ERIC Identifier: ED459548
Publication Date: 2001-11-00
Author: Shaw, Stan F. - Scott, Sally S. - McGuire, Joan M.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education Arlington VA.
Teaching College Students with Learning Disabilities. ERIC Digest.
During the last quarter century, the concepts of mainstreaming, least restrictive environment and inclusion encouraged public schools to serve more students with disabilities in K-12 general education classes, and there has been a corresponding increase in the number of students with disabilities who attend college. At the college level, issues in educating students with disabilities are often different than those affecting K-12 education, and the instructional climate is changing. Taken together, these trends call for a more systematic method of accommodating diverse learning needs. This digest presents the issues and offers a practical approach to improving instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD).
DISABILITY LAW AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL IS NOT AS PRESCRIPTIVE
At the college level, the prescriptive Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is not applicable. While two civil rights laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), provide for equal access for "otherwise qualified" students with disabilities, exactly how equal access applies to instruction is less clear (Brinckerhoff, McGuire & Shaw, 2002).
THE INSTRUCTIONAL CLIMATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IS CHANGING
Traditionally, many college professors have emphasized content over pedagogy, raising concerns about their knowledge of effective instructional strategies, especially for students with disabilities. In the 21st century an increased emphasis on pedagogy in higher education is creating opportunities to improve instruction for college students with LD. A high rate of faculty turnover has been projected for this decade (Magner, 2000), offering an opportunity for new faculty to enter academia at a time when teaching skills are valued. Additionally, information technology can support instructional approaches previously not feasible in the college classroom. Effective instruction by faculty is now viewed as a critical element in the accessibility of learning environments (Scott & Gregg, 2000). In many colleges a major role of Disability Services personnel is to collaborate with faculty to help students become self-determined, independent learners (Shaw & Dukes, 2001).
With more students with LD attending college and a mixed level of pedagogical expertise among faculty, expecting faculty to make individual modifications and accommodations can be problematic. A more systematic method of meeting the needs of diverse learners is required, and Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) is such a model.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR INSTRUCTION
The general concept of Universal Design (UD) includes a specific set of principles to systematically incorporate accessible features into a design instead of retrofitting changes or accommodations. As applied in the field of architecture, UD results in the creation of environments and products that are as usable as possible by a diverse range of individuals. Building on the framework of UD and its principles (Follette, Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998), UDI anticipates the needs of diverse learners and incorporates effective strategies into curriculum and instruction to make learning more accessible. By focusing on methods and strategies that promote learning for all students, UDI embraces an inclusionary approach that enables students with disabilities to overcome some of their barriers to learning.
When the principles of UD are adapted to reflect the instructional practices that have been acknowledged as effective with students with LD, a more inclusive paradigm for teaching emerges. UDI provides a conceptual framework for thinking about access and inclusion for diverse individuals.
PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR INSTRUCTION
The UDI framework (adapted from Principles of Universal Design for Instruction by Sally Scott, Joan McGuire and Stan Shaw (2001). Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut. Users of this digest may copy and disseminate this information with the provision that they credit Scott, McGuire and Shaw) consists of nine general principles to guide faculty in thinking about and developing instruction for a broad range of students.
1. Equitable use-Instruction is designed to be useful to and accessible by people with diverse abilities. It provides the same means of use for all students, identical whenever possible, equivalent when not. Example: Using web-based courseware products with links to on-line resources so all students can access materials, regardless of varying academic preparation, distance from campus, etc.
2. Flexibility in use-Instruction is designed to accommodate a wide range of individual abilities. It provides choice in methods of use. Example: Using varied instructional methods (lecture with a visual outline, group activities, use of stories, or web-based discussions) to support different ways of learning.
3. Simple and intuitive instruction-Instruction is designed in a straightforward and predictable manner, regardless of the student's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. It eliminates unnecessary complexity. Example: Providing a grading scheme for papers or projects to clearly state performance expectations.
4. Perceptible information-Instruction is designed so that necessary information is communicated effectively, regardless of ambient conditions or the student's sensory abilities. Example: Selecting text books, reading material, and other instructional supports in digital format so students with diverse needs can access materials through print or by using technological supports (e.g., screen reader, text enlarger).
5. Tolerance for error-Instruction anticipates variation in individual student learning pace and requisite skills. Example: Structuring a long-term course project with the option of turning in individual project components separately for constructive feedback and for integration into the final product.
6. Low physical effort-Instruction is designed to minimize nonessential physical effort in order to allow maximum attention to learning. Note: This principle does not apply when physical effort is integral to essential requirements of a course. Example: Allowing students to use a word processor for writing and editing papers or essay exams.
7. Size and space for approach and use-Instruction is designed with consideration for appropriate size and space for approach, reach, manipulations, and use regardless of a student's body size, posture, mobility, and communication needs. Example: Using a circular seating arrangement in small class settings to allow students to see and face speakers during discussion-important for students with attention problems.
8. A community of learners-The instructional environment promotes interaction and communication among students and between students and faculty. Example: Fostering communication among students in and out of class by structuring study and discussion groups, e-mail lists, or chat rooms.
9. Instructional climate-Instruction is designed to be welcoming and inclusive. High expectations are espoused for all students. Example: Creating a statement on the syllabus affirming the need for students to respect diversity, underscoring the expectation of tolerance, and encouraging students to discuss any special learning needs with the instructor.
EXAMPLES OF UDI IN PRACTICE
Example #1: Equitable Use: As Dr. Smith reflected onadjustments to her lecture course, she realized that for thelast three semesters she had had at least one student with alearning disability who had requested a note taker. Inplanning for the next semester, Dr. Smith anticipated thisneed by posting class notes on the class web site, makingthe notes available in the same form to all students(Principle #1, Equitable Use). Any student with a learningdisability would have immediate access to a complete set oflecture notes and would no longer need a notetaker. Informaldiscussions with students and end-of-semester courseevaluations indicated that many students found this a usefulinstructional feature, including students whose primarylanguage is not English, students with attention deficits,and students wanting to preview the day's instruction. Thisinstructional support resulted in a more "usable"environment for students with diverse learning needs.
Example #2: Flexible Us principles, they will be able to more effectively teach all students, including those with learning disabilities, with reduced reliance on accommodations. To do this, college faculties need support for responding to student diversity and a means of sharing their knowledge. A web site, facultyware.com, is being built to offer such support.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (Second Edition). Austin,TX: PRO-ED.
Follette Story, M., Mueller, J.L., & Mace, R.L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design.
Magner, D.K. (2000, March 17). The imminent surge in retirement. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(28), A18-A20. Scott, S.S., & Gregg, N. (2000). Meeting the evolving needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 158-167.
Scott, S., McGuire, J.M., & Foley, T.E. (2001). Universal design for instruction: An exploration of principles for anticipating and responding to student diversity in the classroom. Storrs, CT: Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (in press). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education.
Scott, S., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction. Storrs, CT: Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Shaw, S.F., & Dukes, L.L. ( 2001). Program standards for disability services in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 81-90.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government. This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.