CTAD: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education

Curriculum Transformation and Disability:

Implementing Universal Design

in Higher Education

Jeanne L. Higbee

Editor

Curriculum Transformation and Disability:

Implementing Universal Design

in Higher Education

Jeanne L. Higbee

Editor

Curriculum Transformation and Disability is funded by the U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Postsecondary Education. Project #P333A990015.

College, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

without prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its

programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age,

marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

This publication/material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Direct

requests to the Center for Research on Developmenta Education and Urban Literacy, General College, 333

Appleby Hall, 128 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, 612-625-6411.

Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer material.

iii

Implementing Universal Design

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Jeanne L. Higbee

Understanding Universal Design and Universal Instructional Design

Creating Curb Cuts in the Classroom: Adapting Universal Design Principles

to Education ......................................................................................................................... 7

Donna M. Johnson and Judith A. Fox

Developing the Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD) Workshop Model ........ 23

Judith A. Fox, Jennifer P. Hatfield, and Terence C. Collins

Perceptions of Universal (Instructional) Design: A Qualitative Examination ....................... 41

Jennifer P. Hatfield

Community Colleges and Universal Instructional Design ................................................... 59

Judy Schuck and Jane Larson

Classroom Strategies

Making a Statement ........................................................................................................... 71

Mark Pedelty

Charting New Courses: Learning Communities and Universal Design ................................ 79

Rashné R. Jehangir

Interpreting and Implementing Universal Instructional Design in Basic Writing ................. 93

Patrick L. Bruch

Table of Contents

Using Principles of Universal Design in College Composition Courses ............................ 105

Patricia J. McAlexander

Computer-Mediated Learning in Mathematics

and Universal Instructional Design ................................................................................... 115

D. Patrick Kinney and Laura Smith Kinney

Universal Instructional Design in a Computer-Based Psychology Course ......................... 127

Thomas Brothen and Cathrine Wambach

Best Practices and Students with Disabilities: Experiences

in a College History Course ............................................................................................. 149

David L. Ghere

Universal Instructional Design in a Legal Studies Classroom ........................................... 163

Karen L. Miksch

Empowering Students with Severe Disabilities: A Case Study .......................................... 171

Jay T. Hatch, David L. Ghere, and Katrina N. Jirik

Universal Design of Student Development Programs and Services

Disability Services as a Resource: Advancing Universal Design ....................................... 187

Karen S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. Totty

The First-Year Experience ................................................................................................ 203

Jeanne L. Higbee and Karen S. Kalivoda

Residential Living for All: Fully Accessible and “Liveable”

On-Campus Housing ........................................................................................................ 215

Martha E. Wisbey and Karen S. Kalivoda

Implementing Universal Design in Learning Centers ........................................................ 231

Jeanne L. Higbee and Shevawn B. Eaton

Universal Design in Counseling Center Service Areas ...................................................... 241

Kathleen B. Uzes and Daley O. Connelly

Implementing Universal Design

Resources and Future Directions

Universal Design and Technology .................................................................................... 251

Karen S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. Totty

Technology Transformation and Universally Accessible Web Tables ................................ 265

Brian Shapiro

Where Do We Go From Here? Universal Design as a Model

for Multicultural Education .............................................................................................. 285

Heidi L. Barajas and Jeanne L. Higbee

Appendices

Resources: Assistive Technology ...................................................................................... 293

Karen S. Kalivoda and Margaret C. Totty

Bibliography of Suggested Readings ................................................................................ 297

About the Authors ............................................................................................................ 313

Table of Contents

Introduction

Jeanne L. Higbee

University of Minnesota

n inclusive institutions of higher

education no student should be an

afterthought. Thus, it is only natural that

postsecondary disability service providers

have embraced the concept of Universal

Design, which proposes that spaces be

planned at the outset to meet the needs of all

potential users. Accommodation and

inclusion are very different notions. When a

student’s family is provided with a van tour

of the campus while the rest of the

orientation group walks, when a student is

able to view a famous celebrity giving a

speech in an inaccessible lecture hall by

watching from a remote site via television,

or when a student is noticeably absent from

the classroom every time a test is given

because the student needs extended time, the

student is accommodated, but excluded.

The purpose of this book is to introduce

readers to the concepts of Universal Design

(UD) and Universal Instructional Design

(UID). This collection of essays addresses

learning both within and outside the

classroom, recognizing the role higher

education plays in developing the “whole”

Implementing Universal Design

person (American Council on Education,

1937, 1949; National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators, 1989). Chapters

authored by faculty members are intended to

provide insights into teaching strategies that

can be implemented in a variety of

disciplines. It is hoped that these ideas will

be helpful to both disabilities services staff

members and faculty when exploring how to

create universal learning experiences.

Similarly, concepts introduced in the student

affairs section of this book can be applied to

multiple student services. This book is

available free of charge online

(www.gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul or

www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad) as well as

in hard copy so that individual chapters can

be downloaded for purposes of discussion

and for use in faculty and staff development.

The book begins with Johnson and Fox’s

introduction to the history and basic

principles of UD and UID. Then Fox,

Hatfield, and Collins describe the

Curriculum Transformation and Disability

(CTAD) model for providing professional

development activities to prepare faculty

Introduction

and staff to implement Universal

Instructional Design, followed by Hatfield’s

qualitative study of perceptions of Universal

Design. Schuck and Larson discuss the role

community colleges play in providing

access to postsecondary education for all

students, and particularly for students with

disabilities. They explain the attributes of

community colleges that facilitate the

implementation of Universal Design and

Universal Instructional Design, as well as

the unique challenges for both faculty and

student development professionals when the

student body is diverse and resources are

scarce. Schuck and Larson emphasize the

key role professional development plays in

enabling institutions to implement UD and

UID.

The second section of the book consists

of chapters by CTAD participants and other

faculty members who have been

instrumental in developing curricula that

meet the educational needs of all learners.

These authors describe how they have

created more inclusive classroom

environments. Pedelty discusses the value of

going beyond the usual syllabus statement to

communicate to students that he is interested

in providing equal access to his classroom.

Pedelty relates how addressing issues of

access on the first day of class has

stimulated students’ disclosure of hidden

disabilities, and the impact that this

communication has had on his teaching and

on all students’ learning. Next Jehangir

explores the role learning communities can

play in implementing Universal Design and

Universal Instructional Design.

Bruch provides a theoretical perspective

for implementing Universal Instructional

Design in basic writing. His chapter is

followed by McAlexander’s practical

suggestions for teaching composition in a

universally designed classroom. Kinney and

Kinney describe how the use of computer-

mediated learning in the mathematics

classroom can eliminate the need for most

individual accommodations. Brothen and

Wambach discuss the use of the

Personalized System of Instruction (PSI),

another computer-assisted model, to teach a

universally-designed psychology course.

Among the strategies proposed by Ghere for

teaching history are simulations that enable

students to experience historical events first-

hand. Ghere elaborates on how to ensure

that students with disabilities do not feel

excluded from these activities. Similarly,

Miksch engages students in mock trials in

her legal studies classroom. Finally, Hatch,

Ghere, and Jirik provide a case study that

demonstrates how developing

accommodations for a student with multiple

disabilities resulted in a more universally-

designed educational environment that

benefited all students.

The third section of this book focuses on

student support services. Kalivoda and Totty

provide a brief history of the creation of

disability services offices in postsecondary

educational institutions and explore the

basic functions of those offices. They

describe the nine categories of essential

services identified in recent research and

adopted by the Association for Higher

Education and Disability (AHEAD). Next

Higbee and Kalivoda discuss the

implementation of Universal Design

principles in the first-year experience, from

admissions and orientation to models for

“best practices.” This chapter leads naturally

to Wisbey and Kalivoda’s examination of

residence life. The authors address

Universal Design as a means to create

welcoming living spaces and to provide

inclusive social and educational programs.

Similarly, Higbee and Eaton discuss both

physical facilities and educational programs

when considering the implementation of

Universal Design in college and university

learning centers. Then Uzes and Connelly

apply the same principles to counseling

centers and provide case studies that

demonstrate that students with disabilities

face the same developmental tasks as all

students, but may have to overcome

additional obstacles in approaching these

tasks.

The final section of the book provides

the reader with further resources. Kalivoda

and Totty’s chapter describes the technology

available to make it possible to

accommodate students in a wide array of

settings. Shapiro addresses web design, with

Implementing Universal Design

a particular emphasis on web pages that

contain content in tabular form, such as the

exercises for many business courses. The

book concludes with an exploration of the

“logical next step,” application of Universal

Design to multicultural education, by

Barajas and Higbee. The appendices include

a list of assistive technologies, an extensive

bibliography, and brief biographies for the

authors.

The Center for Research on

Developmental Education and Urban

Literacy (CRDEUL) and the authors of this

collection would like to thank the U.S.

Department of Education and the University

of Minnesota General College (GC) and

Office of Disability Services, and

specifically David Taylor, Dean of GC, and

Terence Collins, GC Director of Academic

Affairs, for their support of “Curriculum

Transformation and Disability,” the project

that introduced so many of us to the tenets

of Universal Design and Universal

Instructional Design. As editor, I personally

want to express my appreciation to Dean

Taylor and Professor Collins, as well as to

Judy Fox, Coordinator of the CTAD grant,

to Dana Britt Lundell, Director of

CRDEUL, and to Karen S. Kalivoda,

Director of Disability Services at the

University of Georgia, for encouraging me

to compile this collection of essays in order

to disseminate the work of CTAD more

broadly. In addition, the authors and I would

like to express our appreciation to Stan

Introduction

Carpenter, Chair, and the members of the

American College Personnel Association

(ACPA) Media Board for their feedback. We

are also indebted to Karen Bencke,

Information Technology Professional in the

General College, for providing the layout

and cover design.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to

the chapter authors, not only for their

contributions to this book, but for their

efforts in developing welcoming

postsecondary learning experiences for all

students. And there is one last group I feel

compelled to recognize, although for

reasons of confidentiality I cannot name

them. I want to thank the many students I

have worked with over the years—you know

who you are—at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison (where as an

inexperienced graduate student coordinating

the learning services program within the

counseling center prior to the advent of

learning centers, I was a major source of

frustration to a student who could only sit

erect for a couple hours per day due to a

spinal injury when I tried to use traditional

methods to teach time management and note

taking strategies), Western Maryland

College (including my thanks to my many

students with hearing impairments, to the

student coping with his loss of vision, and to

one incredibly talented resident assistant

who taught the members of the

administration and her fellow students—

who would have discriminated against her

on the basis of her disability—that a person

with epilepsy can be an outstanding RA), at

the University of Georgia (with special

thanks to the guy who could not find his

way back to Athens from the Atlanta bus

terminal and to the young woman who

overcame incredible odds to conquer math

and to find her niche at the University), and

at the University of Minnesota (with thanks

to both the student and the interpreter who

introduced me to real time captioning on my

very first day of teaching at the U). You

know that I have not forgotten you and the

many lessons that you have taught me!

References

American Council on Education (1937). The

student personnel point of view.

Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education (1949). The

student personnel point of view (rev.

ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators (1989). Points of view.

Washington, DC: Author.

Understanding Universal Design

and Universal Instructional Design

7CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

Creating Curb Cuts in the Classroom:

Adapting Universal Design Principles

to Education

Donna M. Johnson and Judith A. Fox

University of Minnesota

Although recent legislation has improved access to higher education for college students with disabilities, some

students continue to experience stigma when requesting and utilizing academic accommodations. Universal

Instructional Design, a relatively new model that builds disability accommodations into the curriculum and

incorporates a variety of learning styles, is one strategy to level the playing field. This chapter discusses the

concept of Universal Instructional Design, describes its relationship to multicultural education and adult learning

theory, and illustrates the importance of incorporating assistive technology in the curriculum. The authors also

discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing Universal Instructional Design.

he passage of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 and The Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has

had a profound effect on the lives of

students with disabilities by giving them

extraordinary new access to postsecondary

education. In the last 10 years, the

population of students with disabilities on

college campuses has increased

significantly. Today, 9.4% of first-year

college students report having a disability

(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Yet despite

these gains in access, students with

disabilities still are less likely than their

nondisabled peers to complete their

education, according to The National

Longitudinal Study (Wagner, D’Amico,

Marder, Newman, & Blackorby, 1992).

Students with disabilities may be less

likely to graduate due to an antiquated view.

This perspective, often referred to as the

medical model, focuses on fixing the

individual with a disability rather than

changing the environment (Gill, 1987;

Hahn, 1988). The medical model stresses

personal responsibility for having a

disability while minimizing personal

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

control. On college campuses, this approach

may be played out in the implementation of

academic accommodations.

Traditionally academic accommodations

are provided on an individualized,

case-by-case basis in which students present

their medical documentation to the campus

disability services office. That office then

determines the appropriate accommodations

and provides the student with individual

letters to faculty to request specific

accommodations for each course. Once

students demonstrate that they have a

disability, defined by the ADA as (a) a

physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life

activities, (b) a record of such impairments,

impairment (42 USC12101 [2]), they must

continue to prove that they are eligible for

accommodations and deal with the stigma of

being different from other students. McCune

(2001) states that, like students of color,

students with disabilities are often perceived

as “special admits who don’t deserve to be

here” (p. 7). This stigma is often

exacerbated when students with disabilities

are singled out by being required to take

tests in separate locations in order to be

afforded extended time, to request volunteer

notetakers in class, or to enter through the

back of the building when that is the only

location of an accessible door. Arranging for

accommodations also takes students an

inordinate amount of time. Seymour and

Hunter (1998) studied the experiences of

students with disabilities in science, math,

and engineering majors. Many of the

interviewed students talked about being

“time-disadvantaged” and stated that the

time they spent on logistics, such as

arranging for accommodations, presented

obstacles over and above the limitations

posed by their disabilities.

Providing accommodations to students

on an individualized basis is a legitimate

way to meet legal access requirements.

However, in a recent effort to increase the

retention and graduation rates of students

with disabilities, some educators are calling

for new models that are more “consistent

with the spirit of the ADA which mandates

that services be provided in the most

integrated setting possible” (Aune, 2000, p.

57). One such model is the interactional,

social constructivist model that “shifts

analysis from one focusing on the disability

itself to one recognizing the intersection of

individual and society factors” (Jones, 1996,

p. 348). According to this model, it is the

resulting interaction between the individual

and the environment that determines

whether the functional limitation becomes a

disability (Aune).

The interactional model was illustrated

in the book, Everyone Here Spoke Sign

Language (Groce, 1985). Groce described

9CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

the treatment of deaf people on Martha’s

Vineyard in the early 20th century. The

author stated that because there was such a

large deaf population and most of the

hearing residents knew sign language, the

deaf Vineyarders participated freely in all

aspects of life, as did their hearing relatives,

friends, and neighbors. Because the

communication barrier that ordinarily

separates deaf people from the non-signing

society did not exist, what is normally

regarded as a profound disability garnered

little attention.

The Development of Universal

Instructional Design

The concepts found in the interactional

model are integral to the concept of

Universal Instruction Design, a relatively

new model that encourages faculty to make

their classes more accessible to students

with disabilities by developing curricula that

are flexible and customizable. Universal

Instructional Design has its origins in a

number of fields. The term itself is

borrowed from the architectural concept of

Universal Design, defined by the Center for

Universal Design at North Carolina State

University (1997) as “the design of products

and environments to be usable by all people,

to the greatest extent possible, without the

need for adaptation or specialized design”

(p. 1). Universal Design, which grew out of

the recognition by architects that they

needed to design the built environment so

that it would be usable by all people,

regardless of, for example, age or ability,

was popularized by Ronald L. Mace of the

Center for Universal Design (Bowe, 2000).

The principles of Universal Design, as

developed by The Center for Universal

Design, are as follows: (a) equitable use; (b)

flexibility in use; (c) simple and intuitive

use; (d) perceptible information; (e)

tolerance for error; (f) low physical effort;

and (g) size and space for approach and use.

A classic and familiar example of Universal

Design is the curb cut. Originally designed

to allow people who use wheelchairs or

other mobility devices to get safely from the

sidewalk to the street, the curb cut in reality

is used by many groups of people, including

people pushing strollers or pulling luggage,

rollerbladers, and elderly people.

Demographic changes in American

society in the last 100 years have

encouraged the development of Universal

Design, as life expectancy has increased

dramatically. In addition, people survive

accidents and illnesses at a much greater

rate than in the past. According to the Center

for Universal Design, “at the end of 1994,

53.9 million people in the United States

(20.6% of the population) had some level of

disability . . . and 26.0 million (9.9%) had a

severe disability” (Changing demographics

section, ¶ 3). Universal Design aims to be

responsive to these demographic shifts. For

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

example, Bowe (2000) notes that Universal

Design has been used to market homes that

allow for the changing needs of homeowners

as they age. He also notes that many

personal-use products, such as kitchen

utensils and room temperature controls,

have adopted the idea of making products as

useable as possible.

Federal legislation has also significantly

impacted the development of Universal

Design. For example, The Architectural

Barriers Act of 1968 required all buildings

“designed, constructed, altered, or leased

with federal funds” to be made accessible.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 made it illegal for those entities that

receive federal funds to discriminate on the

basis of disability. The Fair Housing

Amendments Act of 1988 expanded the

Civil Rights Act of 1968 to include families

and children with disabilities. The

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

prohibited discrimination in employment,

access to places of public accommodation,

services, programs, public transportation,

and telecommunications (Changing

demographics section, ¶ 5).

Inclusion

The elementary-secondary education

inclusion movement also has played a major

role in the development of Universal

Instructional Design. Inclusion, as defined

by York-Barr and Vandercook (1996), means

“providing equal educational opportunity by

co-creating learning communities in which

unique needs and diverse capacities are

recognized, understood, accepted, and

valued” (p. 3). Those involved in the

inclusion movement have added greatly to

the discussion about changing teaching

practices to meet the needs of students with

disabilities, and, as they point out, strategies

that work well when teaching students with

disabilities generally work well for all

students (York, Doyle, & Kronberg, 1992;

York-Barr & Vandercook, 1996). Hodge

and Preston-Sabin (1997) echo these ideas.

They argue that providing reasonable

accommodations to students with disabilities

is part of good teaching practice, and that

good teaching practice enhances learning for

all students.

Many of the tenets of inclusion, such as

valuing students’ diverse capacities, directly

apply to postsecondary education. There are,

however, some important differences

between the models of inclusion and

Universal Instructional Design. Inclusion

implies classrooms with multi-level

participation, in which students participate

in the same activities but at a different level,

and overlapping curricula, in which some

students may have different curricular

objectives (York, Doyle, & Kronberg, 1992).

In postsecondary education, all students,

with disabilities or not, must meet defined

course objectives, although students with

documented disabilities may receive

11CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

reasonable accommodations. This

distinction is an important one, as many

faculty express concerns that they will be

asked to “water down” their curriculum

when they accommodate students with

disabilities.

Link to Multicultural Education

The elementary-secondary education

inclusion movement is just one response by

educators who are increasingly aware that

they are serving a very diverse student

population. Many progressive educators

strive to address their students’ differences

in race, ethnicity, class, and gender by

applying theories of multicultural education.

Nieto (1996) defines one such model of

multicultural education as a process that

centers on factors such as teachers’

expectations, students’ learning styles, and

cultural variables. The rise of “Disability

Culture,” with its roots in common

experiences of oppression, experience, and

values, challenges the traditional race, class,

and gender model of multiculturalism and

argues for a broader definition that would

include disability. Unfortunately, most

people, including faculty, still hold to the

“medical model” of disability, which defines

disability as a deficiency residing in the

individual, rather than as a difference

deriving from the interaction between the

individual and society (Gill, 1987).

Robertson (1994) argues for highlighting the

socially constructed nature of disability as a

way to help others better understand the

concept of disability. As more and more

faculty at the postsecondary level grow to

understand issues of multiculturalism,

people with disabilities and service

providers will be better able to communicate

the idea of disability as culture. Faculty then

may be less inclined to see disability as a

medical issue and more likely to address the

needs of students with disabilities

themselves.

Multicultural educators argue for a range

of educational reforms. Some educators

argue for new and multiple ways of

assessing students’ performance. According

to Banks (2000):

Evaluating the progress of students

from diverse racial, ethnic, and

social-class groups is complicated by

differences in language, learning

styles, and cultures. Hence, the use of

a single method of assessment will

likely further disadvantage students

from particular social classes and

ethnic groups. . . . A variety of

assessment procedures and outcomes

that are compatible with different

learning, performance, work, and

presentation styles should be used to

determine if students are achieving

the levels of skills mastery needed to

function effectively in a multicultural

society. (p. 12)

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

Others call for changes in the standard

pedagogy of what Nieto (1996) calls “chalk

and talk” to include other active learning

opportunities, such as group work, cross-age

tutoring, and projects. Banks (2000) points

out that multicultural educators also need to

address issues of classroom climate by

helping students acquire the kind of social

skills they need to work effectively with

each other. Nieto also notes that

multicultural education values diversity,

encourages critical thinking, and

acknowledges students’ diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds. In the next section

of this book, several faculty members (e.g.,

Bruch, Pedelty) further describe the

relationship between Universal Instructional

Design and multiculturalism.

Diverse Learning Styles

Educators posit a number of different

learning styles theories, all of which espouse

some version of how people learn. For

example, Galbraith and James (1987) argue

for a scheme that includes the following

seven perceptual modalities: print, aural,

interactive, visual, haptic, kinesthetic, and

olfactory. Because Galbraith and James’

approach to learning styles focuses on the

five senses, it can be particularly useful

when considering how to teach students

whose senses may be impaired. Higbee,

Ginter, and Taylor (1991) argue that

instructors should assess their classes’

learning preferences and then structure the

presentation of course material around those

strengths. They say, “knowledge of learning

styles allows instructors to more effectively

convey information and also help reduce the

level of frustration encountered by some

students” (p. 9). As teaching to differing

learning styles has become accepted practice

in elementary and secondary education (and

to some extent in postsecondary education),

the natural result has been that teachers

engaged their students in a variety of ways.

That concept is integral to the development

of Universal Instructional Design. In the

next section of this book, faculty members

will present a variety of strategies for

implementing Universal Instructional

Design across the curriculum.

Assistive Technology

No discussion of Universal Instructional

Design would be complete without a nod to

the development in the last few decades of

computers and other technologies. These

new technologies have given people with

disabilities unprecedented access to

information, as well as significantly

improved access to education. Knox,

Higbee, Kalivoda, and Totty (2000) point

out that “technology will allow those with

disabilities to achieve fuller participation in

the academic venture” (p. 153). Screen

readers read aloud the text on a computer

screen, allowing students who are blind or

13CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

have low vision to access computers. Voice

input devices that record students’ voices

and display them as text on a computer

screen allow students who have limited use

of their hands or arms to produce written

texts. Assistive listening devices, such as an

FM System, provide amplified speech to a

hard of hearing student through a receiver

that picks up a small microphone worn by

the instructor. Specialized software that

allows students to manipulate text in a

variety of ways and provides them with a

variety of study tools helps students with

learning disabilities more effectively work

with text materials. Alternative keyboards

provide access to computers for students

with limited hand mobility. In real time

captioning, a transcriptionist converts

classroom lecture or discussion into text that

is displayed on a computer monitor so that

deaf students can participate in class when

an interpreter is not present or when the

student does not know American Sign

Language. These are just a very few

examples of the kinds of technologies now

available. Information regarding web page

design and the expansion of technological

advances that can benefit all students is

provided in the final section of this book.

The Center for Applied Special

Technology (CAST) has been at the

forefront of encouraging the use of

technology to expand opportunities for

people with disabilities. CAST (2001)

defines Universal Design for Learning (an

alternate term for “Universal Instructional

Design”) as “a new paradigm for teaching,

learning, and assessment, drawing on new

brain research and new media technologies

to respond to individual learner differences”

(Universal Design for Learning section, ¶ 1).

Their framework for Universal Design for

Learning encourages instructors to: (a)

develop flexible means of representing

materials, such as presenting materials in

alternative formats; (b) allow students to

demonstrate their knowledge in flexible

ways, such as giving an oral report instead

of a written paper; and (c) engage students

using a variety of methods, with the

understanding that there is no one right way

to teach. Their emphasis on flexibility and

responding to individual learner differences

resonates with the lessons learned from

learning style theory and multicultural

education and is good for all students.

Applying Universal

Instructional Design in

Postsecondary Education

Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn (1998), who

originally coined the term “Universal

Instructional Design” as it applies to

postsecondary educational environments,

argue that the implementation of Universal

Instructional Design would mean that some

students will no longer need to rely so

heavily on support services because the

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

support will be built into the course itself.

They assert that the “Universal” in UID

implies universal access to a course, not a

“one size fits all” approach to teaching.

However, it is important to point out that we

can never expect to do away entirely with

accommodating some students on a one-to-

one basis; rather, the goal of UID is to lessen

the need for as many accommodations as

possible by building them into the design of

the course, creating an environment that is

conducive to learning for all students. For

example, putting a syllabus and other course

materials online makes a course accessible

in a number of ways. Suddenly, course

materials are accessible to a student who is

blind who uses a screen reader or downloads

the text to be brailled. A student with a

learning disability or attention deficit

disorder benefits from using voice output

technology to simultaneously listen to and

read text, increasing comprehension of the

material. Nondisabled students benefit as

well (Silver et al.). Those who find it

difficult to participate in class because of

language or cultural barriers appreciate the

ability to participate in an alternative, online

class discussion, and everyone enjoys the

convenience of accessing the materials

anytime, anywhere, or using embedded links

to conduct further research. Of course, using

technology is only one solution.

Transforming teaching methods is the real

challenge, as illustrated in the next section

of this book.

Benefits of Universal

Instructional Design

Because Universal Instructional Design

is a remarkably inclusive model, it is most

compatible with the spirit of the Americans

with Disabilities Act, which states that

programs and services must be provided “in

the most integrated setting possible” (Aune,

2000, p. 57). Rose and Meyer (2001) report

that Universal Instructional Design enables

instructors to include students with

disabilities among the diverse learners in

their classroom rather than as a separate

category. In a universally designed

classroom, students use a variety of

materials and learning aids that meet the

needs of individual students. This flexibility

in materials and testing helps reduce the

stigma often felt by students with

disabilities, who are often singled out as

they leave the classroom to take a test in

another location (CAST, 2001).

Researchers (e.g., Galbraith & James,

1987; Higbee, Ginter, & Taylor, 1991) have

long postulated that students learn

differently depending on their individual

preferences, abilities, and disabilities

(CAST, 2001). One benefit of Universal

Instructional Design is that the model

addresses individual learner differences by

providing alternative methods of

representation, expression, and engagement

(CAST). For example, by utilizing

15CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

alternative means of representation, a course

module on homelessness could be taught

through a series of lectures, through

multimedia and videos, and through

completing field trips or service-learning

projects with local homeless shelters. By

providing multiple means of expression,

students are given a choice in how they will

demonstrate their knowledge of course

content. For example, one student may

choose to demonstrate knowledge of cell

biology via a research paper, whereas

another student may choose to give an oral

presentation. By providing multiple means

of engagement, instructors seek the right

balance in how students are engaged in the

learning process. Scaffolding and strategic

instruction (Caverly & Russell, 2002; Nist &

Holschuh, 2000) may be used to provide

academic supports. For example, instructors

may make math or chemistry formulas

available to students during quizzes in the

beginning of a semester and then gradually

take away this support as the students

become more familiar with the material.

Instructors may seek to vary the amount of

new material covered in order to ensure that

they repeat the essential components of the

course (Orkwis & McLane, 1998).

Just as Universal Design in architecture

seeks to accommodate the widest variety of

user needs in the built environment,

Universal Instructional Design seeks to

create alternatives to meet the wide range of

users in the classroom (CAST, 2001). Also,

just as it is more cost-effective to include

ramps and include accessibility into the

design of a new building, it is also more cost

and time effective to consider the flexibility

of learning materials when designing a

course than in trying to provide individual

accommodations after the fact (CAST). The

expansion in technology has created

opportunities for building inclusive

classrooms. For example, by utilizing

technology, students have the ability to

access information and course materials

anytime, anywhere, in a variety of formats.

A student who is blind can access lecture

notes posted on a web site via a screen

reader. Students who have learning

disabilities can highlight text and read in a

distraction-free environment. Students who

are deaf and generally require sign language

interpreters have the ability to read the

lecture without accommodation. Technology

also has the ability to create communication

networks between people who otherwise

may have never come together by

“facilitating the flow of communication

without the meta processes of taping,

brailling, and sign language interpreting”

(Knox et al., 2000, p.145).

Challenges of Incorporating

Universal Instructional Design

Although Universal Instructional Design

may significantly impact the learning

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

environment for all students, the main

challenge in incorporating this new model is

time limitations on the part of faculty. Silver

et al. (1998) found that faculty were

concerned that the time required to redesign

their classes to incorporate principles of

Universal Instructional Design may be

prohibitive, even though such approaches

may be beneficial in the long run. Faculty

must be willing to rethink how they prepare

for courses. For example, many faculty

lecture from brief notes rather complete

lectures. In order for a course to be more

inclusive, the faculty member would have to

be willing to spend more time initially

preparing the lecture so it could be posted

online, include Power Point notes, and so

on. Some faculty may not be willing to

spend their time on this (Knox et al., 2000).

Smith (2000) stated that academic priorities

such as research may take precedence over

curriculum innovation. Another challenge is

the faculty themselves. Because some

faculty serve as “gate keepers” who believe

their role is to monitor the academic

readiness of students, they may not be

prepared to accept a change in status quo or

teach outside of the traditional lecture

(Silver et al.).

In addition to concerns about time

constraints, many faculty members are

“experts in their discipline rather than in

pedagogy” (Silver et al., 1998, p. 49). It is

not uncommon for faculty to have limited

awareness of diverse learning needs, adult

learning theory, and its impact on college

students with and without disabilities.

Finally, faculty may not be aware of the

variety of technologies available or be

trained in how to use them (Orkwis &

McLane, 1998). Faculty must have access to

the appropriate software and then have

adequate training for its use to be effective

in the classroom.

Budgetary Ramifications

Although there are many benefits to

implementing Universal Instructional

Design, there may also be budgetary

implications. Smith (1997) indicated time

limitations on the part of faculty may

impede the development of curricular

innovation. In a 1998 ERIC/OSEP Topical

Brief, the author stated that built-in

accommodations, while requiring a

significant amount of time initially, would

save time and energy in the long run. Silver

et al. (1998) concurred. They noted that

although time was a critical factor in

applying Universal Instructional Design,

such strategies would save faculty and

students time once they became a standard

part of course design.

Limited access to technology and limited

technology training may also hinder the

implementation of Universal Instructional

Design. Vanderheiden (1998) reported that

17CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

customized technology may create a

financial burden and the individuals for

whom it is created may not have the

requisite training. Smith (1997) said that

there is still a digital divide that creates

“haves and have-nots” in terms of

technology access and use. This lack of

technological access creates a barrier to

curricular innovation and hence, to the

implementation of Universal Instructional

Design.

Finally, because this field is emerging,

Smith (1997) called for more research to

demonstrate the validity and reliability of

the model. Smith stated that until more

evidence is available, deans and department

heads may be hard pressed to encourage

their faculty to adopt innovative curricular

models.

Administrative Support

Although it may require a significant

investment of time, effort, and resources,

strong and visible administrative support for

any new curricular effort is crucial to its

success. Bourke, Strehorn, and Silver (2000)

found a significant relationship between

faculty’s understanding of the need to

accommodate students with disabilities and

their perceived level of support from service

providers and their own departments.

Kalivoda and Higbee (1999) point out that

in addition to lack of knowledge and time

and budgetary constraints, some faculty may

fail to provide appropriate accommodations

because of perceived disapproval by the

administration. They argue that visible

administrative support, such as providing

release time for faculty to address special

needs or providing adequate resources to

acquire assistive technology, will help

reduce barriers to equal access for students

with disabilities.

Anyone interested in implementing a

new curricular effort such as the one

detailed in this book should plan on meeting

with key administrators early and often.

Administrators can help set the parameters

for workshop participation and be

instrumental in the recruitment of workshop

participants, perhaps by mailing out the

recruitment notice directly from their

offices. Administrators may also be able to

provide incentives such as a small stipend or

release time for faculty and staff

participation in a workshop. Their presence

at any workshop will lend credence to the

effort. Student affairs professionals can also

serve as powerful allies in this work, often

assisting in creating the link between faculty

and students.

In addition to working with key

administrators, those interested in

conducting a workshop will enhance

institutional buy-in by conducting focus

groups with faculty, student affairs staff, and

with students with disabilities or by holding

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

informal informational sessions for

interested faculty and staff. The information

gleaned from the focus groups and other

meetings will allow for modification of the

workshop to address the specific needs of

participants at the institution, which will be

key to the success of the workshop. (For

more detailed information on gaining

administrative support and recruiting

participants for workshops, please visit the

Curriculum Transformation and Disability

website at www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad)

Despite potential barriers posed by time,

resources, or lack of administrative support,

the benefits of implementing Universal

Instructional Design can far outweigh the

challenges. All students, not just those with

disabilities, gain when instruction is

individualized and when they are allowed to

learn and demonstrate knowledge in a

variety of ways that take into consideration

their own preferred learning styles. Faculty

members learn the advantages of creating a

course from the outset so that it is accessible

to all in as many different formats as

possible, thus reducing the frequency of

situations in which they must respond at the

last minute, often with little or no notice, to

specific requests for accommodations,

which can be very time consuming. And

administrators can take pride in the

realization that they are fulfilling the spirit,

not just the letter of the law, and providing

truly equal access to a diverse student

population.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.

L. 101-336, 42 US CA. 12, 101-12, 213,

(West Supp. 1991).

Aune, B. (2000). Career and academic

advising. In H. Belch (Ed.). Serving

students with disabilities (pp. 55-67).

New Directions in Student Services, No.

91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banks, J. (2000). Diversity within unity:

Essential principles for teaching and

learning in a multicultural society.

Seattle, WA: Center for Multicultural

Education, University of Washington.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996).

Longitudinal postschool outcomes of

youth with disabilities: Findings from

the National Longitudinal Transition

Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-

413.

Bourke, A. B., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P.

(2000). Faculty members’ provision of

instructional accommodations to

students with LD. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33(1), 26-32.

Bowe, F. (2000). Universal design in

education. Westport, CT: Bergin &

Garvey.

19CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

Caverly, D., & Russell, L. (2002). Best

practices for developmental education.

In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.),

Proceedings of the Second Meeting on

Future Directions in Developmental

Education (pp. 17-23). Minneapolis,

MN: Center for Research on

Developmental Education and Urban

Literacy, General College, University of

Minnesota. Available:

www.gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul

Center for Applied Special Technology.

(2001). Universal Design for learning.

[Online]. Available: www.cast.org

The Center for Universal Design. (n.d.).

What is Universal Design? Retrieved

March 6, 2002, from http://

www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/

univ_design/udhistory.htm

The Center for Universal Design. (1997).

The principles of Universal Design.

(Version 2.0) [Brochure]. Raleigh, NC:

North Carolina State University.

ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. (Fall 1998). A

curriculum every student can use:

Design principles for student access.

Retrieved March 4, 2002 from ERIC

Clearinghouse on Disabilities and

Gifted Education via http://ericec.org

Galbraith, M. W., & James, W. B. (1987).

The relationship of education level and

perceptual learning styles. Journal of

Adult Education, 15(2), 27-35.

Gill, C. (1987). A new social perspective on

disability and its implications for

rehabilitation. In F. S. Cromwell (Ed.),

Sociocultural implications in treatment

planning in occupational therapy

(pp.49-55). New York: Haworth.

Groce, N. (1985). Everyone here spoke sign

language: Hereditary deafness on

Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical

differences: Disability and

discrimination. Journal of Social Issues,

44(1), 39-47.

Higbee, J. L., Ginter, E. J., & Taylor, W. D.

(1991). Enhancing academic

performance: Seven perceptual styles of

learning. Research and Teaching in

Developmental Education, 7(2), 5-10.

Hodge, B. M., & Preston-Sabin, J. (1997).

Accommodations—Or just good

teaching? Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jones, S. R. (1996). Toward inclusive

theory: Disability as social construction.

NASPA Journal, 33, 347-354.

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1999).

Serving college students with

disabilities: Application of the theory of

planned behavior. Academic Exchange

Quarterly, 3(2), 6-16.

Knox, D. L., Higbee, J. L., Kalivoda, K. S.,

& Totty, M. C. (2000). Serving the

diverse needs of students with

disabilities through technology. Journal

of College Reading and Learning, 30(2),

145-157.

McCune, P. (2001). What do disabilities

have to do with diversity? About

Campus, 6(2), 5-12.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The

sociopolitical context of multicultural

education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:

Longman.

Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000).

Comprehension strategies at the college

level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly

(Eds.), Handbook of college reading and

study strategy research (pp. 75-104).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A

curriculum every student can use:

Design principles for student access.

ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No.

ED423654) [Electronic version].

Available: www.cec.sped.org/osep/

udesign.htm

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. P.L. 193-112.

Section 504.

Robertson, B. A. (1994). Disability culture,

community, and pride. Unpublished

manuscript. Minneapolis, MN: Project

L.E.E.D.S. (Leadership Education to

Empower Disabled Students),

University of Minnesota.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2001). Universal

design for learning. Journal of Special

Education Technology ejournal.

Retrieved November 30, 2001 from

www.cast.org

Seymour, E., & Hunter, A. B. (1998).

Talking about disability: The education

and work experience of graduates and

undergraduates with disabilities in

science, mathematics and engineering

majors. Boulder, CO: The University of

Colorado.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.

(1998). Universal Instructional Design

in higher education: An approach for

inclusion. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 31(2), 47-51.

Smith, K. L. (1997). Preparing faculty for

instructional technology: From

education to development to creative

independence. Cause/Effect, 20 (3),

36-44.

21CHAPTER 1

Implementing Universal Design

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1998). Universal

design and assistive technology in

communication and information

technologies: Alternatives or

complements. Assistive Technology, 10,

29-36.

Wagner, M., D’Amico, R., Marder, C.,

Newman, L., & Blackorby, J. (1992).

What happens next? Trends in

postschool outcomes for youth with

disabilities. The second comprehensive

report from the national longitudinal

transition study of special education

students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.

York, J., Doyle, M. B., & Kronberg, R.

(1992). A curriculum development

process for inclusive classrooms. Focus

on Exceptional Children, 25(4), 1-16.

York-Barr, J., & Vandercook, T. (1996). The

evolution of inclusive education.

Impact, 9(2), 2-3.

CHAPTER 1

Curb Cuts in the Classroom

23CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

Developing the Curriculum Transformation

and Disability Workshop Model

Judith A. Fox, Jennifer P. Hatfield, and Terence C. Collins

University of Minnesota

Despite significant gains in access to higher education, college students with disabilities still are less likely than

their peers to complete their education. In response to this problem, educators participating in the University of

Minnesota’s Curriculum Transformation and Disability project designed, tested, and implemented a faculty

development workshop that encourages faculty to incorporate principles of Universal Instructional Design in their

courses. Midstream formative evaluation of the project shows that faculty appreciate the workshop and are

beginning to make changes in their courses, particularly around issues of information access, instructional design,

and classroom climate.

s indicated in the previous chapter,

the population of students with

disabilities on college campuses has

increased significantly in the last decade.

The passage of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 and the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990 (ADA), together, have had a

profound effect on the lives of students with

disabilities by giving them extraordinary

new access to postsecondary education. Yet

retention and graduation rates for students

with disabilities still lag behind those of

their peers.

The reasons for this disparity are

complex, and the research is limited. Much

of the existing research focuses on asking

the student to change (e.g., through the

development of self-advocacy skills), on

providing support to the student through

service delivery, or on examining attitudinal

barriers. Few studies examine how to

effectively teach students with disabilities in

postsecondary education. In fact, educators

interested in looking for solutions to the

problem of how best to serve students with

disabilities in postsecondary education often

find they must look to other fields, including

architecture, learning styles, multicultural

education, disability studies, and the

elementary-secondary inclusion movement

for information. Only recently have

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

postsecondary educators been able to

synthesize this information and begun to

advocate for the use of Universal

Instructional Design, a relatively new model

that encourages faculty to make their classes

more accessible by developing curricula that

are flexible and customizable.

A History of Collaboration

For well over a decade, the University of

Minnesota’s General College and the

Disability Services office have worked

jointly to improve the climate and service

level for students with disabilities. Together,

these two units have sponsored a variety of

programs aimed at improving the experience

of students with disabilities on college

campuses. Over the years, these key units

and their staffs have developed an

atmosphere of mutual trust and have shared

a common commitment to institutional

change. Thus, when in 1999 the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of

Postsecondary Education, began accepting

applications to an exciting new grant

competition titled “Ensuring Students with

Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher

Education,” key staff at The General

College and Disability Services proposed an

innovative project aimed at working with

faculty to make their classes more accessible

through the use of Universal Instructional

Design. The project, Curriculum

Transformation and Disability, or CTAD,

received a three-year award to create a

model demonstration project that

encourages faculty to transform their

curriculum by adopting principles of

Universal Instructional Design.

Model Development

Working from past experience and from

the available literature from a variety of

fields, project staff created a two-day faculty

development workshop with the goal of

developing a nationally replicable workshop

model that could be facilitated by specialists

or nonspecialists alike. The project

conducted workshops at a number of upper

Midwest two-year and four-year colleges

and universities. Recruitment of faculty

varied by institution, as administrators at

different sites chose to focus recruitment

efforts either within one department, or

across a broader spectrum of disciplines.

The project primarily worked with full-time

faculty because it assumed they would have

broad and long-term impact on institutional

practices. However, some participants held

full- or part-time instructor, administrator, or

advisor positions. This was particularly true

at smaller institutions where staff serve in a

variety of instructional and service roles.

For purposes of this chapter, the term

“faculty” will refer to all workshop

participants, regardless of their rank.

Project staff designed the following

learning objectives for all faculty: (a) build

on their own experiences, (b) learn about

25CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

relevant legislation, (c) become familiar

with and begin to apply the principles of

Universal Instructional Design, (d) identify

specific ways to create inclusive classrooms

and programs, (e) learn about assistive

technology, (f) learn about local resources,

and (g) develop a personal action plan.

CTAD Curriculum

Teaching Methods

Project staff intentionally designed the

twelve-hour, two-day workshop to be an

interactive experience, incorporating lecture,

small and large group discussion,

application activities, and exercises.

Facilitators strive to model good teaching

practices and incorporate elements of

Universal Instructional Design whenever

possible. For example, all faculty receive a

notebook of materials at the start of the

workshop, which includes printouts of all

PowerPoint slides. Termed a “natural

support” because it provides assistance to all

faculty regardless of their disability status,

these printouts allow faculty to more fully

engage with the materials being presented,

rather than hurriedly copying down what

appears on the screen. With this natural

support, a person with a disability who is

unable to take notes will not have to ask for

an individual accommodation; it’s already

there.

Day 1 Workshop Agenda

Understanding disability. In this opening

section of the workshop, facilitators provide

faculty with a brief overview of disability

types and discuss issues specific to hidden

disabilities. Facilitators also introduce the

“interactional model” of disability, which

argues that rather than being viewed as a

deficiency in the individual, disability

should be considered a difference. Under

this model, disability resides not within the

individual but derives from the interaction

between the individual and society (Gill,

1987). Facilitators of this section endeavor

to draw out faculty’s previous experiences

with students with disabilities and

knowledge of available resources.

Exploring legal issues. This section

briefly explores the three major laws

affecting postsecondary educators: Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

and, indirectly, the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA (1994).

Facilitators discuss the impact of each of

these three major laws and introduce

definitions of disability, reasonable

accommodations, and mandated services.

Faculty work through a scenario that asks

them to apply their knowledge of the law

and disability to a specific case relevant to

postsecondary education.

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

Listening to student perspectives.

Student voices are an integral part of the

workshop. Presenting them early in the

workshop allows both facilitators and

faculty to refer back to the students’

comments throughout the workshop. When

it is feasible, facilitators recruit a group of

college students or recent graduates with

disabilities and facilitate a discussion about

their experiences in postsecondary

education, followed by a question and

answer session with the faculty. Because it

is sometimes not feasible to assemble a live

panel of students, facilitators occasionally

use a videotape of students with disabilities

discussing these same issues.

An introduction to Universal

Instructional Design. This section illustrates

the architectural concept of Universal

Design through a series of slides of well

designed architectural features such as door

levers; signage containing text, symbols, and

Braille; adjustable laboratory and classroom

tables; and power-assisted doors. After

reviewing universally designed features in

these slides, faculty tour the building in

which the workshop is held and identify

additional examples of universally designed

features.

Next, faculty learn to apply these

architecturally-based concepts to the

instructional environment to produce

Universal Instructional Design. Asking

faculty to apply architectural principles to an

educational context seems, however,

awkward at best, so facilitators introduce a

set of “Principles” to help workshop faculty

explicitly apply the model to their particular

classes. The Principles, which are meant to

be seen as guidelines more than as a

definitive list, were synthesized from

Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) “Seven

Principles for Good Practice in

Undergraduate Education” and North

Carolina State University’s “Principles of

Universal Design” (1997). They are as

follows:

1. Create a classroom climate that fosters

trust and respect.

2. Determine the essential components of

the course.

3. Provide clear expectations and

feedback.

4. Explore ways to incorporate natural

supports for learning.

5. Provide multimodal instructional

methods.

6. Provide a variety of ways for

demonstrating knowledge.

7. Use technology to enhance learning

opportunities.

8. Encourage faculty-student contact.

27CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

These are, at first glance, practices that

all good teachers follow. They also apply to

all students, with or without disabilities.

However, it is important to note that most

postsecondary faculty are hired because they

are content experts, not necessarily good

teachers. Even those with the best intentions

may lack sufficient resources or training in

how to be good teachers, and these

principles engender useful discussions about

teaching and help faculty to articulate best

practices in their own disciplines. Much of

the remainder of the workshop focuses on

applying these principles.

Applying the Principles of Universal

Instructional Design. In this section, faculty

begin to apply two of the principles of

Universal Instructional Design to their own

courses. First, facilitators lead faculty

through a discussion about classroom

climate, or what makes a classroom

welcoming, such as establishing ground

rules for class discussion, honoring cultural

differences, and attending to the physical

needs of students. Each participant writes or

adapts a disability access statement suitable

for use in a course syllabus. Next,

facilitators introduce the idea of “essential

components” and guide faculty through a

series of questions designed to help them

articulate the outcomes they expect for their

students by defining what is essential about

their course, and what may be important, but

negotiable. For example, a “timed essay”

exam, which asks students to produce brief,

coherent answers in finished prose under

strict time limitations, may be seen as an

essential component of a journalism or

newswriting class. In a composition class,

however, where the aim is to develop

students’ critical writing, reading, and

thinking abilities, resulting in a series of

longer papers produced outside of class, that

same timed essay may be considered an

important skill, but not an essential one.

Having identified this, the composition

instructor may feel more comfortable

providing an accommodation such as

extended test time or a quiet testing space to

students requiring these accommodations for

the timed essay. The journalism faculty

member, on the other hand, may choose to

have a discussion with the student and the

student’s disability specialist in order to

determine how best to provide

accommodations without altering the

essential requirements of the course.

Facilitators in this section strongly

encourage faculty to maintain high academic

standards in their courses while considering

some flexibility in assignments considered

important but not essential.

Day 2 Workshop Agenda

Learning about assistive technology.

Facilitators introduce faculty to a wide range

of assistive technologies, both low and

high-tech, that might be useful for college

students with disabilities. When possible,

faculty get to practice with or see a live

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

demonstration of these technologies. Faculty

receive additional reference materials, such

as guidelines for creating accessible web

pages and lists of technological resources

available on their campuses. This section

provides faculty with the tools to address the

Principle of Universal Instructional Design

that asks them to use technology to enhance

learning opportunities.

Investigating local resources. Ideally, the

facilitator of this section is the disability

services provider at the workshop site. In a

question and answer session with this

service provider, faculty learn about policies

of their own Disability Services office,

available resources, and the demographics

of their particular student population.

Faculty are encouraged to think of

themselves as part of a triangle of support

that includes students, faculty, and the

disability service provider.

Working with case scenarios. This

section gives faculty a chance to integrate

and apply much of the knowledge they have

gained in the preceding sections. In small

groups, faculty work through a series of

cases involving students with disabilities in

postsecondary classes. The facilitator then

asks the groups to share their ideas with

each other.

Applying Universal Instructional Design,

continued. The facilitator of this section

guides faculty through a discussion of the

remaining Principles of Universal

Instructional Design. Faculty are encouraged

to share their own experiences with each

other as they talk about ways to provide

clear expectations and feedback to their

students, as well as ways to increase contact

with their students. The facilitator then leads

a discussion about ways to employ natural

supports, which are those

nonaccommodation-based supports faculty

can provide to all students, such as

providing class notes to all students,

whether or not those students have

disabilities. Finally, the facilitator leads

faculty through a discussion of how and

when to employ multimodal instructional

methods in the classroom and how to design

a course so that students may demonstrate

their knowledge in a variety of ways.

Creating an action plan. In this final, brief

section, faculty distill what they have

learned and develop a series of concrete

“next steps” to guide them as they begin to

make changes in their courses. Faculty

briefly note the three most important

changes they plan to make in their own

courses, how they can request follow-up

assistance, how they might share what they

have learned with their colleagues, and what

barriers or impediments they foresee. The

facilitator asks each faculty member to

share, briefly, one item from the action plan.

The above discussion is intended only to

provide an overview of the workshop. For

information on how to obtain a complete set

of workshop materials, including

29CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

facilitator’s notes, PowerPoint slides,

videotapes, and handouts, please visit the

Curriculum Transformation and Disability

website at www.gen.umn.edu/research/ctad

Workshop Participants

At the close of the project’s second year,

73 faculty, administrators, and student

services personnel had participated in CTAD

workshops. The majority (76.7%, n=56) of

participants were tenured or tenure track

faculty; 13.7% (n=10) were non-tenure track

instructional faculty; 5.5% (n=4) were

advisors, and 4.1% (n=3) served in an

administrative capacity. Tenured and tenure

track faculty were targeted because they

have both longevity and curricular

Figure 1. Distribution of Disciplines in Which Faculty Teach

_______________________________________________________

Disciplinary area

n %

_______________________________________________________

Business

4 5.9

Education

6 8.8

Health/human services

6 8.8

umanities 8 11.8

Language arts

9 13.2

Math/computer science/engineering

8 11.8

Science

10 14.7

Social science

17 25.0

_______________________________________________________

Percentages were calculated based on total number of faculty who had instructional duties

(

=68).

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

responsibility. Targeting them was seen as

an opportunity for greatest impact at the

heart of the teaching and course design

process. Many of the advisors and

administrators also had some instructional

duties. Social Science was the most common

discipline in which faculty taught; however,

there was an appropriate balance of other

disciplines as well (see Figure 1). Fifty-five

percent of the faculty were women and 45%

were men. Faculty had a wide range of job

experience and averaged 13.5 years

(SD=10.09, Mdn=11, Range=1-43 years) in

their current field. Faculty were fairly

evenly distributed in terms of their

experience working with students with

disabilities: 24% had worked with fewer

than 6 students with disabilities in their

career; 17% had worked with 6 to 10; 17%

had worked with 11 to 15; 16% had worked

with 16 to 30; and 26% had worked with

more than 30 students with disabilities.

Program Evaluation

A variety of methods were used to gather

data for formative and summative program

evaluation, including workshop evaluation

forms, participant interviews and

longitudinal progress reports. What follows

is a brief summary of formative and

summative evaluation results from these

data sources.

Formative Evaluation

After each workshop, all faculty were

asked to fill out a questionnaire asking for

their feedback regarding their workshop

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

Yr 1: Pilot,

1/00

Yr 2: 1st

workshop, 8/00

Yr 2: 2nd

workshop, 8/00

Yr 2: 3rd

workshop,

12/00

Yr 2: 4th

workshop, 1/01

Yr 2: 5th

workshop, 1/01

Workshop (in chronological order)

Average overall rating

(scale: 1=very poor-6=excellent)

Figure 2. Average overall workshop content rating from pilot and year 2 workshops.

31CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

experience. Data from these evaluations

were used to improve the workshop

curriculum. The workshops were regarded

very favorably by faculty in the first (i.e.,

pilot) workshop; however, over time

curriculum revision efforts have resulted in

an increasingly well-received faculty

development program. This trend is

illustrated in Figure 2, which depicts the

average ratings given by faculty over the 10

workshop content segments.

Furthermore, as illustrated by Figure 3,

year two faculty were more likely to believe

that workshop participation was a valuable

experience, that presentation of material was

appropriately balanced, and that information

presented was relevant to their needs. They

were somewhat more likely to think that

presentations and lectures were clear and

easy to follow.

Figure 3. Reactions to workshop experience from pilot and year 2 sites

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Found participation in

workshop to be

valuable

Thought information

presentations/lectures

were clear and easy to

Thought that

interacting with other

participants made the

workshop more

valuable.

Workshop evaluation item

Average item response (scale 1=strongly disagree-

5=strongly agree)

Yr 1: Pilot, 1/00

Yr2: 1st workshop, 8/00

Yr2: 2nd workshop, 8/00

Yr2: 3rd workshop, 12/00

Yr2: 4th workshop, 1/01

Yr2: 5th workshop, 1/01

Found participation in

workshop to be

valuable

Thought presentation

of material was

appropriately

balanced with

application activities,

discussion, and

lecture

Thought information

presentations/lectures

were clear and easy

to follow

Found information

presented to be

relevant to needs

Thought that

interacting with other

participants made the

workshop more

valuable

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

In general, faculty indicated a high

appreciation for the information presented

and the interactive and “hands on” nature of

the workshops. One person’s statement from

a workshop evaluation sums up the positive

regard for the workshops:

What I left with is the most valuable

and that is the wider view regarding

disabilities, a more positive outlook

on various approaches to use, a

renewed sense of “what I should be

doing,” tons of useful knowledge

regarding the law, access issues, and

what [my campus] has to offer.

Summative Evaluation

In order to capture the impact of

workshop participation, several data

collection activities have been implemented.

First, longitudinal progress reports have

been sent out three times per year to all

participants. These progress reports contain

open-ended questions asking faculty to

report changes they have made on the job as

a result of workshop participation. Second,

interviews with self-selected faculty have

been conducted several months after their

participation in the workshop. The

interviews are designed to explore in more

detail faculty’s reactions to their workshop

experience. At the end of the second project

year, longitudinal progress report data were

available from 60 faculty (58 instructors and

2 advisors), and interviews had been

conducted with 8 faculty (7 instructors and 1

advisor).

The primary outcomes of interest have

been the degree, both in quality and

quantity, to which faculty have modified

their instructional practices and taken

measures to improve the classroom climate.

From progress report and interview data,

CTAD appears to have impacted faculty’s

actions, attitudes, and awareness. What

follows is a discussion of this impact within

the framework of the Universal Instructional

Design principles, which were presented

earlier in the chapter. A brief discussion of

CTAD’s impact on participating

administrators will also be presented.

Modification of

Instructional Practices

Instructional practices refer to the means

by which faculty impart knowledge to

students. There are two important

components of instructional practice: (a)

information access, or the degree to which

course content is equally accessible to all

students; and (b) instructional design, or the

ways in which faculty engage students in the

teaching-learning process. Faculty can

improve in both of these areas by practicing

the following principles of Universal

Instructional Design: (a) provide clear

expectations and feedback, (b) explore ways

in which to incorporate natural supports for

learning, (c) implement multimodal

instructional methods, (d) provide a variety

of ways for demonstrating knowledge, and

(e) use technology to enhance learning

opportunities.

33CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

Information access. Faculty took

measures to promote information access in a

variety of ways. In the progress reports, 31%

(n=18) of faculty indicated making at least

one modification to course materials in ways

such as providing copies of lecture notes

and overhead or PowerPoint information,

reformatting course materials, and providing

audiotapes of lectures. For example, one

participant noted:

I am now more aware of the

individual needs of students in my

classes. I have arranged for note

takers who will copy notes for my

sight impaired students who find it

difficult to read my “whiteboard

notes.” I previously had my notes

available on the computer (power

points slides with written info). I am

having our printing services make

larger print copies of selected

handouts.

Another participant indicated that: “Lecture

notes have been made available to all

students with the intent that this will help

those that have a disability as well as all

other students who may choose to access the

information.” This participant appears to

have been motivated by UID notions that

promoting access for students with

disabilities can benefit all students. Another

participant observed how promoting

information access for a student with a

disability was appreciated by other students

for whom the modification was not directly

intended:

I also distributed handouts for all

overheads and computer projections

that I demonstrated in class. This,

essentially, was an accommodation

for [a disabled] student, and to help

students who might have more

difficulty with simultaneously

processing visual and verbal

information. Most students in the

class, however, commented at one

time or another on the helpfulness of

all the handouts.

Another participant noted the specific

benefits of electronic information access for

all students:

I have one student that has difficulty

in reading and writing, thus, I have

provided all my classes with my

power-point lecture notes in advance.

Students are able to access my lecture

outline through the web. By providing

my lecture outline in advance, this

allows students to do more discussion

in class, and allow more time writing

down examples given in class.

Information access can also be promoted by

slight modifications to lecture or

presentation style, as reported by one faculty

member:

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

For example, with a deaf student, I

tried to limit my use of vague terms

and pronouns, such as “this” and

“that.” The deaf student needed to use

an interpreter. When I pointed to

something and said “this,” I was

usually pointing to something else or

nothing at all by the time the deaf

student understood the interpretation.

By being more specific, the student

had a better understanding of my

references, and I’m sure the

specificity was beneficial to the rest

of the class.

Many faculty (36%, n=21) also promoted

information access through the use of

technology. Most accessible technology use

involved making course materials available

electronically or taking measures to ensure

that current course websites were accessible

to a diverse range of abilities; 31% (n=18)

of faculty made course materials available

electronically by posting their syllabus to

the web or providing online or disk copies

of lecture notes, assignments, and exam

review materials. Some faculty (n=7, 12%)

mentioned that they had either tested their

current websites for accessibility or that they

were more attentive to accessibility issues

when designing or redesigning websites.

Several faculty who were interviewed

mentioned that the CTAD workshops made

them more aware of how technology use

could promote equal access to the

curriculum. For example, when talking

about accessibility of course components for

students with disabilities prior to CTAD,

one faculty member said “I wasn’t that

interested in putting my syllabus on the web

because I didn’t really think about how that

may help students with disabilities.”

Faculty also made course content more

accessible by using multimodal methods for

instruction and assessment. In their follow-

up progress reports, many faculty explicitly

mentioned attending to students’ diverse

learning modalities; 21% (n=12) noted that

they had made changes such as balancing

the modes in which information is

presented, allowing alternative modes by

which students can demonstrate knowledge,

or including more multimedia in the

classroom. For example, one participant

noted a much greater use of visual stimuli,

such as overheads, videos, use of

whiteboard, and various props. Another

acknowledged “trying to hit a concept from

many directions . . . on the web, in lecture,

on CDROM, in groups, etc.” A third said she

offers a wider range of activities in class that

play to different students’ learning styles.

“We are tackling some material in new

ways,” notes one participant, “with students

doing presentations rather than listening to

me lecture and we will see how that works.”

Participant responses from both the

follow-up reports and interviews evince that

faculty appear to be more “aware of how an

accommodation for a student with a

35CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

disability can be beneficial to most students

in a course” and more aware of how

important it is to “have more of a grab bag

of ways to both communicate [information]

and to ensure that it is being

communicated.” UID principles have helped

faculty to see value in pre-planning and

building up a stock of well organized course

materials that would be on hand whenever a

student might need them. For example,

when talking about the provision of class

notes, one participant said:

I hadn’t thought of it as, you know,

that’s a good reason for doing it. I

thought, well making notes available

to students is a nice thing, but I hadn’t

thought of it as Universal Design, in

the event that I should come across a

student with a disability who might

need them.

The CTAD workshops have appeared to

result in many faculty taking less for granted

and thinking more critically about

information access. For example, one

faculty member, in light of heightened

awareness promoted by CTAD workshop

participation, noted that he was

concerned that some of the

technologies that we are using, we are

kind of getting into some video

streaming things, and again my

concern with that is that in the event

that it should have to go to a person

that can’t hear or has difficulty

hearing, what then?

Instructional design. Faculty indicated

that they had taken measures to redesign

instruction in order to more effectively

engage students in the teaching-learning

process.

In their progress reports, 26% (n=15) of

respondents indicated making at least one

modification to their testing and assessment

practices. Because extended time is a

common accommodation for many students

with disabilities, and because many students

who do not have disabilities also struggle

with issues of test anxiety, many faculty who

made testing and assessment modifications

chose to administer shorter, more frequent

tests so all students would have adequate

time to finish. For example, one participant

said:

We went from 4 to 6 exams so that

the material on each exam represents

a smaller chunk of the course, thus

making it easier to prepare for exams.

And the number of items on each

exam has been reduced from typically

10 to 6-8, which allows students more

time to answer each question and

reduces the anxiety that they might

otherwise feel.

A few faculty indicated that they had made

progress in developing alternative means by

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

which students could demonstrate

knowledge. For example, one faculty

member said:

I also started giving weekly short

answer written quizzes in addition to

the writing intensive papers and

multiple choice tests. My hope is that

a student’s grade does not all fall on

multiple choice tests or written work.

There are a number of different types

of evaluation measures to match

different students’ strengths.

Finally, one faculty member took measures

to provide more clear expectations by

“providing students with a detailed list of

objectives, location of the instruction in the

book, and representative problems to study

for exams.” The faculty member noted that

this was done “in response to students with

learning disabilities indicating that clearer

expectations as to what to study for on

exams, and where to find that material,

would be helpful.”

Fourteen percent (n=8) of faculty

indicated making at least one modification

to course assignments in ways such as

restructuring feedback, tailoring

assignments to individual student needs or

providing alternative assignment options,

and relaxing assignment deadlines. For

example, one participant reported:

I have offered assignments in multiple

formats—print, web based, and

verbal. I have become more attentive

to different learning preferences that

may result from physical or other

disabilities. I give assignments that

make available alternative ways of

demonstrating knowledge.

Another participant noted that she has “been

much more aware of the various needs of the

students and tried to address those needs”

and consequently “changed the design of

certain assignments to hopefully better meet

the needs of each student.”

Many faculty (n=13, 22%) also said that

they had modified their instruction or

instructional philosophy in some more

general way. For example, one faculty

member reported tailoring “the class to fit

the individualized needs and interests of

each student [and] moving away from

lecture and discussion formats to more of a

workshop mode.” Other faculty reported

providing more structure, support, and

feedback. One faculty member did this by

creating “a class e-mail list, which reviews

the week’s lecture material and offers

suggestions for writing topics and

encourages student responses online” and

another did this by explaining her

expectations on the syllabus so that students

would have “a good idea of the workload

issues up front.” Some faculty indicated a

37CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

better ability to more critically examine the

success of instructional strategies, as

exemplified by one response:

I have approached the project of

teaching with much higher sensitivity

to the presence of different physical

and cognitive learning styles and

abilities in the classroom. This has

resulted in an ongoing discussion

over the course of the term about

classroom strategies, how they are

working for the individuals and the

class as a whole, and ongoing

discussions about individual

strategies for getting the most out of

the class’s activities.

Some faculty even included UID principles

in course content. For example, one faculty

member reported, “Telling my new classes

about universal design including all

students’ recognition of how they learn best.

I have had several students come talk to me,

two of whom contacted disability services

for evaluation as a result of this class

discussion.”

Measures to Improve the

Classroom Climate

Workshop faculty appear both to have a

heightened sense of awareness regarding

students’ needs and to be better equipped to

work with students with disabilities in the

classroom. In their follow-up progress

reports, many faculty (n=17, 29%) indicated

having made specific accommodations for

students with disabilities since the

workshop; in the past year, 37 faculty

indicated that at least one student with a

disability had been enrolled in their

course(s). Twenty-six percent (n=15) of

faculty noted an increase in their awareness

regarding the needs of students with

disabilities or a better capacity to work with

students with disabilities. In an interview,

one participant said that since the workshop:

I have been working more closely

with our Office of Disability Services

and particularly I think I’ve been a

little faster to recommend students to

find a tutor when I seem to recognize

that they are having problems in class

. . . . I seem to be more aware and be

able to pick out a student that is

struggling and be able to realize that

it’s not the content— there is

something else here that is probably

causing this.

Another participant mentioned a new

found awareness for how the socially-based

pedagogy in her class—a method she

previously “always thought of as

empowering”—might indeed be “hard for

somebody who has some kind of social

anxiety disorder, or even just a shy

student . . . or a student from another culture

who is self conscious about their English

language use.”

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

One third (n=19) of faculty indicated in

their follow-up progress reports that they

either had taken steps to encourage

interaction between themselves and their

students or had taken steps to create a

climate that fosters trust and respect. Some

reported that they had increased their efforts

to encourage disability disclosure by

including or updating disclosure and

accommodation statements on their syllabus

or verbally expressing that they support

needs of diverse learners. For example, one

faculty member said:

I asked students on the very first day

of class to let me know if they had

any types of impairment (either

documented or undocumented) which

could influence their participation in

the class. Many students who

experience communication anxiety

and test anxiety came and talked to

me—this was a great way to open up

the class for dealing with

communication anxiety.

Other faculty helped make students

aware of university support services by, for

example, making “a point at the beginning

of the semester to verbally inform students

about disability services available at our

campus” or informing students “that there

are university resources for testing of LD’s”

for “students who are concerned that they

may have a learning disability.”

Conclusion

The Curriculum Transformation and

Disability Project has designed, tested, and

implemented an ambitious program of

faculty and staff development, with the goal

of creating a core of educators capable of

using the Principles of Universal

Instructional Design in course development

and course delivery. These Principles of

Universal Instructional Design have shown

promise in illuminating faculty

responsibility in making courses more fully

accessible and have begun to find their way

into courses and faculty practice.

Midstream formative feedback shows the

workshop to be welcome in our professional

development of educators in different

disciplines and in different institutional

settings. The promise of strong impact on

educators who take the time to participate in

CTAD workshops is beginning to emerge.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

P.L. 101-336, 42 US CA. 12, 101-12,

213, (West Supp. 1991).

The Center for Universal Design. (1997).

The Principles of Universal Design.

(Version 2.0) [Brochure]. Raleigh, NC:

North Carolina State University.

39CHAPTER 2

Implementing Universal Design

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987,

March). Seven principles for good

practice in undergraduate education.

AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.

Gill, C. (1987). A new social perspective on

disability and its implications for

rehabilitation. Sociocultural

Implications in Treatment Planning in

Occupational Therapy, 49-55.

Higbee, J. L., Ginter, E. J., & Taylor, W. D.

(1991). Enhancing academic

performance: Seven perceptual styles of

learning. Research and Teaching in

Developmental Education, 7(2), 5-10.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

20 U.S.C. 1400-1485 (1994), as

amended by 20 U.S.C.A. 1400-1487

(West 1977).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. P.O. 193-112.

Section 504.

CHAPTER 2

The CTAD Model

41CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

Perceptions of Universal (Instructional)

Design: A Qualitative Examination

Jennifer P. Hatfield

University of Minnesota

This chapter reports the results of a qualitative study of the impact of Curriculum Transformation and Disability

(CTAD) training on the work of eight participants.

n order to instigate a shift in the

experience of undergraduate students

with disabilities, Curriculum

Transformation and Disability (CTAD), a

Model Demonstration Project sponsored by

the U.S. Department of Education, has

undertaken the continuing professional

development of faculty, administrators, and

advisors. Since January 2000, 147 faculty,

administrators, and student services

personnel from colleges and universities in

the Upper Central and Lower Great Lakes

Region have participated in CTAD

professional development workshops.

Workshop curricula, founded upon

principles of Universal Instructional Design

(UID), have been designed to facilitate

understanding of disability issues and

implementation of accommodations as part

of the regular curriculum (for more on UID

and the CTAD program, see chapters 2 and

3).

Program evaluation data show that

participants have been modifying

curriculum, instruction, policy, and practice

in accordance with UID principles.

However, attitude theory suggests that it is

important to examine the attitudes behind

these actions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;

Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 1997; Chubon,

1992; Kalivoda & Higbee, 1998). Such an

examination lends useful information

regarding the general merit of this relatively

new instructional philosophy. For example,

Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (as cited

in Kalivoda & Higbee, 1998) posits that

actions are a function of three belief and

attitude constructs. First, a person’s action is

contingent upon personal beliefs regarding

the degree of control he or she has over that

action. In the context of applying UID, a

person might therefore be influenced by the

degree to which he or she feels the

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

principles can be applied in practice. CTAD

Participants have obviously applied UID

principles to modify curriculum and

instruction, but without further inquiry, the

thought processes behind these actions

remain unknown. Participants could have

acted out of a sense of obligation rather than

out of beliefs that implementing UID is

generally feasible. A person’s action is also

determined by the semantic valence he or

she attributes to performing the action. If a

person feels that UID principles have little

merit, he or she may have negative or

neutral feelings about applying the

principles, and therefore will not be

intrinsically inclined to practice the

principles. Finally, according to the theory, a

person’s action is influenced by personal

beliefs regarding “the presence or absence

of social support for engaging in the

[action]” (Kalivoda & Higbee, 1998, p. 14).

A person may feel that UID is a useful and

practicable model, but might be deterred

from using the principles in practice due to

flak received from colleagues or

administration.

Attitude theory suggests that a

description of how UID principles have

intersected with participants’ pedagogical

philosophies and personal backgrounds can

adumbrate the future of this approach. If this

approach is not well-received, malleable,

and applicable to a variety of situations, how

enceinte with possibilities can it be? If this

approach is easily subject to theoretical

criticism, perhaps it may be a passing fad,

not to be built upon or perseverant in the

face of competing approaches. This chapter

will qualitatively examine these issues and

describe the appeal (or lack thereof) that

UID principles held for a group of CTAD

workshop participants.

At the outset, it was postulated that

participants’ reactions to UID and resultant

post-workshop actions would be a function

of pre-workshop “real-life context”. It was

also postulated that outcomes would not be

uniform across participants, both because of

the wide array of options for action

suggested by workshop curricula and

because of the potentially complex

interactions between participants’

interpretations of UID, pre-workshop lived

experiences, and innumerable psychological

characteristics such as personality, affect,

and motivation.

Method

Data Collection

In order to gather qualitative, summative

information about the short and long term

impact of CTAD, a study was designed to

collect in-depth conversational data about

participants’ experiences with the CTAD

project. Data were collected using

semi-structured interviews (i.e., open-ended

conversations prompted by a structured set

43CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

of questions) designed to allow participants

the opportunity to reflect on their

experiences and perceptions of CTAD and

its principles. Specifically, interviewees

were asked to share anecdotes and personal

experiences regarding their work with

students with disabilities prior to CTAD

workshop participation as well as the

changes they had made as a result of

workshop participation. Interviewees were

also asked to discuss their attitudes toward

UID principles and the kinds of

transformations that these principles may or

may not imbue. The interview protocol is

displayed in Figure 1.

Participants

Interviewees self-selected into the study

by responding to an e-mail message from the

project director alerting them of the

opportunity. All volunteers were first

interviewed approximately six months after

workshop participation, and a second time

approximately one year after workshop

participation. At the end of the second

project year, interviews had been conducted

with eight participants (seven faculty and

one advisor) from three different public

institutions of higher education in the

Midwest: an urban research University, a

small liberal arts college, and a small

college specializing in science and

technology education. The interviewees

came from diverse backgrounds, covering

the disciplines of science, history,

economics, art, writing, foreign language,

and the social sciences, and ranging in job

experience from 6 to 31 years.

Data Analysis

A case study approach was used to

analyze the interview transcripts from the

eight participants. Other available data from

these participants (i.e., pre-workshop

surveys and post-workshop activity reports)

were consulted at times to complement,

verify, or add additional context to emerging

themes from the interviews. The objective of

this inquiry was not simply to capture “mere

frequencies or incidence” of behaviors, but

rather, to examine “operational links”

between participants’ pedagogical

philosophies and experiences, personal

backgrounds and characteristics, and

exposure to UID principles. Due to the

explanatory nature of this objective, the case

study method was chosen because of its

potential to help build both rich

explanations about how UID principles were

received by CTAD participants and

conjectures about why they were received in

the ways they were.

Although some might criticize the use of

case study methods because “they provide

very little basis for scientific generalization”

(Yin, 1989, p. 21), this criticism is a moot

issue for this study. The intent of this

inquiry is not to make population statements

about how UID principles might be

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

Figure 1. Interview Protocol for CTAD Participants

Content area Interview prompt*

Anecdotes and personal experiences Prior to going through the CTAD training, how would you

describe your level of awareness about and types of

interactions with students in your classes who have

disabilities?

Describe some specific challenges or successes you have

experienced in teaching students with disabilities. What

in particular was challenging or successful for you and

the student?

Has any aspect of CTAD training made you think any

differently about your interactions with students who

have disabilities in terms of teaching and level of

curricular accessibility?

Prior to CTAD, how would you describe your course

components/curriculum in terms of its level of

accessibility for students with disabilities? What in

particular made it accessible or not?

Value and impact of CTAD After participating in CTAD training, have you implemented

any changes in your course as a direct result? If you did,

what are they, and what in particular about CTAD made

you decide to make these changes? If you did not, why

have you decided not to make any specific changes to the

course? Were there any specific barriers which prevented

you from implementing planned changes? If you are not

making changes now, do you think you might make

changes over the long term?

In general, what aspects of curricula in your discipline do

you perceive as accessible or not to students with

disabilities? Did CTAD training impact your views about

this in any way?

What is your perception of (or attitude toward) the

application of principles of Universal Instructional

Design (UID) and Disability Culture as it specifically

relates to the courses you teach, and more broadly to

curricula your discipline?

45CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

Figure 1 continued. Interview Protocol for CTAD Participants

Content area Interview prompt*

Value and impact of CTAD What kinds of “transformation” do you think are facilitated,

(or not facilitated), by CTAD principles? For example, one

principle was the notion of challenging traditional views of

“accommodation” with notions of “UID”—what is your

perspective on this as it relates to your practice/research?

What kinds of transformation could result from this

"challenging"?

Beyond the initial CTAD training this year, what do you plan

to do in the future related to these concepts? Will you

continue to work with CTAD principles or with the CTAD

training team?

Perceived impact of CTAD in

different contexts

How would you describe the climate on your own campus and

in your department related to the instruction of students

with disabilities, particularly in terms of CTAD principles

like UID?

What kinds of resources and support (departmental and

campus) exist for these students? What barriers exist for

students and for faculty/administrators in supporting them?

*For interviewees whose job duties were not strictly related to instruction, language in the interview

prompts was modified to reflect their job function.

received, but rather, to examine the degree

to which case study evidence supports or

refutes the theoretical proposition that UID

principles can facilitate curricular or

programmatic design.

A fatal flaw in doing case studies is to

conceive of statistical generalization

as the method of generalizing the

results of a case. This is because

cases are not “sampling units” and

should not be chosen for this reason.

Rather, individual case studies are to

be selected as a laboratory

investigator selects the topic of a new

experiment. Multiple cases, in this

sense, should be considered like

multiple experiments (or multiple

surveys). (p. 38)

Data analysis followed procedures

suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Analysis was grounded in a semiotic

analytic approach (Feldman, 1995) and

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

focused by the primary proposition that

CTAD impact has meaning within a person’s

context and history. In the analysis, specific

attention was paid to the following context

topics: disability awareness, historical

frustrations and roadblocks when working

with students with disabilities;

accommodation style; pedagogical style; and

dilemmas in curriculum and instruction.

Coded transcripts were used to generate an

interpretive case summary sheet for each

interviewee. The next step was to reread the

transcripts looking specifically for content

related to CTAD impact. This content was

used to characterize each interviewee’s

reaction to UID. The context topic and UID

reaction characterizations were brought

together in an attempt to more fully describe

participants’ reactions to UID by explaining

how UID principles had intersected with

participants’ pedagogical philosophies and

personal backgrounds to produce, or not

produce, behavioral or affective outcomes.

Results

Faculty reactions to UID appeared to

approximate one of several types. There was

“enlightenment,” where UID principles

seemed to facilitate solutions to (or

advances in solving) an existing problem.

There was the “cold shoulder,” where the

model met with more skepticism and found

scant place to rest and grow into practice.

Finally, there was the “revelation,” where

the model appeared to open a frontier of

pedagogical opportunities either by

introducing a completely new concept or by

putting definition to current instructional

practices that had previously been

sublimated and intuitive. Three cases

representative of the typologies that

emerged in data analysis are presented

below followed by a case summary of the

one student services interviewee.

Case 1: Enlightenment

John is a professor of history and

economics at an urban Midwestern research

university. He teaches mostly freshman

students in a college that has a history of

providing supportive and responsive

pedagogy to a student body that is diverse in

terms of race, ethnicity, socio economic

status, and disability status. At the time of

the first interview, John had been teaching at

the postsecondary level for 15 years, and in

that time indicated that over 30 students

with disabilities (of whom he had been

aware) had passed through his classroom.

John’s reaction to UID principles could

be characterized by enlightenment. He

talked mainly about UID principles in terms

of one specific application, namely the way

in which technology could be used to

increase curricular access. There was also

some element of revelation in his reaction,

because UID principles did mollify some

skepticism and reveal to him the benefit of

47CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

using technology in instruction. However, he

seemed to better approximate the

enlightenment theme because, in terms of

behavioral and affective outcomes, a “light

bulb turned on” resulting from the

confluence of a specific pre-existent

“dilemma” and exposure to UID principles.

John reported having a high degree of

disability awareness, which he attributed to

his wife and the college he attended as an

undergraduate. His wife had over 20 years

of experience working with students with

disabilities as a physical therapist, and he

reported that he had “learn[ed] a lot by just

listening to her talk about either issues the

parents had or issues the school had or

whatever surrounding handicapped

students.” He also attributed his awareness

to the college he attended, which was a

forerunner in promoting equal access so

“what [he] assumed was normal, was

unique” at the time.

In working with students with disabilities

in the past, he indicated taking fairly

common measures, like giving students

materials before class and administering

exams in separate rooms. He seemed to have

thought mainly about modifying current

materials rather than changing how they

were delivered (i.e., content versus media).

In general, he seemed to have a very open

and receptive attitude about working with

students with disabilities, and expressed a

willingness to “do whatever work was

necessary,” even in light of fear or

skepticism. Furthermore, he was also very

willing to communicate with students about

what they might need and took the time to

work with students to ensure that they

understand content.

In some ways, in the past he seemed to

be operating from the traditional notions of

accommodation. He talked about providing

specific accommodations to specific

students, rather than describing course

components that had worked well for the

students with disabilities who had passed

through his classroom. The modifications to

course materials were made specifically in

response to students with disabilities. In

terms of exams, he did indicate that:

“additional time was never a problem

because I really don’t have time limits on

my tests anyway.” Also, his words did echo

UID when talking about how he presented

some information in class:

When I am showing a map or

discussing a map I am explaining it in

more detail. This ends up benefiting

all students in the class, but I think

I’ve done a fairly good job of

accomplishing that so that a blind

person who can’t see the map still

understands whatever the teaching

point is.

In terms of classroom climate, his

practice aligned with tenets of UID. He was

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

attentive to students’ needs when

confronted, though he seemed to lack a

certain proactiveness. When talking about

working with students with disabilities,

much of his discussion was reactive. He

would be confronted with a student, or the

need to accommodate, which would

stimulate receptiveness, rather than his

attentiveness prompting him to approach

students.

John discussed a few issues with which

he had been concerned: one related to

disability access and another related to

course materials. First, although he was

generally satisfied with the degree to which

his courses were accessible to diverse

learners, the question of how to successfully

reach blind students in one of his classes had

remained a conundrum. This course relied

heavily on visual information in the form of

charts and graphs, and he had not yet found

a way to express the information to blind

students. Even after CTAD, the question of

how to represent this information in other

modes still remained, so UID did not make

its impact here. UID made its impact on the

tails of the other dilemma with which John

was struggling: namely, the quest to find a

better, less Eurocentric textbook. He was

drawn toward the UID principle that

advocates using technology to enhance

learning opportunities, saying that “the idea

of Universal Instructional Design has really

appealed to me and particularly, at this point

the way I envision it is through using

technology.” He went on to say that he has

been “a little slow to jump on the

technology bandwagon” because in the past

he felt like technology was simply

redundant—“a new toy to deliver the same

stuff.” In the past, he also was even under

the “misconception that putting things on

the computer might actually make it less

accessible to students with disabilities.” He

noted that the notion of building

accommodations into the course itself, in

conjunction with the technology

demonstrations in the workshop worked to

“[open] up an advantage of technology that I

hadn’t really been aware of.” The

intersection between past curriculum

development issues and UID

conceptualizations became evident when he

discussed how he was planning to include

web-based assignments in one of his

courses, the idea for which he attributed

partly to “CTAD and the idea of making this

all more accessible” and partly to his quest

for a “balanced world history book.” When

asked whether he had previously considered

using the internet to supplement a textbook,

he said:

The light bulb turned on after those

[above two things]. I was trying to

figure out other ways to do it and I

hadn’t really been thinking in terms

of the internet or technology. So that

light bulb didn’t go on until after this

[putting CTAD knowledge and

current dilemma together].

49CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

Case 2: Cold Shoulder

Jerry is a science instructor at an urban

Midwestern research university. Like John,

he also teaches mostly freshman students in

a college that has a history of providing

supportive and responsive pedagogy. At the

time of the first interview, he had been

teaching for 10 years. In that time he

indicated that between 6 and 10 students

with disabilities (of whom he had been

aware) had enrolled in his courses; however,

he also noted that “in one way, all of them”

are disabled to some degree, reflecting a

more progressive notion of disability rooted

in individual difference rather than

individual deficit theory.

His experience with CTAD was

generally positive, but he reported two

“issues” or observations about the program

in general related to its novelty status and its

theoretical relationship to prior curricular

trends he had seen throughout the years.

These “issues,” in conjunction with his more

progressive pedagogical style, appeared to

result in a cold shoulder reaction to UID

principles.

Jerry seemed to be quite aware of

resources available for students with

disabilities, which he attributed to time and

experience. He reported a “very difficult”

past experience when a student with a visual

impairment had enrolled in his class.

Because both he and the student were not

aware of the available resources, he felt like

he was “trying to re-do a whole bunch of

things that had already been done.” But,

with this experience and others, he came to

learn that, for example, “there are services

where you could take your lab book and get

it converted into Braille.”

When talking about past interactions

with students with disabilities, Jerry, like

John, seemed to have been more receptive

than advocating. He did indicate some

uncertainty in terms of the appropriateness

in approaching and offering help to people

with disabilities, and, like John, he struggled

with how to make his course accessible to

students with visual impairments. In the

classroom, he appeared to have both acted

from traditional notions of accommodation

where standard and prescribed actions are

taken, and more progressive notions where

dynamic actions are taken in response to the

voice of the student with a disability. His

approach to instruction seemed very flexible

and unconventional within the traditions of

his scientific discipline. He seemed to be

very much led by students in the walk

toward providing an equal opportunity

education; for example, he said: “I am

always fine with plan B. you know, ‘what do

you want to do? OK well we can’t cut apart

a pig, what should we do instead?’ and then

I usually am saying ‘propose something’.”

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

He went on to talk about how he was

struggling, trying to balance pedagogy in

support of learning with pedagogy in

support of tradition. When talking about

providing students alternatives to lab

activities, he went on to say: “and that is

where the different committees at the

University say: ‘Well that is not a lab

activity.’ And that is where [another

instructor] hit the wall too in a few things

that he was doing . . . and you just kind of

shake your head and say ‘bureaucracy’.”

In many respects, Jerry already seemed

to be incorporating UID principles in his

pedagogy before CTAD. He realized that

“students change all the time so your

activities have to change in some way.” His

instructional flexibility supported a variety

of ways in which students could

demonstrate knowledge. Providing

multimodal instructional methods also

seemed to play a key role in his pedagogy,

as exemplified by his statement that “you hit

the same topics in different ways I think.

You hit on the web, you hit it on a

videotape, you hit it orally, you hit it

visually, you hit it tactically in the lab.”

Jerry also actively worked on determining

essential components, as exemplified in his

statement that “a general theme of each year

[is that] I teach less and less . . . [which]

means that each year I am trying to pick out

what is most important.” Finally, he was

also very adept in the use of technology,

which he used heavily in instruction.

Furthermore, unlike John, even before

CTAD Jerry saw technology’s potential for

improving access to education for students

with disabilities.

This faculty member, progressive in

many ways, had an interesting reaction to

UID. Although he did say that, possibly as a

result of CTAD, “more and more and more

redundancy is what I’m seeing,” no light

bulb appeared as it had for John. Jerry saw

UID as “a new player, you know, one player.

You have other players, too. You have

conceptual change, you have problem

solving, you have cooperative learning, you

have concept mapping, you have Universal

Design.” He was more skeptical of UID, and

instead of seeing it as a new bandwagon

upon which to jump, he seemed to have a

scientist’s reservation, distrusting a new

theory until it has been proven. When asked

whether he felt that UID was “an old player

with a new name,” he went on to say:

I don’t even know what the old player

is. Is the old player education? I think

so, I think that’s the old player. A new

player, Universal Design, is still a

new concept or a new tool to throw in

there and see how it works. Just like

open classrooms were big in the 60s.

Did they work? No, they went away.

The tool went away.

His skepticism toward UID appeared also to

be a function of a view that teaching, and

51CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

our knowledge about how to teach, is an

evolving process and not an absolute

endpoint. This was evident when he went on

to say:

Universal Design might stay, you

know constructivism, probably not, I

hope not, something better will come

along. Likewise, am I going to be

teaching the same way 40 years from

now, 30 years from now? I hope not, I

hope something better comes along.

In terms of pedagogy and curriculum

design, Jerry marched to his own beat. Even

though he did indicate struggling with some

issues, like how to effectively engage

students with visual impairments and how to

balance the tension between “old school,

new school” pedagogy, UID principles

appeared to have no place upon which to

alight (as they had for John), even fleetingly,

in Jerry’s mind. Rather, to him, UID

principles were but another fruit to be

observed in his journey through the forest, a

fruit simply left to ripen on the branches of

theory and of little need to him, already

sustained by current practice: his own beat,

his pedagogical predilection to have

“students do things in their strengths.”

Case 3: Revelation

Margaret is a professor of Humanities

and French at a small Midwestern liberal

arts college. At the time of the first

interview, she had been teaching for nine

years and in that time had been aware of

between 11 and 15 students with disabilities

who had enrolled in her courses.

Margaret’s reaction to UID principles

was very enthusiastic, and embodies the

revelation type of response. In the past, she

had relied heavily on Disability Services to

provide accommodations for students with

disabilities, but UID principles helped reveal

her role in creating an equal access

classroom. For Margaret, UID principles

promoted a way of thinking about access

that is contrary to the notion of

accommodation. As a result, she reported a

broad array of behavioral and affective

outcomes.

Unlike John and Jerry, Margaret was

perhaps more of a novice in working with

students with disabilities, though she didn’t

report having encountered fewer students in

the classroom than had Jerry. When asked

about her level of disability awareness, she

admitted that it was “fairly low . . . in terms

of knowing that students had a particular

disability, but not really knowing how to

accommodate them unless I got information

from Disability Services.”

Margaret’s approach to accommodation

was very traditional and reactive, rather than

proactive. For example, she said that: “when

disability services would contact me with a

student who had a disability we would try

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

to, you know, find a substitute way for that

student [to do an activity].” She talked about

having been “fairly successful in trying to

find alternative testing, ways to take tests for

students with dyslexia, for example, just

giving them extra time or putting them in a

different room.” She also talked about how,

in response to specific students with

disabilities, she had provided tape-recorded

lectures or made modifications to the

physical environment.

In some ways, Margaret appeared to be

more of a “clean slate” than Jerry or John, in

terms of her receptivity to UID principles.

She received UID principles very

enthusiastically, saying that it was “just sort

of the idea of Universal Design,” which lay

behind the myriad ways in which she had

changed her course since participation in the

workshop. Unlike John, who honed in on the

use of technology to enhance learning

opportunities, Margaret made use of many

principles. She incorporated natural supports

for learning by “making printed materials in

advance” for her classes, and building up a

reserve of these materials. She had become

more flexible and creative in terms of

instructional methods and assessment

practices. For example, she indicated that

she was doing “more active, more

performance-based things in class”, doing

“more in class presentations as a basis of

evaluation,” and evaluating students “on

some less formal levels . . . ways for them to

show that they have learned something . . .

[other than] high powered written tests.”

She had also started to use more peer

collaboration in the classroom as a way to

“give [students] extra opportunity and

reinforcement” in the learning process. This

created another instructional mode and

performance feedback mechanism. She also

mentioned the positive effect that UID

principles had on the classroom climate and

how she now thinks differently “in terms of

interactions with students, in terms of

making, or trying to improve, the comfort

level of [her] students.” Even though, prior

to CTAD, she felt that she “had always been

somewhat good at creating a good classroom

climate,” after the workshop the UID

principles helped further bolster classroom

climate by promoting a classroom

community where “everyone [has] a

responsibility within the class,” and

pedagogy plays to students’ strengths and

moves toward a more collaborative

endeavor where students work together, and

with the instructor, to develop knowledge

and understanding.

For Margaret, UID principles appeared to

be rather transformative. When talking

about how her notion of accommodation had

changed, she said that UID principles helped

move her from “that idea of ‘well, there is

this one student that I have to figure out

what to do with’” toward the more

progressive idea of “restructuring the whole

53CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

class.” Her reservations about “the idea of

restructuring the whole course to

accommodate one student” were mollified

by “the idea of Universal Instructional

Design [which] really changes the way that

you can think about [course restructuring].”

Furthermore, the principles seemed to

operate as a pedagogical heuristic—a

toolbox to help improve instruction—as

evinced by her statement that:

I have a little 3 by 5 card on my

computer now with a list of all the

UID strategies that I can use. You

know, and there is a list of like 15

things that I can do, like criteria and

base learning, putting all materials on

reserve, testing in the same manner as

teaching and things like that.

In applying UID, Margaret was seeing

positive results in her own classroom as well

as the model’s potential appeal for her

discipline. She noted how “some of those

principles are very similar to what’s going

on in language pedagogy these days,” but

that “some of the aspects of what we do

aren’t working quite well yet.” She went on

to say how she hoped that as she learned

more about UID she would be able to

dovetail UID principles with current

movements in language pedagogy. With this

vision in mind, she felt that UID “is

definitely going to influence us positively in

the future.”

Case 4: An Advisor’s Perspective

Edward is an advisor at an urban

Midwestern university in a unit that serves a

population of students diverse with respect

to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and

disability status. Although Edward does

have some teaching duties, his primary role

is as an academic advisor. He also has done

some work as an advocate for students with

disabilities. At the time of the first interview,

he had been advising students for

approximately eight years. He indicated

having a high degree of disability

awareness, although he did indicate that

CTAD had “piqued my curiosity to look into

learning disabilities a little bit more.” In the

past he had primarily worked with students

with physical or sensory disabilities.

Edward described how several UID

principles could be used by student services

personnel and administration to lessen the

barriers for students with disabilities in

postsecondary education. He described how

his advising unit had taken actions to

enhance the institutional climate for students

with disabilities by incorporating more

disability information in admissions and

orientation materials and student services

training. He described how he was

attempting to work with university

governance in order to increase the

accessibility of the disability documentation

process. He also mentioned how the

administration should work to determine the

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

essential components of general and specific

degree requirements.

Edward talked about being frustrated by

students who might not disclose their

disability: students who get “into trouble

[and have] never told me of a learning

disability until they are in trouble.” He noted

how characteristics of the institution and of

the student both contribute to non-

disclosure. Students with disabilities may

come to postsecondary education lacking

self advocacy skills because someone else

had “made sure that they had got all of their

accommodations in K-12.” Students may get

to college thinking that it is a fresh start, that

their disability will not pose barriers, and

that “everything is going to be magically

different.” Nondisclosure may further be

propagated by postsecondary policy, which

requires that a disability be documented

before services can be provided but does not

require that the postsecondary institution be

responsible for documentation. Edward

noted how this is especially problematic for

students with learning disabilities, who may

need current documentation in order to

receive services. If this documentation does

not come from the high school, the financial

burden of testing and documentation will

fall upon the student, and many students

simply can’t afford the testing. In order to

address issues of student-institution

relations and institutional climate that might

preclude students from disclosing their

disability, Edward noted how, since

participating in the workshops, he and other

student services staff have been

looking at things we can do in terms

of working with [Disabilities

Services] and admissions along the

lines of sending out information . . .

[coming] up with a parent’s package

. . . something . . . to parents saying if

your child is diagnosed with an LD

make sure that you go to the high

school to get a copy of the file and the

paper work and forward it to the

office for students with disabilities.

As well as talking about easing the

transition into postsecondary education, he

also talked about how measures were being

taken to improve the institutional climate for

students with disabilities. He noted how the

student services staff in his unit has

had a frank discussion that our

definition of culture was too narrow,

and we work hard to make this place

as comfortable to students who are

racially and ethnically different from

the dominant culture, and we do a

good job, but we do have a fair

number of disabled students and

wonder if we are doing the same

thing.

Furthermore, he noted how “since CTAD

[we have] set up kind of a special training

55CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

for staff with disabilities services where we

really spent a better part of the day with

them . . . all morning discussing various

services.”

In order to increase student access to

accommodation, through his membership on

a university governance committee, he was

also exploring ways to incorporate natural

supports for disability documentation. He

noted how there are “competent people” on

campus who could provide testing for

disability, but that currently the university is

“farming it all off campus,” hence creating

more roadblocks for students with

disabilities.

Edward also noted some concern over

the inflexibility of policy and procedure in

institutions, programs, or departments. He

noted how some degree requirements just

might not make sense for students with

certain disabilities and how UID principles

could be used by administration to make

programs more flexible and accessible in the

same way that the principles are used by

faculty to make courses more flexible and

accessible.

Edward’s case demonstrates how some

UID principles can be used in the student

services context to design or modify

materials, communications, and policies and

procedures. He did note, however, that

“Universal Design is a little bit harder to

incorporate” in advising. He did seem to

believe that the principles had merit; he was

just struggling with how they could

specifically be translated into practice for

student advising. He talked about how he

and other advisors were using UID

principles when engaging in course schedule

planning with students to “put all students in

classes their first term that would better

guarantee that they would be successful.”

However, he did go on to say how this

approach met with conflict from other

administration. There were certain courses

in the college for which there was an

implied “one rule fits all” approach in terms

of when the courses should be taken in a

student’s career. Following UID and being

flexible in course scheduling had been

difficult for advisors because they were

getting conflicting messages from

enrollment management personnel who were

concerned that advisors were recommending

students away from certain classes that

needed to be filled.

Edward appeared to be seeking out other

ways in which UID could be applied to

advising. He noted how he and other

advising staff were “trying hard” to find

other ways UID could be incorporated in

advising. But, he went on to acknowledge

that some of this difficulty could be due to

the nature of the advising model used in his

college. He said that “the difference between

being in the classroom and utilizing

Universal Design and working in advising,

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

which is 99% a one-on-one activity, is in

advising you have the opportunity to really

treat each student . . . as a unique

individual.” He clearly regarded the UID

model in a very positive light, noting how

the principles would definitely have an

application if the college were to move to a

group advisement model. He did feel that

UID had a place in advising, but that its

place had not yet been fully realized. He

said that he would look for “Universal

Design in advising” at professional

conferences and in the literature, noting that

maybe “just hearing [Universal Design]

presented in a different way will pop off

some flashlight enlightenment.”

Conclusion

Based upon participants’ reactions to

UID, it appears that this model does hold

promise as a viable approach to curricular

and programmatic design. Despite

individual differences in job duties,

discipline, personal and pedagogical

philosophies, and instructional challenges

most participants were attracted to some

aspect of UID. Only one of the eight

participants interviewed exhibited the cold

shoulder reaction to the model. However,

this person was skeptical of UID not

because of the basic fundamental tenets of

the model, but because to him, UID was

simply “a new word for an old thing [i.e.,

good teaching].” It appears that participants

were motivated to apply UID principles out

of personal beliefs that the instructional

model is truly useful and generally feasible.

Although many of the participants

interviewed had already been teaching in a

manner aligned with UID, this did not

diminish the appeal that UID principles held

for them.

There was little indication that

vituperation of UID principles by other

faculty or administration had interfered with

intentions to use the model in practice.

However, most of the interviewees did work

in a relatively progressive and supportive

atmosphere. One interviewee noted her

observation that the way in which UID is

articulated can make a difference in how it

is received by other faculty. She noted that:

When you can talk to [other faculty]

about Universal Design . . . and

principles of curricula transformation

to promote accessibility to everybody

. . . they are much more open to the

principles than when you frame the

discussion as ‘you have a

responsibility to make your class

accessible to students with a range of

disabilities.’

This person’s experience talking with other

faculty who had not participated in the

CTAD program indicated that many faculty

may hold misperceptions about

accommodation that could ablate the appeal

57CHAPTER 3

Implementing Universal Design

of UID for curricular transformation.

Indeed, literature suggests that many faculty

and administrators lack knowledge

regarding students with disabilities and the

accommodation provision (Aksamit, Morris,

& Leuenberger, 1987; Bigaj, 1995; Foster,

Long, & Snell, 1999; Hart & Williams,

1995; Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, & Brulle,

1998; Williams & Ceci, 1999). Furthermore,

some research has shown that faculty may

balk at providing accommodations if the

effort they must expend in making the

accommodation exceeds the benefit

(Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 1997; Kalivoda

& Higbee, 1998). It thus appears that, in

general, faculty and administrator attitude

toward UID may be most positive when the

model’s promise for improving education

for all students is first emphasized, followed

by articulations of the specific

subpopulations for whom it holds benefit.

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions:

A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl

& J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control:

From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39).

Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Aksamit, D., Morris, M. & Leuenberger, J.

(1987). Preparation of student services

professionals and faculty for servicing

learning-disabled college students.

Journal of College Student Personnel,

28, 53-59.

Bigaj, S. J. (1995). Accommodation

strategies for postsecondary students

with learning disabilities: A survey of

faculty attitudes and use. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Bourke, A., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P.

(1997, March). Tracing the links in the

chain of accommodation: A study of

University of Massachusetts’ faculty

members’ provision of accommodations

to students with learning disabilities.

Paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Chubon, R. C. (1990). Attitudes toward

disability: Addressing fundamentals of

attitude theory and research in

rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation

Education, 6, 301-312.

Feldman, M. S. (1995). Strategies for

interpreting qualitative data. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999).

Inclusive instruction and learning for

deaf students in postsecondary

education. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 4, 225-235.

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of UID

Hart, R. D., & Williams, D. E. (1995).

Able-bodied instructors and students

with physical disabilities: A relationship

handicapped by communication.

Communication Education, 44, 140-154.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1998).

Influencing faculty attitudes toward

accommodating students with

disabilities: A theoretical approach.

Learning Assistance Review, 3(2),

12-25.

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle,

A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and

practices regarding students with

disabilities: Two decades after

implementation of Section 504. Journal

of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 13, 5-19.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).

Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999).

Accommodating learning disabilities

can bestow unfair advantages. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 45,

B4-B5.

Yin, Y. K. (1989). Case study research:

Design and methods. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

59CHAPTER 4

Implementing Universal Design

Community Colleges and Universal Design

Judy Schuck

University of Minnesota

Jane Larson

Minneapolis Community and Technical College

Community colleges are committed to serving all segments of society through open access admissions, allowing

equal and fair access to all students. The diversity of community colleges makes Universal Design’s “one size does

not fit all” approach very compelling. At the same time, community colleges face significant challenges in

fulfilling the promise of Universal Design (UD) and Universal Instructional Design (UID) because of this

diversity and the limited resources available to both students and institutions. This chapter presents a description

of community college students, their diversity and challenges in accessing higher education, as well as the

opportunities and challenges colleges encounter in the implementation of UD and UID.

hen we consider the history and

mission of community colleges, it

seems particularly fitting to

include this chapter in a book on Universal

Design (UD). In fact, we could view the

community college model itself as a

metaphor for this inclusive approach to

delivering education. If we change the

question an architect first asks in universally

designing a building, “Who are the people

who will need to access this building?” to

“Who are the people who will need to

access this education?” we get some idea of

what the founders of community colleges

had in mind.

Community colleges were formed in the

early 20

century with the goal of providing

a gateway to opportunity for many young

people who otherwise would have been

denied access to higher education (Phillippe

& Patton, 2000). Although the earliest junior

colleges may differ from today’s

comprehensive community colleges, this

goal of access still remains central to the

community college mission. This mission is

characterized by a commitment to serving

all segments of society through an

open-access admissions policy (i.e., open

enrollment) that offers equal and fair

treatment to all students (Vaughan, 1999).

Whether young or old, affluent or

CHAPTER 4

Community Colleges and UID

economically disadvantaged, new to college

or returning after time out, planning to

enhance basic skills or transfer to ultimately

earn a graduate degree, students who attend

community colleges are seeking an

environment that has been designed to

accommodate them. Such an environment

calls for a flexible and inclusive model of

delivering education and makes UD’s “one

size does not fit all” approach particularly

compelling.

In this chapter, we will first present a

description of community college students,

addressing both their diversity and the

characteristics that make it more difficult for

them to access higher education. We will

then consider the features of community

colleges that facilitate the implementation of

Universal Design and Universal

Instructional Design (UID) as well as the

special challenges community colleges face

in its implementation.

Characteristics of

Community College Students

For the students who enroll in them,

community colleges are often the first

student experience in accessing higher

education, a first experience in education in

this country, or a return to school after

several years of absence. Community

colleges serve students of all ages and ethnic

and cultural heritages, students with life and

time conflicts, and students possessing a

great range of skill levels. Community

colleges also serve as the entry point to

higher education for many students with

disabilities. More adult students than

traditional-age students are likely to access

education in the community in which they

live. Students who are still in high school, or

who have left school before the age of 18,

also access community colleges through

concurrent enrollment during high school.

Only 32% of community college students

are between the ages of 18 and 22, often

considered the “traditional” college age.

Forty-six percent of students are 25 years or

older; 32% are age 30 years or older. On the

other hand, 4% of students are under the age

of 18. Across the nation the average age of

students attending community colleges is 29

years (National Center for Education

Statistics, as cited in Phillipe & Patton,

2000).

Ethnic and cultural diversity varies with

the community being served. Nationally,

over 30% of community college enrollment

is comprised of students representing

minority groups. This number is growing;

minority student enrollment increased from

25% in 1992 to over 30% in 1997.

Meanwhile, at four-year colleges, minority

enrollment increased from 21% to 24%

during the same period. In 1997 students of

Hispanic origin represented 11.8%; Black

students, 11.1%; and Asian students, 5.8%.

61CHAPTER 4

Implementing Universal Design

Today, more Native American and Hispanic

students attend community colleges than all

other postsecondary institutions combined

(National Center for Education Statistics, as

cited in Phillipe & Patton, 2000).

Nearly two-thirds of community college

students attend college less than full time,

compared to only 22% at four-year colleges.

More than 80% of students work either full

or part time, and 50% work full time. Many

students under the age of 18 enroll part time

as concurrent college students while still

attending high school. Many students have

additional responsibilities for raising

children and caring for relatives (National

Center for Education Statistics, as cited in

Phillipe & Patton, 2000).

Open enrollment means that students

enter community college with a large range

of skill levels and preparedness, from

students at remedial levels to those already

having degrees. Thirteen percent of college

students report that English is not the

primary language spoken at home. More

than half of all students report that neither of

their parents had attended a postsecondary

institution (National Center for Education

Statistics, as cited in Phillipe & Patton,

2000).

The community college system is also

the entry point for a majority of students

with disabilities. Community colleges serve

a higher percentage of students with

disabilities than any other sector of higher

education (Henderson, 1998). Over 50% of

these students report a disability that affects

learning (Henderson), and many bring

additional complexities to the educational

environment. Because community colleges

serve as an initial higher education

opportunity for students new to this country

or a second chance for those who have

previously failed, many of these students

may have newly-acquired disabilities or

disabilities that have gone previously

undiagnosed. They may also have multiple

disabilities or additional challenges

associated with the other facets of college

diversity already mentioned.

Because of the diversity described above,

it is not possible to describe a typical

community college student, but the

following examples are representative of

students who attend community colleges:

1. Fatima is 25 years old. She has lived

in the United States for less than a year and,

other than taking introductory classes in

English as a Second Language (ESL), she

has not attended school in this country. Her

first contact with college is through the

admissions, assessment, and orientation

process. Her assessments indicate that she

needs to complete ESL classes before she is

ready for college level work. She also

appears to have an undiagnosed hearing

impairment.

CHAPTER 4

Community Colleges and UID

2. Craig is 41 years old. For the past 20

years he has been employed in farming but

is no longer able to work because of a back

injury. He is married, has three children, and

is very motivated to be employed again. He

is undecided about a new career. He reports

that he liked farming: it was hands-on work;

there was variety in what he did all day; and

he admits that he was not “much of a

student” when he was younger. He attended

one year of college after high school, but

was not successful and dropped out.

3. Shawna is 19 and has not yet

graduated from high school. She has an

Individualized Educational Plan (IEP)

because of a learning disability and is taking

two classes at the community college as part

of her transition program. As a high school

student, she has had parents who have been

very involved in her education and have

advocated for her. This is the first time she

has been independent in school.

These examples reflect the multiple

challenges faced by students at a community

college. The student with a disability often

faces other challenges such as learning

English, supporting a family, and learning to

navigate a system that is new and unfamiliar.

Characteristics That Enhance

UD Implementation

By their very design, community

colleges have many characteristics that

make them a setting in which Universal

Instructional Design can flourish. An

emphasis on teaching, small classes,

hands-on and experiential learning,

flexibility in designing and changing

curricula, and meeting students where they

are—all these features facilitate the

implementation of UID.

At the heart of UID is the emphasis on

flexible instruction and reflective teaching.

Many of the strategies employed under the

UID rubric could be considered “just good

teaching” (Hodge & Preston-Sabin, 1997);

in fact, UID has been described as “a

complement to the more flexible and

innovative approaches to higher education

that are currently proffered” (Silver, Bourke,

& Strehorn, 1998, p. 48). Because a

commitment to teaching is an integral part

of their mission, community colleges are a

particularly good fit with UID. Unlike

professors in most universities, who are

often not trained to teach and who are

experts in their own disciplines rather than

in pedagogy, community college faculty

members are hired for their pedagogical

skills. They are also recognized and

rewarded for good teaching and are not

faced with the research and publication

demands that generally are placed upon

faculty in other institutions of higher

education. Community colleges also have

the advantage of small class size. Although

applying UID principles certainly enhances

63CHAPTER 4

Implementing Universal Design

instruction in all classes, it may require

more creativity to utilize such recommended

approaches as cooperative learning, multiple

means for students to demonstrate

knowledge, and experiential learning in

large classes than in small classes. In fact,

experiential and hands-on learning is central

to much of the technical and vocational

instruction in comprehensive community

colleges. It is hardly necessary to encourage

or train faculty in programs such as cabinet

making, information technology, or practical

nursing to offer labs, field trips, practica, or

other forms of experiential learning when

these experiences form the core of the

curriculum.

A related advantage that technical and

vocational curricula offer in the

implementation of UID is that in most

courses the identification of essential

components and technical standards has

already been accomplished in order to meet

certification and licensure requirements.

This identification, which is so critical in the

execution of Universal Instructional Design,

is especially important in open enrollment

institutions if they are to fulfill their

commitment to serving students of varying

ability levels without compromising

standards.

Flexibility is another characteristic of the

community college academic environment

that enhances the implementation of UID.

Flexibility in design and delivery of

instruction is a central tenet of UID (ERIC/

OSEP, 1998) and a core principle of

community colleges (Phillippe & Patton,

2000), which are designed to be responsive

to the needs of students and the communities

from which they come. Consequently, the

processes for making necessary changes to

the curriculum are generally less

cumbersome and can be completed in a

shorter period of time than those found in

four-year colleges and universities.

Finally, one of the most important

attributes that aids in the realization of UID

in community colleges is their goal to meet

students where they are, not where the

institution might wish them to be. Universal

Instructional Design is based on the premise

that as long as standards are not

compromised, the academic environment

can be changed to meet the needs of diverse

students (Center for Applied Special

Technology, 2001), rather than requiring

these students to change in order to fit into a

static mode of instructional delivery.

Community colleges often address this goal

of meeting students where they are through

their ESL and developmental or remedial

education programs. Most community

colleges test incoming students and require

completion of prerequisites before students

can take advanced classes (Phillippe &

Patton, 2000). A recent study of remedial

education in community colleges revealed

CHAPTER 4

Community Colleges and UID

that a majority of the institutions surveyed

require assessment for all students and 75%

of those institutions also require placement

into remedial courses (Shults, 2000). The

aim of these policies is not to keep

unqualified students out, but to give them

the tools in remedial classes that they need

to succeed in their ultimate goals, which

may include degree programs and highly

technical vocational training (Phillippe &

Patton, 2000).

Special Challenges

Although community colleges have many

characteristics that facilitate the

implementation of UID, they also face

unique challenges that can make its

implementation especially difficult. These

challenges derive from both the diversity of

their student population and from a lack of

resources.

The student diversity that is one of the

greatest strengths of community colleges

also poses one of their greatest challenges.

In spite of the best efforts of skillful teachers

and advisors, it is often difficult and

sometimes impossible to provide access,

without compromising standards, to all of

the students who may enroll in a particular

course in an open enrollment institution.

They may simply lack the prerequisite skills

or have too many external conflicts in their

lives to be successful in their academic

pursuits. This diversity does not affect just

the academic program in community

colleges; it poses challenges in the delivery

of student services as well. For student

services to be universally designed, they

must be accessible to the same wide range

of students that instruction must reach,

including students who may be very

unsophisticated about higher education. This

is particularly true in delivering disability

services. When beginning college, many

students with disabilities may have trouble

determining how to access assistance even

when the college has published and posted

information on disability services. What

may seem intuitive to others may not be to

the student who comes from a high school

with a different form of service delivery,

who has never taken on the role of

self-advocate, who speaks English as a

second language, or who did not have a

diagnosed disability at the time of last

attendance in school.

Also related to the overall challenge

posed by a diverse student body is the

challenge posed by the large numbers of

economically disadvantaged and older

students who access community colleges

without even a basic level of computer

literacy. Findings of a recent survey of more

than 100,000 students at 245 community

colleges revealed that the cost of computers

for education is a major problem for 20% of

these students. A significant percentage of

survey respondents—including 30% of

noncredit students—also reported that they

65CHAPTER 4

Implementing Universal Design

had never used the Internet (Phillippe &

Valiga, 2000). Given that many

recommended UID strategies, such as

providing materials in multiple media and

creating digital, networked learning

environments (Center for Applied Special

Technology, 2001), assume a basic level of

computer competence, this lack of exposure

and access to computers presents a

formidable obstacle to be addressed.

In addition to the challenges inherent in

an extremely diverse student body, the other

major challenge that faces community

colleges in the implementation of UID is a

widespread lack of both staff and financial

resources. Professional development is a key

component in any institution that wishes to

adopt Universal Design and Universal

Instructional Design. Even in colleges where

teaching has been the top priority, many of

the principles on which UID is based will be

new to a significant number of faculty

members, and all faculty will benefit from

an interdisciplinary exchange of strategies

that promote access. In some disciplines

where essential components have not yet

been identified, training and time will be

needed for departmental review of their

entire curriculum.

The resources needed to accomplish this

professional development effort are often

not available in community colleges. In an

ideal situation, members of the disability

services staff can provide the training. Yet,

in many of the smaller colleges, there is no

disability services office. Services are

coordinated by a single person who already

fulfills many roles, and the additional role of

“trainer” may not easily be assumed. The

alternative to providing in-house training,

hiring external consultants with expertise in

UID, requires financial resources that are

either lacking or already committed to other

training that is mandatory, not merely

desirable (e.g., compliance with the

Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]).

Although this competition for scarce

funding is a widespread problem throughout

higher education, it is particularly acute in

community colleges, which traditionally

receive lower per-student funding than

four-year colleges and universities (S.

Nemitz, personal communication, May

2001).

A further challenge in providing

community college faculty with training in

UID is devising ways to reach the large

number of adjunct faculty. In the academic

year 1996-1997, 66% of the faculty in

public community colleges was employed

on a part-time basis (Phillippe & Valiga,

2000). As with the funding needed for UID

training, there are many competing demands

for the time needed when the training must

reach so many part time instructors.

Still another challenge in finding staffing

resources for UID implementation is

inherent in the very structure of community

CHAPTER 4

Community Colleges and UID

colleges—the lack of an upper division.

Many strategies that help make class content

more accessible, such as Supplemental

Instruction or tutoring, can be effectively

implemented by juniors and seniors or

graduate teaching assistants in four-year

institutions, but are more difficult to

accomplish in two-year community colleges.

Finally, the lack of financial resources

mentioned above not only impedes the

provision of staff training in UID, but it also

severely inhibits community colleges from

utilizing technology to its fullest degree.

Just as many of their students have not been

able to afford access to computers prior to

enrolling in school, the community colleges

themselves have had great difficulty finding

sufficient funding to acquire the state-of-the

art technology needed to realize the full

potential of UID.

Conclusion

By their very nature, community colleges

are educational institutions that provide a

good fit with Universal Design and

Universal Instructional Design. Their

mission of access and their core values of

diversity and flexibility create an

environment in which UD and UID can

flourish. At the same time, community

colleges that seek to implement UD and UID

will be faced with many challenges. In spite

of these challenges, this model holds great

promise as an approach that community

colleges can adopt to enhance their

commitment to providing access while

maintaining excellence.

References

Center for Applied Special Technology.

(2001). Universal design for learning.

Retrieved January 25, 2002, from http://

www.cast.org/udl/

ERIC/OSEP. (1998). A curriculum every

student can use: Design principles for

student access. (Topical Brief).

Retrieved January 25, 2002, from http://

www.cec.sped.org/osep/udesign.html

Henderson, C. (Ed.). (1998). College

freshmen with disabilities: A statistical

profile. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education.

Hodge, B., & Preston-Sabin, J. (1997).

Accommodations—Or just good

teaching? Westport, CT: Praeger.

Phillippe, K., & Patton, M. (2000). National

profile of community colleges: Trends

and statistics (3

ed.). Washington, DC:

Community College Press.

Phillippe, K., & Valiga, M. J. (2000, April).

Summary findings. In Faces of the

future: A portrait of America’s

community college students. Retrieved

January 25, 2002, from http://

www.aacc.nche.edu/faces/

67CHAPTER 4

Implementing Universal Design

Shults, C. (2001, June). Remedial

education: Practices and policies in

community colleges. (Research Brief).

Retrieved January 25, 2002, from http://

www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/

ContentGroups/Research_Briefs2/

Remedial.pdf

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn K. C.

(1998). Universal Instructional Design

in higher education: An approach for

inclusion. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 31(2), 47-51.

Vaughn, G. (1999). The community college

story. Washington, D.C.: Community

College Press.

CHAPTER 4

Community Colleges and UID

Classroom Strategies

71CHAPTER 5

Implementing Universal Design

Making a Statement

Mark Pedelty

University of Minnesota

After participating in the Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD) workshop, the author began

presenting a concerted oral accommodation and access statement on the first day of class. The results were

immediate and positive, as illustrated with three examples. The author argues that individual accommodations, like

those illustrated here, are an essential part of the process of developing Universal Instructional Design (UID)

courses.

y participation in the Curriculum

Transformation and Disability

(CTAD) workshops yielded

numerous benefits. The most significant

outcome was a course remodeled with

Universal Instructional Design (UID)

principles in mind. With UID and access as

the goal, I completed a fairly radical remake

of my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology

course. I turned what was a course mixing

mini-lectures, multiple modes of student

writing, performance, oral presentation, and

independent field research projects to a lab

largely based on student research projects

tailored to their individual and collective

needs, abilities, and interests. What could be

more universal than curricula designed by

and for students in collaboration with their

instructor?

However, perhaps the most important

course modification to come out of my

participation in the workshops was also the

simplest and easiest to institute. In fact, it

only took a few minutes. I added an oral

statement to my written syllabus statement

concerning disability, accommodation, and

access issues. Although I had put

accommodation statements in previous

syllabi, I had never thought to perform an

oral accompaniment in class. Part of the

reason is that I find repeating syllabi page

by page to be a fairly perfunctory ritual. As

a result of this general antipathy for the

typical syllabus introduction, I had never

before thought to orally reinforce the written

accommodation statement. The CTAD

workshop motivated me to do so, with

positive results.

CHAPTER 5

Making a Statement

The results of the oral announcement

were immediate and profound. In previous

semesters I often had to wait weeks before

discovering that a student needed

accommodation. The written statement

simply was not sufficient. However, in

several of the courses I have taught since

adding the announcement, students have

approached me that same day to tell me

about their particular needs and, in a few

cases, to request accommodations. I have

been reminded that the seemingly

insignificant act of articulation makes all the

difference. More of a text based learner

myself, I often forget that for many people

information is not relevant until put into

oral, and perhaps even dialogic, form.

This chapter is about the oral

accommodation statement I now perform in

my classes. After a short description of that

performance, I will describe three cases

where it has made a difference. I will then

discuss the ancillary benefits of making the

statement. The goal is not simply to argue

for the inclusion of an oral statement, but

also to examine the role of accommodation,

in general, as it relates to Universal

Instructional Design (UID). I suggest that

minor acts of accommodation, such as those

described here, help us move closer to the

ultimate goal of creating courses with

universal access.

The Statement

My typical method for presenting the

syllabus is to give students an “open

syllabus” quiz on the first day of class. The

quiz questions relate to the most essential

elements of the syllabus and get students in

the habit of using it as a working document.

A quiz question concerning the

accommodation statement can help

emphasize the point.

However, nothing is as useful as oral

performance in getting across a point,

especially when the rest of the presentation

is more text based. The move from text to

talk signals that something important is

about to be announced. With that in mind, I

decided to add a short statement after we

discuss the open syllabus quiz. Rather than

repeat the written statement, I put down my

syllabus for an impromptu lecture on the

point. I said something like the following:

I want to say a few words about

access. I think that it is very important

for all students to have complete

access to the course. Sometimes there

are aspects of a course that make it

difficult for some students to fully

participate. For example, students

with disabilities may need

accommodations so that they will

have the same level of access to the

course as other students. I encourage

73CHAPTER 5

Implementing Universal Design

you, if you have a disability that

requires such an accommodation, to

approach me after class, visit office

hours, or contact me immediately so

that together we can make such

arrangements. Also, if you have not

visited Disability Services to receive

a letter certifying and explaining your

disability, you should do so as soon as

possible. You will find them very

helpful. If you have never been

diagnosed with a learning disability,

but have reason to believe that you

have a learning disability, I encourage

you to visit Disability Services to be

tested and, if so, receive the help you

need and deserve to have full access

to your college education. Every

student has a right to full educational

access and I want to do whatever is

necessary to make certain that you

gain such access in this course. Please

read the syllabus statement for further

information, including the campus

address for Disability Services.

As is true in much of teaching, the

performative act of delivering the statement

is more important than its specific content. I

make a point of presenting the

accommodation invitation with a level of

inflection, eye contact, and projection that

goes beyond that which I typically use for

delivering course content.

I have been struck by the amount of

attention students pay to the statement. The

glossy-eyes and distant stares that normally

greet introductory syllabus presentations

give way to rapt interest. Either this issue is

of intrinsic interest to the students or the

statement works as intended, raising student

awareness of and interest in access issues. It

is probably a bit of both. Regardless of the

reason, the statement has worked to a

surprising degree. I am pleased to have

discovered the importance of the oral

performance, while at the same time I am a

bit embarrassed that I did not think of doing

it earlier in my teaching career. If it were not

for CTAD, I might never have bothered.

Student Impact

The statement produced immediate

results. In the first case, a student with a

visual impairment asked me to change the

color of my PowerPoint font from blue to

black. It was a subtle change, and extremely

easy to execute. However, it was remarkable

in the sense that rarely before had a student

asked me for accommodation after the very

first class meeting. Usually, students would

wait to feel comfortable with me before

making such an approach. In other words,

the statement worked; it produced a more

immediate sense among the students that I

was approachable, particularly when it came

to questions of access, diversity, and equity.

CHAPTER 5

Making a Statement

I might have written off that very cursory

experience had I not continued to experience

the same response in subsequent classes.

The next semester, a student came up to me,

thanked me for making the statement (a sad

commentary on students’ low expectations)

and told me about his particular learning

disability. It would be inappropriate to

provide further details for reasons of

anonymity, but suffice it to say that the

invitation produced the intended results

once again.

The student presented his Disability

Services letter after the next class meeting

and we discussed potential accommodations.

Because I do not use timed tests and allow

students to choose from a variety of methods

to communicate their learning, there was not

need for significant accommodations.

However, my awareness of his disability and

the relationship we began to establish as a

result bore obvious fruit. The student did

well in the course.

A third and final case took place during a

course involving field study in Mexico. I

made another pitch concerning the need for

all students to have full access to the course,

including the experiential field components.

I did not want any students to encounter

obstacles to the field experience. For

example, we were planning on climbing a

pyramid at Teotihuacan and reading a short

story from the summit. In addition to trying

to ascertain the accommodation needs of

individual students, I designed the statement

to appeal to students who might begrudge a

modified course schedule. Hopefully, if they

were aware that there could be students

among them requiring other options, they

might be less resistant to group changes.

A student approached me that day, noting

that he had limited mobility and several

health conditions that I should be aware of.

Once again, it would be inappropriate to

elaborate. However, it is fair to say that

more learning was made possible thanks to

the student’s helpful approach. He

specifically cited the oral statement as his

motivation for doing so. Would he have

climbed the pyramid if I had not made the

statement? Would he risk health and

learning for sake of participation in an

activity for which there were definite

collective alternatives?

We met at the base of the pyramid, in a

delightful garden that was more conducive

to discussion anyway. Those who desired to

climb would have plenty of time to do so

later. I have adopted that as my metaphor for

the issue of accommodation, in general, and

the importance of making the oral statement,

in particular. I imagine generations of

students struggling to climb over

educational barriers, simply because I never

bothered to invite them to talk to me about

obstacle-free alternatives.

75CHAPTER 5

Implementing Universal Design

As a result, I have begun to think of it

not as a statement, per se, as much as an

open invitation. The oral performance

provides a more personal and human

invitation to the student to engage in

collaborative discussion. Not one of the

three students mentioned here had an

obvious disability. I would have remained

unaware had they not approached me. Based

on comparative experience, I doubt any of

them would have approached me based on

the written statement alone. The resulting

discussions have produced not only

individual remedies, but also permanent

course modifications in the spirit of UID.

Universal Design and Access

I have discovered several other benefits

to the oral performance of the

accommodation statement. For example, it

has helped me deal with the occasional

gratuitous or manipulative use of disability

claims. We would like to believe that this

never happens, but I have experienced it

three times, each time involving Attention

Deficit Disorder (ADD). On each occasion,

students who were off task during class have

shouted something like, “But I’ve got

ADD!” when asked to get back to class

work.

My response to such a statement would

be the same, regardless of whether or not I

made the oral statement. I later take the

student aside and suggest that the student

should visit Disability Services, if he or she

has not done so already, and I discuss

potential accommodations with the student.

As might be expected for students who

present their disability in that public and

vocal fashion, they often do not follow up

when encouraged to do so. Either these

students are not dealing well with their ADD

or ADHD (i.e., Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder) and are not looking

for the help they need, or, in certain cases,

they may not even have been diagnosed as

ADD or ADHD, but are instead making an

extremely bad joke out of a very serious

learning problem. This is the sort of

disingenuous and manipulative act that

causes other students and faculty to question

the validity of some learning disabilities

(LD) attention deficit diagnoses and makes

the lives of those struggling with disabilities

like LD, ADD, and ADHD that much more

difficult (Williams & Ceci, 1999).

This is certainly not to say that ADD and

ADHD claims should be dismissed. To the

contrary, the general constellation of

behaviors that we in the United States have

defined as ADHD are also evident in other

cultural contexts, albeit there is great

variability in terms of how children

exhibiting such “behaviors are evaluated and

managed” (Brewis, Schmidt, & Meyer,

2000, p.826). It is a serious problem for

those who experience it. However, the

students in question use public exclamation

CHAPTER 5

Making a Statement

of their condition to excuse extremely

disruptive behavior. Having established that

I am open to matters of accommodation by

presenting the introductory statement, I feel

on much more solid ground when dealing

with these potentially gratuitous uses of very

serious disabilities later in the course.

On a related point, making the

introductory statement helps to establish a

relationship of trust with students with

disabilities. Many students harbor a well-

founded fear that they will be treated

differently in class if they reveal their

disability to the professor. There are

numerous pedagogical benefits to that sort

of trust. For example, I challenge students

constantly, asking them to take risks and

stretch in order to learn. Without trust, that

is difficult to achieve. Students think that I

am picking on them. They invent reasons

why I would select them in particular. For

example, students with disabilities might

think that it has something to do with their

disability. The relationship of trust first

forged by the initial statement and contact

with the student facilitates this later work. I

do not have to be overly concerned that

students will think of my challenges as

something related to their particular abilities

or some perceived lack thereof.

The most interesting and unanticipated

benefit of the statement, however, is the

effect it has upon the general student

population. As mentioned above, nearly all

students demonstrate inordinate attention to

the statement, regardless of whether or not

they have a diagnosed disability. Part of this

may be the nature of my performance. As I

mentioned earlier, I indicate by verbal and

physical cues that the statement is of special

importance. However, I believe that it goes

beyond that. I teach in a developmental

education program. That means that students

are often stigmatized by their placement in

my classes. They often see it as punishment

for past academic failures and, therefore,

they view me as judge and jury. In short,

they are wary of me.

The statement begins to chip away at the

executioner’s mask students project upon

me. They interpret my statement concerning

accommodation as an indication that I

maintain a positive orientation toward

student success in general. The statement

thus sets a positive tone for the course and

allows me to start establishing a relationship

of trust with the class as a whole.

Accommodation and UID

The meaning of the accommodation

statement goes beyond the fairly limited

intent denoted in the words (i.e., to find

reasonable accommodations for students

with disabilities). The accommodation

statement performance connotes deeper

meanings, particularly in a developmental

education setting. It reaches all students at

some level, presaging, acknowledging, and

77CHAPTER 5

Implementing Universal Design

speaking toward potential feelings of

discrimination and resistance, while

positively signifying the instructor’s intent

to make the course universally accessible

and adaptable to students’ needs and

proclivities.

The outcomes of the three examples of

accommodation described above may help

illustrate the point. After changing my

PowerPoint fonts, I was that much more

aware of the need for clearer text and

redundant methods for delivering essential

information. Similarly, after being

approached by the field study student, I

reconstructed the field assignments so that

the basic core of the experience could be

accomplished regardless of physical

abilities. Now those particular

accommodations will no longer be

necessary, because they have been built into

the course. Just as the curb cut evolved from

a disability-based accommodation to a

design used for a range of access purposes,

so too, these seemingly small course

accommodations can accrete to produce

more robust and accessible courses

benefiting all students.

The same was true of the third case. The

student taught me how to better teach others

with his particular disability. I learned in

practice what I had read in theory: that

students with that particular condition need

extra time. Instead of my typical, often

frenetic teaching style, I began to develop a

more sedate approach, to the benefit of all

students. Particularly when dealing with

students with the learning disability in

question, I now sit, often silently, for long

periods, and generally mirror their pace of

communication, so that our conversation can

produce meaningful results. Instead of

simply expecting students to accommodate

my own, often dysfunctional means and

methods of communication, I reciprocate by

adapting to and accommodating their

communication and learning styles as well.

The difference between being slow, in

the colloquial definition of the term (i.e.,

“slow” as in “lacking intelligence”) and

deliberate was made particularly clear to me

in that case. The student in question

produced perhaps the best work in the class,

not despite his different mode of learning,

thinking, and communicating, but because

of it. He made me more aware of the

problem many people like me have, that of

going too fast. Although there can be

conundrums involved (e.g., how does one

teach courses where students in the same

class require both faster and slower-paced

communicational modes?), simply asking

these difficult questions can lead to

innovative and effective solutions.

Conclusions

As these fairly basic examples

demonstrate, minor accommodations can

lead to greater access for all students. In

CHAPTER 5

Making a Statement

other words, accommodation is not

necessarily a developmental step that needs

to be surpassed in order to achieve the more

lofty aims of UID. Rather, accommodation

is part and parcel of the process of working

toward what is ultimately an impossible

goal: universal access. Just as considerations

of accommodation gave rise to Universal

Instructional Design in the field of

Disability Studies, so too, careful attention

to questions of accommodation by

individual instructors may aid in the

development of courses that respond better

to a diverse range of students’ proclivities

and abilities.

Accommodation is the possible process

that helps us continue working toward

universal curricular access. In fact,

accommodation is a prerequisite for

teaching any student. We constantly ask

students to adapt to our universe. In other

words, we ask them to accommodate our

way of communicating and thinking as

teachers, and adapt to our instructional

needs, interests, and idiosyncrasies. We must

in turn learn to adapt to students’ needs,

interests, and desires, accommodating them

so that effective learning can take place.

Teaching always involves adaptation and

accommodation. That process can begin

with a simple statement.

References

Brewis, A., Schmidt, K. L., & Meyers, M.

(2000). ADHD-type behavior and

harmful dysfunction in childhood: A

cross-cultural model. American

Anthropologist, 102(4), 823-828.

Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999,

August 6). Accommodating learning

disabilities can bestow unfair

advantages. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, B4-B5.

79CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

Charting a New Course: Learning

Communities and Universal Design

Rashné R. Jehangir

University of Minnesota

This chapter will examine the manner in which learning communities can serve as an effective vehicle for

incorporating Universal Design into courses that are already thematically tied together. Clearly Universal Design

can be incorporated successfully into individually taught courses. Learning communities, however, present the

additional dimensions of affective connections, peer support, cooperative learning outcomes, and faculty

collaboration that naturally lend themselves to the tenets of Universal Instructional Design (UID).

ny college or university catalog or

literature includes images and

language suggesting that students

who attend this institution are special. They

may be especially bright, in the top 10% of

their high school classes, especially talented

in a broad range of extracurricular activities,

or simply special because each one will be

treated not as a number but as a unique

individual. Interestingly enough, when these

students arrive on campus and in our

classrooms, the term “special” takes on a

wholly different meaning. “Special

populations” is the common catch phrase for

adult students, students of color, student

athletes, multilingual students,

developmental students, and, of course,

students with disabilities.

Because language shapes thought and

nomenclature, it is important to consider

how terminology can perpetuate the labeling

that we are seeking to remove from our

classrooms and communities. Terms like

special populations serve only to add to the

“othering process” (Anzaldua, 2001) with

which students are already struggling. I am

not suggesting that we assume that everyone

is the same, but rather that the students bring

with them a wealth of knowledge that allows

us to celebrate differences rather than view

them as deficient, lacking, or incomplete. In

this vein, Universal Instructional Design

(UID) suggests that imbedding

accommodations into curricular structure

benefits not only students with disabilities,

but all students (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn,

1998).

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

Like the implementation of Universal

Instructional Design, participation in

learning communities can facilitate

achievement among all students. Goodsell

Love (1999) argues that the growth in

learning communities is the result of two

recent shifts in higher education. The first is

a shift from teaching to learning (Barr &

Tagg, 1995) and the second a “shift from

viewing knowledge as an acquisition of

information to the social construction of

knowledge” (Goodsell Love, p. 6).

Similarly, UID complements flexible and

innovative approaches to postsecondary

education such as cooperative learning and

computer-assisted instruction (Silver et al.,

1998). Both approaches expand the student

learning experience; they equally challenge

teachers to reexamine their own biases and

return to the role of learner themselves.

Consequently, these teaching approaches

necessitate a type of interdependence

between instructors and students and a focus

on “student learning rather than

subject-matter teaching” (Evenbeck,

Jackson, & McGrew, 1999, p. 55).

Finally, the intent of these approaches is

to create access to learning. There is a

tendency to equate accessibility with

simplicity in the same way as it is often

assumed that access and excellence are

mutually exclusive. Accessible education

acknowledges the diversity of today’s

learners and uses the strengths of this

diversity to create environments that make

learning attainable and excellent. Universal

Instructional Design presents a means of

ridding ourselves of a divided curriculum

and replacing it with a learning space that

capitalizes on the learning styles of all

students. The collaborative environment of

learning communities can be a good fit for

implementing an inclusive curriculum.

What Is a Learning Community?

There is a large body of literature on

learning communities and their outcomes.

Increased student involvement,

interdisciplinary learning, retention,

improved quality of thinking and

communicating, a superior ability to bridge

the gap between academic and social

worlds, and an avenue for faculty

development have been attributed to

successful well-developed learning

communities (Elliot & Decker, 1999;

Goodsell Love, 1999; Lenning & Ebbers,

1999, Tinto, 1998). Lenning and Ebbers’

review of the literature identified three

specific ways that the term learning

community is used:

Most commonly, learning community

refers to a curricular approach that

links and clusters classes around an

interdisciplinary theme and enrolls a

common cohort of students. Second,

in technology circles, learning

community refers to a way to link

students and faculty through the

81CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

Internet. Third, in international

circles, learning community describes

linking people from different

countries. (p. ix)

Other definitions reflect criteria for learning

and teaching:

A learning community centers on a

vision of faculty and students—and

sometimes administrators, staff and

the larger community—working

collaboratively towards shared,

significant academic goals in

environments in which competition, if

not absent, is at least de-emphasized.

In a learning community, both faculty

and students have the opportunity and

responsibility to learn and help teach

each other. (University of Miami,

1998, as cited in Goodsell Love,

1999, p.1)

The intent of learning communities is to

create a space for dialogue and connections

between disciplines and ideas, but also to

extend the intellectual into the socio-cultural

experience of students. Tinto argues that

most learning communities have “two things

in common, shared knowledge and shared

knowing” (1998, p.171). It is this

relationship of collaborative, experiential,

and active learning that blurs the line

between the classroom and the outside

world, thus setting the stage for

inclusiveness and democratic thinking.

Thus, learning communities present a safe

space to incorporate Universal Instructional

Design. There are many different

components and approaches to developing a

successful learning community. For the

purposes of this chapter I will focus on two

aspects: cooperative learning and faculty

collaboration. The three critical components

for curricular development using UID

include providing a flexible means of

representation, a flexible means of

expression and a flexible means of

engagement (Orkwis,1998). The following

paragraphs will explore how learning

communities can be particularly effective at

imbedding these components into the

classroom.

To provide a context for the examples I

use, it will be helpful to understand the

framework for the multicultural learning

community in which I teach. This learning

community contains three classes: a social

science course titled Multicultural Relations,

a first year composition course, and

Creativity Art Lab. Students registering for

this community were required to register for

all three classes concurrently. This learning

community has been designed to help

students examine issues of diversity from

different lenses. Using the materials from

the disciplines of writing, art, history,

sociology, and psychology, the learning

community as a whole will focus on an

interdisciplinary examination of different

ways of knowing and examining the diverse

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

world we inhabit. While each class in the

community has its own focus, the three

courses relate to each other and the faculty

teaching them encourage students to

examine issues of diversity and critical

thinking and to explore connections and

distinctions between some of these ways of

knowing.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning has long been

associated with group or team-based

learning and is a natural fit for the learning

community environment. The most critical

components of this approach involve

positive interdependence among students,

shared leadership, individual accountability,

development of social skills, and group

processing (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,

1991a). Placing students in situations that

encourage face to face (i.e., promotive)

interaction and shared resources not only

enhances critical thinking skills, but also

heightens affective connections between

students (Johnson, Johnson & Smith; Stage,

Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998). This

blending of social and cognitive components

sets the stage for the incorporation of UID.

Flexible means of representation requires

presenting materials in multimodal ways.

This challenges instructors to present

information in accessible formats while

acknowledging that access for one student’s

learning style may pose barriers for another

student (Orkwis, 1998). In cooperative

learning communities, presenting materials

in multi-modal formats is required not only

of the instructor, but also of the students. In

the social science course I teach within the

multicultural learning community, one of the

course requirements is student presentations.

Students are required to work in smaller

cooperative groups and present or lead

classroom discussion on a variety of topics

ranging from race, class, and gender to

homophobia and ableism. Most students are

not practiced at preparing presentations and

can be quite nervous. If being a student

teacher is intrinsic to participating in a

learning community, then it behooves

instructors to both model and train students

to learn how to present information in

flexible ways.

One semester a group of students used

overhead transparencies or flip charts to

present an overview of their arguments and

then each took turns explaining the concepts

to the class. Given the comfort level that had

been established, the remaining student

audience was quick to point out their

concerns. “The writing on the overhead is

too small,” or, “You are going too fast and I

can’t find the page you are referring to,

please tell me the page number before you

begin reading.” Other students asked for

more background on specific readings rather

than jumping straight into definitions or

terms.

83CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

The advantage of the learning

community format is that the students’ time

together both in and out of their linked

classes creates a camaraderie, and hence a

trust for honest dialogue and critique. In this

particular scenario the students learned to

become adept at asking for means of

representation that reduced perceptual and

cognitive barriers.

Instructors within a learning community

have the advantage of captured time. Their

students see each other and engage with

each intellectually and socially more often

than non-learning community students

simply on the basis of time spent in linked

courses. This time plays a critical role in

allowing students to gain ownership of their

learning experience and view themselves as

“members of a distinctive learning

community” (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999, p.

29). Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1991)

extensive research on the collegiate

experience suggests that although a single

college course can become a true learning

community, it is not likely to happen,

primarily because of lack of sufficient time

together as a class and because lecturing

tends to be the dominant mode of

instruction.

Flexible means of expression can come

about within the design of the learning

community itself. In learning communities

that cluster courses around a theme or

metaphor, the nature of the disciplines

themselves demands flexible means of

expression. Because the learning community

in which I teach is comprised of my social

science course, a first year composition

course, and a performance-based arts course,

expression through student presentation,

written word, and performance create

opportunities for students to communicate

their ideas in multiple ways. However, this

is only the first layer. As one examines the

limitations of any one means of expression,

one can see that creating flexible means of

expression within each course is also critical

to student success.

Earlier I mentioned the use of student

presentations in my classroom. Of course,

there are challenges with that particular

mode of presentation. Clearly, verbal

expression is not accessible for students for

“whom speech is not a viable presentation

method” (Orkwis, 1998 p.3). Yet,

demonstrating an understanding of central

concepts in the social sciences and learning

to dialogue and debate about how these

concepts relate to the lived experience are

essential components in my course. As a

result, I have tried two strategies to

incorporate UID without compromising the

essential components of the course. First,

students in cooperative groups can break up

the responsibility of the presentation. A

student who is more comfortable with

visuals such as images or graphics might

take the lead on that aspect of the

presentation, while one who is more

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

comfortable with organizing text may focus

on creating a written outline, and a third

member may serve as the reporter or present

the information to the larger class. This

approach allows students to draw on

individual strengths for collective gain. As

students familiarize themselves with the

different tasks, they can be encouraged to

take on roles they may have been less

comfortable with at the start of the semester.

Another method that encourages dialogue is

via e-mail or web-based chat rooms that are

limited to students enrolled in the learning

community. Both methods suggest means of

reducing motor barriers to expression.

Cognitive barriers to expression also

need to be considered. Explicit strategies are

referred to as providing students “with a

series of steps to prepare and execute”

(Orkwis, 1998, p.2) an assignment.

Scaffolding is “a temporary support for

learning that is gradually reduced as the

student develops confidence with the new

content or skills” (Orkwis, p.2). These

cognitive strategies are especially relevant

in a learning community where students are

being encouraged to learn via sharing and

cooperation rather than an individualistic

competitive model that is often more

familiar to them.

As a community, faculty and students

need to come together to create a set of

ground rules for classroom behavior, debate,

and healthy disagreement. This set of rules

may be something to which we continue to

refer until the students can incorporate these

ideas into regular communication. The same

can be said of small learning groups;

throwing students into groups without

explicit instructions on sharing workload,

individual accountability, and participation

can be detrimental to the success of the

community. With specific assignments,

different instructors within the community

may create a variety of ways to provide

scaffolding. In my course, students get a

detailed outline on how to write their first

paper. For the second paper they create an

outline together in the classroom. In the

composition course, students write drafts for

each paper and may also engage in peer

editing. Consequently, students are

simultaneously engaging in flexible means

of presentation, expression, and engagement

in each of the three courses while examining

issues of diversity and oppression from

different lenses. Given that this

multimodality exists both within and across

the three courses, it can often serve as a road

map for students who are trying to discern

what types of learning are most beneficial to

them.

Providing flexible means of engagement

challenges us to create an environment that

allows all students the opportunity to be

connected to their learning. We seek to find

balance between support and challenge,

85CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

between novelty and familiarity, and aim to

appeal to students who are at different

places in their academic journey (Orkwis,

1998). It seems like an impossible

undertaking. Yet, consider that in this type

of learning community the same cohort of

students is interacting with each other in

three or more common classes. If the shared

curriculum has provided space for

cooperative dialogue, reflection, and

process, the stage is set for engagement.

Trust is also critical to flexible means of

engagement.

In the multicultural learning community

that I have described, sharing of oneself via

writing, discussion, or performance is

inherent to the experience. To share one’s

writing with peers is often as anxiety

provoking as doing a presentation or

performance. “To disclose one’s reasoning

and information, one must trust the other

individuals involved in the situation to listen

with respect. Trust is a central dynamic of

promotive interaction” (Johnson, Johnson,

& Smith, 1991b, p. 36). In the learning

community environment, trust plays a role

in the encouragement of both flexible means

of expression and engagement. Without

feeling supported by peers and instructors

alike, students are unlikely to take risks that

encourage new learning and construction of

knowledge. Thus, to arrive at a place where

flexible means of engagement can be

successful, we as instructors need to model

the very behavior we seek from our students.

In presenting material, we need to consider

the extent to which we might apply novel

approaches to our own teaching.

In the multicultural learning community,

the students were expected to write a

creative, imaginative, historical short story

about multicultural America. The

assignment asked students to imagine what

it might have been like to come to the

United States, or to be here interacting with

new immigrants. In the spirit of cooperation,

students were invited to bring in copies of

their story drafts to share with each other.

This exercise required students to not only

reveal their writing ability, but also to share

a very personal perspective on the

immigrant experience in America. I felt that

it was important to model how challenging it

can be to both share of oneself and also to

take in constructive criticism. One way to

provide a template for this activity was to do

the assignment myself and allow students to

critique my work. This was an attempt to

normalize constructive criticism and provide

an environment that was both supportive

and challenging. Students also received

feedback on this assignment through process

and sharing, via individual meetings with

peers and instructors, and in writing. Many

students used some aspect of the short story

as a theme in their performances for the arts

course, thus linking their learning and

finding new avenues to gain and express

knowledge.

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

All of the strategies addressed above can

be applied to the individual classroom.

However, the collaboration and planning

that is critical to learning community design

is well suited to the process students and

instructors would naturally engage in when

creating UID based classrooms.

Faculty Collaboration

Boyer argues that the “new American

college” needs to reexamine its priorities,

the most germane of which include

clarifying the curriculum, creating a sense of

community on campus, and connecting

students to the real world beyond the walls

of the academy (Coye, 1997). If classrooms

are to provide extensions into the real world

and shape citizenship and community,

collaboration among instructors may be a

sensible place to start. If it is fair to say that

our students have been educated within an

individualistic, competitive model of

learning, the same can be said of those who

teach. Both learning communities and

Universal Instructional Design push us to

think outside the parameters of our

disciplines and the pedagogical structures

inherent to them.

The process of being a participant in

training for UID and collaborating with

faculty within my learning community

highlighted the connection between the two

approaches:

1. Planning ahead: Teaching and learning

in collaboration with others necessitates

time for planning and process. Teaching

cohorts must share their curriculum and also

have time to discuss shared goals and vision

for the learning community. This means that

choosing textbooks and sharing syllabi and

classroom activities can include attention to

flexible means of representation, expression,

and engagement. This type of preplanning

allows for several instructional perspectives

such that preparation for multiple means of

testing or other forms of demonstrating

knowledge, for presenting syllabi and text in

alternate forms (e.g., books on tape) can be

made available for prospective students

early on.

2. Articulation of objectives and fit: UID

encourages faculty to examine the essential

components of their curriculum. The intent

is to challenge us to pinpoint the critical

objectives of the course and to examine the

purpose behind the teaching activities we

use. Do the teaching activities fully reflect

the course objectives and do they serve the

purpose they were intended for? Teaching in

a learning community demands that faculty

examine these very questions, but also

provides a forum for shared learning and

discussion with colleagues. This process

involves specifying instructional objectives

and examining the fit between the

represented disciplines allowing for the

incorporation of strategies and approaches

87CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

to teaching that most benefit students.

Instructors can then customize a curriculum

that reflects both “academic and social skills

objectives” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,

1991b, p. 60) with attention to the range of

student abilities.

3. Examining student needs: Faculty who

teach within learning communities report a

much greater appreciation of the first year

experience. Since each teacher has a

personal and unique approach to students,

each interacts with the students differently

and experiences different aspects of a

student’s personality. Sharing these

experiences provides each faculty member

with valuable insights into the possible

reasons for a student’s behavior and

academic performance. (Strommer, 1999)

Thus, faculty collaboration not only allows

for multiple ways of evaluating student

performance, but can also incorporate

scaffolds like time-management activities

that help students acclimate to a college

workload. Learning community faculty may

coordinate their assignment due dates to

prevent excessive overlap. In addition, they

may “reinforce the topics and expectations

of each other’s courses” (Goodsell Love &

Tokuno, 1999, p. 10). It can be helpful to

have regular meetings to discuss student

progress and brainstorm means of

incorporating UID depending on student

needs. Having a sense of students’ learning

styles can play a role when assigning

students to small base groups for classroom

activities. Faculty awareness of peer group

dynamics can augment modeling social

skills and supportive learning.

4. Practicing what we preach: Learning

community collaboration creates collegial

learning groups for faculty in the same way

as their classes create communities of

learning and being for their students. It is a

place where cooperation builds trust and this

allows for “coplanning, codesigning,

copreparing, and coevaluating curricular

material” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,

1991b, p.117). Shared learning and teaching

makes us more aware of our own learning

preferences and how this may bias or shape

our teaching pedagogy. The nature of

collaboration and collective accountability

may encourage faculty to try new UID

approaches and examine the accessibility of

each other’s curriculum. “The commitment

of physical and psychological energy to

achieve the goals of improving one’s

instructional expertise is heavily influenced

by the degree to which colleagues are

supportive and encouraging” (Johnson,

Johnson, & Smith, p.116). A shared space

for discussing problems and sharing

successes can heighten our experiences as

teachers and benefit all the students we

serve.

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

5. New directions: As with all new

approaches, having a forum to discuss

curriculum access is important. Although

faculty collaboration within a learning

community can provide space for ongoing

incorporation of UID, it can also present

opportunities to contribute and construct

new knowledge on the subject—we

sometimes call this research.

Case Study

I will conclude with a brief case study

describing the experience of a student with a

disability participating in a learning

community. The case study does not address

all types of disabilities, nor is the intent to

segregate the experience of students with

disabilities from that of other learners.

Rather, I hope this example illuminates the

benefits of a learning community as a

vehicle for implementing UID principles.

When asked, David said that he felt that

he was part of the deaf culture, but being in

a hearing classroom he was also part of a

hearing culture. Students who are non-native

English speakers may be more tentative

about their class participation. David’s

primary language is American Sign

Language and he was less likely to

participate in larger discussions. However,

within his small collaborative group he was

far more involved and even took on the role

of lead presenter. In a reflective learning log,

David had an opportunity to express his

thoughts without an interpreter. Describing a

discussion about race and identity issues, he

wrote “ I felt really good about the classes

discussing why we go through this within

our life. It did teach that I wasn’t the only

one who went through it, even though other

students had different colors than me.”

Another multiracial student wrote of the

same discussion “We were able to just

express our own views and experiences

regarding race. It surprised me that their

[sic] were not limits put on how much we

can get into detail. Traditionally, I don’t

think that this is common.”

I chose this example to illustrate the

extent to which a collaborative learning

environment can create trust that is

necessary for students to express

themselves. Providing an opportunity to

reflect on racial identity issues both in class

and in a reflective writing assignment was

beneficial to David, but also to other

students who may or may not have been

comfortable speaking up in class. In

addition, the cohesive environment of three

classes allowed students to feel a sense of

belonging to the community and a

willingness to take risks in their learning.

This is true for students of multiple learning

styles.

The last decade has seen a shift in

approaches to social diversity on our

campuses (Levine, 1991). Curricula have

89CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

begun to reflect the various manifestations

of power differentials and worldviews that

affect our students and our teaching. As we

make efforts to acknowledge, value, and

celebrate the multiple means of knowing

that are shaped by the race, culture, age,

gender, and ethnicity of our students, we

need to also take note of the extent to which

a culture of ableism excludes not only

students with disabilities, but also students

from the aforementioned groups. Bowe

(2000) urges us to become aware of our own

“culture’s teachings and how those affect

you as an educator” (p.5). The same can be

said of the teachings of your discipline. How

have these models affected your approach to

learning and teaching? Universal Design and

the learning community design offer us

models through which to examine these

questions and also to view the classroom

experience from the lens of others.

References

Anzaldúa, G. (2001). En rapport, In

opposition: Cobrando cuentas a las

nuetras. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race,

class, and gender in the United States:

An integrated study (5th ed.) (pp.

595-601). New York: Worth.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From

teaching to learning—A new paradigm

for undergraduate education. Change,

27(6), 12-25.

Bowe, F. (2000). Universal Design in

education. Teaching nontraditional

students. Westport, CT: Bergin and

Garvey.

Coye, D. (1997). Ernest Boyer and the new

American college: Connecting the

disconnects. Change, 29(3), 20-30.

Elliot, J. L., & Decker, E. (1999). Garnering

the fundamental resources for learning

communities. In J. Levine (Ed.),

Learning communities: New structures,

new partnerships for learning

(pp.19-28). Columbia, SC: National

Resource Center for The First-Year

Experience and Students in Transition,

University of South Carolina.

Evenbeck, S. E., Jackson, B., & McGrew, J.

(1999). Faculty development in learning

communities: The role of reflection and

reframing. In J. Levine (Ed.), Learning

communities: New structures, new

partnerships for learning (pp.51-58).

Columbia, SC: National Resource

Center for The First-Year Experience

and Students in Transition, University of

South Carolina.

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

Goodsell Love, A. (1999). What are learning

communities? In Levine, J. (Ed.).

Learning communities: New structures,

new partnerships for learning. (pp.1-8).

Columbia, SC: National Resource

Center for The First-Year Experience

and Students in Transition. University of

South Carolina.

Goodsell Love, A., & Tokuno, K. A. (1999).

Learning community models. In J.

Levine, (Ed.), Learning communities:

New structures, new partnerships for

learning (pp. 9-17). Columbia, SC:

National Resource Center for The

First-Year Experience and Students in

Transition, University of South

Carolina.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K.

A. (1991a). Active learning:

Cooperation in the college classroom.

Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K.

A. (1991b). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional

productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher

Education Report, 4. Washington D.C.:

The George Washington School of

Education and Human Development.

Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The

powerful potential of learning

communities: Improving education for

the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher

Education Report, 26 (6). Washington

D.C.: The George Washington School of

Education and Human Development.

Levine, A. (1991). Editorial: The meaning of

diversity. Change, 23(5), 4-5.

Orkwis, R. (1998). A curriculum every

student can use: Design principles for

student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical

Brief. ERIC Clearinghouse on

disabilities and gifted education. (ERIC/

OSEP # E586). [Electronic version.]

Available: http://ericec.org

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991).

How college affects students: Findings

and insights from twenty years of

research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.

(1998). Universal Instructional Design

in higher education: An approach for

inclusion. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 31(2), 47-51.

91CHAPTER 6

Implementing Universal Design

Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., &

Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning

centered classrooms: What does

learning theory have to say?

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report

26 (4). Washington D.C.: The George

Washington School of Education and

Human Development.

Strommer, D. W. (1999). Teaching and

learning in a learning community. In J.

Levine (Ed.), Learning communities:

New structures, new partnerships for

learning (pp. 39-49). Columbia, SC:

National Resource Center for The

First-Year Experience and Students in

Transition, University of South

Carolina.

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities:

Taking research on student persistence

seriously. Review of Higher Education,

21(2), 167-177.

CHAPTER 6

Learning Communities

93CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

Interpreting and Implementing Universal

Instructional Design in Basic Writing

Patrick L. Bruch

University of Minnesota

This chapter offers an interpretation of Universal Instructional Design as an extension of recent political

philosophy and critical theories of justice. It discusses the transformative implications of Universal Instructional

Design for understandings of developmental writing instruction, describing the author’s own efforts to implement

a multi-modal approach to the teaching of writing.

n a society that values equality and

diversity, the concept of a universally

designed curriculum captures a broadly

shared ideal. Indeed, education scholarship

in the United States might be read as an

ongoing debate about our successes and

failures in creating neutral, universal

curricular contexts in which different people

can learn together. Ideals of universality

have typically assumed that curricula can

escape the relations of power and privilege

that shape public life. Dominant strands of

current social theory and political

philosophy challenge this way of thinking

about what we should be working for as we

design curricula and policy. In this chapter, I

offer an interpretation of Universal

Instructional Design (UID) informed by this

contemporary thinking about justice. I then

highlight the implications of this

interpretation of UID for the teaching of

writing, discussing my own effort to

implement a writing curriculum compatible

with UID.

Contemporary Social Theory

In her recent study of political

philosophy, Iris Marion Young (1991)

highlights transformations in ideas of justice

that have resulted from the social theories

and group movements that emerged in the

1960s and 1970s. For Young, feminist,

anti-racist, gay rights, disability rights, and

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

other movements drew attention to the

shortcomings of those definitions of justice

that were understood to be universal in the

sense of being timeless and independent of

specific contexts. As an alternative to

pursuit of “a self-standing rational theory . . .

independent of actual social institutions and

relations” (p. 4), the social group

movements highlighted the need for

understandings of justice that were able to

recognize and address unintended

consequences of seemingly or actually

neutral policies and practices. As Young

explains, rather than searching for a

universality good for all people and all

times, contemporary critical theories see

justice as rooted in specific social and

historical contexts. Here, rather than be an

abstract principle that stands outside of

experience, justice depends upon “hearing a

cry of suffering or distress or feeling distress

oneself” (p. 5). Where more traditional

theories valued detachment and distance,

current theories like Young’s are

participatory and process oriented.

Building on Young’s arguments about the

need for a more contextual and processual

understanding of universal justice, Fraser

(1997) has recently drawn attention to the

dynamic relationship between two domains,

the material and the cultural, in the current

social and historical context. For Fraser,

listening to the experiences and voices of

marginalized social groups suggests that

injustice operates in different ways on these

two conceptually distinguishable, though

overlapping planes. The first understanding

of injustice is material. Here, attention to

injustice focuses on unequal distribution of

things like income, property ownership,

access to paid work, education, health care,

leisure time, and so on. The second

understanding of injustice is cultural and

symbolic. Here, injustice refers to “cultural

domination . . . nonrecognition . . . and

disrespect” (Fraser, p. 14). These forms of

injustice often overlap. Physical disability,

for instance, is often related to economic

disenfranchisement. But the conceptual

distinction is useful because it helps draw

attention to the fact that economic

enfranchisement may not, alone, remedy the

unjust relations attached to disability in

current institutions. Persons labeled as

disabled may still be culturally

marginalized, misrecognized, and

disrespected.

What is useful about disentangling these

overlapping planes of injustice, then, is that

by doing so we are equipped with a more

robust vocabulary for talking about injustice

and suffering in our midst. Thus equipped,

we are better able to recognize the need for

multiple and perhaps seemingly

contradictory remedies for injustice. For, as

Fraser highlights, where emphasis on the

material view leads people to appreciate

injustices rooted in the political-economic

95CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

structure of society and encourages them to

advocate for material equality—remedying

injustice by redistributing goods and

abolishing group difference—the cultural

view recognizes the injustice of

misrecognition and disrespect and thus leads

its proponents to advocate remedying

injustice through recognition and

revaluation of group specificity. Contending

with both material and cultural obstacles to

equal treatment within significant public

contexts like schooling, an adequate

conceptual foundation for transforming

curriculum must bring together

redistribution and recognition.

Summarizing the essential insight that

these movements have helped to generate,

Catherine Prendergast (1998) has recently

argued that, in order to overcome injustices

such as White privilege and male privilege,

“it will not be simply enough to add women

and people of color and stir. Without

significant changes to the profession and

pedagogy, women and people of color will

continue to wind up on the bottom” (p. 50).

What is needed are redefinitions of what it

means to participate in social practices like

work and schooling so that part of the

purpose of participating in such practices is

to change the practice itself. Within such a

view, the universality and thus justness of

our practices becomes participatory—they

are always in the process of being redefined

as we continuously learn more about how

our practices relate to material or cultural

injustice. Instead of creating a system that

applies to any situation, universality means

working within concrete contexts to enable

more people to participate more fully in

defining inequities and better alternatives.

Although Prendergast’s (1998)

recognition of the need for transformation of

“the profession and pedagogy” (p. 50)

usefully applies current thinking about

justice to the educational context, she

concludes her study by explicitly refusing to

address classroom issues, pointing to the

compromises that, within accepted

educational discourses, such attention

demands. She concludes that although “at

this point articles dealing with composition

generally incline toward some pedagogical

imperatives,” in order to be true to her

evidence “[that] not only is an agenda of

socialization insufficient for

enfranchisement but that it might be

detrimental to enfranchisement” (p. 50), she

can only reemphasize that “we need to

recognize that our rhetoric is one which

continually inscribes our students as

foreigners” (p. 51). If school curricula are to

put into practice recent theories of

multicultural justice, they must be

transformed to provide marginalized groups

meaningful opportunities to participate in

and transform educational and other

institutions. Our curricula will have to

provide a means for expressing and valuing

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

cultural difference in ways that make group

difference one of the purposes of knowledge

forms like literacy, rather than the foreign

element that pollutes literacy. In the absence

of such respect and recognition,

redistribution fails to fulfill its promise.

Universal Instructional Design

Fulfilling the promise of redistributive

measures will involve more fully connecting

such remedies to culturally oriented

remedies. Growing out of architecture, a

field of knowledge in which the connections

between material and cultural issues are

uniquely visible, Universal Design (UD), in

its affirmation of critical revisionary

feedback, potentially responds well to our

need for new models of participating in

knowledge. Universal Design as a

professional movement grew out of

emerging awareness within architecture of

unintended consequences of design features

that were thought to be impartial.

Specifically, persons with disabilities made

building designers aware that their designs

were unjust both in terms of the material

access they made available and in terms of

the cultural and symbolic messages they sent

to persons with disabilities and to those

temporarily able bodied. Buildings with

stairs at each entrance, with doorknobs or

other mechanisms that require particular

kinds of dexterity not possessed by all, or

other features that make the buildings very

difficult for some persons to use, materially

obstruct equal access. Additionally, such

structures send cultural messages about who

is expected to participate in public life and

who is capable of citizenship, messages that

unjustly misrecognize and disrespect certain

persons.

Universal Design holds great promise

when translated to curriculum design if we

remain aware of the central critical capacity

that, in practice, UD has placed at the center

of the design process—listening to the

experiences of those who use the structure,

observing the degree to which the structure

facilitates equal participation, and

continuously revising. In this sense, I see

Universal Design as operationalizing a

contingent understanding of the term

“universal” consistent with the political

philosphies I described in the previous

section of this chapter. Universal names an

ideal and a process rather than a realized

outcome or a fixed state of affairs. Seeing

universality as a process values participation

and discourages those privileged by current

structures from ignoring the obligation to

listen, learn, and revise. That revisions

responsive to particular undesirable effects

of designs also enhance the usability of

structures in unintended ways is a bonus

effect that should help counter arguments

against constant revision.

In my view, Universal Design offers

educators a chance to design curricula from

the position of listener rather than all

97CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

knowing expert. As Young (1997) has

argued, listening plays an important role in

identifying and transforming injustice:

with careful listening able-bodied

people can learn to understand

important aspects of the lives and

perspective of people with

disabilities. This is a very different

matter from imaginatively occupying

their standpoint, however, and may

require explicit acknowledgment of

the impossibility of such a reversal.

(p. 42)

The lesson here for me is that at its best, the

design of structures aspires to universal

access through listening and learning about

how different people understand their

experiences in them. With respect to this

important process, it seems that curricular

designers may have an advantage over

building designers because our structures

are much more flexible and easily revisable.

Thus, there is no reason that curricula need

to replicate the situation where buildings

meet the letter of laws mandating access but

fail to fulfill the spirit of equity.

Connecting UID

to Composition Studies:

Redefining Writing

as Literacy Work

So far, I have offered an understanding of

UID as a way of applying the insights of

contemporary theories of justice to

education. This connection provides a way

to practically extend resources developed

over the past 30 years within composition

studies. It holds promise for addressing

issues familiar to compositionists and for

broadening attention to issues of access that

compositionists have largely ignored. At the

heart of the emerging attention to disability

is a recognition on the part of composition

scholars that assumptions about the

physical, emotional, and cognitive norm

have negatively impacted the structures we

design—our curricula, our profession, and

pedagogies.

But composition teachers have tended to

separate issues of distribution from issues of

recognition. Scholars have recently

concentrated attention on the overall failure

of redistributive pedagogies that narrowly

conceived universality as universal access to

a valued set of conventions. Prendergast’s

(1998) characterization of such efforts as

potentially “detrimental to enfranchisement”

(p. 50) and Fox’s (1993) recent argument

that “access through language pedagogy . . .

is an unqualifiable failure” (p. 42) both draw

attention to the professional tendency to

theorize about recognition while

emphasizing assimilation in the classroom.

The injustice of redistributive pedagogies is

less about the limitations of a valued dialect

to provide the economic access it promises,

though there is that. Additionally, the

emphasis on assimilating valued

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

conventions creates an educational context

of disrespect in which those who are the

beneficiaries of conventions are able to go

on without questioning the ways that the

structures they are operating within unjustly

privilege them. Transforming the teaching of

writing in ways that implement the kind of

UID I have discussed holds promise for

better serving students with disabilities as

well as all others, because all are, ultimately,

underserved by curricula that concentrate

solely on either issues of distribution or

issues of recognition.

Applying UID to the teaching of writing

means transforming the curriculum to

ameliorate cultural and material obstacles to

educational equity. Materially, I am

speaking of how the class itself operates—

the physical layout of activities, the material

design of handouts, texts, the environment

of the classroom, how much time is spent in

different ways, and so on. Culturally, I am

referring to questions about the identities

students are assumed to have or expected to

inhabit by the curricula of the class. As a

conceptual framework, UID draws attention

to the interrelation of these cultural and

material issues. They both become the focus

of critical reflection and potential revision in

pursuit of the goal of equity.

The practice of UID has resulted in

changes in the way that I understand what I

want students to learn, in the assignments

that I give, and in the classroom activities

through which we work on assignments.

UID provides a framework for shifting our

attention from literacy as a stable skill that

we want to impart to a more participatory

formulation of writing as a matter of

simultaneously doing and shaping in pursuit

of equality and difference. A term that, for

me, names this understanding of what

students learn in writing classes is literacy

work. In writing classes students learn to

participate in and reflect on the various

kinds of work that literacy does. They learn

to appreciate that language use is a practice

of relating to others and to reflectively

navigate those relationships.

Applying the insights of UID to writing

classes, the idea of literacy work defines

writing as a reflective and revisionary

practice. That is, when one writes one

simultaneously accomplishes the immediate

concrete goal of communicating in a

particular context and at the same time, one

expresses ideas about communication in that

context. As one student, Asante, phrased this

insight in a paper for a recent class, “by me

writing this paper in this way, I am

communicating my thoughts about

communication to you, but yet a lot of

people may not see it this way at first.” In

other words, writing includes both

participation according to current

conventions and reflection on those

conventions and the relations of equality and

difference they are part of.

99CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

As mentioned earlier, a key principle that

UID offers to writing teachers is critical

participation and revision. The material and

cultural issues faced when serving any

group are so multifaceted and complex, and

the ways that students receive and interpret

teachers’ messages are so unpredictable, that

no design for a class can address all issues

and concerns beforehand. Instead, the

message of UID is multiple formats

supplemented by participatory feedback and

redefinition. No single curricular mode can

achieve universality and serve all students

equally, so classes must be built to work

towards contingent universality of serving

the students that are actually there.

The role of student feedback is essential

here. In one recent class, for example, I

learned an important lesson about my

practices for introducing new assignments.

My method was to extensively describe the

new essay assignment on paper, including a

discussion of the rhetorical practices I

wanted students to recognize and work on,

why, and how. My introduction to the

summary assignment read like this:

Academic writing is a set of practices

for participating in conversation with

others. One of the most important of

these practices is summarizing. This

first project is focused on reading

carefully and writing good, strong,

summaries. Strong summaries tell

your readers what others in the

“conversation” you are joining have

been saying. Strong summaries

convince readers that your view of the

conversation has some merit. A strong

summary convinces readers that you

should be listened to and creates a

context for you to add your piece to

the conversation.

In an effort to appeal to a broad audience, I

contextualized the assignment by linking

something I thought students would identify

with, conversation, to academic writing. I

also offered an in-class overview and

provided students with examples to use as

models of successful responses that could

inspire them in thinking about how they

might respond to the assignment. When I

asked students for questions, there were

none.

When I requested feedback from students

on their progress after about a week, one

student reported that she had been stuck

because she wasn’t sure if she understood

the assignment “correctly.” Although

concerns with “giving the teacher what he

wants” influence all students, the fact that

this student had a learning disability that

required a very direct and linear

understanding of tasks like writing had made

the situation paralyzing for her. In our

discussion, I asked her what she thought

about the assignment and she said that she

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

100

thought she could take the authors one at a

time and tell readers what they say. We

discussed what she thought each of the

authors was trying to say and made notes

about why she understood them as she did.

When I assured her that her understanding

was fine she was relieved and said that she

was thrown off by my introductory

discussion.

I responded to this problem by

redesigning the way I introduce new

assignments to be much more focused on

how the students understand the assignment

rather than how I understand it. I now

include much more student-generated

discussion of how they understand what

they are being asked to do and how they

anticipate getting to work. One activity that

has been very helpful in this regard is

simply taking five minutes to let students

write the assignment in their own words and

then share them. Because I want students to

think about the cultural work involved in

writing as well as the practical work, I have

broken down this process so that students

begin by sharing their versions of the

assignment in a small group with two or

three others. I ask them to share their

versions and to talk not so much about

who’s right or wrong, but about the different

kinds of cultural work done by the different

kinds of writing that each in the group

imagine doing. My role as teacher while

these conversations are happening evolves

over the course of the term. Early on in the

semester I circulate in the groups helping

students develop a vocabulary for talking

about the work writing does, the

consequences of writing in different ways.

As students develop confidence in

addressing this issue, my role shifts towards

helping groups maintain focus and work out

difficulties that arise. As a classroom

practice, the exercise teaches that rather than

being right or wrong, different kinds of

writing do different kinds of work. Some of

these kinds of work, such as stating and

defending an opinion, are more highly

valued in some contexts than others.

In addition to operating as material

transformations that provide broader and

fuller access, such curricular redesigns that

evolve from student participation in the

design of the class raise and contend with

cultural obstacles to equitable access as

well. On one level, an activity like the one

described above creates a context of greater

recognition for students like the one who

inspired the change, but also for many

others. It creates an opportunity for each

student to make an understanding of the

assignment that recognizes their needs.

Further, it creates a context for beginning to

grapple with the cultural work that writing

does. For example, in one of the groups I sat

in on as students were discussing their

understandings of the “strong summary”

assignment, two students began to disagree

101CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

when one African American student

compared her understanding of the

assignment to another, White, student’s

understanding by saying that she wanted to

make her opinion “plain rather than hidden.”

The other student responded that a summary

shouldn’t have an opinion at all. To which

the first responded that, for her, a summary

is “my view of how I see them.” At this

point, I intervened to remind the students

that the object of sharing was not to decide

who in the group was right or wrong, but to

try and clarify different understandings and

the different kinds of work they do. This

encouraged the two students to share their

views of the work that their own and each

others’ interpretations do. Martha explained

that she believed her way of understanding a

summary would let readers decide how to

understand the texts she discussed, using her

opinion or not. Mary explained that she

believed her way would let readers decide

by leaving herself out and just saying what

the authors said. Another student here joined

in to add that Mary’s would, then, be what

Mary believed the authors said, which both

Mary and Martha agreed to. The value that I

hope comes of such exchanges is making

each of the students more familiar with how

two fundamentally different ways of

understanding writing understand

themselves and each other. It clarified that

one kind of work writing strives to do is to

help readers make informed decisions for

themselves and that there are different

opinions of how best to facilitate this. It

provided a basis for each of the students to

read and write in a more informed way.

An unexpected outcome of this new

activity was that allowing students to take a

significant hand in interpreting the

assignment required that I clarify for myself

the learning objectives and acceptable

parameters of responses. In other words, the

activity made me more fully reflect on

multiple ways of demonstrating learning. In

a writing class, flexibility is restricted by the

fact that students must write. But the form

of that writing is a point of negotiation with

profound material and cultural implications.

Sarah was most comfortable using writing to

communicate stable meanings. Other

students I have encountered find that trying

to limit themselves to one way of

understanding what are invariably complex

texts or issues is constraining and demands

they limit their writing to acceptable partial

versions. In negotiating with students about

the range of fully credible responses to the

summary assignment, I have had to think

about what abilities I want students to work

on and demonstrate. For me, what matters is

that students learn to read carefully and to

help readers see both how they interpret

texts and why they think their interpretations

are credible in an academic setting. This

means linking their summaries directly to

what authors say. I think that if students do

that, their writing will serve them well in

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

102

many academic and public situations. As I

have learned from student suggestions of

how they understand and approach the

assignment, this does not demand a thesis

based, paragraph oriented, linear, traditional

school essay.

An option that one student suggested for

herself has become a formal alternative on

my assignment sheet. This student was

uncomfortable with the idea that she was

being asked to be an expert on the various

positions making up a conversation that she

was previously unfamiliar with. She decided

to write out a conversation between the

authors that would show readers how she

understood their positions. For her, the

imaginary context would tell her readers that

she was offering one, tentative interpretation

of how the authors’ opinions related to each

other. My assignment sheet now suggests

two broad options for completing the

assignment as follows:

Option 1: Find a common thread that

emerges across the conversation

we’ve been reading and write an

essay in which you present and

discuss this common thread by

summarizing how at least 3 of the

sources relate to it. Feel free to bring

in your own experiences or your own

senses of the issues, but be sure to

concentrate on offering a substantial

review of the perspectives offered by

each of the authors you discuss,

explaining how they each relate to the

common thread.

Option 2: Write a dialogue between

four of the authors we’ve read in

which they continue the conversation

that their essays are a part of.

Incorporate into what each author

says your understanding of their view

of the issues. Have each speaker use

some direct quotes from their pieces

to explain what they mean. In the

dialogue, each person should talk at

least three times, each time speaking

at least 85 words. Try to capture some

of the voice and style of each of the

speakers in what you have them say.

Overall, these curricular transformations

shift the emphasis from simple assimilation

of conventions to a participatory recognition

of the contingency of those conventions and

their effects. I say “participatory” in order to

call attention to the essential insight of

Universal Design that those who inhabit

structures have important roles to play in

remaking those structures. In terms of a

writing class that implements this concept in

its instructional design, students are

expected to learn that part of the purpose of

writing is to call attention to aspects of the

structure of writing that “many people may

not see” as Asante, my previously quoted

student, phrased it. They are learning as well

103CHAPTER 7

Implementing Universal Design

that as writers part of their job is to

participate in creating alternative designs for

texts. Students in such a class are learning

about literacy work by doing the work of

literacy. They are interanimating

redistributive and recognition-oriented

remedies to educational injustice.

References

Fox, T. (1993). Standards and access.

Journal of Basic Writing, 12 (1), 37-45.

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus:

Critical reflections on the

“postsocialist” condition. New York:

Routledge.

Prendergast, C. (1998). Race: The absent

presence in composition studies.

College Composition and

Communication, 50 (3), 36-53.

Young, I. M. (1991). Justice and the politics

of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices:

Dilemmas of gender, political

philosophy, and policy. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 7

UID in Basic Writing

104

105CHAPTER 8

Implementing Universal Design

Using Principles of Universal Design in

College Composition Courses

Patricia J. McAlexander

The University of Georgia

While debates rage over the best way to teach college composition, Universal Instructional Design principles

suggest that there is in fact no single best way; students’ individual learning strengths and motivation require

individual approaches, whether or not students have learning or physical disabilities. This article suggests some

ways that composition teachers can adapt their teaching to individual learners while following a mandated

curriculum and engaging students in common classroom activities.

s a college composition teacher, I

know that first-year students often

dread freshman composition and,

even more, the “developmental”

composition courses that are often also

required for “underprepared” writers. Both

types of composition course have fairly

standard content. A typical description, this

one of a developmental composition course,

reads, “Covers elements of effective style,

careful proofreading, logical organization,

and convincing development of expository

and persuasive essays” (The University of

Georgia Undergraduate Bulletin 2001-2002,

p. 425). Nevertheless, debates have raged in

composition journals about the best ways to

teach this material. Should assigned writing

topics be personal or political? Should the

reading on which the student essays are

based be creative and literary or analytical?

Should the organization of student essays be

tightly structured or at least sometimes

creatively “loose”? Should the class include

formal grammar lessons, or should grammar

instruction be mainly through commentary

on student essays? Most articles dealing

with such questions suggest that there is

only one “right” answer—the author’s, of

course.

Yet the right answer is “all of the above.”

As more students attend college, diversity—

not only of races and ethnic groups, but also

of learning styles and motivation—is now

CHAPTER 8

UID Principles in Composition

106

more than ever the norm. And as

composition instructors become increasingly

used to modifying their teaching methods

for students with disabilities, they realize the

general truth that a single method of

teaching will not suit all students. It is not

surprising, then, that we find a growing

advocacy of individual approaches to

students as embodied in the concept of

Universal Instructional Design (UID).

For several years now, researchers have

investigated individual learning strengths

and motivation. One influential study, for

example, identified seven specific

perceptual modalities, preferred senses that

an individual uses in the process of learning.

Common modalities described were “print”

(i.e., learning through reading and writing),

“visual” (learning through observation with

emphasis upon pictures or visual patterns),

“interactive” (learning through participation

in groups), and “auditory” (learning through

listening, for example, to lectures or tapes)

(Galbraith & James, 1985). We also find

studies of motivation. Part of motivation is

based on students’ sense of what they can

achieve. As Cross (2001) has often pointed

out, “Students must believe that, with

appropriate effort, they can succeed” (p. 7).

Another aspect of motivation is based on a

student’s goals or values—what he or she

thinks is the point of the learning process.

Biggs (1988) reviewed three different

learning approaches based on this element in

motivation—surface (found in students who

emphasize the pragmatic—i.e., getting the

degree), deep (found in students who have

an intrinsic interest in the task), and

achieving (which may be found in

conjunction with either of the other two

approaches in students who want to make

the highest possible grade) (pp. 186-187).

Students have often been advised to be

aware of both their individual learning

strengths and the nature of their motivation.

For example, in the textbook Lifeskills for

the University (2000), Ginter and Glauser

provide an inventory to help students

analyze their learning styles (p. 67) and

recommend that they “take advantage of

[their strong] modalities and strengthen the

weaker ones” (p. 59). As for motivation,

Biggs argues that students should be aware

not only of their specific “cognitive

resources” but also of their “intentions” (p.

187). A bulletin board outside one university

learning center gives students representative

advice relating to both aspects of

motivation—”Think positively”; “Consider

the benefits of completing the task”; “Set

specific goals”—while Ginter and Glauser’s

textbook emphasizes that “students . . . are

responsible for maintaining [their]

motivation” (p. 31).

But if college students are often advised

to take responsibility for their own learning,

federal legislation on disabilities has been a

major force that stresses the responsibility

of teachers and institutions as well. Teachers

107CHAPTER 8

Implementing Universal Design

and institutions are legally bound to modify

instructional procedures to compensate for

various disabilities. At the college level, for

instance, institutions are to provide specified

students with educational aids normally not

available or permitted, such as tape

recorders to record lectures, taped

textbooks, and word processors for essay

exams. The students might also be provided

with tutors, note takers, proofreaders,

private rooms for tests, and special

counselors. Teachers of these students are

often required to modify testing techniques

for these students. Depending upon their

disability, the students are allowed extra

time on tests or given alternate types of tests

(e.g., oral instead of written). Specific

teaching strategies are often suggested as

well. For example, a letter from a learning

disabilities specialist to a composition

teacher concerning one of the teacher’s

students who has a learning disability (LD)

states, “Whenever possible, verbal

information should be supplemented

visually, e.g. with graphs, diagrams, and/or

illustrations” (personal communication,

December 10, 1999). Thus, under the

influence of federal law, the educational

process has become more and more tailored

to the individual learning abilities and needs

of a particular population of students.

However, such modifications, when

given to students with the “invisible”

problem of learning disabilities, are not

always considered fair. Indeed, many critics

of the American educational system charge

that it is mainly the children of middle class

parents who are diagnosed with learning

disabilities; their parents have the money

and incentive to have them tested. One such

critic is Gerald Coles (1987), who argues

that LD legislation serves the interests of the

status quo—the government, schools,

middle class parents—any agency with an

interest in preserving the social (i.e., class)

order.

The debate over the fairness of

modifications for students with learning

disabilities has been particularly heated in

the field of postsecondary developmental

composition, where questions have arisen

about the relationship between LD writers

and non-LD but “underprepared” writers.

The characteristics of the two groups are

often similar. Both types of students may

have spelling and grammar errors, confusing

organization, sparse development, and lack

of audience awareness, along with problems

of motivation and attention. Yet, no matter

how similar the problems of these students,

the legislation on learning disabilities

creates an either-or situation: either a

student has learning disabilities and is

legally entitled to certain modifications, or

the student does not, and is not.

How can a student be identified as

having learning disabilities in a subject area

rather than a theoretically more easily

improved “weakness”? In Errors and

CHAPTER 8

UID Principles in Composition

108

Expectations (Shaughnessy, 1977), the

groundbreaking study of students she called

“basic writers,” Shaughnessy suggests that

the writing problems of the students in her

remedial program at the City College of

New York (CCNY) could be explained

simply by their background:

Certainly were such errors to appear

in the papers of academically

advantaged students, . . . there would

be good reason to explore the

possibility of an underlying disorder.

But where students have had limited

experience in reading and writing,

they cannot be expected to make

visual discriminations of the sort most

people learn to make only after years

of practice and instruction. (p. 174)

In the years following, however, writing

teachers have become less certain of that

position. Today, Jeff Elliott, Assistant

Director of Stephen F. Austin State

University’s Academic Assistance and

Resource Center, expresses the thoughts of

many in a posting on a Basic Writing

Listserv: he questions how one can

distinguish “between students who have

never had an opportunity to develop critical

thinking and writing skills . . . and those

students who have some disability which

makes the development of those skills

difficult” (April 5, 2001).

I believe that it is right to give

modifications to students who have been

tested and diagnosed with disabilities

(McAlexander, 1997). However, I also

recognize that doing so for them and not for

others may discriminate against those

others. Thus it seems not only just but also

logical that the concept of Universal

Instructional Design has arisen, encouraging

teachers to adjust their teaching strategies,

where possible, to the learning styles,

interests, and abilities not just of students

with disabilities, but of every student.

With specific content usually mandated

for a composition course and common

activities needed to engage the class as a

whole, how can a composition teacher adapt

his/her teaching to each individual learner?

As the Universal Design of Learning (UDL)

website points out, teachers can provide

material that is personally relevant to

individual students, offer a flexible

curriculum that appropriately challenges

each student, and give students

individualized feedback (Center for Applied

Special Technology, 1999-2000). Here are

some ways that college composition

teachers may employ this advice.

Providing Personally

Relevant Material

1. As much as possible, assign readings

that engage student interests. I think we all

109CHAPTER 8

Implementing Universal Design

agree that the best kind of motivation

springs from intrinsic interest in the subject

(Biggs, 1988, p. 218), and that students will

be more motivated to write if they are

responsive to the readings on which

composition topics are based. Appealing to

student interests does not mean that a

teacher must assign a hodgepodge of

individual reading assignments; students in

most classes turn out to have interests in

common. As educator-psychologist

Hamachek (1995) states, “It doesn’t take

long for a classroom to develop its own

unique personality,” depending in part “on

the students and how . . . their particular mix

of backgrounds and experiences blend

together” (p. 545). Thus, instead of rigidly

planning all reading assignments for a class

before even meeting it, teachers might wait

to see what interests their students have in

common and how the class personality

develops. Then they can select readings

from a textbook accordingly—or order a

special book. When I had a class that

included many athletes, I assigned the brief

novel A Short Season, the story of football

player Brian Piccolo (the movie Brian’s

Song is based on this book). Because the

novel was not read until mid-term, I was

able to order it once the class had begun.

The students really enjoyed this book.

2. Give a variety of topics on the

readings. Through conferences, student

discussions, and questionnaires, determine

the direction of individual student interests

within the group. Then, for each writing

assignment based on a reading unit, offer a

variety of topics that appeal to these

interests. For example, A Short Season deals

not only with sports, but also with race

relationships, illness, and family conflicts;

topics can focus on these different themes.

All the students in the class assigned this

novel selected one of the suggested topics to

write on. However, if a student does not find

a topic that works for him or her, the teacher

and student can discuss the problem and

together develop a new topic.

3. Use the Internet for material.

Traditional hard texts are not the only

sources for material on which writing can be

based. Now the Internet provides an infinite

source of information, allowing a teacher to

broaden the range of sources a student might

draw from and to do so more spontaneously.

A popular comparison-contrast topic I have

given asks students to describe travel plans

to two places they want to go and then select

the preferable plan, using the Internet for

information. Students who wrote on this

topic found detailed information on modes

of travel, places to stay, and available

activities in the two possible locations, as

well as on the cost for the two trips. Their

interest in the topic and their enjoyment of

Internet research led them to find solid,

detailed information.

CHAPTER 8

UID Principles in Composition

110

4. Use popular television shows and

articles in current newspapers and

magazines as material. Often such sources

(as well as the Internet) can be used for the

most timely and controversial topics. Topics

on television shows that young people watch

(e.g., “Boston Public,” “Dawson’s Creek,”

“Everwood,” “Felicity,” “Gilmore Girls,”

“The Real World,” “Road Rules,” “Seventh

Heaven”), on new technologies (e.g., the

advantages and disadvantages of cell

phones), or local and state issues that affect

students (e.g., raising the driving age,

imposing curfews), often arouse strong

student feeling and interest.

Offering an Appropriate Level

of Challenge

1. Give students a choice of writing

topics with varying levels of difficulty. As

Cross (2001) points out, students must feel

that they can succeed, at least to some

degree. Thus it is important for composition

teachers to offer topics that relate not only to

a variety of interests, but also to a variety of

abilities. For students who prefer the usually

“easier” personal topics to topics involving

reading analysis, offer topics that combine

both approaches, such as “Compare your

grandmother to the grandmother in Mary

Hood’s ‘How Far She Went’.” For students

who have problems with essay structure,

provide some topics that set up an

organization plan (e.g., give specific points

on which to compare the two grandmothers);

for more creative or advanced students, offer

more problematic since passage of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(1991). That act requires educational

institutions to develop policies for

accommodating students with disabilities.

Accommodations typically are expected to

be consistent with a definition of disability

that encourages individuals with disabilities

to “seek adaptations to their needs and

aspirations rather than simply adjusting

themselves to the demands of a

predominantly nondisabled society” (Hahn,

1985, p. 101). This expectation complicates

matters for educational institutions, which

have adapted to it in various ways (c.f.,

Fairweather & Shaver, 1990; Hodge &

Preston-Sabin, 1997).

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

128

Most commonly, larger institutions have

a disability services office that mediates

relationships between faculty and students

with disabilities. That office works with

students to certify that their need for

accommodation is legitimate and helps

students decide what instructional features

are necessary to facilitate their academic

performance. Then the office sends official

requests to faculty to provide the suggested

accommodations. A study of 485 faculty

members’ actions to provide

accommodations (Bourke, Strehorn, &

Silver, 1997) showed that the more difficult

the accommodation was for faculty to

implement, the less likely it was to be

delivered. There are also indications that

requests for accommodations, especially

difficult ones, cause skepticism and

concerns about fairness among instructors

(Williams & Ceci, 1999), especially when it

comes to disabilities less “obvious” than

vision, hearing, or mobility impairments

(McAlexander, 1997).

Part of the problem is that instructors do

not know how to respond to requests for

accommodations. Writers offering guidance

(e.g., Chang, Richards, & Jackson, 1996;

Knox, Higbee, Kalivoda, & Totty, 2000;

Lissner, 1997) are working to fill this gap

with practical suggestions about working

with students, applying technology to

traditional classes, and dealing with the

legal issues that sometimes arise. But for

instructors, the letter they are likely to get

from the disability services office might

simply say “Extended time on tests (time

and one half is recommended)” and little

else. This might be an easy accommodation

to make but may not adequately address the

student’s problem and may evoke concerns

about fairness to other students. If the goal

is to facilitate student learning, often much

more needs to be done and it is not readily

clear just what that might be.

Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn (1998)

address accommodation in a new way with

the concept of Universal Instructional

Design (UID). They advocate placing

“accessibility issues as an integral

component of all instructional planning” (p.

47) and suggest that faculty adopt

instructional practices such as those

described in Chickering and Gamson (1987)

and McKeachie (1999) as a way to provide

accommodations. To us, this implies making

some basic changes in the enterprise of

higher education. But first college

instructors need new models of instruction

that meet the needs of students with

disabilities and also benefit other students.

In this chapter we describe our UID

model and present case studies of students

with disabilities in a general psychology

course we designed to meet the needs of

developmental students (Brothen &

Wambach, 2000a). Our purpose here is to

show how a course specifically designed to

improve students’ academic performance

129CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

may be consistent with Universal

Instructional Design principles to

accommodate the needs of students with

disabilities effectively. We teach our class in

the General College, the “open-access,”

developmental education unit of the

University of Minnesota, and currently

deliver the course via the Internet with

WebCT courseware (see Landon, Bruce, &

Harby, 2001 for a description and

comparison of WebCT with other

courseware packages).

The Personalized System

of Instruction

Bloom’s (1976) formulation of the

mastery learning model requires students to

achieve mastery over subject matter before

progressing to a new unit. A highly

developed and researched version of the

mastery learning teaching method from the

field of learning psychology is Keller’s

(1968) Personalized System of Instruction

(PSI). Several reviews and meta-analyses

over the years (Keller, 1974; Kulik, Kulik,

& Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Kulik, Kulik, &

Cohen, 1979; Robin, 1976; Ryan, 1974)

have found superior student learning in PSI

compared to traditional forms of instruction.

Our UID model is based on PSI.

Written Materials

PSI emphasizes written materials rather

than lecture as the major teaching activity.

Instead of presenting information to students

orally, instructors select and create

appropriate reading materials, create

behavioral objectives and study questions,

and prepare multiple forms of tests that

measure student progress and provide

feedback. Lectures are sometimes used in

PSI but the conclusion of numerous research

studies is that they add little to student

learning (Brothen & Wambach, 1999; Semb,

1995).

We base all assignments in our course on

the structure of the 18 chapter textbook.

Before they read each chapter, students

complete an “electronic flashcard”

psychology vocabulary development

computer exercise. This exercise requires

exact typing of terms or key words missing

from 20 randomly selected definitions taken

from those printed in the study guide.

Students get two points for all 20 correct,

and can repeat the exercise unlimited times,

getting a new set of items each time they

repeat any exercise or quiz. Then they read

their text, guided by study questions that

they write answers to and turn in for two

points. Next they do a 10 item computerized

completion exercise that requires them to fill

in a key word for a “main point” phrase

randomly selected from the textbook

chapter. Students are to use their books and

can do this exercise unlimited times. They

receive three points for getting all 10

correct, two for nine correct and one for

eight correct. They must get a mastery score

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

130

of at least eight correct to be able to take

quizzes. Their last task for each chapter is to

take a 10 item proctored multiple choice

chapter quiz. The items are randomly

selected from a pool of over 100 that vary

from easy to very difficult. Their best score

of five tries counts toward their grade. To

help them determine if they are ready for the

quiz they can take practice quizzes also

selected randomly from a large pool of

items. They get two bonus points for getting

all 10 correct and one for nine correct.

Immediately after they finish all exercises

and quizzes, WebCT presents students with

information about what material they need

to study further before they try again. Our

research shows that over the term, students

improve their ability to be successful on

quizzes (Brothen & Wambach, 2000b).

Small Unit Mastery

PSI courses are broken down into

manageable units that students are to master

before they move on. Mastery is determined

by successful completion of short unit tests

that provide feedback to unsuccessful

students so they may review the appropriate

material before trying again. We measure

learning by students’ final performance on a

number of small, repeatable exercises on

small (i.e., one chapter) units. We encourage

mastery in two ways. First, students must

get 8 of 10 correct on the challenging

completion exercise before continuing the

chapter. Students cannot successfully

complete this exercise in a reasonable time

without having studied the chapter. Second,

to make mastery more likely, students

receive feedback on their performance and

have the option to repeat exercises and

quizzes.

Our exercises and quizzes deliver

feedback consistent with Kluger and

DeNisi’s (1996) Feedback Intervention

Theory (FIT). FIT describes how feedback

should be structured and defines feedback

interventions as “actions taken by (an)

external agent(s) to provide information

regarding some aspect(s) of one’s task

performance” (p. 255). The FIT approach

demands that feedback must be (a) specific

to the task, (b) corrective, and (c) done in a

familiar context that shapes learning. First,

general, nonspecific feedback (e.g., “You

got 70% correct.”) is much less performance

enhancing than task information feedback

(e.g., “You got an item incorrect on the

differences between classical and operant

conditioning, see page 312”). Second,

corrective feedback should be tailored to

help the individual student improve. This

implies that the feedback must be delivered

by a responsive person who knows the

student or by “intelligent” computers that

can judge and track the student’s responses.

Third, the task feedback should be

embedded in course activities. That is, as

students do coursework they should be

131CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

receiving feedback on it. Our students

receive feedback on all their exercises and

quizzes as soon as they finish them.

Self-Pacing

In PSI courses, students pace themselves

through the material, finishing assignments

as they are able. Flexibility is a cornerstone

of the method and is based on the realization

that students have many other obligations

and learn at different rates. This is especially

true for adult students with careers and

families and the increasing number of

traditional undergraduates with heavy

outside work schedules as well as for

students with disabilities.

Personalized but not Individualized

Instruction

Finally, undergraduate tutors have

typically scored tests and helped students

understand what their deficiencies are and

what they need to do to deal with them.

Tutors help to personalize PSI. This is

different from individualized instruction in

which each student pursues a different

learning plan (Semb, 1995). In typical PSI

courses all students have the same body of

content to learn; tutors are available to help

them learn it. Our teaching assistants work

with students individually and our research

(Brothen & Wambach, in press) shows that

our computer assisted model can fulfill most

of tutoring’s many dimensions. Our staff is

central to the operation of our instructional

model. It consists of two professors assigned

part time to the course, a full time course

coordinator, and several undergraduate

teaching assistants who completed the

course in a previous semester with A grades.

Elsewhere (Brothen & Wambach, 2000a)

we describe the research program we have

carried out with our computer assisted PSI

model. We describe below two studies over

two semesters in which we have explored

how students with disabilities respond to our

model. In this chapter our report of these

investigations is descriptive rather than

experimental; we believe it illustrates the

advantages of PSI in meeting the goals of

UID.

Study I

We conducted the first case studies in an

earlier version of the course model

(Brothen, Hansen, & Wambach, 2001).

Participants consisted of students enrolled in

six sections of the course that met three days

each week with two other days reserved for

open lab during a 15 week spring semester.

Students did all their computer work in a

computer classroom containing 35

workstations and six quiz computers located

at the back of the room (Brothen, 1992). Out

of 210 initially enrolled students, a total of

187 finished the course by taking the final

examination.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

132

Methodology

We told students the first day of class

that we would be studying their course

progress. All read and signed an informed

consent form giving us permission for the

confidential use of their course data and

academic progress data on file at the

university. On the first day of class students

completed a Big 5 personality questionnaire

(John, Donahue, & Kantle, 1991) as part of

a course assignment. We recorded students’

scores on the Big 5 traits of agreeableness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to

new experience, and neuroticism along with

each student’s cumulative completed credits

and cumulative grade point average (GPA)

for this study.

For each chapter students did three

computer exercises (i.e., vocabulary

exercise, completion exercise, progress

quiz) that were self-paced with no time

limits. They accessed them with a course

delivery system (Brothen, 1995) that

randomly selected items from chapter

databases, recorded scores, and recorded

time spent on each exercise in log files for

subsequent analysis. We used this

information to monitor student progress

during the semester. Because completing

exercises and amassing points is most

strongly related to course success, time

spent working is crucial. We selected for

intervention both students spending too little

time working and those spending a great

deal of time but not accomplishing much.

In this study we present student progress

data and other observations to detail the

progress of the three students we will call

Ralph, Terry, and Rene, who were identified

by the university’s Office of Disabilities

Services as requiring accommodations

during the academic term of this study.

These students brought letters to us during

the first week of classes requesting specific

accommodations. We describe how they

negotiated the course and how they illustrate

our UID model.

The Students

Students registering for the course had

completed from zero to 106 semester credits

(M = 20.24, SD = 17.19) with cumulative

GPAs ranging from zero to 4.0 (M = 2.81,

SD = .72). There were 57 computer

exercises to complete in the course, 3 for

each of 19 textbook chapters. The 187

students who took the final exam completed

from 6 to 57 exercises (M = 50.76, SD =

10.82) and they spent from 176 to 3,209

total minutes completing these exercises (M

= 1,326, SD = 501). Our three students with

disabilities completed all 57 exercises in

from 787 to 2,319 min. The corresponding

completion times for the other 77 students

who completed all 57 exercises ranged from

669 to 2,277 minutes (M = 1,433, SD =

133CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

400). Students completing the final

examination received scores ranging from

37 to 96 (M = 66.59, SD = 11.32). We

present comparison data and case

descriptions for our three students

subsequently.

Student #1. Ralph was a large, friendly,

and vocal student whom everyone on the

staff came to know in a short time. His

scores on the Big 5 all fell within one

standard deviation of the class means. The

letter from his Disabilities Services

counselor said very little about him

specifically. The first, third, and fourth

paragraphs simply identified him and

provided general information about whom to

contact for further information. The second

paragraph read:

Accommodations for students with

disabilities are individually

determined with input from the

student, instructor, and the Disability

specialist. Your input in this process

is important, as the accommodations

should in no way compromise the

essential elements or objectives of

your curriculum. [Ralph] and I are

anticipating that the following

accommodations would be

reasonable: Extended time on tests

(time and one half is recommended).

The lack of specific information in this

letter is not unusual given that students have

input into how much they are willing to

disclose about their disability. Perhaps

Ralph’s experience in previous courses

showed that extra time was all that he

required. Perhaps it was the only

accommodation possible in his previous

courses. Or, perhaps it was the only thing he

would “admit” to needing. Our approach to

Ralph was no different than for any other of

our students; we monitored how he handled

the work and responded accordingly.

Of our three students with disabilities,

Ralph spent the longest time working on

computer exercises—2,319 min for the

semester. Although this was a high total, it

was far from the highest of all our students.

The staff did notice very early in the term

that Ralph was spending a lot of time on and

having difficulty with his computer

exercises (see Table 1). However, at this

point early in the term Ralph was apparently

preparing adequately outside of class

because even though he struggled on his

first quiz attempts, his final quiz scores for

both Chapter 1 and the Appendix were 9 out

of 10. He did spend more time than the

average student on quizzes. The Chapter 1

quiz on which he received a 9 took him 12

min. The Appendix quiz on which he

received a 9 took him 20 min. Most students

finish quizzes in 8 min or less. From this

data it appeared that our built-in extra time

accommodation was working well for

Ralph.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

134

But even though he was attending class

regularly and ultimately doing well on

quizzes, Ralph began falling behind early in

the semester, often because he was spending

so much time completing exercises,

particularly completion exercises, which

require students to fill in key words. We

noticed this and assigned one of our

undergraduate teaching assistants to work

with him. While working with Ralph, our

assistant soon noticed that he seemed to

know the material, but had difficulty reading

computer exercise items and finding

answers for items in the text. He often

struggled with individual words and

mumbled them when reading a phrase out

loud to the assistant. This led us to suspect

that his disability was related to reading and

affected his out of class work as well as his

computer exercises. We called his

Disabilities Services counselor to report that

the extra time was only part of what Ralph

needed and that help with reading items was

crucial. The counselor revealed that Ralph

had what she described as one of the most

severe cases of dyslexia her office had ever

encountered.

For the first 6 weeks of the course, Ralph

basically did the exercises the way we

recommended, completing vocabulary and

completion exercises and quizzes before

moving on to the next chapter in the text.

However, about the 6th week, Ralph took a

quiz for Chapter 4, and then did not take a

quiz again for over a month, concentrating

on doing the other chapter exercises. The

opinion of the assistant working with Ralph

was that he was no longer reading and

preparing outside of class, and was trying to

do the pre-quiz exercises without carefully

reading the book. For this reason, he was

spending even more time on completion

exercises than he was previously.

With about a month left in the course,

Ralph realized that he only had a few weeks

to finish quizzes for 14 chapters. Because he

had completed nearly all of the vocabulary

and completion exercises, most of his day in

the classroom was spent reviewing for

quizzes with one of our assistants, taking

quizzes, studying feedback, and retaking

quizzes. In general, his goal was to receive a

minimum score of 7, which is a C. To finish

this many quizzes in a month would be a

very difficult for any student, much less for

a student with a reading disability.

After discovering that Ralph’s request

for additional time was due to a reading

disability, we regularly provided a reader for

his quizzes. He would often become “stuck”

on a word in a question, or he would just

skip words that he could not read, and try to

fill in the blank using the context of the

question, a survival skill that had probably

served him well in the past. However, for

our multiple choice quizzes that ask students

to make some very fine discriminations, that

135CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

strategy does not work. We discovered that

simply providing Ralph with more time to

complete quizzes would not help. If he did

not recognize a word, it did not matter how

long he looked at the question. Providing

him with a reader was by far the more

effective strategy.

In addition, we wanted to induce Ralph

to practice the exercises to develop fluency

(cf., Johnson & Layng, 1992). Because it

took him so much longer to complete

vocabulary exercises where he had to search

for a word and type it correctly, we told him

that if he received two 19s on a vocabulary

exercise, we would give him full points, just

as if he had received a 20. As we expected,

Ralph became faster at doing them. He

completed his last nine chapter vocabulary

exercises in an average of 13.1 min

compared to an average of 28.8 min over the

first 10 chapters. Ralph received a B- final

grade for the course.

Student #2. Terry was an older returning

student who appeared anxious enough on

the first day of classes for us to notice. His

scores on the Big 5 fell within one standard

deviation of the class means on

agreeableness, conscientiousness, and

extraversion. But he scored nearly two

standard deviations above the mean on

openness and more than two on neuroticism.

His letter from Disabilities Services was

much the same as Ralph’s except that it

mentioned the nature of his disability as

well as requesting an accommodation. The

letter stated, “He is being treated for a

chronic illness that limits his ability to

manage anxiety and maintain

concentration.” It requested that he “be

allowed to take a break during class if

necessary to manage his anxiety.”

Because students can enter and leave our

classroom at any time, Terry did not require

an accommodation to take breaks. Terry’s

letter also indicated that he needed a

nondistracting test taking environment. We

discovered that although Terry may have

been anxious, he was actually not easily

distracted, but incredibly focused in the

environment we created for our students.

Terry spent the least time completing

computer exercises of our three students

with disabilities and received the most

points. He followed our recommended study

technique to the letter, doing the exercises in

the sequence noted above, restudying before

repeating an exercise, and repeating earlier

chapter exercises if he was having trouble

on later ones. When asked at the end of the

semester about following our

recommendations, he said that he did not set

out to follow them but simply did them in a

manner he thought was logical.

From the beginning, Terry used the

completion exercises to build fluency. On

the difficult neuropsychology chapter he did

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

136

six of them before taking a quiz, and

received 10s on five of the quizzes, in as

little as two min each. He took three

quizzes, restudying his text after the first

two, and the highest score he received was a

nine. After the third try he did another

completion exercise for Chapter 2, and then

took another quiz and received a 10. This

became a pattern for Terry. If he did not get

a 10 on his first quiz attempt, he would do

more completion exercises and then retake

the quiz. Even though Terry took several

completion exercises for each chapter, he

did not spend a great deal of time on them.

By the last chapters he took only one or two

before achieving the maximum quiz score.

Our strategy for Terry was to stay out of

his way because it appeared that the PSI

structure was working fine for him without

any special intervention. We tried to be

encouraging and asked if he had any

questions; he rarely did. We noticed fairly

early that he had a strategy that was working

well for him, and we let him work on his

own. It became a game for Terry to see if he

could get a 10 on his first try on each quiz,

and we joined in by asking him if it was his

first try when we would see that he received

a 10. Out of 19 chapters, Terry scored 10 on

his first try on 11. The only points Terry

missed all semester were four points on his

final exam and he received an A final grade

for the course.

Student #3. Rene was a small, fragile,

shy individual who could easily go

unnoticed in a large class. Her scores on the

Big 5 fell within one standard deviation of

the class means on agreeableness,

conscientiousness, extraversion and

openness. But she scored two standard

deviations above the mean on neuroticism.

The reason for her appearance and

demeanor was only hinted at in her letter

from Disabilities Services. It contained

basically the same “boilerplate” as the other

two and described her disability as one

“which impacts concentration and speed of

thought.” The letter requested “1.5 test time

and a non-distracting test environment.”

Rene spent 2200 min working on the

computer exercises in the classroom,

missing 4½ weeks of class time due to

serious illness. Throughout the semester she

was in and out of the hospital for what was

apparently highly invasive medical

treatment. She was very test anxious and for

the first few chapters did an enormous

number of completion exercises before

taking quizzes. After doing fairly well on the

first quiz she took for Chapter 1, a score of

seven, she did nine more completion

exercises before taking another quiz. She

had very high expectations and when she

was unhappy with a quiz score, she

continued to practice to the point of using

her time inefficiently.

137CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

After Rene missed 3 consecutive weeks

of class early in the semester due to her

illness, she contacted us via e-mail and

asked for help. This gave us an opportunity

to work with her on more efficient

strategies, which was necessary due to the

amount of time she missed. We

recommended that she resume her work on

Chapter 8 because the reading and study

guide assignments were current for that

chapter. She did only two completion

exercises, both with scores of 10, in 42 min.

She then took all five of her quizzes,

studying feedback and asking questions

between each time she took one. Her final

score on this chapter was an eight (the

equivalent of a B letter grade).

Rene continued this pattern for the rest

of the semester, doing a few completion

exercises for each chapter, taking quizzes,

studying feedback, and taking quizzes again.

She worked on chapters as they were

assigned and on earlier chapters as she had

time. She was not afraid to ask for help, and

if she struggled on a chapter she would ask

one of the staff to ask her questions about

the material between her quiz attempts. She

finished with only two quizzes below a

score of eight—those chapters she took after

her last episode in the hospital when she was

still on heavy medication. She told us that

she was having trouble organizing her

thoughts the same way as she could when

she was not medicated, but she also was

behind and knew that she needed to catch

up.

We provided a lot of support to Rene and

tried not to add to the severe stress she

appeared to be undergoing. We encouraged

her when she was in the classroom, were

available to answer her questions, and when

she received a low score we offered to work

with her. She used open lab times frequently

when we could spend more time with her

one-on-one. We allowed her to turn in her

study questions late for no penalty during

the time she was in the hospital and simply

tried to maintain an environment in which

she could be as relaxed as possible and

perform her best. Rene received an A final

grade for the course.

Discussion

The three students described above all

performed well in the course. The PSI

format allowed the instructors and staff

considerable flexibility in meeting their

learning needs. In a traditionally taught

psychology course, one that was based on

lectures, two midterms, and a final

examination, it would have been more

difficult to discover and respond

appropriately to their needs. For example,

Ralph would have been given more time to

take tests, but that would not have addressed

his underlying reading issue. Recording the

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

138

examinations on audiotape might have

worked for Ralph, but this was not requested

by him or his disabilities counselor and

would have been very difficult to

implement. Because we had the opportunity

to watch Ralph work, we could design

accommodations that were more effective

than those requested. Many sympathetic

instructors would have recognized Rene’s

health problems and given her opportunities

to make up missed examinations. In fact,

university policy requires faculty to make

alternative arrangements for students who

have legitimate reasons for missing class.

Our class did not have scheduled dates for

tests so Rene did not require a special

accommodation to complete her work.

Terry’s problem with anxiety would have

been more perplexing to many instructors.

Although psychology teachers would likely

view an anxiety disorder as a legitimate

disability, many instructors would be

skeptical, and resist the notion that a

separate exam should be scheduled for this

reason. The need to accommodate

psychological disabilities is the most

controversial part of the American’s with

Disabilities Act (Higbee, Kalivoda, & Hunt,

1993). And, in our PSI course, Terry did not

require anything from us. The issue of

accommodating vaguely defined disabilities

is further illustrated in the next study.

Study II

In this study we focus on the

performance of a student we will refer to by

the pseudonym of Jerry. To highlight issues

we encountered with Jerry, we will also

describe a student who approached our

sense of the ideal, whom we will call Ben.

The students were enrolled during the spring

of 2001. The course was offered using the

WebCT course delivery system. WebCT

allowed students to complete many of the

course exercises outside the classroom,

which was not possible with the previous

courseware. WebCT also allowed us to place

time limits on some exercises. Time limits

encourage students to be better prepared

before they attempt exercises. When

students spend less time on each exercise

they are likely to attempt more exercises,

consistent with our goal of encouraging

more practice and opportunities for

feedback.

The Students

Jerry is a student athlete. The Office of

Athletic Academic Counseling carefully

monitors the performance of student

athletes. That office also provides a variety

of learning assistance services, and

supervises mandatory study sessions for

student athletes. The learning specialists in

the office have long term contact with

139CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

individual athletes and develop a deep

understanding of them as students and

persons. The Athletic Department

counselors and learning specialists seek

feedback from instructors about student

progress that they use to create interventions

for these students. Many students now have

learning disabilities identified at earlier

stages of schooling, so more student athletes

arrive on campus with disability diagnoses.

Also, as more schools have developed

sophisticated athlete support services, more

learning disability issues among student

athletes are being identified at the college

level. It was through Jerry’s Athletic

Department learning specialist that we

learned that Jerry has a learning disability

and we should expect to receive a letter

requesting an accommodation. That was as

much information as the Learning Specialist

could tell us without breaching

confidentiality.

It took Jerry several weeks into the

semester to bring us his letter from the

Office of Disabilities Services. In the

meantime we noticed that he was not

making good use of his time in class. Instead

of focusing on computer exercises, he would

sit next to fellow athletes and whisper.

When approached he would giggle and

pretend to get back to work. He was

accomplishing little, and quickly falling

behind.

In contrast to Jerry, Ben, our ideal

student, stayed focused in class. He worked

quietly at the exercises and steadily

completed work with close to 100%

accuracy. He appeared each day at the

beginning of his scheduled class period and

left at the end having accomplished all he

needed to do while in class. He did no

computer exercises outside of class, but

came to class obviously having done his

reading and studying. We spoke with Ben

occasionally about his accomplishments and

about information from the class he found

interesting, but at no point did we need to

give him advice on how to become more

successful. He knew what to do.

Several weeks into the semester, Jerry

gave the staff a letter from disability

services. The letter requested that Jerry take

tests in a nondistracting environment and be

given extra time to complete them. Our first

hypothesis was that Jerry has a reading

disability. To pursue this hypothesis, one of

our staff members began talking with Jerry

as he completed exercises. She observed that

Jerry mispronounced many words and did

not know the meaning of common words.

We came to suspect that Jerry had a very

weak general vocabulary and poor prior

knowledge, which made it difficult for him

to comprehend what he read, much less

retain it. Unlike Ralph, who had trouble

decoding words, Jerry could decode words,

but did not understand them.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

140

In contrast, Ben appeared to have an

excellent vocabulary and good prior

knowledge. We discovered that he had an

ACT Composite score of 26, suggesting he

had a good mastery of the high school

curriculum and good general intelligence.

His ability and prior knowledge allowed him

to complete the work of the course

efficiently.

As we worked with Jerry it became more

apparent that he was an intelligent young

man who was capable of learning when he

expended the effort. As he mastered more

vocabulary he was able to use it

appropriately and generate original

examples of course concepts. We discovered

that he was faced with several serious

decisions in his life, and was demonstrating

effective problem solving as he made these

decisions. We began to wonder if Jerry’s

learning disability was actually a deficit in

prior educational background combined

with lack of effort in the past. As Jerry

began to experience more success in the

course he responded by spending more time

both in the classroom and outside of class

working on computer activities.

Students’ Performance

First, Jerry did more completion

exercises (83) and spent more time on them

(M = 27.2 min) than Ben (43, M = 13.0

min). The difference in number was

primarily because Jerry was getting lower

scores (M = 6.25 out of 10 possible) than

Ben (M = 9.72) and had to repeat them to

reach the mastery level of 8 correct. It would

be reasonable to argue that Jerry’s need for

more time caused his low scores because

many times he reached the 30 minute time

limit before answering all 10 questions.

However, in our experience, students

typically take longer if they do not prepare

well and we see the same pattern in many of

our students without disabilities. Jerry

eventually did what most of those students

do; he put in more time and did the exercises

more times, completing all 19 chapters

successfully. His distractibility could also

have played a role in that we often observed

him talking to other students when he should

have been working to finish within the time

limit. He solved this problem on his own by

doing more than half of his completion

exercises during nonclass hours, many of

them late at night.

Second, Jerry took fewer progress

quizzes (46), scored lower on them (M =

5.65), and spent more time on them (M =

23.4 min) than Ben (65, Ms = 8.62; 4.5

min). The difference is primarily that Ben

repeated quizzes until he got the highest

score he could, getting 17 high scores of 10

and 2 of 9 on the 19 chapters. Jerry often

quit when he got what seemed to him a

decent grade. He got 13 high scores of 7, 5

of 8, 1 of 9, and no 10s even though he had

attempts left on most of the chapters. Ben

141CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

was generally better prepared for progress

quizzes, getting no scores below 6 (i.e.,

passing) while one third of Jerry’s scores

were below 6.

Third, Ben’s and Jerry’s completion and

quiz scores differed in another way. Jerry’s

scores were higher when he spent more

time, while Ben’s were lower. We correlated

time spent with score on each exercise and

quiz. The correlations for Jerry’s completion

and quiz scores were +.414 and +.356

respectively while Ben’s were -.422 and

-.369 (all were significant beyond the .05

level). Apparently, Ben spent more time

when he was trying unsuccessfully to find or

remember some material. Jerry began to

spend more time on quizzes when we

persuaded him that it would be helpful for

an assistant to read quiz items to him. We

did this to keep him focused. For example,

we did not allow him to bring his cell phone

to the quiz computers. It also allowed us to

deal with vocabulary as we did for Ralph in

our earlier study and define words that were

critical to his understanding of the question

but not key psychological terms on which

his mastery was being tested.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Day of Semester

Chapter Attempted

|-Spring Break-|

108

Figure 1. Completion Quiz Comparison Student 1 and Student 2.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

142

Finally, Ben and Jerry differed in the way

they approached the course. Ben was almost

“machine like” in his approach. He

proceeded exactly as we suggested and

worked steadily on task. Jerry delayed

getting started and fell behind early. He

stayed behind for most of the semester but

caught up to Ben after Spring break. Figures

1 (Completion Exercises) and 2 (Progress

Quizzes) show both student’s progress

graphically. The size of the “bubbles”

correspond to students’ scores squared to

show differentiation better. Dots represent

quizzes below the threshold for points. The

bubbles are arrayed on a matrix of chapters

and days of the semester.

Ben’s progress is basically linear with

one gap early in the semester and one at

Spring Break. Smaller bubbles precede

larger ones on the chapter axis showing that

his scores generally improved on subsequent

attempts. His progress is consistent with that

of the highest performers in our classes over

the years such as Terry’s in Study 1. Jerry’s

progress is more erratic. His chapter scores

sometimes decreased on subsequent

attempts due probably to inadequate restudy.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Day of Semester

Chapter Attempted

|-Spring Break-|

108

Figure 2. Progress Quiz Comparison Student 1 and Student 2.

143CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

He sometimes completed completion

exercises for more than one chapter on the

same day before taking a progress quiz,

thereby losing focus on the earlier chapter.

And he attempted numerous chapter

exercises and quizzes on the last few days of

classes in an attempt to improve earlier low

scores as shown on the bottom right of the

figures.

In a traditional psychology class, Ben

would have earned good grades on his

examinations. Jerry would have been given

the extra time requested to complete the

examinations, but time and a half is

probably an underestimate of the time he

required. It often took Jerry 20 min to

complete 10 items. At this rate it would have

taken him 100 min to complete 50 items, a

common number of items for a mid-semester

test. Typically an instructor would allow 50

min for a test of this length, and most

students would be done in 30 min or less.

Time and a half would be 75 min, far short

of what Jerry would need.

Taking a test in a less distracting

environment, the second accommodation

requested for Jerry, might have allowed him

to complete the exams more quickly.

However, it would not have addressed

Jerry’s more serious problem of being

distracted during class and while studying.

Because our teaching method allows the

instructor to observe students’ work habits,

we could intervene during class to help Jerry

stay focused and learn to use his time more

effectively.

Figure 1 says volumes about the

differences between Ben and Jerry. Ben had

the attitudes and skills he needed to perform

well immediately, Jerry had to acquire those

attitudes and skills as he gained experience

with the course. Multiple attempts at

exercises allowed Ben to achieve a high

level of mastery of the course material.

Multiple attempts at exercises and attention

from the staff gave Jerry the motivation to

put in the long hours he needed to spend to

pass. By the end of the term, Jerry knew

what was needed to succeed and he earned a

grade of B in the course.

Conclusions

PSI is a mastery learning model that

fosters superior student learning compared

to traditional forms of instruction. We

believe that one of the reasons it is effective

is that it is responsive to student needs,

providing important progress feedback to

them and their instructor (cf., Wambach,

Brothen, & Dikel, 2000). Our

computer-assisted model (Brothen &

Wambach, 2000a) allows us to monitor

students quickly and efficiently so that we

can make appropriate interventions.

The flexibility of our method allows

most students with disabilities to complete

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

144

the course without special treatment.

Students with disabilities can receive

assistance within the classroom setting in

the same environment in which other

students receive assistance. For example,

any student could request help reviewing a

chapter, or discuss quiz-taking strategies.

Although our students with disabilities

received more consistent and intense

assistance, the type of help was available to

all. For example, a teaching assistant

reading test items to Ralph or Jerry was not

at all unusual. Nearly every class day saw a

staff member sitting with students taking

quizzes who had been having trouble with

quizzes. We did this for second language

students as well as for those

underperforming on quizzes because they

made the typical strategic errors students

make on exams (e.g., rushing,

“second-guessing” themselves, or picking

the first alternative that seems reasonable

without reading further). Staff sitting and

working with students was a common sight

as was our talking to them about their

progress and how they were approaching

their work.

Nothing in our classroom activities

themselves distinguishes students with

disabilities from any other student. Although

two of the students in Study 1 scored high

on the Big 5 neuroticism scale, which was

consistent with the accommodations they

requested, other students were unlikely to

notice anything different about them. They

did not take their exams in a different place,

they did not require a student volunteer to

take notes for them, or require any of the

special technological interventions

described by Knox et al. (2000). Of course,

new circumstances might require something

more. We have, for example, had individuals

provided in the past by Disability Services

to read screens for students who are blind

and we have had to configure the room for

wheelchairs and Seeing Eye dogs. But our

experience over the past several years has

been exactly the same as the one described

here. Students with disabilities have worked

along with other students, albeit taking

longer and so on, with similar results. We

conclude from this that most students with

disabilities can adapt to course requirements

and that our PSI model for Universal

Instructional Design gives them the

opportunity to do that quickly and

effectively.

Instructors utilizing PSI will find, as we

have, that this form of Universal

Instructional Design makes

“accommodation” simply part of what they

do on a regular basis. We believe PSI has

been good for us and for all of our students.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,

Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328

(1991).

145CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics

and school learning. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Bourke, A., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P.

(1997, March). Tracing the links in the

chain of accommodation: A study of

University of Massachusetts’ faculty

members’ provision of accommodations

to students with learning disabilities.

Paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

[ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED

408 764]

Brothen, T. (1992). A developmental

education approach to computer assisted

content instruction. Journal of

Developmental Education, 15(3), 32-35.

Brothen, T. (1995). Using a new text-based

authoring system to create a computer-

assisted introductory psychology course.

In T. Sechrest, M. Thomas, & N. Estes

(Eds.), Leadership for creating

educational change: Integrating the

power of technology, Vol. 1 (pp.

308-310). Austin, TX: University of

Texas.

Brothen, T., Hansen, G., & Wambach, C.

(2001). Accommodating students with

disabilities: Three case studies that

illustrate Universal Instructional

Design. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Minnesota.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (1999). An

evaluation of lectures in a computer-

based, PSI introductory psychology

course. Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, 27, 147-155.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2000a). A

research based approach to developing a

computer-assisted course for

developmental students. In J. L. Higbee

& P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The many faces

of developmental education (pp. 59-72).

Warrensburg, MO: National Association

for Developmental Education.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2000b), The

effectiveness of computer-based quizzes

in a PSI introductory psychology course.

Journal of Educational Technology

Systems, 28, 253-261.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (in press).

Computer and human tutors in a mastery

learning general psychology course.

Journal of Tutoring.

Chang, M. K., Richards, S. J., & Jackson, A.

(1996). Accommodating students with

disabilities: A practical guide for faculty.

[ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 404 827].

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987,

March). Seven principles for good

practice in undergraduate education.

AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

146

Fairweather, J. S., & Shaver, D. M. (1990).

A troubled future? Participation in

education by youths with disabilities.

Journal of Higher Education, 61, 332-

348.

Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics of

disability: Definitions, disciplines, and

policies. The Social Science Journal, 22,

87-105.

Higbee, J. L., Kalivoda, K. S., & Hunt, P.

(1993). Serving students with

psychological disabilities. In P.

Malinowski (Ed.), Perspectives in

practice in developmental education

(pp. 90-92). Canandaigua, NY: New

York College Learning Skills

Association.

Hodge, B. M., & Preston-Sabin, J. (Eds.).

(1997). Accommodations—Or just good

teaching? Westport, CT: Praeger.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kantle, R.

(1991). The “Big Five” Inventory—

Versions 4a and 54. (University of

California Technical Report). Berkeley,

CA: Institute of Personality and Social

Psychology.

Johnson, K., & Layng, J. (1992). Breaking

the structuralist barrier: Literacy and

numeracy with fluency. American

Psychologist, 47, 1475-1490.

Keller, F. (1968). “Goodbye teacher. . .”

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,

79-89.

Keller, F. (1974). Ten years of personalized

instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1,

4-9.

Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects

of feedback interventions on

performance: A historical review, a

meta-analysis, and a preliminary

feedback intervention theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Knox, D. K., Higbee, J. L., Kalivoda, K. S.,

& Totty, M. C. (2000). Serving the

diverse needs of students with

disabilities through technology. Journal

of College Reading and Learning, 30,

144-157.

Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Bangert-Drowns, R.

(1990). Effectiveness of mastery

learning programs: A meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 60,

265-299.

Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Cohen, P. (1979). A

meta-analysis of outcome studies on

Keller’s personalized system of

instruction. American Psychologist, 34,

307-318.

147CHAPTER 10

Implementing Universal Design

Landon, B., Bruce, R., & Harby, A. (2001).

Online educational delivery

applications: A web tool for

comparative analysis. Retrieved July 2,

2001 from the World Wide Web: http://

www.ctt.bc.ca/landonline/

Lissner, L. S. (1997). Legal issues

concerning all faculty in higher

education. In B. M. Hodge & J. Preston-

Sabin (Eds.), Accommodations—Or just

good teaching? (pp. 5-22). Westport,

CT: Praeger.

McAlexander, P. J. (1997). Learning

disabilities and faculty skepticism.

Research and Teaching in

Developmental Education, 13, 1-5.

McKeachie, W. (1999). McKeachie’s

teaching tips: Strategies, research, and

theory for college and university

teachers (10

ed.). Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Robin, A. (1976). Behavioral instruction in

the college classroom. Review of

Educational Research, 46, 313-354.

Ryan, B. (1974). PSI, Keller’s personalized

system of instruction. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Semb, G. (1995). The personalized system of

instruction (PSI): A quarter century

report. Revista Mexicana De Psicologia,

12, 145-160.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.

(1998). Universal Instructional Design

in higher education: An approach for

inclusion. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 31, 47-51.

Twigg, C. (1994a). The changing definition

of learning. Educom Review, 29(1),

2-25.

Twigg, C. (1994b). The need for a national

learning structure. Educom Review,

29(2), 16-20.

Twigg, C. (1994c). Navigating the

transition. Educom Review, 29(3),

20-24.

Wambach, C., Brothen, T., & Dikel, T. N.

(2000). Toward a developmental theory

for developmental educators. Journal of

Developmental Education, 24(1), 2-4, 6,

8, 10, 29.

Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999,

August 6). Accommodating learning

disabilities can bestow unfair

advantages. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, B4-B5.

CHAPTER 10

Computer-Based Psychology Course

148

149CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

Best Practices and Students

with Disabilities: Experiences

in a College History Course

David L. Ghere

University of Minnesota

This chapter describes a variety of teaching techniques, modes of presentation, and methods of evaluation utilized

to implement Universal Instructional Design in a college history class. The use of classroom simulations is

explained in detail. Examples of different types of simulations are provided and their educational benefits

discussed. Four disability groups are discussed, merging the author’s experience with recent research on learning

disabilities, impaired hearing, visual impairment, and physical disabilities.

hirty years ago, when I was an

undergraduate preparing for a career in

education, I was introduced to the

Inquiry Method for teaching social studies.

One of my instructors emphasized the

various benefits of the pregnant pause after

asking a question. Calling on the first

student to volunteer allows the other

students to ignore the question and remain

uninvolved in the class discussion while

they await the correct answer from one of

the stars of the class. However, the

instructor could wait to see who has

volunteered and then decide whether to

choose one of them or to involve another

student who has not volunteered. All

students in the class must consider the

question and be mentally involved in the

discussion, because they may be called upon

to answer it. The student thought process

during the pregnant pause will tend to

heighten the curiosity and enhance the

comprehension of all students in the class. It

also maintains attention to class material and

enhances the students’ retention of that

information. If the question is worth asking,

then it is worth the time for students to think

about the question and consider their

answer.

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

150

These long pauses after questions also

benefit students with disabilities. Students

with various learning disabilities need time

to consider their answer or summon the

courage to volunteer. Students with

augmentative communication devices need

time to volunteer and type in their answers.

The pause after questions also

accommodates the delay in the transmission

of sign language to students with hearing

impairments. One student who was deaf

repeatedly seized the opportunity to display

her understanding and knowledge of class

material because she was conscious of

misperceptions about her intelligence in

other classes. Other students with hearing

impairments have been more restrained

while still benefiting from an enhanced

thought process and greater involvement in

class discussion. Students who are blind or

have learning disabilities have shared with

me that this questioning technique allowed

them to be more active in the class

discussion and kept them interested in class

material. The key is that this questioning

technique benefits all students and allows

the classroom involvement of students with

disabilities to be nearly equivalent to that of

other students.

Universal Instructional Design

in a History Class

The Inquiry Method is but one of many

teaching strategies that can engage students

in the learning process. However, it is

important to recognize that any one method

for the presentation of content material that

promotes learning for some students will

present barriers for others. Similarly, any

one method of expression or teacher

assessment of student knowledge and

comprehension will advantage some

students and disadvantage others. Students

are best served when a variety of teaching

techniques, modes of presentation, and

methods of evaluation are utilized. This

serves to address the differences between

students in learning style, skill level, and

disability by providing alternative means of

accessing information and demonstrating

competencies. A multifaceted approach

limits the advantage or disadvantage that

any one student experiences with any one

method, providing all students with a better

understanding of the material and a fairer

evaluation of their knowledge.

Dissemination of Knowledge

Historical material can be conveyed in a

variety of means: textually through

published books, historical documents, and

handouts; visually through maps, charts,

graphs, and diagrams; and orally through

lecture, class discussion, and small group

interaction. Presenting the material in a

variety of means accommodates the learning

styles of all students as well as providing

alternate means for students with disabilities

to access the knowledge. Also, students,

through lack of interest or understanding,

151CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

may not recognize significant aspects of a

map, chart, or diagram, which are obvious to

the instructor. If instructors explain the key

points in detail, they focus the attention and

increase the understanding of all the

students in the class. In addition, the

information is provided to the student who

is sight impaired or to the student who needs

information presented in multiple sensory

channels.

Placing course materials on a website

makes them more accessible to all students

while facilitating the use of appropriate

technology (e.g., text readers, enlarged

print) by students with disabilities. Syllabi,

course calendars, assignment guidelines,

review sheets, topic outlines, and discussion

questions can all be placed on the website as

well as the documents, quotations, maps,

charts, graphs or diagrams that will be

distributed as handouts or displayed on the

overhead projector. Background material for

class activities could be online, enabling all

students, but particularly those with

disabilities, to be better prepared and more

involved in those class activities.

Establishing a chat room on the website

facilitates student-to-student and

student-to-teacher communication and could

be the mechanism for collaboration on

group assignments, conducting peer

assessments, or promoting study groups.

Access to instructors is further improved for

all students through the use of e-mail.

Commonly, students are less nervous than in

face-to-face meetings, they have time to

consider what questions to ask, and they can

communicate when it is most convenient for

them.

Assessment of Knowledge

History exams traditionally consist of

multiple choice questions and timed essays,

which favor some students and disadvantage

others based on the student’s learning style,

skill development, or disability. Removing

unnecessary constraints to the students’

ability to demonstrate their knowledge and

understanding is beneficial to all students

and enables the instructor to more accurately

assess both their effort and relative success

in mastering the course content. Essay

exams with generous time limits would

allow all writers to more fully express their

ideas, whether they are thoughtful, nervous,

meticulous, or gifted writers, or have a

disability. Providing review sheets and

announcing the essay topic in advance

allows all students to focus their study

efforts, greatly reduces test anxiety, and

enables the instructor to demand work of

higher quality. When quality work is not

produced, the reason for the failure, lack of

ability or lack of effort, is more clearly

apparent and the appropriate solutions more

obvious to both instructor and student.

The student’s historical knowledge and

understanding can be evaluated using

various methods and techniques. In addition

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

152

to the traditional multiple choice and essay

tests, instructors could assess student

knowledge and understanding through a

variety of other means: oral presentations,

class discussion, targeted questions, peer

assessments, free writing, journaling, and

involvement in class activities. Utilizing

multiple methods of evaluation provides

each student with a variety of different

opportunities to demonstrate their

knowledge and understanding of the topic.

These broadly based assessments provide a

more accurate evaluation of the students’

mastery of the course content than their skill

level in a particular type of examination.

Simulations:

Combining Dissemination and

Assessment of Knowledge

Classroom simulations add flexibility to

the curriculum that facilitates access for all

students. Simulations provide an active

learning alternative to other methods of

presentation and create a variety of

opportunities for student expression and

teacher assessment. Within the simulation,

content is provided in a textual format

through handouts; verbally through teacher

presentations, small group negotiations, and

class discussion; and visually through maps,

charts, and diagrams on handouts,

overheads, and power point presentations.

Students can express their ideas verbally in

small group or class discussions, by writing

in short reaction papers or journaling

assignments, or visually through graphs,

charts, or maps.

Many teachers assume that students with

disabilities would be both academically

disadvantaged and socially embarrassed in

the active and cooperative learning

situations created by simulations. Yet,

research indicates that active learning

methods increase student involvement in the

class and provide more opportunities for

student contributions to class discussion

(Christenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1989;

Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984). This

results in higher academic achievement

while directly addressing many of the

barriers cited above for students with

disabilities. These conclusions are supported

by research during the past two decades

assessing the effectiveness of cooperative

learning methods in teaching students with

disabilities (Foster, Long, & Snell, 1999;

Johnson & Johnson, 1982, 1984; Scott,

1990; Martino & Johnson, 1979). These

studies have demonstrated that cooperative

learning activities promote communication,

mutual understanding, and friendships

between students with disabilities and those

without, and that both groups achieve higher

academic achievement through cooperative

learning experiences. In my own experience,

the student with the most challenging array

of disabilities frequently emerged as the

153CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

class star in the cooperative learning

situations provided by classroom

simulations.

Types of Simulations

Classroom simulations can be designed

to achieve various educational goals by

incorporating a variety of teaching

strategies. All simulations involve the

students in active learning situations

requiring some level of role playing. These

roles can be very specific as an historical

individual; more general as a representative

of a country, region, or state; or very generic

as a decision maker assessing the historical

options. Simulations provide the background

material necessary for each student to

evaluate the various decision options in the

historical situation, and to play the role

assigned. Sometimes a reward system is

utilized to create a situation, which fosters

competition between groups and

cooperation within each group. In these

“game” simulations, students must articulate

their position, negotiate with other students,

and compromise when necessary to reach a

consensus decision or political bargain that

achieves their goals. Other simulations

employ maps to convey information to the

students, to designate various territorial

options, and to ultimately display student

decisions. Three specific examples of

simulations and their integration into a

history class are summarized below.

Farming is a role playing simulation in

which pairs of students decide which crops

to plant and livestock to raise on their 160

acre farm for a three year period from 1872

to 1874. All students start with the same

amount of cash, but they have three different

economic arrangements that greatly affect

their ability to be successful over the three

year period. One third of the students are

homesteaders on the Great Plains, one third

are tenant farmers in the Ohio valley, and

one third are sharecroppers in the South. At

the end of each year, the teacher announces

the return on investment for each type of

crop or livestock and the student teams

calculate how much profit they have to

invest in the following year. This simulation

acquaints students with the basic economics

of farming, the vagaries of farming

“success,” and the farmer’s dependence on

weather and national markets. The

comparison of the relative success of

homesteaders, tenant farmers, and

sharecroppers in the simulation stimulates a

class discussion of the social effects of these

differing economic arrangements.

The Slavery Issue: 1848 is a game

simulation addressing the political options

concerning the issue of slavery in the years

preceding the American Civil War. Five

positions were advanced by various political

leaders to resolve the issue of slavery in the

territories: total abolition, the Wilmot

Proviso, Popular Sovereignty, extension of

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

154

the Missouri Compromise line, and the

Common Property doctrine. Students,

playing the role of senators from particular

states, must negotiate with each other to

reach a group decision. Student senators are

awarded points based on the popularity of

that group decision in the state or region

they represent. Students become familiar

with the diverse positions and arguments

concerning the issue of slavery, providing

background knowledge for a better

understanding of the Compromise of 1850,

Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott case.

The Congress of Vienna is a map

simulation focusing on that conference,

which established the political and

diplomatic situation in Europe for the half

century following the Napoleonic Wars,

1815 to 1871. Utilizing an outline map

depicting major provinces and principalities

in central Europe, student triads decide how

to reestablish the balance of power in

Europe; what territorial rewards will be

given to each victorious country; and what

factors must be considered in making those

decisions. This process acquaints students

with the conservative goals and decisions of

the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna,

while familiarizing them with the locations

of the series of subsequent liberal and

nationalist revolutions that attempted to

overturn these decisions. Students also

develop an understanding of the diplomatic

relationships and knowledge of the

geographic locations relevant to the

diplomacy and wars involved in the

unification of Italy and Germany.

Benefits of Simulations

Research has identified major benefits to

the utilization of simulations and interactive

games in an educational context, which

relate directly to the difficulties experienced

by students with disabilities. Druckman

(1995) found that simulations and

interactive games fostered student interest in

the specific topic and historical

circumstances associated with the

simulation. Additionally, involvement in the

simulation stimulated student curiosity

about related subject matter. Students

developed more positive attitudes toward the

general subject matter than with more

conventional methods. Furthermore,

students’ retention of course material

increased significantly as a result of their

increased involvement in the activity. Other

research studies confirm the increased level

of interest, greater student involvement, and

longer retention of course material

(Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Randel,

Morris, Welzel, & Whitehall., 1992; Sharan,

1980).

The very nature of classroom simulations

and interactive games requires

communication, but in an enjoyable and

relatively nonstressful situation. The

resulting increase in student interactions can

facilitate the development of interpersonal

155CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

skills in all students while directly

addressing some of the social needs of

students with disabilities. Sharan (1980)

determined that team learning methods

fostered relationships with group members,

promoted student involvement, increased

cognitive learning, and promoted the

construction of meaning. Students are more

willing to communicate while involved in

these classroom activities than in more

traditional situations (Bredemeier &

Greenblat, 1981). Druckman (1995) found

simulations “effective as vehicles for

team-building,” encouraging participation in

a social learning process that conveys new

concepts and ideas to students while

exposing them to teamwork activities (p.

184).

Simulations provide students with

greater opportunities to display their various

talents and abilities, whether in the context

of the simulation or through the multitude of

possible assignments and projects associated

with the simulation. They prompt lively

class discussion and require critical thinking

skills as students reconsider prevailing

assumptions and adopt new perspectives.

Simulations can serve as an opening activity

to introduce a unit or as a closing exercise

for students to demonstrate their knowledge

and understanding of course material. They

can provide the stimulus for a number of

individual student or group research projects

such as investigating the historical

background of the situation, identifying the

factors that promote or inhibit a resolution,

contrasting the simulation with actual

decisions, or assessing the influence of

particular individuals or groups in the final

outcome.

Classroom simulations involve students

in active learning situations that facilitate a

variety of cooperative learning methods and

are well suited for students with disabilities

Simulations are often utilized to provide

students with an experiential knowledge of

concepts that are not easily or fully

comprehended through traditional teaching

methods. They are most effective when the

activity is relatively short (e.g., 20 to 35

minutes) and immediately followed by a

discussion of the knowledge and

understanding conveyed by the simulation.

They are most beneficial when designed to

focus on a narrow range of educational goals

“where very specific content can be targeted

and objectives precisely defined” (Randel et

al., 1992, p. 269). Role playing activities can

be designed to “involve students in an active

learning situation that may teach them

specific skills” (Glenn, Gregg, & Tipple,

1982, p. 209).

Students with

Learning Disabilities

Students with learning disabilities

constitute the largest group of students with

disabilities at the college level. Resnick and

Klopfer (1989) suggested the need for new

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

156

teaching methods and instructional materials

to develop students’ thinking ability,

increase their motivation, and assess their

learning. They argued that students must

play an active role in generating knowledge

by integrating new information into their

existing knowledge base, which students

then employ to think, reason, and learn in

future situations. Harris and Pressley (1991)

warned that this constructivist approach may

be less appropriate to students with learning

disabilities who are typically passive and

unmotivated learners who, without

guidance, may be more prone to

misunderstand concepts and construct

inaccurate knowledge. Simulations provide

a structured method for constructivist

learning by providing historical background,

an organized learning process, decision

making options, and teacher direction.

Carnine (1991) and Ellis (1993)

advocated focusing teaching strategies and

instructional materials for all students on

developing higher order thinking processes.

They argued that an emphasis on the

acquisition of factual knowledge inhibits

innovative teaching techniques, cooperative

learning methods, and metacognitive

strategy training. They observed that

developing higher order thinking ability in

students with disabilities was as important

as the acquisition of basic content

knowledge. Rieth and Polsgrove (1994)

discussed three models for creating a

curriculum for students with learning

disabilities. Their goals included enabling

students to better process information,

improving their coping and problem-solving

skills, developing their interpersonal skills,

and enabling them to establish social

support networks. Classroom simulations

promote all four of these goals and could be

effectively utilized in any of the three

models discussed.

Writing is often a particular challenge to

college students with learning disabilities

and a multi-stage process approach is most

effective for teaching that group of students

(Schnapp, 1997). The experiential learning

involved in a simulation is conducive to a

variety of writing assignments ranging from

journals to reaction papers to summaries to

peer evaluations. Collaborative groups can

be used very effectively in the drafting

process, enabling students to exchange

viewpoints, organize their ideas, and present

them in coherent sentences and paragraphs.

This method is designed to improve student

interpersonal skills, enhance student interest

in the topic, and reduce student anxiety

about the assignment (Schnapp). The shared

experience of the simulation also provides

each student an expertise with which to

critique a journal, reaction paper, or

summary of other group members.

Students with Impaired Hearing

Reviewing recent research, Foster et al.

(1999) concluded that despite

157CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

comprehensive support services, students

with hearing deficits faced a unique

challenge in accessing classroom

communication. First, there is a delay of 5 to

10 seconds between when the teacher stops

speaking and the interpreter finishes signing.

Typically, the instructor has called on

another student before the student with

impaired hearing has an opportunity to

respond to a question. Second, students

utilizing speech reading are disadvantaged

whenever visual contact is broken by the

instructor, such as when writing on the

board or moving about the room. Third,

when the instructor is displaying objects,

performing tasks on a projected screen, or

referring to a map, chart or diagram,

students often must choose whether to watch

the interpreter for the words being spoken or

to watch the instructor and screen for the

visual information. Finally, “deaf students

are rarely included in informal exchanges

among hearing students regarding instructor

expectations, study tips, and unspoken rules

for class behavior and organization” (p.

226).

The results of Foster et al.’s (1999)

research with students at Rochester Institute

of Technology revealed the similarities

between the educational needs and desires

of hearing students and those who are deaf.

Based on quantitative and qualitative

analyses, both groups of students had very

similar perceptions about educational

environments, course materials, and class

participation. They listed very similar

feelings, positive and negative, about class

communication, and their assessment of the

ease of communication in the classroom.

Differences in perceptions about class

communication focused on the ability of the

interpreter or the mannerisms of the specific

instructor. Both groups also reported being

actively engaged in learning, but students

with hearing impairments felt less a part of

the campus community. Both groups thought

they benefited from a slower instructor pace

and active teaching methods that prompted

more involvement in the class and facilitated

ease of communication. However, students

with a hearing disability were less inclined

to think that the teacher’s pace in presenting

information was appropriate and facilitated

their understanding.

Many of the recommendations from this

study correspond closely with the concept of

Universal Instructional Design, the

accommodations in the history class, and the

use of classroom simulations. First, the

similarities between the educational needs

of hearing students and those with hearing

impairments should be emphasized. Second,

teaching practices should be identified that

address the needs of students with hearing

disabilities while enhancing the learning of

all students. Third, the selection of

instructors should focus on their willingness

to adapt their teaching style and methods to

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

158

promote the inclusion of all students.

Several other recommendations addressed

practical procedures and strategies for

accommodating deaf students, improving

student access to communication, and

disseminating course materials. Simulations

address the needs of students with impaired

hearing and promote their interaction with

other students, while enhancing the interest,

active involvement, and learning of all

students.

Students with

Visual Impairments

Participation in the classroom and

understanding of course material is limited

for many college students with a visual

disability “by a lack of correspondence

between visual and auditory modes of

presentation” (Waksler, 1996, p. 99).

Instructors often make short references or

incomplete commentary to material

presented visually, making it extremely

difficult for students with visual

impairments to follow the discussion and

understand the teaching points. Sighted

students suffer similar confusion, if they are

not looking at the visual representation, or

cannot see important details clearly, or do

not understand what details are being

referenced by the instructor. Teaching

techniques designed to provide a barrier-free

classroom presentation for a student who is

visually impaired promote clarity in

presentations for all students (Waksler).

Students with visual impairments have

the most difficulty in fully accessing all

aspects of the presentation of history

material. A student who is blind can listen to

class lecture and discussion, but misses the

material written on the board or displayed

on the overhead as well as any meaningful

gestures or facial expressions of the

instructor. Textbooks can be ordered in

Braille, but the student who is blind misses

the content conveyed through maps,

pictures, graphs, charts, and diagrams unless

provided with raised renderings of these

materials. Limited visual impairment may be

accommodated through image magnification

or printing materials with an enlarged font.

Providing copies of handouts or overhead

transparencies prior to their use in class

enables visually impaired students to

become familiar with these materials. Then

when the instructor refers to these materials,

the student will better understand the

instructor’s key points and the relevance of

those materials.

Students with

Mobility Impairments

Physical disabilities are frequently the

most obvious and often the easiest to

accommodate. With rare exceptions,

classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and study

areas are accessible to students using

wheelchairs and the placement and design of

door handles, elevator buttons, drinking

fountains, and so on are gradually changing

159CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

to facilitate access by students with other

mobility impairments. Depending upon the

student’s specific impairment,

accommodations may be as simple as

seating placement in the classroom,

modification of the student’s desk, typed

answers rather than handwritten ones,

computer assisted diagrams rather than hand

drawn, and alternatives to “fill in the circle”

answer sheets. Many students who have

difficulty manipulating their hands and

fingers request extra time for taking exams.

Although this accommodation seems very

appropriate to the situation, it would be

unnecessary if all students enjoyed the

benefit of exams without time limits. The

speed with which the student identifies the

answer is irrelevant in a history course and

timed exams serve only to distort the

evaluation of the student’s knowledge and

understanding.

Mobility is typically not an issue in using

simulations except for the initial seating

arrangements (i.e., assigning groups and

moving desks). Simulations are usually

designed to create small group dynamics

(e.g., discussion, negotiation, and

resolution) between two to six students in

close proximity to each other. Some

simulations involve the entire class and

require some interaction between student

work groups in different parts of the

classroom. The movement required in these

instances may disadvantage a student with

impaired mobility, but this situation can

usually be accommodated easily. Having the

student sit centrally in the classroom would

facilitate direct communication with other

groups as well as ease their movement when

quiet negotiations are preferable. The

student could be assigned a role in the

simulation that does not require movement,

but that might limit the learning opportunity

and would be less beneficial than an

accommodation that allows the student to

experience all aspects of the simulation.

Some students with mobility

impairments, as well as those with learning

disabilities or sight impairments, are more

adept at spoken than written language. In

classroom simulations, students generally

express their ideas orally in the small group

activities and class discussion, providing

teachers with additional opportunities to

evaluate their knowledge and

comprehension. Students could also serve as

the spokesperson for the simulation group,

accommodating students with written

language limitations while providing much

needed and rarely offered opportunities for

public speaking to all students.

Conclusion

Many scholars investigating various

disabilities have called for the development

of teaching methods and techniques that

address the needs of students with

disabilities while benefiting the learning of

all students. Resourceful history teachers

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

160

can design their courses to maximize the

access to learning of all students, thereby

minimizing the need for individual

accommodations. By using the pregnant

pause, posting materials on the course web

site, and implementing collaborative

experiences like class simulations, history

teachers can engage all students actively in

the learning process. Classroom simulations

provide numerous opportunities for

interaction and cooperative learning

activities to support this Universal

Instructional Design. Simulations address

many of the needs of students with

disabilities while enhancing the learning of

all students.

References

Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S.

(1981). The educational effectiveness of

simulation games: A synthesis of

findings. Simulation & Gaming: An

International Journal, 12, 307-332.

Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions

for teaching higher order thinking to all

students: Introduction to special series.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24,

261-269.

Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., &

Thurlow, M. L. (1989). Critical

instruction factors for students with mild

handicaps: An integrative review.

Remedial and Special Education, 10(5),

21-31.

Druckman, D. (1995). The educational

effectiveness of interactive games. In D.

Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation

and gaming across disciplines and

cultures (pp. 178-187). London: Sage.

Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy

instruction: A potential model for

teaching content area subjects to

adolescents with learning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,

358-383.

Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999).

Inclusive instruction and learning for

deaf students in postsecondary

education. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education,4(3), 225-235.

Glenn, A. D., Gregg, D., & Tipple, B.

(1982). Using role-playing activities to

teach problem solving: Three teaching

strategies. Simulation & Gaming: An

International Journal, 13, 199-209.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R.

V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and

student academic performance. In W.

Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-

Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior

analysis in education (pp. 58-88).

Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The

nature of cognitive strategy instruction:

Interactive strategy construction.

Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404.

161CHAPTER 11

Implementing Universal Design

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982).

The effects of cooperative and

individualistic instruction on

handicapped and nonhandicapped

students. Journal of Social Psychology,

118, 257-268.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984).

Building acceptance of differences

between handicapped and

nonhandicapped students: The effects of

cooperative and individualistic

instruction. Journal of Social

Psychology, 122, 257-267.

Martino, L., & Johnson, D. W. (1979).

Cooperative and individualistic

experiences among disabled and normal

children. Journal of Social Psychology,

107, 177-183.

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Welzel, C. D.,

& Whitehall, B. V. (1992). The

effectiveness of games for educational

purposes: A review of recent research.

Simulation & Gaming: An International

Journal, 23, 261-276.

Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989).

Toward the thinking curriculum: An

overview. In L. B. Resnick & L. E.

Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking

curriculum: Current cognitive research

(pp. 1-18). Pittsburgh, PA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Rieth, H. J., & Polsgrove, L. (1994).

Curriculum and instructional issues in

teaching secondary students with

learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(2),

118-126.

Schnapp, L. (1997). Writing success for the

postsecondary student with learning

Disabilities. National Association for

Developmental Education Selected

Conference Papers, 3, 41-43.

Scott, T. J. (1989). The effects of

cooperative learning team vs.

traditional classroom/resource room

instruction on handicapped student self

esteem and academic achievement.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Boston College, Boston, MA.

Dissertation Abstracts International,

50(10), 3145-A.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in

small groups: Recent methods and

effects on achievement, attitudes, and

other ethnic relations. Review of

Educational Research, 50, 241-272.

Waksler, R. (1996). Teaching strategies for a

barrier-free classroom. Journal of

Excellence in College Teaching, 7 (2),

99-111.

CHAPTER 11

Teaching History

162

163CHAPTER 12

Implementing Universal Design

Universal Instructional Design

in a Legal Studies Classroom

Karen L. Miksch

University of Minnesota

This chapter was generated after the author attended the Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD)

workshop and implemented Universal Instructional Design (UID) principles in her Law in Society course. The

chapter begins by describing an accessible web page. The author then discusses the use of mock trials in which

students can play a variety of roles that fit their individual learning styles. The chapter concludes with a discussion

of how to broaden course and student service content to include disability rights.

had the opportunity to attend the first

Curriculum Transformation and

Disability (CTAD) workshop in January

2000. It helped me to reflect on how I could

make my courses and services more

accessible. I teach legal studies classes to

first and second year undergraduate students

in a developmental education program. I

also act as a pre-law advisor. This chapter

was generated from my experiences

implementing Universal Instructional

Design (UID) in my courses and advising.

Designing a course and pre-law web

page was my first step in implementing a

“learning support” and will be discussed in

the initial section of this chapter. I will then

discuss how I redesigned my participation

assessment and how I utilize mock trials so

that students can play a variety of roles that

fit their individual learning styles. The

chapter concludes with a discussion of how

to broaden course and student service

content to include disability rights.

Designing and Incorporating

a Web Page to Provide

a UID Learning Support

After attending the CTAD training, I

decided that I wanted to create a universally

designed course web page (Miksch, 2001).

In order to create an accessible web page I

first went to the Bobby web site. Bobby is a

free service provided by the Center for

Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2001)

to help Web page authors identify and repair

significant barriers to access by individuals

with disabilities. Bobby will run a

CHAPTER 12

UID in Legal Studies

164

diagnostic program on your web page and

give you tips to make it more accessible. It

will also “approve” your web site if you

incorporate UID principles.

Next, I thought about the purpose of

having a course web page. I realized that the

disability accommodations that I have made

for students in the past are also just good

teaching practices. In the past, I have made

copies of my power point lecture slides as a

reasonable accommodation for a student

with a disability. In universally designing

my web page, I decided to include copies of

my power point lecture slides on my web

page so all students could access my notes. I

post the notes weekly and many students

have told me they use my lecture slides in

order to check their notes for completeness,

clarification, and spelling errors. Students

no longer miss the big picture because they

are madly trying to write down definitions

and details.

I have started posting my assignments, a

plagiarism and proper documentation guide,

and other helpful handouts on public

speaking and how to read cases on the web

page, in addition to giving students a paper

copy. This assists all students, including

students with learning and psychological

disabilities. If students need to start an

assignment early, they can do so. Tutors in

the Writing Center also have access to the

assignment guides and find them useful in

understanding what I expect of my students.

Posting a course syllabus to a web page not

only assists students currently enrolled, it

also provides helpful information to

advisors and prospective students about

course content, goals, and the instructor’s

teaching style. After I realized that other

staff and prospective students benefited

from the increased information, I added a

section for students interested in attending

law school. The new section provides links

to online information as a way to

supplement the pre-law workshops that I

conduct. As my web page has grown, I

continue to go back to the Bobby web site

for design suggestions to make sure the

information is readily accessible by all

prospective users.

Assessment of Participation

That Respects

Divergent Learning Styles

An important goal of Law in Society is

for students to gain better oral

communication skills and hone their ability

to think critically. When I implemented UID

I wanted to make sure that I was taking into

account diverse learning styles when

assessing participation. I have learned a lot

from my students and colleagues about how

to teach legal concepts in a first year

developmental education course. As Higbee,

Ginter, and Taylor (1991) advocate, I

present the information utilizing methods

that are congruent with my students’

165CHAPTER 12

Implementing Universal Design

learning styles. Reading cases, hearing

lectures, and reading and listening to

Supreme Court oral arguments complements

print and aural learning styles. Debates,

mock hearings, and trials are excellent

methods for interactive learners. Visual

learners’ comprehension of material is

enhanced by timelines, maps, videotapes,

and power point slides. Finally, performative

movement during the mock trial reaches

kinesthetic learning styles.

Prior to attending the CTAD training, I

assessed classroom participation mainly via

debates, small group presentations to the

entire class, and large group discussions.

Although I want to maintain participation as

a requirement for the course, I also want to

recognize that there are a variety of ways for

students to engage with the material and

provide their unique perspective to all of us

involved in the course. My syllabus now

reads:

Your participation in class is highly

valued. Our class will be a collective

effort in which our efforts to

understand law and society will

depend on the exploration of a

number of perspectives and

viewpoints. I recognize that not all

students feel comfortable speaking in

front of large groups of people. Class

participation therefore includes a

variety of ways to contribute to the

course development, including:

meaningful contribution to class

discussions, small group work,

debates, presentations, e-mail

communication, office hour

discussions, reviewing drafts of other

student’s work and providing useful

written and/or oral comments.

I assign a mock trial in my classes and

participation is a major portion of the grade.

For the assignment, I write a fact pattern and

witness statements based on a current U.S.

Supreme Court case. Students choose

whether they want to play the role of an

attorney or a witness. Working together in

six to eight person teams, students spend

three weeks preparing the trial and then

conduct a jury trial in class. In rethinking

the mock trial to make sure it is universally

designed, I have developed the assignment

so students can play a variety of roles that fit

their individual learning styles. For example,

visual learners can create charts and power

point slides for use as visual aids during the

trial. This also enables jury members who

are print and visual learners to better follow

the case. Visual aids also assist students

playing the role of an attorney to organize

opening statements and to remember

important case names. Witnesses, especially

those who must remember a key dollar

figure, also may use visual aids. In the past I

made accommodations for students with a

learning disability and allowed the use of

CHAPTER 12

UID in Legal Studies

166

notes. Now, all witnesses can use visual aids

if they want help remembering a key fact.

Mock trial is an effective way to learn

about the U.S. legal system, work on oral

communication, and enhance critical

thinking. The majority of students rate the

mock trial as the assignment that best helped

them meet course goals on end of semester

evaluations. Interactive and kinesthetic

learners excel in the mock trials and often

gain confidence that enhances their large

group participation and written work. Print

learners also provide a key skill by digesting

the written information in the case packet.

Aural learners follow the mini-lectures that I

conduct on argumentative strategies and

provide constructive feedback to team

members on delivery of opening and closing

statements and witness testimony. In their

peer assessment forms of their own and each

other’s participation, many students remark

that each team member played a different,

yet key role in preparing the case.

I continue to work on designing the mock

trials so that different forms of participation

are assessed and valued. Students are

assessed by me and by each other on how

well they work with other team members

and not just on the actual trial performance.

I have noticed that students who are initially

nervous about the public speaking

component of the course are much more

successful and report a more positive

experience now that I have incorporated

more UID principles into both the

assignment and assessment of the mock

trial.

Broadening Content to

Include Disability Rights

I also assessed the content of my classes

to ensure they are universally designed. As

James Banks (1993) and Ronald Takaki

(1993) have advocated, integrating

multicultural education into course content

is an effective way to make courses more

inclusive. I want to integrate disability rights

into my courses and agree with Geneva Gay

(1995) that there are multiple appropriate

ways to teach in a multicultural manner.

Initially I incorporated a separate section on

disability rights and am now rethinking the

way in which I teach to incorporate UID

principles.

When students see themselves reflected

in the curriculum, they are more engaged

with the underlying subject matter of the

course (Takaki, 1993). To this end, I have

incorporated more information on people

with disabilities in all of the social science

classes that I teach. The legislative history,

major federal laws, and seminal cases

surrounding disability rights are part of Civil

Rights content of the Law in Society class.

However, now rather than segregating

disability rights to a separate section of the

167CHAPTER 12

Implementing Universal Design

course, we discuss the emergence of equal

protection and evolving definitions of legal

equality. Within this discussion, disability is

discussed and analyzed along with race and

ethnicity, gender, class, age, and sexual

orientation. Disability is not relegated to a

separate “ism, “ but seen within the context

of a major Civil Rights issue.

I also decided to incorporate disability,

race, class, sexual orientation, and gender

issues as they relate to education law. I have

found that education law and policy is an

issue that all students relate to and offers a

way for them to engage with course content.

Students read a number of cases, including

Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and

learn about laws, such as the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA, 1994/

1997), that govern education. For example,

when we discuss education law, we read the

provisions in Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1994) and Title

II and III of the ADA that apply to higher

education and prohibit discrimination on the

basis of disability. There are a number of

articles and publications that provide

detailed information on Section 504 and the

ADA that assisted in my curriculum

development (Blanck, 1998; Council on

Law in Higher Education [CLHE], 2000;

Rothstein, 2000; Tucker, 1996).

Including disability rights content also

reinforces my syllabus statement regarding

disability accommodations. Furthermore,

students who may have misinformation

about psychiatric or learning disabilities

learn important information and together we

shatter some of the stereotypes about

accommodations (e.g., students are faking it,

makes course too easy, etc.). Perhaps most

importantly, we discuss the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1994

and how it differs from the ADA. Students

who had IDEA accommodations when they

were in high school need to know that,

unlike in primary and secondary schools,

when they enter higher education the onus is

on them to register with the college or

university disability services office and

contact individual instructors to obtain

reasonable accommodations. Without

understanding this distinction, and that

testing may no longer be free, many students

may incorrectly believe they are

automatically eligible for accommodations

received in high school.

Discussions about disability culture and

the movement for disability rights have led

to a number of benefits. My perception is

that students are more willing to self-

disclose learning and psychiatric disabilities

to me during office hours than they were

when disability issues were not integrated

into my courses. Hopefully this change is

also due to less stigma being attached to

being labeled “learning disabled” or having

a psychiatric disability. In past course

CHAPTER 12

UID in Legal Studies

168

offerings where I focused primarily on

issues of equality surrounding race, class,

and gender, some students dismissed the

issue as “discrimination that used to happen,

but doesn’t anymore.” With the inclusion of

disability and sexual orientation integrated

into our discussion of equality, it is more

difficult to dismiss inequality as just a

historical problem. Students are also able to

see more of a link between themselves as

individuals and the legal system, a major

goal of Law in Society.

Conclusion

Since incorporating UID principles in my

classes, I have had several students bring me

letters detailing the accommodations they

require. The students notice that the most

common accommodations (i.e., copies of

lecture notes and additional time on

assignments) have already been

incorporated into the course design to

benefit all students. I explain that I have

attempted to incorporate more learning

supports into the course with the goal of

inclusive pedagogy. The mock trial, which is

the best way I have found to teach students

about the U.S. legal system, seems to

increase course retention now that I have

incorporated multiple ways to participate.

Most importantly, integrating disability

rights issues into the Civil Rights and

education law sections of the course content

has provided a valuable learning experience.

In attempting to meet Sonia Nieto’s (1994)

challenge to move from tolerance to

acceptance in multicultural education,

hopefully more students are seeing

themselves reflected, respected, and

affirmed in the curriculum.

References

The Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12132

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

Banks, J. (1993). Multicultural education as

an academic discipline: Goals for the

century. Multicultural Education,

1(3), 8-11, 39.

Blanck, P. (1998). Civil rights, learning

disability, and academic standards.

Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 2,

33-58.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483

(1954).

Center for Applied Special Technology

(CAST) (2001). Bobby home page, [On-

line], Available: http://www.cast.org/

bobby/

Council on Law in Higher Education

(CLHE) (2000). Disability law for

campus administrators: Meeting the

needs of students. [Online] Available:

www.clhe.org

169CHAPTER 12

Implementing Universal Design

Gay, G. (1995). Bridging multicultural

theory and practice. Multicultural

Education, 3(1), 4-9.

Higbee, J. L., Ginter, E. J., & Taylor, W. D.

(1991). Enhancing academic

performance: Seven perceptual styles of

learning. Research and Teaching in

Developmental Education, 7(2), 5-9.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485 (1994), as

amended by 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400-1487

(West 1997).

Miksch, K. Home page for Karen Miksch.

[Online]. Available: http://

www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/miksch/

Nieto, S. (1994). Moving beyond tolerance

in multicultural education. Multicultural

Education, 1(4), 9-12, 35-38.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701

(1994).

Rothstein, L. (2000). Higher education and

the future of disability policy. Alabama

Law Review, 52, 241-270.

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A

history of multicultural America.

Boston: Little, Brown.

Tucker, B. (1996). Application of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

and Section 504 to colleges and

universities: An overview and

discussion of special issues relating to

students. Journal of College &

University Law, 23, 1-41.

CHAPTER 12

UID in Legal Studies

170

171CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

Empowering Students

with Severe Disabilities: A Case Study

Jay T. Hatch, David L. Ghere, and Katrina Jirik

University of Minnesota

This chapter provides a case study of the empowerment of a student with multiple and severe disabilities. We

outline accommodations provided in three college courses, describe classroom events that contributed to the

student’s success, and provide the student’s own insights into her situation. We conclude that instructors must be

thoughtful about what constitutes the essential elements of their courses and creative about how students can

acquire and demonstrate knowledge in order to remove the instructional barriers that prevent students with

disabilities from being successful in college coursework. Removing these barriers empowers students with

disabilities to achieve their academic potential by building self-confidence and developing a realization that the

responsibility for success is shared by the students, the instructors, and the institution.

ata suggest seriously

disproportionate barriers both to

access and to success in higher

education for persons with disabilities (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2001). That the

disproportionate success results in large part

from inadequately designed curricula and

skeptical or hostile attitudes of faculty is no

longer a matter of conjecture (Foster, Long,

& Snell, 1999; Hill, 1996; Kalivoda &

Higbee, 1998; Seymour & Hunter, 1998;

West, Kregel, Getzel, & Zhu, 1993). In this

chapter we present a case study of Kate, a

student who, because of her severe and

multiple disabilities, easily could have been

pushed to the edge of the classroom and the

entire college experience. We show instead

how Kate became fully integrated into three

courses (one in world history taught by

David Ghere and two in biological science

taught by Jay Hatch), won the respect of her

teachers and peers, and gained a strong

sense of self-confidence and empowerment

that resulted in her becoming an outstanding

student. We also describe how she helped us

to recognize the elements of Universal

Instructional Design (UID) that are crucial

to the academic advancement of students

with severe disabilities (Bowe, 2000;

Higbee, 2001; Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn,

1998). Some of these elements already

existed in our courses, while others had to

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

172

be invented to accommodate Kate and are

now available to every student.

We begin by describing Kate’s array of

disabilities, followed by separate case

accounts of the world history course and the

biological science courses. In these case

accounts, we describe what accommodations

each of us made, how these

accommodations and other course practices

facilitated Kate’s integration into each

course, and how Kate responded to the

integration. We conclude with a brief

analysis of what we believe to be crucial

elements of curricular modification that will

empower students with severe disabilities to

successfully achieve their academic

potential.

This case study is unusual in that its

subject, Kate, is also one of its authors. We

strongly believe that the advancements made

here and the knowledge gained resulted

from intellectual contributions involving all

three of us. Kate’s participation as an author

also brought a level of accuracy and

authenticity to the writing that would not

have existed otherwise. Finally, Kate

thought it important to be identified both as

subject and as author; hence, we do not

employ a subject pseudonym.

Kate’s Challenge

Kate was a challenge, a delightful

challenge. In our combined 35 years of

teaching, we have never encountered a more

daunting prospect or a more successful

conclusion. Both of us have had personal

experiences with friends or acquaintances

who have disabilities, and these experiences

preconditioned us to view the potential of

students with disabilities very positively. We

each have had a number of successful

experiences accommodating such students

in our classes. Yet, confronted with the array

of Kate’s disabilities, each of us wondered if

we could have any positive impact on her

learning.

Kate has severe and multiple disabilities

that affected motor control, sensory

perception, communication, and learning.

She is unable to walk or have complete

control over her head and arm movements.

Her motor disabilities cause her speech to be

virtually unrecognizable. She speaks by

typing words into an augmentative

communication device with a synthetic

voice output. Weak muscles make it

necessary for an assistant to support her arm

while she swings it slowly but deliberately

to strike the keys. Typing is a very slow and

arduous task; thus, real-time conversation is

a very slow and sometimes frustrating

process. Kate also is legally blind. She has

limited short-range vision but a form of

dyslexia affects even that capability by

sometimes rearranging and distorting those

things that she can see. The combination of

untrustworthy vision and weak muscles

173CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

means that Kate cannot control the

movement of her wheelchair physically or

electronically and has to rely on an assistant

to move anywhere. Poor muscle control also

results in uncontrollable drooling and a

variety of guttural noises made during

attempts to swallow excessive saliva. Often

these noises exacerbate communication

problems and initiate a level of irritability in

classmates, some of whom interpret the

noises as discourteous, juvenile giggling.

Finally, Kate has a “central processing

difficulty” that interferes with word finding

and retrieval, which makes it appear that she

has memory problems and causes her to go

about problem solving in an unusual way.

Kate explains it this way.

I’m beginning to realize that I think

differently than a lot of people. I think

in associative webs. I do not

memorize well. I have to have lots of

information and a thorough

understanding of the concept or

theory in order to remember it. I need

to know much more than other

students just so I can remember the

required information. The typical

teaching method of simplifying things

is a disaster for me. When I don’t

understand something, I need more

information not less.

Despite our doubts concerning our

abilities to adequately address Kate’s needs,

we both were determined to make our

courses positive educational experiences for

Kate. We each met with Kate to discuss

what specific accommodations would be

effective and set out to determine how we

could implement those accommodations in

our courses. We hoped Kate would learn

from her experiences in our courses; we had

little notion of how profound the experience

would be for all three of us.

The World History Course

Kate enrolled in a ten-week freshman

world history class covering the period from

1750 to the present. One simple

accommodation was to have exams

administered by the staff at the University’s

Office of Disability Services so that Kate

could use their magnification equipment and

have questions read out loud if necessary. I

also provided Kate with copies of class

notes and map transparencies so that she

could review them prior to class, and thus be

better prepared to understand class

presentations and be more involved in class

discussions. The world history class

included four classroom simulations, active

learning exercises that require students to

assess the options available to historical

figures, reach some decisions, and then

explain or critique those decisions. I

provided Kate with simulation materials in

advance so that she could prepare and save

voice messages on her communication

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

174

device for possible use during the

simulation. These materials are now posted

on a course website for the benefit of all

students in the course.

Kate’s presence prompted me to make

greater use of techniques and methods that I

already attempted to practice in the

classroom. I routinely contrast opposing

views or evidence by writing them on

opposite ends of the blackboard, and I vary

my tone of voice and speech patterns to

emphasize different points. Also, I try to

verbally provide detailed explanations of the

important aspects of material being

presented visually. The physical movement,

the voice changes, and the detailed

explanations helped all students to follow

the logic of class lecture and discussion, but

it was particularly beneficial for Kate due to

her limited vision. Also, my questions in

class are followed by long pauses before I

select the person to answer the question.

This allows all students to consider the

question, facilitates involving more students

in the discussion, and provides broader

indications of student comprehension of the

material. In this instance, it also provided

Kate with the time necessary for her to

answer questions.

Long before ever learning of the concept

of UID, my teaching goals included

promoting the widest and deepest

acquisition of course material and providing

students with the greatest opportunity to

demonstrate their knowledge and

understanding. Detailed review sheets were

provided and essay topics were announced a

week before each exam. This had the dual

benefit of enabling students to focus their

thoughts and energies while increasing the

quality of work that could be expected by

the instructor. In addition, when

demonstrating their mastery of course

content through written essays, students

were given generous amounts of time, thus

promoting and rewarding thoughtful

analysis rather than writing speed. These

practices enhance student learning while

enabling instructors to evaluate each

student’s effort, knowledge, and

understanding with more precision. While

they were implemented to benefit all the

students, these practices contributed to

Kate’s success in the course and limited the

need for special accommodations.

A significant breakthrough was achieved

during the first classroom simulation that

occurred at the end of the second week of

classes. In this simulation, Congress of

Vienna, students were divided into groups of

three and provided with outline maps of

central Europe depicting the boundaries of

France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia as well

as smaller countries and principalities in

central Europe. Each group had to decide

how to reward the victorious countries with

territory, reestablish the balance of power

175CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

between the major powers, and reinstall

autocratic governments following the

Napoleonic Wars. The two students grouped

with Kate were friendly, but seemed

uncomfortable and uncertain about how to

include Kate in the simulation. As they were

discussing a possible territorial decision,

Kate selected a prerecorded message and the

mechanical voice from her communication

device said, “Austria would not like that.”

Her two startled partners waited for Kate to

type a further comment and were rewarded

with a clear explanation of the dilemma

posed by the simulation. Kate quickly

emerged as the leader of the discussion

group for the rest of the class period.

The simulations allowed Kate to

demonstrate her capabilities in ways that

would never have happened in a typical

lecture-style classroom. Kate’s high scores

on exams and papers would have been

largely unknown to her classmates, and her

severe physical disabilities would have

greatly limited her involvement in most

classes. Yet, in the context of the simulation,

the “tinny’ voice of Kate’s communication

device caught students’ attention throughout

the classroom. They were aware of her

active involvement in her group and her

contributions were evident in the class

discussion that followed the simulation.

Kate was paired with a different set of

students in each of the three subsequent

simulations. Having observed Kate in that

first simulation, these new partners

immediately involved her in the discussions

and waited eagerly for her contributions. In

each case, Kate participated fully in the

activities and her active involvement could

be heard by others in the classroom. By the

end of the quarter, everyone knew that the

student with the most “medical” disabilities

was also the most intellectually capable

student in the class.

Kate is a unique student, possessing a

truly gifted intellect and a determination to

succeed. However, her success in the world

history course was also dependent upon a

body of class procedures, course

assignments, and teaching methods that

enabled her to demonstrate her ability.

Throughout most of her previous

educational experience, she had not had the

opportunity to display her capabilities.

Many teachers, staff, and administrators had

assumed an intellectual deficit based upon

Kate’s physical disabilities and her inability

to participate in typical class interaction.

When Kate had done well on standard tests

and papers, many had assumed that others

must have written the papers and answered

the test questions for Kate. In this world

history class, Kate’s acquisition of

knowledge was promoted, her active

involvement was fostered, and her mastery

of the content was accurately evaluated.

Kate achieved success because the

instructional design barriers were removed

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

176

that had previously prevented her from

demonstrating her ability. All students

regardless of their intellectual or physical

abilities should be allowed to demonstrate

that ability without having to overcome

needless barriers created by instructional

design.

The Biological Science Courses

Kate enrolled in two biological science

courses one year apart. The first was a

small-enrollment (i.e., 35 students)

environmental science course and the

second was a larger enrollment (i.e., 100

students) general principles course that

included a laboratory component. For the

environmental science course I made several

of the same accommodations that Dave did

in the world history course. All students

received a detailed study guide at the

beginning of the course. This guide included

all of the exercises and study questions that

were worked on and discussed in class, as

well as examples of tests from previous

quarters. I made the additional lecture

information (tables, graphs and other

illustrations) available to Kate at least one

week in advance. This way Kate could

formulate responses and her own questions

ahead of time, program them into her

computer, and participate in class much as

other students did. I had already made

in-class tests only 20% of the grade, with a

variety of formal and informal writing

assignments and a group project making up

the remaining 80%. As an accommodation

to Kate, I gave all students the option of

taking in-class tests similar to those in the

study guide (i.e., a mix of short-essay and

objective questions) or completing overnight

take-home essay exams. Both exam types

tested exactly the same learning objectives.

These were the accommodations that Kate

said ahead of time were the most important.

She needed to know in detail from the start

what was expected of her so that she could

set up her support system and lay out a work

schedule that would allow her to stay up to

date in the course. She needed to know that

there was at least the possibility that she

could meet each course requirement, one of

which was class participation. In retrospect,

this seems only fair and reasonable for any

student.

There was one course requirement that

Kate thought she might have trouble

meeting: the group project. Because of her

real-time communication difficulties, Kate

was not accustomed to working in a group,

especially during class time. To help

facilitate the initial group work, I assigned

Kate to a group with an older, experienced

student who had done a great deal of group

work inside and outside of academia. I also

suggested to the group members that, as they

discussed project issues, they might

periodically pose “yes” or “no” questions to

allow Kate to participate in a timely way. As

the group work proceeded, fellow students

realized that Kate possessed considerable

177CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

intellect and that she brought an unusually

focused clarity to what she wrote. Both my

concerns and Kate’s about her ability to

successfully complete the project work

faded quickly. Still, there was the vexing

problem of the final class presentation of the

project’s outcome. No one, including me,

expected Kate to present before the class. It

was not a requirement for anyone. The

requirement was that each member of the

group had to contribute to the project in a

meaningful way that was acceptable to

everyone in the group. Nevertheless, when

the day for presentations arrived, Kate was

at the front of the room with the rest of her

group. They presented a Jeopardy quiz show

on the Siberian tiger. While other members

of the group read the answers, Kate used the

variety of voices available on her voice

synthesizer, like Bubbly Betty and Freaky

Frederick, to supply the question, “What is

the Siberian tiger?” The entire presentation

was superb and it received the only standing

ovation in memory.

Not quite one year later, Kate asked me

if I would help her with a course

requirement issue. The University of

Minnesota requires all students to complete

a foundation course in biological science

that has a significant laboratory component.

Kate was eager to take the general principles

course, but she thought the laboratory

component might be inappropriate for her.

After all, she reasoned, the purpose of a lab

is to get students to manipulate things with

their hands and make direct observations,

and “I cannot do that.” My immediate

reaction was, “Not so, you’ve already

proven that you can do science as well as

anyone, better than most.” However, as I

thought about exactly what we required our

students to do in the laboratory, I began to

think that Kate might be right. In the past we

had had students with sight impairments,

students with hearing impairments, students

with motor impairments, and students with a

variety of learning disabilities truly engaged

in our laboratory exercises. But we had

never attempted to engage someone with

Kate’s array of impairments.

I thought the question of Kate’s

involvement was complicated enough that I

arranged for a meeting with Kate, her

mother, her personal assistant, her counselor

at the University’s Office of Disabilities

Services, a representative from the state’s

Services for the Blind and Visually

Impaired, and our college’s laboratory

coordinator. After brief introductions, the

meeting began with a prepared statement

from Kate delivered via her voice

synthesizer. Kate made it clear that she did

not expect to “slide by” in any course; on

the contrary, she wanted to have the same

chance as any other student to learn about

biology. Her concern, based on previous

experiences in science labs, was that:

I would be expected to do everything

everyone else did in the same way

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

178

they did it and it would not work. In

the past, I always felt like I failed

rather than the system failed. I need to

have clear learning objectives and

clear expectations of what I have to

do, and those expectations should not

change later on. Jay’s environmental

science class was one of the first

times in science when I got to

participate with what I could

[emphasis added] do. Having had that

class with Jay, I know we can work

out the lecture part, but I am still

worried about lab because I don’t see

well and I don’t move well; and if the

lab is based on those skills, I’m in

trouble because I can’t do them.

By the end of her statement, I realized how

far askew my thinking had been. The real

purpose of an introductory level laboratory

experience is not to have students

manipulate things with their hands or even

to have them make direct observations. Its

real purpose is to impart to each student a

strong sense of how the process of science

works; a student gains insight into how

scientists discover knowledge. All at the

meeting agreed that Kate could achieve such

an insight and that she should participate

fully in the laboratory exercises. The

laboratory coordinator and I would work

with Kate to determine exactly how she

would engage in the process.

That day I gave Kate a copy of the

laboratory manual and asked her erstwhile

reader, her mother, to go through it with her

and write out a list of accommodations that

Kate thought would be necessary for each

lab. The overall accommodations included

(a) time outside of lab to write out answers

to questions on the worksheets (we now

offer this option to all students), (b)

someone to do the physical manipulations of

the experiments and someone to record data

(the lab is collaborative and students work

in pairs anyway), (c) large versions of some

of the visual materials (most of the materials

were available electronically and could be

enlarged; all materials are now), (d)

availability of some of the computer

software we use in the lab for home use (we

obtained permission to do so), and (e) a quiz

format other than multiple choice (we

worked out a way for Kate to do multiple

choice by allowing her to answer a question

with a short essay if she could not retrieve

the information in the multiple choice

format).

Kate also told us how she could

participate in virtually every lab. Her

strength was in understanding concepts,

making connections, and making

predictions. She could come to lab prepared

to make contributions based on her

knowledge. For example, in the mitosis (cell

division) lab, she suggested she could come

to lab prepared to explain to others how to

179CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

obtain a representative sample of dividing

cells and why it was important to have a

representative (i.e., random) sample. As I

read through the five pages of how she

would participate, I realized that Kate was

already deeply engaged in the lab

experience. She was well on her way to

meeting the central learning outcome of a

laboratory experience: having insight into

the process of doing science.

I was confident that Kate could be an

integral part of the lab and that her

experiences there would be true learning

experiences. I also concluded that, even

though Kate would be working with a lab

partner, she would need a personal

laboratory assistant. This assistant would

verbalize to Kate exactly what her lab

partner was doing and would record

measurements and observations into the

computer when it was Kate’s turn to do so.

Kate made it clear that she also needed to

have agreed-upon alternatives for

demonstrating accomplishment of certain

objectives in the event that she could not

meet them in the same way as other

students. The laboratory coordinator and I

wrote out these alternatives and provided

them for Kate one to two weeks in advance

of each lab exercise. For example, instead of

viewing a life stage and identifying it in the

life cycles lab, the task became “be able to

ask the ‘appropriate question’ about a life

cycle that would permit a sighted person to

discover what stage was being viewed.”

Sometimes Kate used these alternatives,

sometimes not, but having them available

put her at ease in the laboratory so that she

could concentrate on doing what she knew

she could do. Lastly, I provided additional

background information about various

concepts being learned or applied in the

laboratory. This last accommodation helped

meet Kate’s associative learning needs.

Of course, not everything went smoothly

in the laboratory. It took time for Kate’s

personal laboratory assistant to work out a

reasonable system for communication and to

get over “trying to help too much.” The time

taken for communication tended to put Kate

out of synchrony with the other students,

thus segregating her from the rest of the

class. Ultimately, we discovered it was best

to keep up with the other students and let the

communication lag. Kate was processing far

more than she could let us know while lab

was in session. The proof came in her

written responses on the take-home

worksheets and in her oral

(voice-synthesized) presentation about life

cycles.

Kate’s analysis of her laboratory

experience was very informative and

encouraging. She acknowledged having

learned a variety of things about biology and

about how science works, but more

importantly she learned a great deal about

herself. She wrote:

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

180

Most of what I learned was that it [my

lab work] was a partnership with

everybody working toward the same

goal, my successful completion of the

lab. I learned that if we tried

something and it didn’t work, that

everybody, not just me, was

responsible and it was a system

failure not a personal failure. I

learned I could use my strengths and

do the same activities but in a

somewhat different manner, like in

identifying the life cycles. And if I

have the data, I’m good at analyzing

it. I also learned some things about

socializing with other people. I even

learned to feel safe enough to share

my sense of humor.

Here are some things I think are

important. I never tried to use my

disabilities to get out of hard work. I

expected to work hard. I expected to

try things that would stretch my

capabilities. As long as I was trying, I

didn’t expect to be blamed when

things didn’t work. That gave me a lot

of freedom to try new things that I

didn’t know beforehand if they would

work out. Sharing responsibility for a

failure was very new to me and a very

remarkable concept. I didn’t expect

everything to be perfect and it wasn’t,

but it wasn’t solely my responsibility

to make things work.

Constructing a learning environment

with shared responsibilities for success was

the most important accommodation we

made, and it was not until I read Kate’s

evaluation of her experience that I even

realized we had made it.

The Take-Home Messages

We do not know how many students with

multiple severe disabilities have had the

kinds of discouraging and disenfranchising

experiences that Kate did in her high school

and early college tenure, but we suspect it is

a high percentage. Such experiences erect

their own barriers to seeking further

education. For the few who press onward to

pursue higher education (32.6%), very few

find the will and the opportunity to complete

a college degree (9.4%) (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2001). Our case study of Kate

shows that such an outcome need not

prevail. True, Kate is highly intelligent and a

very hard worker, but even in sum these

attributes were insufficient to overcome the

barriers erected by curricula that were

medically recognized disabilities. Thus, it is

reasonable and prudent to conclude that

college curricula must be modified in ways

that will be inclusive of and invitational to

students with severe disabilities. We also

conclude that the modifications must go

beyond simple accommodations, like

alternative testing modes or conditions,

181CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

multiple modes of access to course

materials, adequate time for all to complete

assignments, and so on.

As we have since discovered, the

principles of Universal Instructional Design

can guide us in making the kinds of

modifications that will be truly inclusive of

students with severe disabilities (Bowe,

2000). As Higbee (2001) points out, the first

step in developing a universally accessible

curriculum is to determine its “essential

elements.” We need to ask ourselves:

1. What is it that our students must be

able to do by the conclusion of this course

and what is it that they must know?

2. Why must they be able to do it or

know it? Here we have to be very critical of

our answer.

3. In what ways can a student

demonstrate that she or he knows the

information or can do the task? Here is

where we have to rely on our creativity and

the creativity of others. For most learning

objectives, there is more than one valid

means of demonstrating what one knows or

can do. Often, as illustrated by Kate, the

student can be the best resource for

determining these alternative ways.

This is exactly what we did in part as we

attempted to discover what Kate should be

expected to do in our courses. For example,

the study of history generally includes

memorization of many dates, important

personages, and events. But what is the real

importance of knowing these things? What

is the essential element here? The history

teacher hopes that the student ultimately will

be able to understand how and why events

unfolded the way they did. In the world

history course, students moved on to this

level when they worked through the

simulations. They demonstrated what they

knew factually and, at the same time,

learned to refine their ability to critically

analyze history. In Kate’s case, the

opportunity to demonstrate her knowledge

and analytical abilities in this way was

crucial. It not only provided the instructor

with an additional way of evaluating her

achievement, it provided a means by which

Kate became an integral part of the class.

The same thing happened with the group

project in the environmental science course

and with the collaborative laboratory

experience in the general biology principles

course.

Kate had the opportunity to capitalize on

her strengths and so was not faced with

having to do things that she could not do (an

important tactic, see Preston-Sabin, 1997).

This approach allowed her to take part in all

of the essential elements of the courses.

Thus, Kate felt fully included and fulfilled

intellectually because she accomplished the

same learning outcomes that other students

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

182

did (and in Kate’s case better than most). It

was very important to Kate, and it is very

important to the integrity of college

curricula, that the level of academic rigor in

a course not be compromised in an effort to

accommodate a student with disabilities. If

we are thoughtful about what constitutes the

essential elements of our courses and

creative about how students can acquire and

demonstrate knowledge, there need be no

sacrifice of rigor in designing universally

accessible courses.

Thoughtfully following the principles of

Universal Instructional Design also places

teachers in the position of already having

“accommodated” virtually any student who

enrolls in their courses. The stress and the

inconvenience of last-minute

accommodations, which burdens both

teachers and students, are eliminated.

Because Universal Instructional Design

principles incorporate well-established

principles for good teaching, UID courses

become better courses all around. Our

courses are much improved, and we have

discovered that virtually all students

appreciate having alternative ways to

acquire and demonstrate knowledge.

Another very important discovery of this

case was the sense of empowerment that

accrued to Kate as she engaged in these

courses. In all three courses, Kate’s

self-confidence in her ability to achieve her

potential rose markedly. As she became an

integral part of group achievement, she

learned that she could participate in and

significantly contribute to group work,

something she previously had believed she

could not do. In the biology lab in particular,

she learned that the onus for success was not

hers alone but was shared by her and those

who designed and delivered the curriculum.

This realization, coupled with the

availability of alternative ways of

demonstrating her knowledge, gave her the

confidence to explore new ways of learning.

As her self-confidence and array of learning

tools increased, she finally felt empowered

to design her own unique and very

challenging major: “public policy and the

ethics of inclusion of minorities.” Kate

currently is completing her senior year with

a cumulative grade point average of 3.9. She

plans to attend graduate school in the areas

of history of science and public policy.

Kate’s future is hers to determine and that is

as it should be.

References

Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in

education: Teaching nontraditional

students. Westport, CT: Bergin &

Garvey.

Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999).

Inclusive instruction and learning for

deaf students in postsecondary

education. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 4, 225-235.

183CHAPTER 13

Implementing Universal Design

Higbee, J. L. (2001). Implications of

Universal Instructional Design for

developmental education. Research and

Teaching in Developmental Education,

17, 67-70.

Hill, J. L. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions

of students with disabilities regarding

the adequacy of services and willingness

of faculty to make accommodations.

Journal of Postsecondary Education

and Disability, 12, 22-43.

Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1998).

Influencing faculty attitudes toward

accommodating students with

disabilities: A theoretical approach. The

Learning Assistance Review, 3 (2),

12-25.

Preston-Sabin, J. (1997). Angela:

Capitalizing on individual strengths. In

B. M. Hodge & J. Preston-Sabin (Eds.),

Accommodations—Or just good

teaching? (pp. 82-83). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Seymour, E., & Hunter, A. (1998). Talking

about disability: The education and

work experiences of graduates and

undergraduates with disabilities in

science, mathematics, and engineering

majors. Boulder, CO: The University of

Colorado.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.

(1998). Universal Instructional Design

in higher education: An approach for

inclusion. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 31 (2), 47-51.

West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., & Zhu, M.

(1993). Beyond section 504:

Satisfaction and experiences of students

with disabilities in higher education.

Exceptional Children, 59 (5), 456-467.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, March).

Americans with disabilities: 1997.

Retrieved October 8, 2001, from U.S.

Census Bureau Access: http://

www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/

sipp/disab97/ds97t3.html

CHAPTER 13

Empowering Students

184