This study investigated the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework as a basis for a bi-university computer mediated communication (CMC) collaborative project. Participants in the research included 78 students from two special education programs enrolled in teacher education courses. The focus of the investigation was on exploring the outcomes of the UDL-based design that used CMC tools. Results indicated that the UDL framework was important to the overall design, students' participation times varied, and CMC tool use emerged in two separately important ways. Findings also showed improved instructor ratings for project courses as compared to other courses. Information related to the instructional design and implications for further research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnY.FrickT. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 11, 485–499.
2.
AngeliC.ValanidesN.BonkC. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 31–43.
3.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (2008). Universal design for learning guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
4.
ChristopherM. M.ThomasJ. A.Tallent-RunnelsM. K. (2004). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166–171
5.
ChuganiH. (1997). Biological basis of emotions: Brain systems and brain development. Pediatrics, 102, 1225–1229.
6.
CoffeyA.AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
GibsonC. B.CohenS. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
GieddJ.BlumenthalJ.JeffriesN.CastellanosF.LiuJ.ZijdenbosA. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863.
9.
HerringS. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media and Society, 6, 26–36.
10.
Higher Education Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
11.
JohnsonD. W. (1980) Group processes: Influences on student–student interaction and school outcomes. In McMillanJ. (Ed.), Social psychology of school learning. New York: Academic Press.
12.
JohnsonD. W. (1981). Student–student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10, 5–10.
13.
KangH.SheltonD.WelcherA.SchumanE. M. (1997). Neurotrophins and time: Different roles for TrkB signaling in hippocampal long-term potentiation. Neuron, 19, 653–664.
14.
KnapczykD. R.FreyT. J.Wall-MarencikW. (2005). An evaluation for web conferencing in online teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 114–124.
15.
LehA. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Educational Media International, 39, 31–38.
16.
LightP.NesbittP.LightV.WhiteS. (2000). Variety is the spice of life: Student use of CMC in the context of campus-based study. Computers & Education, 34, 257–267.
17.
LuppiciniR. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141–185.
18.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OrrJ. (1996). Talking about machines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23.
RourkeL.AndersonT.GarrisonD. R.ArcherW. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.
24.
SeoK. (2007). Utilizing peer moderation in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and non-moderation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–26.
25.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
WaltherJ. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Personal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
27.
YangY. C.NewbyT. J.BillR. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance education environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.
