Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Faculty perceptions, experiences, and outcomes implementing universal design in higher education
(USC Thesis Other)
Faculty perceptions, experiences, and outcomes implementing universal design in higher education
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS, EXPERIENCES, AND OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTING
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
by
Chad Bowman
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2016
Copyright 2016 Chad Bowman
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2
Abstract
This study captured the experience and perceptions of faculty members who have implemented
Universal Design (UD) in their courses, to understand the implementation process and outcomes
UD had on their students and themselves; as the current research on UD has been long on best
practices, and short on empirical evidence. A thorough review of literature surrounding UD, the
perceptions of faculty members and UD, implementation and barriers, and outcomes of universal
design was conducted. As faculty are tasked to keep up with the innovation and technology that
students use on a day-to-day basis, UD offers opportunities to provide students choices in their
learning, creativity, and engagement. A qualitative design was utilized to understand the
experiences and perceptions of faculty members implementing UD and capture their stories
through individual interviews. Through a constant comparative analysis, data were analyzed for
emergent themes to shape the findings of this study. As a result, three main findings emerged:
(a) Creating Faculty Buy-In, (b) A Need for Institutional Support, and (c) Potential for Success
in Higher Education. The outcomes of this study identified there is potential for success in
utilizing UD in higher education. Furthermore, UD can be linked to creating better educational
environments for students with and without disabilities, has impacts to grades and GPAs,
outcomes connected to persistence and completion, and with wide-spread implementation will
shift higher education and create a new pedagogy for faculty-developed engagement for new
ways of teaching and student learning.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
3
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family.
To my extended family, my Mom and Dad, Kay and Dick, Brother Greg, Sister Kristine, and the
Davis clan (especially Auntie Lynn) for always cheering me on, offering encouragement, and
being proud of me throughout the journey no matter what.
To my wife Joanna, for all her support, hard work, and understanding in allowing me to make
this dream a reality at all costs. Thank you for believing in me even when I did not. I hope you
know I could not have done this without you!
To my children, Morgan and Ryder, may you see the importance of education and always pursue
your goals and understand the time daddy spent away from home was all for your benefit. Go out
and follow your dreams at any cost and know I will always support you.
College is a great experience and exposes you to a lot of things you might not
otherwise learn or experience. You learn to evaluate things, think for yourself,
and become a more independent person. Even if you decide not to use your
specific degree, college can never be a waste of money if you get something
important out of it. ~Steven D. Woodhull (1999, No. 17)
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The road to completion has been a long journey. It took longer than my cohort members,
longer than I expected, and longer than I promised; but in the end was worth every step.
Regardless of time, in a few years the pain and struggle will be a distant memory but the
education and experience will continue to blossom forever. I must thank Dr. Patricia Tobey, my
dissertation chair, who dedicated her time, efforts, and energy guiding me through the journey. I
enjoyed our conversations and your approach to Universal Design in Higher Education filled
with Innovation and Creativity that inspired my topic. I also want to thank my dissertation
committee members Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Janice Schafrik for their time, feedback, and
understanding. A huge amount of gratitude goes to Dr. Evelyn Felina Castillo and Dr. Ilda
Jimenez y West from the Doctoral Support Center. THANK YOU, you truly do not know how
much you did and how much it meant to me as you helped relight my fire and allowed me to see
that even though it took sometime I could still do it, self-efficacy at its best. To the professors in
the Rossier School of Education who taught me, thank you for your mentorship, leadership, and
my education. To all my friends: Carla, Ryan, Melissa, Claudia, Kay, Erlynn, Sabrina, my
church family, neighbors and everyone else, thank you for your support and friendship
throughout the process. Finally for the Drs. who shared their journey with me: Marsh Allen
Smith, Becky Gogel, Denise Valdez, Kim Green, Patricia Beckman-Wells, Kristin Craun,
Susana Castellanos-Gaona and the many other classmates who inspired me, talked me off the
ledge, shared tears and laughter through the experience, cheered me on, and pushed me to
completion the whole time. Your friendship is what makes the Trojan Family true friends for
life.
I wrote on to fight on – Dr. Chad M. Bowman
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Appendices ...............................................................................................................6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...................................................................................7
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................8
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................11
Research Questions ................................................................................................11
Importance of the Study .........................................................................................12
Assumptions ...........................................................................................................12
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................13
Definition of Terms................................................................................................14
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .............................................................................17
Universal Design Theoretical Framework .............................................................18
Universal Design and the Cognitive Learning Process..........................................25
Creativity and Innovation through Universal Design ............................................29
Faculty Perceptions of Universal Design ...............................................................34
Implementation of Universal Design .....................................................................39
Outcomes of Universal Design ..............................................................................44
Conclusions ............................................................................................................49
Summary ................................................................................................................50
Chapter Three: Research Methodology .............................................................................52
Research Questions ................................................................................................53
Research Design.....................................................................................................53
Population and Sampling Procedure ......................................................................56
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................60
Data Collection ......................................................................................................63
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................65
Summary ................................................................................................................67
Chapter Four: Results ........................................................................................................69
Participants .............................................................................................................70
Faculty Perceptions of Universal Design ...............................................................71
Implementing Universal Design ............................................................................82
Outcomes of Universal Design in Higher Education .............................................97
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................110
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings ..............................................................................112
Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................113
Limitations ...........................................................................................................121
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................122
Future Research ...................................................................................................124
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................126
References ........................................................................................................................128
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
6
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Principles of Good Practice and Universal Design ....................................135
Appendix B: Pre-Interview Questionnaire .......................................................................138
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................141
Appendix D: Research Questions and Protocol Grid ......................................................144
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form..............................................................................148
Appendix F: Informational Letter ....................................................................................153
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The enrollment rate of students with disabilities has increased over the last several decades
throughout higher education. Unfortunately, the rate of persistence, retention, and degree
attainment in postsecondary institutions has not followed the same increase among students with
disabilities (Belch, 2005; Horn, Berktold, & Bobbitt, 1999). Within higher education, the focus has
been on accommodating learning difference amongst students with disabilities through disabled
student programs and services; however, faculty can do and should do more, beyond
accommodations, to enhance the classroom experience and learning for students with disabilities.
Universal Design (UD), as a learner-centered framework, anticipates and addresses the diverse
needs of the changing student demographic, including those with disabilities (McGuire, 2011; Orr
& Hammig, 2009; Ouellett, 2004). Therefore, faculty, alongside disability services personnel, have
a responsibility to collaborate and create learning environments that address the critical elements of
accessibility of student learning to address the needs of all students, including students with
disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003). The intent of Universal Design in education is to
simplify learning for all students, by appropriately challenging and engaging the full range of all
students, including students with disabilities and without (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005).
Universal design implemented by faculty in postsecondary institutions is an achievable goal that
promotes success for all students throughout general education curriculum, specialized coursework,
and the classroom; and is now, more than ever, an important strategy to increase the standards and
success of college student learning and development. Unfortunately, Universal Design
implemented in higher education curriculum is still a novelty, throughout both 2-year and 4-year
institutions, instead of a standard.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
8
Background of the Problem
Ensuring students with disabilities have equal access and participation in postsecondary
education has been identified as a key challenge in secondary education (National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition, 2003). According to Horn et al. (1999), 6% of entering
freshmen self-identified as having a disability. Recent studies have shown that enrollment of
students with disabilities has steadily increased. The National Center of Educational Statistics
(2006) reported that 1 in 10 freshmen in college report having a disability (p. 134, Table 6.1).
Unfortunately, of those students with a disability, many fail to obtain a degree and successfully
complete their college education (Horn et al., 1999; Madaus, 2005). While research shows the
majority of students with disabilities are enrolling at community colleges, enrollment in four-year
institutions has been steadily increasing for students with disabilities (Orr & Hammig, 2009).
During the 2008-2009 academic year, research indicated that among Title IV degree granting
postsecondary institutions, 88% of the institutions enrolled students with disabilities. Among
almost all of the 2-year and 4-year public institutions, 99% enrolled students have disabilities; and
100% of medium and large institutions enrolled students with disabilities (Raue & Lewis, 2011,
p. 5, Table 1). Even with the increased enrollment of students with disabilities in higher education,
students with disabilities attempt college at much lower rates than their non-disabled peers
(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Horn et al., 1999). Similarly, while the rate of students with learning
disabilities (LD) enrolling in four-year institutions is increasing, their rate of enrollment and
graduation continues to be low (Cummings, Maddux, & Casey, 2000; Heiman & Precel, 2003; Orr
& Hamming, 2009; Sparks & Lovett, 2009).
Once institutions are notified of a disability, they must make academic adjustments that
are necessary to ensure an equal opportunity to participate. Unfortunately, students labeled with
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
9
disabilities often remain both “socially and academically segregated” within the classroom
environments and if teachers view students labeled with disability as different, they too may
become complacent, less attentive to, or unaware of the way students becomes marginalized
through activities and curriculum that further excludes them from the class experiences (Hehir,
2003). Faculty members must look at the abilities of students with disabilities and opportunities
to enrich their knowledge and the student’s success in higher education by teaching to the
student’s unique and diverse learning needs, thus further enhancing the experience of all students
(Scott et al., 2003).
The diversity among students in higher education is unprecedented, including those with
disabilities (Rose & Strangman, 2007). Acknowledging the diversity among all students and
understanding that all students learn differently is a unique way of saying that we all are
“disabled” or “different” from one another (Rieber, 2001). Students therefore have their own
abilities and shortcomings, and all students have their own strengths and weaknesses when it
comes to learning. Therefore, the way faculty members teach can have a great impact on all
students, including those with disabilities. The traditional “one size fits all” model to learning
and curriculum, therefore, denies the differences in these learning strengths, challenges, and
interests of all students (Rose & Strangman, 2007). A shift and focus on implementing
Universal Design within higher education is necessary to address the diverse needs of all
students and ensure their success as a result.
Statement of the Problem
In order to create more inclusive environments and enhance the learning of all students,
higher education must be totally reconfigured to encourage an emphasis on how faculty teach
and the strategies they use within the classroom to include Universal Design (Pilner & Johnson,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
10
2004). Currently, little focus has been given to UD in higher education and faculty members are
still resistant to implementing UD within their classrooms. Raue and Lewis (2011) indicated
several barriers, from a moderate or major extent, among 2-year and 4-year institutions to
implementing Universal Design as a means to meet the needs of their students with disabilities.
Among those reasons included: 52% of schools reporting not having enough staff resources for
training and implementation; 46% noted the cost associated with purchasing appropriate
technology to enable access; 38%, cited the lack of information and resources available on
Universal Design; 38% indicated the lack of interest on the part of faculty in participating in
training and development on accessibility issues; and unfortunately, 25% noted the question on
the usefulness of Universal Design in higher education being a barrier to UD implementation
(Raue & Lewis, 2011, pp. 17, 18, Table 12). A deeper analysis of the experiences and outcomes
of faculty who utilize UD within the curriculum will enable other institutions to see beyond these
barriers and increase the implementation of UD in higher education.
The current research on UD is long on best practices, and short on empirical evidence
based on the benefits from implementation (Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011). In considering
UD as an alternative to addressing the needs of students with disabilities and other students, UD
provides access to instruction that is flexible and adaptable fostering accessibility through the
classroom and curriculum (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). While UD in instruction and
learning does not eliminate the need for specific accommodations, the outcome of applying UD
assures full access to the content for most students and will minimize the need for some
accommodations (Ouellett, 2004). Several researchers (McGuire, 2011; McGuire et al., 2006;
Roberts, Park, Brown & Cook, 2011) noted the importance of examining the outcomes of
implementing UD to promote inclusive college learning and teaching. Understanding the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
11
perceptions of faculty regarding the barriers, experiences, and implementation of UD is
necessary to continue to validate the practices of UD in postsecondary institutions. Providing
further results on the perceived outcomes of students’ success and faculty experiences will allow
further research to support the efforts of UD implementation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine Universal Design in relationship to faculty
perceptions, implementation, and outcomes in postsecondary education. Creating accessible
learning environments for all learners positively responds to the need to be innovative and
creative while reaching the unique needs of students throughout the educational setting.
Therefore, this study aimed to capture the experience and perceptions of faculty members who
have implemented UD in their courses, as a result of their participation in the EnABLE project,
to understand the implementation process and outcomes UD has had on their students and
themselves.
Research Questions
This study utilized a qualitative design in order to understand the experiences and
perceptions of faculty members implementing UD and to capture their stories through individual
interviews. A variety of data were utilized in collection including document review, pre-
interview questionnaires and semi-structured interviews across three different institutions
answering the following three research questions:
1. What are faculty members’ perceptions of UD?
2. What are the experiences of faculty members implementing UD within their curriculum?
3. What are faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes based on UD
implementation in their courses?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
12
Importance of the Study
While UD has been around for a several decades, the implementation and execution
throughout higher education is still relatively new; and as the literature review provided
addresses, there is limited research beyond best practices and theoretical implications to examine
the utility of UD within higher education from an empirical basis. Furthermore, few attempts
have been made to measure faculty perceptions of UD principles in practices (Lombardi &
Murray, 2011). The importance of this study was to contribute knowledge that would help
faculty and educators in higher education understand the implementation, challenges, and
outcomes of utilizing Universal Design (UD) when working with diverse student population,
including students with disabilities. Applied research allowed this study to test the function of
UD theory and its application within higher education.
Assumptions
Several key assumptions framed this research study. First, there was the belief that
participants would respond openly and honestly to the interview questions. Second, this research
had no connection to the outcomes of the EnABLE project and did not serve as a summative
evaluation of the EnABLE project implementation or their faculty development efforts. Third,
faculty development and training opportunities were valuable to faculty members throughout
postsecondary institutions. Fourth, there was an assumption that faculty members actively seek
out means to continue to improve and broaden their teaching techniques in order to enhance
student-learning outcomes within their courses. Finally, faculty who see the value of the faculty
development and outcomes of UD within their courses would serve as examples on their
individual campuses and encourage other faculty members to consider UD implementation as
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
13
well; as faculty teaching faculty through development is an inherent aim of faculty development
programs.
Limitations and Delimitations
As a result of the aims of this study, this study was limited to the participants who agreed
to volunteer. As the participants were selected from faculty who participated in the EnABLE
project, their experiences may have been more positive as they voluntarily selected themselves
and those faculty who may not have been successful or continued to implement UD practices
within their courses may have declined to participate and taken the time to discuss their
experiences. This study was also limited to those surveyed and the amount of time available to
conduct the study. Validity of the study was limited by the reliability of the instruments used
and the generalizability of the results across postsecondary institutions outside of the Big State
University (BSU) system.
This study restricted itself to surveying faculty who have participated in the EnABLE
project, at three institutions within Big State University (BSU) system that were part of the initial
Universal Design implementation project that began during the 2006-2007 academic year. All
three of these campuses included were medium to large sized public four-year institutions that
award both bachelors and masters degrees. The EnABLE project concluded in 2012 and
included multiple campuses within the BSU system; further offering training and faculty learning
communities. This study focused on the faculty members’ perceptions of UD, their experiences
during implementation, and the outcomes UD had on their students and themselves. Faculty
members from across curriculums participated in the EnABLE project; therefore the aim of this
study was to produce a variety of represented curriculum areas through the diverse faculty
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
14
participants among the three selected campuses. Only faculty members who were part of the tier
one research partners were included in the study interviews.
Definition of Terms
• Academic Accommodation: Modifications of services, programs, and facilities to help
persons with disabilities access the general education curriculum and validly demonstrate
learning (Education.com, 2012).
• Cognitive Load Theory: Suggests that effective instructional materials direct cognitive
process towards activities that are relevant to learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991).
• Creativity: Involves novelty and originality combined with clear notions of value and
utility (Kleiman, 2008).
• Disability: A physical or mental condition that causes functional limitations that
substantially limit one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to,
mobility, communication, seeing, hearing, speaking, and learning (Raue & Lewis, 2011).
• Universal Design (UD): The design of products and environments to be useable by all
people to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaption or specialized design
(Center for Universal Design, 1997).
• Universal Design for Instruction (UDI): Deals more with applying UD to instruction and
not instructional design being made universal (Zeff, 2007). As a result, UDI is an
approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and inclusive strategies that
benefit a broad range of learners, including those with disabilities (Scott et al., 2003).
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Considers individual needs and differences in the
learning process; therefore providing a more supportive and flexible curriculum and
environment that maximizes the learners potential and ability to progress (Rose, 2005).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
15
• Universal Instructional Design (UID): Addresses equity and inclusion in education, as
UID asks faculty to first think about what they teach, why and how they teach it, and why
and how they assess learning in the classroom before designing instruction and curricula
(Pliner & Johnson, 2004).
• Zone of Proximal Development: Ensures that students are receiving the necessary support
that is individualized for their current cognitive level and need while providing students
flexible means of support for action and expression (Pisha & Coyne, 2001; Vygotsky,
1978).
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the problem,
the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the
significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics:
Universal Designs Theoretical Framework, Universal Design and the Cognitive Learning
Process, Creativity and Innovation through Universal Design, Faculty Perceptions of Universal
Design, Implementation of Universal Design, and Outcomes of Universal Design.
Chapter Three presents the methodology used in this study, including the research design;
population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or development,
together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these sections concludes with a
rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on to
present a description of the procedures for data collection and the plan for data analysis.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
16
Chapter Four outlines the results of the study. Chapter Five discusses and analyzes the
findings, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
17
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Postsecondary institutions throughout the United States are becoming increasingly more
diverse with respect to ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, students with disability, and the
number of re-entry and transfer students enrolling (McGuire, 2011; Scott et al., 2003). Faculty
in higher education are faced with increased demands as their class sizes and teaching loads rise
alongside students expectations; unfortunately, the institutional infrastructure is stretched due to
limited funds and fewer employees necessary to meet the demand of students’ needs (Ouellett,
2004). To improve retention, persistence, and attainment rates among student from a
diversifying student body, innovative instructional designs have been suggested, including
Universal Design (Schelly et al., 2011). Universal Design (UD) offers access to learning for all
students and provides an opportunity for dynamic learning, innovative practices, enhanced
creativity and the implementation of technology into today’s learning environments throughout
higher education. While there has been much research to explore UD and several approaches,
unfortunately there exists a lack of empirical basis to support the usage, understanding, and
outcomes of UD. As faculty members are tasked to support the learning of students in
innovative and creative approaches, examining the experiences of faculty members and
outcomes of their implementation are a necessary step to further the implementation and
knowledge of UD approaches.
This review of literature aims to explore UD and several of the applications that have
followed as a result of its practices. Furthermore, discussion on the differences in principles,
applications, and implementation in the higher education will be offered in the theoretical
framework of UD. Universal Design aims to enhance the learning environment and process for
all learners, therefore a review of UD and its intersection to the learning process of college
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
18
students will enable an understanding of how UD impacts learners. Throughout UD the learner’s
individual needs are addressed, therefore a discussion of Vygotsky (1978) and the Zone of
Proximal Development and Cognitive Load Theory will connect the usage of UD to creating
scaffolding and support that enables student learning as a result. Connecting UD and its links to
creativity, and innovation through the use of technology enhances the understanding of providing
multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement in the classroom. As faculty are
tasked to keep up with the innovation and technology that students utilize on a day-to-day basis,
UD offers opportunities to provide students choices in their learning, creativity, and engagement.
Utilizing technology also offers multiple means of representation and connects learners to a
number of learning styles and formats throughout its design. A further review of empirical
studies will focus on understanding the perspective of faculty and their perceptions of UD, its
implementations and barriers. Finally, a look at the limited empirical findings and results
available on UD outcomes as linked to student learning and the usage of UD in higher education
will conclude the literature review, calling for additional empirical support and research to
further the support of UD on colleges across the nation and beyond.
Universal Design Theoretical Framework
The adaptation and implementation of Universal Design (UD) over the past 30 years has
created several approaches for UD, each with their own principles and practices, including:
Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), and Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). With similar focus and intent to improve teaching and instruction
as well as educational experiences, Chickering and Gamson (1987) introduced Seven Principles
of Good Practices in Undergraduate Education. These principles include: (a) Encourage contact
between students and faculty, (b) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
19
(c) Encourage active listening, (d) Give prompt feedback, (e) Emphasize time on task,
(f) Communicate high expectations, and (g) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 2). Similar to the principles of UD, these principles emphasize
common sense and good teaching practices that are broadly accepted as a structure for creating
effective teaching in higher education and have been interwoven within UD concepts of good
practice (Scott et al., 2003).
At the core of Universal Design, and a commonality throughout Chickering and
Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, UID, UDI
and UDL, are principles that help faculty members identify key points of entry for assessing their
strengths and challenges as instructors in meeting the needs of their students (Ouellett, 2004).
Universal Design offers instruction aimed at delivering optimal learning, considering student
support from the onset while thinking about and designing instruction (Orr and Hammig, 2009).
Inherent in the UD process for learning and instruction is a focus on the learner-centered need of
students in the classroom to create a more inclusive learning environment. Therefore, instructors
must make pedagogical choices that are informed by the diverse students’ needs and difference
within their classroom in order to optimize learning for all (Harrison, 2003). Some researchers
have seen the terms within Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for
Instruction (UDI), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as interchangeable, as each refers
to the application of Universal Design principles in the instructional setting, while others
describe distinct distinctions between each of them (Roberts et al., 2011). Essentially, the end
result of all these applications is the same, applying these principles, enhances teaching, and
makes learning accessible for all. While the differences in the approaches of UD might be less
important than their commonalties (Orr & Hammig, 2009), a brief review of each is necessary to
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
20
understand their origins, principles, and implementation within higher education (see Appendix
A).
Universal Design (UD)
The term Universal Design (UD) was first articulated by architect Ronald Mace in the
1970s at the University of Northern Carolina and focused on eliminating barriers for persons
with physical disabilities. UD is broadly defined as the design of products and environments to
be useable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaption or
specialized design. UD follows seven principles applicable to environmental accessibility that
serve as a foundation on which to develop guidelines and practices in implementing Universal
Design (Center for Universal Design, 1997). These principles include: (a) Equitable use,
(b) Flexibility in use, (c) Simple and intuitive use, (d) Perceptible information, (e) Tolerance of
error, (f) Low physical effort, and (g) Site and space for appropriate use (Center for Universal
Design, 1997, The 7 Principles). A common understanding of Universal Design is seen in the
creation of curb cuts in city sidewalks. While curb cuts allow individuals with mobility
impairments equity of use and access across the street with wheelchairs or other assistive
devices, it also benefits individuals with strollers, carts, or wheeled backpacks. Creating curb
cuts in the classroom allows UD to transfer this same concept into the educational setting.
Bowe (2000) summated that UD operates under the understanding that disability is not a
deficit amongst individuals but a construct created by society similar to race, ethnicity, and
gender. As a society, we must see past these labels and understand people beyond the label to
understand their experience, backgrounds, and needs. Universal Design done properly benefits
all kinds of people (Bowe, 2000). Therefore UD is not simply about modifications that meet the
needs of individuals with disabilities, but also meets the needs of all while considering the design
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
21
and environment we exist within. Burgsthaler (2008) further asserted that a common thread
throughout all definitions of Universal Design is the diverse group of potential users that can
benefit in an inclusive setting. The goal is not to expect the individual to accommodate or adjust
to the product or environment due to limitations; instead it considers the user’s individual need.
As a result, UD is a goal, a proactive process, inclusive, accessible, and useable, and does not
lower the standards or quality of practice for anyone. Therefore, as both Bowe (2000) and
Burgsthaler (2008) agreed, Universal Design integrates what we know about diverse individual
needs and places them into a model that values diversity and equity that can be applied across all
realms of higher education. UD proactively builds in features that accommodate the full range of
human diversity and underscores the need for access and equity throughout education while
offering information and the ability to learn for all. Within higher education, UD approaches
learning and delivering instruction to meet the needs of the widest range of students through the
design of environments, the design of tools, and the design of learning (Burgsthaler, 2008;
McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2003).
Universal Instructional Design (UID)
The first adaptation of the UD concept to higher education came in 1998 focusing on UD
through accessible instruction (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998). Silver et al. (1998) believed
that if Universal Instructional Design (UID) became integrated into instructional practices, then
students with disabilities might not need as heavy of reliance on necessary support systems,
which include educational accommodations through disability services in higher education. By
removing the need for special accommodations and allowing all students the ability to fulfill
class objectives, instructors create classrooms that highly value the diversity of students while
respecting and valuing their differences (Open Learning and Educational Support, 2004). While
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
22
UID originated through the work of Silver et al. (1998), the University of Guelph, in Ontario,
Canada further articulated seven principles associated with UID. These principles describe how
instructional materials and activities should: (a) be accessible and fair, (b) be flexible, (c) be
straightforward and consistent and, (d) be explicit, and how the learning environment should (e)
be supportive, (f) minimize unnecessary physical effort, and (g) accommodate students and
multiple teaching methods (Yuval, Procter, Korabik, and Palmer, 2004, pp. 2-3). At the core,
UID addresses equity and inclusion in education, as UID asks faculty to first think about what
they teach, why and how they teach it, and why and how they assess learning in the classroom
before designing instruction and curricula (Pliner & Johnson, 2004). As an outcome of UID,
course design would meet the needs of all students and places accessibility and access needs and
issues as a necessary component of instructional planning (Silver et al, 1998); therefore
anticipating and addressing the possible barriers students with disabilities may encounter at the
onset of instructional design, instead of waiting for accommodations issues to arise later (Outlett,
2004).
Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)
Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) developed out of the initial work of Silver et al.
(1998) and focuses on inclusive teaching techniques that will impact the learning of diverse
college learners. As Silver et al. (1998) implied, the intent is not to recreate instructional
practices and curriculum but to provide a guide for incorporating inclusive approaches to
classroom teaching and learning. McGuire et al. (2003) coined the term Universal Design for
Instruction, as the belief was that UDI dealt more with applying UD to instruction and not
instructional design being made universal (Zeff, 2007). As a result, UDI is defined as an
approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and inclusive strategies that benefit a
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
23
broad range of learners, including those with disabilities (Scott et al., 2003). UDI applies the
seven UD principles applicable to environmental accessibility (Center for Universal Design,
1997) and adds two additional principles, to include: community of learners and instructional
climate creating nine principles within UDI (McGuire et al., 2003, p. 13). From the perspective
of UDI, steps must be taken to include and engage students with disabilities in the classroom and
enhance learning for all students by creating equitable and flexible teaching (Higbee, 2009; Orr
& Hammig, 2009). Although UDI is relatively new in postsecondary education, it has generated
significant support and offers the opportunity to bring creativity and flexibility to instruction
(Roberts et al., 2011).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Another UD model is Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which focuses on inclusion
in learning, while reducing the number of guiding principles to three (Schelly et al., 2011). UDL
is an approach to planning and developing curricula in ways that promote access, participation,
and progress for learning among all learners (McGuire et al., 2006). The Center for Applied
Special Technology (CAST, 2011a) developed the principles of UDL that guide learning and are
derived from brain research and neuroscience linking, learning, and knowing to the three neural
networks of the brain. Three primary networks come into play: the recognition network,
focusing on the “what” of learning; the strategic network, focusing on the “how” of learning; and
the affective network, focusing on the “why” of learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Rose, Meyer, &
Hitchcock, 2005). The three principles of UDL include: (a) Provide multiple means of
representation, (b) Provide multiple means of expression; and (c) Provide multiple means for
engagement (CAST, 2011b, Three Primary Principles Guide UDL―and Provide Structure for
the Guidelines). Within each of these three principles includes guidelines that promote the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
24
development and curriculum that includes options for: (a) Perception; (b) Language, expression
and symbols, (c) Comprehension; (d) Physical action; (e) Expressive skills and fluency;
(f) Executive functions; (g) Recruiting interest; (h) Sustaining effort; and (i) Self-regulation
(CAST, 2011b, Three Primary Principles Guide UDL―and Provide Structure for the
Guidelines). UDL is essentially about the instructional practices used for students with and
without disabilities. The distinction between UDL and other applications of UD is the focus on
learning, therefore, making instruction smart from the start including pedagogical and
technological features as different, but not separate, choices (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, &
Abarbanell, 2006). The goals of UDL are achieved through meeting the needs of students by
providing alternatives and options, not by trying to find a single solution for all students, as
flexibility is key (Rose & Meyer, 2000).
Student Development Theory and Universal Design
Knowing how to create an inclusive environment is necessary, but educators must also
understand the students themselves through their developmental process and the self-
identification issues experienced by students throughout college (Evans, 2008). Understanding
student development theory is critical in understanding the needs of students with disabilities and
understanding where they stand in their developmental journey. The societal views of
individuals with disabilities ranging from spiritual depravity, a genetic weakness, or a problem to
be fixed, have shaped the experience of how individuals with disability have been treated and
equally affected their experience in educational settings (Evans, 2008). While most educational
institutions moved away from the medical model of trying to fix and help students with
disabilities participate in “normal” educational activities, the current movement to a social justice
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
25
approach advocates for the removal and elimination of “ableism” that oppresses people with
disabilities.
Beyond educators’ own attitudinal barriers towards students with disabilities and
understanding of disability theory, student development theory assists in understanding students
regardless of their disabilities. Concepts of UD integrate the needs of students with disabilities
and consider the development process throughout their psychosocial, cognitive, and identity
development. As Evans (2008) asserted, “These theoretical approaches (disability and student
development) provide a strong rationale for the use of Universal Design principles in the
classroom and in advising and working individually with students” (p. 20). Evans (2008)
connected UD within each of the development theories; however, most salient among these
integrations included a call for educators to not assume that being a student with a disability is
always the most recognizable identity for the student. Therefore, UD in the classroom can create
a more welcoming, accepting, and supporting environment that provides an inclusive experience
that not only addresses their educational needs but also their personal development.
Universal Design and the Cognitive Learning Process
The framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is linked to the cognitive and
neural perspectives of the learning process (Rose & Strangman, 2007). The three neural
networks that are linked to cognition are also considered fundamental in the implementation of
UDL (Rose, 2005). Understanding the “what” of learning resides in the recognition network
responsible for how students gather facts, categorize information, and identify letters, words, and
sounds. Within the strategic networks of the brain, learners understand the “how” of learning in
how they plan and perform tasks, organize and express ideas, and how to act effectively within
learning environments. Finally, the affective networks manage the “why” of learning through
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
26
the emotion and affect of the students. The affective network assists students’ engagement and
motivation to learn and how they are challenged, interested, and excited about the learning
process (CAST, 2011; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
UDL purposefully connects the neural networks and the three guiding principles to assist
students’ cognitive processes through: multiple means of representation, the recognition
network; multiple means of expression, the strategic network; and multiple means of
engagement, the affective network (Meyer & Rose, 2000). It is through an integrated approach
among all three neural networks that successful cognition and learning takes place. This
approach creates the foundation of UDL instruction and supports integrating all three neural
networks while addressing the possible obstacles to student learning. Therefore, it becomes
crucial to understand these three brain networks to better prepare for the complexity of
differences among students and specific means to provide flexibility and adaptation to meet their
needs (Meyer & Rose, 2000). By design, UDL considers individual needs and differences in the
learning process; therefore providing a more supportive and flexible curriculum and environment
that maximizes the learners potential and ability to progress (Rose, 2005).
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development
Vygotsky’s work (1978) connects the neural networks to learning while informing and
aligning to the practices of UDL. Vygotsky (as cited in Pisha & Coyne, 2001) believed that
three conditions must be meet for successful learning to take place: (a) the learner must
recognize patterns; (b) the learner must have one or more strategies for operating within the
perceived patterns; and (c) the learner must be engaged in the process through the strategies and
sensory information to which they are applying learning (p. 198). If any of the three are missing,
then the learning process will be less optimal and result in a lack of deeper learning and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
27
connection within the student (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Vygotsky asserted that learning is deeply
social and through others we become ourselves. As a result, the teacher and learning
environment provides the necessary elements to shape the student through challenge and support
provided at the appropriate level of instruction for the student.
Teaching within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) ensures that the student is
receiving the necessary support that is individualized for the current cognitive level and need
while providing the student flexible means of support for action and expression (Pisha & Coyne,
2001; Vygotsky, 1978). Within UD this provides scaffolding and instruction that is aimed at
providing support through instruction, which can be gradually released as the student succeeds
(Rose, 2005). Teaching within the student’s zone of proximal development enables challenging
instruction that is just above their current ability level but not beyond the reach of the student
with the appropriate support of the instructor or more knowledgeable peer (Vygotsky, 1978).
ZPD offers the difference between what students can do on their own and what students are
capable of achieving through the support and guidance of their instructor with appropriate levels
of support to maximize learning at its most efficient level (Council for Exceptional Children,
2005). Teaching that encourages students’ ZPD offers them multiple means of expression and
adequate support while understanding and mitigating students’ individual needs as learners. The
various levels of support, scaffolding in the classroom, feedback, and modeling allows students
both the challenge and support necessary to enhance their learning as a result of UDL.
Cognitive Load
UD provides for flexibility in learner choice, while offering a multitude of options in
instructional approaches, supports, and scaffolds to engage students in the learning task.
Offering multiple means of representation that connects with students’ needs and provides for a
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
28
variable amount of challenge and support can maximize the students ability to succeed and
become more engaged in the learning process (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Differentiated instruction
that meets the individualized cognitive needs of learners allows faculty to make minimal
adjustments in pacing, presentation, complexity, and multiple methods of representation enabling
all students access to the same content in a manner that is based on their abilities and preferred
method of learning (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005).
UDL provides for multiple means of representation that considers the cognitive load and
needs of students. Creating learning that is connected to the students’ cognitive load puts the
responsibility on faculty to fit instructional skills and content to the needs of the learner instead
of making the student fit into inflexible learning environments and adapt. Cognitive Load
Theory suggests that effective instructional materials direct cognitive process towards activities
that are relevant to learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Faculty should eliminate the distractive
extraneous information and ensure that they integrate and connect the necessary material to
reduce the cognitive load for students. Providing multiple sources of information without
integrating them to the needs of the learner and being purposeful in their usage can negatively
increase the cognitive load of students and therefore decrease their success in learning (Chandler
& Sweller, 1991). UDL challenges instructors to rethink the nature and need of instructional
material to ensure that it is meeting the needs of students and allows students flexibility and
access while addressing their diverse learning needs (Rose & Meyer, 2002). In order for
meaningful learning to take place, students must engage all three types of cognitive processes
including selecting, organizing and integrating new information, thus moving new knowledge
from sensory memory, putting into working memory and integrating and encoding into long-
term memory (Mayer, 2011). Multiple representation and multimodal presentation is appropriate
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
29
in creating schemas and creating linkages in learning from sensory, working, and long-term
memory to enhance cognition and processing. Furthermore, UDL uses purposeful methods of
representation that connects to learners needs while representing material through different and
dynamic means to assist in reducing their cognitive load and aiding in the encoding process to
activate prior knowledge, generate working schemas, and create useable knowledge for success
in the learning environment (Mayer, 2011; Rose, 2005). As a result, students are provided
multiple means of representation through curriculum materials and design that reduces the
cognitive load and enhances their learning and success in higher education.
Creativity and Innovation through Universal Design
Universal Design (UD) provides a framework for faculty to take various approaches to
instruction and learning practices while incorporating innovative design, new insights on
learning, and cutting edge applications of technology in the classroom. Creative curriculum,
innovative technology, and Universal Design creates students who are co-creators and partners in
the learning and teaching environment, instead of expecting the teacher to impart their wisdom
through the antiquated and widely accepted banking model of education (Freire, 2009; Mino,
2004). This requires a paradigm shift from applying lecture style instruction to understanding
the neural networks and cognition process to create a learning environment that is creative,
dynamic, and transformative in today’s educational (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). Creativity and
technology are built into the framework of UDL through multiple means of representation,
expression, and engagement in the learning process. Innovative approaches are critical in the
UDL process as it enhances learning to include technology, which increases access and learning
in both advanced and creative ways to enhance learning based on the needs and diversity of
students. It is through the creativity and innovation provided within UD that choice and variety
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
30
enables students to shape their decisions throughout the curriculum, based on what will allow
them to engage and express themselves and ultimately learn through dynamic methods.
Creativity
Creativity and Universal Design have one clear intersection in their implementation; no
one-size-fits-all design applies in either setting that allows access and engages the student in
creative approaches to the learning process. Creativity enables new tools and outcomes to allow
new expressions of knowledge. It creates new communities, rules, relationships, and
connections through new social practices (Knight, 2002). Creativity is difficult to define due to
its diverse expression and ways it is expressed throughout the various cultures of the world
(Runco, 2007). While there is no single definition that encapsulates the definition of creativity,
Knight’s (2002) definition aligns with many other creativity researchers, as creativity involves
novelty and originality combined with clear notions of value and utility (Kleiman, 2008). The
purpose of creative teaching design is to create an environment through higher teacher
interaction and design that appreciates the individual differences of all learning (Torrance, 1981).
Therefore, creative teaching can enhance learning (Fasko, 2001) and Universal Design offers
innovative means to cultivating creative methods of instruction (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Creativity is related to significant education achievement and educational programs
should be flexible to provide better services and varied to reach the needs of all students (Fasko,
2001). As a result, the curriculum should also be flexible to appropriately meet the students’
needs and unique abilities, interest, and styles (Renzulli, 1992). A flexible individual will have
alternatives and choices allowing for creativity and the creative process to manifest and
individuals to become more adaptable in their settings (Runco, 2007). Creativity enables choices
allowing the individual to adapt to their environment versus adapting the environment to fit their
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
31
needs. Therefore, creating the development of creative productivity amongst students enhances
the opportunities for students to engage in the learning process. UDL enhances the preferences
of students while offering multiple means of expression, representation, and engagement which
aligns to the complexity of interactions necessary to create education environments that enable
students learning and matches students particular needs and preferences for learning (Renzulli,
1992, Rose, 2005). While research has supported offering instruction that meets the ideal
preference of students, a more realistic approach enables instruction that capitalizes on a broad
spectrum of preference offering a variety of experiences in the learning environment. Renzulli’s
(1992) beliefs align well with Universal Design; she believes that curriculum should be arranged
so that any pathway students’ take is appropriate to their unique abilities, interests, and styles.
Therefore, offering multiple means through instruction applies creativity and innovation to the
curriculum as well as the assessment of student learning and educational outcomes.
It is much easier to create curriculum devoid of creativity when developing assignments,
learning outcomes, and objectives. Therefore, the role faculty play is crucial in designing an
educational environment that offers challenge, support, and stimulation in enhancing and
developing creativity in student learners. It has become apparent that expecting students to all
learn the same thing, through the same methods, at the same moment is no longer supported by
what educators know about learning, cognition, and creativity. Creativity is inherently
individualistic and UD allows for unconventional thinking and allows students choice,
flexibility, and the ability to move beyond traditional education models that generally stifle
creativity (Runco, 2007). Education must capitalize on the diversity of students to bring forth
their natural abilities in the learning process of higher education (Rieber, 2001; Meyer & Rose,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
32
2000). Universal design allows for structured choice and creativity among students, not chaos
resulting from unpredictable outcomes.
Technology and Innovation
As education serves the ever changing needs of diverse students, innovative educational
technologies are required; what worked before will no longer meet the diverse students in
today’s educational environment (Meyer & Rose, 2000). Therefore, today’s curriculum must be
improved to provide innovative means of addressing the variety of means to which diverse
students learn and applying the unique advantages of technology that can impact the learning
process. Unfortunately, traditional materials used in the classroom to supplement and aid
teaching typically comes in one-size-fits-all designs; creating inflexibility and barriers to the
educational needs of students. Applying Universal Design for Learning (UDL) intersect with the
advances and readiness of technology savvy students and applies practices such as media, digital
technology, internet, and virtual environments that can be adapted and adjusted to fit the needs of
different individual learners and open a world of opportunity in learning (Pisha & Coyne, 2001;
Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Educators today have access to advanced technologies that provide them with the
opportunity to design learning and curriculum that allows teachers and students choices in how
information is presented and how students learn (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). When applied
purposefully and thoughtfully, these new options can increase engagement, facilitate student
learning, and allow multiple means of expression and action among student learning. Rose and
Strangman (2007) identified that the key to UDL is leveraging technology and the power it
creates among learners. UDL allows for the presentation of information through multiple means
and encourages choices in student learning in engagement as means to enrich the learning
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
33
process and allow access for all students (Rose, 2005). Technology, UDL, and cognitive
learning intersect at the opportunity to provide technology that enriches curriculum to support
students’ needs through flexibility and learning throughout the recognition, strategic, and neural
networks (Rose, 2005; Rose & Strangman, 2007). New digital technologies are indispensable in
providing flexibility, access, and content that provide greater efficient individualization of the
curriculum making course materials transformative and understandable for all student needs
(Mino, 2004; Rose & Strangman, 2007). Using technology and advances in digital media also
allows greater access for students who require educational content in different formats so that the
same content can be presented in means of which they can connect and learn based on their
needs. Accessible technology rests in the UDL process as it ensures access for students with
disabilities but also provides choices and options that may fit the learning needs of any learner as
a result (Rose, 2001). Therefore, UDL effectively reduces barriers to education by applying
digital and technological advances, reducing educational cost by designing curriculum smart
from the start versus making adaptions and modifications later (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Rose,
2001). Digital media and technology not only reduces barriers but it allows learners access to
infinite amounts of information while encouraging critical thinking, creativity, networking, and
collaboration in the educational environment (Weigel, James, & Gardner, 2009). Utilizing
technology and innovative advances in higher education is no longer an option, but a
requirement. UDL offers a purposeful link to encourage faculty to think creatively and
implement new media and technology throughout their curriculum to offer highly active,
situated, and social learning experiences for today’s diverse student learner.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
34
Faculty Perceptions of Universal Design
Much of the research on perceptions of Universal Design (UD) includes issues of
disability and perceptions of students with disability; as initial research on UD tied the impact
and understanding of UD to serving and providing access to curriculum and instruction for
students with disabilities. While the purpose of this study is to be more inclusive of meeting the
needs of all students, it is important to assess the impact the UD has had for students with
disabilities and understand the faculty perceptions of UD in higher education. Regardless of the
importance of UD, few attempts have been made to measure faculty perceptions of UD
principles in practices (Lombardi & Murray, 2011). The five studies outlined below offer an
understanding of faculty perceptions of Universal Design and provide necessary results to further
the impact the study of UD in higher education from an empirical basis.
In a study that focused on the Curriculum Transformation and Disability (CTAD)
implemented at colleges and universities in the Great Lakes Region, Hatfield (2003) looked at
program evaluation data and participant experiences through a qualitative approach studying the
long- and short-term impact of the CTAD. Methods of the study allowed participants to reflect
and share their experiences and perceptions of a model founded on the principles of Universal
Instructional Design. Participants were interviewed six months after their participation and again
a year after the workshop. Eight participants shared their reactions and perceptions of UID
through three different types of responses: a) enlightenment, UID principles assisted in problem
solving of current issues; b) cold shoulder, the model was met with more skepticism; and
c) revelation, the model appeared to open a gateway of pedagogical options within their
instructional practices (Hatfield, 2003, p. 46). Based upon her study, faculty perceptions appear
to hold promise for UID as an approach to curriculum design and providing innovative
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
35
opportunities in the educational environment. Therefore, faculty attitudes show positive as
Universal Design transforms the curriculum and improves education for all students while
articulating the process for access needed for students with disabilities.
Through a mixed-methods approach of 271 qualitative surveys and quantitative focus
groups consisting of 57 faculty members and teachers assistants, Vreeburg-Izzo, Murray, and
Novak (2008) studied the development for improving the quality of education for students with
disabilities in higher education at a large Midwestern university and establishing instructional
practices to meet the learning needs of all students. Survey results indicated the need for 27% of
respondents requesting further support and training in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and
found that fewer than half of the respondents reported using multiple means of representation
such as videos, discussion groups, or guided notes in their instructional practices (Vreeburg-Izzo
et al., 2008, p. 63). Therefore, while interested in UDL, faculty members are not implementing
UD in their practices and there is great room for advancement of multimodal approaches. Focus
groups found that several faculty shared frustration with meeting the growing and diverse needs
of all learners in the classroom and underscored that faculty understand the complexity of
meeting student needs but were unsure how to address them. Vreeburg-Izzo et al. (2008) noted
that faculty discussed UDL strategies throughout their conversations of good teaching practices;
even though they did not articulate that they were following UDL or mention UDL principles,
faculty were implementing aspects of UDL without realizing it and saw success in improving
their ability to meet their students’ needs. Therefore, faculty are understanding of the growing
diversity among college students and realize the growing need to offer flexibility through
instruction while maintaining the high standards of effective teaching that support the
applications of UDL. As a result, faculty perceptions underscored the idea of Universal Design
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
36
being good institutional practice for students with disabilities but also benefiting all students.
Proving the divide between these two groups is merely a matter of perception rather than reality.
Cook, Rumrill, and Tankersley (2009) used quantitative methods to examine issues
regarding college students with disabilities that faculty perceived as most important and to what
level those issues were being addressed within their eight-campus college system in the
Midwestern United States. Surveys were completed by 307 participants that addressed issues of
disabilities including: legal issues, Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), characteristics of
specific disabilities, accommodations and willingness, accommodations and policy, and
disability etiquette (Cook et al., 2009). Results varied across high importance and high
agreement in addressing needs to low importance and low addressing of needs. Regarding UDI,
five out of the seven items addressed, were rated as having high importance (75% and higher)
but low agreement in the means of addressing the needs within their institution (75% and lower)
(p. 89). Cook et al. found that generally faculty members rating of high importance may have to
do with their attraction to UDI benefiting all students including students with disabilities.
However, as most faculty members have not received training through UDI, it is apparent that
these may represent low agreement with institutional addressing the need. This study provided
results that faculty perceptions of the importance of UDI are high, however, it is not an area
currently being addressed in higher education. While there is a need for increasing learning for
all students, faculty may not have the means, support, or training to make curricular changes to
benefit the needs of these diverse students.
Lombardi and Murray (2011) developed an instrument to test the Expanding Cultural
Awareness of Exceptional Learners (ExCEL), designed to measure faculty perceptions towards
students with disabilities including constructs related to UD and inclusive learning practices in
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
37
the classroom. The ExCEL survey targeted full-time faculty at a medium-sized research
university in the Pacific Northwest. While the purpose of the study was to validate the newly
developed ExCEL instrument, results from 289 faculty validated the use of existing models for
inclusive teaching such as UD, and provided evidence for the importance of measuring faculty
perceptions towards incorporating and using UD principles as part of measuring faculty
perceptions of students with disabilities. Lombardi and Murray found significant differences
between faculty members who had previous training regarding disability-related issues, as
faculty were more likely to understand the needs of students and minimize instructional barriers
through inclusive teaching practices. As well, results indicated that non-tenured faculty showed
more evidence of using and willingness to implement UD principles, providing insight that
tenured faculty may be more set in their ways and less open to changing curriculum and practices
used in the classroom. A critical first step to assessing institutional perceptions and the climate
for providing inclusive learning experience is to understand faculty perceptions of disabilities
and gauge their willingness and interest to promote and utilize Universal Design practices in
higher education; therefore, providing access to all and learning environments that enhance the
quality of learning for all students.
In a follow up study to Lombardi and Murray (2011), Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes
(2011) updated the ExCEL survey and created the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI)
looking more exclusively at inclusive teaching strategies including: multiple means of
presentation, inclusive lecture strategies, accommodations, resources, inclusive assessment, and
accessible course materials. Targeting full-time faculty at the same medium-sized research
university in the Pacific Northwest, Lombardi et al. (2011) were primarily interested in
establishing if faculty attitudes towards inclusive instruction differed from their actions in
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
38
providing these opportunities in the classroom. Results aligned with previous studies (Cook et
al., 2009; Lombardi & Murray, 2011), as faculty perceptions showed positive endorsement for
UD principles but faculty were not necessarily implementing these constructs in their teaching.
Evident in the results were faculty discrepancies in their beliefs and actions towards inclusive
practices. However, in several cases, despite other findings, faculty felt they were performing in
inclusive ways and appear to do so even if they do not necessarily endorse such practices in
regards to multiple means of presentation, inclusive lecture techniques, and accessible course
materials (Lombardi et al., 2011). Therefore, providing indicators that faculty may not be aware
that they are acting through UD principles and are agreeable to such practices as it impacts all
students, but not by distinctively meeting the needs of students with disabilities as some
indicators showed faculty less agreeable to changing practices to accommodate these students.
Research indicated the need for further inquiry into the faculty perceptions of Universal
Design and their implementations of UD principles that create inclusive learning environments in
higher education. Results across several studies indicated that trainings on understanding the
needs of diverse students, including students with disabilities, and providing inclusive teaching
practices can positively impact the faculty perceptions and usages of promoting inclusion in
higher education (Cook et al., 2009; Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lombardi et al., 2011) Faculty
perceptions of providing instruction through a UD framework indicated that there is willingness,
a need for further development, and indicated that teaching to meet the needs of all students is
simply good practices and provides important access and implementation of innovation in higher
education learning and teaching (Hatfield, 2003; Vreeburg-Izzo et al., 2008). Therefore,
understanding faculty perceptions, experiences, and barriers can provide further evidence and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
39
details regarding their implementation of such practices and the impact on outcomes as a result
of Universal Design.
Implementation of Universal Design
If Universal Design (UD) is good practice in higher education, why are more faculty
members not implementing curricular design and strategies to enhance learning and good
teaching as a result? Time, money, and support all underscore the reality that is facing faculty in
today’s higher education environment (Johnson & Fox, 2003). That is not to say that faculty
members have given up hope for implementing UD and creating opportunities for enhanced
learning among all students. The principles of UD can be applied to both new course design and
also be used to reflect on the practice and process of existing classes; therefore, training, faculty
development, and support is necessary to extend the usage of Universal Design across higher
education and beyond pockets of innovative campus practices.
In a pilot study, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts Center for Teaching,
Silver et al. (1998), attempted to engage university faculty in understanding Universal
Instructional Design, describe how they would implement the approach, and identify barriers to
the implementation within higher education. Through the Peer Mentoring Network, a group of
students with disabilities and faculty who provide outstanding accommodation across a wide
representation of disciplines, 13 faculty members participated in focus groups. While findings
represent only one university’s experience, several important results identified key barriers to
implementing UD and strategies to assist in the support of implementation. Faculty believed that
a change in the approach to teaching and student learning was necessary, but for the change to be
effective and provide long-term results it must be part of the institutional culture and wide-spread
change in the manner of instruction must occur. Unfortunately, faculty responses were not
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
40
supportive that the necessary change would be possible (Silver et al., 1998). Barriers of UD
included time as a crucial factor, attitudes among faculty members, and lack of training. While
faculty believed that UD approaches would save time in the end, the upfront time commitment
would deter many faculty members. Results indicated that some faculty already had elitist
beliefs about their role in higher education and felt they have the freedom to teach as they
choose; therefore they are not required to change their instructional techniques. Suggestions to
overcoming these barriers included a need for a university culture shift that included
transformational approaches to teaching and learning in higher education, alongside training and
support for UID specific strategies and principles of practice for innovative and effective
enhancements. As a result, Silver et al. provided important indicators of a need for UD in higher
education, barriers to its implementation, and solutions to creating trainings in support of UD,
providing teaching strategies and practices for successful implementation.
McGuire et al. (2003) outlined the results of two studies conducted by the University of
Connecticut as they aimed to validate the principles of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) as
linked to providing good teaching through innovative and structured practices. In efforts to
explore and implement UDI across college settings, the project partnered with 20 two- and four-
year colleges across the country. Over 100 faculty were involved across 30 different disciplines
throughout the collaborating sites. Research looked at both student-focus groups and faculty-
focus groups to establish elements that positively impacted students learning and teaching
practices among faculty that lead to effective instruction. Results aligned within the nine
principles of UDI and provided synchronicity between what students’ believed to be effective
teaching and what faculty implemented as means to creating effective learning environments
(McGuire et al., 2003). Further results indicated that faculty do not necessary see the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
41
instructional strategies they use as innovative, rather they see them as providing good instruction
and tools to promote student learning. Results also indicated that faculty are often not trained as
teachers but are developed as researchers; but participants identified a strong commitment to
enhancing their practices and improving their teaching practices. Therefore, in order for good
teaching practices and UD frameworks to be implemented, faculty development must be viewed
as important and critical amongst the mission, culture, and foundation of an institution.
Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell and Browder (2007) studied the results of
limited teacher training on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles and the effects on
their ability to create lesson plans inclusive of UDL practices. In a true experimental design,
including 72 graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in special education and general
education classes at a Southeastern university, a one-hour training lecture was provided to the
treatment group on how to modify lesson plans and teaching practices to include the three
components of UDL. Results indicated that a one-hour intervention did enable general education
and special education teachers the ability to develop lesson plans and a universal curriculum that
provided access to all students, including students with or without disabilities (Spooner et al,
2007, p. 113). Therefore, providing instruction to faculty in Universal Design concepts and
strategies might save them time by creating accessible curriculum and teaching at the onset,
instead of changing and redesigning them after the fact. Although lack of time, training, and
support are often barriers to implementation of UDL, Spooner et al. (2007) indicated that through
minimal exposure to UDL principles, teachers were successfully able to modify planning and
apply the three components of UDL to create access in their instruction and curriculum for all
students.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
42
In a similar study, looking at the impact of faculty participation in Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) training and faculty learning communities, Ensuring Access through
Collaboration and Technology (EnACT) research data analyzed the impact of UDL intervention
and enhancing faculty efficacy as an educator and their efficacy for implementing UDL in their
courses (EnACT, 2012a). Baseline data were collected in 2007 after two-hour UDL training
workshops and indicated that 73% of participants reported a greater likelihood to implement
UDL strategies and 27% of faculty indicated they were not likely or somewhat likely to do the
implement UDL in the courses (EnACT, 2012a, Impact of Faculty Learning Community
Participation). During the Fall 2009 and 2010 terms, faculty reported on the extent to which the
UDL training and faculty learning community participation made them feel more efficacious in
utilizing UDL strategies in their courses. After three years of participation, 93.8% of Tier 1
faculty in Fall 2009 and 100% in Fall 2010, reported that they believed participation enhanced
their understanding of UDL principles and enhanced their efficacy for implementing UDL in the
classroom (EnACT, 2012a, Table 2). After one year of participation, Tier 2 faculty in Fall 2009,
reported 79.2% felt that participation enhanced their efficacy for implementing UDL and 75%
reported that their participation enhanced their understanding of UDL principles(EnACT, 2012a,
Table 2). In Fall 2010, after an additional year of participation, Tier 2 faculty responses rose to
100% in both areas (EnACT, 2012a, Table 2). Results indicated that training alone does increase
the faculty’s efficacy for implementing UDL in their courses, however, after participating in
learning communities supporting UDL implementation and strategies, all faculty reported 100%
to implementing UDL in the courses and the impact of participation enhancing their UDL
efficacy. Faculty also reported that their efficacy as an educator had increased as well, with
58.8% of Tier 1 faculty and 45% of Tier 2 faculty strongly agreeing that their project
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
43
participation enhanced their efficacy as an educator in general (EnACT, 2102a, Table 1). This
data indicated that regardless of their time in the intervention, the model and utilization of UDL
training and faculty-learning communities does enhance the efficacy of instructors in
understanding UDL strategies and implementing them in their courses.
Focusing on student perceptions of UD implementation, Schelly et al. (2011) examined
the effectiveness of providing training to faculty in UDL and the impact it resulted on student
perceptions of faculty implementation of UDL strategies. Participants included five faculty
members and students from nine sections of an Introduction to Psychology course. Study results
from 1,233 who completed the pre- and post-surveys before and after faculty training indicated
that students felt that their teachers provided significantly more UDL strategies following the
training than before the intervention (p. 23). Similarly, students perceived significant changes in
the teachers’ behaviors and techniques after receiving training on UDL. Therefore, UDL
training for faculty can change students’ perception on how their instructors present ideas and
information and engage students learning allowing students to better express their
comprehension of course content (Schelly et al., 2011). This study identified results that indicate
that faculty training on UDL principles as well as strategies for implementing UDL principles in
higher education can enhance the learning experience for all students. Schelly et al. (2011) noted
that even brief exposure to UDL, through a few hours of training, could impact and be
recognizable by students through changes in faculty behaviors and strategies in the teaching and
learning environment.
Implementing Universal Design (UD) in higher education includes many barriers and
obstacles for faculty. However, UD follows the principles of good practice and teaching and its
implementation to enhance student learning provides access and opportunity to all (McGuire et
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
44
al., 2003). As research indicates, time and the draw on faculty to do more with less is no small
challenge. Many tenured faculty have been teaching the same way for a number of years and the
time necessary to redesign a class using UD principles is lengthy and some faculty may not be
willing to spend their time in this manner (Silver et al., 1998). Also, faculty may be satisfied
with the status quo of teaching and learning practices, therefore applying innovative concepts
and adjusting their teaching pedagogy becomes more difficult, in addition to existing time
constraints (Silver et al., 1998; McGuire et al., 2003). Furthermore, the studies identified above
suggest that institutional change must happen to shape the practices of faculty in higher
education and implementing faculty development and training offers an opportunity to reach
faculty in their understanding of meeting the diverse needs of today’s college student and
implement new strategies as a result. In support of training aspects, Spooner et al. (2007) and
Schelly et al. (2011) indicated, even small introductions of UD concepts can have large results
on faculty, teachers, and student perceptions. Therefore, UD is not simply an unobtainable goal
and concept, but an ideal faculty should strive for as the results and outcomes speak volumes to
its impact.
Outcomes of Universal Design
Several researchers (McGuire, 2011; McGuire et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2011) noted the
importance of examining the outcomes of implementing Universal Design (UD) to promote
inclusive college learning and teaching. Unfortunately, much of the existing literature on UD
speaks to best practices, identifying the difference between UD frameworks, and asserting a need
for addressing diverse student needs through universal approaches. While limited, the existing
empirical research on UD in postsecondary education reflects the positive steps of creating a
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
45
strong empirical literature base and evidence for successful outcomes of Universal Design in
higher education (McGuire, 2011; Roberts et al., 2011).
As a result of implementing UDL practices to a Harvard Graduate School of Education
course, T-560: Meeting the Challenge of Individual Differences, Rose et al. (2006) outlined the
applications of UDL in their course goals, materials, teaching methods, assessment, and
outcomes. In 2004-2005, 93 graduated students enrolled in the course, which became quite
popular at Harvard due possibly to the level of student engagement and design of the class to
meet the needs of diverse student learners (Rose et al., 2006, p. 139). While the authors and
faculty of the T-560 class identified that it was not a perfect demonstration of UDL, the class like
UDL in higher education served as a work in progress. The goal was to teach the information
and the class material using traditional approaches while considering and infusing the goals of
UDL into the class framework. Throughout the course multiple choices were provided through
the books available, projects possible, and means of interaction and engagement throughout the
class. While this study was not a true experimental design, the results of examining the course
and implementation of UDL within the higher educational setting allowed the authors to note
that students were attracted to a course that set out to meet their unique learning needs through
course design. The level of interaction and choice provided to students also allowed students to
see the strengths and weakness among the faculty and teaching assistance and modeled the value
of collaborative teaching and learning amongst the faculty to the experience of the students.
Overall, the availability of choice had become a significant source of attraction and motivation
for students selecting the class and completing the course (Rose et al., 2006).
Parker, Robinson, and Hannafin (2008), studied the effects of modifying a large core
course, 114 students, in undergraduate education at a public university employing Universal
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
46
Design for Instruction (UDI) principles. UDI principles were used to develop accessible
instruction for students with diverse learning needs, address pace and prerequisite knowledge,
minimized cognitive load by removing nonessential effort, stimulated student learning, and
created an inclusive learning environment. Results indicated that students felt better than in
other course offerings in the same department and among their other undergraduate course;
concluding that Universal Design (UD) could create positive solutions for many of the
challenges in large classroom environments (Parker et al., 2008, p. 52). Therefore, UD applied
to large lecture style classes can still enable dynamic learning environments and provide methods
for innovation and technology by offering course materials on-line and in multiple means of
representation.
Yuval et al. (2004) conducted a study addressing the seven principles of Universal
Instructional Design (UID) addressing a faculty-training project at the University of Guelph,
Canada. Funded by a one-time grant, this evaluation represented one of the first large-scale
assessments of UID principles in higher education. As a result of the grant project, nine courses
were selected for either a course redesign or enhancement according to UID principles. Data
were collected through student questionnaires, interviews, classroom observations, and faculty
interviews. As a result, student perceptions of the effectiveness of UID affirmed positive
benefits in the instructional environment and students’ academic self-efficacy and positive affect
were significantly higher the greater the implementation of UID (Yuval et al., 2004, p. 30).
Results showed that UID implementation increased over the course of the project, as faculty felt
more comfortable and practiced with UID principles and strategies. While this study was based
at one university, focusing on students and faculty over a year, across nine courses, results
indicated positively that UID is both promising and successful at making positive impacts on
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
47
students. Unfortunately, while several data points were collected as a result of this study, only a
brief evaluation report has been provided to support the implementation of this project to date;
and many implications for future implementation and wide-scale evaluations are necessary for
further research.
Understanding the impact of Universal Design (UD) and outcomes for student learning
linked to grades, persistence, and graduation rates is sparse throughout existing empirical data.
In one study, measuring student outcomes including retention and grades, Scott and Edwards
(manuscript pending, as cited in McGuire, 2011) found, “results indicate that the grades of
students with and without disabilities across instructors and across languages are now similar
whereas previously, fewer students with disabilities received final grades of A-C, and more
received Fs” (p. 47). While no singular causation within this study could be determined, it
shows positive success for faculty creating inclusive instruction and modifying their teaching
methods to promote learning for all students.
Throughout the implementation of the Ensuring Access through Collaboration and
Technology (EnACT) grant, data were collected to analyze the impact of student outcomes and
success as a result of implementing UDL within college courses (EnACT, 2012b). Baseline data
collected in 2005 across three California State University campuses indicated that students with
disabilities received lower grade point averages (2.50 GPA) than students without disabilities
(2.94 GPA). As result of implementing UDL within 37 targeted courses during the Fall of 2009
and 2010, 74% of students with disabilities and 72% of students without disabilities received a
grade of an A or B in UDL implemented courses. After completing courses enhanced with UDL,
the GPA of students with disabilities increased to a 3.04 and the GPA of students without
disabilities rose slightly to a 2.97 (EnACT, 2012c, Analysis). This data indicated that while data
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
48
from the 1,811 students in the UDL targeted courses had minimal GPA differences, the gap
between students with disabilities and students without disabilities shrunk after the
implementation of UDL. In another study conducted by EnACT (2012d), the impact of course
changes on students success in UDL enhanced courses was analyzed. Instructors were asked to
implement three distinct course changes, one for each UDL principle, and students in these
courses were asked to indicate how important these changes were in helping them learn.
Students perceived that the changes that were made through UDL implementation had a
somewhat important to important impact on their success in the courses. Areas that had the most
impact included making material and content available on-line, making the syllabus more
complete, utilization of multiple instructional modalities, and allowing students flexibility to
show how they demonstrate what they learned (EnACT, 2012d, Table 1). While comparison
data between students in UDL enhanced courses and non-UDL enhanced courses is not provided,
results from both of these studies indicated that student outcomes and perceptions of student
success increased as a result of UDL implementation. The results of the EnACT grant research
also provides longitudinal support for the implementation of UDL, as well as a positive
indication that UDL course re-design can minimize the gap in academic success between
students with and without disabilities.
In a similar study looking at student outcomes and class success rates, Higbee (2009)
assessed student outcomes and perceptions due to UD implementation. During the 2005-2006
academic year, 90% of students without a disability and 87% of students with a disability
enrolled in classes at the University of Minnesota taught by faculty who participated in the UD
training PASS IT projects, completed the courses with passing grades. After faculty completed
the PASS IT Summer Institute, the percentages of students passing the course went up to 92%
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
49
for students without disabilities and 90% for students with disabilities in the fall 2006 (p. 70).
This provides evidence that faculty participants of the PASS IT Project, including UD training
and implementation practices, had higher success rates of students passing their classes. Faculty
also indicated receiving higher teacher evaluations and attributed those results to the changes in
their course due to UD implementation (Higbee, 2009). Unfortunately, without comparison data,
few implications can be made about the difference in instruction and the impact of faculty who
implement Universal Design in their classroom as a result of UD development and training.
Unfortunately, there has been limited interdisciplinary attention given to Universal
Design (UD) from postsecondary faculty. As a result, research and applications of UD fall
behind its theoretical development (Rose et al., 2006). While limited, results are promising that
faculty in higher education implementing UD enhances the learning of all students, including
those with disabilities (Parker et al., 2008; Schelly et al., 2011; Yuval et al., 2004). Currently,
there is very limited research to support UD’s effectiveness as a means to improving college
student outcomes, such as GPAs, retention, and graduation; resulting in a need for further
empirical research in this area (Roberts et al., 2011). Therefore, the recognizable gap in
empirical evidence on Universal Design shapes the purpose of this study to identify not only
faculty perceptions of UD and their implementation of its practices, but also the perceived
outcomes UD has for students, faculty, and the learning environment.
Conclusions
Instructors need to shift their focus away from merely providing instruction; instead they
need to concentrate on facilitating and enhancing learning by meeting the diverse needs of the
individual learners in their classroom (Harrison, 2003). UD presents a clear perspective and
approach for access to learning that will ultimately benefit all students throughout higher
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
50
education (Rose et al., 2006). Throughout an extensive review of literature, UD, UID, UDI, and
UDL and the applications of these approaches are important in higher education settings. UDL
adequately addresses the cognitive process of student learning, while applying creativity and
technology to enhance their learning environment. As the student profile continues to shift in
education, educators must begin to think proactively to create an education environment that
aims to meet the diverse needs of all learners. Faculty members have an important role in the
design and redesign of educational opportunities through course curriculum and instruction;
therefore, with the adequate support and development, the implementation and impact of UD
approaches and practices rest in their hands. As a result, understanding the perceptions of UD
amongst faculty, barriers and experiences to UD implementation, and a connection to the
outcomes of implementation is necessary to support the growth of UD within higher education.
Universities currently place too much emphasis on the disabilities of students and not
enough on the disabilities in the learning environment. UD is a conceptual approach that
addresses student development and the needs of all students, including students with disabilities.
Unfortunately, it currently lacks substantial empirical research support (McGuire et al., 2006;
Roberts et al., 2011). Therefore, future research must move beyond definitions and theory to
focus on objective measures of student outcomes and the impact on all learners. As a result of
this literature review, this study will aim to address the faculty perceptions of Universal Design
in higher education, its implementation and practices, and the outcomes Universal Design has on
student learning and the impact of their success as a result.
Summary
This chapter focused on the review of relevant literature and research as it relates to
Universal Design (UD) in higher education. Specific attention was given to the theoretical
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
51
framework of Universal Design and the variety of approaches that make up UD, including:
Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), and Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). This chapter also connected the theoretical framework of UD to the
cognitive learning process of students, while addressing creativity and innovation through UD.
Finally, while limited in scope, relevant research was analyzed that allowed a closer examination
of faculty perceptions of UD, the implementation of UD in higher education, and the outcomes
of UD. Based on this study’s focus on the perceptions of faculty members, their experiences
implementing UD, and understanding the outcomes of UD within higher education; a qualitative
approach utilizing interviews and document review has been identified. Chapter Three will
detail the methodology that will be used by the researcher while preparing and conducting this
study.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
52
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In Chapter Two, a literature review was provided which outlined critical research,
empirical studies, and theories identifying the history and rationale for using Universal Design
(UD) in higher education. Chapter Two provided the theoretical framework of UD and
examined research on faculty perceptions, implementation, and outcomes of applying UD
throughout higher education. The methodology of the study will be presented in Chapter Three
which is qualitative in design, focusing on a grant funded project at Pacific State University
(PSU) aimed at implementing Universal Design (UD) practices across the Big State University
system through faculty development and training.
This chapter examines the research design of the study and identifies why a qualitative
design was the best choice. A clear connection of the research design to the utility of qualitative
research will be discussed to understand the theoretical approaches including case study and
phenomenological research. An overview of the sample and population will be provided to
articulate why the participants and program were selected to be studied. A review of the
instrumentation will follow to assert why it was created and how it will best answer the research
questions and build off the foundation of literature provided in Chapter Two. The data collection
methods will be covered to describe how data collection was implemented and why these
methods were chosen to bring value to this study. Finally a review of the data analysis
procedures will examine the procedures that were followed to understand and make meaning of
the data collected.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
53
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine Universal Design in relationship to faculty
perceptions, implementation, and outcomes in postsecondary education. Three research
questions guided the design and practice of this study:
1. What are faculty members’ perceptions of UD?
2. What are the experiences of faculty members implementing UD within their curriculum?
3. What are faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes based on UD
implementation in their courses?
Additional sub-questions examined the faculty members’ perceptions of UD, the
implementation process of UD practices, examples of UD practices in their curriculum, and
identify barriers, challenges, and support to their course redesign and teaching practices inclusive
of UD principles. Within faculty perceptions of student outcomes, questions explored how
faculty identified student outcomes in their UD courses; what connections faculty could make to
outcomes connecting other institution outcomes such as grade point average (GPA), student
learning outcomes, persistence, and graduation; and the impact of UD outcomes in higher
education.
Research Design
This study utilized a qualitative design in order to understand the experiences and
perceptions of faculty members who implemented UD and captured their stories through
individual interviews. The use of qualitative design was appropriate as qualitative methods tell
the story by capturing and communicating the participants’ individual stories and experiences
(Patton, 2002). Creswell (2009) suggested the use of qualitative research if a concept of
phenomenon needs to be understood because there is little research that has been done. While
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
54
UD has been around for several decades, the implementation and execution throughout higher
education remains relatively new; and as the literature review addressed, there is limited research
beyond best practices and theoretical implications to examine the utility of UDL within higher
education from an empirical basis. Qualitative design for this study was appropriate as the
purpose was to understand the faculty’s experiences and perceptions while using their own
words to explain the phenomena behind their practice and allowing for a more holistic approach
(Best & Kahn, 2003; Creswell, 2009).
This study implemented a qualitative design, as the type of information being sought
could not be equally represented through quantitative methods. The richness of the data through
qualitative methods provided an understanding of what was being studied that could not be
provided from quantitative experimental research methods (Best & Kahn, 2003). This study
sought an in-depth understanding of individuals and their experiences in a more natural setting
enabling meaning to be derived from the details and experience shared by participants.
Qualitative research methods focuses more on this process of making meaning and
understanding how others make meaning as a result of their experiences (Best & Kahn, 2003;
Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Qualitative research methods also enabled the use of multiple
data source including interviews, document review, and observation rather than one single data
source (Creswell, 2009). This study will employ both pre-interview questionnaires and one-on-
one interviews to shape themes that emerge to provide research findings.
The nature of this study was to contribute knowledge that could help faculty and
educators in higher education understand the implementation, challenges, and outcomes of
utilizing Universal Design (UD) to more effectively meet the needs of their diverse student
population. Applied research allowed this study to test the function of UD theory and its
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
55
application within higher education. The qualitative design for this study was based on a mixed
theoretical approach. Drawing from both case study and phenomenological research strategies,
this study aimed to explore in detail participants who have completed a particular faculty
development program at Pacific State University (PSU) and applied the knowledge and process
of UDL into their courses at their individual institutions within the Big State University (BSU)
system. Utilizing the experiences provided by the participants, qualitative research methods
examined these stories to develop patterns and relationships in order to make meaning from their
experiences. From both the case study and phenomenological strategies, it was the experiences
and processes from the individuals that shaped the findings of this study (Creswell, 2009). The
case study strategy allowed the examination of a unit as a whole, to gather the experiences of
individuals who participated in the UDL project at PSU, analyzed interactions between different
factors that explain their present status and provide an influence for change and growth as a
result (Best & Kahn, 2003; Creswell, 2009). Utilizing a phenomenological research strategy
allowed the researcher to explore the essence of the human experience as described by the
participants to understand the lived experiences and outcome it has had on the students they
taught (Creswell, 2009). Applying these methods allowed the researcher to understand the
experiences of the faculty and their process of implementing UDL, as well as their perceptions of
student outcomes as a result of their efforts.
Qualitative and quantitative methods were represented in several of the research studies
provided in previous chapters. However, limited research had been done to understand the
experience of faculty regarding UDL and fewer studies have focused on the faculty perceptions
of student outcomes, which are best represented through qualitative research. Qualitative
research methods provided the best match between answering the research questions of this
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
56
study and impacting further research and foundational support for UDL implementation and
outcomes in higher education.
Population and Sampling Procedure
This section will provide a description of the population and sampling procedures used in
this study, using pseudonyms for each institution and for the project grant. This study focused
on faculty who participated in the EnABLE grant project that served as a Big State University
system-wide initiative. While the EnABLE grant resided at Pacific State University (PSU), the
population used in this study came from faculty at three separate institutions within the Big State
University (BSU) system who were part of the initial EnABLE project; including Pacific State
University (PSU), Urban State University (USU), and City State University (CSU). Following
will be a discussion of the populations, the unit of analysis this study focused on, and methods
used to create a purposeful sample, criteria for selection, and sampling issues.
EnABLE Project
In 2005, the first of two EnABLE grants was awarded to PSU through the United States
Department of Education in partnership with the BSU System. The goal of the EnABLE project
was to offer students with disabilities within the BSU system support toward attaining their
postsecondary educational goals. EnABLE provided faculty the support and training necessary
to aid students with disabilities and provided them with a high quality education. While the
efforts to serve students with disabilities were at the core of the EnABLE project, implementing
Universal Design for Learning to impact student learning was the primary focus and desire in
order to enhance learning for all students, inclusive of students with disabilities. The EnABLE
grant project specified three goals: (a) Partnerships to ensure access to a quality postsecondary
education; (b) Technology to ensure access to a quality postsecondary education; and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
57
(c) Dissemination of EnABLE content and processes. The first partnerships were created at
PSU, USU, and CSU to create development opportunities and faculty partners that would
participate in the EnABLE project and then implement UDL in their courses and encourage
support of UDL practices throughout the campus communities. Involvement in the EnABLE
project was voluntary, based on a call for participants, and learning communities were developed
at each institution which included faculty partners, staff, and disability support service
professionals. The two central components of the EnABLE model include the implementation of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Higher Education workshops and the establishment of
Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) on each campus. Faculty were provided with both the
necessary training for implementing UDL, the knowledge of its importance, and the support
from other faculty across campus working through UDL principles.
While the EnABLE project grew after its first inception to include several more
campuses within the BSU system as Tier 2 research partners, for the purpose of this study,
research focused on Tier 1 research faculty members as the unit of analysis, who were part of the
initial EnABLE project to follow up on the faculty’s perceptions, implementation, continued
usage of UD, and student outcomes in their courses over time. There were a total of 15 Tier 1
faculty research partners who participated in the initial EnABLE project and were called to
participate in this study. The research provided in the literature review focused on the faculty as
the unit of analysis and this study followed the same implementation exploring their perceptions
of UD, experiences of implementation of UD, and the perceived student outcomes from the
perspective of faculty. This study utilized participants who completed training and development
through the EnABLE project; however it did not focus on the EnABLE project as a program
review. The population and sample focused specifically on the experiences of the faculty and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
58
their process of implementing UD within their curriculum at their own campus, not the EnABLE
project and faculty training process.
Pacific State University (PSU)
PSU is a mid-size suburban university committed to academic excellence through its
liberal arts and science education; enrolling slightly more than 10,000 students, with 86%
undergraduate students. PSU has a student body of 68% White students, 12% Latino/Hispanic,
5% Asian/Pacific Islanders, 2% African American, and 1% American Indian. A total of 554
faculty members teach in small-size classrooms with an emphasis on both quality teaching and
innovative research.
Urban State University (USU)
USU is a large city-centered university offering degrees from the arts to engineering;
enrolling roughly 30,000 students, with 82% undergraduate students. USU has a diverse student
body of 27% White students, 20% Latino/Hispanic, 32% Pacific Islander/Asian, 4% African
American, and 0% American Indian. USU emphasizes quality teaching, among its 2,054 faculty
members, with a priority given to small classroom settings.
City State University (CSU)
CSU is a large university located in a major metropolitan city and is acknowledged as a
leader in community service learning, liberal arts, and international education, enrolling over
30,000 students, with 86% undergraduate students. CSU has a globally diverse student body of
30% White students, 24% Latino/Hispanic, 35% Pacific Islander/Asian, 5.5% African American,
and .5% American Indian. With 1,602 faculty members, CSU indicates that their faculty
members are dedicated to the pursuit of excellent teaching, the development of students'
potential, and the advancement of discovery, understanding, and expression.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
59
Sampling Procedures
Tier 1 faculty partners from PSU, USU, and CSU were purposefully selected as part of
the sample to ensure richness in data from a desire to understand the faculty experiences over
time implementing UD in their curriculum. Purposeful sampling techniques based on specific
requirements ensured participants met the criterion identified rather than through random
sampling (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). The faculty partners from PSU, USU, and CSU were
designated as part of the research partners within the EnABLE project who helped shape the
future of the project and design for implementing it across further BSU system campuses as they
were the first to establish partnerships with EnABLE. These sites were chosen to offer the best
understanding of the problem and answering the research questions (Creswell, 2009). The
EnABLE project had ended and grant funding had closed, seeking out those participants who
have been offered the most time and support through the EnABLE project allowed the researcher
to better understand the phenomena under study over time.
A variety of data were utilized in collection including document review, pre-interview
questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews across three different institutions to enable
triangulation across combined methods. Mixed purposeful sampling offered the researcher the
ability to capture and describe the central themes across a great deal of variation (Patton, 2002).
The differences between these sites provided for maximum variation through the university size,
ethnicity of students, and faculty makeup across each institution. Maximum variation ensured
that common patterns that emerged from increased variation were of central importance and
provided further understanding of the phenomena studied. While the data were unique to each
site, the common threads across sites offered greater generalization to other campuses and
institutions nation-wide (Patton, 2002). Specific interest in sampling faculty from diverse
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
60
academic units and colleges, such as Anthropology, English, and Computer Science added rich
detail to the experiences that might be unique to specific curriculum needs in each unit or
academic program. Snowball sampling, an example of sequential sampling was also
implemented allowing faculty participants to recommend other faculty to the researcher who
could add to the importance of the study and provided cases that were both information rich and
key informants or critical cases to include in the study (Patton, 2002, Teddlie & Yu, 2007). With
the help of the EnABLE project team, critical cases and key informants across all three
institutions were identified and provided a varied sample to better understand the
implementation, faculty perceptions, and student outcomes in course utilizing UDL.
Study participation were sought out in Spring 2015 from faculty members who
participated in the Tier 1 EnABLE project and were teaching or taught in classes that
implemented UDL practices at Pacific State University (PSU), Urban City University (USU),
and City State University (CSU). The EnABLE Project Director provided a list of possible
participants and a call for study participants was sent through e-mail to the 15 qualifying faculty
members. The call for participants provided information about the research study as well as the
researcher’s contact information to schedule interviews and establish open pathways of
communication between the researcher and participants. The aim of the research was identified,
as well as the participants’ expected role in regards to the type of information desired and their
requirement of time.
Instrumentation
The methods used for this study enabled natural inquiry through qualitative design to
understand the experience of faculty implementing UDL within their courses. The process of
developing the instrumentation and research protocol, while linking to the research provided in
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
61
the literature review and the relationship to the research questions, is discussed to establish
appropriateness of the protocol and process implemented. Finally, evaluating the reliability and
validity of the instrumentation used established credibility of the interview protocol and methods
used to collect data.
A clear connection to the research provided in the literature review shaped the
development of the interview protocol. Pre-interview questionnaires (see Appendix B) were
developed to provide background data from faculty participants including: faculty status, length
of teaching experience, years since EnABLE UD training, academic program connection, and
ethnicity. The information provided in the pre-interview questionnaire will further explain the
faculty members’ backgrounds when reporting findings in this study. The interview protocol
(see Appendix C) was developed to include a variety of questions that range from low-risk and
simplistic questions and ends with more thought provoking and detailed questions. Based on the
core themes explored in Chapter Two, faculty perceptions of UD linked to research question 1:
What are faculty members’ perception of UD? Faculty members’ experience implementing
UDL in their coursework linked to research question 2: What are the experiences of faculty
members implementing UD within their curriculum? The research protocol asked questions
regarding faculty perceptions of UD; their experience implementing UD into the course; and
explored the barriers, challenges, and support encountered through their implementation. These
questions connected to the literature that identifies faculty’s preconceived ideas regarding UD
practices, the importance of good teaching practices to address student diversity in the
classroom, and support for providing faculty development in UD practices. Allowing a thorough
analysis of faculty perceptions of UD and their experiences implementing these practices
connected to the research provided, the research questions, and purpose of the study. While
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
62
much of the literature is lacking a clear research base addressing student in UD courses, a clear
connection is provided to research question 3: What are faculty members’ perceptions of student
outcomes based on UD implementation in their courses? Research provided in the literature
review called for further empirical support of UD implementation and student outcomes;
therefore questions within the research protocol identified faculty’s understanding of student
engagement, the value students placed on UDL strategies, and success of students as defined by
faculty participants. The literature review shaped the development of the interview protocol and
clear connections between both existing research and the research questions of this study allowed
the interviews and data collected further clarity and depth to the research on UDL in higher
education (see Appendix D).
As in any qualitative study, the role of the researcher required high levels of interaction
with study participants including direct contact with faculty members within the study. It was
imperative that the researcher understood his personal biases and maintained an appropriate
position and level of professionalism while conducting research. The researcher understood and
was sensitive to his own connection to the research and the role he played and how it may or
may not have affected the research as a result (Creswell, 2009). Providing a rich enough sample
size ensured that the data collected through the interview protocol and pre-interview
questionnaire provided reliability of data across interviews conducted. Consideration and care
was taken in developing the questions utilized in the qualitative interviews and a pilot test of the
interview protocol and pre-interview questionnaire were implemented with faculty who have
partnered with the EnABLE project to ensure the protocol and questionnaire elicited the best
possible data from faculty participants. Advice and feedback from the pilot test and experts in
the field were applied to ensure that the interview protocol and questionnaire offered both
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
63
reliability and validity in their usage. Eliminating possible researcher biases, testing the
instruments, and being open to feedback from faculty and experts connected to the project
enhanced reliability of the instruments used and practices of the researcher.
Data Collection
This study utilized qualitative data collection methods including individual interviews,
pre-interview questionnaires, and review of existing documents. By using a variety of sources,
the research built on the strengths of each type of collection method while minimizing the
individual weaknesses of any single approach (Patton, 2002). A description of why using these
methods brings value to the study is discussed. A detail of the timeline to collecting data is
provided to understand the procedures used. Lastly, the plan for collecting and protecting the
data is explained to ensure the process upholds the standards of research involving human
subject (Office for the Protection of Research Studies, 2012).
In-depth interviews were used to explore the experiences and perceptions of faculty
members. A semi-structured interview approach was applied with pre-determined questions and
loosely structured follow-up questions to help guide the interview process. The purpose of these
qualitative interviews was to enable the researcher understood and entered into the perspective of
the faculty participants to understand their experience and gather their stories (Patton, 2002).
This approach allowed faculty to share their own stories and responses regarding their personal
experiences and process involved with the implementation and outcomes of UDL. It also
allowed themes to emerge based on faculty differences and their experiences and implementation
of UDL. Ethnographic interviewing allowed the research to examine an area in ways that
provide data, often impossible to obtain through surveys, document analysis, or observation
alone (Ortiz, 2003). The advantages of utilizing interviews for data collection included: allowing
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
64
the interviewees to provide context to their experiences, collecting the participants’ story to be
recorded as data to make meaning in future analysis, and being able to shape the questions and
control the level of questions based on each participants experience (Patton, 2002).
Existing document review, including research from the EnABLE project, faculty
participation status, and articles that articulated the EnABLE project were utilized to better
understand the process faculty experience through their participation. These types of documents
provided information about areas that cannot be examined through observation or interviews
(Patton, 2002). Program records, mission and goals, and pre-existing data provided value, not
only through what can be learned directly from them, but also as it shapes the paths of inquiry
through interviews and evaluation of participants (Patton, 2002). While this study did not focus
on this information as primary material for data analysis, it helped add depth and understanding
to better facilitate the interviews and understanding of faculty’s experiences.
Once study participants were identified, study related information was distributed and an
informed consent to participate in this research study was collected prior to any data collection.
After informed consent was received, pre-interview questionnaires were sent and collected from
each participant prior to individual interviews. Interviews were set up over the phone and each
interview took an estimated 60 minutes. Faculty were asked to set aside enough time for the
interview process and invited to use an environment conducive to the interview process such as
their office or a quiet location where they will not be disturbed. All interviews were digitally
recorded through voice recording at the participants’ consent. Field notes were also taken during
the interviews to ensure the research captured salient points and themes to reference later in data
analysis. Each interview followed the same interview protocol and at the completion of their
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
65
interview participants were asked if they were available for any follow-up questioning or
member checking at a later time.
In order to ensure protection of study participants, informed consent for study
participation (see Appendix E) was required prior to any data collection. Proper care and
consideration to reducing participants’ threat due to participation, upholding participants’ rights
and well being, and preserving confidentiality was maintained throughout the research study. No
identifiable information was collected or reported on throughout this study, and any identifying
data or responses were redacted or given an alias. All study participants, sites, and the grant
project were been given pseudonyms and no direct references was made to ensure proper
confidentiality of those involved. The informed consent identified the participants’
responsibilities and role, as well as, the background of the research study. Information was
provided regarding risks to study involvement, duration of participant interviews, research
procedures, participants rights, consent to voluntary participation in study, and procedures for
withdrawal from research participation if desired (Office for the Protection of Research Studies,
2012). All consent forms, pre-interview questionnaires, and interview notes and transcripts have
been kept in a secure location with the researcher and copies of the informed consent were
provided to each research participant. Finally, Institutional Review Board approval was received
prior to any data collection procedures to ensure the research study upheld all university and
research related practices and considerations.
Data Analysis
The analysis of data were an on-going process that took place during the data collection
and data reduction process which required the researcher to understand the data and to create
themes to better understand what the data indicated through open-coding (Creswell, 2009).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
66
Transcripts of each interview were created and a constant comparative method was used as it
allowed the researcher the ability to create themes and subthemes in order to categorize data.
Field notes and transcripts were analyzed, coded, and re-coded to ensure all data collected was
defined based on emergent themes. Inductive qualitative analysis allowed for these patterns,
themes, and categories to emerge (Patton, 2002). Categories were determined through pattern,
theme, and content analysis to reduce the data into manageable chunks in an effort to make sense
of the data. Once the data were coded and placed into themes, the data were interpreted and
meaning was created from the data collected as it informed the researcher’s process as it allowed
comparisons across participants. The interpretations and descriptions of themes shaped the
results and conclusions of this study.
The data analysis methods utilized addressed the trustworthiness of the data through
focusing on the validity and reliability of findings. The basic assumptions of trustworthiness
dealt with the extent that the researcher could assure the findings were valid through the
collection process and were worth paying attention to (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The following
methods ensured that the data collected and analyzed was accurate, dependable, transferable, and
credible: triangulation, member checking, peer and expert debriefing, and an audit trail created
throughout the data collection and data analysis process. Triangulation of data across interviews,
different data sources, and member checks further increased the credibility and validity of
findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member checking allowed the researcher to confirm the
credibility of the findings by taking the transcripts and analysis back to the participant to verify
findings (Creswell, 2009). Peer and expert debriefing among colleagues and dissertation
committee members offered the researcher the opportunity to check in on findings, themes, and
coding to enhance accuracy of reporting. The debriefing process enriched the dependability of
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
67
findings, as others verified the process of created coding and themes that ensured a match
between the research question and the analysis process. Creating an audit trail throughout the
data collection and analysis process allowed the researcher to keep accurate, confirmable, and
dependable records of the study and the decisions made in data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Ortiz, 2003). A clear audit trail allowed the reproduction of this study and results by future
researchers. Elements of the audit trail included recorded and transcribed interview records,
accounts of data analysis process and notes, and feedback provided from expert and peer
debriefing. While qualitative data analysis is a bottom-up approach that can be subjective based
on the researcher, these methods aimed to account for any problems in the data analysis and
reduce possible limitations of the process.
Summary
This chapter provided an exploration of the methodology used within this study,
discussing the sample procedures, population studied, instrumentation used, data collection
methods, and finally the data analysis measures implemented. The purpose of this study was to
gather the experiences of faculty participants implementing UD in their coursework. The aim of
this research was to understand faculty perceptions of UD, student outcomes, and the challenges
and support encountered throughout their implementation. Gathering the faculty members’
stories to share their experiences and perceptions was necessary to support the limited research
of UD in higher education settings. To examine their process and perceptions, a qualitative
research design and methods were implemented to include personal interviews and document
review. Through a constant comparative analysis, data were analyzed for emergent themes.
Chapter Four focuses on the results of this study in order to connect both the research from
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
68
Chapter Two and the data collected to shape the findings of this study as discussed in Chapter
Five.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
69
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This study explored the experience of faculty participants and their perceptions of
Universal Design (UD), the implementation of UD in their curriculum and classrooms, and their
perceptions of the student outcomes as a result of UD. While all faculty members in the study
participated in the EnABLE grant project, this study looked past their experiences during the
project and directly at their experiences and outcomes of implementing UD in their curriculum as
a result of the EnABLE project. This qualitative study elicited the faculty members’ perceptions
and experiences through addressing the following research questions:
1. What are faculty members’ perceptions of UD?
2. What are the experiences of faculty members implementing UD within their curriculum?
3. What are faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes based on UD
implementation in their courses?
Additional questions examined their perceptions of UD to explore their initial reactions,
feelings, and changes over time using UD. The faculty members experience throughout their
implementation process was identified through questions that searched for examples of UD
practices in their curriculum, as well as the barriers, challenges, and support to their course
redesign and teaching practices inclusive of UD principles. Within faculty perceptions of student
outcomes, questions explored how faculty identified student outcomes in their UD courses; what
connections faculty could make to outcomes connecting other institution outcomes such as grade
point average (GPA), student learning outcomes, persistence, and graduation; and the impact of
UD outcomes in higher education. Faculty participated in one-on-one interviews with the
researcher. Through a constant comparative analysis of the individual interviews, case notes,
and pre-interview questionnaires, a variety of themes and subthemes emerged to form
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
70
similarities across their shared experiences. Aligned with the research questions, the three
themes included: (a) Faculty Perceptions of Universal Design, (b) Implementing UD in Higher
Education, and (c) Outcomes of Implementing UD in Higher Education. Within Faculty
Perceptions three subthemes emerged: (a) Initial Thoughts and Changes Over Time, (b) The New
Normal and Not a Retrofit Design, and (c) Engaging in Professional Development. Within
Implementation three subthemes emerged: (a) Examples of Implementing UD, (b) Challenge and
Support Throughout Implementation, and (c) Pedagogical Changes Within Higher Education.
As part of Outcomes of UD in Higher Education three subthemes emerged: (a) Impacting
Students with Disabilities, (b) Universal Impact Beyond Disabilities, and (c) Broader Student
Success Outcomes. It was through analysis of the themes and subthemes that the participants’
stories emerged and created meaning in unique ways.
Participants
Five faculty members, out of a possible 15, who joined the EnABLE grant project at the
beginning of the first grant award agreed to participate in this research study. These faculty
participants came from across the three Tier 1 research partner institutions, PSU, USU, and CSU
from a diverse background of majors and teaching experiences. Each participant has been given
a pseudonym to protect their confidentiality, as have the institutions they represent and the grant
project.
The EnABLE grant was established to provide faculty participants support and training
necessary to ensure that postsecondary students with disabilities received quality education.
Research partnerships had the support of their respective faculty members, students with
disabilities, student support services, and faculty development programs in the implementation
and faculty development efforts. The faculty development model focused on the implementation
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
71
of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in higher education through workshops and through
establishment of Faculty Learning Communities on each campus consisting of faculty members
across disciplines, faculty development support, and student services for students with
disabilities. The goal of the EnABLE project addressed areas such as effective instructional
methods inclusive of UDL principles, the development of accessible instructional methods,
materials, and the usage of current and emergent technologies that supported students with
disabilities.
Pamela is a professor at Pacific State University (PSU) where she teaches courses in the
English Department including English education, literature, and composition. Barry has been
teaching for over 15 years and is an associate professor of American Indian Studies at City State
University (CSU). Barbra has over 12 years of teaching experience and is a faculty member at
Urban State University (USU) where she teaches in the Anthropology department. Gina has
been teaching for over seven years and is an associate professor of Computer Science at Pacific
State University (PSU). Rosie is an associate professor at City State University (CSU) in the
Department of Special Education where she primarily teaches graduate students. These
participants represent a sub-group of faculty who were originally invited to join the EnABLE
project in 2008 as a means of professional development through faculty learning communities at
each campus centered on instituting UDL in higher education. These participants have been
implementing UD in their curriculum for a multitude of years and shared their experiences as
part of this research study.
Faculty Perceptions of Universal Design
The perceptions of all faculty participants were unanimously positive. Through the
exploration of their perceptions of UD, their shared experiences shaped the findings. In the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
72
beginning, they had shared their initial thoughts of UD and different levels of understanding of
the principles. Over time their actions and the impact of the principles changed their
perceptions, teaching design, and approach to their curriculum and personal development. Based
on their experiences and analysis of the data, the following subthemes emerged: (a) Initial
Thoughts and Changes Over Time, (b) A New Normal and Not a Retrofit Design, and
(c) Engaging in Professional Development.
Initial Thoughts and Changes Over Time
While the focus of inquiry was not on the EnABLE project, it must be noted, as several
participants shared the positives and successes of the grant team who developed the teams;
faculty members really appreciated the time, effort, and means of educating them on UD theory
as a framework for teaching success. Numerous participants identified the ease in the way UD
was introduced to them and their understanding based on the support from the grant team.
Pamela noted that it really came down to the clarity in the introduction of an idea and really
reinforcing these ideals throughout the process. Pamela summed up the principles of UD
perfectly in stating, “Students learn best through multiple means of engagement, multiple means
of representation in course concepts, and multiple means of demonstrating student learning.”
Gina identified how it was more about the approach and support that the grant team offered
which made it clearer and easier to understand in the context of access and universal design
through making unnecessary adjustments to her curriculum. Gina noted it was about, “Having a
very clear layout of what it meant for instruction. And being very clear and realistic about when
some things are non-negotiable, parts of the learning objectives of the course, and some things
are flexible.” Making the initial experience positive, easier to process, and managing a means of
support through their process spoke volumes to the EnABLE grant projects’ ability to structure
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
73
an experience of development that had an impact on these participants and their perceptions of
UD.
For some participants the concept of UD was new and for others was an ideal that was
previously introduced, although maybe not identified as UD. Barry spoke on his experience at
another institution that really used it as an auspice of ensuring student success without the label
of UD. For him, the formality of the introduction challenged him to see how ensuring student
success could be shifted through the use of Universal Design and formalizing it into a
framework. Barry mentioned he really wished UD had been introduced to him sooner in a more
formal introduction so he may have been able to fully realize the impacts and resource it offered
to all learners. Barry noted:
While I was proud of what (previous institution) had done, not introducing UDL as an
actual concept that people are, actively engaging in practicing and modifying it, even
enabling to evolve, that's something that I wish I had gotten a lot earlier. The idea that it
can manifest itself in different disciplines that can also benefit my own discipline was
also something I wish I had been exposed to a lot earlier.
Pamela identified that for her this was not a new concept as her husband has his PhD in
Architecture and had always consider the ideas of UD as best practices within the field. She
mentioned she had always been interested in pedagogy, brain-based learning, and the concepts of
UD connects with that; therefore, she felt she was predisposed to accept the concept and was
naturally curious about it. Barbra simply stated, “I thought it was a great idea and kind of
thought it was a no brainer.” Similar to Barry, she had already been implementing some of these
ideas in her large lecture classes without even connecting the concepts or actions to UD because
she has students with disabilities, foreign students, or English as Second Language Learners in
her classrooms that needed adjustments to access their learning. Like Barbara, Gina said, “I
thought it was, obviously, a really good idea. I was teaching an introductory course in my
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
74
discipline and had a lot of students here with disclosed disabilities. And this seemed like a very
practical way to help them.” Rosie had a background in disability and came from special
education, she stated, “I knew this would be a wonderful approach for me to use at the university
level to model for my credential students. It would incorporate the principles to give greater
access and engagement to all kinds of student.” These participants all came to the process of UD
with similar ideas in mind, how could UD impact their students and make a difference in their
learning and engagement to education.
Faculty participants started the implementation several years ago and over time their
views changed, but not for the negative. Their views on how they saw students shifted, their
level of responsibility grew, and their approach to the impact that UD could have in their
classroom solidified to more than just a good idea, but as a Pamela said, “a best practice that
really provided clarity through the presentation of the idea.” Rosie agreed with Pamela as she
explained, “its an evidence-based practice to teach students with any kind of learning
challenges.” Pamela also noted that she felt her role had shifted from that of simply being
curious to being the bearer of UDL to others. Her own practices began to shift with each student
she met, as she mentioned, “Every time I meet a new student with different learning capabilities
and/or limitations I am now constantly thinking of creative opportunities to engage and meet
their needs.”
UD allowed the faculty members to change, engage, and reconnect with their own styles,
curriculum, and options for teaching. Barbra mentioned that she started to redevelop her own
teaching system that included UD principles and access for students with different needs such as
hearing or visual limitations. She stated it as, “I strive to make my courses 100% accessible,
maybe even before I started getting involved with EnABLE. But EnABLE gave me new ideas
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
75
and some justifications for what I was doing.” Rosie saw UD as an ability model; an approach to
others as she taught credential and masters students. But over time UD became part of every
research project and had an impact on every class. Rosie stated, “Its really now embedded in
everything I do.” Gina concluded that while she was still very happy with UD and the concepts
and ideals there are still pieces that she struggles with. Some of the aspects are more difficult to
implement and as she noted,
the fact that offering multiple means of things, often puts more work on the instructor . . .
but I am pretty convinced it is the right thing to do for all students. It looks like that is
the universal part, huh?”
While she identified it can be easy to get lazy with the concepts, it is important to stay
conscious of the ideals and continue to shift and change as necessary with technology, and
students needs; however as Gina clarified, “the core has been really stable.”
The faculty perceptions of UD came from across all variations of understanding. Based
on their pre-interview questionnaires about three out of five had some pre-exposure to the
concepts of UD and the other two really did not know much, if anything, about UD before
participation in the EnABLE grant. It was also interesting to note that every single one of the
faculty spoke about it and responded to the fact that they are still very strongly using and
implementing UD in their curriculum. As a result of their perceptions and learning about UD, all
of their perceptions shifted to a better awareness of UD and several even noted that they were on
the road to being viewed as an expert in the field. While few were willing to identify as an
expert, several identified that other faculty members sought them out and students enrolled in
their classes as a result of their implementation of UD.
Similar to research findings (Cook et al., 2009; Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Lombardi et
al., 2011) faculty participants showed positive endorsement for utilizing UD and were favorable
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
76
to the principles and practices within their curriculum. For many it became part of their
everyday teaching practices and in some cases became less about accommodating teaching
practices for students with disabilities but instead more about the opportunity to make learning
accessible to all. Regardless of their initial thoughts of UD, as they varied across participants, all
faculty looked back at their initial and current perceptions of UD as positive and were still
practicing UD in their curriculum today, which further identified that faculty are willing to make
changes and implement UD as a result. Furthermore, faculty perceptions held promise for
continual implementation in the educational environment (Hatfield, 2003).
A New Normal and Not a Retrofit Design
Some of the faculty made an interesting connection to the perceptions of viewing UD and
how the implementation from the start can make the biggest impact. Pamela compared the
perspectives and usage of implementation the same as universal design implementation in
everyday life. Pamela noted, “It’s all about building the ramp upfront instead of retooling it after
the fact.” Several made a direct connection to the idea that the perceptions of UD and impact is
not merely about redesign of the course or curriculum but more importantly starting right from
the start; it really became a new way to look at it from their perceptions. Barry further identified
that it is no longer even a second guess; it just is the way he does things:
It’s now something I don’t even think about. Its just part of the habit. You know, kind of
like getting ready, preparing for my lecture. Its just habit now. And that is what I think
is the best part thing that professors can learn about UDL is that once you get it, it
becomes part of your natural repertoire.
Faculty identified that they no longer need to go out of their way in the course design as UD had
really become just that extra step that they take to insure that all of their students learn what they
have talked about in class. Barbra really underscored this idea by identifying that it goes beyond
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
77
accommodating people with limitations, but that it really is about meeting their needs
universally. She explained:
I think this is the most important part of Universal Design, what you do should be, from
the get-go, from the design of the class, not a retrofit to accommodate people with certain
limitations, whether they be learning disabilities, physical disabilities or people who have
English as a second language. So, I felt good about that idea, the idea that it was
universal.
Rosie recognized that the implementation and approach really became part of who she was when
she was designing the syllabus and instruction. It became part of her nature and approach as she
mentioned, “Part of the way you do things.” Although not all faculty members spoke to the
ideas of UD being the new way to approach the class from the beginning, it was underscored
through their discussion of implementations and barriers due to time and resource in course
design. Had they focused on this from the beginning, the impact of redesign would not have
been necessary, as their classes would have already had a universal design approach. But then,
some faculty were not new to the field, like others, and the ideas of UD were truly new to them
at the time, so while it might be a redesign or retrofit to their curriculum now, it would not be in
the future.
Contrary to some findings of Vreeburg-Izzo et al. (2008), faculty participants were
interested in meeting the specific needs of students with disabilities through an approach that
gave them the skill, ability, and knowledge up front to design their classes inclusively from the
beginning. Faculty identified that such an approach managed their implementation, expectations
of changes, and really allowed them to change their methods of course design completely.
Faculty were aware of their strategies of creating change and positive to the upfront design of
curriculum development versus retrofit designs of educational practices. Similar to the findings
of Hatfield (2003), results point to positive indicators that through proper training and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
78
understanding of the needs of students with disabilities allows faculty to understand the
importance of shifting their pedagogy and teaching methodology to create inclusive learning
environments that were good for all students from the start.
Engaging in Professional Development
Several of the participants spoke to the perceptions of UD and their involvement in the
EnABLE grant project as their effort to engage in professional development. Where they were in
their teaching experience also played part of their perceptions of UD and engaging in
professional development and faculty communities. Looking at UD as a professional
engagement opportunity allowed them to see UD as a new framework and means to do
something different. However, Barry had a realization that looking at UD as negotiable through
voluntary professional development may seem ineffective. Barry explained:
Meaning that if you leave it up to the professor to decide whether or not he or she is
going to incorporate it into their curriculum, that's not necessarily gonna educate them to
the benefit. When it is, something that is integral to pedagogy, that's when it can be an
incredible resource. When it is made optional, it sort of reinforces the illusion that every
student learns the same way and I think that that's one of the core issues that UDL seeks
to challenge and encourage professors to sort of move beyond, really engage your student
as an individual learner.
Participants identified the richness of knowledge and discussions that being part of the
faculty learning community brought to them. There was a true sense of being part of something
unique and different to further develop their thinking and engagement of student learners. Barry
identified, “the camaraderie across disciplines, being exposed to that sort of format and that
intellectual collaboration to see different teachers and professors in action and hear them explain
why they do what they do.” Gina agreed, “Just having the ability to talk to colleagues who
specialized in teaching students with disabilities was very valuable.”
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
79
Another aspect from the participants and their perceptions of UD came through their
feeling of where they were as a faculty member coming into the field. Participants noted feeling
young in the field of teaching allowed them to be more open to opportunities and the
professional engagement opportunities as a guide to being open to learn. Barry and Rosie both
mentioned being new and young in the field providing them with more opportunity for change.
Rosie noted,
Probably being a new faculty member and really being open to new ideas and the idea
that there were so many different ways to convey content material and engage students.
I’ve always been interested in that and that universal design provided me a real nice
framework to sort of give me license to do that.
For Gina, she was not as sure as the perceptions of UD and professional development or just
change as a new faculty member. Gina identified:
I defiantly gained a lot from applying the framework and being guided through thinking
strategically about how to implement them. But this was my third or fourth year as an
assistant professor. So I think, I would have gone through a lot of changes anyways as a
teacher at that time.
While Gina was still young in the field with three or four years behind her, she had a harder time
connecting her development to either being new as a teacher or changes as a result to her
engagement in professional development.
Finally, participants saw UD professional development as a direct opportunity to engage
as a means of teaching teachers. Throughout the discussion of barriers, there were examples of
the difficulties in focusing on teaching teachers and professors pedagogy and focus on a new
means of teaching. Some saw UD and professional engagement as a means to train and teach
teachers. Barry noted that in their discussion in the faculty communities the topic continued to
come up as an aspect of teaching professors how to teach through these methods, as he noted, “I
know that that’s not a universal practice.” But as a professor teaching graduate students and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
80
future teachers, Rosie truly saw it as a means of teaching credential students how to engage
students and shift their teaching by implementing UD principles in practice. She noted this as
she realized that her credential students are really good at utilizing different ways of presenting
content and different ways of engaging students. Unfortunately, as she identified they still seem
to fall back to old ways in the methods of multiple means of demonstrating learning. Rosie
stated,
When it comes to assessment, they still seem to fall back to the worksheet or written text.
I guess I really try to focus in on that part of how do you use those principles to allow
students to demonstrate what they know.
It became more about allowing her teachers access to engage in culturally responsive
teaching practices. Pamela agreed, as she noted, “throughout the process she has been able to
teach students who will be future educators these tools to enable them to understand the concepts
for their future fields of influence.” Barbra further summed up what many expressed as she
stated, “More energy ought to go into educating graduate students who are going to be lecturers,
or tenure-track faculty in how to do this (UD).” Teaching teachers to teach, while not
universally accepted is a concept for change; it is a shift in the perceptions of faculty members
engaging in UD implementation through professional development activities.
Similar to Spooner et al. (2007), faculty believed that their was value in teaching teachers
to teach and engaging in professional development to reengage teaching strategies. Inclusive of
the research conducted by the EnABLE grant (2012a), faculty shared that their experience in the
faculty learning community further encouraged their perceptions of UD and the likelihood of
implementing these changes in their curriculum. Therefore, with the proper development,
faculty understood the need for changes and felt support of these principles throughout their
faculty development participation. Faculty participants felt connected to their professional
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
81
development, the growth that they received, and this further encouraged their implementation
and beliefs in the values and implementation of UD over time.
Summary: Faculty Perceptions
Faculty perceptions to UD were overall positive as they shared their experiences that
understanding and engaging in UD allowed them to make their implementation easier and shifted
them into working with a new framework. Faculty perceptions of UD allowed them to reconnect
to their teaching and style and have an impact on their students creating a bigger sense of
responsibility to spreading UD throughout their departments and campus. For all faculty
participants their perceptions and beliefs in UD were solidified by the fact that they are all still
using UD after years of implementation. It became part of their new process and new design to
course creating, as it just became part of what they do and not an extra step or after thought. But
beyond their perceptions was the belief that they were allowing UD to engage them in
professional development, being part of something bigger, and involved in a camaraderie and
support. Their perceptions of UD shifted to a belief of how they can reshape how teachers teach
and student learn which had a large part in their implementation of UD in their courses and
teaching pedagogy.
Findings indicate that faculty members are willing to do the work, go through
professional development, and make the necessary changes to impact not only students with
disabilities but impact all students equally. Through the understanding of faculty perceptions,
this study found faculty valued their work in professional development, believed in UD as a new
pedagogy, and were willing to do the work. With proper faculty buy-in and development, UD is
successful in higher education in creating inclusive learning environments for all students
including those with a disability.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
82
Implementing Universal Design
Thinking about faculty members’ perceptions on Universal Design and actually
implementing UD in the classroom were drastically different. The EnABLE grant concentrated
on changing the focus of faculty teaching through the implementation of Universal Design for
Learning (UDL). Faculty shared numerous examples of UD in the classrooms, curriculum, and
instructional pedagogy. They also identified their process with implementing UD based on the
level of support they received from their institution beyond their participation in the faculty
development communities. Faculty participants also noted the challenges and barriers they faced
throughout their implementation in areas such as time, cost, availability of resources, and in
some cases the structure and philosophy of UD itself. While no small task to alter their
curriculum and shift their teaching practices, it became clear among the faculty that the outcomes
of UD far outweighed the barriers of the implementation process and they had become UD
pioneers and change agents on their campuses. It was through their implementation that allowed
them to identify the impact UD had on higher education and a call to change the way of doing
what they have always done. Based on the faculty members’ experiences and data analysis, the
following subthemes emerged within their implementation of UD: (a) Examples of
Implementing UD, (b) Challenge and Support Throughout Implementation, and (c) Pedagogical
Changes Within Higher Education.
Examples of Implementing UD
All faculty participants shared numerous types of examples and ways they used UD in
their classrooms, teaching philosophy, and creating opportunities for learning amongst their
students. Methods were as simple as offering captions or lecture capture; others focused on
ensuring web-based modules and projects were fully accessible and useable with technology for
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
83
students with disabilities. Others included the provision of multiple means of representation and
offering choices to students; but in all cases, it offered changes to the way faculty planned,
prepared, lectured, and approached their classes.
Pamela used a variety of methods in her classroom including creating kinesthetic tools
and manipulatives to work on English syntax and sentence structure. She created videos and
podcasts of her instruction and allowed students to watch them over and over with transcripts as
well as captioning to all students to read and hear the information at the same time to reinforce
their learning. As Pamela explained, “Giving students a choice in representing their learning
through creating websites, writing, drawing, creating video or podcasts, and making sure the
students also think about the audio visual accessibility needs of their materials ensuring the
concepts of UDL throughout.” Barry used Lecture Capture as a means of capturing his lectures
and allowing students to watch them over and check their notes and work to the actual lecture.
He noted, “Lecture Capture has really helped me to, in some cases, streamline the process of
UDL.” Barry also focused on the utilization of captions in his classroom and with the videos he
showed, allowing all students the opportunity to read and listen to the videos at the same time.
He identified that this one small change and simple task of ensuring videos were captioned was
also not always easy, as he shared more about in his discussion of barriers and challenges.
However, allowing student to understand difficult speakers due to accents, dialect, or poor audio
quality with his videos of native speakers and diverse ethnographic backgrounds became critical
in the student’s learning.
Barbra talked about incorporating accessibility features into her lectures, projects, and
materials for all students. She changed her teaching style as she noted:
I never do write on the blackboard. I teach with PowerPoint, but I also have speaker
notes fully scripted so a hearing disabled student could follow them on their laptop. I
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
84
also have alt tags for visually disabled students behind every picture so they can access
everything.
Barbra also identified about how she offers students the opportunity to complete study guides
that provide the realm of possible questions for exams. She found this was good for all learners
because there were no surprises or guesses as to what was going to be tested on.
Gina spoke to the flexibility in her teaching methods and how they shifted for her
programming class. The first weeks were very intensive with heavy cognitive load as she
introduced programming language. She used to only provide one way or tool set to use but now
she teaches several and allows the students the flexibility in the tools, as she expressed, “I think
it has really clarified for them the difference between learning the tools, learning the software,
and learning the programming language you’re supposed to learn. Certainly they can find an
option they are comfortable with.” Gina also talked about offering multiple means of evaluation
to diversify where their grades come from, allowing them different ways to demonstrate what
they are doing. She explained, “It’s not an either/or for them, they have to do them all. But at
least they have a diverse set of ways to do that.” This has also allowed her to get a better
understanding of the student’s strengths and weaknesses, which has been a more critical
evaluation for her.
With Rosie, it was about allowing her students the opportunity to showcase, in a dynamic
environment, how they would teach a skill set or lesson to students when they were in their own
classroom. There was an exercise for her students to demonstrate how they would teach and she
wanted to make it as real as possible through on-line software that created a program for them to
set up a module in which they interacted with a student and teacher in an online universe. As
Rosie explained, “We had virtual manipulatives. We had all different types of problems,
different ways of solving the problems, and then when it came down to it, they could engage
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
85
with the material, virtually the content was present in different ways.” It allowed the students to
have choices, be creative, and engage in the material in ways to express how they would do it in
the classroom in a practice environment. It also allowed others to comment and share their own
feedback anonymously to impact the learning together.
Regardless of the means to implementation, faculty all implemented one or more types of
UD in the process and altered the way they connected with the material, the students, and the
learning environment. For some, it was multiple means of representation, for others it was
through multiple means of evaluation, and for all it was clear that they were providing students
with multiple means of engagement with the material and course. But as many shared and
agreed, with “multiple anything” it can also mean more work, even if it was the right thing to do.
Due to the several different principles of Universal Design: Universal Design for
Learning, Universal Instructional Design, Universal Design for Instruction; it became important
for faculty to identify the methods and approaches they utilized in their implementation of UD in
higher education through qualitative research. The EnABLE project utilized the principles of
UDL in their faculty development as an implementation approach. Faculty identified that they
needed to start somewhere and starting small and growing in their approach allowed the
implementation to become more manageable. Through these examples of faculty
implementation and strategies in their curriculum, it allowed others to see the value and
opportunity to pick just one method and begin their own implementation to creating change in
higher education. Similar to Schelly et al. (2011), even with limited exposure to these
implementation strategies, these small changes could impact students and their courses resulting
in improved teaching strategies and an enhanced learning environment. Creating more
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
86
awareness to the methods of UD in higher education remained important to increasing its
implementation through a wider approach.
Challenge and Support Throughout Implementation
Implementing UD in their curriculum did not happen over night. For many it was a
process and for others it came as second nature. Throughout their stories and experiences,
examples of both challenges and support came throughout their implementation process.
Emergent subthemes of their challenges and support throughout their UD implementation
included: (a) the level of support they felt they had in the process, (b) the amount of time it took
to implement, (c) the struggle for resources and funding to take these initiatives forward, and
(d) the unique challenges that UD principles created throughout implementation. Regardless of
their experiences in the implementation of UD, these faculty members challenged themselves
and those around them to examine the pedagogy of instruction in higher education and their role
as an instructor in the process.
Level of support. Support was discussed amongst all participants. In some cases it was
positive, while with others, it was viewed as negative; across all their experiences a shared
experience of a shift in the institution and the level of support towards UD was experienced.
While the support they received from their individual institutions was variable, all participants
agreed that the support they received as part of the faculty learning communities was more
valuable. Gina summarized this, “That was a really cool interdisciplinary group. So I could
bounce ideas off of them. I could call up the folks in charge if I had something specific I wanted
to talk out with them. That was very well-supported.” Throughout the interviews, all
participants linked back to the value they placed on the EnABLE project and the role it played in
their implementation of UD and support overall.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
87
Pamela expressed a sense of being lucky as she felt she was on a campus that truly
supported learning and faculty development as her school was teacher-focused, allowing for
more faculty investment, and money for support to train and put theory into practice. This
environment really allowed the opportunity for UD development, as it otherwise would not have
been on the radar of most faculty members. Rosie summed up her experience of support as
being positive overall, “We really have quite a bit of academic freedom, I would say that I really
didn’t need support. But there was certainly nobody who tried to prevent me from doing it.
They were all about it.” Gina felt a bit more neutral in the level of support she received. Her
department was open to hearing about how things were going but were also not really ready to
jump in fully themselves and while she felt they supported here in the implementation she was
grateful they supported her and at least did not resent her for her involvement.
Barry identified that there was a shift in support that happened overtime. While initially
it was very positive, with robust support and resources, a change in administration shifted the
campus-wide support and faculty development overall. Barry explained:
Our center for teaching and faculty development at the time was quite robust and had a
very big impact across campus, so during that time UDL actually was something that was
really being looked at . . . Now we’ve kind of reverted back, I think, given the limited
resources for faculty development.
While Barry had a positive experience throughout his implementation and creating a shift of
change on his campus, the challenge of resources and support did effect his impact overall. Not
all support was equal and although Barry’s campus support shifted, for Barbara there seemed to
be a lack of support from the beginning. Barbara’s experience was unique from others as she felt
she never really was given the level of support necessary and her campus really focused support
toward disability services and not faculty development. Barbara identified, “I wouldn’t say that
over the past few years I’ve gotten a whole lot of support from within my department and to my
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
88
knowledge the university doesn’t have any training for lectures in accessibility.” Campus
support seemed helpful but not required, as through Barbara’s experience it was identified that
although her support seemed different from others it did not affect her overall implementation as
a result. She looked for unique ways to forge through and be a change agent in her areas of
influence. She saw the difficulties worth the venture.
Faculty all spoke to the challenges in support but unanimously agreed that their efforts
were worth the struggles. While better support through the university at their campus level
would have increased their experience and created a wider-scale approach; even through their
individual efforts, they found value in their approach. Richer faculty support, support to UD,
and encouragement of the implementation from a campus approach is necessary to create real
change in higher education (Silver, et al., 1998; McGuire et al., 2003).
Time and implementation. The impact of time and implementation was different for
everyone. Some discussed the time it took, while others merely identified that implementation
took time. Rosie proclaimed, “It didn’t take time at all. When you think about it education
really lends itself to universal design, especially special education, trying to present things in all
different ways.” Pamela identified that she was able to start small and make changes more
manageable. Pamela said, “I overhauled and fully rolled out my semester throughout the
process. Some things took time while others happened more quickly. It was not always
overnight. One cannot just spring into action overnight, there is a roll out process.” Gina
identified how she did a little bit at a time. She would make changes one semester, then expand
and make more changes, Gina summarized, “I’m still changing things and moving things around,
even now for sure; putting it into any course and what I teach changes from semester to
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
89
semester.” Barry agreed as he said he started with one specific area, captioning and then
expanded his reach each semester. Barry noted:
It was something I built on. So it took one semester to really just kind of get it in there
and I’d say it’s taken, well now it is 2015, so its taken eight years for me to hone my
UDL to the point were I am comfortable.
For Gina and Barbara they expressed the amount of work and time that does go into
implementing UD and the difficulty it created. Time was more of a challenge to them, as
Barbara mentioned:
When I develop a new course it can take me up to four days to two weeks to develop a
single lecture, writing everything out in a totally planned-out fashion so that it is fully
accessible to the hearing impaired and putting alt tags behind all the pictures. I build my
classes, I think, in a way that very few people do.
Gina summarized the amount of time it takes and the challenges of UD implementation,
“The very fact of offering multiple means of things often puts more work on the instructor . . . It
does take a lot of time . . . that word multiple means you’re doing more than one thing.” For
some, the implementation was seamless and for others it took more time, but for all, the time it
took for implementation was more of an initial challenge that dissipated over time.
Time and energy impacted the results of the faculty implementation. While no small task
to make these changes in their curriculum, their faculty development and belief in the methods of
UD allowed them to carry through and put forth the work so it would be easier later. Over time
the efforts of time seemed to be less important and the result of faculty support in their learning
communities allowed them to have the support of others in the implementation process to
overcome the challenges and barriers of the time it takes versus taking time to make these
changes. McGuire et al. (2003) similarly identified such barriers as time and the challenge of
faculty to do more with less time, and although some faculty may not willing spend the time
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
90
making these changes (Silver et al., 1998), faculty participants in this study identified that there
is still a value in making time and making these changes in higher education.
Money and resources. Implementing UD takes money and resources that many faculty
members shared were scarce. Some identified that they used their own money and resources
even when the campus could not offer the support necessary. Both Barbara and Gina identified
how the impact of the fiscal crisis in education played a large role in making their
implementation more challenging. Gina noted, “We were doing this at a time of the most
significant state budget cuts in the eight years I’ve been here. Just given all the ways having no
resources takes up your time, that presented some difficulties.” Barbra shared how for many
instructors they make a choice to not do the work because they simply do not get paid do it and
so they just choose not to do the extra work for students who may learn differently. But she
stated for her, “It’s not that there is any huge professional or financial rewards (implementing
UD). It all has to do with the interactions with students.” Both Barbara and Barry discussed the
challenges associated with the cost of providing captioning in UD implementation and the lack
of resources available. Barry expressed:
We’re a cash poor campus, so it was actually the use of captions was a bit of a challenge
. . . At one point I’ve spent $500 just on one short piece of film that really was beneficial
for my class, but at the same time I have to weigh the cost of it. Do I take the tax write
off and give this information or do I just take it out of my curriculum altogether?
Barbara understood the laws and requiring captioning on videos as a means of
accessibility, however, while there was access to captioning services, she was told, “The
department would have to pay for them and that was just hundreds of dollars the department
didn’t have.” As a result, Barbara expressed, “I don’t feel at this point that there is really more
than lip service to Universal Design at our campus. This is a factor of economics; basically, they
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
91
don’t feel they have the money to work on the problem.” Barry summarized the problem
similarly as he noted:
There were no resources for that type of pedagogical development . . . If there's no
resources to support UDL and it's only aimed at students development and not faculty
development, in tandem, then it's not gonna be productive. It's going to be something
where the faculty member is always trying to work with what is there as opposed to
bringing new information out, which is actually what we're supposed to be doing.
The cost of creating accessibility in the classroom, the state of the budget crisis in higher
education, and the lack of resources for faculty development were all challenges that impacted
the implementation of UD amongst participants.
Although previous research did not indicate a lack of resources being an issue for the
implementation of UD in higher education, clearly the level of importance placed on supporting
the cost of accommodations and inclusive course pedagogy through UD became important to
sustaining the efforts of UD in higher education. Faculty participants experienced a critical time
of higher education with large budget cuts, limited resources, and making these changes at such a
significant time really identified where the university and BSU system stood in support such
methods (Johnson & Fox, 2003). With a shift in the resource available at the time, faculty were
again asked to do more with less and as participants indicated, they often took matters into their
own hands based on a belief that it was the right thing to do. As the budget crisis is at a different
point today, more focus should be placed on such methods and supporting these resources,
therefore allowing richer support to the resources and support necessary in creating real change
in higher education. Therefore, the institution, the system, and higher education as a whole must
support UD.
Unique challenges. Two participants had unique viewpoints of challenges associated
with UD implementation. For Gina and Rosie they both spoke to how the requirements of
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
92
Universal Design and limitations of flexibility that multiple means produced unexpected
challenges. Gina acknowledged:
Multiple means of allowing students to demonstrate that they are meeting the learning
objectives of the course, I think that becomes really bound up in a programming course or
in any pre-professional discipline. I think they should have not only mastery of the body
of work, but also that it is enacted in the way professional do. And so that sort of limits
in some ways the flexibility you have. I want to be sure I am being creative enough that
I’m giving them multiple means without compromising the things they actually need to
be able to go out and do.
Gina really struggled with this area and trying to design her class given multiple means for
students but still covering the basics of required material for not only the course but also the
profession she was preparing them for. She had to identify what was negotiable and what was
not and given them different opportunities to show their mastery across different methods but
maybe requiring all of them and not a choice between one or the other. Rosie saw this to be true
with her credential students as well. But she saw the implementation of UD as a way to change
how they completed these requirements rather than changing the requirements all together.
Rosie stated:
There are certain things students have to demonstrate, credential candidates, to
demonstrate and paperwork they have to complete to prove they know, to prove they
meet the standards for teaching. However we’ve even gotten better at that. We used to
have a paper portfolio where they would keep student work and they would keep their
paperwork. But now it’s all online which is nice because they can do so much more
through technology to demonstrate their efficiency as a teacher.
As both Gina and Rosie spoke to the requirements in their field, both of them were able
to find a way around the challenges of UD implementation and the lack of flexibility in their
program requirements within their curriculum. UD offers choices and it was in their
implementation that these two participants were able to provide options but still meet learning
outcomes and the identification of mastery within the field.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
93
Regardless of the challenges indicated by faculty participants, the barriers were within
their limits to overcome. UD indicates the opportunity in offering options, all of which were
choices faculty can make in their implementation, the institution could support, and students
would learn through. Therefore, implementation is not without its barriers, but through the right
level of support, faculty have the ability to navigate the process as long as the institution supports
their efforts through time, money, resources, and professional development opportunities.
Pedagogical Changes within Higher Education
Implementing UD had an impact on not only the individual but also the campus, their
teaching methods, and shifted the culture of higher education as it challenged the way teachers
and faculty members were trained and taught. The participants spoke to a shifting nature in
higher education, as a result of their personal faculty development, and a need for more
collaboration as well as a call for change in the way faculty teach, are trained, and impact the
field of higher education as a whole. Pamela summarized these aspects as she stated:
It becomes about an institution and university that actually walks the talk, UD is helping
live out the requirements of ADA and assisting with the implementation of educational
equity and social justice . . . UDL benefits all learners and is good pedagogical sense.
Doing is a better way of learning than simply sitting and absorbing. It really shouldn’t be
a niche concept it needs to be popularized. Its helping an the entire educational
community.
Unfortunately, as the participants shared, the field of higher education may not be ready
for such pedagogical changes. As Gina noted, “I guess going to that universal part, for all
students, pedagogy in higher education is pretty much a mess, since its not really what we’re
trained to do. We are trained within our disciplines.” Faculty will need to be collaborative and
make connections, as Barry identified, “The collaborations are going to be imperative if UDL is
actually going to survive in this underfunding climate.” Barry talked extensively about the need
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
94
for collaboration, not only between faculty but also administrators, policymakers, and disability
support services to push the boundaries and create change in higher education.
Several of the participants spoke to how implementing UD could have a change on higher
education. They see this as a dynamic approach to teaching, engaging students, and shifting how
students learn and interact in the educational environment. Rosie noted:
I think we realize that we need critical thinkers and because of the different forms of
engagement, different ways to present content, I think that creates a classroom
environment that is especially valuable framework for creating a classroom environment
where you allow that type of discussion, multiple perspectives and the value of the
multiple perspectives.
Barbara agreed as she stated,
I think because we have such diverse student bodies, particularly in California, its just
going to have to (change). I think there is going to be an increasing demand from the
students to use that kind of technology that assist Universal Design.
Barbara really believed that faculty are going to have to shift their focus and push their
boundaries to learn software and teach utilizing these methods as they realize the students are
engaging in these practices already and faculty need to follow suit.
Implementing universal design had an impact on the way faculty teach which also
required them to step back and actually examine how teachers were taught to teach and placed
more focus on faculty driven development. As Barry identified:
I think in the 21st century, higher education is going through a big shift from the teacher
standing in front of the classroom, just giving a lecture, and I still love that don’t get me
wrong, but it’s going to enable that person standing in front of the classroom to appeal to
students in many different forms.
Barbara noted,
I think the problem is we don’t teach graduate students how to teach. Maybe you do in
education. But in most departments, a graduate student in their first teaching job will
teach the same way their professors taught them in college.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
95
Gina clarified:
More energy ought to go into educating graduate students who are going to be lectures or
tenure-track faculty in how to do this (UD) rather than trying to grab faculty and try and
get to do something new after teaching in not so accessible ways for over 20-25 years.
They are just going to say I don’t have to do anything different.
Rosie was hopeful for the impact UD could have on the field of teaching, whether in
primary and secondary school through her graduate students or in higher education. She noted,
“I think teachers are especially always looking for new and better ways to teach. It seems
universal design would be a great way to really generate fresh, new ideas, and new ways to do
things.”
Barry spoke at length about how faculty needed to use UD as a vehicle for change in
higher education. Barry expressed, “It’s a wonderful resource and tool and I hope everyone
takes advantage of it. For those that are skeptical, challenge your skepticism. Try it and see if it
works. If it doesn’t, then you know, maybe that’s just you.” The implementation of UD had an
impact on the field and environment of higher education. It created a call to change the old ways
of thinking, teaching, and a call for further collaboration and innovation to the pedagogy that had
become stagnate. As participants spoke to these challenges, they also spoke to the hope and
outcomes of implementation of UD and how the challenge and change brings so much more
opportunity.
If higher education is going to be impacted through the results of implementation, it will
take more than the faculty buy-in and positive perceptions of UD. The success of
implementation of UD in higher education falls on the institution to support the efforts and
change of faculty through development, training, and proper implementation support. The
institution and higher education pedagogy must shift to change the beliefs of long-time faculty
members stuck in their ways of teaching in order to broaden their perceptions to include UD.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
96
Silver et al. (1998) identified an elitist role of faculty in higher education and faculty participants
indicated a critical need to shift those beliefs to create wide-scale change in higher education.
Changing the faculty who are set in their ways was identified as a factor in creating a true impact
to higher education. Through institutional effectiveness, enhancing teaching strategies, and a
rebirth in the faculty development model, these impacts would be successful in higher education.
Institutions must value the change in pedagogy and support these changes, allowing faculty to
see an obtainable goal through the support of the institution to impact the outcomes on student
learning in their classes.
Summary: Implementing UD
Throughout the study, faculty shared their own examples of how they implemented UD
into their courses and curriculum. In some cases, it was through audio visual, captioning, lecture
capture, making content accessible or offering choices; as it is all about multiple means of
expression, representation, and engagement. However, their experiences of implementation were
largely impacted by the level of support and the challenges that UD created as it required them to
challenge not only their own methods but also the way they viewed their role of being an
instructor and those around them. The level of support, the shift of support, or lack thereof,
impacted their implementation experience; as not all support was equal and resource and access
to resources impacted their experience through unique challenges throughout their shared
experiences. Regardless of their challenges in implementing UD, they were impacting the
faculty around them, their campus, and shifting the culture of higher education and challenging
faculty to do more, engage in the learning process, even if higher education might not have been
ready for such pedagogical changes. As UD provided them a dynamic approach to teaching,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
97
engaging students, and impacting how students learn, UD became a vehicle of change for these
faculty participants.
Implementation of UD in higher education is not without barriers or challenges.
However, it is valuable to the student learning, their engagement, and the ability to change the
impact to the culture of higher education through faculty driven methods. These efforts are,
however, impossible and difficult without the right level of support. Challenges can be
overcome through the implementation with the support of the institution and the faculty
communities created through faculty development and a rebirth in new thinking, pedagogy, and
faculty support. Findings indicate that the implementation and creation of wide-scale change in
higher education was made possible with richer support and institutional change. Faculty saw
the changes they made, but those changes were limited to their class, without wide-scale support
and implementation across their institution. While in many cases the level of support changed
due to the shifting economic times, as higher education comes out of the budget crisis and into
new financial opportunities, faculty development needs to be part of the new agenda allowing
faculty to utilize their buy-in to forge through the necessary changes to implement UD and create
a change to higher education system.
Outcomes of Universal Design in Higher Education
As participants spoke to their perceptions of outcomes, seen through the implementation
of UD in their courses, similar themes were apparent across all conversations. Although research
showed that there is limited data on the outcomes of UD in higher education, outcomes existed
and while antidotal to some, the stories and perceptions of the positive outcomes for students
were unanimous. Participants saw that UD impacted students with disabilities in their
classrooms but also impacted all students in positive ways. UD was not only an approach for
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
98
students with disabilities, as what worked for these students also showed impacts among their
non-disabled peers. The alterations and practices of UD were, therefore, not seen as merely tools
for those with a disability, but for all students. The outcomes beyond a positive impact for
students were apparent in areas such as student engagement and learning, student grade point
averages (GPA), and their persistence, and retention to graduation. Throughout these themes in
student outcomes, it became clear to the faculty who implemented UD that students liked it and
their efforts seemed fruitful and successful as a result. Based on the faculty participants’
experiences and data analysis, the following sub themes emerged throughout the successful
outcomes of UD in higher education: (a) Impacting Students with Disabilities, (b) Universal
Impact Beyond Students with Disabilities, and (c) Broader Student Success Outcomes.
Impacting Students with Disabilities
While UD was seen as good for students with disabilities, it was the ability to provide
support in the classroom, beyond accommodations, that allowed faculty to see students as the
benefactor of UD and impacted on the outcomes of students with disabilities. As Pamela
summarized, “I appreciated the identification of students in need of extra care and getting to
know the students more regarding their limitations and strength which continues to shift the
perceptions of UDL.” Pamela identified the continuity of service delivery beyond the disability
support office and in the classroom as well involving the faculty, their curriculum, and
instructional pedagogy including UD in a way to offer support and a connection to students with
disabilities. Gina further explained:
Those with disabilities have been pretty open and feel like this is an environment where
they can seek support and this classroom is an environment that is going to be supportive.
Higher education is such a difficult transition for students with disabilities to now have to
self-advocate, which requires a lot of executive skills. And so anything that can sort of
help on the other end, I think, makes everybody really think differently in their ability to
persist.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
99
The opportunity that UD allows students with disability in the classroom was shared
among all participants. Barry felt that it not only empowered the faculty in their ability to teach
but also empowered the students to learn. For students, who throughout the course of his class
were identified as learning disabled, they were grateful for the environment and support within
the class that helped them understand that they did learn differently and as the student identified,
there was nothing wrong with them and there were accommodations that could be made. Barry
summarized his thoughts and those of other participants as he noted:
Especially for students with learning disabilities, I think that that’s (UD) one of the
biggest things a professor can do, that empowerment to insuring that they become the
architects of their students’ success, of their own success. They become the architect of
the type of achievement that they are striving for. We don’t always know what they are
striving for because we can’t see into their minds and usually the responses that they give
us or that I’ve received, is not the complete picture. It’s the answer to the question in the
moment. The student trajectory can evolve over time and because of that our pedagogy
should be able to evolve over time to meet their unique needs.
The greatest impact for students with disabilities was a sense of support, but that support clearly
reached beyond disability, as all faculty participants concluded; UD impact reached to all
students, as what was good for those with difference and disabilities was also good for all
students. After all, the elements and impacts of UD in higher education were universal.
Faculty participants underscored the research (Vreeburg-Izzo et al., 2008) as they
indicated that the diversity in higher education continues to shift inclusive of students with
disabilities and faculty understood that they needed to continue to be flexible in their instruction
to meet these students’ needs. Participants agreed that the efforts of UD allowed for a learning
environment that supported the learning and needs of students with disabilities and empowered
students to connect to the curriculum in new and unique ways. It was less about accommodating
the student and became more about connecting the student to the material and the learning
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
100
environment. Which further allowed them to be a “student,” removing the stigma of being a
“disabled student” along the way.
Universal Impact Beyond Student with Disabilities
The key identification that came from all faculty participants was that Universal Design
was universal. Although it aimed at meeting the needs of students with disabilities, it was good
for all students as the impacts were universal in their reach. Pamela expressed, “Every time I
meet a new student with or without learning difficulties and or limitations I am constantly
thinking of creative opportunities. UDL benefits all learners and is good pedagogical sense.”
Gina agreed as she exclaimed, “I think it’s just a fantastic framework to think about what you’re
doing in a course with or without regard to disability, this is how you teach your course, I don’t
care what kind of course it is.” Rosie found that UD allowed students to really access their
learning. She explained:
I really try to focus in on the part of how do you use those (UD) principles to allow
students to really demonstrate what they know. And I think it’s great for essentially
culturally responsive teaching. You have got to have different ways to give access for all
kinds of kids and that’s a great way to do it. You can design a weapon (in teaching) that
is really, especially gonna help the kids who struggle, but it is also gonna help the kid
who is middle of the road or even the achiever.
Both Barry and Barbra spoke to how UD allows them to reach different types of learners. As
Barry identified:
And if I can reach them as well, those students who think they’re the standard learner,
they are gonna do fine, but I also find that they have a little bit of a disadvantage with
reading or at analytical skills. I think this is the best thing a professor can do to ensure
we address those concerns. And while I won’t say they are concerns because most
students don’t know that their concerns are even a problem. But as professors, we can
capture and address those concerns before it ever turns into a problem through UDL.
For Barbra it became about reaching the more non-traditional learner, ESL student, or adult
student, or those who need to miss a class from time to time. Barbra noted:
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
101
I was printing out all my PowerPoints with speaker notes in Notebooks and keeping them
in the library or my office in case there was a failure in equipment. And I had a student
from Pakistan who was English as a Second Language. And he would come into my
office after each class and read the notebook. And I thought oh gosh, I hadn’t thought
about the English as Second Language speakers. You know, having studied the
languages, I know that it’s usually easier to read it than to hear it. So I started putting the
notebooks on reserve in the library so it is actually useful for everyone. Or for students
who miss a lecture because of a sick child or job interview or something, they too could
just go to the library and read the lecture, and also see the visuals, because it is all printed
out in the notebook in the library; instead of relying on another person in class to share
notes.
Utilizing these concepts, applications, and implementations of Universal Design created
outcomes and impacted all students in the classroom. While initially intended for students with
disabilities, these concepts and principles are universal and as a result have an impact beyond
just students with disabilities. The faculty participants unanimously supported these aspects and
saw the outcomes of student learning and engagement, GPA, and persistence to graduation
impacting all students universally.
Faculty identified key indicators that addressed richer student learning and engagement
as a result of UD outcomes, which are good for all students. Approaches utilized in UD reach
further than merely accommodations but shifting the learning to allow creativity, technology, and
innovation that connects with students in today’s higher education climate (Pisha & Coyne,
2001; Rose & Myer, 2002). These methods created engagement in the material and classroom
that enriched the learning process and access for all students (Rose, 2005).
Broader Student Success Outcomes
For faculty participants, the practices and impacts of UD on student outcomes were easy
to discuss. As they identified the key areas that impacted student outcomes in their courses,
several key themes emerged. At its simplest, students liked it and they saw positive attraction to
classes that utilized UD. The larger impacts to student-success outcomes included engagement
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
102
and self-responsibility on the students’ behalf, grade point averages or grades in the classes, and
persistence and retention to graduation. Participants spoke strongly to the impacts UD had on
students, their courses, and themselves as an overall positive connection was seen in the
outcomes resulting from implementation of UD in higher education. As students continue to
shift and their needs change as a result, UD allows for a flexible environment that allows choices
and multiple methods allowing students to connect to learning in new a different ways that did
not exist in teaching pedagogy before.
Students like it. Beyond grades and beyond evaluations, students talk to students as
Barbra identified, “students vote with their feet right now. They enroll in class which their peers
say are interesting and accessible . . . They will gravitate to the classes which are accessible to
them.” Students see the impact of UD and like it and like the methods, principles, opportunities,
and approaches. Pamela noted, “Students tell me it is working and you can see the outcomes in
their evaluations. I have received good feedback. I see the value of UDL in their grades,
individual disposition, and a comfort in the classroom.” Much like Barbra, Barry saw the
outcomes as a result in positive student enrollment after utilizing UD in his classes. Barry
explained:
That first semester my class sort of quadrupled or tripled, excuse me. It went from 39
students to 120 and it was interesting to see the implementation and use of the principle
of captions and see the response from the student when asked was that beneficial to you.
That for me was the greatest reward and it actually solidified the use of and my
conviction for using UDL principles.
The feedback received from students allowed the faculty to see their efforts were worth
it. Barbra stated, “I have great student-authored teaching evaluations. The students absolutely
love it. I have a waiting list for every class and I think the students get it completely . . . the
students just love this method of teaching.” Not only did faculty find that students like the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
103
methods of UD but they saw deeper outcomes in student learning and engagement in the classes
as well.
Students gravitate towards what they like and faculty who support their needs in new and
unique ways. Enrollment trends are tracked and followed now more than ever with new
matriculation funding and budgetary alignment with higher education accountability. Similar to
research (Rose et al., 2006), students were attracted to the level of interaction and support created
in classrooms implementing UD. Students liked the impact the changes had on the courses,
connected with the content differently which had a positive impact on their experiences as a
result (Yuval et al., 2004).
Student engagement and learning. All faculty participants saw a positive outcome in
engaging students and impacting their learning experience. There is no clearer reason than to
increase the opportunity for engagement as Barry summarized:
So all of this is not just for the person with a disability. It is to ensure consistent
engagement across the audience. But using those UDL principles can help them engage
the student to the point where even in a big class like mine, many of the students feel like
they have that one-on-one connection, that I’m teaching to them not at them.
Barbra identified that with her courses it helps bring to life the concepts and ideas further
engaging the students in the material. Technology and UD implementation adds to the
experience for students in her classroom, therefore impacting the outcome of their learning.
Barbra explained:
When you’re teaching something like Anthropology, one picture is worth a thousand
words. You need to take them there. I think it makes it more lively and engaging form
of education. I think UD helps in that because when you’re bringing in illustrations and
pictures and not just talking about it, with students it stick better.
Gina noticed the sticking point for students and engagement factor had improved student
progress in her course. As she identified, “I’ve noticed that there tends to be a point in the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
104
semester where the students start disappearing, stop engaging. And that has been pushed out at
least a few weeks. It still exists, unfortunately, but it’s been pushed out.” Rosie incorporates the
UD principles to give greater access and engagement to all students, as she stated:
So the students need to learn it and they probably learned it when they were in middle
school, but they don’t remember. So they needed ways to engage with the content and
then not just that, but how will they teach these concepts once they think they understand
it. So we provided them all different ways to engage with the content. The students who
are more engaged will definitely learn more . . . That’s one thing, I think, that well
designed lesson using UD really does help keep the student engaged. And the longer
they’re engaged, the better they’re going to be able to wrestle with difficult content.
Similar to Rosie’s belief in creating well-designed lessons, Gina felt her role as a faculty member
was critical in impacting the students’ experience. Gina stated, “Anything that makes a faculty
member think critical about what they are doing is going to improve things. It improves
persistence and engagement for all students and ideally would be a important part of the tool
kit.” UD principles created a means to reaching out and engaging more learners and made an
impact on the students and their experience in learning.
Beyond engagement, faculty participants spoke about the impact UD had on their
students’ learning experience and ability to take more self-responsibility in their learning. Rosie
expressed, “I definitely think students learn more and I’d even venture to say because of their
greater interest, more willing to even go beyond what would have been a minimal requirement.”
Barry noticed that his students were taking initiative and self-responsibility for learning, he
explained:
They can take the initiative upon themselves to actually do their work and make sure they
are doing it the right way. They can learn to take responsibility early on for that.
Sometimes I’ll have a student that isn’t learning disabled and they come up and to me a
lot and say thank you for the use of captions or thank you for the lecture capture. It really
helped me retain the information. That helped me take the initiative in my own mind and
that use of caption really helped me see what the native language looks like.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
105
Rosie identified her own research project in assessing student learning in the classroom with
students after just a few hours of instruction with UD, she stated:
We wanted to see if they changed the way they taught after having three hours of
instruction on universal design and we had them right up a lesson plan in the beginning of
the semester, the middle and then at the end. And it really did, not only help them, but
they were able to better incorporate Common Core standards. So we were excited about
that.
Barry was really excited about his work with captioning and Lecture Capture and truly
believed it put the power in the hands of the learner regardless of disability status. By giving the
students the right resources and tools, regardless of barriers or learning difference, they could
engage in the learning and he could watch them take initiative as a result of UD principles.
Barry stated, “Several comments I’ve gotten back from students that were learning disabled was
that it made them feel that they could learn without stigma, that there was nothing different
between them and sort of standard learning.” UD impacted the experience of students, their
initiative and self-responsibility, but also reduced the stigma and barriers without making
students feel different as they engaged in their learning.
UD engaged students in the learning and allowed them to connect through new ways
(Knight, 2002; Parker et al., 2008). Students were more responsible for their learning and
connected through multiple means of expression, representation, and engagement that matched
their style and choice in learning (Renzulli, 1992; Rose, 2005). Similar to research findings,
faculty identified it allowed students to stay engaged longer thus reducing the cognitive load in
their courses (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Students were coming to class, engaging with difficult
content, and staying connected longer as a result of their UD methods. Creating a positive
learning environment that allowed students the ability to engage, connect, and ignite their
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
106
learning created outcomes that impacted student learning beyond just grades or completion; it
created stronger students, committed learners, and engaged scholars.
Grade and grade point averages. Study participants noted that UD implementation had
positive outcomes on students’ progress in class, grades on exams, and overall students’ grade
point average. Pamela summarized, “They are getting good grades and I feel they have a real
appreciation for my approach. I have received emails from some students thanking me for my
efforts. Lots of anecdotal thanks and outcomes in improved grades.” Gina was hopeful that
there was a connection between UD and GPA as she noted, “I would hope it would go up, GPAs,
for sure, give students more opportunities to engage with the material.” Barry spoke about a
research study he had completed that looked specifically at UD and GPA impact. Barry
explained:
One study was in captions for all, one of the things that I’ve seen with my students is that
by using captions and these simple outlines and allowing them to double check their
notes against lecture with Lecture Capture, one of the things I noticed is a severe
turnaround in their grades. I’m not an easy professor, but watching them go from Cs, Ds,
and Fs, to being A, B, C students. And the biggest change is from the C students going
from a C to a B plus or B minus and from B students becoming hardcore solid As. I’ve
also seen complete 180 from my F group and that’s actually one of the groups I’m most
interested in now because those are the ones with the most severe reaction to UDL
principles it seems. I have seen over time where they go from failing, literally, and that’s
where captions for all comes in.
Barry saw a major shift in his students and the norms in his student success scores in
GPAs. Barry also identified the power grades held for his students who struggled and then
succeeded due to UD principles and practices he implemented. Barry offered extra credit in his
class to allow students to make up for their mistakes, not to inflate their grades, and he saw
students seize the opportunity to fix their mistakes and enable them to learn and engage with the
content. Similarly Pamela stated, “I noticed when students fail the midterm I offer a second
midterm to those who have had difficulty learning. We meet and review and study different
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
107
material and I see that they do better on the second midterm.” Rosie felt it was more than
engaging the students in the presentation through UD, but you also had to change the means in
which you assess them, she explained:
Here’s the thing with GPA. What if, like with our credential candidates, you’re really
good at presenting the content using principles and then engaging students, but then you
use the same old paper and pencil assessment, I’m not sure how much it would change
GPA. But, you know, if you are more thoughtful about what type of assessment, then I
do think it could affect GPA in a good way.
Barbra summarized the outcomes with GPA as she stated, “I think it raises GPA.
Obviously no one learns when they feel bad about themselves. And if they are frustrated
because they can’t access some of the material, they’re going to shut down.” However, as
Pamela asserted, “GPA outcomes could be difficult to assess, as it may only be implemented in
one class and not in all the students’ classes without university support or universal appeal across
departments.” Overall, the impact UD had on the outcomes of student grades and GPAs were
apparent among faculty participants.
Student outcomes of grades and grade point averages were important indicators of
measuring success of UD in higher education. While this study focused on the faculty
perceptions of student success, participants saw an impact of increased grades and grade point
averages as a result. Similar to research, (EnACT, 2012b; Higbee, 2009) faculty saw an impact
on students’ grades in their courses that utilized UD principles and practices. These impacted
both students with and without disabilities and identified that UD impacted all students and
significantly improved the educational outcomes for students with disabilities.
Completion and persistence to graduation. Beyond impacting the students’ grades,
participants found that UD had a positive impact on students’ persistence and course completion.
As Barbra shared:
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
108
Nobody drops my classes. They are too hard to get into. I actually require more work in
my classes than most teachers do. I require a lot more writing. And I grade more heavily
in terms of grammar and things than most teachers do. Lots of people have thought that
my classes were as popular as they are because they’re easy. But they’re not easy.
They’re very difficult. But the students hang in there because they love coming to class.
And part of that is because ever slide has a picture on it. It takes it beyond those four
walls with a blackboard.
Gina noticed a similar outcome with students not dropping her class. Gina noted, “I used
to have some number of students that would inevitably go to the first lab, panic, and drop out.
And that has been cut, like to zero, essentially since I implemented those changes (UD).” Rosie
felt that with difficult material UD was helpful; she explained:
I don’t know that we looked at persistence, but I do think with difficult content, definitely
they’ll wrestle with it a little more. If you can keep them engaged and interested, they’re
definitely more willing to work through material and rather than giving it short shift and
not caring about the material. So yeah, I would imagine it would assist with graduation
rates as well.
Barry made a strong connection to the efforts UD had made in his graduate level courses and the
impact it created on the graduation rates in his department. Barry stated:
Utilizing UDL in my graduate seminar, for a program that once would graduate one or
two students a year, we now have a 50% completion rate for the master’s thesis. And so
that’s something that has been, for me, that’s been a tremendous reward personally
because watching the students, you know, they’re not just finishing their MA degree,
they’re going on to PhD programs, like seriously. And so seeing that, for me, has just
been an incredible reward.
Gina agreed with other participants regarding the impacts UD has had on persistence, she
reported, “I think it has been really good. Going to the universal piece, I think it’s improved sort
of persistence and engagement for the majority of the students, those with disabilities, or not.”
An unexpected outcome for Barbra was the impact her classes had on the students and their
chosen major. Barbra shared, “I have one of the best records in our department for people
changing their majors because of my class. After taking my class they change their major to
Anthropology. So I would say that’s a pretty good, retention outcome.” Whether it was an
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
109
impact on course completion, retention, or persistence to graduation, faculty shared their
experiences, outcomes and the impacts UD had made on student outcomes.
Although research was limited on how UD impacted persistence or completion, similar to
Rose et al.’s (2006) increased course completion had an impact on courses designed with UD.
Classes and curriculum had not become easier by any means but multiple means of engagement
in the materials, choices in the options, and accessible material allowed students to persist in
positive ways. Faculty members noted their practices held a positive impact on students and
course drop rates decreased throughout the semester. Faculty participants identified an impact
on students’ experience, course outcomes, and completion rates as a positive indicator to the
ability for UD to make strong impacts to higher education. Unfortunately, research continues to
lack in these areas, institutions need to support faculty and institutional commitment, and more
UD practices are necessary for research to study and support empirically.
Summary: Outcomes of UD
Faculty shared their perceptions of the outcomes of implementation and how UD created
outcomes for students with disabilities but reached wider to all students. UD allowed an
opportunity for support and access for students with disabilities while granting access and
inclusion in the classroom and learning environment. But faculty shared how it was good for all
students as the principles of UD created successful outcomes for all types of learners with
potential for how it impacted all students and their learning as a result. Beyond students liking
the changes to the learning environment; students were engaged, responsible for their learning,
and UD created a meaningful impact on the students grades, GPAs, and completion of their
educational goals and persistence to graduation. Faculty spoke to the overall impact and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
110
outcomes created through UD and the effects seen on their students through their implementation
of UD in higher education.
Higher education is clearly ready for changes to the instruction impact and curriculum
advancement through faculty engagement in UD. This study points to the potential success UD
brings to higher education for student outcomes for both students with disabilities and without.
Creating these changes is worth the effort as faculty participants all spoke unanimously that the
impact needs to be wider and not simply in their classrooms. It needs to reach further into the
academic departments, college institutions, and across the nation to impact all students and bring
the mission and usage of UD out into standard practice. There is a value in UD and it had a
significant impact on faculty and their perceptions of student outcomes, but they cannot spread
UD usage alone, it needs a wider reach.
Conclusions
This chapter shared the results of this study based on the three research questions
identified. Through qualitative interviews, data were collected from five different faculty
members who participated in the EnABLE project and have implemented UD into their
curriculum. As a result of analysis and exploration of themes and data, three findings emerged
within each research question, which will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Five:
Discussion of Findings.
Throughout their discussions and stories, faculty remained positive regarding their UD,
their perceptions, experiences with implementation, and perceptions of student success as an
outcome. In most cases the faculty participants noted a desire for more usage and
implementation of UD and encouraged others to get on board and do it. As a result, three main
findings emerged: (a) Creating Faculty Buy-In, (b) A Need for Institutional Support, and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
111
(c) Potential for Success in Higher Education. Their perceptions of UD once they had learned
the concepts and implemented were unanimously positive and they all still utilize it in their
curriculum several years later. Faculty buy-in is required to get faculty to learn the concepts and
practices of UD and implement them in their own curriculum and courses. Without buy-in,
faculty are simply not going to make the necessary steps in implementing that will allow UD to
grow. Beyond faculty buy-in and motivation; wide-spread change requires institutional support.
As the challenges of implementation were noted, resources, time and effort are required and to
be truly successful institutions of higher education needs to seek these creative, innovative, and
technology equipped practices and support them and the faculty driven approach to
implementing them in higher education. Finally, the outcomes prove there is potential for
success in utilizing UD in higher education. As a result of this study, it can be linked to creating
better educational environments for students with and without disabilities, has impacts to grades
and GPAs, outcomes connected to persistence and completion, and with wide-spread
implementation will shift higher education and create a new pedagogy for faculty-developed
engagement for new ways of teaching and student learning.
Like much research has asserted, UD practice is good but it needs to be spread to have a
deeper impact and create access for all in higher education. As such, UD still needs further
support for wide-spread development and success. Chapter Five will provide deeper discussion
of these three key findings, look at limitations of the study, and identify implications for practice
and future research.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
112
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Universal Design aims to create accessible learning environments for all learners, while
providing opportunities for creativity amongst faculty members to connect and engage students’
through innovative ways (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Unfortunately, there remains little focus on UD
in higher education, which creates challenges for not only students with disabilities, but all
learners (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005). As the diversity in higher education
continues to change, including students with disabilities (Rose & Strangman, 2007), it falls on
the responsibility of faculty to change their pedagogy and teaching philosophy in order to create
real change in higher education through UD implementation (Pilner & Johnson, 2004). UD
effectively reduces barriers to education and creates inclusive learning environments, while
lowering educational cost when applied smart from the start versus requiring costly redesign and
making modifications and accommodations later (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Rose, 2001). This study
focused on the perceptions of faculty members regarding Universal Design, implementation of
UD in higher education, and the outcomes as a result. Using a qualitative design, interviews
were conducted of five faculty members who participated in the EnABLE project conducted
throughout the Big State University (BSU) system. Faculty represented several unique academic
departments across three different institutions and had a variety of years of teaching in higher
education before embarking as a participant in the EnABLE grant project. While this study did
not focus on the EnABLE project as a case study, faculty participants were sought from the
initial grant project participants to better understand their perceptions, experience implementing
UD, and their perceptions of the outcomes of UD. The three research questions that guided and
the design and practices of this study included:
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
113
1. What are faculty members’ perceptions of UD?
2. What are the experiences of faculty members implementing UD within their curriculum?
3. What are faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes based on UD
implementation in their courses?
As a result of this study, key findings emerged based on the experiences, stories, and data
gathered from faculty participants. As the literature noted, there is limited attention and research
that has focused on the effectiveness of UD in higher education (Roberts et al., 2011; Schelly et
al., 2011). Therefore, the findings of this study aimed to add to the empirical evidence and
support to the implementation and outcomes of UD in higher education by faculty members.
Summary of Findings
As a result of analysis on the qualitative data several themes emerged to share the stories,
experiences, and perceptions of faculty members utilizing UD in higher education. Related to
the research questions, three key findings emerged to respond to the areas of faculty perceptions,
experiences with implementations, and outcomes of UD in higher education. Finding One
addresses the need for faculty buy-in to further support faculty perceptions of UD and future
implementation. Finding Two asserts that for implementation to take place and have real
potential for success there is a strong need for institutional commitment and support surrounding
UD. Finally, Finding Three identifies that with the utilization of UD there is truly potential for
success in higher education. Throughout this study it became clear that faculty were behind and
supported UD. With the proper knowledge and training, paired with institutional support, real
success outcomes were achievable within higher education. These outcomes create impacts not
only for students with disabilities, but all students, faculty members implementing UD, and the
institutional goals and outcomes related to student success. But for true success of UD in higher
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
114
education it must start with faculty, be supported by the institution, and then allow the outcomes
to stand on their own to create real change throughout the system of higher education.
Finding One: Creating Faculty Buy-In
UD implementation has to start with the faculty members. With the proper introduction
and training, faculty in this study were positive and understood the necessity of utilizing UD in
higher education. Without the training and support, faculty will not see the importance of
implementation, will see the barriers versus the benefits, and likely see it as a waste of time
(Cook et al., 2009). However as this study identified, faculty agreed with the value and
outcomes of utilizing UD in higher education and saw it as a change agent and catalyst for a new
approach to teaching pedagogy in higher education.
UD offers a dynamic classroom experience and focuses on the students’ learning and
engagement; which is consistent with new methods in teaching with the flip classroom approach
and new advancements in technology and accessibility. Offering faculty members access and
support to new teaching strategies and pedagogy that aligns with current technology and student
engagement will provide the same outcomes in student learning as faculty participants shared.
But faculty need to be in at the ground floor and start of these practices, it needs to be a bottom-
up approach at the institution first in order to create faculty experts. Buy-in becomes a critical
component in implementing UD and changing the perceptions of faculty members across the
institution. They need to see the value, benefits, and understand the methods to make a change
in what they have always done. Similar to the EnABLE project, faculty learning communities,
partnerships, and networks are necessary to create the faculty buy-in, support, and training to
make UD implementation possible. As more efforts surround revitalization of faculty
development and professional development centers, UD needs to be part of the approach of
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
115
innovative teaching and new principles of good practice in higher education (Hatfield, 2003).
Faculty participants echoed this in their experiences as they became experts and valued partners
in the UD campaign for utilization campus-wide. Getting the faculty endorsement becomes
important as faculty supporting faculty is necessary for UD implementation and changing the
perceptions of UD for other faculty members and administrators. It needs to be a faculty driven
approach and then supported by the institution. Creating positive buy-in amongst faculty,
providing the right training and support throughout the initial implementation, and allowing a
network of ongoing support among faculty members can impact the UD presence in higher
education and support its further development system-wide (Gomez, 2015). As many faculty
participants shared, starting with a few steps is better than doing nothing at all and the
encouragement to grow the usage of UD in higher education despite the challenges and barriers
they experienced was unanimous.
As a result of examining faculty members’ perceptions of Universal Design, findings
pointed to an inherent value and appreciation of its approach and how it impacts the learning for
students with and without disabilities (Rose, 2005). Starting small and then embracing more UD
strategies and approaches can assist faculty in seeing how simple small changes can impact the
outcomes in their classroom and make their curriculum more accessible and inclusive to all
learners. Creating a network of experts and faculty who support the UD concepts will allow
more faculty members to see that others are getting behind these methods and encourage their
own development through UD in higher education. Without the faculty and proper networks of
support, UD could remain a good practice that is not being used (Gomez, 2015). Faculty
members have access to these methodologies and approaches but must apply them in order to
create change in teaching and learning pedagogy throughout higher education (McGuire et al.,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
116
2003; Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Therefore, it starts with faculty but requires the support of their
institution in order to be successful.
Finding Two: The Need for Institutional Support
Throughout higher education, implementation of UD remains limited. While there are no
clear indicators as to why, implementation has been largely limited to grant funded programs and
have encountered problems continuing UD implementation due to lack of funding and
institutional support (Zeff, 2007). However the strength of implementation of UD lies in its
research-based methods and connection to strong legislation, which should provide sustainability
for the use of UD in higher education due to accessibility and inclusive learning-environment
needs (Buckland Parker, 2015). Without a strong culture on campus focusing on creating and
supporting access for learning for all students, the connection to inclusive education, innovation,
and faculty-centered teaching methods would be lost. UD is not simply a tool for disabled
student providers, but creates a movement for faculty to teach and reach all learners; however,
getting behind the movement of learning for all would require more support and a campus
culture to encourage the on-going implementation of UD.
Therefore, as a result of understanding the experiences of faculty members implementing
UD within their curriculum, a key finding of a need for institutional support emerged in order to
implement, increase, and sustain UD within higher education. Based on previous research and
the results of this study, there is no longer an empirical need to question the implementation or
need for developing a new pedagogy of learning that supports all learners (Hatfield, 2003;
Lombardi et al., 2011; Pliner & Johnson, 2004; Zeff, 2007); however, creating institutional
support will become the next barrier to ensuring the success of UD in higher education (Silver et
al., 1998; McGuire et al., 2003; Buckland Parker, 2015). Several faculty participants spoke to
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
117
the barriers due to lack of time, the time it takes to implement UD, lack of resources, and general
support across campus including other faculty members and campus administrators. While it is
important to be a faculty-driven process implemented in the classroom, it requires the support of
the institution to reach beyond one or two classrooms to departments, divisions, and campus-
wide approaches. Implications for future practice will identify how some of these elements can
be successful; however, the campus and institution needs to support not only the mission of
creating a culture for addressing learning for all but the procedures and practices that make that
happen. Professional development opportunities need to be available beyond grant-based
programs and institutional funds beyond disability support services and accommodation needs to
be directed to teaching methods that are inclusive and innovative to meet these demands.
Creating faculty experts is one start, but developing that into partnerships across campus,
collaborations within disability services and faculty, and incentives for their usage would
encourage a campus support towards UD implementation that moves farther beyond a one-or-
two faculty-supported movement. Once the grass roots process of beginning implementation has
developed solid results through outcomes, campus support needs to be solidified to continue the
growth and implementation on a campus-wide effort. As faculty participants noted, wide-spread
impact could not be identified outside of their one or two courses when it is not a campus-wide
supported effort beyond their own classrooms. While they can be the expert, they need more
buy-in among faculty and support from the institution to see their efforts reach more students.
Long-term change and results in teaching that impacts student learning in the classroom can only
be effective through campus-wide culture and wide-spread change in the manner of instruction
(Silver et al., 1998). Despite the barriers discussed by the faculty participants of this study, all
members are still implementing UD, have taken on the responsibility of additional resources, and
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
118
spend the extra time regardless of institutional support to impact the students they teach. While
these faculty members felt they had some support, with proper support their efforts would be
appreciated, funded, and used as examples for other faculty to follow in creating real change in
the pedagogy of student learning and faculty teaching in higher education. Almost all the issues
addressed within the implementation of UD can be overcome with the right level of support and
resources funneled by campus towards the efforts of faculty development and institutional
commitment to the UD practice and procedures for ensuring successful implementation.
However, if faculty members are not encouraged or required to make change, then faculty will
simply do what they have always done and no change to higher education or student outcomes
will be seen. These changes take more than the support of a singular administrator, disabled
services professional, or faculty member; as big change and big results will need campus
commitment and involvement. Otherwise, these efforts will remain representative of a class, a
faculty member, or a simple movement that lacks support and ultimately goes nowhere.
Creating institutional support could be developed through the collaboration of experts,
disabled services creating resources for faculty members and not only services for students with
disabilities, but collaborations to find strategies for accommodating and meeting the learning of
all students through teaching and faculty support versus accommodations and disability support
(Buckland Parker, 2015). Creating groups and faculty learning communities has worked largely
in several UD grant-based structures and is a strong element for encouraging faculty
development through team based support and interdisciplinary experts (EnACT, 2012a;
Buckland Parker 2015; Higbee, 2009). Furthermore, this study provided the example of what
faculty did, why they did it, and why it was important. But it is up to institutions and the field of
higher education to make these reasons understood, to see through the initial barriers and excuses
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
119
and to see the long-term results and outcomes that can be impacted as a result of UD
implemented across campuses and institutions to create substantial change for the diverse needs
of tomorrow’s student. While it will need to start with the faculty member, it has to be supported
by the institution; otherwise wide-spread outcomes will never be seen and the potential for
success within higher education will never be realized.
Finding Three: Potential for Success in Higher Education
While empirical support for UD is still in demand, there is a foundation of previous
literature and research that points to effectiveness of UD and the potential outcomes of success
and need for further research examining outcomes of UD implementation (McGuire, 2011;
McGuire et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2011). Research has been positive supporting
implementation in small class efforts as well as large lecture style classroom, ensuring that the
outcomes are positive across different curriculum and class population sizes (Parker et al., 2008;
Rose et al., 2006; Buckland Parker, 2015). As a result of this study, faculty members were
supportive of a number of positive-outcome indicators regarding student learning, student
engagement, grades, and persistence.
Therefore, as result of examining faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes
based on UD implementation in their courses, a key finding emerged identifying that UD
implementation shows potential for success in higher education. With as much effort being
placed on student learning outcomes, student matriculation, and accountability among
institutions of higher education, real strategies that address these issues need to be advanced and
UD is one that has proven success and requires more wide-spread implementation to strengthen
the potential for success within higher education. This study found similar linkages to student
grades and engagement as previous research (Parker et al. 2008; Rose et al., 2006; Yuval et al.,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
120
2004). However, what this study provided was the story and experiences of faculty and what
they saw as potential success in creating a change to not only their classrooms but ultimately a
change to the pedagogy of higher education, student learning, and engagement. Changes in
grades and course pass rates were shared among faculty in this study as well as previous research
(McGuire et al., 2003; EnACT, 2012b; Higbee, 2009). While this study and McGuire et al.,
(2003) point to the impacts and success of UD in higher education, further implementation along
with research and documentation supporting implementation efforts must be done to widen the
impact of empirical base supporting outcomes of UD in higher education. UD is not merely a
fad or educational trial for short-term success, with more support and clearer linkages to outcome
data, UD can make a real impact on the efforts of faculty and outcomes of higher education. As
UD focuses on impacting the learning of all students, not only will these efforts impact students
with disabilities but all learners as a result. It becomes more than offering accommodations, but
offering a different and more inclusive learning environment that has successful outcomes linked
to engagement in the classroom, student persistence, grades, and ultimately their learning as a
result. Some faculty members called for a need for further implementation and noted that other
faculty members need to just do it, get behind UD, and try it in order to see the potential for
success for themselves and their students as an outcome of their implementation. The faculty
members from this study truly believed in the impact UD has had in their students, their classes,
and believed that it can be seen as a real solution to impacting change and results in higher
education. As higher education is calling for more accountability and results-driven practices,
UD answers several of the student success initiatives being supported in higher education and
further implementation may result in stronger outcomes for student learning, engagement, and
outcomes as a result.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
121
Real success can be seen as a result of this study and other research regarding UD in
higher education. There is nothing stronger than faculty members pushing and supporting other
faculty members to make changes in order to reap the benefits of their hard work and dedication
while creating inclusive learning practice; therefore, seeing how it can truly impact all student
learners and outcomes for the better. From there it will take university support to widen the
efforts to seeing a larger scale of support for success of UD throughout the institution. These
efforts will ultimately impact all systems of learning and education; including K-12, community
colleges, and four-year institutions, both public and private. As a result of this study,
participants made a strong call for action to their peers, their campus, and the system of higher
education to make a difference through implementing just one practice or change based on UD
and then grow their efforts to make larger changes overtime; it only takes one step in the right
direction as they embark on the journey of UD and implementation in higher education. The
potential for success of UD in higher education is truly only limited to the implementation and
support to faculty members and their UD practices.
Limitations
While this study aimed to add to the empirical basis for support to UD in higher
education, as with any study, some limitations should be noted. This study focused on a limited
sample across three institutions within the public system as Big State University (BSU) system.
While the total number of possible participants was less than 15, five participants agreed to
participate in this study. This created a small sample size and their perceptions could be slightly
skewed as they all agreed to participate and may have felt more positive about their experiences.
However, throughout their interviews and data collection the researcher did hear both positives
and negatives regarding UD implementations, perceptions, and outcomes so this limitation could
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
122
be minimal. Furthermore, while the data collection and research design did aim for duplication
and reliability, it would be necessary to see this study duplicated to see if similar outcomes and
experiences are shared amongst other participants and institutions. Although this study was
qualitative in design, it would be helpful to match quantitative data from class grades, surveys,
and student learning outcomes in connection to the qualitative data to give more data and validity
to the outcomes linked to UD in higher education. Lastly, the time since introduction to UD and
this study may have caused some participants to be less interested in the study or limited in their
recollection of the experiences they received as part of the EnABLE project, thus limiting their
responses to the interview questionnaire. However, the time away from the EnABLE project
also provided some interesting insight into faculty utilization of UD overtime, as after all the
years from introduction all participants were still implementing UD in their curriculum.
None of these limitations negatively affected the outcomes of this study but broader
sampling and participants, a mixed methodology of both qualitative and quantitative data, and
clearer connection to the amount of time since faculty introduction to UD may impact other
studies in the future. While it was designed to sample faculty who had completed the EnABLE
project, a broader study of faculty implementation of UD might address the limitations of
institutional support and faculty buy-in for implementing UD in higher education outside of a
purposeful faculty development community that participants opted into joining.
Implications for Practice
As a result of the findings of this study, several implications for practice should be
identified. While there are many ways institutions can develop practices to encourage UD
implementation among faculty in higher education, the following implication for practice
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
123
encourage the faculty development of experts in UD, creating partnerships, supporting resources,
and further the development of UD in higher education.
The following recommendations are:
1. Creating partnerships among disability service providers and faculty in understanding the
needs of students with disabilities, the different means of providing accommodations, and
support in creating more inclusive teaching methods through UD implementation.
Disability services needs to serve as the linkage to UD as well as a resource to faculty
members instead of simply being a service provider for students with disabilities.
Creating partnerships between faculty, students, and disability services can widen the
approach and support the inclusive efforts within the classroom and not merely the
requirement for accommodations through disability services (Mole, 2012).
2. Focusing on faculty development and allowing full-time faculty and part-time faculty to
engage in these efforts will revitalize their efforts to teaching differently and not doing it
as it always has been done. Proper training needs to be developed to introduce faculty to
UD principles, concepts, and practice. Then support to assist them during the
implementation, design, and re-design of the course will provide them with support to
take this beyond theory and into practice (Rodesiler & McGuire, 2015).
3. Creating faculty experts in the efforts of UD and then connecting these experts to a
network of allies will enable them to see that they know what they are doing and are
supported as a result of their efforts. The network of allies can be other faculty experts,
administrators supporting their efforts, disability service providers, or anyone else on
campus that supports the mission, implementation, and outcomes of UD. Without this
effort, faculty members will feel they are on their own, limited in their reach, and may
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
124
revert back to previous means of teaching and give up on UD as a whole. Support is
critical to the success of UD and getting the right players backing the team of UD
practitioners is crucial to creating support (Edyburn, 2010; Gomez, 2015; Mole, 2012).
4. Introducing faculty to a right set of resources will be important to creating faculty buy-in
and implementing UD. These resources can represent a number of different approaches:
step-by-step guides to implementation, web sites with examples of UD across different
curriculums, case studies of faculty experiences, links to the different UD theories and
approaches, as well as, research that supports them, and strategies for increasing funding
or support on college campuses. In some cases, resources like these have been identified
in previous research, however, a web site and campus resources supporting UD
implementation and accessibility features that come at a cost will benefit faculty
members and support their implementation process (Hope, 2016; Tobin, 2014).
5. Finally, encouraging faculty implementation, support of UD at the institutional level, and
creating research that supports and documents the outcomes and best practices will add to
the empirical base and provide further outcome data that links to the success of UD in
higher education. It is not enough to make changes and implement UD; as education
practitioners there is a need to evaluate, survey, study, and publish research that supports
their efforts to further advance the usage of UD in higher education (Edyburn, 2010;
McGuire et al., 2006; Rodesiler & McGuire, 2015).
Future Research
While this study aimed to add to the empirical research base on Universal Design in
higher education, more research continues to be necessary. As has been identified throughout
previous research, future research must continue to move beyond definitions and theories of UD
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
125
and focus on objective measures of student outcomes and outcomes of implementing UD in
higher education (McGuire et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2011). If this is to move past an
educational fad, then systematic and intentional efforts to validate and support the research base
on UD implementation and outcomes must be encouraged (Edyburn, 2010; McGuire et al., 2006;
Rodesiler & McGuire, 2015)
Therefore, as a result of this study, there are some key recommendations for future
research that would benefit the implementation and outcomes of UD in higher education. The
following are suggestions for future research:
1. Linking both qualitative data of faculty members’ perceptions of UD outcomes to
quantitative data on student learning outcomes, grades, and course evaluations on classes
that implemented UD. This could be comparatively analyzed with a control group of the
same course being taught without UD for deeper connections to the underling outcomes
of UD implementation and how it impacts student outcomes. Moving beyond the
perceived outcomes and towards hard facts will support the empirical research necessary
on UD outcomes in higher education.
2. Looking at students’ perceptions of UD in their classes may allow faculty to understand
what students really value as a result of their UD implementation. Several faculty spoke
of anecdotal evidence, but surveying the students in their classes regarding their learning,
motivation, engagement, and satisfaction based on UD principles may provide hard
evidence of what students’ value and get out of UD.
3. Widening the sample and extending this study to all participants in the Tier 1 and Tier 2
research partners that collaborated with the EnABLE project may assist to validate the
findings of this study and provide reliability of study across other EnABLE participants.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
126
Also, looking beyond the participants of the EnABLE project and looking at other faculty
partnerships that may have developed as a result of their expertise and bringing UD to the
campuses validate that UD implementation can be successful beyond intentional faculty
learning communities and support structures.
4. Research on institutional support and faculty development initiatives could provide data
on what campus and higher education institutions are doing to support UD
implementation through faculty support and help eliminate barriers and challenges such
as time, resources, and money. Identifying positive support systems in higher education
and how institutions are making UD an institutional priority could impact research as a
means of supporting further UD implementation across higher education.
5. Further research must be conducted on the outcomes of UD and how they impact the
field of higher education as a whole. Looking at the impact of UD on graduation rates,
student persistence, enrollment patterns, retention, and matriculation would allow UD to
move beyond just impacts on students in a classroom but the larger impacts to the
institution and system of higher education. Although it might be difficult to create
causation based on UD, looking at other potential outcomes of UD in higher education
will further support the impact UD has on an institution and not merely a class or a
student.
Conclusions
This study aimed to add to the research supporting the faculty perceptions of UD, their
implementation, and the outcomes of UD as a result of UD in higher education. While the field
of higher education is addressing the growing needs of diverse students, including those with
disabilities, UD is a framework that allows for inclusive teaching practices and learning
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
127
environments and has been seen as successful in engaging all students as a result. The findings
of this research addressed the need for faculty to buy into UD practices, institutions to support
the implementation and provide the necessary resource to further faculty efforts, and finally
provided data that indicates that UD creates a potential for success in higher education
addressing student learning, outcomes, and institutional goals. While this research is an attempt
to address the lacking research, it also informs the practice and need for further development and
research to continue to develop the support for UD in higher education. Universal Design, in all
its inceptions and styles, is not a fad strategy or flash-in-the-pan movement, with strong support
and backing dramatic changes can be seen impacting faculty teaching and support for students
with disabilities and learners from all different backgrounds. There is still much more that needs
to be done to develop, implement, and support UD but starting with faculty, support from the
institution, and a desire to create success in higher education is one method for advancing the
field of UD. If educators and faculty do nothing with this information, we are no further in our
efforts as a society and higher education system in addressing the changing climate and needs of
students due to disability, English language learners, or non-traditional students who merely
learn differently. Faculty have the power to make changes and create a dramatic impact on
student learning, institutions have the ability to support the faculty development, and as a result
change will be seen in the teaching pedagogy and learning throughout higher education while
bringing strong success outcomes effecting both students and institutional measures.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
128
REFERENCES
Belch, H. (2005). Retention and students with disabilitites. Journal of College Student Retention,
6(1), 3-22.
Best, J., & Kahn, J. (2003). Research in education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes for youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study. Exceptional Children, 62,
399-413.
Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport,
CT: Bergen & Garvey.
Buckland Parker, H. (2015). Learning starts with design: Using universal design for learning
(UDL) in higher education course redesign. In F. S. Miller, K. L. Sanzo, S. Myran, & A.
H. Normore (eds.) Transforming learning environments: Strategies to shape the next
generation. Published on-line March 10, 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.worldcat.org/title/transforming-learning-environments-strategies-to-shape-
the-next-generation/oclc/814512906
Burgsthaler, S. E. (2008). Universal design in instruction: From principles to practice. In S. E.
Burgsthaler, & R.C. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles
to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011a). Universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA:
CAST. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011b). Learn more about the UDL Guidelines
(version 2). Wakefield, MA: CAST. Retrieved from
http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina State University. http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/The-7-
Principles/
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Cook, L., Rumrill, P. D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). Priorities and understanding of faculty
members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 84-96.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers
and education professionals. Arlington, VA: Pearson.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
129
Creswell, J. C. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Foreword: Developing creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver,
M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative
curriculum (xviii-xx). London, New York, NY: Routledge.
Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D., & Casey, J. (2000). Individualized transition planning for
students with learning disabilities. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 60-72.
Education.com. (2012). Glossary of education: Academic accommodations. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/definition/academic-accommodations-disabilities/
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten
propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 33, 33-41.
Ensuring Access through Collaboration & Technology (EnACT). (2012a). Research briefs on
faculty outcomes: Impact of faculty learning community participation. EnACT, Sonoma
State University, Rohnert Park: CA. Retrieved from
http://enact.sonoma.edu/content.php?pid=218878&sid=2028832
Ensuring Access through Collaboration & Technology (EnACT). (2012b). Research brief:
Enhancing efficacy as an educator. EnACT, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park: CA.
Retrieved from http://enact.sonoma.edu/content.php?pid=218878&sid=2028831
Ensuring Access through Collaboration & Technology (EnACT). (2012c). Research briefs on
student outcomes: Impact of UDL practices on student achievement. EnACT, Sonoma
State University, Rohnert Park: CA. Retrieved from
http://enact.sonoma.edu/content.php?pid=218878&sid=2028831
Ensuring Access through Collaboration & Technology (EnACT). (2012d). Research briefs on
student outcomes: Importance of key aspects of UDL course design to students. EnACT,
Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park: CA. Retrieved from
http://enact.sonoma.edu/content.php?pid=218878&sid=2028831
Evans, N. (2008). Theoretical foundations of universal instructional design. In J. Higbee &
E. Groff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation:
Implementing universal design in higher education (11-23). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-327.
Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International
Publishing.
Gomez, C. (2015). Make universal design a campus wide priority. Disability Compliance for
Higher Education, 20(8), 1-7.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
130
Harrison, S. (2003). Creating successful learning environments for postsecondary students with
learning disabilities: Policy and Practice. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
33(2), 131-145.
Hatfield, J. P. (2003). Perceptions of universal (instructional) design: A qualitative examination.
In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal
design in higher education (pp. 41-57). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Hehir, T. (2003). Beyond inclusion. School Administrator, 60(3), 36-39.
Heiman, T., & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education:
Academic strategies profile. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 248-258.
Higbee, J. L. (2009). Implementing universal instructional design in postsecondary courses and
curricula. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(8), 65-77.
Hope, J. (2016). Online resources provides training tool for implementing universal design.
Disability Compliance in Higher Education, 21, 9.
Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbitt, L. (1999). Students with disabilities in post-secondary
education: A profile of preparation, participation and outcomes. NCES 1999-187.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Johnson, D., & Fox, J. (2003). Creating curb cuts in the classroom: Adapting universal design
principles to education. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability:
Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 7-22). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Concepts of creativity in higher education.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209-217.
Knight, P. (2002). Design for creativity: A curriculum guide. Learning and Teaching Support
Network Imaginative Curriculum Project, Retrieved from
http://complexworld.pbworks.com/w/page/16266218/Creativity
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lombardi, A. R., & Murray, C. (2011). Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability:
Willingness to accommodate and adopt universal design principles. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 34, 43-56.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction:
Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 4, 250-261.
Madaus, J. W. (2005). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for students with learning
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 32-37.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
131
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McGuire, J. M. (2011). Inclusive college teaching: Universal design for instruction and diverse
learners. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 1(1), 38-53.
doi:10.17411/jacces.v1i1.80
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The
paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11-21.
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal design and its application in
educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational
Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.
Mino, J. J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a
learner-centered community college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37,
1540-160.
Mole, H. (2012). A US model for inclusion of disabled students in higher education: The social
model of disability and universal design. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning,
14(3), 62-86.
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2003). A national leadership summit
on improving results for youth: State priorities and needs for assistance. Retrieved from
http://www.ncset.org/summit03/NCSETSummit03findings.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.
postsecondary education institutes: 2003-2004. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006184
Office for the Protection of Research Studies. (2012). Informed consent human subjects
research. Office for the Protections of Research Subjects (OPRS), University of Southern
California. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/admin/oprs/private/docs/oprs/brochures/IFC_Booklet.pdf
Open Learning and Educational Support. (2004). Universal instructional design principles at the
University of Guelph. Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph. Retrieved from
http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/uid/uidprinciples.cfm
Orr, A. C., & Hammig, S. B. (2009). Inclusive postsecondary strategies for teaching students
with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32,
181-196.
Ortiz, A. (2003). The ethnographic interview. In K. Stage, & K. Manning, (Eds.), Research in
the college context: Approaches and methods (p. 35-48). New York, NY: Brunner-
Routledge.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
132
Ouellett, M. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 37(2), 135-144.
Parker, D. R., Robinson, L. E., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). “Blending” technology and effective
pedagogy in a course for perspective teachers. Journal of Computing and Teacher
Education, 24(2), 61-66.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for
learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of
universal instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37,
105-113.
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions (NCES 2011–018). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative production through the
pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 170-182.
Rieber, L. P. (2001, December). Designing learning environments that excite serious play. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Society for Computer Learning in
Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Melbourne, Australia.
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in
postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirical based articles. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5-15.
Rodesiler, C. A., & McGuire, J. M. (2015). Ideas in practice: Professional development to
promote universal design for instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(2), 24-
31.
Rose, D. H. (2001). Universal design for learning: Associate editor’s column. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 16(4), 64-67.
Rose, D. H. (2005). Cognition and learning: Meeting the challenge of individual differences.
ACM SIG ACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 83, 30-36.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 15(1), 67-70.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
133
Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of
individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 5(4), 381-391.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal
design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections of principles and their
application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135-151.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible
curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Schelly, C. L., Davies, P. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2011). Student perceptions of faculty
implementation of universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 24(1), 17-30.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A
framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs
in the college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(1), 40-49.
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher
education: An approach to inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47-51.
Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2009). College students with learning disabilities diagnosed: Who
are they and how do they perform? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(6), 494-510.
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects
of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and
Special Education, 28(2), 108-116.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with universal design for learning. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13-24.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, &
E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (99-108). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Weigel, M., James, C., & Gardner, H. (2009). Learning: Peering backwards and looking forward
in the digital era. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 1-18.
Woodhull, Steven D. (1999). Welcome to the quote garden! Quotations about college, No. 17.
Retrieved from http://www.quotegarden.com/college.html
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
134
Yuval, L., Procter, E., Korabik, K., & Palmer, J. (2004). Evaluation report on the universal
instructional design project at the University of Guelph. Retrieved from
http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/uid/UIDsummaryfinalrep.pdf
Vreeburg-Izzo, M., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on universal design
for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60-72.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education,
137(1), 27-44.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
135
APPENDIX A
Principles of Good Practice and Universal Design
DIXES
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
136
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
137
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
138
APPENDIX B
Pre-Interview Questionnaire
Faculty Perceptions, Experiences, and Outcomes Implementing
Universal Design in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
139
Name:
College Institution:
1. How long have you been teaching?
2. What area of study do you teach in? (English, Math, Communication, etc)
3. When did you participate in training on Universal Design with EnABLE?
4. Are you currently utilizing Universal Design in your classroom?
5. Did you receive the support of other faculty members in implementing Universal Design?
6. Did you receive the support of your department in implementing Universal Design?
7. Did you receive the support of your institution in implementing Universal Design?
8. Do you currently receive support in implementing Universal Design?
a. If yes, how?
9. On a scale of 1-5 how familiar where you with Universal Design before participating
with EnABLE?
1 – Not at all familiar 2 – Slightly familiar 3 – Somewhat familiar
4 - Moderately familiar 5 - Extremely familiar
10. On a scale of 1-5 how much influence did your participation with EnABLE have on your
utilization of Universal Design?
1 – Not all influential 2 – Slightly influential 3 – Somewhat influential
4 – Very influential 5 – Extremely influential
11. On a scale of 1 to 5 how much do you utilize Universal Design in your instruction?
1 – Never Use 2 – Almost never 3 – Occasionally/Sometimes
4 – Almost all the time 5 – Frequently use
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
140
12. On a scale of 1 to 5 what do you perceive to be the level of awareness of Universal
Design at your institution?
1 – Not at all aware 2 – Slightly aware 3 – Somewhat aware
4 – Moderately aware 5 – Extremely aware
13. If necessary may I contact you after the interview for follow up questions or data
checking?
If yes, please provide your preferred method of contact &contact information
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
141
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
142
1. When and how were you first introduced to the concepts and principles of Universal
Design?
2. What were your initial thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of Universal Design?
a. What impacted your initial thoughts of Universal Design?
3. After participating with the EnABLE project, what were your thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions of Universal Design?
a. Did your perceptions changes as a result of the EnABLE project and
implementation of Universal Design? Why or why not?
b. After years of implementing Universal Design within your classrooms do your
perceptions continue to change? How and why or why not?
4. What affect, if any did, your campus’s institutional climate impact the process of
implementing Universal Design within your curriculum?
5. How long did it take to implement Universal Design in your curriculum?
a. How much training and/or support did you have in the process?
b. Over time did the implementation become easier or more difficult? Why and
how?
6. What, if any, where the barriers that impacted your implementation of Universal Design
in your curriculum?
a. Time, money, support, training…
7. Can you provide me with some examples of how you implemented Universal Design and
it’s principles within your curriculum?
8. From your own perspective, what have been them outcomes, if any, of implementing
Universal Design on your class?
a. On your students?
b. For yourself?
c. For other faculty within and outside of your department?
d. For students with disabilities?
9. What do you see as the outcomes of Universal Design being implemented in higher
education?
10. What connections, if any, do you feel Universal Design has on impacting:
a. GPA?
b. Student Learning Outcomes?
c. Retention/Persistence Rates?
d. Graduation Rates?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
143
11. What would you tell other faculty members about utilizing Universal Design in their
curriculum?
a. Positive?
b. Negatives
c. Values?
12. How, if at all, do you see Universal Design impacting higher education in today’s tough
educational climate?
13. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your perceptions of
Universal Design and it’s implementation and outcomes?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
144
APPENDIX D
Research Questions and Protocol Grid
Research Question/Interview Protocol Correlation Grid
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
145
Research Question #1
What are faculty members’ perceptions of Universal Design?
Pre-Interview Questions
• On a scale of 1-5 how familiar where you with Universal Design before
participating with EnABLE?
• On a scale of 1-5 how much influence did your participation with EnABLE
have on your utilization of Universal Design?
• On a scale of 1 to 5 what do you perceive to be the level of awareness of
Universal Design at your institution?
Interview Questions
• When and how were you first introduced to the concepts and principles of
Universal Design?
• What were your initial thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of Universal
Design?
o What impacted your initial thoughts of Universal Design?
• After participating with the EnABLE project, what were your thoughts,
feelings, and perceptions of Universal Design?
o Did your perceptions changes as a result of the EnABLE project and
implementation of Universal Design? Please describe?
o After years of implementing Universal Design within your
classrooms do your perceptions continue to change? How and why
or why not?
• Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your
perceptions of Universal Design and it’s implementation and outcomes?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
146
Research Question #2
What are the experiences of faculty members implementing Universal
Design within their curriculum?
Pre-Interview Questions
• Are you currently utilizing Universal Design in your classroom?
• Did you receive the support of other faculty members in implementing
Universal Design?
• Did you receive the support of your department in implementing Universal
Design?
• Did you receive the support of your institution in implementing Universal
Design?
• Do you currently receive support in implementing Universal Design?
o If yes, how?
• On a scale of 1 to 5 how much do you utilize Universal Design in your
instruction?
Interview Questions
• What effect, if any, did your campus’s institutional climate have on the
process of implementing Universal Design within your curriculum?
• How long did it take to implement Universal Design in your curriculum?
o How much training and/or support did you have in the process?
o Over time did the implementation become easier or more difficult?
Please describe?
• What, if any, were the barriers that impacted your implementation of
Universal Design in your curriculum?
o Time, money, support, training…
• Can you provide me with some examples of how you implemented
Universal Design and it’s principles within your curriculum?
• What would you tell other faculty members about utilizing Universal
Design in their curriculum?
o Positive?
o Negatives?
o Values?
• Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your
perceptions of Universal Design and it’s implementation and outcomes?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
147
Research Question #3
What are faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes based on
Universal Design implementation in their courses?
Interview Questions
• From your own perspective, what have been the outcomes, if any, of
implementing Universal Design on your class?
o On your students?
o For yourself?
o For other faculty within and outside of your department?
o For students with disabilities?
• What do you see as potential outcomes of Universal Design being
implemented in higher education?
• What connections, if any, do you feel Universal Design has had on
impacting:
o GPA?
o Student Learning Outcomes?
o Retention/Persistence Rates?
o Graduation Rates?
• What would you tell other faculty members about utilizing Universal
Design in their curriculum?
o Positive?
o Negatives?
o Values?
• How, if at all, do you see Universal Design impacting higher education in
today’s educational climate?
• Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your
perceptions of Universal Design and it’s implementation and outcomes?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION 148
APPENDIX E
Informed Consent Form
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
149
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Faculty Perceptions, Experiences, and Outcomes Implementing
Universal Design in Higher Education
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Chad M. Bowman, a doctoral
candidate in the Rossier School of Education and Dr. Patricia Tobey, Clinical Associate
Professor of Education at the University of Southern California, because you were or currently
are a faculty member who has participated in the EnABLE Project Grant at Pacific State
University. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please
take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss
participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign
this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine Universal Design (UD) in relationship to faculty
perceptions, implementation, and outcomes in postsecondary education. Creating accessible
learning environments for all learners positively respond to the need to be innovative and
creative while reaching the unique needs of students throughout the educational setting.
Therefore, this study aims to capture the experience and perceptions of faculty members who
have implemented UD in their courses, as a result of their participation in the EnABLE grant
project, to understand the implementation process and outcomes UD has had on their students
and themselves.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following things: 1)
Agree to meet or arrange a phone/SKYPE call with the researcher for an approximately 1 hour
interview that also includes filling out a demographic questionnaire. The interview will be
conducted at a mutually agreed location that is convenient and safe for you; 2) Reserve the time
and date for the interview with the researcher; 3) Agree or not to have the interview taped. While
I prefer having the interview taped, I will take handwritten notes if you want to participate but do
not want to be audio taped; and 4) Agree or not to review the interview transcripts for accuracy.
Interview questions shall consist of open-ended questions to examine your perceptions,
experiences, implementation, and the outcomes of Universal Design in your classroom and
curriculum.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
150
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
While the researcher does not foresee any potential risks to your involvement in this study, as
with any research low-level risks and discomforts may exist. The possible risks to you are that
you will have to recall your experiences as a faculty member who participated in the EnABLE
grant and your perceptions and experiences of implementing Universal Design as a result of your
involvement. Some of these experiences may involve difficult situations or experiences however
the risk and discomforts of remembering these and discussing them for the purposes of the
research are minimal if any. To minimize the risks indicated above, you have the right to decline
to respond to any questions and may stop your participation in the study at any time. The
researcher will make sure that interviews are conducted in a quiet and private location to
maintain your confidentiality and comfort. In addition, participants will be given a pseudonym
from the beginning of the study so that only the researcher will have information that links you
to the study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the research study. However, the potential
benefits to higher education are tremendous. Understanding the perceptions of faculty regarding
the barriers, experiences, and implementation of UD is necessary to continue to validate the
practices of Universal Design in postsecondary institutions and your experience can help others
in enhancing education for other post secondary students. The findings will contribute to the
literature on Universal Design in higher education leadership and can potentially be used to
improve education for students with and without disabilities in the future.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The demographic questionnaire will be locked in a file cabinet in the researcher’s home and only
the researcher will have access to it. The recordings from the interviews will be transcribed by a
transcription professional. A confidential agreement between the researcher and professional will
be signed before releasing the audio files. Once the transcripts from your interview are
completed, you have the right to request a copy to review or edit the information you provided
during the interview. The only individuals with access to your interview transcripts are the
transcriptionist, yourself, and the researcher. The original audio files and final transcripts will be
kept for three years after completion of the study. Thereafter, the files and documents will be
destroyed.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
151
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Chad Bowman
Principal Investigator
chadmbowman@gmail.com
949-370-1813
Golden West College
Disabled Student Programs & Services
15744 Goldenwest Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Dr. Patricia Tobey
Faculty Sponsor
tobey@usc.edu
213-740-0776
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
152
AUDIO-RECORDED
□ I agree to be audio-recorded
□ I do not want to be audio-recorded
Name of Participant
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
153
APPENDIX F
Informational Letter
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
154
Dear [Name],
My name is Chad M. Bowman, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education
at University of Southern California. My dissertation advisor is Dr. Patricia Tobey. I am
conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on Universal Design (UD) in
relationship to faculty perceptions, implementation, and outcomes in postsecondary education.
As a faculty member who has participated in the EnABLE Project Grant at Pacific State
University, you are invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you are invited to participate
in an interview with open-ended questions aimed to examine your perceptions, experiences,
implementation, and the outcomes of Universal Design in your classroom and curriculum.
The interview is anticipated to take no more than 60 minutes to complete, and with your
permission would be digitally recorded to capture you responses. While I prefer having the
interview taped, I will take handwritten notes if you want to participate but do not want to be
audio taped.
It is important to know that this letter is not to tell you to join this study. It is your decision.
Your participation is voluntary. Whether or not you participate in this study will have no effect
on your relationship with Pacific State University or the EnABLE Grant Project as a faculty
participant. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during and after
the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please e-mail me at cmbowman@usc.edu or
call me at 949-370-1813.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Chad Bowman
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study captured the experience and perceptions of faculty members who have implemented Universal Design (UD) in their courses, to understand the implementation process and outcomes UD had on their students and themselves
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty
PDF
Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education
PDF
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
PDF
Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging
PDF
Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation
PDF
Democracy, diplomacy, and higher education: war college institutional effectivenss in promoting democracy and human rights to international military officers
PDF
The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study
PDF
Students with disabilities experience in higher education online courses: an exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile media
PDF
Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency
PDF
Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university
PDF
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
PDF
The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning
PDF
Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom
PDF
First year experiences contributing to foster youth higher education attainment
PDF
Instruction informed by social cognitive theory: implementation with differently abled students
PDF
The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bowman, Chad
(author)
Core Title
Faculty perceptions, experiences, and outcomes implementing universal design in higher education
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/22/2016
Defense Date
01/19/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
creativity,faculty,Higher education,innovation,Learning and Instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,student outcomes,students with disabilities,universal design
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Schafrik, Janice (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chadmbowman@gmail.com,cmbowman@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-212090
Unique identifier
UC11279090
Identifier
etd-BowmanChad-4133.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-212090 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BowmanChad-4133.pdf
Dmrecord
212090
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Bowman, Chad
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
creativity
faculty
innovation
student outcomes
students with disabilities
universal design