Although institutes of higher education serve an

Transcription

1 Equity & Excellence in Education, 37: , 2004 Copyright c Taylor & Francis, Inc. ISSN print / online DOI: / Historical, Theoretical, and Foundational Principles of Universal Instructional Design in Higher Education Susan M. Pliner and Julia R. Johnson In this essay, the authors provide an overview of Universal Instructional Design (UID) as an approach for addressing the learning needs of all students enrolled in institutions of higher education. They argue that the concept of universality as it is applied to instruction is an approach that will benefit not only students with disabilities, but all students. To support their argument, the authors explain the core elements of UID as well as the conceptual connections of UID to multicultural education and social justice education. They conclude the essay by framing the articles included in this special issue. To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn....to teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin (hooks, 1994, p. 13). Although institutes of higher education serve an increasingly diverse student body, they have traditionally been resistant to change, especially in accommodating the needs of students marked as minorities because of race, class, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, nationality, or sexual identification or orientation. After 150 years of status quo preservation, the creation of higher education environments that are accepting and supportive of students with diverse needs is a formidable task that requires a major cultural transformation (Aune, 1995; Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998). In order to create inclusive environments for diverse student populations, the system of higher education must be totally reconfigured, which will require shifts in our educational practices that range from how we admit students, to the curriculum we teach, to pedagogical practices, to career placement, and so forth. These changes not only are desirable from an ethic of inclusion, they also are necessary because our higher education institutions cannot operate in a cultural vacuum: Educational institutions must engage in the same inexorable challenges for inclusion that our total society is facing, that is, full integration and nothing less. Address correspondence to Susan M. Pliner, Mt. Holyoke College, Weissman Center for Leadership, South Hadley, MA spliner@mtholyoke.edu The concept of universality provides an important starting point for educational and social transformation. Activists such as Russell (1998) note the preliminary steps needed to achieve universal social justice and the possibility for a common humanity... for human emancipation (pp ). One primary step toward full integration is accessibility or access to programs and physical structures. Universal Instructional Design offers a range of options and strategies to achieve this first step of accessibility and inclusion. In this essay, we provide an overview of Universal Instructional Design (UID) as an approach for addressing the diverse learning needs of students enrolled in institutions of higher education. The concept of UID as it relates to instruction is an approach that benefits all students at the same time that it serves students with disabilities. In what follows, we address the value and importance of UID in transforming educational access, and in doing so, we provide a framework for the essays included in this special volume. First we briefly examine the general culture of higher education. Second, we present the core principles necessary for successful implementation of UID and explain how UID is conceptually related to the principles and practices of multicultural education and social justice education. Finally, we contextualize the articles included in this volume. OTHERS AND THE CULTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Historically, barriers to inclusion in higher education have been based on the explicit exclusion of individuals 105

2 106 SUSAN M. PLINER AND JULIA R. JOHNSON because of race, gender, national origin, disability, religion, language, and class. For example, higher education in the United States has been primarily available to a professional class that was white, able-bodied, heterosexual, Christian, and male. As a consequence, institutions of higher education have perpetuated ways of being and knowing that disproportionately support and reward the aforementioned bodies. Only with time and social activism has this demographic slowly shifted to include persons of color, women, and people with disabilities in the higher education environment. The civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and legislation such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), provided greater access to people historically underrepresented in higher education. Furthermore, the passage of the Higher Education Act in 1965, and its subsequent reauthorizations and amendments (especially the 1972 reauthorization), opened the doors to students with less economic means who received grants and loans to attend the college of their choice (Parsons, 2002). Although higher education became more available to historically underrepresented groups, educational practices and culture did not shift significantly to address the experiences and learning needs of the students newly enrolled. So, although legislation opened the door to diverse student populations, the absence of efforts to change the culture or the educational practices in higher education (such as the curriculum, physical layout, and teaching and testing methods) have created significant barriers to access, retention, and graduation for many students, particularly students with disabilities. The number of students with psychological, physical, and learning disabilities enrolled in higher education has tripled since the late 1970s (Henderson, 1999). The majority of these students has been and continues to be enrolled in community colleges. Students with disabilities comprise approximately 6% of enrolled undergraduates (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999), most of whom hope to transfer from two-year to four-year colleges. Although students with disabilities are enrolling in colleges in higher numbers, The National Center for Education Statistics (1999) reports that nearly half (47%) have left college without completing a degree as compared to roughly 36% of students without disabilities. And, although many students with disabilities hope to transfer from two-year to four-year institutions, the majority of students do not (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Educators need to question why so few students with disabilities actually transfer from two-year to four-year institutions and why attrition rates are so high for this population. In part, attrition can be attributed to such factors as difficulty securing financial aid or inadequate efforts by four-year colleges to integrate community college transfers socially (Dougherty, 2002, p. 123). Equally important, however, are the formidable physical and learning barriers: Students with disabilities encounter significant challenges of physical accessibility and access to curriculum and instruction. The movement toward Universal Design has been instrumental in addressing this gap. The goal of accessibility has resulted in federal and state mandates that attempt to meet the spirit of full participation of people with disabilities in all parts of our society. 1 Since the 1968 passage of the Architectural Barriers Act, which was the first legislation in the United States to acknowledge and redress civil rights for individuals with disabilities, accessibility issues have been at the forefront of the disability rights movement. With the Architectural Barriers Act and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as guides, architects have designed buildings that are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. The goal of universal design is for a building plan to be comprehensive and functional for individuals who use the space, for example, the young and the elderly, as well as individuals with permanent and temporary disabilities (Mace, 1988). In addition to addressing issues of physical access, disability rights legislation has expanded a definition of disability to include learning disabilities and psychological disabilities, resulting in a broader model of accommodation. Support services have been developed and implemented within institutions of higher education to oversee the provision of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities in response to this legislative change. A service delivery model was developed to accommodate students based on their individual needs (such as extended time on examinations, notetakers in classes, assistive technology, etc.). Although this has been an effective approach for providing basic access to higher education for specific individuals, it has not changed the practices and attitudes that pose considerable challenges and barriers to inclusion for students with disabilities more generally. UID addresses these challenges and barriers by extending the accommodation service model to transform the broader range of teaching practices needed to create inclusive learning environments. CORE PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF UNIVERSAL INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN The goal of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Center for Applied Special Technology; CAST, 2001) or Universal Instructional Design (UID) (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998) is to expand institutional teaching methodologies so that students with disabilities and all students with diverse learning needs have equal access to classroom teaching and learning. When classroom teaching practices are inclusive of diverse learning styles and

3 PRINCIPLES OF UID IN HIGHER EDUCATION 107 needs from their inception, it is not necessary for students to rely as heavily on support systems that are secondary to primary instructional programs. Furthermore, the established bureaucracy that students must navigate in order to receive accommodations are alleviated by a UID approach. Aune and Kroeger (1997) note that barrierfree environments that are naturally inclusive and that require minimal amounts of adaptation would alleviate much of the tension that results when disability interacts with institutions, systems, space and culture (p. 355). The development of UID as a concept draws from many different fields, but the term itself is borrowed directly from the architectural concept of Universal Design. Universal Design, introduced by Ronald Mace (1988) is designed to make physical spaces accessible and usable by all people, including persons with physical disabilities. The Center for Universal Design (1997) at North Carolina State University defines Universal Design 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 (p. 1). The Center for Universal Design developed the following guiding principles for implementing Universal Design so that all persons would have access to physical space. These concepts include: (1) equitable use; (2) flexibility in use; (3) simple and intuitive use; (4) perceptible information; (5) tolerance for error; (6) low physical effort; and (7) size and space for approach and use. One commonly understood implementation of these principles is to provide ramps so that wheelchair users, as well as parents pushing strollers, can gain access to buildings (equitable use, flexibility in use, size and space for approach and use). Providing Braille lettering in elevators, the presence of electric door openers, accessible and marked parking, and bathroom stalls large enough to accommodate wheelchairs are additional examples with which most are familiar. Universal Design in architecture is meant to accommodate the range of potential users in a physical environment. Similarly, Universal Instructional Design or Universal Design for Learning (UDL) accommodates a range of diverse learners in a learning environment. The principles of Universal Design have been applied to instruction, materials, and technology. CAST (2001) has led the field in applying UID to the use of technology in teaching and learning. CAST defines UDL as a new paradigm for teaching, learning, and assessment, drawing on new brain research and new media technologies to respond to individual learner differences ( 1). This new paradigm requires a shift in thinking about how faculty design courses to include alternatives to make it accessible and appropriate for individuals with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities in widely varied learning contexts. The universal in universal design does not imply one optimal solution for everyone. Rather, it reflects an awareness of the unique nature of each learner and the need to accommodate differences, creating learning experiences that suit the learner and maximize his or her ability to progress (CAST, 2001, 3). CAST emphasizes the need for flexibility and encourages faculty to consider a framework for designing courses that provide for flexible means of representation, expression, and engagement. At present, disability studies and education scholars who focus on issues of access have adapted the core principles of Universal Design in architecture to learning and instruction, resulting in the development of UID. The most current list is provided by Scott, Mc Guire, and Shaw (2003), and includes nine primary principles for implementing UID: 1. Equitable use making classroom material accessible to diverse learning needs and styles 2. Flexibility in use the practice of using a variety of instructional methods 3. Simple and intuitive teaching in a straightforward and predictable manner 4. Perceptible information ensuring that course material is accessible to students regardless of their sensory abilities 5. Tolerance for error building diversity of learning pace and prerequisite skills into course process 6. Low physical effort designing instruction to minimize... physical effort so that students can attend to essential learning 7. Size and space for approach and use engaging the classroom space in ways that addresses diverse student needs based on body size, posture, mobility, and communication 8. A community of learners teaching and learning environment supports and encourages interaction and communication among students and between students and faculty 9. Instructional climate all students are encouraged to meet high expectations as they are welcomed to participate in the course (pp ). These principles highlight the need for a varied and flexible approach to teaching because no single method supports or challenges all students. Multiple methods and materials provide a sufficiently broad base that enables all students to learn. In our overview of the remaining articles in this volume, we explain how specific examples of UID principles can be implemented. At its core, UID calls for equity and inclusiveness in education. UID engages faculty in thinking more broadly about the following: what they teach; why and how they teach it; and, why and how they assess student learning. UID calls for innovative teaching techniques and materials that are suitable for general use, and that

4 108 SUSAN M. PLINER AND JULIA R. JOHNSON are particularly helpful to students with identified or unidentified disabilities, students learning in a second (or third or fourth) language, or students who need additional academic support. Examples of such techniques include: 1. Routine placement of syllabi and reading lists on computer disks or the Web (so that text can be formatted by individual students according to needs) 2. Variable options for assignment and assessment of all students (multiple exam formats, flexibility in time and location, flexibility in presentation of ideas) 3. Provision of supplemental materials in multiple formats, such as oral lectures with overhead projection of key point outlines, study guides, or prepared notes. 2 Students do not have to be disabled to benefit from greater access to teaching materials. Furthermore, UID also allows faculty the freedom to be more flexible in achieving course goals and expectations. Too often, faculty assume that the their methods of delivery are synonymous with the student s achievement of course goals. On the contrary, student learning goals are often more easily achieved when the possibilities of diverse learning styles and methods are explored. The application of UID principles enables all students to have access to a greater range of teaching materials and this access to teaching materials, in turn, is one way to transform educational structures and create more equitable and socially just learning environments. Quite simply, UID is about social justice and transforming oppressive social relationships. As such, it is consistent with the missions of multicultural education and social justice education. UID and Multicultural/Social Justice Education Within educational research and practices, multicultural education and social justice education are designed to address the structural, curricular, and pedagogical inequities for students from historically underrepresented groups. As such, we believe it is important to contextualize a discussion of UID within a multicultural education and social justice education framework because, at their core, these three areas of study and practice are concerned with creating equitable and socially just learning environments. More specifically, UID focuses on educational equity, and like multicultural education and social justice education, UID is designed to meet the needs of students who have historically been underrepresented, disempowered, and oppressed within educational institutions. Furthermore, UID, multicultural education, and social justice education call for educational reform as a means for actively engaging all students in the learning process by placing students at the core of educational planning. For example, Banks and Banks (2001) explain, Multicultural education incorporates the idea that all students regardless of their gender and social class and their ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics should have an equal opportunity to learn in school (p. 3). And, as Bell (1997) states, The goal of social justice education is full and equal participation of all groups in the society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs (p. 3). Although they come out of different historic and theoretical frameworks, UID, multicultural education, and social justice education all ask that institutions and individual faculty commit to examining issues of difference, discrimination, inequity, and the exclusion of historically underrepresented populations in higher education. Taken together, they provide a framework by which curriculum is made accessible not only because of the legal imperative called for by civil rights legislation, but also because accessible learning creates a more socially just world that is inclusive of our social and individual diversity. UID, multicultural education and social justice education also shift the focus from the individual to the systemic rather than asking students personally to overcome educational barriers on their own, these frameworks analyze accessibility as a global and structural concern. Currently, we create barriers in higher education that have established a system of othering (Freire, 1970; Tatum, 1997; Wendell, 1996). In other words, within institutions of higher education and in faculty teaching practices, diverse student populations are often positioned outside, as others who must be accommodated or excluded from institutional culture or classroom norms. For example, educators often converse about the performance levels or abilities of student others (students with disabilities, students of color, non-native English language learners, etc.) and equate substandard academic performance with social group membership. What rarely is addressed in such conversations are the structural and institutional barriers that restrict others from equally accessing teaching and learning. If we do not explicitly exclude students by assuming their abnormality or inability to succeed, we often exclude by the ways we structure our curricular practices. As Nieto (1999) argues: There is often a profound mismatch between student s cultures and the content of the curriculum...in fact, in many schools learning starts not with what students bring but with what is considered high-status knowledge, with its overemphasis on European and European American history, arts and values. Without denying the importance of providing all students with the high-status knowledge that can open doors to otherwise unavailable life options for them, the case still needs to be made that

5 PRINCIPLES OF UID IN HIGHER EDUCATION 109 it makes sense to begin with what students know. If not, rather than going elsewhere, students learning often goes nowhere (p. 194). When educators do not include what students bring with them to educational institutions, we deny them equal access to educational opportunity. For example, students from historically underrepresented groups, particularly students of color, often experience a sense of isolation within educational institutions because their bodies, life experiences, and interests are often excluded from mainstream educational practices. At the level of physical representation, the majority of faculty and administrators generally reflect dominant cultural groups (white, heterosexual, Christian, able-bodied, middle-class). At the level of intellectual representation, as Nieto (1999) explains above, curriculum tends to focus on the history and practices of European traditions. Higher education institutions have responded to these representational absences, in part, by expanding curriculum and by creating spaces for students of color on the periphery of the academic mission, in student affairs, student development, and residential life. Although support services are important for retaining diverse student populations, our collective focus on diversity needs to shift from addressing difference as peripheral to our institutions and classrooms, to addressing difference as a core element of an academic mission. For many students of color, navigating the environment of predominately white college campuses requires expending additional time and personal resources, which places a double (or triple) burden on students of color. They have to actively work to build a system of representation within educational institutions; once enrolled, they experience significant cultural, curricular, and pedagogical barriers; and they are often asked continually to serve as educational diversity agents for mainstream students. Because these structural barriers are in place, colleges and universities deny students of color equal access to educational opportunity. Students with disabilities face similar challenges to those faced by students of color. They have to fight for access, whether it is physical access or curricular and pedagogical access. For instance, in studying the experiences of students with disabilities in science, math, and engineering majors, Seymour and Hunter (1998) found that many students described themselves as being time-disadvantaged, not by their disabilities but rather by the obstacles presented in arranging accommodations. For example, students with disabilities are responsible for self-advocating with faculty (including educating faculty), coordinating accommodations with service providers and getting the actual accommodations from faculty. The process of arranging individual accommodations, while meeting the intent of legislative requirements, further disadvantages students with disabilities because it requires them to navigate an additional and separate system in order to access education. UID transforms our thinking from placing reactive responsibility on the other to adapt to exclusionary structures (that educators may or may not help them navigate), to a proactive process whereby educators and administrators design our curriculum and assessment strategies as well as our physical environment, support services, and student development programs, to include the learning needs of all students. APPLICATIONS OF UID Thus far, we have discussed the foundations of UID and the culture of higher education as well as explicated the core principles of UID and their connection to the experience of diverse student populations. As such, we have offered a conceptual starting point for examining the seven articles that follow in this special issue. In this section, we address more fully the relationship between the conceptual framework and the specific topics engaged by the contributing authors. One of the primary connections we have made is between the issues faced by students with disabilities and students from other groups that are historically underrepresented in institutions of higher education. Based on the similar histories of oppressed student groups and the conceptual foundations of UID, we believe that analyses taken from multicultural education, social justice, and UID should be interwoven. Nieto (2000) does this by defining multicultural education as a social justice practice. She argues that multicultural education is a process of comprehensive school reform and basic education for all students. It challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others) that students, their communities, and teachers reflect. Multicultural education permeates the schools curriculum and instructional strategies, as well as the interactions among teachers, students, and families, and the very way that schools conceptualize the nature of teaching and learning. Because it uses critical pedagogy as its underlying philosophy and focuses on knowledge, reflection, and action (praxis) as the basis for social change, multicultural education promotes democratic principles of social justice. (p. 305) Similarly, by conceptualizing UID within a multicultural education and social justice framework, we hope to create a framework for transforming higher education through an examination of power and privilege as a means to empower students and to create social change.

6 110 SUSAN M. PLINER AND JULIA R. JOHNSON The essays included in this special issue illustrate in more detail this conceptual relationship. The argument made in Hackman and Rauscher s A Pathway to Access for All: Exploring the Connections between Universal Instructional Design and Social Justice Education, presents the theoretical foundations of Social Justice Education as means for establishing philosophical linkages to UID. They examine the implications of viewing UID through a social justice lens and address issues of implementing universally designed instruction that is both liberatory and empowering, rather than exclusionary. Hackman and Rauscher strongly urge educators to critically examine power, privilege, and systems of oppression as foundational components UID as well. Of course, rethinking teaching and learning in the interests of multicultural education and social justice is challenging because universities have been generally resistant to change and particularly resistant to addressing issues of power and oppression unless legally required to do so. Discovering how to implement longlasting integral change in higher education is a daunting task, and one that the authors in this volume do not take lightly. The UID approach is especially hard to implement because it embodies so many attitudinal barriers, including the belief that students with disabilities are not qualified to meet all the requirements in a particular major or are simply not capable of learning in the first place ( not college material ). Furthermore, proponents of UID derive their frameworks and principles from universal design, which uses a new mindset for implementation. That is, such architects as Ronald Mace conceived of universal design as a model for designing new buildings. Indeed, UID must be addressed from organizational change perspective in order to be optimally effective (Aune, 1995). The human dimension of organizational change (p. 151) is most important to consider because change is an evolving process, resulting in an organization that is constantly in a state of flux and ambiguity (p. 157). Although implementing UID at institutional and curricular levels does create challenge and dissonance because it requires change, universities must be willing to accept challenge in order to be inclusive. One necessary change is for roles to shift between faculty and service providers: Faculty members need to feel empowered to act without the continual input of service providers. Faculty and service providers must develop collaborative relationships so that faculty members begin to see students with disabilities as their students (Aune, 1995, p. 170), not simply students belonging to a service program or office. Administrators also must be involved in this change process. Provosts, deans, and department heads must be aware and informed of universal design principles and work collaboratively with faculty members and service providers to initiate such an approach. Berger and Van Thanh in, Leading Organizations for Universal Design, present a five-dimensional model for organizational change and address the application and challenges for UID within each of the five dimensions. Within the hierarchical structure of the bureaucratic dimension, Berger and Van Thanh recommend the creation of an organizational unit to support UID efforts across entire campuses. Without explicitly linking organizational change to multicultural education, Berger and Van Thanh suggest that central to the political dimension is a required identification of informal and formal power on campus as crucial to the alignment of such forces in support of UID. Their analysis of power for organizational change has the potential to significantly reconceptualize how power and authority maintain systems of oppression and subsequent inequity in educational access. In addition, Berger and Van Thanh highlight the need for collaboration and collegial leadership amongst faculty, as well as a focus on faculty involvement as a necessary and integral component of the organizational transformation process. The authors also explain how the symbols and systems that comprise institutional culture impact change initiatives. On some campuses, centers for teaching and instruction have accepted the challenge to develop programs and materials that engage faculty in a critically reflective process on behalf of more diverse student classrooms. In Faculty Development and Universal Instructional Design, Ouellett addresses the challenges of changing the culture of teaching that are currently faced by centers for teaching and instructional development. Ouellett meets the challenge called for in creating a multicultural educational environment by using a social justice framework as foundational to the practice of teaching and instructional development. In discussing approaches and strategies for introducing UID to faculty, Ouellett provides examples for implementation in curriculum design, pedagogical strategies, and institutional support. He highlights the need for structural change, by concluding with a call for institutions to support faculty in integrating UID into their teaching practices. In addition to those essays addressing the theoretical, faculty, and administrative issues related to implementing UID in higher education, this issue also addresses the steps educators have already begun taking to apply the principles to UID within their specific disciplines. Implementing UID principles in specific disciplines is a flexible and creative process that produces specific examples for reflection and analysis. The remaining articles convey several innovative approaches developed by educators in creating inclusive learning environments. Implementing innovative and inclusive pedagogy in a Communication classroom necessitates a commitment to engaging students in the process. In Universal

7 PRINCIPLES OF UID IN HIGHER EDUCATION 111 Instructional Design and Critical (Communication) Pedagogy: Strategies for Voice, Inclusion, and Social Justice/Change, Johnson presents two case studies representing her approach and methodology for implementing the principles of UID while simultaneously engaging in practice that attempts to dismantle existing structures of power and authority in higher education classrooms. Johnson employs theories of Critical Pedagogy as a framework for using UID in Communication courses to both challenge unequal relationships of power and create accessible and inclusive learning environments. Her commitment to shared power and authority offers students an opportunity to engage in learning as full and equal participants, as is evidenced in her first case study discussing her method of co-constructing course assignments. Here, all students have the opportunity to participate in designing optimal learning structures and, in turn, share responsibility for their individual and collective learning. In addition, Johnson highlights the importance for UID to include an examination of the manifestations of power, so that it doesn t reinforce the traditionally oppressive hierarchical structures as it is applied. The remaining three essays in this special issue provide focused pragmatic accounts of engaging UID principles within World Languages, Psychology, and Assistive Technology. The primary focus in these essays is on strategies for engaging UID in various classroom and support contexts. In discussions of higher education, we often exclude the voices of community college educators. In this volume, Mino lends insight into how community college educators might also integrate UID principles as he explains the use of UID in the introductory psychology classroom. In Planning for Inclusion: Using Universal Instructional Design to Create a Learner-Centered Classroom, Mino shows how an emergent curriculum is necessary if one is to respond to the student diversity in an introductory level classroom. His focus on authentic, learner-centered assessment is particularly useful as a conceptual framework for educators. Van Handle s Universal Instructional Design and World Languages, implements UID within the theoretical context of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). She contends that because students have differing approaches to learning languages, UID offers a concrete set of principles to assist students in developing communicative competence, or the ability to use the target language in an appropriate manner in a variety of social situations. She illustrates the usefulness of UID in language classrooms by framing specific pedagogical strategies for language learning using Gardner s Multiple Intelligences Theory. The specific suggestions for assignments and testing provide useful examples of how CLT educators can engage UID principles. The final essay in this issue addresses the pragmatic concerns of utilizing technology within classroom environments and across the curriculum. In Assistive Technology and Universal Instructional Design: A Postsecondary Perspective, Campbell extends a substantive body of research on the relationship between technology and UID, particularly assistive technology (such as the development of hardware and software that assists people with disabilities such as verbal response software, screen reading, text enlargement). Campbell provides an overview of the legal history addressing assistive technological needs. In particular, she explains how technology can be utilized for specific skill areas across the curriculum. Furthermore, she provides information about specific assistive technology programs and application within computer labs. CONCLUSION As we argued at the beginning of this essay, the concept of UID as it relates to instruction is an approach that benefits all students, including students with diverse learning needs. To support this claim, we offered an explanation of the historical, philosophical, and legal foundations of UID, including a discussion of the current culture of higher education. We also reviewed the core principles necessary for successful implementation of UID and contextualized the articles included in this volume. We hope that the information provided here assists those new to UID to reconceptualize how they approach teaching, as well as offers new insights to those educators already experienced with creating inclusive pedagogical practices. As we move forward in our understanding and application of UID in higher education, we believe there are two further elements for us to consider as research and teaching develops in this area. First, UID (and teaching generally) benefits greatly from collaboration among educational agents. By collaboration, we mean studentteacher involvement in pedagogical decisions as well as collaboration among essential personnel in higher education settings. Because students are the recipients of this approach, they should be participants in the design of courses, web sites, and other important learning components. As educators, administrators, and service providers, we must continually unpack and reflect on barriers to educational access so that effective and socially just change can take place in our institutions. To act in the interests of social justice, we must be willing to collaborate with all the essential personnel in a higher education setting to enact positive and long-lasting change that will benefit all students. Until we make education accessible to all historically underrepresented groups, we will not be able to engage in a pedagogy that is truly inclusive of us all.

8 112 SUSAN M. PLINER AND JULIA R. JOHNSON Second, as scholar-practitioners, we must engage in research that demonstrates UID s effectiveness in order for it to become an integral part of university settings. To date, we have presented the theory and the philosophy, but we have not yet engaged in any substantial research to demonstrate its effectiveness. This volume is an additional step toward establishing the context for measuring UID effectiveness, but we do not specifically or systematically engage that process herein. Small demonstration grants with specific data-gathering measures are necessary to this end, as are localized studies of UID use. Meeting the educational needs of diverse student populations enrolled in institutions of higher education mandates movement beyond addressing issues of campus climate and student life to examining the culture of learning and teaching. Because the culture of higher education has historically been based upon the disempowerment and oppression of underrepresented populations, it is our ethical and moral obligation to transform the practice of accessibility. We must move beyond meeting the intent of legislative dictum to honestly assessing the visible and hidden barriers that deny access and opportunity to traditionally subordinated student populations. One step we must take to this end is to expand our narrowly conceived notions of whom and what represents successful learning. As hooks (1994) contends, To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn (p. 3). NOTES Dr. Patricia Silver contributed to the early conceptualizing and outline of this article, and we acknowledge her in the guest editor s introduction. 1. While the Architectural Barriers Act addresses physical accessibility, the ADA broadens our notion of disability beyond mobility and sensory disabilities to address both physical and mental impairment. More specifically, the ADA (1990) defines a disabled person as someone who a) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; b) has a record of such impairment; or c) is regarded as having such an impairment (PL Section 3). 2. This list is just a sample of inclusive teaching techniques and materials beneficial to both learners and teachers, and is by no means comprehensive. REFERENCES Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L , 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C et seq. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, P.L , 42 U.S.C et seq. Aune, B. P. (1995). The human dimension of organizational change. Review of Higher Education, 18(2), Aune, E., & Kroeger, S. A. (1997). Career development of college students with disabilities: An interactional approach to defining the issues. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2001). Multicultural education: Issues & perspectives (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2001). Universal design for learning. Retrieved from The Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. (Version 2.0) [Brochure]. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Dougherty, K. J. (2002). Community colleges. In J. J. F. Forrest & K. Kinser (Eds.), Higher education in the United States: An encyclopedia (pp ). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: The Seabury Press. Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Mace, R. (1988). An introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act. A teleconference tape. Architectural Association. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). The national postsecondary student aid study. Washington, DC: Author. Nieto, S. (1999). Critical multicultural education and students perspectives. In S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education (pp ). Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Parsons, M. D. (2002). Federal higher education policy. In J. J. F. Forrest & K. Kinser (Eds.), Higher education in the United States: An encyclopedia (pp ). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Rehabilitation Act of (1973). Pub. L. No , 87 Stat. 355, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Russell, M. (1998). Beyond ramps: Disability at the end of the social contract: A warning from an uppity crip. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (1998). Talking about disability: The education and work experiences of graduates and undergraduates with disabilities in science, mathematics and engineering majors. Boulder: University of Colorado. Silver, P., Bourke, A. B., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

9 PRINCIPLES OF UID IN HIGHER EDUCATION 113 Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge. Susan M. Pliner is the associate director of the Weissman Center for Leadership and a visiting lecturer in the Psychology and Education Department at Mount Holyoke College. In addition, she is a visiting lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Graduate School of Education, where she teaches courses on social justice education and disabilities. Susan also serves on the board of directors, as a Regional Director, for the National Association for Multicultural Education. Julia R. Johnson is an assistant professor of communications at the University of Rhode Island. In her research and teaching, Julia explores the intersections of communication and culture, particularly how identity is performed in educational, rhetorical, and interpersonal/intercultural contexts.