Post-Secondary Faculty Attitudes toward Inclusive Teaching Strategies

Abstract

Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) is an instructional concept that utilizes postsecondary institutional stakeholders, or university faculty, to create inclusive courses that move beyond mandated academic accommodations (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003). UDI is easily associated with students with disabilities because of accessibility considerations; however, proponents argue that UDI methods create diverse learning environments that benefit all students (McGuire & Scott, 2006). Currently, most postsecondary institutions in the United States (U.S.) do not utilize the principles of UDI for a variety of reasons. One reason is that many postsecondary faculty and staff lack the training, knowledge, skills and resources necessary to create universally inclusive learning environments (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Block, Loewen, and Kroeger (2006) stressed that incorporating UDI into higher education requires institutional commitment and a viewpoint change from a medical model of disability to a social model. Not only would incorporating UDI in higher education benefit all students, it would decrease the need for retrofitting college courses in the form of academic accommodations for students with disabilities. Presently, postsecondary institutions in the U.S. are legally mandated to provide, on an individual basis, academic accommodations for qualified students with disabilities who make requests. Examples of academic accommodations may include extended time on exams, audio books, and human note takers. Students must self-identify themselves to disability support professionals (DSP) on campus and request accommodations. This is often a time consuming process that may begin after a course has started (Scott et al., 2003). McGuire and Scott (2006) argued for a shift from legally mandated accommodations to full inclusion through the use of UDI. Using the principles of UDI, the need for academic accommodations would be less likely because the pre-planning for the course would take into consideration and benefit the learning styles and needs of all students. UDI and Other Inclusive Models UDI is based directly on the principles of Universal Design (UD), which originally focused on making buildings and other structures physically accessible (Zeff, 2007). It is important to note that besides UDI, other inclusive teaching models exist such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2012) and Universal Instructional Design (UID) (Silver, Bourke, & Strehom, 1998), among others. Although there are descriptive differences between UDI, UDL and UID, they are all based on the principles of UD and all are focused on accessible teaching and learning (Zeff, 2007). For example, instructors that ensure physical accessibility in the classroom, show captioned course-related videos, and give students choices about exam formats or assignments are creating an inclusive environment, presenting information in multiple ways, and allowing students to present information in multiple ways, respectively. A unifying definition of the three prominent models listed above could be described as applying UD principles to the instructional environment (Roberts, Park, Brown, & Cook, 2011). This article will use the term UDI henceforth. Scott, McGuire, and Shaw (2001) published nine principles of Universal Design for Instruction (Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroger, 2003). The nine principles are (a) Equitable Use (e.g., accessible course notes and reading materials), (b) Flexibility in Use (e.g., vary instructional techniques), (c), Simple and Intuitive (e.g., grading rubric, detailed syllabus), (d) Perceptible Information (e.g., select textbooks available in audio), (e) Tolerance for Error (e.g., semester-long feedback on projects), (f) Low Physical Effort (e.g., allow use of online assignment submission), (g) Size and Space for Approach and Use (e.g., circular seating), (h) a Community of Learners (e. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.