One out of every 11 postsecondary undergraduates report having a disability, and students with learning disabilities are the largest and fastest growing subgroup of this population. Although faculty are becoming more comfortable with providing students with learning disabilities accommodations as mandated by federal law, many instructors are using inclusive teaching strategies to better meet the needs of all students. Principles of universal design, borrowed from architecture and manufacturing, are increasingly influential on postsecondary pedagogy. This review of the literature examined 38 research-based articles related to universal design and inclusive practice at the postsecondary level. Five primary themes are identified and discussed in relation to their supporting literature: backward design, multiple means of presentation, inclusive teaching strategies and learner supports, inclusive assessment, and instructor approachability and empathy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllsoppD. H.MinskoffE. H.BoltL. (2005). Individualized course-specific strategy instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned from a model demonstration process. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 103–118.
2.
AlsterE. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222–227.
ArriesJ. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 98–110.
5.
BaerW. (1997). Teaching strategies and accommodations for students with disabilities. In HodgeB.Preston-SabinJ. (Eds.), Accommodations or just good teaching? Strategies for teaching college students with disabilities (pp. 126–132). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
6.
BakerJ. (2006). Effect of extended time testing accommodations on grade point averages of college students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67(1-B), 574.
7.
BarazandehG. (2005). Attitudes toward disabilities and reasonable accommodations at the university. The UCI Undergraduate Research Journal, 8, 1–12.
8.
BeachamN.AltyJ. (2006). An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Computers and Education, 47, 74–93.
9.
BelchH. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Retention, 6, 3–22.
10.
BrinckerhoffL. C.McGuireJ. M.ShawS. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
11.
BrothenT.WambachC. (2003). Universal instructional design in a computer-based psychology course. In HigbeesJ. L. (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design higher education (pp. 127–148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
12.
BurgstahlerS.DuclosR.TurcotteM. (2000). Preliminary findings: Faculty, teaching assistant, and student perceptions regarding accommodating students with disabilities in postsecondary environments. Seattle: University of Washington, DO-IT.
13.
ButlerD. (1997). The roles of goal-setting and self-monitoring in students' self-regulated engagement in tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 409 323)
14.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2007). Universal design for learning. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=7
ChickeringA. W.GamsonZ. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
17.
DennyG.CarsonE. (1994). Perceptions of campus climate for students with disabilities. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas University Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling and Foundations. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 380 929) Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED380929
FichtenC.AsuncionJ.BarileM.GenereuxC.FosseyM.JuddD.RobillardC.De SimoneC.WellsD. (2001). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 185–221.
20.
FinnL. (1998). Students' perceptions of beneficial LD accommodations and services at the postsecondary level. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 46–67.
FullerM.HealeyM.BradleyA.HallT. (2004). Barriers to learning: A systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 303–318.
23.
GaddyS.BakkenJ.FulkB. (2008). The effects of teaching text-structure strategies to postsecondary students with learning disabilities to improve their reading comprehension on expository science text passages. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20, 100–119.
24.
GetzelE.McManusS.BrielL. (2004). An effective model for college students with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. Research to Practice Brief, 3, 1–8.
25.
Graham-SmithS.LafayetteS. (2004). Quality disability support for promoting belonging and academic success within the college community. College Student Journal, 38, 90–99.
26.
GrashaA. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.
27.
GreenB.JohnsonC.AdamsA. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5, 101–117.
28.
HadleyW. (2007, Spring). The necessity of academic accommodations for first year college students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Admission, 9–13.
29.
HarrisonE. G. (2006). Working with faculty toward universally designed instruction: The process of dynamic course design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 152–162.
30.
HarrisonS. (2003). Creating a successful learning environment for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: Policy and practice. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 131–145.
31.
Hartman-HallH. M.HaagaD.A.F. (2002). College students‘ willingness to seek help for their learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 25, 263–274.
32.
HawkeC. S. (2004). Accommodating students with disabilities. New Directions for Community Colleges, 125(1), 17–27.
33.
HigginsE.RaskindM. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174.
34.
HillJ. (1995). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities at Canadian universities regarding institutional policies. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11, 5–26.
35.
HornL.BerktoldJ.BobbittL. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
36.
IzzoM.MurrayA. (2003). Applying universal design for learning principles to enhance achievement of college students. In AckerS.GynnC. (Eds.), Learning objects: Context and connections. Ohio State University, 29–42. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://telr-research.osu.edu/learning_objects/index.html.
JensenL.AllenM. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 553–560.
39.
KeimJ.McWhirterJ.BernsteinJ. (1996). Academic success and university accommodation for learning disabilities: Is there a relationship?Journal of College Student Development, 37, 502–509.
40.
KitzW.ThorpeH. (1995). A comparison of the effectiveness of videodisc and traditional algebra instruction for college-age students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 295–306.
41.
KurthN.MellardD. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 71–84.
42.
LancasterS.MellardD.HoffmanL. (2001). Experiences of students with disabilities in selected community and technical colleges. Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 452 617) Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452617
43.
LazarusB. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and postsecondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 272–289.
44.
LeinhardtG.LeinhardtS. (1997). Exploratory data analysis. In KeevesJ. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 519–528). Cambridge: Elsevier Science Ltd.
45.
LightfootE.GibsonP. (2005). Universal instructional design: A new framework for accommodating students in social work courses. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 269–277.
MadausJ.ScottS.McGuireJ. (2003). Barriers and bridges to learning as perceived by postsecondary students with learning disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 01). Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
48.
MalakpaS.W.G. (1997). Problems in the admission and retention of students with disabilities in higher education [Electronic version]. Journal of College Admissions, 156, 12–19.
49.
MinoJ. J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a learner-centered community college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 154–160.
50.
MoriartyM. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 252–265.
51.
MullC.SitlingtonP. L.AlperS. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97–118.
52.
MullerL. (2006, November). Research collaboration with learning-disabled students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26–29.
53.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Author.
54.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment for students with disabilities: Focus group discussions on supports and barriers in lifelong learning. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 674)
55.
OfieshN. S.RiceC. J.LongE. M.MerchantD. C.GajarA. H. (2002). Service delivery for postsecondary students with disabilities: A survey of assistive technology use across disabilities. College Student Journal, 36, 94–108.
56.
OfieshN. S.RojasC. M.WardR. A. (2006). Universal design and the assessment of student learning in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 173–181.
57.
OuellettM. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 135–144.
58.
PatwaS.ChafouleasS.MadausJ. (2005). The effects of paired associates strategy (PAS) on the recall of factual information by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 34, 556–570.
59.
RaskindM.HigginsE. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141–158.
60.
ReiffH.GerberP.GinsbergR. (1993). Learning to achieve: Suggestions from adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 12–28.
61.
RobertsK.StoddenR. (2005). The use of voice recognition software as a compensatory strategy for postsecondary education students receiving services under the category of learning disabled. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 49–64.
62.
RoseD. H.HarbourW. S.JohnstonS. C.DaleyS. G.AbarbanellL. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their applications. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 135–151.
63.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
64.
RoseD.MeyerA.HitchcockC. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
65.
RuhlK. L.SuritskyS. (1995). The pause procedure and/or an outline: Effect on immediate free recall and lecture notes taken by college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 2–11.
66.
RunyanM. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104–108.
67.
ScottS. S.McGuireJ. M. (2005). Implementing universal design for instruction to promote inclusive college teaching. In GetzelE.WehmanP. (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities (pp. 119–138). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
68.
ScottS. S.McGuireJ. M.FoleyT. E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 40–49.
69.
ScottS. S.McGuireJ. M.ShawS. F. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
70.
SilverP.BourkeA.StrehornK. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31, 47–51.
71.
SkinnerM. (2007). Faculty willingness to provide accommodations and course alternatives to postsecondary students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 32–45.
72.
SmithJ. (1993). Self-reported written language difficulties of university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 2–13.
73.
StahlS. (2003). Faculty and administrator modules in higher education: Universal design for learning. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University. Publication funded by the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education (CFDA 84.333) under project #P333A020033-03.
74.
StassenL.DohertyK.PoeM. (2001). Program based review and assessment: Tools and techniques for program improvement. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment.
75.
StoddenR. A. (2001). Postsecondary education supports for students with disabilities: A review and response. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 23, 4–9.
76.
SullivanM. (2005). Teaching mathematics to college students with mathematics-related learning disabilities: Report from the classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 205–220.
77.
TroianoP. (2003). College students and learning disability: Elements of self-style. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 404–419.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP.MarderC. (2007). Perceptions and expectations of youth with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at: www.nlts2.org/reports/2007_08/nlts2_report_2007_08_complete.pdf
80.
WallaceD.AbelR.Ropers-HuilmanB. (2000). Clearing a path for success: Deconstructing borders through undergraduate mentoring. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 87–102.
81.
WolaninT.SteeleP. (2004). Higher education opportunities for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
82.
ZawaizaT.GerberM. (1993). Effects of explicit instruction on math word-problem solving by community college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 64–79.
83.
ZeffR. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 137(1), 27–44.
