Voices From the Field

Abstract

There is increasing pressure on universities in the United States to meet the needs of diverse learners. This fact increases the urgency for implementation and scaling up of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in higher education. This qualitative study draws two major insights from interviews with six faculty members from universities and colleges around the United States who have experienced a degree of success (personal to institutional) in implementing UDL. First, successful implementation and scaling up of UDL initiatives often occur when UDL is presented in response to a clear problem, issue, or inquiry rather than more direct approaches. Second, I articulate an emerging conceptualization of “levels” of implementation and apparent aspects that enable an institution or group to move from lower to higher tiers.

Keywords

higher education Universal Design for Learning implementation universal design for learning scaling-up

Public school classrooms in the United States have become increasingly diverse, and there is a persistent call to actively and intentionally prepare preservice teachers to meet the challenges that come with teaching heterogeneous student groups (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Jung, 2007; Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010). This growth in diversity stems from social and attitudinal changes in the United States that have evolved since the mid-20th century and corresponding legal and policy developments.

As more diverse students attend schools, it follows that more diverse classes are graduating and result in increasing diversity in higher education; likewise, this conclusion is somewhat supported by census data for university students. For example, census literature shows moderate gains in the representation of racially diverse students (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016; Zinshteyn, 2013). Raue and Lewis (2011) spoke of the broad presence of students with disabilities. Such inclusion of students with disabilities has even begun to include individuals with intellectual disabilities, a group traditionally excluded from college education (Moore & Schelling, 2015; Gilmore, Schuster, Zafft, & Hart 2001; Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010).

Despite the fact that diverse individuals, including those with disabilities, now have physical presence in the –12 and higher education general classroom, this physical access has not necessarily translated into access to learning (Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007; McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007; Rioux & Pinto, 2010; Rose, 2000). Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), five decades worth of educational research has shown persistent achievement gaps for diverse students, including those from racially, economically, or linguistically diverse backgrounds and those with disabilities. This achievement gap grows progressively year by year in schools (Darensbourg & Blake, 2013; Edyburn, 2010). Even for those individuals who graduate from high school and attend college, achievement tends to continue to be stunted, and attrition rates are persistently higher for minority groups compared to their majority group peers (AUTHORS, 2015; O’Keeffe, 2013; Streitwieser, 2014).

It has become clear that physical access to the classroom is not enough to ensure fair and equitable access to learning for diverse populations, providing access to materials in isolation is also a shortcoming. In 2007, this point was highlighted as a potential promise of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) at the first national UDL summit, “The promise of UDL… emphasizes the use of technology to improve learning rather than just access to physical environments (cf. universal design and assistive technology), so that the definition of flexible supports extends to cognitive, social, and intellectual supports in addition to physical and sensory ones” (Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2007). Questions remain regarding how this promise may be fulfilled, especially in the context of higher education. This research inquires into how UDL may be used to improve teaching and learning in higher education—particularly in teacher education.

UDL is broadly conceptualized as a framework intended to improve teaching and learning based on recent developments from cognitive, neurological, and learning sciences. CAST’s udlcenter.org (2014) states that the UDL framework draws from a set of principles for curriculum development that influence the development of instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments with the intention of providing enhanced equitability for diverse learners.

To these conceptual frames, the Higher Education Act of 2008 offered an official definition of UDL as

a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (A) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.” (HEOA, 2008)

UDL has been designed as a framework intended to include diverse learners and promote excellence in the teaching and learning process for all; in this way, it is a highly relevant framework to consider when addressing the issues associated with the noted achievement gap among diverse learners from elementary to postsecondary settings. Since 2008, UDL has been considered in several federal statutes or policy including the National Education Technology Plan of 2010 and 2016, the Education Technology Developer’s Guide. In 2015, UDL was again defined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) encouraging a focus on its importance in assessment (ESSA, 2015).

However, despite these federal definitions and UDL’s theoretical potential to address pressing issues, there is limited research regarding how preservice teachers are prepared to utilize UDL in their future classrooms (Arter & Ruthkosky, 2009; ; Israel, Ribuffo, & Smith 2014; Pearson, 2015) and far less regarding how UDL is—or can be—used to teach in higher education (AUTHORS, 2012; Courey, Tappe, Siker, & LePage, 2012; Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011; Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder, 2007), with limited work usually taking the form of position papers or calls for research (Gradel & Edson, 2009; Harper & DeWaters, 2008; Sopko, 2009). Vitelli’s (2015) appeal to researchers suggests that while the topic of UDL may be growing in teacher education programs, the depth and breadth of its understanding as a framework has room for growth.

Implementing UDL is not simple, intuitive, or reflective of the status quo (Edyburn, 2010). This particular combination of being complex, requiring learning, and being nontraditional makes implementing UDL a challenge. However, these challenges manifest differently in K–12 compared to higher education. Higher education settings, especially doctoral research universities, often prioritize quality teaching well behind the demands of scholarship (Kelsky, 2015). Further, universities and colleges are often strongholds of tradition. Making matters more challenging still, few faculty outside the college of education often have any formal learning in educational best practices beyond university professional development (Robinson & Hope, 2013). How, then, can UDL initiatives breakthrough these barriers to effect change? An articulation of why such limitations exist is beyond the scope of this article, though Edyburn (2010) and Rao, Ok, and Bryant (2014) address this topic. Given the paucity of published models of implementation and scaling up of UDL in institutions of higher education, this article examines those settings in which UDL has gained a degree of success and implantation in colleges and universities. Herein, we explore the question: What similarities and differences exist in UDL implementation practices around the country and how can this sample inform UDL implementation and research in higher education going forward?

Method

Participants

This article reports on highlights and thematic takeaways from interviews with faculty members in colleges of education in six different public and private colleges or universities around the United States. The participants represented faculty at both large public and private universities and smaller teacher’s colleges ranging geographically from Western states to the Eastern seaboard and from the Midwest to the Deep South. Participants included four male and two female faculty. Of the six, one was a full professor, one was an associate professor, three were assistant professors, and one was an adjunct professor. All six served in the colleges of education in their respective U.S. universities. Five of the six taught most of their classes in person while the last conducted most instruction in either a blended or fully online setting. Higher education teaching experience ranged across these participants from 4 to over 30 years (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participants.

Pseudonym	Gender	Title	Years in Higher Ed	Setting
Sondheim	M	Associate professor	15	Large Midwestern 4-year public university
Thompson	F	Assistant professor	9	Mid-sized Eastern 4-year public university
Jackson	F	Adjunct professor	30	Mid-sized Eastern 4-year private university
Anders	M	Assistant professor	4	Large Midwestern 4-year public university
Challa	M	Associate professor	11	Large Southern 4-year public university
Williaume	F	Assistant professor	4	Large Northwestern 4-year public university

To protect the anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms are herein employed. To collect these data, we utilized a semistructured interview to collect information from six faculty members who were chosen for their connection to the Universal Design for Learning-Implementation Research Network (UDL-IRN) for which this research was conducted, and additionally based on the recognition of the six’s roles in practicing and/or promoting UDL in their colleges or universities.

Procedures

Data collection

Each participant was invited to participate and then provide in advance an overview of the research proposal, a statement of informed consent, and a copy of the interview questions to be used to guide the interview (see Appendix A). Participants willing to join the research signed and returned the informed consent. To conduct the interview, each of the participants accepted the option to utilize the online program Zoom, a voice and video communication platform that allows for audio–video recording. Each conference was recorded with participant permission, and the recordings were transcribed for future analysis (Flick, 2014).

Data analysis

Once all interviews were complete and transcripts compiled, we followed the procedure for analyzing interviews suggested by Roulston (2014) by (1) reducing the data, (2) reorganizing the data, and (3) representing the data. In this case, data reduction meant carefully identifying and removing irrelevant small talk and side talk from the transcripts such that what remained was potentially relevant material for analysis.

Next, we reread the reduced transcripts a number of times, formulating thematic codes based on what was shared (Boyatzis, 1998). These themes were formed broadly at first and then parsed for more sensitivity. For example, quotes dealing with implementation of UDL were first broadly coded “implementation”; then, a secondary review of the implementation material enabled subcodes as “implementation barriers” and “implementation strategies” to emerge. We also organized the material by making note of places in which there was general agreement among participants or diverse/conflicting opinions. After completing this procedure for each transcript, we compiled all codes and reviewed each transcript again using all identified codes.

At this point, to represent the data, we drew upon those themes that were most pervasive among the different participants and which most closely aligned with the research foci of implementing and scaling up UDL in higher education. These themes represented the more universal experiences and thus were the most relevant for this study, which was intended to be inductive: using case studies to identify generalizable concepts. Themes present in all six cases were more likely to be broadly useful (compared, e.g., to concepts and themes that occurred only on one or two interviews, which may have had more to do with the local setting than the larger ideas of implementing and scaling up UDL).

Findings and Discussion

Each of the participants offered a rich description of his or her successes and challenges in implementing UDL in their respective colleges and universities. Some faced significant struggles to activate the impetus for UDL initiatives, while others gained substantial university support and colleague interest. The variation of experience was helpful for this investigation, as it provided a reasonably broad scope of perspectives and levels of development. In analysis, we were able to extract two major takeaways among several smaller, but noteworthy points of discussion. The major points that will frame our analysis are (Takeaway 1) the importance of finding something with which to get one’s “foot in the door” to begin UDL implementation (what one participant referred to metaphorically as a “Trojan Horse,” a metaphor we adopt herein), including some ideas as to some possibilities at different universities, and (Takeaway 2) a proposed model for UDL implementation “levels” in higher education referred to in Table 2.

Table 2.

Levels of UDL Implementation for Higher Education.

Levels	Brief Description
Level 0 (preimplementation)	Individual faculty (early adopters) or a small group of faculty learn about UDL, think about how it may be implemented in context, gather resources, and strategies. A plan is devised for gradual individual course revision according to the UDL framework. Administrative support may vary significantly.
Level 1 (initiated by an individual)	Individual application of UDL is evident in isolation or relative isolation. Rollout may be gradual within a single course or over the course of three semesters or more (Challa). Limited if any administrative support is available. No systematic outreach efforts. Administrative oversight is limited or absent.
Level 2 (facilitated through a professional learning community)	UDL implementation is narrowly addressed in the teacher education program or as a collaboration among different departments; a core group of UDL practitioners formulates to study and explore the practice. Administrative oversight may be beginning and some structures begin to form.
Level 3 (initiated by a college; e.g., the college of education)	Broader UDL implementation occurs throughout a college (usually beginning with the college of education), spearheaded by a core UDL committee and/or from offices of disability support services or faculty development. Some policy and procedural structures develop. Systematic outreach to faculty in the college begins through professional development opportunities, course, or lesson evaluation. Policy may be written (though without procedures and supports, policy alone is likely to be ineffective).
Level 4 (initiated at the university level)	University outreach on UDL implementation is evident beyond the initial implementing college, which is used as a model. The focus expands to UDL for learning across courses, departments, or schools. Structures and supports are developed. The core group expands and is supported by administrators who provide oversight, policy development, resources, and additionally, evaluate faculty using UDL framework elements.

Note. UDL = Universal Design for Learning.

Finding a Trojan Horse

The idea of finding a “Trojan horse” to serve as a catalyst for change was a major theme of the interviews. In this context, a “Trojan horse” for UDL implementation refers to a critical issue that incurs significant attention to which UDL may be brought in as a potential realistic solution. One participant, “Dr. Sondheim,” an associate professor at a large, 4-year, Midwest State University spoke most directly about this concept, so his comments are used to articulate and exemplify the idea. Sondheim said at one point,

Every time I have been successful at school wide K–12 implementation it has been, “Oh! We’re doing [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] and we want it to be successful for all learners; let’s do STEM and UDL” or “Oh hey! Let’s do Common Core and UDL” or “Let’s do blended learning and UDL!” So, every time I have been successful with implementation…it’s been like “We’re calling you to help us fix this situation” and one of the first things I bring up is UDL. There’s always a Trojan horse to it.”

Later, Sondheim noted that facing as potential “Trojan horses” to usher in the practice of UDL. For example, Sondheim noted the emergence of “uprising around equity and issues of equity and racial tensions.” Sondheim suggested that “If students had an uprising about ‘I want to be engaged in the way I am educated; I want to change and be prepared for the future and not prepared for what things were like ten years ago’…it would be a Trojan horse to get things going.”

Once this construct was identified, we were able to scan the others for the presence of “Trojan horses” in other successful implementations. It was clearly present. For example, there was evidence of the “Trojan horse” construct in the commentary of “Dr. Thompson,” an assistant professor at an Eastern seaboard teacher’s college where UDL is well implemented. She, too, spoke of the Trojan horse, though she used a different metaphor: “Not all departments are as interested as others in the scholarship of teaching, but many of them are here. So that was how we got people incentivized to start out. If you get their foot in the door, they are going to walk away with some sort of different thinking.” Thompson went on to speak of the launching of the UDL initiative in relationship to student attrition. She said,

[Our] Assistant Provost decided that we spend a lot of money on course redesign, but that really only benefits that one course. It would make more sense if we were really thinking about changing our teaching practices and trying to retain students. Because that’s really it. We are losing students because we aren’t able to meet their needs. There is so much learner variability.

Thus, there appeared to be two levels of “Trojan horses” for Thompson’s college: the administrative level was motivated by the pressing challenge of student attrition and the need for effective and economical solutions to address the root cause of this attrition. The faculty level was motivated by an intrinsic interest in the scholarship of teaching. This latter perspective could be framed in “problem” terms by suggesting that faculty were interested in overcoming the problem of student disinterest or lack of performance to individual potential. “Dr. Jackson,” an adjunct professor at a large private doctoral-level university also noted that pockets of faculty and staff “early adopters” expressed interest in education innovations (such as UDL) and in pursuing best practices of teaching and learning; she, similarly, was able to use this interest to encourage UDL implementation at her university.

For another participant, “Dr. Anders,” an assistant professor at a large Midwestern State university, the Trojan horse may have been a bit more blunt force in the form of lawsuits brought against the school for student impression of unmet accessibility needs. The clear and present pressure that such lawsuits bring to a university may be exactly the type of catalyst that opens ears to the discussion of accessibility and potential of UDL, which extends the discussion of accessibility from physical access to access to learning (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Anders also spoke of the centrality of “cost–benefit analysis” in implementing ideas in higher education. He suggests that “Maybe there’s a need for outside consultants to come in and do this sort of cost–benefit analysis to demonstrate how using UDL and proactive approaches could save the college money.” Finally, in relation to winning buy in from general education faculty, Anders commented on how “General education has been very much into differentiation…. And it’s opened a door for us to discuss what Universal Design for Learning is. [Differentiation] has been a nice opening conversation.”

In contrast to these stories, others such as “Dr. Williaume,” an assistant professor at a large Northwestern state university, did not speak directly of a Trojan horse and instead demonstrated how the absence of an opportunity for change may limit the scale of implementation. Williaume is currently demonstrating a lower degree of implementation than those aforementioned; for her, UDL instruction is limited to her own classes. For Williaume, independent utilization of UDL in her teaching practice has led to other faculty recognizing the quality of her teaching (“a member of my third-year review committee, after reading what I did [with UDL] nominated me for a teaching excellence award based on student feedback”). She hopes that the practices she embraces will expand to other faculty, but at the same time acknowledges that “higher education is a pretty isolating environment, and everyone is doing something and not necessarily knowing what the other person is doing.” Thus, while she spoke enthusiastically of the many wonderful ways she implements UDL in her classes with preservice teachers, the absence of a recognized Trojan horse that could be used to propel UDL to a higher level institutionally has perhaps been instrumental in keeping Williaume’s profound influence mostly localized to her own classes.

Reflection and commentary

The preceding section was included as one of two major focal points of this analysis because it appears that finding a Trojan horse and equipping someone to be a spokesperson who is able to connect UDL as a potential solution appears to be a highly effective method of ushering UDL into higher education settings. Our examination of the interviews reinforced this position, but it did not, however, establish what the “higher education Trojan horse” is. Rather, it revealed that it depends on a range of variables. For one, discussion of what caused the administration to buy-in seems to center on fiscal concepts (cost–benefit analysis, reducing student attrition, and preventing lawsuits). Buy-in for general education faculty seems to center, sensibly, on issues pertaining to inclusion in general education classrooms. Furthermore, buy in for faculty at large does not yet seem to have achieved significant success, except wherein there is intrinsic interest and which may be more common in teaching-centric colleges and universities rather than research-focused universities. Whatever the case, it seems clear that such an opportunity cannot be manufactured, but must rather be discovered by an attentive individual or group. Thus, we recommend that UDL scholars at colleges that do not have active UDL initiatives consider the important role they can play in effecting change to propel their college or university to the next level of UDL implementation.

There was some discussion of offering financial incentives to attend professional development discussion on implementing policy drivers (Sondheim; Challa). As Sondheim put it, “Could you count the number of courses that UDL is integrated into? Yeah. But would it be done for the right reason? No. I mean…if you just hit people over the head with something, is it really going to put out what you want to put out?” Probably not.

“Scaling-Up UDL” and Levels of Implementation

The concept of “scaling-up” UDL in levels is not a new idea. Discussion of scaling up from level to level is central to many UDL initiatives; in fact, the CAST (the founders of UDL) have released their own articulation of how UDL can be scaled up in a K–12 setting (Meo & Currie-Rubin, 2015). Elsewhere, CAST (n.d.) published an overview of four K–12 case studies of schools that had succeeded in scaling up UDL. Still others, like Katz (2014), have written whole texts on how UDL can be scaled up in K–12 context. However, less has been written regarding how implementation can be scaled up in the context of higher education, where the social, academic, and practical environment and structures may be substantially different from K–12.

In 2014, CAST revised their website targeting a range of best practices by UDL implementers, specifically in higher education (see www.UDLonCampus.cast.org). This website provides information for faculty wishing to get started with UDL, best practice models for course design, and a brief overview of scaled-up postsecondary programs that have UDL initiatives in place. In all, they list 22 colleges or universities that have some sort of initiative ranging from those like West Virginia University which “includes information on UDL with its resources for faculty to help in the development of online instructional materials, to more established programs like the California State University System UDL-universe”, which “provides comprehensive faculty development guidance for UDL course redesign. The site and its content were developed as part of the Ensuring Access through Collaboration and Technology Project, a multicampus faculty-focused UDL initiative,” that include videos showcasing selected UDL faculty talking about what UDL looks like in their classrooms. UDL on Campus is a rich resource, and it demonstrates several different conceptions of what it means to have an “initiative” in this context.

Currently, there is no clear articulation of levels of UDL implementation in higher education as exists for K–12 (Meo & Currie-Rubin, 2015). However, as aforementioned, application of UDL in higher education must address barriers that manifest differently in higher education, thus casting doubt on the immediate transferability of Meo and Currie-Rubin’s model. Recent research and publications have sought to articulate the needs and opportunities for UDL in higher education specifically (e.g., Burgstahler, 2015), but none have articulated levels of implementation as have been provided for K–12 settings. Because a broad categorization of different levels may be possible and beneficial as a way to efficiently compare programs and provide goals for programs and measure within-program progress, we used the data collected in this research to present such a model.

The following five-level model (Level 0: preimplementation to Level 4: initiated at the university level) is based on the stories and experiences of those interviewed in this study. Qualitative evidence of the nature of these levels and offer ideas as to how to progress from one level to the next is also provided (See Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Graphic depiction of the four levels of UDL implementation in higher education.

After the lead author developed this model of levels of implementation based on review of the transcripts, he shared it with the participants as a follow-up question, inquired as to whether participants at higher levels (e.g., levels two and up) found that they moved through the prior levels, chronologically. All respondents agreed that they did, adding further validity to this model. For example, Jackson suggested,

as I reflect back upon this, I’d say that I/we did move through these phases somewhat and up through Level 3 at [my university]. We began with an idea I brought back from the CAST summer institute in 2002, piloted a class I taught one summer, that morphed into more and was quickly adopted by the special education department and has since blossomed into two standard UDL offerings (required by several programs) and matriculated out to other areas of the university with more strongholds such as the department of student services and Faculty development.

However, this progression is not always clear and linear. Some of those interviewed straddled two levels, so it should be acknowledged that level migration is gradual and may occur steadily or in fits and starts. Indeed, implementing UDL appears in the stories of these participants to occur through progressive rollout. For example, “Dr. Challa,” an associate professor at a large 4-year university in the southern United States, suggested that implementation “is a process that happens over multiple semesters. If you try to do it in one semester, it is too time-consuming and almost impossible to complete.” He goes on to suggest three iterations for implementation in a given class. Each iteration is about making sure that materials and content that reflect the principles of UDL are available with an assessment that is well aligned with the content and the principles of UDL. By rolling this out gradually over three to four iterations (semesters), one can achieve a well-designed UDL course by way of an approach that respects the complexity of the task and the other duties of the faculty member.

Challa further suggests that faculty implementing UDL in their own courses move chronologically through reviewing and aligning course (1) standards and objectives, (2) content and materials, (3) assessments, and (4) teaching methods. Others (e.g., Williaume) promote assessments above content and materials in this chronology, though the concept bears repeating: UDL implementation can and almost always needs to be incremental to maintain a balance between feasibility and efficiency. Jackson adds to this, by suggesting that networking (with like-minded peers, staff of teaching and learning centers on campus, grant providers, other UDL practitioners not on one’s campus, and/or offices of disability services) is a critical way to expand past Level 1. Collaboration, it seems, is not only a definitive aspect of Level 2 and onward, it is a prerequisite.

It should also be noted that the first two or three levels may be quite localized to individual “early adopter” faculty or a small group who are nevertheless still affected by their larger departmental, college, and university missions. This reflects the reality of the potential for higher education to be isolating (Williaume) but also provides hope in that individual faculty need not wait for administrative buy in to begin implementing UDL and serving as pioneers of a potential UDL initiative. Finally, barriers that separate the levels grow increasingly difficult to surmount moving up the scale. That is, it is comparatively easier to move from Level 1 to Level 2 than it is to migrate from 2 to 3, and moving from 3 to 4 is perhaps that which requires the most intensive supports.

Where Are They Now?

Participants in this study and their respective environments represent the levels of UDL implementation well. It is important, however, for this section to disentangle the individual faculty members from the context in which they reside. It is the context (department, college, and university) that is currently at a level of UDL development, not the individual. This is true even though it is often individuals who promote scaling through Levels 0–2 and who spearhead development moving into Levels 3 and 4. One may be an outstanding UDL scholar and practitioner, but face barriers to expanding the reach of their influence in their local context. Difficulty expanding to Levels 3–4 ought not be interpreted as reflecting negatively on individual UDL leaders on campus.

Level 1: Individual application of UDL is evident in isolation or relative isolation. Rollout may be gradual within a single course or over the course of three semesters or more (Challa). Limited if any administrative support is available. No systematic outreach efforts. Administrative oversight is limited or absent.

Williaume’s environment, for example, represents a Level 1 setting in which a culture of isolation among faculty has been hard to surmount. In this context, Williaume reflects the way that an individual scholar can implement UDL well in his or her own classes, regardless of whether broader initiatives are in place. Williaume’s context in Level 1 may be seen when she states, “I don’t know if anyone else is using UDL. I have one colleague teaching a class on UDL and it is a small class for special education.” And though Williaume has made a name for herself in her research and practice of UDL, she also comments that despite her attempt to “be vocal about it as possible…trying to make other faculty aware of the benefits of UDL as a framework,” she also speaks of how higher education can have the effect of being isolating. As she put it, “We all live in silos.”

What Williaume’s story demonstrates is both the power and the limitations of a faculty member working in isolation. She may be doing wonderful things for her students and the UDL research community around the world, but she struggles to make inroads in expanding UDL implementation in her own college. Access to national resources such as UDL on Campus or the Educause Learning Initiative (ELI; a national organization for teaching and learning professionals in higher education) might reduce this isolation. The important discussion around UDL has grown at the ELI national conference and was a 2015 added resource in ELI’s 7 Things You Should Know About Series (Educause, 2015).

Level 2: UDL implementation is narrowly addressed in the teacher education program or as a collaboration among different departments; a core group of UDL practitioners formulates to study and explore the practice. Administrative oversight may be beginning and some structures begin to form.

Anders is perhaps best described as being in transition from Level 1 (implementation initiated by an individual) to Level 2 (implementation facilitated through a professional learning community [PLC]). Anders shares some similar experience as Williaume, whereby he is one of very few faculty at his university utilizing UDL in his courses, considers his campus to have just a “five to seven percent rollout in terms of UDL practices,” and further articulates that “We are still trying to get a number of faculty to realize that they are teachers and that there is a certain degree of teaching methods that need to go into teaching at the higher education level.” He also recognizes the inertia of tradition in higher education, noting the restrictions imposed by an “expert mind-set: ‘I am here as a faculty member who is an expert and you should…‘ as opposed to me as an instructor here to meet your varied [learning] needs.”

However, what puts Anders in a transitory position, moving into Level 2, is the presence of a PLC that is beginning to drive UDL transformation. For his large Midwestern University, development of UDL began in the Office of Disability Support Services. While this origin has perhaps perpetuated more of a model for physical access (i.e., Universal Design as opposed to UDL), participants in this study have been able to expand on similar UDL initiatives through their respective Offices of Disability Services.

Anders describes the synergy that came through a union among student services, disability services, and himself as a faculty member reaching out to administrators. He proactively sought to obtain resources that could help perpetuate greater access to learning across the campus. He is also seeing the beginning of structures for UDL expansion including the provision of faculty professional development on strategies to proactively help students access to learning. Consistent with the level model, Anders believes that the college of education is “probably the most important place to start to prepare…to just grow and do the work of teaching, and then developing a long-range plan to expand from there.” But perhaps the most significant element that helps identify Anders’s context as being in Level 2 (and staging for Level 3) is the presence of administrative support. Some such support is available now, and Anders acknowledges that more will be needed if more progress is to be made. Jackson also noted that the UDL initiative at her institution began through an outreach collaboration ignited by the Disability Student Services.

Sondheim’s college may be positioned to advance to Level 3 but has not yet made the migration (except perhaps in the college of education online courses). Sondheim sees the UDL initiative as being “stuck in special education, and still stuck with only a few individuals in special education.” The barrier at present for Sondheim’s large Midwestern University appears to be similar to that at Anders’s: a lack of broad intentional awareness and consideration of the role of high-quality instruction in higher education and adherence to traditional means of instruction and assessment thereof. Sondheim says, “At the end of the day, we are a comprehensive research university. We are just getting into really kind of thinking deeply about how we measure our instruction. For the most part, it is traditional methods of instruction.”

However, within these boundaries, there are a wealth of ideas to share. Sondheim talks, for example, of the departmental recognition that “there is a need to practice what we preach as much as possible.” Modeling UDL (and other teaching and learning concepts) has been effective for Sondheim’s college of education in not only preparing teachers but also in preparing doctoral students to prepare teachers. Sondheim also speaks of how he and others try to rearticulate teaching as “learning engineering” and to develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skills of their preservice teachers. As with Williaume, Sondheim has seen the utilization of UDL principles bear fruit in his own courses. For example, he spoke of students who, given the opportunity to choose among different forms of assessment, express themselves at deeper levels and allow for improved and deepened teacher–student relationships. He says that every semester he has a student say something to the effect of “you know what? This is the first time in my entire educational career that I can tell someone and convey what I really understand.” UDL plays an important role in personalizing the education and assessment experience for the learner (Gordon, 2015).

Anders and Sondheim perhaps represent the range of Level 2 (implementation facilitated by a PLC). They both have some emerging structures of support, they have colleagues who have bought into UDL, they offer support and collaboration (directly or indirectly), and they have begun assembling the administrative support necessary for advancement to Level 3. However, where Anders’s college is just getting started, Sondheim’s appears to have momentum built up and thus may have the potential to move to Level 3 (implementation facilitated by a college of education) as soon as a significant Trojan horse appears.

Level 3: UDL implementation is narrowly addressed in the teacher education program or as a collaboration among different departments; a core group of UDL practitioners formulates to study and explore the practice. Administrative oversight may be beginning and some structures begin to form.

Drs. Challa, Jackson, and Thompson, along with their respective colleges, have seen more substantial buy in and administrative support for the development of UDL in the context of the college of education than those aforementioned. For Challa, an associate professor at a large southern university, UDL is at its strongest in online course implementation. Likewise, UDL demonstrates an education presence at Jackson’s college of education at her large private Eastern university, though she and others have worked to extend the awareness of UDL beyond special education. UDL first debuted in 2003 at Jackson’s university through efforts of Disability Support Services, migrated into a graduate course in the department of special education and in 2013, and was identified as an important framework promoted through the University’s office for online learning initiatives. She too has seen growing momentum for the appreciation of UDL in online instruction. Today, graduate coursework in UDL is a required component in several online master’s programs offered through the department of special education and a model faculty learning community is being designed to guide best practice for other online instructors. However, the broader adoption of the UDL framework to guide course design across campus lags behind. Thompson’s Eastern Seaboard university is perhaps the most advanced in UDL implementation of those interviewed and also represents Level 4. However, given the great success that Thompson’s college enjoys in Level 3, it is worthwhile to examine relevant parts of Thompson’s story later in this section as well. The success that Thompson’s university has experienced may be in part because of its overt emphasis on quality teaching with less emphasis on research compared to other universities. This broad focus on teaching has resulted in administrative buy in and support and strong collaboration across groups within the university. More detail follows.

Indicators of structural elements in Challa’s college of education, for example, are quite overt. The college of education at Challa’s university has clearly invested time and resources to support faculty in the development of UDL as a college initiative. This includes UDL-centric required coursework for all preservice teachers (which Challa teaches), intentional adherence to UDL principles in the college through online course evaluation for accessibility, professional development in effective instructional methods that address UDL for all education faculty.

Some argue that UDL implementation requires (Edyburn, 2010) or is at least greatly enhanced by (Sondheim) the presence of education technology. Many of the participants in this study spoke of the importance of modeling and experiencing UDL in the college classroom (Sondheim, Challa, Jackson, and Thompson). The college of education at Challa’s university stands out by way of using technology to model and provide students with vicarious experience in the application of UDL strategies. Challa’s college designed and developed an augmented reality classroom simulator, which allows preservice teachers to experience teaching artificially intelligent students in an augmented reality setting and to receive immediate feedback. Challa claims, “ten minutes in the simulator is enough to change a teacher behavior…as opposed to what would normally take 60 minutes, they can change it in 10 minutes in the simulator in a low-stakes environment,” a claim supported by empirical research (Dieker, Hughes, Hynes, & Straub, 2013). This commitment of resources, funding, and innovation in the college of education, utilizing tools and methods that reflect the UDL framework demonstrates a manifestation of a “Level 3” (facilitated by a PLC) setting.

Challa uses the word “intentionality” when describing the way that UDL is brought to bear in the college of education. This intentionality is central to UDL implementation, which is ultimately about instructional design. Intentionality manifests in several ways in Challa’s college of education: The technology and resources including the aforementioned simulator, for example, but also in the utilization of a doctoral student who evaluates online courses for alignment to the UDL framework, UDL training for all faculty teaching online courses, required UDL coursework for all education majors, and the modeling of UDL by some education faculty. These are the types of structures that collectively indicate a Level 3 setting.

Jackson describes the degree of implementation at her university to be partial. There are several structural elements that have contributed to or remain in place at her local setting; for example, Jackson debuted an experimental graduate institute in 2003 that emphasized utilizing UDL in a blended learning environment of a week of face-to-face instruction followed by online coursework. More recently, both face-to-face and online coursework are consistent graduate course offerings in UDL for special education majors. Other faculty representing both education and other departments across campus bring UDL into their courses. Professional development opportunities are also available as Jackson and some colleagues are actively involved in university-sponsored workshops addressing instructional design and online learning, professional conferences, and CAST-delivered webinars, which they then use to disseminate new learning locally through workshops and seminars in their courses, on campus and beyond.

One of the things that stands out as to why Jackson’s environment is clearly Level 3 (implementation initiated by a college of education) is the complexity of networking evident in her descriptions of her program. For example, not only does Jackson speak of other faculty who practice and teach UDL at her university, she also speaks of departmental administrative support, connection with the Office of Disability Services, vital collaboration with the Office of Online Learning Initiatives, grant funding opportunities she has successfully pursued, and connections she has developed and maintained with UDL organizations such as CAST, the UDL-IRN, and the National UDL Center. These connections allow for increased resources (human and otherwise) and allow for more thorough and efficient dissemination of UDL ideology and practice with other faculty.

Thompson provided the scope of UDL implementation directly, stating that “our [special education] department has been doing [UDL] for years. A few years ago, it expanded to our college of education.” What have been the drivers of success for Thompson’s college? First, there is a high degree of intentional scope. Thompson speaks of how “every department in our college of education covers Universal Design for Learning” and she notes that “Any student who wants to be a certified teacher…has to take a Special Education or Instructional Technology course” both of which embed UDL. Additionally, “we also have a dedicated UDL course. So that’s our college of education policy.” The presence of such overt structures and policies are hallmarks of a Level 3 setting.

Thompson also spoke about how such structures are maintained. She discussed the presence of a UDL professional development network at Thompson’s college, administrative support from an assistant provost with the Department of Academic Innovation, UDL workshops, UDL work sharing sessions, and a history of UDL PLCs in which faculty conducted a UDL book study and revised classroom artifacts to align them with UDL. The strong presence of resources and commitment to faculty development perhaps demonstrates the difference between imposing policy and using policy to guide development when it comes to UDL implementation. As Sondheim noted, policy by itself is not likely to be effective; Thompson and her team clearly recognize this, as she speaks of how there is an intentional attempt to promote “philosophical shift…trying to change people’s mind-sets” in regard to how faculty teach and students learn and express their learning.

Level 4: University outreach on UDL implementation is evident beyond the college of education, which is used as a model. The focus expands to UDL for learning across courses, departments, or schools. Structures and supports are developed. The core group expands and is supported by administrators who provide oversight, policy development, resources, and additionally, evaluate faculty using UDL framework elements.

Thompson’s university is the only one among those interviewed that appears to be transitioning into Level 4. It should be noted that achieving Level 4 implementation is very difficult. For example, Sondheim speaks of how UDL is “technically in our university governing documents. The implementation is supposed to be campus wide…from a disability perspective” but in reality is achieved only in pockets (mostly in the college of education) and “not in a systematic way.” The institutional documentation of UDL implies upper administrative buy in, which may be critical for higher levels of implementation. However, as Sondheim points out, policy does not always equate practice.

Such a fracture between policy and practice seems to be a common phenomenon in higher education. Sondheim went on to articulate some of the key barriers that make university implementation of UDL difficult. For example, where UDL is strongly related to environmental design, Sondheim notes that “we don’t design our environments in higher education. We walk into predesigned environments.” So, for example, teaching in a lecture hall with tables and chairs bolted to the floor is conducive to lecturing but does not allow the flexibility generally necessary for UDL implementation. The pervasive lack of understanding or misunderstanding of how technology (including mobile devices) can be used for formal learning among higher education faculty may also remove readily available technology options for engaging students and diversifying instructional means.

Sondheim also notes that academic tradition makes flexibility difficult for many in higher education to embrace (Singh, O’Donoghue, & Worton, 2005). For example, Sondheim mentioned how the academy’s traditional requirement of essay-based responses may preclude faculty from considering if the essay form is actually necessary in context, or if a student could use a video or model or presentation to demonstrate knowledge just as effectively. Finally, Sondheim spoke of how UDL seems to more naturally fit with some departments (e.g., those that center on design such as science, engineering, computer science) than others (e.g., mathematics, literature), which may align with certain traditional methods of instruction for the specific discipline.

As with any other initiative, the stronger the barriers, the more momentum is needed to break through. Thompson’s university demonstrates how the combination of dedicated administrative support, a well-developed UDL leadership team, professional development opportunities, state and local policy drivers, and the presence of a clear Trojan horse (i.e., student attrition in this case) can combine to give enough force to break into Level 4. Thompson’s university has struck a key balance between establishing policy (e.g., course design, the use of the UDL framework that counts toward university-wide promotion and tenure) with faculty supports (e.g., cross-college PLCs to develop faculty knowledge of how to apply UDL in their courses). Thompson spoke of the effectiveness of the university-wide PLC offerings and spoke of how “we had people from the business college, science, fine arts, people from the library—a really big mix.” Further, Thompson demonstrates how networking and delegation can be used in such situations and described how they asked “the people that were most interested from [the professional learning communities]…to stay on as coaches. [These coaches] were assigned to a small group of faculty members and they took them through the year.” At the heart of all, this development is the goal of winning not just behavioral changes but also attitudinal shifts. Thompson spoke of how “you need to believe it is about design and not a lesson plan or a unit or test, but how you design the learning environment. And that is a mind shift.”

Implications for Practice

In this article, we discussed a proposed model of the levels of UDL implementation for higher education based on interviews of six UDL leaders in higher education from the United States. We suggest that data from the interviews are enough to articulate different levels of implementation in practice from individual implementation or university-initiated implementation. While none of the participants spoke specifically about levels or explicitly identified their context as being at a particular level, there was discussion in common about whether or not the participants interviewed felt that their context had a “UDL initiative” or not. Those aligned with Levels 3 and 4 tended to recognize an initiative, whereas those in Levels 0–2 did not assume such language. The five-level model that surfaced as a result of the structured interviews may allow for heightened articulation over what is currently available, moving from a binary (“initiative” vs. “no initiative”) to a more sensitive scaling.

One thing that bears stressing as a significant takeaway from this analysis was the human resource element that was implicit for the success of scaling up. By this, we mean that it is not primarily policy, access to technology, resources, or funding that ultimately determines how and when scaling up in UDL occurs (even though each of these is very important on a secondary basis); the most fundamental difference among the levels is the degree of human buy in. While Level 1 can be accomplished by individual faculty, Level 2 requires a more coordinated effort by at least a small group. Level 3 begins moving into “initiative” territory and requires a much broader buy in from faculty in the college of education as a whole, which generally must also entail administrative buy in and support, and finally, Level 4 expands further to require understanding and acceptance of the importance and purpose of UDL from the largest group of UDL adopters across college lines in the university setting. Thus, scaling up at its most fundamental level may be conceived as winning the hearts and minds of an ever-expanding group of individuals and providing the support structures necessary to sustain them.

Limitations

The participants in this study represent a convenience sample of individuals who are connected directly or loosely to the UDL-IRN, who commissioned the study. While they are variable in other ways (geographic, type of institution, gender, age, years and type of experience, and degree of UDL implementation), their networked relationship may imply common features that the researcher was unable to discern and that would not be present in a random sample. Mitigating this limitation somewhat is that while these individuals are networked with the UDL-IRN, that does not imply that others at their respective universities are so vested in UDL or the UDL-IRN (as evidenced by the challenges noted in expanding UDL through their contexts).

It should be further noted that though there is a degree of geographic dispersion among the participants, only six U.S. states are represented in this study, and thus differences that may appear in areas and states not represented may have been missed and certainly differences in international cultures and settings were not accounted for in this study. Further research could extend this work to broader geographic and cultural contexts to explore whether the trends herein identified are maintained.

Conclusion

As classrooms continue to become more diverse in K–12 and higher education, there is an opportunity to move past seeing diversity as a challenge to be overcome, and instead, to embrace and promote the bountiful benefits that come along with having diverse populations in our classrooms. Perhaps the first and most important objective on this path is to ensure that diverse students (including those with disabilities) have equitable access to learning in classrooms at every level. The weight of tradition and the practical realities and structures in higher education institutions may make fully realizing this goal a challenging process. However, what this research has demonstrated is that change can sometimes be brought about by even a single dedicated faculty member whose work can affect the lives of students. That said, there is such a thing as strength in numbers. Faculty should be encouraged to reach out and actively find others on campus who can collaborate in promoting UDL.

Developing shared dialog to explore trends or frameworks such as UDL can grow through faculty learning communities (Nugent, Reardon, Smith, Rhodes, Zander, & Carter, 2008). This model has been successful for the UDL program across institutions of higher education in California (Christie, 2017). These can also be other faculty in the college, or as Anders has demonstrated, may be from other offices and service providers on campus. Disability services, student services, and technology services are all good places to seek connection. As programs expand, it is important for UDL advocates to be vigilantly watching for those Trojan horse events, topics, or issues that present widely recognized issues or opportunities for which UDL may be a solution.

Ultimately, the expansion of UDL must be first and foremost about people—winning over the people who will practice it, undertake it, will benefit from it. Pushing austere policy will not bring new life to the lecterns, nor change to well-beaten paths of traditional instruction. UDL implementation is truly high-hanging fruit. It requires the often slow, always messy work of dealing with people at their level of readiness, both in scaling up and in the act of implementing. But in the end, the promise is worth it. Improved faculty–student relationships, improved student retention, enhanced learning for all, equity in education. This is the call. Who’s ready?

Closure

I want to thank you again for your generous time and sharing. I will do my very best to accurately and contextually represent your comments and ideas and will respect all of the wishes that you expressed in terms of dissemination of things you shared. I will send you a copy of the final article for your review and use.

I certainly hope to continue to work with you in the future as I join the ranks of those who believe in the value of UDL in higher education!

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arter

P. S.

Ruthkosky

(2009). Universal design for learning: One university’s efforts to prepare preservice teachers. Retrieved from http://www.pac-te.org/uploads/1443198695_Arter%20and%20Ruthkosky%20-%202009.pdf

Boyatzis

R. E

. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burgstahler

S. E

. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2007). Summary of 2007 national summit on universal design for learning working groups. Wakefield, MA: Author.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/FourCaseStories3.13.13_mo.pdf

Christie

(2017). UDL-universe: A comprehensive universal design for learning faculty development guide. Retrieved from http://enact.sonoma.edu/content.php?pid=218878&sid=1818170

Courey

S. J.

Tappe

Siker

LePage

(2012). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 7–27. doi:10.1177/0888406412446178

Darensbourg

A. M.

Blake

J. J.

(2013). Predictors of achievement in African American students at risk for academic failure: The roles of achievement values and behavioral engagement: At-risk African American students. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 1044–1059. doi:10.1002/pits.21730

Darling-Hammond

Holtzman

D. J.

Gatlin

S. J.

Heilig

J. V.

(2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1–48.

10.

Dieker

Hughes

Hynes

Straub

(2013). TeachLivE national research project—year 1 results: Report to the Bill & Melinda gates foundation. Orlando: University of Central Florida.

11.

Educause. (2015). Universal design for learning. 7 Things You Should Know About. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7119.pdf

12.

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 Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41.

13.

Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Public Law No. 114-95, S.1177, 114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

14.

Flick

. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Gilmore

Schuster

Zafft

Hart

(2001). Postsecondary education services and employment outcomes within the vocational rehabilitation system. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21. Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/256

16.

Gordon

(2015). How UDL can get you to personalized learning. E-School News: Daily Tech News and Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/05/19/udl-personalized-939/3/?all

17.

Gradel

Edson

A. J.

(2009). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38, 111–121. doi:10.2190/ET.38.2.d

18.

Harper

K. A.

DeWaters

(2008). A quest for website accessibility in higher education institutions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 160–164. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.007

19.

Hart

Grigal

Weir

(2010). Expanding the paradigm: Postsecondary education options for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 134–150. doi:10.1177/1088357610373759

20.

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). United States, Congress, U.S. Department of Education, and Washington D.C.

21.

Horne

P. E.

Timmons

(2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 273–286.

22.

Israel

Ribuffo

Smith

S. J.

(2014). Universal design for learning innovation configuration: Recommendations for preservice teacher preparation and inservice professional development. Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/18509

23.

Jiménez

T. C.

Graf

V. L.

Rose

(2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16, 41–54.

24.

Jung

W. S.

(2007). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion. Education, 128, 106.

25.

Katz

(2014). Implementing the Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning: effects on teachers’ self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K-12. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.881569

26.

Kelsky

. (2015). The professor is in: The essential guide to turning your Ph.D. into a job. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

27.

McGuire-Schwartz

M. E.

Arndt

J. S.

(2007). Transforming universal design for learning in early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 127–139. doi:10.1080/10901020701366707

28.

Meo

Currie-Rubin

(2015). CAST’s UDL implementation phases. Retrieved from http://castprofessionallearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Overview_Implementation.pdf

29.

Meyer

Rose

Gordon

. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: CAST

30.

Moore

E. J.

& Schelling

(2015). Postsecondary inclusion for individuals with an intellectual disability and its effects on employment. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 19(2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629514564448.

31.

Nugent

J. S.

Reardon

R. M.

Smith

F. G.

Rhodes

J. A.

Zander

M. J.

& Carter

T. J.

(2008). Exploring faculty learning communities: Building connections among teaching, learning, and technology. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 51–58

32.

O’Keeffe

(2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal, 47, 605–613.

33.

Pearson

(2015). Modeling universal design for learning techniques to support multicultural education for pre-service secondary educators. Multicultural Education, 22, 27–34.

34.

Rao

M. W.

Bryant

B. R.

(2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 153–166. doi:10.1177/0741932513518980

35.

Raue

Lewis

(2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. First Look. (NCES 2011-018). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520976

36.

Rioux

M. H.

Pinto

P. C.

(2010). A time for the universal right to education: Back to basics. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 621–642. doi:10.1080/01425692.2010.500094

37.

Robinson

T. E.

Hope

W. C

. (2013). Teaching in higher education: Is there a need for training in pedagogy in graduate degree programs? Research in Higher Education Journal, 21. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1064657

38.

Rose

(2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 67.

39.

Roulston

(2014). Analysing interviews. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 297–312. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

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, 17–30.

41.

Singh

O’Donoghue

Worton

(2005). A study into the effects of e-learning on higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2, 16–18.

42.

Sopko

K. M.

(2009). Universal design for learning: Policy challenges and recommendations. Alexandria, VA: ERIC.

43.

Sosu

E. M.

Mtika

Colucci-Gray

(2010). Does initial teacher education make a difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers’ attitudes towards educational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36, 389–405.

44.

Spooner

Baker

J. N.

Harris

A. A.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Browder

D. M.

(2007). Effects of training universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108–116.

45.

Streitwieser

(2014). Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility. Oxford, England: Symposium Books.

46.

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf.

47.

Vitelli

(2015). Universal design for learning: Are we teaching it to preservice general education teachers? Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 166–178, doi:10.1177/0162643415618931

48.

Zinshteyn

(2013, 9 27). Who’s going to (and graduating from) college in 7 charts. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/whos-going-to-and-graduating-from-college-in-7-charts/280069/