RESEARCH QUESTION:
What factors contribute to San Francisco State University
College of Education Faculty’s understanding of
Universal Design for Learning and its applications?
______
By: Angela Dowd
ISED 797Dr. Helen Hyun
Spring 2009
Understanding Universal Design for Learning
The face of education is changing. New developments in brain research reveal that the human brain can and does grow new neurons. It rewires and remaps itself by means of neuroplasticity (Jenson, 2008). Neuroscience is revealing more about individual learning differences (Rose and Meyer, 2002). Emerging technologies are transforming the way students and instructors communicate. These changes in the ways we perceive and communicate information are profound.
In postsecondary institutions, there are also changes within campus communities. There is a dramatic increase in diversity regarding race, ethnicity, language background, age, socioeconomic status, and physical and learning disabilities (Burgstahler and Cory, 2008). This is true especially at San Francisco State University (SFSU), a heterogeneous campus where linguistic and cultural differences abound. Accessibility laws (Disabilities Act of 1990 ADA), (IDEA) have opened the gates of higher education to new learners for the first time. Some of these new learners have visible disabilities. Others have disabilities that are invisible. Still others are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners for whom English is a second language. San Francisco State University (SFSU) College of Education (COE) faculty will need to reach out to students in new ways and adapt pedagogy to meet students’ varied learning needs.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was developed through research. It is used to design accessible curricula and inclusive environments for learners. The three principles of UDL are: Provide Multiple Means of Representation; Provide Multiple Means of Expression; Provide Multiple Means of Engagement (Rose and Meyer, 2002). UDL models have been tested at postsecondary schools all over the country. Although UDL and accessibility topics have been showcased here on campus, on the SFSU ACCESS website and on the website of San Francisco State University’s Center for Teaching and Faculty Development (CTFD), it appears that many SFSU COE faculty members do not understand much about UDL or accessibility. I am in the Instructional Technologies masters program in the College of Education at SFSU. There are no courses offered in UDL, Usability or Accessibility in this program or any others. I first heard the term Universal Design for Learning mentioned in a seminar taught by Dr. Beatty (ITEC 801). It has not been mentioned in any other classes.
In response to the growing demand for equity in education, the California State University (CSU) passed The Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI), establishing the following goals by California State University (CSU) Coded Memorandum:
By 2012, all websites will be accessible, all instructional materials in electronic formats will be accessible, and all purchases of technology will conform to accessibility standards—and alternative means of access will be provided for any exceptions. This commitment is articulated in Executive Order 926 (Reed, 2004, EO 926).
Executive Order 926 puts pressure on all SFSU departments to increase access for all students to college curriculum, instruction, assessment and the environment. One of the biggest concerns that UDL addresses is accessibility. Universal Design (UD) “holds promise for making educational products and environments more inclusive of all students, faculty, staff and visitors” (Burgstahler and Cory, 2008).
Universal Design began as a movement in architecture and product design to remove physical barriers. A model like Universal Design, when applied to learning, can be a powerful tool for SFSU COE Faculty. This study will inquire about the factors that contribute to SFSU COE Faculty’s understanding of Universal Design for Learning and its applications. ______
RESEARCH QUESTION:
What factors contribute to San Francisco State University College of Education Faculty’s understanding of Universal Design for Learning and its applications?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES:
I believe the most significant factor contributing to SFSU COE Faculty’s understanding of Universal Design for Learning and its applications is the full implementation of SFSU’s accessibility policy (ACCESS). Understanding UDL is directly linked to understanding accessibility. ______
RESEARCH DESIGN:
The design I am proposing is a survey using a written questionnaire. I have adapted an existing instrument that was designed by Colorado State University’s ACCESS Project. I will not be doing the research for this project due to time limitations. This instrument is designed to assess the teaching/learning climate within San Francisco State University College of Education’s Faculty.
The purpose of the study is to inquire about the factors that contribute to San Francisco State University College of Education Faculty’s understanding of Universal Design for Learning and its applications. The intended audience is faculty within San Francisco State University’s College of Education. The questionnaire will be printed on paper and mailed with a cover letter. There will be eighteen questions, fifteen will be multiple choice, one will ask for an amount (number), one will be a check all that apply, and the last question will be open-ended. A critical researcher might say that using a survey/questionnaire like this will not give a holistic picture of the situation. If I had more time, I would have done a series of faculty interviews before writing this proposal. This would add more insight and depth to the proposal and study.
KEY TERMS:
a. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)f. Brain Research k. EnACT
b. Universal Designg. Diversity l. ACCESS
c Faculty Understanding of UDLh. Executive Order 926 m. IDEA
d. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)i. MERLOT n. ADA
e. Center for Teaching and Faculty Dev.j. MERLOT/ELIXR o. ATI
______
The operational definitions of the key terms listed above are defined below.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL): is a research-based framework that is used to make curriculum fit students. UDL states that everyone has learner differences. Students with disabilities should not be put in a separate category. They should be included with everyone else. It is the view of UDL that instructors should adjust for learner differences in all students. Curriculum materials should be varied and diverse, including digital and online resources, rather than centering on a single textbook. UDL is supportive of designing flexible curriculum that can adjust to fit individual students. Students should not be required to fit themselves to the curriculum (Rose and Meyer, 2002).
Universal Design (UD): The term Universal Design was first used by Ron Mace at North Carolina State University. Universal design is 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. This began in building and architecture. Educators and instructional designers also embrace it. When describing postsecondary education applications, it is often called Universal Design in Higher Education or (UDHE) (Burgstahler and Cory, 2008). General education applications of UD label it UDL (Rose and Meyer, 2002). In this paper UD, UDHE, and UDL have the same meaning.
Faculty Understanding (of UDL and its applications) is defined in this study as faculty awareness of UDL as a tool for designing accessible training materials and curricula. It includes faculty awareness of the changes in the law by the CSU, mandating that accessibility be applied so that all students have equity in education. This will be assessed by instruments that measure basic knowledge of accessibility as applied to instructional style, instructional materials and curricula.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Learners are learners who grew up in different cultures with English being their second language. A study by Ortiz points out that when information is presented to all students through a single form of representation, students can misinterpret what is being taught. Providing alternative representations for accessibility, clarity and comprehension is a good strategy, especially for those for whom English is a second language (Ortiz, Alba A., 1997).
The Center for Teaching and Faculty Development (CTFD) is a resource center for SFSU faculty. There is faculty/staff available to consult on topics related to teaching and professional development. This campus resource has a website listing faculty development opportunities both on and off campus. The faculty newspaper, The Garden, publishes monthly. It contains articles on topics that are relevant and interesting to faculty. CTFD sponsors workshops, events and brown-bag sessions, as well as a program called “To Go!” that delivers ideas for the busy faculty member to your door. CTFD has made several videos on Universal Design for Learning. The CTFD website has a UDL Activity Center with tutorials. (
Brain Research: Current research on the brain states that there are three networks…recognition, strategy, and affect…that share several organizational features. Information moves through the brain on pathways. Understanding the brain’s features helps educators to identify several ways to structure and simplify teaching and learning alternatives. (Rose and Meyer, 2002)
Diversity is defined as differences between students in ability/disability, culture, language, race, background, etc. In this study the term diversity also refers to a large number of learning disabilities like dyslexia; culturally and linguistically diverse learners (CLD); emotional or behavioral problems; sensory and physical disabilities and motivation problems. (Rose and Meyer, 2002).
Executive Order 926: This executive order from the CSU brings into State law the protection of Title II of the ADA, which ensures accessibility to government programs. It also codifies Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, requiring accessibility of electronic and information technology. The law states: “By 2012, all websites will be accessible, all instructional materials in electronic formats will be accessible, and all purchases of technology will conform to accessibility standards—and alternative means of access will be provided for any exceptions” (Reed, 2004, EO 926).
MERLOT: Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT) is defined on the Merlot website as follows. “Merlot’s strategic goal is to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning by increasing the quantity and quality of peer reviewed online learning materials that can be easily incorporated into faculty designed courses.” It has been in existence since 1997.
MERLOT/ELIXR: As described on the Merlot/Elixir website, “this project was developed from MERLOT in 2006 by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is intended to foster and develop new collaborations amongst faculty development centers and online resource repositories. Through its unique collection of discipline-oriented resources, MERLOT ELIXR functions as a treasury of best teaching practices, supporting and inspiring faculty with examples of innovative and creative teaching and learning experiences.” SFSU is an affiliated institute of MERLOT/ELIXR.
EnACT: As described on the EnACT website, “Recognizing that faculty play a pivotal role in the success of all students, including students with disabilities, EnACT is designed to provide faculty within the CSU system the skills, support and training necessary to ensure that students with disabilities are provided a high quality post secondary education.” SFSU is participating in the EnACT grant along with seven other universities in the CSU.
ACCESS: is the SF State Accessible Technology Initiative (2006). The three specific areas of information resources and technologies that are addressed by ACCESS are web accessibility, instructional materials accessibility and accessible electronic and information technology (E&IT) procurement. As described on the ACCESS website, “ACCESS seeks to create a culture of access for inclusive teaching, learning and working environments. ACCESS was developed to assist with EO 926 implementation. The ACCESS website is a resource that informs the campus community about developing policies, procedures, best practices and tools. The principle of ACCESS is to apply Universal Design (UD) by stimulating cross-campus collaborations to effect changes that will ultimately benefit all.”
IDEA: As defined on the IDEA website, “IDEA requires public school systems to develop appropriate Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for each child. The specific special education and related services outlined in IEP each reflect the individualized needs of each student. This law makes it possible for students with learning disabilities and physical disabilities to have their needs met and strive for a better education by attending college.
American Disabilities Act (ADA): This is a civil rights law that guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications.
- anchor62335
Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI): This law was passed by the CSU in response to the passing of 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act, a law that ensures equal rights to all learners. “It is the policy of the CSU to make information technology resources and services accessible to all CSU students, faculty, staff and the general public regardless of disability.”
______
SOME HISTORY:
In 1973, the Rehabilitation Act1 (Public Law 93-112 93rd Congress, H. R. 8070 September 26, 1973) was passed, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)2 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19732 were passed, requiring that qualified individuals with disabilities be provided equal access to programs, services, or activities The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)3 was passed (formerly called P.L. 94-142 or the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975) and amended in 1979.
In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act, to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities, stating that inaccessible technology interferes with an individual’s ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily.
Section 5084 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology.
In 2003, the California State Legislature amended Government Code 111355 to require the CSU to implement Section 508 of the American Disabilities Act and to apply federal accessibility standards to the electronic and information technology (EIT) products and services that CSU buys, creates, uses and maintains. The Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI)6 was passed in 2004.
______
HISTORY NOTES & SOURCES:
1Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Public Law 93-112 93rd Congress, H. R. 8070 September 26, 1973. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, in Federal employment, and in the employment practices of Federal contractors. The standards for determining employment discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act are the same as those used in title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities employment, public accommodations, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications.
- anchor62335
3Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (formerly called P.L. 94-142 or the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975) requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs. IDEA requires public school systems to develop appropriate Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for each child. The specific special education and related services outlined in each IEP reflect the individualized needs of each student. IDEA was amended and strengthened in 1997.
4Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘ 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others. It is recommended that you review the laws and regulations listed below to further your understanding about Section 508 and how you can support implementation.
5Government Code 11135 provides protection from discrimination from any program or activity that is conducted, funded directly by, or receives any financial assistance from the State of California. It brings into State law the protection of Title II of the ADA which ensures accessibility to government programs. It also codifies Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requiring accessibility of electronic and information technology. - Q1
6The Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) reflects the California State University’s (CSU) ongoing commitment to provide access to information resources and technologies to individuals with disabilities. This commitment is articulated in Executive Order 926 (EO 926, December 20, 2004), the CSU Board of Trustees Policy on Disability Support and Accommodations: “It is the policy of the CSU to make information technology resources and services accessible to all CSU students, faculty, staff and the general public regardless of disability.”
______JUSTIFICATION:
The intention of this research proposal is to explore the factors that contribute to SFSU DOE faculty’s understanding of UDL and its applications. Although UDL and accessibility workshops, resources, videos and online guides are offered through SFSU’s ACCESS Team and CTFD to SFSU faculty, many faculty members are still not sure what UDL is or the need to create accessible instructional materials. There seems to be some hesitation around participating in the workshops and applying these new teaching strategies. With changes in the law just around the corner, there is little time to hesitate.