Universal Design for Learning: Guidelines for Accessible Online Instruction

Abstract

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for the teaching–learning transaction that conceptualizes knowledge through learner-centered foci emphasizing accessibility, collaboration, and community. Given the importance of access to achieving social justice, UDL is a promising approach to meeting all learners’ needs more effectively. In this article, the history and philosophy of UDL are discussed and elaborated, followed by an explanation of how the principles of UDL were used to improve an existing online course offering for adult learners.

Keywords

UDL accessibility online learning epistemology adult learners

“By following the well-established, but seldom utilized, principles of UDL, adult educators are able to reimagine the ways learning occurs and is assessed in the online classroom.”

Introduction

The use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is effective in enhancing a learner’s ability to acquire, generate, and use new knowledge. Its coincidence with technological developments and advances has afforded the opportunity for greater inclusivity. Despite the possibilities presented by online education and new technologies, students with disabilities, language barriers, and low socioeconomic status are often less successful in school than students from the dominant culture (Aronson, 2008; Gregg, 2007; Kanno & Kangas, 2014), in part because one-size-fits-all education does not work. Merely applying technology tools is not enough; educators in all sectors—from higher education to community-based education, from formal settings to nonformal settings—need to change their ways of thinking. By following the well-established, but seldom utilized, principles of UDL, adult educators are able to reimagine the ways learning occurs and is assessed in the online classroom. More than simple indicators of best practices or lists of possible accommodations, UDL offers an epistemological shift that facilitates design for all learners within a holistic framework. The application of this epistemological shift helps address significant practical and justice concerns.

David Rose, Anne Meyer, and colleagues at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) are credited with originating the term UDL. It applies Ronald Mace’s universal designs in architecture to teaching and learning. UDL has been used with “students with atypical backgrounds in the dominant language, cognitive strategies, culture, or history of the average classroom who, therefore, face barriers in accessing information when presented in a manner that assumes a common background among all students” (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006, p. 3). A useful metaphor for UDL, offered by Edyburn (2010), is the fairy tale of Goldilocks; educators should offer students the chance to “try multiple options to determine which option is ‘just right’ for ensuring their performance is acceptable to meet high standards” (p. 39). With UDL, there is a focus on learning relevance, value, and authenticity in terms of learners’ needs and desires through the inclusion of real-life tasks and an understanding of the importance of flexibility. By shifting to a learner-centered education and emphasizing collaboration and community, students become motivated to meet high expectations (CAST, 2015). Returning to the Goldilocks metaphor, designing courses with the intention of helping each student find the approach to acquiring, generating, and using new knowledge that is just right for him or her represents a different set of priorities than is traditionally the case. It is a different way of framing the teaching–learning transaction.

The need for this kind of epistemological and priority shift is increasingly evident. Distance and postsecondary education instructors face increasingly diverse students with disabilities, language and cultural barriers, and significant skill deficiencies (Bates, 2005). In spite of this demographic diversity, the type of education delivered has not significantly changed (Baggaley, 2008; Lee, 2017). Individual accommodations are often applied, but the structure and culture of higher education, and the nature of what constitutes knowledge, its acquisition, and its expression in practice, have not responded. Traditional behavioristic methods such as multiple choice assessments or text-based discussions do not effectively capitalize on students’ differences and demands. Moving beyond more behavioristic approaches, “[f]lexible instruction designed within UDL framework ensures that learners have multiple means to engage in learning, are given the information and content instruction through multiple modalities, and have an opportunity to demonstrate their learning via multiple means” (Hollingshead, 2017, pp. 1-2).

Non-UDL course designs often view diverse needs from a deficit perspective; to level the playing field, certain compensatory accommodations must be made to meet socially constructed norms or impose a standardized methodology. Accommodations offered to students are frequently ineffective because they focus on students’ disabilities rather than on an understanding of students’ needs in the overall context of the course (Cawthon & Cole, 2010; Kurth & Mellard, 2006). UDL, however, accommodates diversity in different ways as it reorients how knowledge is defined, obtained, and expressed by embracing difference (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Every learner has limitations (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002) depending on how the content is structured and shared. UDL effectively offers multiple means of representation that give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge; multiple means of engagement that tap into learners’ interests, challenging and motivating them; and multiple means of expression that provide learners with alternatives for demonstrating what they know (CAST, 2015). These multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression are where the rubber meets the road for the epistemological shift and constitute the mechanisms used to meet all learners’ needs more effectively. In this vein, Hollingshead (2017) argues,

Although, the UDL framework was initially conceptualized with students with disabilities in mind, it quickly shifted the focus from the student’s disability to the “disabled curriculum” (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012). In other words, the students were not the “problem” but rather the instruction (i.e., goals, methods, materials, and assessment strategies) was too constricted and not flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of students in the current school system (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2012; Rose & Gravel, 2010; Rose & Meyer, 2000; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). (p. 4)

Essential to understanding and incorporating UDL principles is acknowledging that, although systematic design and planning is a key to effective online instruction, one strategy does not necessarily meet the needs of every student. UDL encourages design that differentiates and individualizes instruction more than traditional design frameworks (Hall, Vue, Strangman, & Meyer, 2004). Its goal is to provide options for every learner, just like Goldilocks.

The History and Ethos of UDL

Ronald Mace’s work at The Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University in the 1980s and 1990s used architecture as a framework for understanding multiple means of providing options for everyone. As an architect, product designer, and educator, Mace used the term universal design “to describe the concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life” (North Carolina State University [NCSU], CUD, 2008). Story, Mueller, and Mace (1998) recognized the key feature of universal design as its shift away from accommodating disabilities and creating barrier-free buildings to building structures whose design is beneficial for all individuals whether disabled or not. The traditional mind-set is turned on its head. They pointed out that traditional accommodations tended to be unattractive, segregated persons with disabilities, and were more expensive. Building and product features using universal design benefit disabled and nondisabled alike, and they are inclusive and often less costly. There are seven principles of universal design encompassing equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use (NCSU, CUD, 2008). UDL incorporates these ideas in educational settings by condensing them into the three guiding principles mentioned above: multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement (CAST, 2015). From these broad guiding principles, an array of approaches and practices to accessible learning design is generated.

The motivation for greater inclusivity and accessibility in education came, in part, from policy innovations. The call for inclusive education had been established by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, passed in the 1970s, and the 1990 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). The rights of students with disabilities to be included in mainstream classes was based on IDEA’s demand for placing students in the “least restrictive environment” (National Center for Universal Design for Learning at Center for Applied Special Technology [NCUDL at CAST], 2012). Although the focus of IDEA is on students aged 3 to 21 years and applies mainly to K-12 educational settings, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 more broadly affects individuals with disabilities throughout their life span, guaranteeing them access to lifelong learning programs on an equal basis with other citizens (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016).

In addition to the policy sphere, several social forces have driven the application of CUD’s design features to the educational environment, including,

(1) the pressures of the expanding diversity of today’s student population, (2) the social and pedagogical challenges of integrating digital technology into higher education, and (3) political pressures for greater accessibility and the regional accrediting agencies’ evolving mandates for outcome assessment. (Zeff, 2007, p. 28)

By eliminating obstacles to learning, accommodating individual needs, and challenging learners, UDL offers more flexibility in how students access, engage with, and respond to information; it also provides alternative ways for students to demonstrate the skills they have acquired (NCUDL at CAST, 2012). True to Ronald Mace’s original concept, UDL benefits all students, not only those with disabilities, with a lack of language fluency, or with weak basic skills.

UDL and Adult Learners Online

Epistemology, Practice, and Justice

The policy environment and the social forces mentioned above create an emergent and dynamic context for the teaching–learning transaction. Responding to this dynamic situation, UDL asks educators to reframe their understandings of knowledge and the way that knowledge is operationalized within the learning environment. Similar to the shift from “the disabled student” to the “disabled curriculum” mentioned above, this reframing represents an epistemological shift away from stubborn teacher-centered approaches and frameworks to more student-centered approaches and frameworks. In facilitating an epistemological shift, UDL also addresses exclusionary educational practice issues and concomitant social justice concerns. Adult education as a field has long been at the forefront of reconceptualizing the learning transaction: From Paulo Freire’s (1972) critique of “banking style” education (p. 58) to Stephen Brookfield’s (2001) notion of ideology critique to Michael Welton’s (1995) robust critical alternatives to individualistic models of learning, lifelong learning has benefited from creative and useful characterizations of epistemological foundations. With these seminal thinkers, the door has been opened for educators to think differently about how knowledge is constructed. The epistemological shift that UDL facilitates is that the knowledge and truths that humans grow into are not abstract things existing independently of the sociocultural realities of the humans themselves. To teach, to learn, to develop programs and curricula is to engage, develop, and appreciate, not simply the content and learning objectives themselves, but also, primarily, the interaction of learners’ unique histories, abilities, cultures, and characteristics. Moving beyond individualistic and behavioristic models of learning requires moving beyond the traditional models of the teaching–learning transaction that continue to be reliant on a dualistic ontological foundation, and epistemologically, a correspondence theory of truth. Modeling instruction as either the sage on the stage or the guide on the side (King, 1993) can buy into an individualistic and behavioristic framework—both immersed in these philosophical fallacies. From an instructional design perspective, “[m]any of the basic assumptions and characteristics of behaviorism are imbedded in current instructional design practices” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 8). To date, the field of adult education, especially as it is lived out in the online context, has been ineffective in generating the widespread use of methods developed with epistemological diversity in mind. UDL is one strong option for enabling adult educators to practice the diversity that they preach.

Flowing from these epistemological concerns are issues of social justice and educational practice (Agada 1998; Bernal, 1998; Scheurich & Young, 1997). UDL can also help adult educators address these matters. An individualistic model of learning relying on a flawed epistemology reduces education from a teaching–learning transaction to a relationship between things. Michael Welton (1995) has developed this concept more fully as it relates to Habermas’ notion of the colonization of the lifeworld. Moving away from this colonization makes adult education more holistic and learner-centered. Education in general, and online adult education in particular, has struggled to actualize its visions of justice. Even though we recognize that education often serves to reinforce existing stereotypes and inequities, change in the direction of greater inclusivity has been slow (Cincinnato, De Wever, & Valcke, 2014; Edwards, 2015; Kvasny, 2006; Naidoo, 2004; Seale, Georgeson, Mamas, & Swain, 2015; Van Deursen, van Dijk, & Peter, 2015). Students with disabilities, language barriers, lower socioeconomic status, and other less traditional backgrounds struggle more in formalized educational settings (Aronson, 2008; Gregg, 2007; Kanno & Kangas, 2014). Traditional curricula and methods, based on individualistic models of learning, cannot ameliorate these difficulties even though we recognize that these difficulties exist (Patton, 2016; Welton, 2014).

Developments in brain science also reinforce this move away from traditional curricula and methods, supporting a UDL approach. The study of neuroscience has determined that there are several networks within the brain that are activated in the learning process,

one that learns to recognize objects or patterns in the external environment, one that learns to generate effective patterns of action or response, and one that learns to evaluate the significance or importance of the possible patterns we encounter or generate. (Rose et al., 2006, p. 5)

Recognition networks support content acquisition, strategic networks reveal the methods of learning, and affective networks relate to the reasons for learning. These networks reflect the multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement that form the foundation of UDL (Rose et al., 2006).

In terms of educational practice, the reoriented ontological and epistemological foundations of UDL open new doors as well. The development of UDL as discussed above characterizes an important outgrowth of these different foundations. In particular, UDL guides us to orient our practices around eliminating assumptions of a common background, moving in a learner-centered and collaborative direction, utilizing multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression, and focusing on content relevance, value and authenticity, real-life tasks, and flexibility.

Improving practice through flexibility and reducing barriers

Focusing on flexibility and reducing barriers to learning, UDL acknowledges that students learn differently and suggests that students with sensory disabilities, learning disabilities, and language or cultural differences need learning environments that meet their particular ways of learning. At the same time, neurotypical learners may also comprehend information more quickly or effectively in a visual or auditory format rather than only through textual means; therefore, they would benefit as well from multiple means of representation that encourage making connections between concepts (CAST, 2012). Adult distance learners, in particular, benefit from UDL design features that “disrupt the traditional dependency on text with the thoughtful addition of visual and auditory interfaces which tend to be more inclusive” (Crichton & Kinash, 2013, p. 216), yet course designers must also recognize that some features of online technology can be disabling for students, especially those learners who are not neurotypical, and implementation of UDL is necessary to ensure inclusivity. Two important UDL guidelines include “providing the same information through different modalities . . . [and] providing information in a format that will allow for adjustability by the user” (CAST, 2012). Inclusion of both linguistic and nonlinguistic materials and scaffolding are both important as well.

Learners also need different methods to present what knowledge they have acquired. A student lacking language fluency may have difficulty expressing her knowledge in written words, but she may be effective when she uses visual, oral, or graphical techniques. Varied organizational skills can lead to some learners presenting knowledge in a linear fashion whereas others’ thinking is more circular. Students may approach their learning in very different ways as “action and expression require a great deal of strategy, practice, and organization” (CAST, 2012), and attention to executive functioning differences is significant. The concepts of UDL have also been applied to assessing what students have learned in ways that are not only accessible to all learners but also “authentic, accurate, and authoritative for a student population that is constantly growing in diversity” (Zeff, 2007, p. 41).

Improving practice through cultural and developmental sensitivity

The concepts behind UDL acknowledge that “affect represents a crucial element to learning, and learners differ markedly in the ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn . . . including [with regard to] neurology, culture, personal relevance, subjectivity, and background knowledge” (CAST, 2012), particularly adult learners. Corroborating the need for this sensitivity, according to cultural neuropsychology, developmental trajectories are varied even at the societal level, with different societies presenting differentiated patterns (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). The work of Luria and Vygotsky with the Uzbek population shows the sociocultural embodiment of visual ability when capturing pictorial illusions. It demonstrates how cultural and environmental aspects influence an adult’s cognitive skills. In particular, residents in urban versus nonurban environments reveal significant difference in spatial abilities (Ardila & Keating, 2007). For instance, adults in modern urban areas have a stronger tendency to be mediated by maps, charts, and diagrams, which they frequently use on a daily basis, whereas inhabitants in less populated environments such as deserts, jungles, or tundras apply spatial and natural elements for their cognitive process. As such, a cross-cultural comparison between urban and nonurban individuals unveils different perceptual constancy and learning based on living environments (Myambo, 1972). Recognizing that knowledge is constructed by learners in this more holistic manner and acknowledging a subsequent epistemological shift, UDL can provide optional learning materials through multimodal sources of information such as a combination of text, graphics, audio, and video that can best serve the needs of adult learners from diverse social and cultural backgrounds. Acknowledging the various developmental trajectories of adult learners, the provision of textual, auditory, and visual information resources will foster naturally embodied and preferred learning by allowing active self-customization of materials. For learning to be effective, these kinds of differences must be acknowledged and addressed. The learning materials need to be relevant and in line with the goals of the learner to enhance motivation, and students must be provided opportunities for both spontaneity and routine, independence and collaboration, and instructor direction and autonomy (CAST, 2012). Given the characteristics of various development trajectories of adult learners in general, and adult learners in the online context in particular, incorporating UDL principles is beneficial and moves our educational practice away from individualistic and behavioristic approaches that rely on a false epistemology.

Adult learner/learning characteristics supported by UDL

In the current educational environment, the adult population is called to participate in continuous learning to fit changing market needs and participate more fully in the knowledge economy. Regardless of ability or demographics, adults are pressured to become lifelong learners equipped with technology skills and fluency with information and communication technologies (ICT; World Bank, 2003). Under these circumstances, greater numbers of adults are returning to engage in learning activities, and this also means that there is greater diversity in this population of students (Hannah, 2017; Kasworm, 2003; Willans & Seary, 2011).

Despite the fact that there is not a universal theory to explain how adults learn and that epistemological diversity is a fundamental characteristic of the teaching and learning transaction, UDL provides a broad conceptual framework to accommodate the current diverse population of adult learners. Many returning adult students perform multiple roles and responsibilities while also seeking to improve themselves through lifelong learning. Bounded to multiple duties at home and in the workplace, and having limited time and energy, adults have few chances to fully indulge in learning activities. This lack of individual resources creates pressure and anxiety for adult learners in this situation. Understanding the competing demands in adult learners’ lives, UDL can integrate the qualities of informal learning into an online course. Informal learning is considered “the natural accompaniment to everyday life” (European Commission, 2000, p. 8) and is found to happen in most adults’ routines. Unlike formal learning, which takes place under institutional settings, informal learning occurs through “very normal, very natural human activity” (Tough, 2002, p. 2). Even in formal educational settings, informal learning can take place (Jarvis, 2008) through personal interaction and unstructured processes (Gofton & Regehr, 2006) that reflect social norms (Ozolins, Hall, & Peterson, 2008). The qualities of informal learning can enhance the educational experience of an adult learner, but are often ignored as design considerations.

According to Rao (2012), the challenges for adult learners in online courses are threefold: uncertainty about expectations, insufficient learning community, and technology challenges. Lack of face-to-face interactions deprives learners of the opportunity to verify and understand the instructor’s expectations. Students can discuss various course-relevant issues from an assignment’s approach to course climate through informal encounters and conversations if they meet in a face-to-face class. Also, in a face-to-face setting, personal difficulties and concerns can be shared more effectively to determine a clear response to the expectations of the course. It is not only a sense of ambiguity, but also one’s feeling of isolation due to the lack of a learning community that is troublesome to online adult learners. For example, in behavioristic frameworks, students might respond to weekly assignments to complete mandatory tasks rather than engage each other in constructive and collaborative discussions. These challenges are often attributable to the simple use of technology that stipulates work-to-do based on due dates. In response to these challenges, UDL can provide ways to introduce informal aspects into the adult learning sphere by reinterpreting, expanding, and reconstructing the traditional epistemology of the non-UDL online sphere. Consideration of various learning styles and provision of multiple learning options will be the beginning point of accommodating flexible informal learning spheres.

Distance learner/learning characteristics supported by UDL

Because many distance learners are adults and online course offerings provide access to students whose circumstances may limit their ability to participate in face-to-face classes, it is necessary to understand the variety of students who participate in online learning (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). The flexibility of UDL-designed courses provides opportunities to meet the needs of this diverse population. One reason that adjustability is particularly important in distance education is that the online environment allows students to interact with the content, the instructor, and peers in various settings that may present distractions not found in a face-to-face classroom. Because students taking distance education courses may also be nontraditional students, particularly adults with nonacademic responsibilities in their lives, to be successful, they must be self-directed, motivated, and interested in their own learning. Motivation is an important requirement for successful online learning, and following the UDL model with multiple forms of engagement is effective. Distance education teachers serve a somewhat different role than traditional instructors and students are much more autonomous. Learners also have more control of their learning in an online environment and make their own decisions about how to learn. Because there is no single best method for students to access content and reveal their understanding, UDL’s focus on providing options is significant. It is important to recognize that adult distance learners want to exercise control over their own learning, define what it is they will learn, make their own decisions about how to learn, use their personal life experience in the learning process, apply their knowledge to solving real-life present-day problems, and have intrinsic motivation (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Because of the diversity of distance learners and their autonomy, providing multiple ways to acquire knowledge and demonstrate comprehension is beneficial.

Moore’s (1993) theory of transactional distance highlights the separation of the student from the instructor that is both physical and psychological. Teachers and students navigate this separation in very different ways; “[e]ven though there are clearly recognizable patterns, there is also enormous variation in these strategies and techniques and in the behaviour of teachers and learners” (Moore, 1993), thus supporting the principles of UDL. In designing distance learning experiences, Moore argued that there must be a focus on structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy with particular emphasis on the processes of presenting content, supporting student motivation, developing critical analysis, giving supportive and clarifying guidance, assessing learning, and creating knowledge (Moore, 1993). Multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement are essential elements of each process. Friesen and Kuskis (2013) considered both pedagogy and technology in terms of online interaction and concluded that “the mediated context of distance education has compelled distance educators to consider more seriously interactions between students and diverse educational media” (p. 351), focusing on student interaction with content; however, multiple effective communication options also enhance the development of positive social presence that increases learning. When designing a course using UDL, flexibility and choice can enhance interaction so that it meets the goals of distance educators and fulfills instructional objectives, addresses student diversity, and increases access (Friesen & Kuskis, 2013). Because effectively designing a distance education course does not mean simply transferring face-to-face content and activities to an online format, but requires rethinking and redesigning (Dennen, 2013), UDL can be a useful tool for instructional designers. CAST emphasizes the need to apply UDL by “building courses and classroom activities from inception to meet the learning needs of the greatest number of students” (Zeff, 2007, p. 30).

The role of the teacher in distance education matches particularly well with the fundamentals of UDL as adult distance learners demand that “teachers gain authority from what they know and the way they deal with their students, not from any external symbols or titles. Physical distance tends to further reduce the dominant psychological position of the teacher” (Moore & Kearsley, 2011, p. 151). With UDL, the instructor, with content and pedagogical knowledge, designs a course that allows the students to determine what and how they will learn. Elements of online courses that contribute to student success such as applicability and relevance of content, prompt and meaningful instructor feedback, and clear, easily understood guidelines, course materials, and assignment parameters (Moore & Kearsley, 2011) are highlighted when UDL principles are employed effectively.

Applying UDL Principles to an Existing Online Course

What follows is an example of how UDL principles were applied in redesigning an online course. An important element in applying UDL is that it begins with course design, “building out curriculum and lessons from a set of goals” (Zeff, 2007, p. 30), rather than trying to meet the needs of diverse students only when problems develop. The principles of UDL can be applied to course objectives, teaching techniques, learning materials, and assessment methods, so that no matter what skills, needs, motivations, or interests an individual student brings, she will be able to learn.

The purpose of the course that was redesigned is to introduce future teachers to principles of effective communication in ways that educators will typically experience. It included the design and presentation of individual speeches, videos, and other common forms of educational communication. Assessment included evaluation by examination, product review, and other activities focused on the use of communications for educators. Students learned about a variety of communications technologies that are specifically useful for teachers within the framework of a deeper understanding of basic rhetoric including rhetorically effective communication. The goal of the course is to master the process of communication within the pedagogical setting. In evaluating the effectiveness of the course, we noted a lack of flexibility and limited options available to diverse students. We planned revisions that would strengthen learner engagement, increase performance, and meet the needs of all students. We recognized the need for shifting the instructional focus away from a traditional behavioristic methodology that accommodates individuals viewed outside of the norm to one that addresses the needs of all learners in increasingly diverse classes. We followed the model of Rose et al. (2006) in their redesign of a graduate education course. In following this approach, the movement beyond an individualistic and behavioristic learning environment takes priority as the UDL framework allows learners’ unique histories, abilities, cultures, and characteristics to become opportunities rather than deficiencies.

Text choice

After reviewing the presentation of course information and content through the lens of UDL, we realized that it did not provide multiple means of representation, and it also did not contribute to student motivation through multiple means of engagement. It did not meet Mace’s first principle of design of providing accessibility to individuals with varied abilities as the need for accommodating assistive devices such as a text reader would segregate and possibly stigmatize specific students (Story et al., 1998).

The written text did not meet the needs of all students, even if it was used with a text reader. Students need options for accessing the course content. Visual representations can enhance learning for some students. When applying UDL, it is important to recognize that merely adding a text-reader function or closed captioning a video is not a significant way to address disability and diversity. The new book options for the course offer multiple means of representation as students may read a traditional text-based work, listen to a text reader, study from an outline and visual version of the book, or use a Kindle reader format. Each version of the content provides an option for a different type of student. The images of the books we provided on the syllabus also provide a link for purchasing the book.

Syllabus format

The syllabus also did not offer multiple means of representation and engagement. We needed to provide information, particularly about assignments, in different ways that were more stimulating to students. It was clear we had to revise the syllabus to meet Mace’s principles. It needed to be “eas[ier] to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level” (Story et al., 1998). We focused revisions on simplifying the document, making it more intuitive, and rearranging the content to reflect its importance, thus accommodating a much greater range of student abilities (Story et al., 1998). To enhance the communication of information, we “[used] different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information . . . [m]aximize[d] ‘legibility’ of essential information . . . [and] ma[d]e it easy to give instructions or directions” (Story et al., 1998). The original syllabus was entirely textual, presented in paragraphs and lists; it required constant scrolling to identify needed information. It did not engage the students. Visual elements, such as book cover images, were added to engage the students. An interactive course calendar, text and content links, and navigation arrows were provided to make it easier to find necessary information. Color was included to visually separate and emphasize sections of the document. An effort was made to effectively create a community by adding instructor photographs and an inspiring message.

Assessment values and descriptions

It was also important to look at multiple means of representation with regard to assessments. Although there were written descriptions of the assessments and a breakdown of grade percentages, the assessment summaries and directions did not provide an excellent model or an unacceptable product. Explanations about what to do for specific assignments created confusion and increased anxiety; these statements led to repeated mistakes and low performance. Students did not correct their mistakes even after receiving feedback on previous work. A color-coded pie chart was added to highlight the grade percentages for assessments, making their worth instantly visible. Rubrics and model student assignments were included to increase student understanding of expectations. Visual models were created to demonstrate standards. Feedback was provided numerically using the rubrics and simultaneously with individual comments.

Assessment methods

Two factors we considered when evaluating assessments were multiple means of expression and engagement. We needed formats that stimulated student interest and motivated them to meet high expectations. In this area, flexibility, Mace’s second principle, was key (Story et al., 1998). We wanted to meet the needs of students with diverse abilities and varied interests. Providing students with multiple options to show what they knew was essential.

Originally a multiple choice midterm and final exam were offered as assessments of course content knowledge acquisition. These were the only summative assessments. Because the course was online, it was easy for students to use outside resources when completing the tests so the scores were inflated and did not reflect students’ actual content comprehension. A new assessment strategy was used that reflected more problem-solving and real-world connections. As education students preparing to teach in their own classrooms, students designed their own tests from a class-generated question list and provided a justification for their choices. The class list of questions was expanded weekly and students’ individual contributions were graded, so students received feedback on the topics prior to the final test creation. This assessment effectively used collaboration and scaffolding.

Communication with students

As we worked to improve the course, by focusing on the principles of UDL, we recognized deficiencies that had not been obvious to us. For example, this course was designed to teach effective communication techniques, yet our own communication was weak. Acknowledging the need to increase instructor presence in this online course, and thereby enhance student engagement, we implemented several ways to communicate with students. Mace called for “effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion” (Story et al., 1998). We accomplished this through weekly class emails, weekly individual emails providing feedback on discussion forum participation and homework assignment completion, and regular updates to content clarifications and assignment details and models.

Conclusion

In the interest of greater accessibility, effectiveness, and enjoyment of the learning process for all learners, UDL offers principles and practices that shift to a learner-centered approach and emphasize collaboration and community. UDL represents an epistemological shift away from individualistic approaches to the teaching–learning transaction, allowing course design and educational practice to directly address issues of justice and inclusion. Through the guiding principles of multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement, UDL encourages the design of learning environments that can accommodate the increasing diversity in the growing population of adult learners, particularly in the online context. In this way, UDL is also a justice-oriented approach, creating greater opportunities for success for broader swaths of the lifelong learning population.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the 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.

Author Biographies

Carol Rogers-Shaw, MA, MS, is a PhD candidate at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include educational accessibility for adult learners with disabilities, identity development in distance education, and nontraditional qualitative research.

Davin J. Carr-Chellman, PhD, is an assistant professor of education at the University of Idaho in the Adult, Organizational Learning and Leadership Program. His research includes adult learning, ethics, and qualitative research methods.

Jinhee Choi, MS, BFA, is a PhD candidate at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include lifelong learning policy, public pedagogy, adult learning, and issues relevant to North Korean defectors.

References

Agada

(1998). Multicultural education and the emerging paradigm: An essay in cultural epistemology. The Urban Review, 30(1), 77-95.

Ardila

Keating

(2007). Cognitive abilities in different cultural contexts. In Uzzell

B. P.

Ponton

Ardila

(Eds.), International handbook of cross-cultural neuropsychology (pp. 109-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aronson

(2008). Breaking barriers or locked out? Class-based perceptions and experiences of postsecondary education. Social Class and Transitions to Adulthood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008(119), 41-54.

Baggaley

(2008). Where did distance education go wrong? Distance Education, 29(1), 39-51.

Bates

A. W.

(2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

Bernal

D. D.

(1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555-583.

Brookfield

(2001). Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(1), 7-22.

CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (Version 2.0). Wakefield, MA: Author.

Cawthon

S. W.

Cole

E. V.

(2010). Postsecondary students who have a learning disability: Student perspectives on accommodations access and obstacles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(2), 112-128.

10.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2015). Until learning has no limits. Available from http://www.cast.org/

11.

Cincinnato

De Wever

Valcke

(2014). The learning divide in formal adult education: Why do low-qualified adults participate less? In Guimarães

Cavaco

Marrocos

Paulos

Bruno

Rodrigues

Marques

(Eds.), Local change, social actions and adult learning: Challenges and responses—Proceedings of the conference (pp. 401-415). Lisbon, Portugal: University of Lisbon.

12.

Crichton

Kinash

(2013). Enabling learning for disabled students. In Moore

M. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 452-466). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Dennen

V. P.

(2013). Activity design and instruction in online learning. In Moore

M. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 452-466). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Edwards

(2015). Software and the hidden curriculum in digital education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(2), 265-279.

15.

Edyburn

(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. doi:10.1177/073194871003300103

16.

Ertmer

P. A.

Newby

T. J.

(1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

17.

European Commission. (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning (Commission Staff Working paper). Retrieved from http://arhiv.acs.si/dokumenti/Memorandum_on_Lifelong_Learning.pdf

18.

Freire

(1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

19.

Friesen

Kuskis

(2013). Modes of interaction. In Moore

M. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 452-466). New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Gofton

Regehr

(2006). What we don’t know we are teaching: Unveiling the hidden curriculum. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 449, 20-27.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glenn_Regehr/publication/7046749_What_we_don’;t_know_we_are_teaching__Unveiling_the_hidden_curriculum/links/54466b920cf2f14fb80f3a76.pdf

21.

Gregg

(2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 219-228. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00250

22.

Hall

Vue

Strangman

Meyer

(2004). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html

23.

Hannah

M. B.

(2017). Experiences of learning online among adult learners and the relationship engaging activities have on satisfaction and retention (Doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Scottsdale, AZ.

24.

Henrich

S. J.

Heine

Norenzayan

(2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. doi:10.1038/466029a

25.

Hollingshead

(2017). Designing engaging online environment: Universal Design for Learning principles. In Milheim

K. L.

(Ed.), Cultivating diverse online classrooms through effective instructional design (Chap. 14). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

26.

Jarvis

(2008). Democracy, lifelong learning and the learning society: Active Citizenship in a late modern age. London, England: Routledge.

27.

Kanno

Kangas

S. E.

(2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP” English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848-878.

28.

Kasworm

C. E.

(2003). Setting the stage: Adults in higher education. New directions for student services, 2003(102), 3-10.

29.

King

(1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching, 41(1), 30-35.

30.

Kurth

Mellard

(2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 71-84.

31.

Kvasny

(2006). Cultural (re) production of digital inequality in a US community technology initiative. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 160-181.

32.

Lee

(2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A historical review. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 15-23.

33.

Meyer

Rose

D. H.

(2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.

34.

Meyer

Rose

D. H.

Gordon

(2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/publications/2014/universal-design-learning-theory-practice-udl-meyer.html#.WIeCv7YrJ8c

35.

Moore

(1993). “Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan

(Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Moore

Kearsley

(2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

37.

Myambo

(1972). Shape constancy as influenced by culture, western education, and angel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(3), 221-232. doi:10.1177/002202217200300301

38.

Naidoo

(2004). Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 457-471.

39.

National Center for Universal Design for Learning at Center for Applied Special Technology. (2012). Available from http://www.udlcenter.org/

40.

North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design. (2008). About the center: Ronald Mace. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm

41.

Ozolins

Hall

Peterson

(2008). The student voice: Recognising the hidden and informal curriculum in medicine. Medical Teacher, 30, 606-611. doi:10.1080/01421590801949933

42.

Patton

L. D.

(2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315-342.

43.

Rao

(2012, January). Universal design for online courses: Addressing the needs of nontraditional learners. Paper presented at 2012 IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education, Kerala, India.

44.

Rappolt-Schlichtmann

Daley

S. G.

Rose

L. T.

(2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

45.

Rose

D. H.

Gravel

J. W.

(2010). Technology and learning: Meeting special student’s needs. National Center on Universal Design for Learning. Available from http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/TechnologyandLearning.pdf

46.

Rose

D. H.

Harbour

W. S.

Johnston

C. S.

Daley

S. G.

Abarbanell

(2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 135-151. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ844630.pdf

47.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

(2000). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform (A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Technology). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

48.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

Hitchcock

(2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

49.

Scheurich

J. J.

Young

M. D.

(1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16.

50.

Seale

Georgeson

Mamas Swain

(2015). Not the right kind of “digital capital”? An examination of the complex relationship between disabled students, their technologies and higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 82, 118-128.

51.

Shakespeare

Watson

(2002). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9-28. Retrieved from http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Shakespeare-social-model-of-disability.pdf

52.

Story

M. F.

Mueller

J. L.

Mace

R. L.

(1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh: NC State University Center for Universal Design.

53.

Tough

(2002). The iceberg of informal adult learning (New Approaches to Lifelong Learning, Working Paper No 49-2002). Retrieved from https://nall.oise.utoronto.ca/res/49AllenTough.pdf

54.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Introduction to the ADA. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm

55.

Van Deursen

A. J.

van Dijk

J. A.

Peter

(2015). Increasing inequalities in what we do online: A longitudinal cross sectional analysis of Internet activities among the Dutch population (2010 to 2013) over gender, age, education, and income. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 259-272.

56.

Welton

M. R.

(Ed.). (1995). In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

57.

Welton

M. R.

(2014). Habermas and the meaning of the post-secular society: Complementary learning processes. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 5(4), 57-69.

58.

Willans

Seary

(2011). I feel like I’m being hit from all directions: Enduring the bombardment as a mature-age learner returning to formal learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(1), 119-142.

59.

World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for developing countries (A World Bank report). Washington, DC: Author.

60.

Zeff

(2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(137), 27-44. doi:10.1002/he.244