the face validity of the nine prin-
tion. ciples, we sought input and feedback from several sources.
An extensive literature review was conducted focus- As part of a three-year federal grant funded through the
ing on research and publications related to universal de- U.S. Department of Education (DOE), Office of
sign, effective instruction in higher education, and effec- Postsecondary Education (OSD), the nine UDI principles
tive instruction of students with learning disabilities in were reviewed by experts in instruction in higher educa-
both secondary and postsecondary educational settings. tion, faculty with acknowledged teaching excellence, and
We included the area of learning disabilities because stu- individuals with expertise in instruction of diverse learn-
dents with learning disabilities (LD), by definition, rep- ers, including college students with learning disabilities.
resent a broad range of learning and cognitive differences Faculty, administrators, and OSD personnel from both
that often challenge traditional notions of college instruc- two and four-year institutions reviewed the principles for
tion. (For more detailed information on the literature re- relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness (see McGuire,
view process, see Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003.) Scott, & Shaw, 2003, for more detail on this process).
As a result of the literature reviews, numerous re- After incorporating this expert feedback into the revi-
search articles were identified in each target area. Most sion of the principles, they were further reviewed by the
useful for the purpose of examining existing knowledge Center for Universal Design at NCSU for feedback on
bases across multiple areas of research were meta-analy- the “goodness of fit” regarding how well the UDI prin-
ses and articles that provided syntheses of findings across ciples maintain the integrity of the original seven univer-
studies and were widely cited as authoritative in their sal design principles. The final version of the Principles
respective fields. In each of the designated target areas, of UDI© derived from this literature foundation and ex-
seminal articles emerged in which the authors had culled pert review process are provided in Table 2.
the research and provided recommendations for practice
based on this body of work (see Table 1). While each Ongoing Validation and Theory Building
body of literature contributed insights into aspects of in- Building on the existing literature bases in universal
clusive teaching with diverse learners in the college en- design and effective educational practices is an impor-
vironment, no single source encompassed student diver- tant starting place in articulating principles for inclusive
sity (including students with disabilities), inclusive teach- instructional practices at the college level. However, the
ing practices, and the specific context of college instruc- process of defining and establishing a theoretical foun-
tion. Therefore, we drew on elements of each seminal dation is essential for grounding exploration of the UD
article. paradigm in college instruction. Pedhazur and Schmelkin
In keeping with the intentional use of UD as the theory (1991) noted that “to be scientifically meaningful, a con-
base for this work, the original seven principles of UD cept, or a construct, has to be part of an implicit or ex-
(Center for Universal Design, 1997) served as the foun- plicit theoretical framework that explicates its relation
dation for universal design applied to instruction (UDI) with other concepts” (p. 166). Attention to theory allows
and were modified to infuse elements from educational the field to build on the extensive existing knowledge
research on learning and effective instructional practices. bases pertaining to instruction and learning, articulate
Each of the seven principles of UD was found to have explanatory models and ask questions about effective-
relevant applications in the instructional environment. ness (Dubin, 1969). Given the strong intuitive appeal of
However, based on critical variables that emerged from UD and the disability field’s enthusiastic interest in UD
the literature on college teaching, two new areas were applications, attention to the process of theory develop-
identified as essential to inclusive instructional environ- ment is timely and important for the rigorous exploration
ments that were not reflected in the existing seven prin- of UDI.
ciples of UD: (a) consideration of the social interaction As part of developing and grounding the theory base
and community involved in instruction and (b) the im- for UDI, a series of construct validation activities are
portance of the instructional climate for learning. As a underway. By examining key perspectives on inclusive
result, two new principles (Principle 8, Community of instruction in the field, we have access to another lens
Learners; and Principle 9, Instructional Climate) were for viewing the adequacy and comprehensiveness of the
incorporated into the UDI framework. Definitions for each UDI principles. Three field initiatives are briefly de-
of the nine principles were subsequently reviewed and scribed: student focus groups, outstanding teaching fac-
128 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
Table 2
Principles of Universal Design for Instruction©

Principle Definition

Principle 1: Equitable use Instruction is designed to be useful to and accessible by people
with diverse abilities. Provide the same means of use for all
students; identical whenever possible, equivalent when not.

Principle 2: Flexibility in Instruction is designed to accommodate a wide range of
use individual abilities. Provide choice in methods of use.

Principle 3: Simple and Instruction is designed in a straightforward and predictable
intuitive manner, regardless of the student's experience, knowledge,
language skills, or current concentration level. Eliminate
unnecessary complexity.

Principle 4: Perceptible Instruction is designed so that necessary information is
information communicated effectively to the student, regardless of ambient
conditions or the student's sensory abilities.

Principle 5: Tolerance for Instruction anticipates variation in individual student learning
error pace and prerequisite skills.

Principle 6: Low physical Instruction is designed to minimize nonessential physical effort
effort in order to allow maximum attention to learning.

Note: This principle does not apply when physical effort is
integral to essential requirements of a course.

Principle 7: Size and Instruction is designed with consideration for appropriate size
space for approach and use and space for approach, reach, manipulations, and use regardless
of a student's body size, posture, mobility, and communication
needs.

Principle 8: A community The instructional environment promotes interaction and
of learners communication among students and between students and
faculty.

Principle 9: Instructional Instruction is designed to be welcoming and inclusive. High
climate expectations are espoused for all students.

Source: Principles of Universal Design for Instruction, by Sally S. Scott, Joan M. McGuire, and Stan F. Shaw.
Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability. Copyright 2001. Reprinted
with permission.
ulty, and inclusive faculty. enhance student learning, and (c) barriers to learning.
Student focus groups. One group of stakeholders in The focus groups included 23 students with LD and
the process of examining inclusive college instruction is other cognitive disabilities (attention deficit hyperactiv-
students with cognitive disabilities. In order to gain in- ity disorder [ADHD], psychological) from three college
sight into these students’ perceptions of effective instruc- campuses in the Northeast: a Research I university in
tion and inclusive college classrooms, a series of four Connecticut, an urban community college in Massachu-
focus groups was conducted. The objective of each focus setts, and a suburban community college in New York
group was to determine the students’ perceptions of (a) State. Each campus was participating in the Universal
what constitutes a positive college course, (b) instruc- Design for Instruction Project at the University of Con-
tional strategies and methods employed by professors that necticut. Focus groups were audio taped, and transcripts
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 129
were subsequently, examined for emergent themes across current references to such instructional features as clear
the sites. (For a more detailed description of the study, expectations (Principle 3), multiple formats of material
methodology, and data analysis procedures, see Madaus, (Principle 4), and frequent formative feedback (Principle
Scott, & McGuire, 2003a; McGuire & Scott, in press.) 5) provide striking parallels to the Principles of UDI©.
Results of the study indicated that while students Further, explicit mention of the importance of a welcom-
mentioned barriers and challenges, they also shared ex- ing environment and personal connection with faculty
amples of many positive learning experiences in their and other students supports the addition of Principles 8
college environments. They spoke with enthusiasm about (Community of Learners) and 9 (Instructional Environ-
both the characteristics of a positive college classroom ment) to the UDI framework. Therefore, the results of
and the attributes of an effective college instructor. The this study provide strong evidence of concurrent validity
strong parallels and similarities across campus settings between student perceptions of inclusive instruction and
provide insight into ways these groups of students with the literature derived Principles of UDI©.
LD and other cognitive disabilities have experienced in- Outstanding teaching faculty. Another group of stake-
clusive college classrooms. holders important in examining inclusive college instruc-
Effective teaching methods and strategies were iden- tion is college faculty. To that end, individual interviews
tified across the groups; they included such approaches were conducted with faculty at the University of Con-
as establishing clear expectations, providing advanced necticut who are recognized as outstanding college teach-
organizers, presenting information in multiple formats, ers. It was hypothesized that this group of faculty would
giving frequent formative feedback, and using diverse provide insight into creative and innovative approaches
assessment strategies. Affective elements of the classroom to reaching a broad range of college learners. The objec-
were also deemed important, as reflected in a welcoming tives of the interviews were to gather faculty perceptions
classroom climate, connecting academic content with real- about the presence of student diversity in the classroom,
life experiences, and providing support for individual gain insight into effective and recommended instructional
learning needs within the larger group context. At times, strategies, and learn about professional development op-
this individual support was related to the student’s LD. portunities that have been useful for these outstanding
One student described a professor who wrote personal teachers.
notes such as, “I understand where this could possibly be Individual interviews were conducted using an open-
because of your disability. This is how you could work ended interview process with 18 faculty members desig-
on it. I would like to talk to you about it.” Students also nated as University Teaching Fellows. This recognition
expressed appreciation of professors who were receptive is one of the highest honors conferred upon faculty at the
when they disclosed their disability. For example, a stu- University of Connecticut and is an acknowledgment of
dent shared the story of a positive interaction with a pro- exceptional college teaching based on student and col-
fessor related to a test accommodation disclosure. As the league nomination and input. Interviews were recorded,
student said, “I was really nervous about bringing the transcribed, and subsequently examined for themes. Par-
accommodation letter … but he sat down and talked about ticipants consisted of 11 males and 7 females, represent-
… what I would do, the entire process, like I guess he ing a broad range of academic disciplines, including en-
knew and understood it.” gineering, biology, art history, physics, mathematics, ac-
Attributes of the instructor were equally important counting, plant science, education, psychology, and fam-
to these students. Excellent instructors were noted as be- ily studies. (See Madaus, Scott, & McGuire, 2003b, for a
ing approachable and available, focused on the subject, more detailed description of the study.)
and able to make a personal connection with students. Analysis of the interviews revealed that these out-
Excellent instructors also created a challenging standard standing college teachers had observed a growing diver-
for learning. One student described a professor who sity in the college student population and were using a
“didn’t give it to you; you had to learn it by yourself.” variety of instructional strategies and approaches in their
Other students related the process of being pushed to do divergent disciplines and classrooms as a result. On the
their best work, and the boost to self-confidence they topic of effective instructional strategies, several themes
experienced when the instructor believed they could per- emerged across participants. Frequently mentioned was
form at high standards. the importance of providing explicit structure (for ex-
The students in these focus groups were not familiar ample, ensuring clarity in assignments, providing steps
with the Principles of UDI©, and did not speak in terms for completing an activity, reviewing written class policy
of the principles. Yet, their observations resonate strongly on areas such as attendance and makeup exams). Strate-
with the UDI framework derived from the literature. Re- gies for actively engaging students in learning were also
130 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
viewed as important (for example, discovery-and prob- faculty perceptions about the presence of student diver-
lem-based learning, use of case studies, real-life ex- sity in the classroom, gain insight into effective instruc-
amples). Redundancy of important points was emphasized tional strategies, and learn about professional develop-
as a means of reaching many students (for example, pro- ment opportunities that have been useful for these fac-
viding key points through multi-modal methods of pre- ulty who students experience as inclusive teachers in the
sentation, having students discuss recurring themes across classroom.
a course, engaging in learning through a series of indi- In summary, each of the three field-based studies-the
vidual, group, and online activities). Finally, many fac- student focus groups, the outstanding college teachers,
ulty members emphasized the importance of teaching and the inclusive faculty— provides a source for consid-
productive study and learning strategies (for example, ering the concurrent validity of the principles of UDI.
notetaking for the specific discipline, reading the text Results of the studies completed to date are affirming of
effectively, and how to study for and perform well on the the validity and relevance of UDI in college instruction.
exam). Juxtaposing or triangulating the findings from all three
The faculty in this study were also very attuned to studies will provide rich data and a better understanding
the importance of climate in the classroom and spoke of of the elements of inclusive college classrooms.
the value of creating a positive learning environment.
As one faculty member noted, “So, as far as any student, Implementation Initiatives
any learning situation, is concerned, it’s how the faculty Welch (1995) noted that the development of critical
want to work with those students, how they interact with practice and projects documenting exemplars are impor-
them. The fact that they show them that they are there for tant to the development of grounded theory. In addition
their benefit will help students learn.” Another faculty to the validation procedures relating to the UDI principles,
member stated, “I include everybody in the discussion. I a major focus of the federally funded UDI project has
work at that very hard. It’s something that I always pay a been the establishment and support of UDI learning com-
lot of attention to, setting the tone of the class in the first munities, a forum for critical dialogue and exploration
few weeks.” Establishing high expectations for student regarding the UDI principles. UDI learning communities
performance, promoting a safe environment for partici- consisting of faculty, administrators, and OSD profession-
pation, and the use of humor were frequently mentioned als were established on five campuses – two community
as important to the affective elements of learning. colleges, two four-year liberal arts institutions, and one
Once again, the findings from this study suggest many very competitive private university. (See the Facultyware
parallels to the UDI framework. These include consider- website at http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/
ing equitable access and participation in class discussion community.cfm for more information on these commu-
(Principle 1), making structures and expectations explicit nities.)
(Principle 3), teaching productive learning strategies The UDI learning communities provided a context
within the discipline (Principle 5), and using humor to for dialogue among participants from diverse academic
connect with students (Principle 8), among many others. disciplines about mutual interests in student diversity and
Though none of the participants had been exposed to the inclusive teaching. Some learning communities identi-
construct of UDI per se, the instructional practices and fied a primary focus for group discussion (e.g., develop-
methods these outstanding teachers had found effective mental education classes, instructional technology). Each
with a broad range of learners provide additional support of the groups structured regular communication and/or
for the construct validity of the literature based Principles meeting opportunities (e.g., monthly brown-bag lunches,
of UDI. group discussion board) over approximately a one-year
Inclusive college teachers. Continuing with the pro- period to examine and discuss the UDI principles and
cess of construct validation, we are expanding the explo- their applications in diverse college settings and class-
ration of inclusive instruction from a field perspective. rooms. Participants used the UDI principles to inform
Thus, in a study currently underway, “inclusive” faculty their own instructional practices as well, and many re-
are the focus of research. College students with a broad vised an instructional approach or developed a new strat-
range of disabilities (including cognitive and other dis- egy to meet the needs of diverse learners in their classes
abilities) have nominated faculty they have found to be based upon one or several of the principles. Many of these
inclusive in the classroom. These participants will be in- inclusive practices are published on the Facultyware
dividually interviewed to gain their perspectives on col- website (http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/
lege instruction. Similar to the study of outstanding col- freeware.cfm) as part of the instructional freeware that is
lege teachers, the objectives of this study are to gather available to any visitor of the site who is interested in
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 131
learning more about these inclusive instructional activi- administrative support from leaders and influential groups
ties and approaches. All published instructional strate- on campus to make this a reality.
gies have been peer reviewed and found to be of high Change can be a disquieting process, or it can be a
quality and usability at the college level, and reflect one catalyst for creativity. Proposing an inclusive approach
or more of the UDI principles. to college teaching, UDI, that espouses a value system
that embraces diversity in learners and proactively plans
Future Directions for OSD Professionals for learner needs represents a change from the tradition
of information dissemination via the lecture format that
Theory development of UDI is well underway, a criti- has characterized higher education (Fink, 2003). This
cal element for any initiative that seeks to advance a new paradigm shift may also have an effect on elements of
approach or idea. Literature-based principles corrobo- disability services, which, historically, have rested on leg-
rated by content experts, field-based practices, and ex- islative bedrock. According to Shoemaker (1998), three
emplars developed by faculty all provide strong and grow- sequential steps comprise elements of the change pro-
ing support for a theoretically grounded approach to in- cess: (a) the invention or innovation (e.g., UDI); (b) dis-
clusive college instruction. These efforts are essential, semination of information about the innovation (e.g.,
especially when the primary audience for UDI is faculty manuscripts such as this and others referenced herein);
who are inquisitive and often faced with competing in- and (c) consequences. As the field of disability services
stitutional values (e.g., research and publications for pro- embraces the construct of UD and innovation in its ap-
motion and tenure) that can affect their commitment to plications, it is critical that research efforts proceed in a
the improvement of their teaching (Pastore, 1995). deliberate manner to answer questions about impact. Both
What will the UDI paradigm mean for OSD profes- OSD professionals and faculty must be informed con-
sionals? A growing cadre of faculty who are attuned to sumers as the field undertakes this important change pro-
the needs of students with disabilities and are prepared cess.
with an inclusive framework of principles for examining
and refining instruction has the potential to modify our
daily work. Perhaps fewer students will require notetakers
as faculty provides online copies of their notes to all
members of the class. More students may be given op-
tions in how their learning is measured, resulting in fewer
traditional approaches to assessment such as multiple- Author’s Note
choice exams requiring extended time, quiet testing room,
or alternate format. When selecting a textbook for a This work has been developed with support from the
course, faculty may give priority to texts that are pro- U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary
vided in electronic as well as hardcopy format by the Education (P333A020036). The opinions contained in
publisher, reducing the need to scan or record texts. UDI this article, however, do not necessarily reflect the view-
will never eliminate or override the importance of the points or policies of the U.S. DOE.
OSD for monitoring and ensuring the civil rights of stu-
dents with disabilities on campus, but it has the potential
to change the nature of our work.
In a focus group study of OSD professionals, Embry,
Parker, McGuire, and Scott (2005) gathered perspectives
on UDI and perceived implications for professional prac-
tice. Participants noted that the widespread adoption of
UDI across campus might result in more time for non-
mandated tasks such as strategies instruction and data
collection. They also posited that UDI would foster new
collaborative relationships with faculty and instructional
design staff on campus. Several participants pointed out
that promoting strategies for teaching a broad range of
diverse learners would be perceived positively by many
campus constituencies. Yet, despite these potentially posi-
tive changes, participants noted they would need strong
132 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
References
Adaptive Environments Center, Inc. (2000). Universal Follette Story, M., Mueller, J.L., & Mace, R.L. (1998).
design. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http:// The universal design file: Designing for people of all
www.adaptiveenvironments.org/index.php ages and abilities. Raleigh: North Carolina State
Ambrose, S.A. (1995). Fitting programs to institutional University, The Center for Universal Design. [On-
cultures: The founding and evolution of the univer- line]. Available: http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/
sity teaching center. In P. Seldin & Associates, cud/pubs/center/books/ud.file/toc3b14.htm
Improving college teaching (pp. 77-90). Boston, Greene, J. A. (1995). Capitalizing on diversity in the
MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. classroom. In P. Seldin & Associates, Improving
Association on Higher Education and Disability. college teaching (pp. 103-113). Bolton: Anker
(2005). About us. Retrieved July 25, 2005, Publishing Company, Inc.
from http://www.ahead.org/about/index.htm Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabili-
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004). Univer- ties: Statistical year 1998.
sal design for learning. Retrieved January 17, 2004, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=7 Kameenui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching
The Center for Universal Design. (1997). Environ- strategies that accommodate diverse learners.
ments and products for all people. Raleigh: North Prentice Hall.
Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Madaus, J.W., Scott, S.S., & McGuire, J.M. (2002a).
Design. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from: http:// Addressing student diversity in the classroom: The
www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/index.html approaches of outstanding university professors
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (n. d.). Imple- (Tech. Rep. No. 02). Storrs: University of Con-
menting the seven principles: Technology as lever. necticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Disability.
Education. Retrieved May 24, 2000, from Madaus, J.W., Scott, S.S., & McGuire, J.M. (2002b).
www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html Barriers and bridges to learning as perceived by
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven prin- postsecondary students with learning disabilities
ciples for good practice in undergraduate education. (Tech. Rep. No. 01). Storrs: University of Con-
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher necticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Disability.
ED282491) Merriam-Webster, Inc. (1995). Merriam-Webster’s
Chronicle of Higher Education: Almanac 2003-2004. collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Author.
(2003). Washington, DC: Retrieved May 21, 2004, McGuire, J.M., & Scott, S.S. (2002). Universal Design
from http://chronicle.com/free/almanac/2003/nation/ for Instruction: A promising new paradigm for
nation.htm higher education. Perspectives, 28, 27-29.
Cross, K.P. (1999). Assessment to improve college McGuire, J.M., & Scott, S.S. (in press). An approach
instruction. In S.J. Messick (Ed.), Assessment in for inclusive college teaching: Universal Design for
higher education: Issues of access, quality, student Instruction. Learning Disabilities: A
development, and public policy (pp. 35-45). Multidisciplinary Journal.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Morelli, R.A. (1999). The world wide web and the
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. New York: The liberal arts: Threat or opportunity? In M.W.
Free Press. McLaughlin, D.A. Hyland, & J.R. Spencer (Eds.),
Embry, P., Parker, D., McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2005). Teaching matters: Essays on liberal education at the
Postsecondary disability service providers’ percep- millennium (pp. 168-182). Hartford, CT: Trinity
tions about implementing universal design for College.
instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education Morrison, J. (2003). U.S. higher education in transi-
and Disability, 18, 34-48. tion [Electronic version]. On the Horizon, 11, 6-10.
Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating significant learning Retrieved July 26, 2005, from http://
experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/InTransition.asp
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 133