How To Make A University Coursework More Accessible To The Disabled

Transcription

1 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp Full Article Available Online at: Intellectbase and EBSCOhost RHESL is indexed with Cabell s, JournalSeek, etc. REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SELF-LEARNING Journal Homepage: Published by Intellectbase International Consortium, USA HIGHER EDUCATION ONLINE COURSE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES: UNIVERSAL DESIGN ABSTRACT O Rebecca Ingram, Barbara Lyons, Rhonda Bowron and Jan Oliver Troy University, USA n-line conveyance of course content is becoming an increasingly popular delivery mode in higher education whether fully on-line, hybrid or technology enhanced. Synchronously we are seeing increased diversity in the postsecondary population. This miscellany includes individuals with disabilities who are covered by federal legislation that guarantees equal access to online delivery of courses using technology. Kolowich (2010) states that content accessibility is the performance standard even when people with disabilities are not enrolled in the classes. He further notes that the lead agency for enforcing the standards, the Department of Justice, is indicating that it is starting to scrutinize these programs more intensely. Researchers and developers in the field of education are watching a concept called Universal Design (UD) for ways to make the curriculum more accessible to a global, diverse population. Universal Design was pioneered in the fields of architecture and product design as an attempt to design products and environments that are accessible and usable for people with or without disabilities. This concept was applied to education when leaders in the field began to notice that the curriculum itself was often a disabling factor. The term Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and several other similar terms were coined for this concept. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is a nonprofit research and development organization that maintains a website ( rich in information for expanding learning opportunities with a focus on those with disabilities. This literature review demonstrates how the main principles and guidelines of UDL can be applied to online course delivery. It reiterates the importance of garnering support for change within the universities for embracing adaptations in course design that includes all individuals to the greatest level appropriate. This change could make courses more attractive to all levels of learning, contribute to increased enrollment and decrease the potential for costly litigation within the higher education market. Keywords: Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning, Online Course Accessibility, Higher Education, Disability Rights in Higher Education. 143

2 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design HIGHER EDUCATION ONLINE COURSE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES: UNIVERSAL DESIGN As increasing numbers of college students enroll in on-line courses, the universities and individuals who provide those services must address the issue of course accessibility. How will the student be able to receive information and participate in the class? In the early stages of providing online instruction, the question was how to serve students who are in rural areas with limited, or no, access to the internet. More recently, we have been engaged in a dialog about how to best serve an increasingly diverse population of students. This growing number of diverse learners is providing numerous changes in how our students are educated. As educators, in order to expand our students worldview, we must provide assistance to our students in becoming more socially aware and accepting of differences. Increases in the number of minorities, women, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English language learners and the disabled are some of the changes we are seeing. The Chronicle of Higher Education (2010) reported that more minorities are now enrolling in higher education. A comparison of the numbers between 1988 and 2008 found the numbers of Blacks increased from 6 to 14% and the number of Hispanics rose from 4 to 7%. A study solicited by the U.S. Department of Education reported that 707,000 students with disabilities were enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the United States during the academic years (Raue & Lewis, 2011). The authors reported this as a slight overrepresentation because of duplicated counts. However, because this was self-reported, the students may not have viewed themselves as having a disability or impediment to their learning or education. Many individuals with disabilities qualify for protection and assistance under the legal auspices of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of These laws mandate that qualified people with disabilities have access to public programs and services. The Department of Justice manages Title III of the ADA that oversees private colleges and universities while both the Departments of Justice and Education oversee the public universities. The Department of Justice has clarified that ADA accessibility requirements apply to online instruction. An interpretation of the ADA has been used by the Department of Education when ruling on cases related to online education. The interpretation was written by Deval L.Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, in a letter to Senator Tom Harkin and states that, "Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well (Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, 2006). Many institutions are also looking at Section 508 (an amendment to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act) standards as they attempt to meet their obligations under Section 504 and the ADA. Section 508 requires federal agencies electronic and information technology to be accessible to all individuals with disabilities. This includes employees and members of the public and applies to universities that receive federal funding under the Assistive Technology Act. 144

3 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2) was funded by the U.S. Department of Education in It was a ten-year project and one component involved tracking the outcomes of students moving from secondary schools into adult roles. The report included postsecondary enrollment rates and educational experiences. Their interest in these rates was fueled by the knowledge that individuals with a college degree will earn $1 million more on average in their lifetime than an individual with only a high school diploma. The benefits of this earning potential increases, although not at the same level, even for those who do not complete their postsecondary degree. A second rationale for the study was the realization that as our economy becomes more knowledge based, the postsecondary degree becomes more critical. They reported that the number of jobs that require at least some college has doubled from 20 percent to 56 percent in the years between 1959 and 2000, truly making the postsecondary degree a necessary part of successful adult life. Transition plans are considered an important source of information for the study. These plans are designed to be systematic supports for students with disabilities as they move from one setting to another. Transition plans are required by the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 which was retroactively named the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They are used at the secondary level to help prepare students leaving high school for adult life. According to the NLTS2 study, postsecondary education is the primary goal for at least four out of five secondary graduates with disabilities. Within the first 8 years after graduation, 60% of secondary graduates with disabilities continued their education in the postsecondary area. Learning disabilities, speech/language impairments, visual or hearing losses, orthopedic or health impairments, and traumatic brain injury were among the most common disabilities of students who enrolled in postsecondary education. In the investigation of this transitional period, the study recognized the educational protections already in place for the population of students with disabilities. The educational protections guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 (IDEA) include a free, appropriate (based on individual needs), and public education in the least restrictive environment with recourse (mediation and formal hearings) when differences arise about the provision of services. These rights are not extended to postsecondary education. Curricula and course designs focused on the average learner are now being scrutinized to see if they are accessible by all. In the late 1980s, we began to examine the critical role of the curriculum and the environment in determining who is or who is not considered disabled. The terminology used to describe individuals with disabilities varies between sources. The term exceptional is often used in the special education literature when talking about students who have a disability and who receive special education services. However, there is a distinction that is often made between a disability and a handicap. A disability can be described as impairments in body function or structure (physical or mental). A disability may be problematic in only some situations. A handicap is imposed by the environment and by attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. It is a combination of limitations imposed on a person s ability to participate in an activity or their ability to engage in a task. The focus began to shift from 145

4 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design disabilities towards the curriculum and its limitations or handicap it imposes (Rose, Meyer, Strangman & Rappolt, 2002). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) posits that the curriculum is the biggest hurdle in implementing a design that is accessible for all. There is a concern that attempts to remediate educational design shortcomings are often ineffective for learning as well as expensive and inefficient. The increasing numbers of diverse learners, the recognition that the curriculum imposes limitations and the legal mandate to address course accessibility for the disabled are all rationales for change. These are some of the factors that precipitate a paradigm shift in how we deal with individuals with disabilities. The shift is in recognition that the burden of adaptation should be first placed on fixing the curricula, not the learner. Block, Loewen and Kroeger (2006) advance the idea that the current model places the responsibility on the individual with a disability to request support and accommodations as well as the opportunity to be included. Concern is that even with the use of assistive technology or alternative delivery modes, students with disabilities may still find online coursework more difficult due to increasing interactivity and the sophisticated nature of the course content (Kolowich, 2011). Within online courses, technology that should be a tool for improving access and recruiting interest can, in fact, be part of the problem when not used judiciously. While it is hoped that college professors are guided by the altruistic belief that they should help all learners, they must also recognize that it is their duty to make courses accessible. McGuire and Scott (2006) posit that the audience for developing accessible course design in the university setting is the faculty. This is a bad fit with the fact that many university professors are content area experts as opposed to experts in pedagogy. Additionally, the reward system is often focused on research and scholarship instead of teaching. They do not receive the same preparation and training in this area as teachers at the K-12 level. University courses offered online have posed accessibility issues for many years (Kolowich, 2010). The author expressed concern that many institutions are at risk for complaints and litigations for not meeting accessibility requirements. The concern was extended to address the software and technology-mediated systems currently in use on many campuses. Kolowich states that although there have been no suits over online programs to-date, the Justice Department has recently hinted that it will be looking carefully at that sector of higher education. In addition, the Department of Education urged college and university presidents, in a 2010 letter, to ensure that their campuses emerging technology is in-step with federal antidiscrimination laws. The accessibility to date has revolved around electronic readers and the blind, but an addendum to the letter specified that online courses and content must be accessible to the disabled even if they are not currently enrolled in those courses (Kolowich, 2010). UNIVERSAL DESIGN In attempting to address the problem of adapting the curriculum, we look to a concept called Universal Design (UD). Roberts, Park, Brown and Cook (2011) note that UD was first 146

5 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp introduced in the 1950 a in several countries including the United States and focused on removing access and choice barriers (physical and environmental). UD was the province of architects, product designers, engineers and environmental researchers. The Principles of UD were used to guide the design of environments, products, and communication. Designs that had focused on the typical person were scrutinized to make them usable by all people to the greatest extent possible. The effort focused on eliminating the need for adaptation, retrofitting or specialized designs. This movement received impetus with the passing of several legislative mandates including Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that covered physical access to buildings for any program receiving federal funding. Section 504 mandates were expanded by ADA in 1990 to public and private entities regardless of federal funding. The standards and codes for accessible design are a benchmark to guide the movement toward UD. The Center for Universal Design published principles for UD (Connell, Jones, Mace, Mueller, Mullick, Ostroff, Sanford, Steinfeld, Story and Vanderheiden, 1997). They are: 1. Equitable use-the design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities 2. Flexibility in use-the design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities 3. Simple and intuitive use-use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user s experience, knowledge, language skills or education level 4. Perceptible information-the design communicates necessary information effectively to user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user s sensory abilities 5. Tolerance for error-the design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions 6. Low physical effort-the design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a minimum of fatigue 7. Size and space for approach and use-appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user s body size, posture or mobility (p. 1). A simple example of UD would be curb cuts. While they are provided for individuals with physical disabilities who use wheelchairs, they are also helpful for others such as the young mother with an infant in a stroller, the athlete with a temporary injury, the elderly who struggle with steps, the shopper with a cart and the traveler with a large suitcase. METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this article is in the form of a literature review. This approach was used to examine the concept of UDL and how it can be applied to online course accessibility in higher education. The topic was chosen because of the increasing diversity in our universities (including students with disabilities), the knowledge that our curriculum imposes limitations on some leaners and the legal mandate to make courses accessible. This review was seen as the initial step in an investigation into implementing UDL in course design. 147

6 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (UDL) As these principles are applied to educational settings a variety of terms have emerged including Universal Design for Learning, Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) and Universal Instructional Design (UID). UDI is an approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners, including students with disabilities (para. 1). The term UDL will be used in this article. A concise definition of Universal Design for Learning was provided by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, which stated: The term Universal Design For Learning means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (a) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. (Section 103, para. 24) The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is a nonprofit, educational organization that works to expand learning opportunities for all learners in education. CAST can be accessed at Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frames the organization s agenda through curriculum planning, software development, policy development, teacher preparation and educational research. UDL is a research-based framework that provides guidance in the area of curriculum development. It is designed to give all individuals equal opportunities to learn but does not involve the provision of a one-size-fits all curriculum. Instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments can be effectively used with all students when they are customized and adapted to meet individual needs. The principle foundation of UDL is built upon research on how the brain functions based upon the three primary networks that are used in learning: recognition, strategic and affective. The recognition network takes information from the senses and provides us with the what of learning. It is how we recognize and perceive the information that we receive. The strategic network is involved in the how of learning. This is our ability to make a plan of action and determine if it is operationally sound. The affective network motivates us and keeps us engaged in learning. It is considered the why of learning. The principles of UDL involve the use of the CAST guidelines which involves providing: (a) multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge, (b) multiple means of expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know and (c) multiple means of engagement to tap learners interests in appropriate challenges that increase motivation. The CAST (2011) guidelines have been recently updated to reflect the evolution of the field. The changes included replacing the term student with the broader term learner. This is more inclusive of all ages and reflects a realization that learning occurs in many environments. A second change was the term variability instead of the term 148

7 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp disability. It recognizes that a disability is only one component of variability in learners. There was an attempt to restrict use of the word minimize due to this word being seen as an attempt to simplify the curriculum. The new guidelines uses the word optimize to reflect working towards the ideal. The new guidelines and examples also acknowledge the importance of all domains. The focus of the original guidelines was on the language arts but the current version attempts to provide examples across the curriculum. APPLYING UDL TO ONLINE ACCESS ISSUES Online activities and courses are often accompanied by access issues. In order to experience accessibility issues, Hinkle-Turner (2004) suggests not using a mouse, downloading a demo version of JAWS screen reading software to navigate a favorite website, and typing a paper using Dragon Naturally Speaking voice recognition software. You can also test the accessibility of webpages by determining if all functions can be accessed by using a keyboard. This can be done through the use of a text-only browser or turning off the features of a standard browser to make it a text-only browser. Universal Design is not always obvious. It will benefit the majority of the population at some point of their lifespan and is often seen as improvements in the comfort and usability of products, spaces or information (NCSU, 2012). The first CAST UDL principle is to provide multiple means of representation and is based on the knowledge that all learners may not perceive and comprehend information in the same way. UDL should benefit everyone. One goal is to provide options for perception and is based on the knowledge that it is more difficult, if not impossible, to learn information that is presented in a manner that is not easily perceived. A second goal is to provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols. A third goal would be to provide options for comprehension. CAST provides checkpoints under each guideline with examples and potential resources. Providing options for perception in online courses could be achieved by varying the text size, contrast, color, volume, timing, and layout. Some examples are: use fonts that are designed for legibility on the computer (e.g., Arial or Helvetica); provide software to enlarge screen as needed do not use color to convey meaning (1 in 15 males are colorblind). WebAIM offers a free color contrast checker keep the number of fonts to a minimum avoid lengthy segments of capitalized sentences avoid clutter or frequent layout changes from page to page use solid colored rather than textured backgrounds limit size and number of graphics, drawings and images use bold or italics for emphasis rather than underlining to avoid confusion with hyperlinks use meaningful links for screen readers as opposed to click here consider voice recognition software, ASL interpretation and transcripts for text text equivalent for every non-text element progressively release information 149

8 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design provide electronic translation tools add a visual component to auditory instruction. ShowSounds is a free accessibility program that comes with Microsoft The second CAST principle involves providing multiple means of action and expression. It also recognizes that differences exist in a learner s ability to express what they have learned and their ability to navigate within a learning environment. This area would be of particular importance to those with physical disabilities, language barriers and those with organizational issues. The guidelines are to provide options for physical action, expression and communication; and executive functions. CAST provides checkpoints under each guideline with examples and potential resources. Some examples of providing options for action and expression in online courses would be: use an alternative keyboard or voice input device to aide mobility issues using software that does not require standard keyboard functions to operate the software use social media and interactive web tools such as Skype or other free apps provide non-synchronous options for individuals with speech impairments use web applications (e.g., wikis, presentation) use voice recognition software scaffold instruction through gradual release post course information (e.g., syllabus, schedule) in accessible locations provide planning templates provide links to course tools such as the CAST Strategy Tutor use differentiated models of self-assessment The third CAST principle is to provide multiple means of engagement. While some learners are highly engaged and intrinsically motivated to succeed, some learners are less easily engaged, suffer with anxiety related to course performance, have learned helplessness or rely on extrinsic motivation. The goal is to gain their interest. The guidelines are to provide options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation. CAST provides checkpoints under each guideline with examples and potential resources. Some examples of providing multiple means of engagement in online courses could be: provide the learner with the ability to make choices design authentic learning outcomes encourage self-reflection capitalize on cooperative learning groups guide learners in seeking needed supports use rubrics use activities that give feedback and access to alternative scaffolds DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Designing accessible courses is easier in the developmental stages. It is recommended that those involved in course delivery and design start by using inclusive strategies that benefit a 150

9 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp wide range of learners. Retrofitting can be frustrating and time consuming and does not address the legal expectation that courses are accessible even when students with disabilities are not enrolled. Reactive schemes address the accommodations for individual learners while proactive schemes demonstrate a commitment to the use of UDL. Being proactive involves defining the potential universe (faculty and students) in terms of their needs and identifying the environment in which you want to use UDL. There are numerous commercial tools available to help with the online environment that are free and many that are available at a cost. For instance, Blackboard and Microsoft have product accessibility tools to assist with this task (Blackboard, 2012, Microsoft, 2012). Products like WAVE are available free through webaim.org. Some of these technologies provide scaffolds and supports to help the learner. The World Wide Web Consortium s (W3C) (n.d.) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines can be used to explain how to design websites that are accessible to people with disabilities. Burgstahler (2012) developed some guidelines for making distance learning courses accessible: think about the wide range of abilities and disabilities potential students might have: include information in promotional publications about requesting accommodations and accessing publications in alternative formats; make sure media can be accessed using sight or hearing alone and online content with a keyboard alone adopt and enforce accessibility standards (e.g., 508 standards, WAI guidelines) establish procedures for students with disabilities to request and receive accommodations provide information about standards, training and support to instructors and design staff use the accessibility features of development tools (e.g., Blackboard) review and update standards, procedures and support issues periodical (p. 6) RESEARCH RESULTS The review of literature systematically examined the use of UDL for improving the quality and accessibility of our online courses. According to the review of literature, the experts in the field find support for the use of UDL in improving the quality and accessibility of our online courses. It was also apparent that the paradigm shift created by focusing on changing our courses is a step in the direction of compliance with the spirit of the disability laws that govern our course delivery. Universal Design for Learning is a good idea whose time has arrived, according to the Center for Universal Design (2012) at North Carolina. It promotes programs that maintain their integrity while facilitating the full participation of learners with disabilities in higher education. Morra and Reynolds (2010) stated that in a time when higher education has to do more with less, UDL allows expansion of the reach and appeal of the college classroom. The trend in higher education delivery modes is changing. Between our diverse student population and global campuses, UDL is an approach that will promote faculty autonomy in 151

10 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design instructional planning. We have the opportunity to develop a cadre of faculty who are attuned to the needs of students with disabilities and are prepared to refine the accessibility of their courses (McGuire & Scott, 2006). Roberts et al. (2011) found a lack of research utilizing technologies aligning with the principles of UDL. To make UDL a reality in the delivery of postsecondary online courses, it will need a systematic change in several areas. Rose et al. (2002) discussed the need to make changes in the areas such as curriculum design, training and preparation, policy and consensus building. These areas of needs are the basis of our suggested areas of future research. LIMITATIONS AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH The limitation of this paper is that it is a literature review only. The principles of UDL describe guidelines that provide equal access to the curriculum so that all learners have the opportunity for optimal learning. These principles include multiple means of representation, expression and engagement. Future research in curriculum and design should operationalize these principles so that they are relevant to online course delivery in postsecondary education. Technological formats would need to be defined and other practices aligned with the principles of UDL. For example, how would the principles of UDL apply to accessible materials, assessment, instructional design, multiple disciplines, etc.? Institutions of higher education could develop a cadre of postsecondary faculty prepared to use UDL by investigating innovative ways to use technology to engage, challenge and assess learner outcomes. These are systemic changes, though, that require future research in reaching consensus, support and training. UDL would require a widespread adaptation across campus, strategies instruction and instructional design training and, perhaps, a change in traditional policies and procedures. UDL will foster new and collaborative relationships, reduce barriers and provide online supports to a wide range of diverse learners. REFERENCES Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) Pub. L. No , 104 Stat Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, Pub. L. No , 82 Stat. 718 (1968). Accessibility of online courses and section 508 (2009) Online@UCF, Retrieved from Blackboard (2012) Blackboard Learn, Retrieved from Learn/Resources/Accessibility.aspx Block, L. S., Loewen, G. & Kroeger, S. (2006) Acknowledging and transforming disabling environments in higher education: AHEAD s role, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), pp Burgstahler, S. (2012) Real connections: Making distance learning accessible to everyone, Retrieved from CAST (2011) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0, Author, Wakefield, MA. Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (2006) Retrieved from 152

11 R. Ingram, B. Lyons, R. Bowron and J. Oliver RHESL - Volume 5, Issue 16 (2012), pp The Center for Universal Design (2012) Introduction to Universal Design, North Carolina State University, Retrieved from UD_intro.html. The Center for Universal Design (2012) North Carolina State University, Retrieved from The Chronicle of Higher Education (2010) Diversity in Academe, Retrieved from Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M. & Vanderheiden, G. (1997) Principles of universal design, Retrieved from Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975, Pub. L. No , 89 Stat. 773 (1975). Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 122 Stat (2008). Hinkle-Turner, E. (2004) Untangling the WEB: Making online teaching and learning accessiblea review and discussion, Retrieved from Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No , 118 Stat (2004). Introduction to universal design (n.d.) Retrieved from jects/sites/cud/content/ud_intro.html. Kolowich, S. (2011) Elaborating on online accessibility, Inside Higher Ed, May 27, 2012, Retrieved from aborates_on_guidelines_against_discriminating_against_disabled_students_with_technolo gy#ixzz1r0cxh6ap. Kolowich, S. (2010) Internal barriers to online expansion, Inside Higher Ed, November 12, Retrieved from McGuire, J. M. & Scott, S. (2006) Universal design for instruction: Extending the universal design paradigm to college instruction, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), pp Microsoft (2012) Accessibility technology for everyone, Retrieved from Morra, T. & Reynolds, J. (2010) Universal design for learning: Application for technologyenhanced learning, The Journal of the Virginia Community College, 15(1), pp NLTS (n.d.) NLTS results on postsecondary education at _09_02/nlts2_report_2011_09_02_ch2.pdf NCSU (2012) Introduction to universal design, North Carolina State University Center for Universal Design, Retrieved from /content/ud_intro.html Raue, K. & Lewis, L. (2011) Students With Disabilities at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions (NCES ), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. no ,87 Stat. 335 (1973). 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 Disability, 24(1), pp

12 Higher Education Online Course Accessibility Issues: Universal Design Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N. & Rappolt, G. (2002) Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, Retrieved from everystudent/ideas/tes/. Transforming education through universal design for learning. CAST, Retrieved from University of Connecticut (2012) The nine principles of UDI, Retrieved from Web accessibility evaluation tool (2012) WAVE, Retrieved from Web accessibility guidelines (n.d.) Retrieved from World Wide Web Consortium s (W3C) (n.d.) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Retrieved from 154

13 Copyright of Review of Higher Education & Self-Learning is the property of Intellectbase International Consortium and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.