UNIVERSAL
DESIGN
in Higher Education
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
Edited by Sheryl E. Burgstahler
Preface
PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION
PART 2 EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES FROM THE FIELD
Increasing Accessibility of College STEM Courses Through Faculty Development in Universal Design for
Learning (UDL)
S.J. Langley-Turnbaugh, J. Whitney, and M. Blair, University of Southern Maine
Universal Instructional Design of Online Courses: Strategies to Support Non-Traditional Learners in
Postsecondary Environments
Kavita Rao, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Development of a UD Checklist for Postsecondary Student Services
Sheryl E. Burgstahler and Elizabeth Moore, University of Washington
Promoting the Design of Accessible Informal Science Learning
Lyla Crawford and Sheryl E. Burgstahler, University of Washington
Universal Design in Assessments
Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Bristol Community College
Increasing Access to Technical Science Vocabulary Through Use of Universally Designed Signing
Dictionaries
Judy Vesel and Tara Robillard, TERC (Technical Education Research Centers), Inc.
Contents
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
PART 3 PROMISING PRACTICES AND RESOURCES
More Promising Practices
Websites, Publications, and Videos
Preface
Based on the number of invitations I receive to deliver presentations on the topic at conferences and campuses,
the interest in applications of universal design (UD) to postsecondary education continues to grow. It seems that
everyone—faculty, student service providers, technology leaders—wants to make learning environments welcoming
and accessible to the entire student body, including English language learners and students with disabilities. Many
have been motivated by the book Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (www.hepg.
org/hep/Book/83), which was published by Harvard Education Press, and for which I am the lead author and editor.
But, they want more examples of how UD is being applied to postsecondary settings—from technology resources,
learning styles, physical spaces, and student services, to on-site and online instruction.
I hear many examples of applications of UD in postsecondary education. If shared and replicated by others,
these practices could have more impact. Toward this goal, I have created Universal Design in Higher Education:
Promising Practices, an online book that continues to grow as further contributions are made. I invite practitioners
and researchers who have applied UD in postsecondary settings to submit articles presenting evidence of their
successes.
Article submissions are peer-reviewed by members of the Universal Design in Higher Education Community of
Practice, which is managed by the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center
that I founded and continue to direct at the University of Washington in Seattle. Accepted articles have been
reviewed and edited.
The most current version of Promising Practices is freely available on the DO-IT website at www.uw.edu/doit/
UDHE-promising-practices/. It is presented as a series of accessible PDF les to make it easy for users to print or
download various sections for courses, presentations, and training. To maximize distribution of content, we link
articles to summaries that appear as Promising Practices in the DO-IT online Knowledge Base.
I look forward to you joining us in this collaborative work by submitting an article for possible inclusion in
this publication. Follow the instructions provided in the next few pages. Together we can contribute to broadening
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
participation in education and careers through inclusive practices, and enhancing academic and career
elds with the talents and perspectives of individuals with disabilities.
Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D.
Editor, Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices
Founder and Director, DO-IT Center
University of Washington
SUBMISSIONS
Our Online Community of Practice
Those interested in submitting articles for this publication must become members of the Universal Design
in Higher Education Community of Practice. This online community is hosted by DO-IT and is open to all
interested parties. Subscribe by sending your request to doit@uw.edu.
General Guidelines
Articles can be up to eight double-spaced pages in length, including references, tables, and gures; in
12-point, Times New Roman font; and formatted in current APA style (www.apastyle.org). Send the article
as a Word document in an email attachment to doit@uw.edu. Article drafts, after a review by DO-IT staff,
are shared with members of the Community of Practice for an open peer review. Authors are encouraged
to share drafts of their articles with the Community of Practice for informal feedback before submission.
If determined appropriate for this collection, recommendations for editing the article will be provided to
the author. The editor will make the nal decision about inclusion of the material; once accepted, the paper
will be copyedited and then posted online as an accessible PDF. Authors agree to give readers permission
to copy and distribute their contributions for educational, noncommercial purposes, as long as the source
is acknowledged.
Content Guidelines
Articles should include:
1. Title and author names and afliations
2. Need and goal/objective for the activity/product
Why did you undertake this UD effort?
What did you want to accomplish?
3. Activity/product description
What did you do?
What was the intended audience (e.g., specic academic level/area)?
How were UD principles/strategies incorporated?
If available, what is the project URL?
PREFACE
4. Results and discussion
How did incorporation of UD principles solve the problem identied and/or reach the goal/objective
you established?
What is evidence of impact on your intended audience?
Why was UD an important aspect of your work?
What were problems encountered, unintended benets discovered, and/or lessons learned that can
benet others interested in replicating your practice?
5. Conclusion
Why is this UD project/activity a promising practice?
What aspects do you recommend others implement?
6. References
7. Acknowledgments
Indicate sources of funding or other contributions you would like to acknowledge.
Also include these statements:
This article is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices, sponsored
by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 [your name or institution]. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
Reference: (in APA style). [authors]. [year]. [article title]. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher
education: Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-
promising-practices/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This content is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices, sponsored
by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those
of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Burgstahler, S. (2013). Preface. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher education: Promising
practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-
practices/preface.html
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
1
Introduction to Universal Design
in Higher Education
Designing any product or environment involves the consideration of many factors, including aesthetics, engineering
options, environmental issues, safety concerns, industry standards, and cost. Often the design is created for the
“average” user. In contrast, “universal design (UD)” is, according to The Center for Universal Design, “the design
of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for
adaptation or specialized design” (www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm).
When UD principles are applied in a postsecondary institution, educational products and environments meet
the needs of potential students with a wide variety of characteristics. Disability is just one of many characteristics
that a student might possess. For example, one student could be Hispanic, six feet tall, male, thirty years old, an
excellent reader, primarily a visual learner, and deaf. UD requires consideration of all characteristics of potential
users, including abilities and disabilities, when developing a course or service.
UD can be applied to any product or environment. For example, a typical service counter in a career services
ofce is not accessible to everyone, including students who are short in stature, use wheelchairs, and cannot stand
for extended periods of time. Applying UD principles might result in the design of a counter that has multiple
heights: the standard height designed for individuals within the typical range of height, who use the counter while
standing up; and a shorter height for those who are shorter than average, use a wheelchair for mobility, or prefer to
interact with service staff from a seated position.
Making a product or an environment accessible to people with disabilities often benets others. For example, while
automatic door openers benet students, faculty, and staff using walkers and wheelchairs, they also benet people
carrying books and holding babies, as well as elderly citizens. Sidewalk curb cuts, designed to make sidewalks and
streets accessible to those using wheelchairs, are also used by kids on skateboards, parents with baby strollers, and
delivery staff with rolling carts. When video displays in airports and restaurants are captioned, they benet people
who cannot hear the audio because of a noisy environment as well as those who are deaf.
UD is a goal that puts a high value on both diversity and inclusiveness. It is also a process.
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
THE PROCESS OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The process of UD requires consideration of the application as a whole and its subcomponents. The following
list suggests a process that can be used to apply UD in a postsecondary setting:
1.
Identifytheapplication. Specify the product or environment to which you wish to apply universal
design.
2.
Denetheuniverse. Describe the overall population (e.g., users of service), and then consider their
potential diverse characteristics (e.g., gender; age; ethnicity and race; native language; learning style;
and ability to see, hear, manipulate objects, read, and communicate).
3.
Involveconsumers. Consider and involve people with diverse characteristics in all phases of the
development, implementation, and evaluation of the application. Also gain perspectives through
diversity programs, such as the campus disability services ofce.
4.
Adoptguidelinesorstandards. Create or select existing universal design guidelines or standards.
Integrate them with other best practices within the eld of the application.
5.
Applyguidelinesorstandards. In concert with best practices, apply universal design to the overall
design of the application, its subcomponents, and all ongoing operations (e.g., procurement processes,
staff training) to maximize the benet of the application to individuals with the wide variety of
characteristics.
6.
Planforaccommodations. Develop processes to address accommodation requests (e.g., purchase
of assistive technology, arrangement for sign language interpreters) from individuals for whom the
design of the application does not automatically provide access.
7.
Trainandsupport.Tailor and deliver ongoing training and support to stakeholders (e.g., instructors,
computer support staff, procurement ofcers, volunteers). Share institutional goals with respect to
diversity, inclusion, and practices for ensuring welcoming, accessible, and inclusive experiences for
everyone.
8. Evaluate. Include universal design measures in periodic evaluations of the application; evaluate the
application with a diverse group of users, and make modications based on feedback. Provide ways
to collect input from users (e.g., online, in print, through communications with staff).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
At The Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University, a group of architects, product
designers, engineers, and environmental design researchers established seven principles of UD to provide
guidance in the design of products and environments. Following are the CUD principles of UD, each are
paired with an example of its application:
1.
Equitableuse. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. A website that is
designed so that it is accessible to everyone, including people who are blind, employs this principle.
2.
Flexibilityinuse.The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. A
INTRODUCTION
museum that allows a visitor to choose to read or listen to a description of the contents of a display
case employs this principle.
3.
Simpleandintuitive. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience,
knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Science lab equipment with control
buttons that are clear and intuitive employs this principle.
4.
Perceptibleinformation. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user,
regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. Video captioning employs this
principle.
5.
Toleranceforerror. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or
unintended actions. An educational software program that provides guidance when the user makes
an inappropriate selection employs this principle.
6.
Lowphysicaleffort. The design can be used efciently and comfortably, and with a minimum of
fatigue. Doors that open automatically employ this principle.
7.
Sizeandspaceforapproachanduse. The design provides appropriate size and space for approach,
reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility. A science lab
with adjustable tables employs this principle.
OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF UD
Applications and examples of UD are given on the following two pages. A reproducable PDF le with this
content can be found at www.uw.edu/doit/CUDE/.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter was adapted with permission from the publication
Universal Design in Postsecondary
Education:Process,Principles,andApplications by Sheryl Burgstahler at www.uw.edu/doit/Brochures/
Academics/ud_post.html, and is part of the collection
UniversalDesigninHigherEducation:Promising
Practices, sponsored by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT
Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Burgstahler, S. (2013). Introduction to universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.).
Universal
designinhighereducation:Promisingpractices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from
www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-practices/part1.html






In Instruction
• Class climate
• Interaction
• Physical
environments
and products
• Delivery methods
• Information resources
and technology
• Feedback
• Assessment
• Accommodation
In Services
• Planning,
policies, and
evaluation
• Physical environments
and products
• Staff
• Information resources
and technology
• Events
In Information
Technology
• Procurement and
development policies
• Physical environments
and products
• Information
• Input and control
• Output
• Manipulations
• Safety
• Compatibility with
assistive technology
In Physical Spaces
• Planning, policies,
and evaluation
• Appearance
• Entrances and
routes of travel
• Fixtures and furniture
• Information resources
and technology
• Safety
• Accommodation
• rests on the denition
and principles developed
at the Center for
Universal Design:
• is a goal, a process, as
well as a set of guidelines
and strategies for specic
applications.
• can be implemented in
incremental steps.
• can be applied to
instruction, services,
information, technology,
and physical spaces
to ensure welcoming,
accessible, and usable
products and environments
for students, instructors,
staff, and others.
Universal design in education:
• puts high values on diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
• strives to make educational
products and environments
welcoming, accessible, and
usable for everyone.
The Center for Universal Design in Education uw.edu/doit/CUDE
Founder and Director: Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D. University of Washington
Applications of
Universal Design
in Education
“The design of products and
environments to be usable by
all people, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for
adaptation or specialized design.”
ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud
 
 

In Services
• Service counters that are
at heights accessible from
both a seated and standing
position
• Staff who are aware of
resources and procedures for
providing disability-related
accommodations
• Pictures in publications
and on websites that
include people with diverse
characteristics with respect
to race, ethnicity, gender,
age, ability, and interest
• A statement in publications
about how to request
special assistance, such
as a disability-related
accommodation
• A student service website
that adheres to accessibility
standards (e.g., Section 508
Standards for those of the
U.S. federal government)
• Printed materials that are
easy to reach from a variety
of heights and without
furniture blocking access
• Printed publications that are
available in alternate formats
(e.g., electronic, large print,
Braille)
In Instruction
• A statement on a syllabus
that invites students to
meet with the instructor to
discuss learning needs
• Multiple delivery methods
that motivate and engage
all learners
• Flexible curriculum that is
accessible to all learners
• Examples that appeal to
students with a variety of
characteristics with respect
to race, ethnicity, gender,
age, ability, and interest
• Regular, accessible, and
effective interactions
between students and the
instructor
• Allowing students to turn
in parts of a large project
for feedback before the
nal project is due
• Class outlines and notes
that are on an accessible
website
• Assessing student learning
using multiple methods
• Faculty awareness of
processes and resources
for disability-related
accommodations
In Information
Technology
• Captioned videos
• Alternative text for graphic
images on web pages so
that individuals who are
blind and using text-to-
speech technology can
access the content
• Procurement policies and
procedures that promote
the purchase of accessible
products
• Adherence to standards for
the accessible and usable
design of websites
• Comfortable access to
computers for both left- and
right-handed students
• Software that is compatible
with assistive technology
• Computers that are on
adjustable-height tables
In Physical Spaces
• Clear directional signs
that have large, high-
contrast print
• Restrooms, classrooms,
and other facilities that
are physically accessible
to individuals who use
wheelchairs or walkers
• Furniture and xtures
in classrooms that are
adjustable in height and
allow arrangements for
different learning activities
and student groupings
• Emergency instructions
that are clear and visible
and address the needs of
individuals with sensory
and mobility impairments
• Non-slip walking surfaces
Examples of
Universal Design
in Education
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
AccessCollege is directed by DO-IT at the University of
Washington and funded by the U.S. Department of Education,
Ofce of Postsecondary Education, Grant #P333A050064,
and the State of Washington. Any questions, ndings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of
the government.
Copyright ©2014, 2013, 2012, 2007. Permission is granted to
copy these materials for educational, noncommercial purposes
provided the source is acknowledged.
The Center for Universal Design in Education
publications, videos, web resources at uw.edu/doit/CUDE
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
in Higher Education
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
2
Evidence-Based
Practices
from the Field
The following peer-reviewed articles report evidence-based practices related to the application of universal design
in higher education.
Increasing Accessibility of College STEM Courses Through Faculty Development in Universal Design for
Learning (UDL)
S.J. Langley-Turnbaugh, J. Whitney, and M. Blair, University of Southern Maine
Universal Instructional Design of Online Courses: Strategies to Support Non-Traditional Learners in
Postsecondary Environments
Kavita Rao, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Promoting the Design of Accessible Informal Science Learning
Lyla Crawford and Sheryl E. Burgstahler, University of Washington
Development of a UD Checklist for Postsecondary Student Services
Sheryl E. Burgstahler and Elizabeth Moore, University of Washington
Universal Design in Assessments
Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Bristol Community College
Increasing accessibility of college
STEM courses through faculty
development in Universal Design
for Learning
S.J. Langley-Turnbaugh, M. Blair, and J. Whitney, University of Southern Maine
The University of Southern Maine (USM) has seen an increase in students with disabilities in recent years, and
recognizes the requirement to modify its curricula, instruction, assessment, and environment to address the diverse
needs of its changing population. Older students, veterans, students with disabilities, students for whom English is
not their rst language, transfer students, and others all bring special needs along with them to the rst day of class,
and retaining and educating these students means ensuring that courses are designed in a such a way that they are
accessible to all students.
The EAST Alliance 2 for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Students with Disabilities
at USM (EAST) (www.usm.maine.edu/east) conducted a program of faculty development in UDL that provided
USM professors with training and tools to use in creating accessible courses for all their students. One professor
summed up the need for this program: “I had no clue about universal design and really very little idea about
the range of challenges facing students with disabilities — or even the range of disabilities. I suspect that many
colleagues have a similar lack of appreciation for the challenges involved in adequately providing material for
students with disabilities.” Recognizing that many professors experienced a similar lack of understanding of the
effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning principles in ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to
succeed, EAST recruited sixteen STEM faculty members to participate in a ve-year program of UDL education,
implementation, evaluation, and dissemination.
PHASE 1: UDL EDUCATION
The UDL faculty cohort met in a series of forums geared toward providing education and information on UDL
while creating a constructivist learning environment out of which further topics for investigation could emerge.
Collective reading and discussion of the book Universal Design in Higher Education (Burgstahler, 2008) provided
background information and sparked questions that informed further forums. The Director of USM’s Ofce of
Support for Students with Disabilities (OSSD) presented a seminar on the mission of her ofce and their difculties
with the provision of all course materials in an accessible format. As a result of this presentation, two further seminars
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
were offered. The rst was by Dr. Norman Coombs, a nationally recognized expert in accessibility teaching
and advocacy, who broadened the faculty’s perception of what it means to be blind in the world of higher
education, and who demonstrated the means of making a universal, accessible PowerPoint presentation and
then adapting it for a lecture, presentation, website, etc. The second seminar that resulted from the initial
OSSD presentation was planned as a response to the faculty’s request for more information on specic
disabilities, and presented a neuropsychological perspective on students with Asperger’s syndrome.
In addition to background information on disabilities and UDL, education was also provided on the role
of technology in UDL and on adaptive technology. The key concept that technology broadens access by
providing exibility and multiple means of engagement but does not change the content of the curriculum,
was reinforced by the faculty participants themselves. Four faculty members instructed their colleagues
on the use of vodcasting, podcast/media server/compression issues, the digital pen, and implementing best
practices for supporting all students.
PHASE 2: UDL IMPLEMENTATION
The evolving model of active learning by faculty proved to be powerful in keeping faculty engaged and
committed. This high level of engagement was a major asset when the time came for implementation.
Meeting together in a workshop format, faculty worked with a facilitator from the Center for Applied Special
Teaching (CAST) in a guided exploration of brain research and its implication for differentiated instruction
and classroom practices, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of various instructional media. Faculty
conducted a UDL Redesign Challenge, for which they described an aspect of their course instruction/
content that was particularly challenging for students, and shared suggestions for course adjustments guided
by UDL principles.
Based on these explorations, faculty then used UDL principles to design, implement, and practice lessons,
activities, labs, and revised syllabi. For instance, after examining many different examples of syllabi and
evaluating them for adherence to UDL principles, faculty took on the assignment of redesigning their course
syllabi to incorporate what they had learned regarding UDL. The following excerpts are taken from a
Biology professor’s report on the incorporation of UDL into the syllabus for his Introductory Neurobiology
course, based on ideas from the Equity and Excellence in Higher Education (2008) project.
A professor of a Fundamentals of Environmental Science course described some of the UDL modica-
tions he made to his methods of instruction as follows:
ESP 101 uses online tools to allow students to submit their work at convenient times outside of lecture.
Lecture includes interactive electronic clickers and quizzes that allow students and I to assess where they
are at in a real-time manner and to quickly address concepts that are difcult while allowing the lecture to
quickly move through those materials that students tend to grasp more readily. Short videos (less than six
minutes) are frequently used to illustrate key concepts and keep students engaged. Finally, I use hands-on
exercises in class to allow students to work together and develop a learning community.
INCREASING ACCESSIBILITY OF COLLEGE STEM COURSES
UDL Tip Syllabus Modication Made
Present information in at
least two formats.
Calendar for lectures and ofce hours added.
Map of concepts added to illustrate the link between major themes of course.
Give students as many
resources as possible.
Online textbook site added; Blackboard website added.
Link to campus map added for site of lectures and OSSD.
Website and contact info for OSSD and information about EAST added.
Provide lots of background
information — but be brief.
Photo of instructor added.
Sentence about my interests added to give context to the course.
Build in exibility. Weekly schedule calendar graphic added.
Ofce hours added after class, Virtual ofce hours added.
Email submission of homework added.
For some assignments the option of a PowerPoint or audio presentation instead of
a written piece has been added.
Go digital. Course materials will all be posted on Blackboard website. This includes
PowerPoints of lectures and additional papers.
Syllabus will be emailed to all students.
Added websites which have podcasts and webcasts which students can consult.
Less is more — don’t
overwhelm syllabus with
details.
Need to trim down text in initial document and place some of it in a secondary
document.
PHASE 3: REFLECTION/FEEDBACK
An integral part of sustaining change in teaching practice is reection and feedback. Faculty observed each
other’s courses, recorded their observations, and met to discuss how UDL was being incorporated into
classroom instruction. Working with Education Development Center, Inc. and CAST, EAST developed a
Faculty Universal Design for Learning Observation Tool which gathered data about whether and how an
observed course session offered opportunities for students to experience ideas and information in multiple
ways, to express their comprehension in multiple ways, and to have multiple opportunities for engagement.
Faculty also completed a self-reection called Faculty Course Redesign Reection in which they described
changes made to courses, what aspects of courses reect principles of universal design, the perceived impact
of the lesson on students, and impact on their teaching practice in general.
To collect feedback, faculty administered a questionnaire to students at the end of each course. The
College Student Feedback Survey provided formative feedback to faculty about accessibility of their STEM
courses and documented the accessibility features that these courses incorporated.
All of these evaluation instruments, as well as Faculty Pre- and Post-Surveys (Education Development
Center, Inc., 2009), are available online.
Professors were provided with a small amount of funding to use for purchasing technology to help them
address individual issues that were identied through the evaluation process. A Computer Science professor
who learned that she was difcult to understand was able to purchase an amplication system. She reected,
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
“I am working in particular on improving my vocalization…which I have learned can be helpful to students
who are hard of hearing.”
PHASE 4: DISSEMINATION
Over the course of the training, the faculty realized the strong value of technology as a means of providing
universal accessibility to information; consequently they developed a website, blogs, vodcasts, and a
technology showcase. One of these, featuring use of a digital pen in Chemistry class (Stasko, 2010), can be
viewed online.
It was planned that in years four and ve, each of the participating faculty would mentor at least two
colleagues from their department through a two-year UDL Education/UDL Implementation cycle. This
model would result in an ongoing loop of dissemination of Universal Design for Learning throughout the
university community. In addition, a rubric for use in evaluating syllabi and courses, a collection of model
syllabi and UDL lessons, training in adding captioning to videos, and a monthly brown bag lunch series
for sharing of tools and strategies were anticipated. Unfortunately, funding for this phase of the project was
eliminated.
IMPACT
The sixteen faculty members who participated in EAST’s program for professional development in UDL
were responsible for seventy courses and six hundred students, including eighteen in Engineering and
Technology, fourteen in Natural Sciences, thirteen in Biology, ten in Mathematics, seven in Chemistry, ve
in the Humanities, and three in Physical Sciences. The legacy of UDL improvements to courses is being
carried on by the faculty who shared in the creation of the UDL education and implementation program.
When asked to describe the key idea they learned through the professional development sessions, sixty-
two percent of the faculty cited the benets of incorporating universal design into their courses. All faculty
members reported that they made changes in the design of their courses as a result of participating in
professional development in UDL. Sixty-four percent reported that they now provide information in multiple
formats, and forty-three percent reported incorporating interactive media.
The following quotes illustrate faculty members’ responses:
I try and think strategically about what I want the students to be learning, and develop different opportunities
for the students to engage and display competence. I try and bring in a lot of models and tactile work, more
simulations and practical demonstrations, and less equation work.
I have sought after and/or created information resources that provide information in multiple formats. Slide
shows have text outlines to go along with them. Images in lecture slide shows have descriptive text for screen
readers.
When asked what impact the changes in their courses had on students, thirty-six percent of the faculty
reported more student engagement, thirty-six percent felt it was too early to detect changes, twenty-nine
percent reported positive student feedback, and fourteen percent observed more student self-sufciency.
The following quotes are representative of faculty members’ responses:
INCREASING ACCESSIBILITY OF COLLEGE STEM COURSES
I think it has had a big impact on all students primarily because it has had a big impact on me and how I think
about my teaching and my teaching goals.
I cannot tell yet. It changes with every class. But the students respond to the opportunity to express their
knowledge in different ways positively, and (hopefully) this helps them stay engaged and active in the learning.
The course now allows students to learn all the material at their own pace and in a more accessible manner.
All the new features were designed to be more useful to any student.
CONCLUSION
This program has proven successful in educating college faculty on utilizing UDL to address the needs
of a rapidly changing student population. Involving professors in a constructivist approach is an excellent
way to overcome their natural reluctance to embrace change and assistive technology. Collaborating with
peers is, by denition, a collegial approach that respects the different places that individuals might be on
the road to making their courses universally accessible. As one long-time professor phrased it, professional
development in UDL “has had a transformative impact on nearly all aspects of my teaching.”
REFERENCES
Burgstahler, S. (2008). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Boston: Har-
vard Education Press.
Education Development Center, Inc. (2009). EAST faculty pre- and post-surveys. Retrieved from cct.edc.
org/surveys/EAST/iheFac.html
Equity and Excellence in Higher Education. (2008). Universal Course Design, UCD Syllabus Tips. Re-
trieved from www.eeonline.org/images/stories/eeonline_docs/ud_syll_tips.pdf
Stasko, D. (2010). Livescribe Pulse Smartpen in a Chemistry classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://
www.livescribe.com/blog/education/2010/02/05/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EAST is funded under National Science Foundation Award No. HRD 0833567. This article is part of the
collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices sponsored by the DO-IT Center. The
content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #HRD-0929006.
Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Langley-Turnbaugh S. J., Blair, M., & Whitney, J. (2013). Increasing accessibility of college STEM courses
through faculty development in UDL. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher education:
Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-
promising-practices/college_stem.html
Universal Instructional Design of
Online Courses
Strategies to Support Non-Traditional Learners in
Postsecondary Environments
By Kavita Rao, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
With its unique position as one of few four-year universities located at a crossroads in the Pacic ocean, the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa serves a diverse population of students from the U.S., Asia, and the Pacic. The
university’s College of Education (COE) provides teacher education programs for students from various Hawaiian
islands and from several Pacic island entities (such as American Samoa, the Marshall Islands and the Federated
States of Micronesia). With this geographically-dispersed population, distance learning programs are a necessary
and practical way for the COE to reach students. Online courses have created outreach opportunities and enabled
students to enroll in certicate and degree programs that they are not otherwise able to access.
Our online teacher education programs attract many “non-traditional students,” learners who do not t the
prole of a typical college-age young adult. “Non-traditional students” include students who live in rural and
remote communities, students with disabilities, and adult learners who are returning to school to earn certications
or degrees. The COE’s non-traditional student population includes individuals who are culturally and linguistically
diverse, many from traditional and indigenous backgrounds. These non-traditional students have a range of
characteristics and needs, based on their backgrounds, experiences, and life situations.
Universal design (UD) educational models provide useful frameworks to consider when creating courses for
the diverse and non-traditional students served by the COE’s online programs. With a deliberate application of
UD principles during the instructional design process, instructors can proactively develop courses that address
the needs of diverse learners. UD principles can be taken into consideration when making determinations about
various course elements and pedagogical practices for an online course, including decisions about how to use both
asynchronous (e.g. course management systems) and synchronous technologies (e.g virtual classrooms via web-
conferencing).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
CONSIDERATIONS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL LEARNERS
Our non-traditional learners are often: (a) rural and remote students, some from traditional and indigenous
cultures, (b) students with disabilities, (c) adult learners, and (d) students for whom the language of instruction
is not a rst language (EFL students). These categories are not mutually exclusive; a non-traditional learner
may fall into one or more of them. Table 1 lists some challenges that non-traditional students may experience
in an online environment, which include ambiguity and uncertainty about expectations, excessive reliance
on text-based learning modalities, isolation and lack of community, and technology challenges (Ho &
Burniske, 2005; McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000; Rao, Eady, Edelen-Smith, 2010, Zepke & Leach, 2002).
TABLE 1
Commonchallengesfornon-traditionallearners
Challenges/Issues Rural/
remote
learners
Students
with
disabilities
Adult
learners
EFL
students
Ambiguity/
uncertaintyaboutexpectations
3 3 3 3
Excessiverelianceontext-based
learning
3 3 3
Isolation/lackoflearningcommunity
3 3
Technologychallenges
3 3 3
UNIVERSAL INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN: APPLYING PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICE
Instructors often design courses before they know exactly who will be enrolled. During the instructional
design phase, instructors can include course elements and pedagogical strategies that will address the
needs of various types of diverse students who may enroll in their courses. The Universal Instructional
Design (UID) framework provides guidelines that instructors can use to proactively building in supports
for various learner needs. The eight principles of UID, based on Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles
for effective practices in undergraduate education and modied by Goff and Higbee to further include
universal design elements, are:
a. Creating welcoming classrooms
b. Determining essential components of a course
c. Communicating clear expectations
d. Providing timely and constructive feedback
e. Exploring use of natural supports for learning, including technology
f. Designing teaching methods that consider diverse learning styles, abilities, ways of knowing, and
previous experience and background knowledge
g. Creating multiple ways for students to demonstrate their knowledge
h. Promoting interaction among and between faculty and students
(Goff & Higbee, 2008)
Silver, Bourke and Strehorn (1998) state, “with UID, students may nd that many of the instructional
accommodations they would request are already part of the faculty members’ overall instructional design.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF ONLINE COURSES
Furthermore, these approaches may benet all students in the class” (p. 47). Berger and Van Thanh (2004)
note that the UID principles can foster equity and inclusion of students with disabilities and create campus
environments that respect and value diversity.
Table 2 provides an overview of the pedagogical strategies that instructors can incorporate when designing
and implementing online courses in order to address the four challenges presented in Table 1 for non-
traditional learners, and maps how the strategies align to universal instructional design principles. Though
Table 2 specically aligns strategies to the UID principles, these course elements and strategies also align to
the principles of the other UD educational models of Universal Design of Instruction (UDI) and Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). The principles of these three UD educational models have similarities, each
stemming from the core universal design philosophy of creating access to learning environments and
curricular content. Detailed descriptions of the strategies described in Table 2 can be found in the Rao and
Tanners (2011) article in the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability and in the Rao, Eady,
Edelen-Smith (2011) article in Phi Delta Kappan magazine.
TABLE 2 PedagogicalStrategiesandUIDPrinciples
A:Welcomingclassrooms
B:Essentialcourse
C:Clearexpectations
D:Timely,constructivefeedback
E:Diverseteachingmethods
F:Naturalsupports
G:Demonstrateknowledge
H:Interaction-students/faculty
Challenges Pedagogical Strategies UID
Ambiguity/
uncertaintyof
expectations
Personalizedintroduction
ConsistentandorganizeduseofCMS
Provideclearsyllabusandrubrics
l l l
Excessive
relianceontext-
basedlearning
Providemultimodalsourcesofinformation
Includedigitaltextsandaudiolesforreading
assignments
Provideassignmentchoiceswithalternatewaysto
demonstrateknowledge
l l l
Isolation/
lackof
community
Includesynchronousclassmeetings
Haveshort,frequentlower-stakesassignments
insteadoflargerhigh-stakesassignments
Providetimelyfeedbackfrominstructoronall
assignments
l l l l l l l
Technology
barriers
Provideproactivetechsupport
Createmechanismsforpeerassistance
l l l
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
STUDENT FEEDBACK
Course surveys and interview data indicate that students have favorable perceptions of courses that
incorporate elements that align to universal design principles. Non-traditional students from rural and remote
communities particularly appreciated the supports that were put in place to address issues of isolation and
the excessive reliance on text (Rao, Eady, Edelen, Smith, 2010), such as regular virtual meetings online
and course content presented in multimodal formats. Students reported that having audio and video les
(prepared by the instructor) about key course concepts in addition to the textbook for the course helped
them comprehend content and made the course feel manageable. The instructor provided video and audio
les that had captions and transcripts available when possible and created guided notes to accompany many
of the video/audio materials, thereby giving students multiple means for accessing course content. Students
commented that the guided notes helped them focus on key concepts as they viewed or listened to assigned
materials, which was especially helpful in this online learning environment where they had to navigate
through and absorb a lot of new information independently.
Weekly synchronous “virtual class” meetings using a web-conference environment (e.g., Elluminate
or Blackboard Collaborate) provided a connection with instructors that the students found sustaining and
supportive. Students appreciated the fact that during the synchronous sessions, the instructors presented
slides and a lecture about the course content and also included engaging activities that fostered active
discussion and interaction. During synchronous sessions, instructors used varied methods to foster peer
interactions, using the “breakout room” feature of the virtual meeting software to let students discuss
course concepts in small groups and then report back to the whole group. Students commented that these
peer interactions helped build online community and allowed them to discuss issues relevant to their local
and cultural contexts. Students also appreciated consistent and specic feedback from instructors on weekly
assignments, noting that feeling consistently connected to the instructor helped them to stay motivated to
continue in the online course.
Student data collected on an online course designed for adult learners who were returning to school for
teacher certication indicated that students valued various “universally-designed” course elements (Rao &
Tanners, 2011). Students commented on the organization of the course, noting that having materials in a
consistent format and place each week was helpful. Students highly valued having multimodal sources of
information and being given options to complete assignments in various formats (text-based and multimedia).
Many commented favorably on the utility of having more frequent low-value assignments, noting that this
allowed them to keep up with coursework in their busy schedules juggling school, jobs, and families.
CONCLUSION
The promise of earning advanced degrees and certications through distance education is appealing to
many students who need the exibility offered by the online format. However, many facets of this format
create barriers and challenges for the very students who need distance education options the most. By
being open to and aware of students’ backgrounds, experiences, and needs, instructors can build supports
into their courses, proactively creating online environments that make it possible for students to complete
courses and reach their educational goals.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF ONLINE COURSES
Course design and development takes time and advance planning. Integrating UD-based strategies
requires additional forethought, planning, and resources on an instructor’s part during the instructional
design phase. To make this process manageable, instructors can add UD-based strategies incrementally into
their courses, rather than feeling compelled to address every UD principle concurrently; by adding a few
UD-based strategies each time they teach a course and assessing what works for their student populations,
instructors can create a foundation for an accessible and accommodating learning environment that can be
built upon and rened as needed.
REFERENCES
Berger, J., & Van Thanh, D. (2004). Leading organizations for universal design. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 37(2), 124–134.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.
American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 40(7), 3–7.
Goff, E., & Higbee, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation:
Implementing universal design in higher education. Center for Research on Developmental Education
and Urban Literacy, University of Minnesota.
Ho, C., & Burniske, R. (2005). The evolution of a hybrid classroom: Introducing online learning to educators
in American Samoa. TechTrends, 49(1), 24–29.
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case
study of indigenous online learning at a tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
16(1), 58–72.
Rao, K., Eady, M., & Edelen-Smith, P. (2011). Creating virtual classrooms for rural and remote communities.
Phi Delta Kappan. 92(6), 22–27.
Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online courses.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211-229. Retrieved January 1, 2013, from
www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ966125
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An
approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47–51.
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2002). Appropriate pedagogy and technology in a cross-cultural distance education
context. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 309–321.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices sponsored
by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of
the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials for educational, non-
commercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Rao, K. (2013). Universal instructional design of online courses: Strategies to support non-traditional
learners in postsecondary environments. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher education:
promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-
promising-practices/uid_online.html
Development of a UD Checklist for
Postsecondary Student Services
Sheryl E. Burgstahler and Elizabeth Moore, University of Washington
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its 2008
amendments require postsecondary institutions to provide access to courses and services for qualied students with
disabilities. However, little guidance is available to help a student service unit take proactive steps toward becoming
more welcoming and accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Administrators from twenty-three postsecondary institutions nationwide partnered to explore ways to make their
student services more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities (DO-IT, 2008). The project was led by
the Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center at the University of Washington.
Project participants drafted a checklist of qualities of an accessible student service ofce based on literature review,
experiences at their schools, and preliminary data collected about accessibility issues from participants in fourteen
focus groups with a total of seventy-two student service personnel and thirteen groups with a total of fty-three
students with disabilities nationwide (Burgstahler & Moore, 2009).
Project team members piloted the draft instrument on their campuses (Anderson, Cory, Grifn, Richter, Ferguson,
Patterson, & Reed, 2008), and with that experience and their professional opinions, produced iterative revisions of
the draft checklist over a two-year period resulting in a list of fourty-four accessibility strategies in six application
areas (Burgstahler, 2010). Project team members suggested that the checklist would be more useful in the eld if it
was shortened by retaining only those items that knowledgeable practitioners considered to be both most important
and most easily attainable. To take this step and to further test the face validity of the instrument and improve its
usefulness, they recommended seeking input from other student service personnel knowledgeable about working
with students with disabilities.
METHODS
A questionnaire was developed to seek expert opinions regarding the relevance of items on the student service
checklist for accessibility. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to student service personnel at US
two-year and four-year “nonprot” colleges and universities with enrollments of more than one thousand students.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Mailing labels were purchased from Higher Education Publications, Inc. (HEP) and surveys were sent to
“Disability Services Director” and “Director of Career Center/Student Placement” at each institution.
Two hundred ninety-six individuals completed the survey; eighty percent were women; twenty-nine
percent had disabilities; and thirty-nine percent worked in a disability service center. Another thirty-nine
percent worked in general “student services,” student life, counseling, and student affairs. The others were
distributed across different units, including academic affairs, instructional services, academic support,
learning center, career services, admissions, advising, and general administration. Most respondents
worked at four-year institutions with graduate programs (forty-nine percent) or two-year colleges (forty-four
percent). A large majority (ninety-three percent) reported having a high or moderate level of responsibility
for serving students with disabilities. It is not possible to compute a meaningful response rate, since it is
expected that many who received the survey were not part of the target group for the study because of low
levels of experience in the content area.
For each strategy on the checklist, respondents rated (1) its importance as a measure of the accessibility
of a postsecondary student services unit on a scale from one (“Irrelevant”) to four (“Essential”), and (2) the
ease of its implementation on a scale from one (“Easily Attainable”) to four (“Very Difcult to Attain”). For
analysis, the numerical values of the attainability responses were reversed so that one meant “Very Difcult
to Attain” and four meant (“Easily Attainable”). In this way higher attainability ratings indicated more
attainable strategies, just as higher importance ratings indicated more important strategies.
The importance and attainability ratings of the checklist items were analyzed separately. In addition, the
importance and attainability ratings were combined into a single composite rating for each strategy, resulting
in composite scores between two (indicating both “Irrelevant” and “Very difcult to attain”) and eight
(indicating both “Essential” and “Easily attainable”). This composite rating has the disadvantage of giving
equal priority to strategies that are “Irrelevant” but “Easily attainable” and those that are “Essential” but
“Very difcult to Attain.” To overcome this shortcoming, the composite ratings were weighted (multiplied)
by their importance rating, resulting in a priority score on a scale from two (“Irrelevant” and “Very Difcult
to Attain”) to thirty-two (“Essential” and “Easily attainable”). These would be the “high impact” strategies.
Through this process strategies considered to be very important and very attainable received the highest
scores, while strategies that were seen as unimportant and difcult to attain received the lowest scores. In
a nal step, a second set of priority scores was produced, which was weighted by attainability instead of
importance, pointing to “quick x” strategies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nearly half (forty-ve percent) of the items on the checklist were rated as “Essential” for an assessment of
the accessibility of a student services unit by more than half of the respondents. One-fourth (twenty-ve
percent) of the items were rated as “Essential” by at least sixty-ve percent of the respondents. Strategies
in the Planning, Policies, and Evaluation section were rated as most important, with more than half (fty-
seven percent) of those rated as “Essential” by at least seventy percent of the respondents, but as relatively
difcult to attain. Strategies in the Computers, Software, and Assistive Technology section received the
fewest “Essential” ratings with between seventeen and thirty-seven percent of the respondents rating these
as “Essential.”
UD CHECKLIST FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENT SERVICES
Section I: Planning, Policies, and Evaluation
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
I.2 Policies assure access to facilities for people with
disabilities (pwd).
3.8 (.40) 86% 3.0 (.61) 26.7 (4.8)
I.4 Policies assure access to computers for pwd. 3.8 (.49) 78% 3.0 (.65) 25.8 (5.5)
I.3 Policies assure access to printed materials for pwd. 3.8 (.48) 79% 2.9 (.75) 25.4 (5.6)
I.5 Policies assure access to electronic resources. 3.7 (.52) 70% 2.8 (.67) 24.3 (5.7)
I.6 Accessibility is considered in the procurement
process for resources and equipment.
3.5 (.61) 58% 2.6 (.81) 22.0 (6.2)
I.7 Disability-related issues are addressed in evaluation
methods.
3.4 (.67) 46% 2.7 (.78) 21.1 (6.9)
I.1 People with disabilities are included in student service
planning, review processes, and advisory committees.
3.4 (.67) 46% 2.7 (.79) 21.0 (7.2)
Section II: Facilities and Environment
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
*II.7 Wheelchair accessible restrooms are available. 3.9 (.39) 87% 3.1 (.66) 27.1 (4.7)
*II.1 Wheelchair accessible parking areas are identied. 3.7 (.54) 73% 3.5 (.63) 27.0 (6.0)
*II.3 Wheelchair accessible entrances to buildings are
clearly identied.
3.6 (.53) 65% 3.3 (.72) 25.3 (6.0)
II.9 Aisles are wide and clear for wheelchair users. 3.6 (.53) 67% 3.0 (.67) 24.4 (5.9)
II.2 Wheelchair accessible pathways are identied. 3.5 (.61) 55% 3.1 (.71) 23.6 (6.4)
II.10 Objects and protrusions are removed or minimized. 3.4 (.62) 41% 3.1 (.72) 23.0 (6.7)
II.14 Telecommunication devices (TTY/TDD) are available
for people who are deaf or have speech impediments.
3.3 (.72) 48% 3.1 (.72) 22.2 (7.7)
II.4 All levels of a facility are connected via an accessible
route of travel.
3.5 (.62) 46% 2.5 (.83) 21.5 (6.7)
II.8 At least part of a service counter is at a height
available to a person in a seated position.
3.3 (.66) 44% 2.8 (.73) 21.1 (6.7)
II.13 Quiet work areas are available where noise and other
distractions are minimized.
3.2 (.64) 35% 3.0 (.73) 20.8 (6.8)
II.6 Elevators have auditory, visual, tactile signals, and
controls that are reachable from a seated position.
3.3 (.70) 46% 2.7 (.81) 20.7 (7.3)
II.5 High-contrast, large-print signs direct visitors. 3.0 (.67) 23% 2.9 (.80) 18.3 (6.4)
II.12 Window drapes are available to reduce glare. 2.7 (.76) 13% 2.7 (.83) 14.9 (6.9)
II.11 Lighting is adjustable by the individual. 2.7 (.73) 12% 2.3 (.77) 13.9 (6.6)
* indicates “quick x” items — those in top ten when weighted by attainability.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Section III: Staff
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
*III.5 Staff members know how to respond to requests for
disability-related accommodations.
3.7 (.52) 68% 3.2 (.62) 25.5 (6.0)
III.6 Staff members are aware of issues related to
communicating with pwd.
3.5 (.56) 58% 3.1 (.62) 24.1 (6.3)
III.4 Staff members are familiar with the availability and
use of alternate document formats.
3.2 (.65) 33% 2.9 (.67) 20.0 (6.7)
III.3 Staff members are familiar with the availability and
use of assistive technology.
3.2 (.62) 28% 2.8 (.69) 19.4 (6.5)
III.2 Staff members are familiar with the availability and
use of the Telecommunications Relay Service.
3.0 (.71) 23% 2.9 (.69) 18.3 (7.1)
III.1 Staff members are familiar with the availability and
use of a TTY/TDD.
2.9 (.71) 18% 2.9 (.68) 17.3 (6.8)
* indicates “quick x” items — those in top ten when weighted by attainability.
Section IV: Information Resources
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
*IV.3 Key publications include procedures for requesting
disability-related accommodations.
3.6 (.52) 65% 3.5 (.62) 26.2 (6.2)
*IV.2 Key publications include a statement of commitment
to universal access.
3.3 (.69) 45% 3.3 (.74) 22.6 (7.6)
IV.6 Electronic resources, including web pages, adhere to
accessibility guidelines or standards adopted by your
institution or your specic project or funding source.
3.5 (.59) 52% 2.9 (.68) 22.5 (6.3)
*IV.1 Pictures in your publications and website include
people with diverse characteristics with respect to
race, gender, age, and disability.
3.2 (.70) 36% 3.3 (.69) 21.5 (7.1)
IV.4 All printed publications are available in alternate
formats such as Braille, large print, and electronic
text.
3.3 (.65) 41% 2.7 (.74) 20.4 (7.1)
IV.5 Printed materials are within easy reach from a
variety of heights and without furniture blocking
access.
3.1 (.70) 29% 3.0 (.67) 19.7 (7.1)
IV.7 Videos and DVDs are captioned. 3.2 (.73) 37% 2.5 (.67) 18.9 (6.8)
* indicates “quick x” items — those in top ten when weighted by attainability.
UD CHECKLIST FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENT SERVICES
Section V: Computers, Software, and Assistive Technology
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
V.4 Software to enlarge screen images and large monitor
is available at computer workstations.
3.2 (.68) 37% 2.9 (.65) 20.6 (7.0)
V.1 An adjustable-height table is available for each type of
workstation.
3.1 (.72) 31% 2.8 (.70) 19.2 (7.1)
V.2 Workstations offer adequate work space for both left-
and right-handed users.
3.0 (.71) 24% 2.9 (.66) 18.6 (6.8)
V.5 A trackball or other alternative to a mouse is available
at computer workstations.
2.9 (.74) 23% 2.9 (.67) 17.8 (7.2)
V.6 Wrist/forearm rests are available at computers. 2.8 (.77) 19% 3.0 (.70) 16.8 (7.4)
V.3 Large-print key labels are available on computers. 2.8 (.73) 17% 2.8 (.68) 16.2 (6.8)
Section VI: Events
ID Strategy
Importance
mean (SD)
%
Essential
Attainability
mean (SD)
Priority
score by
importance
mean (SD)
*VI.2 The accessible entrance is clearly marked. 3.6 (.54) 64% 3.3 (.60) 25.4 (6.2)
*VI.1 Events are located in wheelchair-accessible facilities. 3.7 (.50) 69% 3.1 (.62) 25.4 (5.9)
*VI.3 Info about how to request disability-related
accommodations is included in publications promoting
events.
3.5 (.59) 57% 3.3 (.70) 24.5 (6.8)
VI.4 Accessible transportation is available if transportation
is arranged for other participants.
3.5 (.67) 58% 2.7 (.73) 22.2 (6.9)
* indicates “quick x” items — those in top ten when weighted by attainability.
These tables present the average Importance and (reversed) Attainability ratings of all fourty-four strategies
on a scale from one (“Irrelevant”/”Very difcult to attain”) to four (“Essential”/”Easily attainable”), along
with the percentage of respondents who rated the strategy as “Essential,” and the strategy’s priority score
weighted by importance. Respondents provided a diversity of ratings for each strategy. Each strategy was
rated as “Essential” and “Easily attainable” (producing a priority score of thirty-two) by at least one person
while the minimum priority scores for these same strategies ranged from two to ten. This diversity indicates
that some of the strategies may be more important to some student services units than to others. Despite this
diversity, overall trends emerged with average priority scores ranging from a high of 27.1 (II.7 Wheelchair
accessible restrooms are available) to a low of 13.9 in the same section (II.11 Lighting is adjustable by the
individual). The strategies with the highest ratings also tended to have the least diversity of scores indicating
more widespread agreement about the importance and attainability of these strategies.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
The strategies listed in these tables are sorted in descending order of “impact” priority within each
application areas. These scores appear in the nal column of the tables. Items in the table marked with an
asterisk (*) are the top ten strategies on the “quick x” scale. Signicantly, none of the strategies in Section
I: Planning, Policies, and Evaluation, nor in Section V: Computers, Software, and Assistive Technology
appeared in the “quick x” list. The “high impact” strategies that also appeared at the top of the “quick x”
rating are listed below with their importance-weighted priority rating.
*II.7 Wheelchair accessible restrooms are available (27.1).
*II.1 Wheelchair accessible parking areas are identied (27.0).
*II.3 Wheelchair accessible entrances to buildings are clearly identied (25.3).
*III.5 Staff members know how to respond to requests for disability-related accommodations (25.5).
*IV.2 Key publications include a statement of commitment to universal access (22.6).
*IV.3 Key publications include procedures for requesting disability-related accommodations (26.2).
*IV.1 Pictures in your publications and website include people with diverse characteristics with respect to race,
gender, age, and disability (21.5).
*VI.2 The accessible entrance is clearly marked (25.4).
*VI.1 Events are located in wheelchair-accessible facilities (25.4).
*VI.3 Info about how to request disability-related accommodations is included in publications promoting events
(24.5).
Overall, the data shows that respondents found the checklist’s strategies to be relevant—nearly half were
rated as “Essential” measures of accessibility by at least half of the respondents. Further, respondents were
discerning—a quarter of the checklist’s strategies were rated as less than “Essential” by more than 70% of
the respondents.
Policies ensuring access to facilities, printed materials, computers, and electronic resources were given
the highest priority ratings, as were wheelchair accessible locations used for student services, including
events. Respondents agreed that it is very important for staff members to know how to respond to requests
for disability-related accommodations, and that key publications should include procedures for requesting
such accommodations. These high ratings may reect that respondents believe that access to student
services, not just classes, are important to the success of all students. The high ratings of strategies in the
Planning, Policies, and Evaluation section suggest that these are important strategies to address, but the
attainability ratings warn that it will be difcult to make the changes here that will make student service
offerings more welcoming and accessible to all students. Student services personnel seeking to transform
their units to be more welcoming and accessible to all students might be wise to address some of the “quick
x” strategies, while continuing to work on the important planning and policy strategies. The low ratings
for computer-related items (e.g., computers, window lighting) might be because they are not relevant to
all student service facilities and/or the particular product/strategy is perceived to be useful to only a small
percentage of student service users. The low rating of the need for staff to be familiar with TTY/TDD
technology may reect the now common use of email and texting for long distance communication with a
person who is deaf.
UD CHECKLIST FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENT SERVICES
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Results of the current study were used by the DO-IT Center to ne-tune the UD checklist for student services
units. Strategies given the lowest priority ratings for these settings were removed from the instrument. They
included the ability of staff to use TTY/TDDs for deaf students as well as the availability of individually-
adjustable lighting, window drapes to reduce glare, large-print key labels on computer keyboards, and
wrist and forearm rests. Strategies in the now reduced Computers, Software, and Technology section were
then combined with Information Resources strategies. To make the checklist more concise, several similar
strategies were combined into one—for example, the those related to policy statements for access to printed
materials, computers, and electronic resources were combined; as were several strategies related to facilities
such as wheelchair accessible parking, pathways, and entrances. In addition, several items were reworded
for greater clarity. The revised instrument is provided below and is available online (www.uw.edu/doit/
Brochures/Academics/equal_access_ss.html). Survey respondents and focus group participants in an
earlier study expressed the need for guidance regarding communication with students with disabilities; in
response, “Communication Hints” were added to the last page of the checklist.
The checklist can be used by student service ofces to assess their baseline accessibility for students with
disabilities, to prioritize steps for making their ofces more welcoming and accessible to everyone, and to
track the progress of their changes. Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to provide suggestions to
improve the instrument and to conduct further studies to establish instrument validity and maximize its
usefulness.
REFERENCES
Burgstahler, S. (2010). Equal access: Universal design of student services. Seattle: University of Washington.
Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/equal_access_ss.html
Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and accessible through
accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3),
151–174.
Anderson, A., Cory, R. C., Grifn, P., Richter, P. J., Ferguson, S., Patterson, E., & Reed, L. (2008).
Applications of universal design to student services: Experiences in the eld. In Universal design in
higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 177–186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT). (2008). DO-IT Admin: A project
to help postsecondary campus services administrators work successfully with students who
have disabilities. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/Brochures/
Academics/admin.html
National Council on Disability. (2003). People with disabilities and postsecondary education. Position
paper. Retrieved from www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/Sept152003
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grants #CNS-1042260,
#HRD-0833504, and #HRD-0929006) and the U.S. Department of Education (Grant #P333A020044).
This article is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices
sponsored by the DO-IT Center. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
are those of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials for educational, non-
commercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Burgstahler, S. & Moore, E. (2013). Development of a UD Checklist for postsecondary student services. In
S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher education: Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University
of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-practices/ud_checklist.html
Promoting the Design of
Accessible Informal Science
Learning
Lyla Crawford and Sheryl E. Burgstahler, University of Washington
To ll increasing numbers of positions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), the US
must draw from a talent pool that includes all demographic groups (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2001; Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2011; National Science Foundation,
2011; Ofce of Science and Technology Policy, 2006). Today, individuals with disabilities experience far less
success in STEM programs and careers (National Science Foundation, 2012). However, success stories in STEM
elds demonstrate that opportunities exist for those who successfully overcome barriers imposed by (a) inaccessible
programs and technology/media, insufcient accommodations, and low expectations as well as (b) inadequate
self-advocacy skills (DO-IT, 1993-2012; Stern & Woods, 2001). Informal STEM learning (ISL) can play an
important role in increasing STEM interest and knowledge (Bell, Lewnstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009; Fenichel &
Schweingruber, 2010), as prerequisites to pursuing STEM degrees and careers. However, people with disabilities
can receive these benets only if ISL offerings are accessible to them.
BACKGROUND
Many traditional efforts to include people with disabilities in programs focus on the decit of the individual. In
a medical model of disability, for example, efforts are made to cure, medicate, or otherwise medically treat the
individual with a disability. A model centered around functional limitations also focuses on the decit of the
individual with a disability, as well as on how accommodations can be made so that this person can t into an
established environment. In contrast, the “social model” of disability (DePoy & Gibson, 2008) considers variations
in abilities—just like gender, race/ethnicity—to be a natural part of the human experience and makes efforts to
design products and environments that are welcoming and accessible to all potential users (Gabel & Peters, 2010;
Loewen & Pollard, 2010). Universal design (UD)—dened as “the design of products and environments to be
usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center
for Universal Design, n.d.)—is an approach that is consistent with the social model of disability, addresses other
diversity issues as well, and has the potential to minimize the need for individual accommodations (Burgstahler,
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
2011). For example, if a science facility contains a height-adjustable work surface, then an accommodation
will not be needed for a wheelchair user whose chair is too high for standard-height workstations. This
workstation will also be comfortable for a visitor who needs to remain seated in a chair or for a very tall or
short individual.
Since 1992, the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center at the
University of Washington (UW) has promoted the success of individuals with disabilities in postsecondary
education and careers, using technology as an empowering tool. With support from the National Science
Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the state of Washington, and numerous other funding
sources, DO-IT has engaged students, parents, educators, and technology leaders to complete dozens of
projects to further this goal. This article reports on one of these projects. Starting in 2010, the DO-IT Center
has offered high school and college students with disabilities the opportunity to learn about universal design
and conduct accessibility reviews of informal science education programs. The project’s objectives are
• to increase awareness of access issues and universal design solutions among students with disabilities
and
• to enhance the student’s ability to advocate for STEM learning environments that are welcoming and
accessible to a diverse audience.
RECRUITING AND TRAINING PARTICIPANTS
Participants are recruited through online e-mentoring communities that DO-IT supports for students with
disabilities. They are invited to complete an accessibility review of an informal science program (e.g., the
Pacic Science Center) in their community. They are offered a $100 stipend plus the cost of the visit for
themselves and up to two guests and an opportunity to win a prize if their review is judged to be one of the
best with respect to identication of accessibility issues and recommendations for improvements.
Students interested in completing a review receive guidance in selecting a facility or program, background
reading, and instructions for submitting their report. Guidelines are available online (DO-IT, n.d.b).
EVALUATING AN INFORMAL SCIENCE PROGRAM
Participants read the publication Universal Design: Process, Principles, and Applications (Burgstahler,
2012) to learn about two approaches to making informal science education offerings accessible to people
with disabilities—accommodations and universal design. They learn that
• an accommodation is an alternate format, assistive technology, or other adjustment that allows a
person with a disability to use an existing product or environment.
• the goal of universal design is to create products and environments that are usable by everyone,
regardless of ability or other characteristics, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for
adjustments.
• making accommodations is reactive, whereas universal design is proactive.
PROMOTING THE DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE INFORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING
A worksheet (DO-IT, n.d.c) guides participants in evaluating how welcoming and accessible the facility
or program is for people with disabilities. It asks participants to consider accessibility issues related not
just to their own disability but also to other disabilities as they review components such as the website,
publications, physical environments, exhibits, activities, and staff knowledge. Examples of items on the
worksheet follow:
• Does the website say how you can request disability-related accommodations?
• Are brochures available in any alternative formats such as large print, Braille, or electronic le?
• Are all levels of the facility connected via a wheelchair accessible route of travel?
• Are equipment/exhibit labels in large print with high contrast?
• Can buttons and other controls be reached by individuals who stand at a wide range of heights or by
those who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices?
• Are videos captioned?
• Are audio directions and content transcribed?
• Are staff members familiar with how a person with a disability can request an accommodation?
As part of their review, participants also make recommendations for improving the accessibility of the
facility or program. They submit their review to project staff who then read each review and determine if
it is complete and otherwise acceptable or requires additional information. Once participants submit an
acceptable review to project staff, they can request permission to conduct a review of another program.
RESULTS
Thus far, forty-two students from thirteen high schools and sixteen postsecondary institutions have
contributed accessibility reviews. Of these participants, twenty were female and twenty-two were male,
and they disclosed disabilities that included Asperger’s syndrome, visual impairments, learning disabilities,
mobility impairments, health impairments, and traumatic brain injuries. The forty-two participants
conducted seventy-nine accessibility reviews of facilities and programs in Washington state, including
the Seattle Aquarium, the Pacic Science Center, the Museum of Flight, and Woodland Park Zoo (all in
Seattle), and the Port Townsend Marine Science Center.
Participants reacted positively to their experiences conducting accessibility reviews, making comments
such as, “I learned a lot about how to look at a program and gure out if other people with disabilities can
fully participate,” and “This was a lot of fun because we got to go to a cool place and contribute to making
it better.”
Participants made a wide range of observations about the accessibility of the facilities and programs they
visited and recommendations for improvements. Some of their suggestions were to:
• Provide alternative formats (Braille, large print, audio) for brochures and exhibits.
• Caption videos.
• Provide multiple-height vantage points for exhibits.
• Ensure that steps or benches for children to view an exhibit can be moved or are positioned to allow
a wheelchair user to get close to the exhibit.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
• Clearly indicate on the website, in brochures, and at the site how to request disability-related
accommodations.
• Include more images of individuals with disabilities in materials.
• Train staff about the types of accommodations available and how to offer assistance.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIVITY REPLICATION AND EXPANSION
The success of the reported project—with respect to the enthusiasm, increased knowledge of accessible
design, and advocacy skills of the participants—has led the DO-IT Center to offer this activity on an annual
basis. We’re also encouraging others to replicate the practice. Organizations that are interested in evaluating
and improving the accessibility of their local informal science education programs can use the model
developed by the DO-IT Center, as well as the guidelines and worksheet on our website (DO-IT, n.d.a).
The activity reported in this article could be developed further into a more comprehensive effort that
includes informal science programs in a region as well as a museum science program at a university.
Students in the museum science program and students with disabilities in STEM could work with the
informal science programs, conducting accessibility reviews and engaging in joint projects to apply what
is learned in making the programs more welcoming and accessible to people with disabilities. The project
could also take steps to improve museology programs by creating a more welcoming atmosphere towards
students with disabilities and integrating universal design content into its curriculum.
CONCLUSION
The DO-IT Center at the UW undertook a project to design an activity that can be used to increase awareness
of access issues and universal design solutions among students with disabilities and to enhance their ability
to advocate for STEM learning environments that are welcoming and accessible to a diverse audience.
Activities like the one we’ve described can ultimately contribute to the increased participation of students
with disabilities in STEM and improve these academic elds with the perspectives and talents of this
underrepresented population.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics workforce. Washington, DC: Author.
Bell, P., Lewnstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal
environments: People, places, and pursuits. The National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.
nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12190
Burgstahler, S. (2011). Universal design: Implications for computing education. ACM Transactions, 11(3).
Retrieved from staff.washington.edu/sherylb/ud_computing.html
Burgstahler, S. (2012). Universal design: Process, principles, and applications. Seattle: DO-IT, University
of Washington.
PROMOTING THE DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE INFORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING
Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). History of universal design. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.
ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udhistory.htm
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE). (2011). Broadening participation
in America’s science and engineering workforce. 2009–2010 CEOSE Biennial Report to Congress.
DePoy, E., & Gibson, S. (2008). Disability studies: Origins, current conict, and resolution. Review of
Disability Studies, 4(4), 33–40
DO-IT. (n.d.a). DO-IT. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/
DO-IT. (n.d.b). Facilitating accessibility reviews of informal science education facilities and programs.
Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/Stem/accessibility-review.html
DO-IT. (n.d.c). Informal Science Education Accessibility Review. Seattle: University of Washington.
Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/Stem/accessibility-review-report.html
DO-IT. (1993-2012). DO-IT snapshots. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from
www.uw.edu/doit/Snapshots/
Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal
environments. National Research Council, The National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nap.
edu/catalog.php?record_id=12614
Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2010). Presage of a paradigm shift: Beyond the social model of disability toward
resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.
Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 23(1), 5–18.
National Science Foundation. (2011). Empowering the nation through discovery and innovation – NSF
strategic plan for scal years 2011–2016. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/
news/strategicplan/
National Science Foundation. (2012). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03312/
Ofce of Science and Technology Policy. (2006). American competitiveness initiative: Leading the world
in innovation. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Stern, V., & Woods, M. (2001). Roadmaps and rampways. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article was adapted with permission from an article originally published as Burgstahler, S. & Crawford,
L., (2012). Engaging students with disabilities in accessibility reviews. Dimensions, November–December
2012, 39–42.
This article is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices,
sponsored by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation as part of the AccessSTEM project (Award #HRD-0227995 and HRD-0833504). Any opinions,
ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
reect the views of the National Science Foundation or the DO-IT Center. Dimensions is published by the
Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated, www.astc.org. Copyright (c) 2013 University of
Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials for educational, noncommercial
purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Crawford, C., & Burgstahler, S. (2013). Promoting the design of accessible informal science learning. In S.
Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher education: Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of
Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-practices/accessible_design.html
Universal Design in Assessments
Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Bristol Community College
In the fall of 2002, a decision was made to begin infusing some strategies of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2008) into a group of freshman seminar courses at Bristol
Community College. By utilizing UDL strategies (multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement),
an effort was made to present the courses and course work in a user friendly manner for all students, regardless of
the students’ life experiences or abilities.
CASE STUDY
In the freshman course I taught, College Success Seminar, students were given the opportunity to express what
they learned throughout the semester in a way that was in alignment with their learning strengths and preferences.
The nal exam (worth 30% of their nal grade) would not be based on, nor hindered by, their ability to write, their
creativity, how well they could memorize, or their ability to perform under time constraints.
A goal set each semester for this course was to incorporate a variety of activities that required different learning
styles, including
• Captioned videos for those who may learn better by reading or the combination of reading and hearing.
This also assists those who are deaf by allowing them to fully access the information without the need for
retrotting.
• Varied assessments (written, verbal, role playing, etc.) that offered students with differing strengths of
expression to fully convey to their instructor what they learned.
• Opportunities for reection such as journaling, verbal expression, recordings, and self-assessments.
• Written information or instructions matched up with audio, allowing for fuller, greater access to the course
material.
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
For the nal exam, students were asked to utilize their primary learning style(s)/strengths (which they
had identied earlier in the course) to express or represent three pieces of course content they learned dur-
ing the semester. One month prior to the end of the semester, students were given the following information
about their nal exam.
Using your primary learning style or styles, (see unit three) demonstrate three signicant pieces of
course content you learned from this course. Examples of how you may demonstrate what you have
learned may include, but are not limited to:
• an essay,
• a poster board (that you can assemble, take a picture of and post),
• a video recording (you can work with the eLearning lab on how to post a video),
• an audio recording (you can work with the eLearning lab on how to post a recording),
• a prearranged phone call to me, or
• any combination of the above.
You may come up with an unlisted way to express what you know, but if you decide to do so, please let
me know in advance.
After receiving this information, students were asked to reect on the activity as part of their discussion
question for the week. In particular, students were asked to respond to the following:
Have you ever had an opportunity to decide how you want to present what you have learned? What are
your thoughts about this type of assignment as a nal exam? Tell us if you think this decision will make
your nal exam assignment easier, more difcult, or no difference, and why.
What are two signicant course concepts that you or your classmates could focus on for this assign-
ment?
Feedback from students was mostly positive. The majority of students had never experienced the op-
portunity to “make up” a nal exam. Over the past decade, in my classes, students have taken advantage of
this opportunity for multiple means of expression, including essays, poster boards, phone calls, face-to-face
meetings, PowerPoint slides, poems, video, word searches, and photographs. Students tend to take this as-
signment very seriously and always nd unique ways to use their learning style and strengths to express
what they have learned.
However, one or two students per semester say they do not like this assignment for several reasons: they
would like more guidance, they do not feel they are creative, they fear they will be tested on their creativ-
ity, they are good test takers and just want to be tested in a traditional manner. An instructor can work
with those who have misgivings and assist them by addressing their concerns. For example, one semester
a student wanted to be assessed on her knowledge through the traditional testing format. For this student,
a suggestion was made that she review the course material covered over the semester, write an exam and
then provide the answers to the exam. The student was delighted with this idea and was able to utilize her
strengths to recognize and pull out important information from the course, question the information, and
then provide responses to those questions.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF ASSESSMENTS
To provide guidance regarding this assignment and to inform students how they will be graded, students
were given a rubric (Rubric for Final Project) to review and an opportunity to ask questions in case some
part of the assignment was unclear.
Rubric for Final Project
Criterion A-level qualities
(90–100)
B-level qualities
(80–89)
C-level qualities
(70-79)
F-level qualities
(below 70)
Purpose Introduces and
presents three
items effectively
and clearly;
information learned
is readily apparent
to the reader.
Introduces and
presents fewer
than three items
effectively and
clearly and/or
information learned
is readily apparent
to the reader.
Introduces and
presents items
learned somewhat
effectively;
presentation has a
clear purpose but
may sometimes
digress from it.
Introduces
and presents
information
poorly; purpose is
generally unclear.
Development and
content
Develops
presentation with
exceptional care,
including all three
topics; provides
a balanced
presentation of
relevant information
of each item
learned and shows
a thoughtful, in-
depth analysis of
the topics; reader
gains insights.
Develops
presentation with
exceptional care,
but included fewer
than three topics
and/or information
displays a clear
analysis of the
signicant topics;
reader gains some
insights.
Does not
fully develop
presentation as
assigned; analysis
is basic or general;
reader gains few
insights.
Presentation is
undeveloped and/or
does not relate to
the assignment and
includes very little
discussion of the
issues discussed in
the course; analysis
is vague or not
evident; reader is
confused or may be
misinformed.
Cohesion and
insight
Ideas are supported
effectively; student
shows clear
evidence of having
understood and
synthesized three
course concepts;
the demonstration
of knowledge is
exceptional.
Ideas are generally
supported; student
shows evidence
of having read,
understood,
and correctly
applied the
course concepts;
demonstration of
knowledge is clear.
Many ideas are
unsupported and
it may not be clear
whether the student
has understood
or synthesized
the concepts;
demonstration
of knowledge is
incomplete.
Presentation is
incoherent and
shows little or no
insight; there is
no evidence that
the student has
understood course
concepts.
CONCLUSION
Applying universal design in the classroom has the potential to increase the chance that all students will
have opportunities to learn, participate, and express what they know (Burgstahler & Coy, 2008). The activ-
ity described in this article allows students to demonstrate to their instructors what they have learned in a
way that best matches their learning styles and strengths. Although this approach (variable means of as-
sessment) will not work for all courses, if applied intentionally, may work for many. A question often asked
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
when this activity is proposed is “how do I fairly grade twenty-ve different types of assessments?” The
answer to this important question consistently includes: through the use of a carefully thought out and well
planned, easy-to-understand rubric. Although the instructor may have many different types of assessment
presentations to review, she reviews them based on one set of standards. In using this method of assessment,
they are able to evaluate “what” students have learned in class rather than how well students write, take
tests, or perform in other specic ways.
NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR
As I worked through my dissertation “Principles of Universal Design for Learning: What is the value of
UDL training on accessible pedagogy”, I learned that the more one knows about the principles of univer-
sal design, the more one tends to proactively consider the needs of students (Poore-Pariseau, 2011). There
is a double outcome of applying universal design: it improves learning opportunities for all students and
to encourages instructors to consider the needs of students with disabilities who may be in their class-
rooms.
REFERENCES
Burgstahler, S., & Coy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Prac-
tice. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology (2008). Research and development. In UDL guidelines. Retrieved
from www.CAST.org/research/index.html
Poore-Pariseau, C. (2011). Principles of Universal Design for Learning: What is the value of UDL training
on accessible pedagogy? (Order No. 3473537 Capella University, 2011). Ann Arbor: ProQuest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grants #CNS-1042260,
#HRD-0833504, and #HRD-0929006) and the U.S. Department of Education (Grant #P333A020044).
This article is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices spon-
sored by the DO-IT Center. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are
those of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials for educational, non-
commercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Poore-Pariseau, C. (2013). Universal Design in Assessments. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in
higher education: Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.
uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-practices/ud_assessments.html
BACKGROUND
State frameworks and national standards are explicit about the science and mathematics content that students in
grades K-12 must master at each grade level. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandate that students in grades K-12 who are deaf or hard of hearing must have
access to this content.
Although individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are not necessarily considered “print disabled,” those who
acquire and use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate tend to internalize a linguistic structure that dif-
fers greatly from English. This makes using English similar to working in a foreign language. It also results in sig-
nicant limitations in English-language literacy that lead to the majority of deaf students leaving high school with
reading levels at the fth grade or below. In fact, the English vocabulary of the average 15-year-old deaf student is
about the size of that of a 9-year-old hearing child and will not improve signicantly (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2006).
Consequently, students who are deaf or hard of hearing often miss many of the age-appropriate science and math
learning experiences that provide the foundations for developing the understanding necessary for studying and/or
majoring in STEM areas after leaving high school. This may contribute to the small proportion of deaf and hard
of hearing people in STEM careers (0.13–0.19%) compared to the general population (11–15.3%) (National Center
for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES] 1996, 2004, 2009, 2011).
As a response to this situation, TERC, an educational research and development organization, and Vcom3D,
developers of SigningAvatar® assistive software, have been collaborating for more than a decade in research and
development of universally designed signing dictionaries. Each dictionary contains a minimum of 750 content-
specic core-based terms and denitions, most of which include an illustration or example, and utilizes virtual
characters—avatars—that sign. Windows-based Web versions and the plug-in are available free at http://signsci.
terc.edu/. Apps are available through the Apple App Store on iTunes.
Increasing Access to Technical Science Vocabulary
Through Use of Universally Designed Signing
Dictionaries
Judy Vesel and Tara Robillard, TERC (Technical Education Research Centers), Inc.
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
This article focuses on the science dictionaries for grades 9-12—Signing Earth Science Dictionary
(SESD), Signing Life Science Dictionary (SLSD), and Signing Physical Science Dictionary (SPSD). We
rst describe the rationale supporting Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as the approach used for the
dictionaries. We then provide evidence of impact of dictionary use in schools. Finally, we suggest possibili-
ties for use in postsecondary settings.
RATIONALE FOR UDL AS THE APPROACH USED FOR THE DICTIONARIES
UDL offers users multiple options, exibility, and choice. Other salient features are an emphasis on cogni-
tive access and social inclusion. Universal design strives to create experiences that are accessible to learners
along a broad spectrum of abilities and disabilities by offering them a choice of options. Its three principles
are that instructional materials should provide 1) multiple means of representation; 2) multiple means of
action and expression; and 3) multiple means of engagement (Rose & Meyer 2006).
UDL was selected as the approach used for the dictionaries because it enabled the partners to avoid the
pitfalls of a one-size-ts-all solution. Instead, multiple options could be offered to an audience with a broad
spectrum of abilities and communication needs. For example, levels of hearing loss, language of communi-
cation, and science knowledge among the learners for which the dictionaries are intended vary greatly. This
variability necessitates a range of methods available for acquiring knowledge and for communicating with
hearing and non-hearing teachers and peers. Table 1 shows how each of the three principles of UDL have
been integrated into the dictionaries to provide an array of choices that accommodate differences among
learners who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Table 1: UDL Principles, Differences Accommodated, and Dictionary Choices
UDL Principle Differences Accomodated Dictionary Choices
I: Provide Multiple Means of
Representation
Ways deaf or hard of hearing
learners approach content to
acquire information
Selection of terms and denitions
as text, human voice narration,
signing, illustrations/examples*
II: Provide Multiple Means of Action
and Expression
Ways deaf or hard of hearing
learners explain their science
thinking and demonstrate what
they know
Use of ASL, Word-for-Word
translations (SE or SS for
Spanish), illustrations, voiced text
III: Provide Multiple Means of
Engagement
Ways deaf or hard of hearing
learners can be engaged or
motivated to learn
Selection from a group of avatars
of different ages, ethnicities, and
genders; Ability to change the
signing speed and text size.
* Available in English for the SESD and in English and Spanish for the SLSD and SPSD
EVIDENCE OF IMPACT OF DICTIONARY USE
A mixed-measurement pre/post design that results in qualitative and quantitative data was used to begin
to ascertain the types of vocabulary-learning gains that are possible with the dictionaries. This approach
INCREASING ACCESS TO TECHNICAL SCIENCE VOCABULARY THROUGH USE OF UNIVERSALLY DESIGNED SIGNING
enabled the partners to examine effectiveness of the interventions in classroom settings under real condi-
tions when used by students who vary greatly in aspects such as hearing-loss level, language use, science
knowledge and skills, and reading ability. Although the dictionaries were developed for grades 9-12, they
include a set of terms (designated as Level 1) that students should encounter in the middle grades before
entering high school. Therefore, the research design also sought to nd out about the learning gains of this
younger group of users.
Participants were drawn from a pool of teachers who taught at schools for the deaf and had worked with
TERC previously. They were also recruited via TERC’s and Vcom3D’s websites and from newsgroups
such as EDUDEAF. Teachers were selected based on grade level, number of students in their class(es), and
science content area. The intent was to examine effectiveness under normal-use conditions. To this end,
each teacher selected one science unit from their normal teaching sequence to do using the dictionary as
an assistive tool. Each teacher also identied 5 to 10 terms from the signing dictionary that were important
for developing understanding of the content that was the focus of the unit. Using a vocabulary assessment
form, teachers assessed as yes or no each student’s pre- and post-unit ability to recognize the English text
version of the term; sign, ngerspell, and/or voice the term; and use it in a sentence. Using a 0-3 point scale
(where 0=no answer and 3=a complete and accurate explanation), teachers also assessed students’ ability
to understand or give the meaning of the term. Employing post-use surveys, teachers and students provided
feedback about ease of use of the dictionaries and likes and dislikes. Key ndings (Vesel 2011, 2012; Vesel
& Robillard 2014) from these studies are summarized below. Additional information is available at signsci.
terc.edu.
Table 2: SLSD & SPSD Users’ Mean Pre/Post Change in Vocabulary Knowledge
Group N Dictionary Recognize
English Ver-
sion
Sign/Finger-
spell/ Voice
Use in a Sen-
tence
Provide
Meaning or a
Denition
1 12 SLSD +30% +52% +58% +67%
2 6 SPSD +40% +67% +10% +77%
3 1 SLSD +100 +100% +100% +80%
4 7 SLSD +46% +63% +49% +43%
5 2 SLSD +50% +90% +30% +43%
6 1 SPSD +100% +100% +60% +87%
7 6 SPSD +80% +43% +77% +70%
8 3 SLSD +47% +80% +33% +50%
9 10 SLSD +90% +90% +8% +70%
10 8 SLSD +65% +53% +38% +53%
11 8 SLSD +35% +53% +48% +40%
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Table 3: SESD Users’ Mean Pre/Post Change in Vocabulary Knowledge*
Group N Sign/Finger-
spell/ Voice
Term
Use Terms in
a Sentence
Understand
the Meaning
of Terms
Use in a Sen-
tence
Provide
Meaning or a
Denition
1 3 +74% +53% +60% +58% +67%
2 8 +46% +44% +54% +10% +77%
3 6 +37% +49% +45% +100% +80%
4 9 +49% +49% +44% +49% +43%
5 15 +15% +22% +30% +30% +43%
6 9 +37% +51% +48% +60% +87%
7 6 +61% +70% +23% +77% +70%
*SESD testing did not include recognition of the English version of the term.
Based on these results, it appears highly likely that, when used as assistive tools, the dictionaries will
contribute to giving students who are deaf or hard of hearing access to science vocabulary in their own
language. Qualitative survey data indicate that such access may enable this population to work more inde-
pendently to develop technical earth and space, life, and physical science vocabularies and also may result
in teachers having more time to focus on the teaching and learning of the topic content. Findings indicate
that the dictionaries’ interactive features promote individualized instruction for a wide range of learners
with varying levels of hearing loss and learning challenges. Teachers who used the dictionaries found them
to be a welcome source of standardized signs for technical terms—they no longer had to spend time mak-
ing up signs or ngerspelling terms. The dictionaries served to standardize signs used throughout a school
and for interpreters who lacked a foundation in STEM to use in mainstream settings and when working
individually with students (Vesel, 2011, 2012; Vesel & Robillard 2014).
POSSIBILITIES FOR DICTIONARY USE IN POSTSECONDARY SETTINGS
Accessibility to spoken English—the mainstream language used for communication in postsecondary
STEM lecture and lab settings—can be subpar for the target audience (Marschark et. al. 2005). In these
instances, real-time captioning (often made available through Communication Access Real-time Transla-
tion [CART]) is not always suitable, and an ASL interpreter becomes necessary (Wald 2006). However,
interpreters at the postsecondary level, like those in pre-college settings, often have insufcient training in
STEM and are unaware of appropriate technical signs to use for communication of accurate information
in ASL. This can result in instructors having to prepare interpreters who will be translating for their un-
dergraduate students. Interpreters must be introduced to the key vocabulary terms in ASL that they might
encounter as spoken English during lectures and lab sessions. Deaf and hard of hearing graduate students
would have the task of preparing their own interpreters. This is a time-consuming undertaking and some-
INCREASING ACCESS TO TECHNICAL SCIENCE VOCABULARY THROUGH USE OF UNIVERSALLY DESIGNED SIGNING
thing that does not apply for hearing students. An additional complication is that different interpreters
may be assigned to different classrooms weekly.
Still, the time that is spent on preparing interpreters appears to be necessary if students who are deaf
or hard of hearing and who require information to be presented in ASL are to receive equal access to the
same amount and quality of information as their hearing peers (Solomon, Graham, Marchut, & Painter
2013). Prior to the recent emergence of resources such as the signing dictionaries, it had been difcult
for those preparing interpreters to locate standardized signs for scientic terminology. Given this situa-
tion, and supported by our work in high school settings, it appears that use of the terms in the dictionar-
ies might represent a powerful resource. Instructors and graduate students could use the dictionaries to
introduce interpreters in person to the signs and meanings of many of the basic terms they need to know.
Alternatively, or in addition, they could supply interpreters with lists of terms from the dictionaries that
they are likely to encounter. When used in these ways, the SLSD, SPSD, and SESD could be valuable
and effective time-saving resources for preparing interpreters to communicate STEM course material. As
such, they might provide a new opportunity for helping postsecondary students receive more equal access
to information.
REFERENCES
Karchmer, M., & Mitchell, R.E. (2006). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-
hearing students. In M. Marschark & P.E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language
and education (pp. 21–37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M., Pelz, J., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., Arndt, M., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Classroom interpret-
ing and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students: Live or Memorex?
American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 727–761.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCES]. (1996, 2004, 2009, 2011). Women, minori-
ties and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (NSF Publication No. 96-311, No. 04-317,
No. 09-305, 11-309). Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/women/.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard Education Press.
Solomon, C., Graham, S., Marchut, A. & Painter, R. (2013). Where are the leaks for deaf and hard-of-hear-
ing people in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pipeline? Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved November 10, 2013
from the AERA Online Paper Repository.
Vesel, J. (2011). Breaking barriers. International Innovation-North America. December 2011, 122–124.
Vesel, J. (2012). Signing earth science dictionary: Field test evaluation report. Retrieved from signsci.terc.
edu/publications/index.html
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Vesel, J., & Robillard, T. (2014). Signing high school science: Field test evaluation report. Retrieved from
signsci.terc.edu/publications/index.html
Wald, M. (2006). Creating accessible educational multimedia through editing automatic speech
recognition captioning in real time. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(2), 131–141.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Signing Earth Science Dictionary was funded under National Science Foundation Award #GEO-
0913675. The Signing Life Science Dictionary and Signing Physical Science Dictionary were funded under
National Science Foundation Award #DRL-1019542. This article is part of the collection Universal Design
in Higher Education: Promising Practices, sponsored by the DO-IT Center. Copyright 2013 by the Univer-
sity of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials for educational, noncom-
mercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Vesel, J., & Robillard, T. (2014). Increasing access to technical science vocabulary through use of univer-
sally designed signing dictionaries. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal design in higher education: Promising
practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/doit/increasing-access-
technical-science-vocabulary-through-use-universally-designed-signing-dictionaries
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
Promising Practices
and Online
Resources
3
The following sections share more promising practices and additional resources related to the application of UD in
postsecondary education.
More Promising Practices
Websites, Publications, and Videos
More Promising Practices
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
DO-IT’s Center for Universal Design in Education (CUDE) created an online, searchable Knowledge Base through
several projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education Ofce of Postsecondary Education (Grant numbers
P333A990042, P333A020044, and P333A050064, and expanded through grants for the National Science Foundation
(Grant numbers CNS-1042260 and HRD-0833504). Included is a rich collection of questions and answers, case
studies, and promising practices related to individuals with disabilities and their pursuit of education and careers.
Below is a sample of titles, case studies, and promising practices included in the CUDE Knowledge Base. To search
the Knowledge Base for these and other articles on universal design, visit www.uw.edu/doit/CUDE/kb.html and
select the Search Knowledge Base button on the left side of the screen.
• A Smart Board in the Classroom: A Promising Practice for Engaging Students
• AccessCollege: A Promising Practice in Making Postsecondary Institutions Welcoming and Accessible to
Students with Disabilities
• Accessibility Reviews: A Promising Practice to Improve the Accessibility of Local Science Education
Programs
• AccessIT Web Design & Development: A Promising Practice in Integrating Accessibility Topics into
Curriculum
• AccessLibraries: A Promising Practice for Promoting the Accessibility of Libraries
• Asynchronous Instruction: A Promising Practice Using Online Access
• Classroom Performance System: A Promising Practice in Engaging All Students
• DASA and Campus Accessibility: A Promising Practice of a Student Organization
• DO-IT Admin: A Promising Practice in Making Student Services Accessible to Students with Disabilities
• DO-IT Prof: A Promising Practice in Making Postsecondary Instruction Accessible to Students with
Disabilities
• Faculty Learning Communities: A Promising Practice in Faculty Development
• Fife School District: A Promising Practice to Maximize Outcomes of Professional Development for Teachers
• GALL Laboratory: A Promising Practice in Applying Problem-Based Learning
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
• Homeland Security 508 Compliance Ofce: A Promising Practice in Promoting Accessible IT
• Integrating Woodshop, Technology and Reading: A Promising Practice in Team-Teaching
• IT + AT: A Promising Practice in Creating a Technology-Rich Experience for All Students
• Landmark College: A Promising Practice on Developing Learning Resources for Students with
Learning Disabilities
• MAR*TEC Techno-Briefs: A Promising Practice on Explaining Technology Accessibility to
Educators
• MESA: A Promising Practice in Making Math and Science Curriculum Accessible
• OSTA: A Promising Practice of a Professional Organization Promoting Accessible Science
• Purdue University: A Promising Practice in Building Campus-wide Support for Web Accessibility
• RoboBooks: A Promising Practice on Universally Designed Science Materials
• The Signing Science Dictionary Project: A Promising Practice in Creating an Accessible Science
Dictionary
• The University of Washington: A Promising Practice in Making Distance Learning Courses
Accessible to Students with Disabilities
• The University of Washington: A Promising Practice in User Group Support for Web Accessibility
• Transitional Bridges: A Promising Practice in Using Universal Design and Technology to Promote
the Success of Students with Disabilities in STEM
• Accessible Outdoor Table Design: A Case Study in Teaching Design Students to Think Universally
• Balancing Student Needs: A Case Study on Accessibility of Registration Systems
• Distance Learning: A Case Study on the Accessibility of an Online Course
• Electronic Course Reserves: A Case Study on Universal Access to Electronic Information in
Academic Libraries
• On the Shelves: A Case Study on Library Access
• Professional Development for Web Accessibility: Case Studies on Higher Education
• Removing Barriers: A Case Study on Classroom Access
• The Equestrian Team: A Case Study on Access to Student Organizations
To add a promising practice or case study to the Knowledge Base, send your submissions to doit@uw.edu.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This content is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices sponsored
by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2013). More promising practices. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher
education: promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.uw.edu/
doit/UDHE-promising-practices/pp.html
Websites, Publications, and
Videos
This section includes a sample of printed materials, websites, and videos about universal design that can be used in
self-study and group training sessions.
COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITES
The following websites include content related to the application of universal design in higher education.
• Center for Universal Design
www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/
• Center for Universal Design in Education
www.uw.edu/doit/CUDE/
• National Center on Universal Design for Learning
www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl
• Universal Design for Learning
www.temple.edu/studentaffairs/disability/faculty-resources/udl.html
• Universal Course Design
www.eeonline.org/
BOOKS AND COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING MATERIALS
Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. In Burgstahler, S. (Ed.).
(2009). Building the team: Faculty, staff, and students working together—Presentation and resource
materials. Seattle: University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/TeamN/
Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2009). Making math, science and technology instruction accessible to students with
disabilities. Seattle: University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/MathSci/
in Higher Education
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P R O M I S I N G P R A C T I C E S
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2007). Building capacity for a welcoming and accessible postsecondary institution.
Seattle: University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/cbiN/
Burgstahler, S. (Ed.). (2006). Students with disabilities and campus services: Building the team –
Presentation and resource materials. Seattle: University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/AdminN/
Burgstahler, S., & Cory, R. (Eds). (2008). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to
Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gordon, D. T., Gravel, J. W., & Schifter, L. A. (Eds.). 2009. A policy reader in universal design for learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Higbee, J. L. (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher
education (pp. 7–21): Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General
College, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. 2002. Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Following are references to articles relevant to the application of universal design in postsecondary academic
settings.
Anderson, A., & Litzkow. (2008). Problems and solutions for making multimedia web-based lectures
accessible: A case study. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp.
225–233). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Beckman, P. 2009. Universal design for learning: A eld experiment comparing specic classroom actions.
AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, paper 10. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/10
Behling, K., & Hart, D. (2008). Universal design: A model for professional development. In Universal
design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 109–125). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Bigelow, K. E. (2012). Designing for success: Developing engineers who consider universal design principles.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 212–231.
Bruch, P. L. (2003). Interpreting and implementing universal instructional design in basic writing. In
Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education
(pp. 93–103). University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy.
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty.
To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development,
21, 151–183.
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning: Universal design, universal access. AACE Journal, 10(1), 32–61.
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Universal design of distance learning. Well Connected Educator, February issue.
TechLEARNING.com
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
Burgstahler, S. (2003). Web-based distance learning and the second digital divide. In M. Hricko (Ed.),
Design and implementation of Web-enabled teaching tools. Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
Burgstahler, S. (Guest Ed.). (2005). Promising practices: Accessible information technology in education,
Information Technology and Disability, 11(1).
Burgstahler, S. (2005). Preparing faculty to make their courses accessible to all students. Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 16(2), 69–86. http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/issue.php?v=16&n=2
Burgstahler, S. (2006). The development of accessibility indicators for distance learning programs. Research
in Learning Technology, 14(1), 79–102. www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/
view/10935
Burgstahler, S. (2007). Accessibility training for distance learning personnel. Access Technologists Higher
Education Network (ATHEN) E-Journal, 2.
Burgstahler, S. (2007). Lessons learned in The Faculty Room. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
18(3), 103–128.
Burgstahler, S. (2007). Accessibility training for distance learning personnel. Access Technology Higher
Education Network (ATHEN) E-Journal, 2. www.athenpro.org/node/56
Burgstahler, S. (2007). Universal design of instruction: An approach for making your course accessible to
all students. Academe.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design in higher education. In Universal design in higher education:
From principles to practice (pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. In Universal design
of higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 45–59). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design of student services: From principles to practice. In Universal
design of higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 167–175). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design of technological environments: From principles to practice. In
Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 213–224). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Universal design of physical spaces. In Universal design in higher education:
From principles to practice (pp. 187–197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. E. (2008). Promoters and inhibitors of universal design in higher education. In Universal
design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 279–283). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. (2011). Universal design: Implications for computing education. ACM Transactions on
Computing Education, 11(3). http://staff.washington.edu/sherylb/ud_computing.html
Burgstahler, S. (Guest Ed.). (2011). STEM Special Issue. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
24(4).
Burgstahler, S., Anderson, A., & Litzkow, M. (2011). Accessible technology for online and face-to-face
teaching and learning. In T. Cox & K. King (Eds.), The professor’s guide to taming technology (pp.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
201–218). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Burgstahler, S., & Comden, D. (1998). Creating a level playing eld for the world wide web. Ability, 98(2),
56–59.
Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2004). Making distance learning courses accessible to students
and instructors with disabilities: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 233–246.
Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2005). Steps toward making distance learning accessible to
students and instructors with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 11(1).
Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2004). Disability-related simulations: If, when, and how to use them. Review of
Disability Studies, 1(2), 4–17. http://staff.washington.edu/sherylb/RDSissue022004.html
Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities:
Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
18(2), 135–147.
Burgstahler, S., & Jirikowic, T. (2002). Supporting students with disabilities: What every teaching assistant
should know. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 9(1), 23–30. http://staff.
washington.edu/sherylb/teaching_assistant.html
Burgstahler, S., Jirikowic, T., Kolko, B., & Eliot, M. (2004). Software accessibility, usability testing and
individuals with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 10(2).
Burgsthler, S., & Moore, E. (2009). Making student services welcoming and accessible through
accommodations and universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(3),
151–174.
Campbell, D. (2004). Assistive technology and universal instructional design: A postsecondary perspective.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(2), 167–73.
Darr, A., & Jones, R. (2008). The contribution of universal design to learning and teaching excellence. In
Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 105-108). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Durre, I., Richardson, M., Smith, C., Shulman, J. A., & Steele, S. (2008). Universal design of instruction:
Reections of students. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp.
83–96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Embry, P. B., Parker, D. R., McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2005). Postsecondary disability service providers’
perceptions about implementing Universal Design for Instruction. Journal on Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 18, 34–48.
Finn, D. E., Getzel, E. E., Asselin, S. B., & Reilly, V. (2008). Implementing universal design: Collaborations
across campus. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 267–277).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Goldstein, E. (2008). Applications of universal design to higher education facilities. In Universal design in
higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 199–212). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. 2009-2010. Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111–121.
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
Hackman, H., & Rauscher, L. 2004. A pathway to access for all: Exploring the connections between universal
instructional design and social justice education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(2), 114–123.
Harrison, E. G. (2006). Working with faculty toward universally designed instruction: The process of
dynamic course design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60–72.
Higbee, J. L. (2008). The faculty perspective: implementation of universal design in a rst-year classroom.
In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 61–72). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on universal design for learning.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60–72.
Jenner, C. (2008). A change process for creating a universally designed campus. In Universal design in
higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 255–265). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Johnson, D. M., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Creating curb cuts in the classroom: Adapting universal design principles
to education. In Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher
education (pp. 7–21): Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General
College, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Johnson, J. R. (2004). Universal instructional design and critical (communication) pedagogy: Strategies for
voice, inclusion, and social justice/change. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(2), 145–53.
Kame’enui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners.
Prentice Hall.
Ketterlin-Geller, & Johnstone, C. (2006). Accommodations and universal design: Supporting access to
assessments in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 163–172.
Kortering, L., McClannon, T., & Braziel, P. 2005. What algebra and biology students have to say about
universal design for learning. National Center for Secondary Education and Transition Research to
Practice Brief, 4(2).
McAlexander, P. J. 2003. Using principles of universal design in college composition courses. In Curriculum
Transformation and Disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education (pp. 105–114).
University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2006). An approach to inclusive college environments: Universal design for
instruction. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 21–31.
McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2006). Universal design for instruction: Extending the universal design
paradigm to college instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 124–134.
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its
principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 17(1), 10–20.
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(2), 127–139.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
Mino, J. 2004. Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a learner-centered
community college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(2), 154–160.
Moriarty, M. A. 2007. Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science
instruction. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(3), 252–265.
Myers, K. (2008). Incorporating universal design into administration courses: A case study. In Universal
design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 157–164). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Null, R.L., & Cherry, K.F. (1996). Universal design: Creative solutions for ADA compliance. Belmont, CA:
Professional.
Oesh, N. S., Rojas, C. M., & Ward, R. A. (2006). Universal design and the assessment of student learning
in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 173–181.
Ouellett, M. L. 2004. Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity and Excellence in
Education, 37, 135–144.
Parker, D. R., & Getty, M. (2009, Fall). PLTL and universal design for instruction: Investigating wider
access for students with disabilities. Progressions Newsletter 10(1). pltl.org/articles/315.pdf
Pedelty, M. 2003. Making a statement. In Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing
Universal Design in Higher Education (pp. 71–78). University of Minnesota, Center for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
Pliner, S.M., & Johnson, J.R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal
instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 105–113.
Rickerson, N., & Deitz, J. (2003). Integration of universal design of instruction in occupational therapy
professional education: Responding to student diversity. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 57, 594–597.
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary
education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disabilities Journal, 24(1), 4–18.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for
learning in postsecondary education: Reections on principles and their application. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135–151.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2008). Universal design for
learning in postsecondary education: Reections on principles and their application. In Universal
design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 45–59). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (Also available
in digital format at www.cast.org).
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum
and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
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 Disabilities Journal, 24(1), 19–37.
Scott, S., & McGuire, J. (2008). A case study approach to promote practical applications of universal design
for instruction. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 135–143).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult
instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 369–379.
Scott, S. S., Loewen, C. F., & Kroeger, S. (2003). Implementing universal design in higher education:
Moving beyond the built environment. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16(2),
78–89.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T.E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for
anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 40–49.
Silver, P., Bourke, A.B., & Strehorn, K.C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An
approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31, 47–51.
Souma, A., & Casey, D. (2008). The benets of universal design for students with psychiatric disabilities.
In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 97–104). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Spencer, A. M., & Romero, O. (2008). Engaging higher education faculty in universal design: Addressing
needs of students with invisible disabilities. In Universal design in higher education: From principles
to practice (pp. 145–156). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Street, C. D., Koff, R., Fields, H., Kuehne, L. Handlin, L., Getty, M., & Parker, D. R. (2012). Expanding
access to STEM for at-risk learners: A new application of universal design for instruction. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disabilities Journal, 12(4), 391–408.
Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design le: Designing for people of all ages
and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
Thompson, T. (2008). Universal design of computing labs. In Universal design in higher education: From
principles to practice (pp. 235–244). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Comden, D. (2003). Research on web accessibility in higher education.
Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 9(2).
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2007). Accessibility of higher education web pages in the
Northwestern United States: Current status and response to third party outreach. In Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Technology-based Learning With Disability (pp. 127–136).
Dayton, Ohio, Wright State University.
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2010). Web accessibility: A longitudinal study of college
and university home pages in the northwestern United States. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, 5(2), 108–114.
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., Moore, E., Gunderson, J., & Hoyt, N. (2007). International research on web
accessibility for persons with disabilities. In Managing worldwide operations and communications
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
with information technology. Hershey, PA: Information Resources Management Association.
Thurlow, M. I., Johnstone, C. J., & Ketterlin-Geller. (2008). Universal design of assessment. In Universal
design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 73–81). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments.
Wilkoff, W., & Abed, L. (1994). Practicing universal design: An interpretation of the ADA. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Yager, S. (2008). Small victories: Faculty development and universal design. (2008). In Universal design in
higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 127–133). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 137, 27–44.
Q&A’S FROM THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
DO-IT’s Center for Universal Design in Education (CUDE) created an online, searchable Knowledge Base
as part of several projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education Ofce of Postsecondary Education
(Grant numbers P333A990042, P333A020044, and P333A050064), and expanded through grants from the
National Science Foundation (Grant numbers CNS-1042260 and HRD-0833504).
Included is a rich collection of questions and answers, case studies, and promising practices related to
individuals with disabilities and their pursuit of education and careers. Below is a small sample of questions
included in the CUDE Knowledge Base. To search the Knowledge Base for answers to questions related to
universal design, visit www.uw.edu/doit/CUDE/kb.html. Under type of article, select Q&A. Using additional
search terms can narrow your search. Below are examples of some titles included in the Knowledge Base.
General
• What is the difference between accessible, usable, and universal design?
• What is universal design?
Distance Learning
• What are some of the barriers students with disabilities face in distance learning courses?
• What do distance learning professionals need to know about accessibility?
• What are some steps that distance learning program administrators can take to ensure the accessibility
of their courses?
• What are the benets of universal design of a distance learning course for students without disabilities?
• Where can I nd resources for making distance learning courses accessible?
• What are steps a distance learning program can take to assure the accessibility of courses?
• What considerations should be made in order to develop accessible web-based distance learning
courses?
Web Accessibility
• Are there resources to help me in planning my web accessibility training?
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
• Are text-only web pages an accessible alternative?
• Can I make accessible web pages using web authoring tools such as Dreamweaver?
• Does CSS positioning eliminate the need for a “skip navigation” link?
• Does making our school web content accessible mean I cannot use multimedia on my site?
• How can I develop accessible web-based forms?
• How can I make web page navigation accessible?
• How can I select a web accessibility software tool?
• How can I test my website for accessibility?
• How can my educational entity deliver accessible webcasts?
• How do I make websites accessible?
• How do my choice and use of color affect the accessibility of my website?
• How can data tables be made accessible?
• How can educational entities determine if their websites are accessible?
• How does accessible web design benet all web users?
• How well do screen readers support web accessibility guidelines?
• Is Flash content accessible?
• Is it a good idea to make “skip navigation” links invisible?
• Is it possible to develop an accessible dynamic menu?
• Is Java accessible?
• Is PDF accessible?
• Is XML accessible?
• What access challenges might visitors to a web page experience?
• What is a “skip navigation” link?
• What is the current recommendation for providing long descriptions for complex graphics?
• What is the difference between the W3C guidelines and the Section 508 standards for web accessibility?
• What is Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)?
• What is wrong with using HTML tables for layout?
• What web accessibility evaluation and repair tools are available?
• Where can I locate the results of studies that test the accessibility of web pages?
• Which educational entities have developed web accessibility policies?
• Which set of web accessibility standards or guidelines should I comply with?
• How do cascading style sheets affect web accessibility?
Other Specic Technologies
• Are chat rooms accessible to people with disabilities?
• Are electronic whiteboards accessible to people with disabilities?
• Are frames accessible?
• Are Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) accessible?
• Are there standards or guidelines for providing audio description?
• Are there standards or guidelines for providing captions?
• Are touch screens accessible?
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
• How accessible are Microsoft Word documents?
• How can educational entities plan an accessible video production?
• How can I tell whether a software application is accessible?
• How do courseware products differ on accessibility?
• How do I develop accessible educational software?
• How do I make my online PowerPoint presentation accessible?
• How does accessibility differ across operating systems?
• Is instructional software typically accessible to students with disabilities?
• Is it better to caption or transcribe educational multimedia?
• Is Linux accessible?
• What accessibility features are available within the Macintosh operating system ?
• What accessibility features are provided with the Windows operating system?
• What efforts are computer hardware and software companies making toward making their products
accessible?
• What Internet-based communication methods are accessible to people with disabilities?
• What is rich media and how can I learn more about its accessibility?
• What is the difference between open and closed captioning?
• How can publishers create accessible math textbooks?
Student Services, Physical Spaces
• How can a nancial aid ofce make services accessible to a student who is blind or has low vision?
• How can I communicate with colleagues regarding making our library accessible to patrons with
disabilities?
• How can our career services ofce work with employers to ensure program access to students with
disabilities?
• How can principles of universal design be used to construct a computer lab?
• How can printed resources in libraries be made accessible?
• How can student services ofces make campus events accessible to participants with disabilities?
• How can we create more accessible campus tours?
• What accessibility issues should I address when planning student events?
• What are issues related to the accessibility of a library facility?
• Are there standards for developing or purchasing accessible fax machines, photocopiers, and other
ofce equipment?
• How do cascading style sheets affect web accessibility?
• What is the difference between open and closed captioning?
• How can publishers create accessible math textbooks?
CONTRIBUTE TO THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
Submit questions you would like added to the Knowledge Base to doit@uw.edu.
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
CUDE PUBLICATIONS
The Center on Universal Design in Education, hosted by DO-IT, maintains a collection of free publications
and videos that are designed for self-instruction and for use as handouts in presentations. Publications
are available in printable (PDF) and accessible (HTML) formats and videos include captions and audio
description. Permission is granted to copy these materials for educational, noncommercial purposes
provided the source is acknowledged. In the following list of publications, those labeled “publication and
video,” include a video presentation with the same title.
• Universal Design in Postsecondary Education: Process, Principles, and Applications
• Self-Examination: How Accessible Is Your Campus?
UD of Instruction
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Distance Learning
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction (publication and video)
• Universal Design of Instruction Denition, Principles, and Examples
• Equal Access: Universal Design of an Academic Department
UD as a Topic of Instruction
• Universal Design of Web Pages in Class Projects
UD of Student Services
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Student Services (publication and video)
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Advising
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Career Services
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Financial Aid
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Housing and Residential Life
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Libraries
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Recruitment and Undergraduate Admissions
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Registration
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Student Organizations
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Tutoring and Learning Centers
UD of Technology
• Access to Technology in the Workplace: In Our Own Words (publication and video)
• World Wide Access: Accessible Web Design (publication and video)
• Web Accessibility: Guidelines for Administrators
UD of Physical Spaces
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Physical Spaces
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Computer Labs
• Making Science Labs Accessible to Students with Disabilities
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PRACTICES
UD of Professional Organizations, Projects, Conference Exhibits, and Presentations
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Conference Exhibits and Presentations
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Professional Organizations
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Your Project
• Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering by Welcoming Participants with Disabilities
VIDEO PRESENTATIONS
The following video presentations are freely available online. They are useful for self-instruction and
professional development.
• Best Practices Through Universal Design for Learning
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7eUf_7dZVM
• Equal Access: Student Services
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=11
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Computer Labs
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=12
• Equal Access: Universal Design of Instruction
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=13
• Real Connections: Making Distance Learning Accessible to Everyone
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=22
• Self-Examination: How Accessible is Your Campus
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=37
• Universal Design
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FE1CLS7i3k
• Universal Design Applications in Biology
www.uw.edu/doit/RDE/udl_videos.html
• Universal Design for Learning
connect.csumb.edu/udl1
• Universal Design for Learning: Cases Stories
elixr.merlot.org/case-stories/understanding--meeting-students-needs/universal-design-for-
learning-udl?noCache=920:1306947204
• Universal Design and Online Accessibility
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYFrCXATXLI
• Universal Learning Design: Empowering the Next Generation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SG1IwzHhiU
• Why Universal Design in an Educational Setting?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYg7NtDHoEA
• World Wide Access: Accessible Web Design
www.uw.edu/doit/Video/index.php?vid=35
WEBSITES, PUBLICATIONS, AND VIDEOS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This content is part of the collection Universal Design in Higher Education: Promising Practices sponsored
by the DO-IT Center. The content is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant #HRD-0929006. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those
of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of funding sources or the DO-IT Center.
Copyright (c) 2013 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy and distribute these materials
for educational, noncommercial purposes provided the source is acknowledged.
REFERENCE FORMAT FOR THIS CONTENT
Burgstahler, S. (2013). Websites, Publications, and Videos. In S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in
higher education: Promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from www.
uw.edu/doit/UDHE-promising-practices/resources.html