inclusive postsecondary strategies for teaching...

INCLUSIVE POSTSECONDARY STRATEGIESFOR TEACHING STUDENTS WITH LEARNING

DISABILITIES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ann C. Orr and Sara Bachtnan Hammig

Abstract. One out of every 11 postsecondary undergraduatesreport having a disability, and students with learning disabilitiesare the largest and fastest growing subgroup of this population.Although faculty are becoming more comfortable with providingstudents with learning disabilities accommodations as mandatedby federal law, many instructors are using inclusive teachingstrategies to better meet the needs of all students. Principles ofuniversal design, borrowed from architecture and manufacturing,are increasingly influential on postsecondary pedagogy. Thisreview of the literature examined 38 research-based articlesrelated to universal design and inclusive practice at the postsec-ondary level. Five primary themes are identified and discussed inrelation to their supporting literature: backward design, multiplemeans of presentation, inclusive teaching strategies and learnersupports, inclusive assessment, and instructor approachabilityand empathy.

ANN C. ORR, Ed.D., Eastern Michigan University.SARA BACHMAN HAMMIC, Eastern Michigan University.

Students with disabilities (SWDs) are attending col-lege in increasing numbers. According to the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (2002), 9% of U.S.undergraduates surveyed in 1999-2000 reported havinga disability. The majority of these students attend two-year postsecondary programs, but enrollment in four-year institutions is increasing steadily. Reasons forthese enrollment increases are numerous and includebetter academic preparation, improved transitionplanning, and increased availability of federal moniesfor scholarships and model programs (Brinckerhoff,McGuire & Shaw, 2002).

Unfortunately, retention and degree completionrates of SWDs in postsecondary education have notfollowed the same trajectory, with many students drop-

ping out during their first year (Belch, 2004; Horn,Berktold, & Bobbitt, 1999; Stodden, 2001). Various fac-tors contribute to these students' failure in college,including inadequate academic preparation (Horn etal., 1999), a lack of transition support between highschool and college (Frieden, 2004), fragmentation andinconsistency in service provision (Frieden, 2004), anda lack of faculty knowledge and use of appropriateaccommodations and modifications (Malakpa, 1997;Villarreal, 2002).

Students with learning disabilities (LD) are the largestsubgroup of SWDs, comprising some 46 to 61% of allsuch students enrolled in postsecondary education(Wolanin & Steele, 2004). Students with LD are also thefastest growing subgroup, their numbers having tripled

Volume 32, Summer 2009 181

in 10 years (Brinckerhoff et al., 2002). Despite theirgrowing presence on college campuses, students withLD struggle to succeed, as evidenced by the findingsof the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Forinstance, when asked about their graduation expecta-tions, only 25% of the study's 2,049 students with LDanticipated completing a four-year degree program(Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007).

Although many factors contribute to the postsec-ondary experience of students with LD, research focusedsolely on this subgroup of SWDs has shown that the fac-ulty-student relationship is important to student success.Hartman-Hall and Haaga's (2002) study of 86 postsec-ondary students with LD demonstrated that "theresponse a student receives to a request for assistance oraccommodation for a learning disability, particularlyfrom a professor, likely affects the student's willingnessto seek help in the future" (p. 271). Further, a number ofresearchers have suggested that the success of college stu-dents with LD is directly influenced by their perceptionof faculty support (Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005;Troiano, 2003; Wallace, Abel, & Ropers-Huilman, 2000).

Unfortunately, many faculty shy away from workingwith students with LD because they feel ill equipped toteach these students (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001;Müller, 2006). Hartman-Hall and Haaga (2002) recom-mended faculty training in disability awareness and dis-ability-related best practices to increase instructorknowledge and awareness about accommodations andof how faculty behaviors affect SWDs. The purpose ofthis article was to meld a pragmatic discourse on thepedagogical and institutional underpinnings of educat-ing SWDs using current theoretical models and evi-dence-based research.

Faculty members often rely on Student DisabilityOffices on campus for direction on how best to serveSWDs in their courses. Such instructions are typicallycommunicated through a boilerplate form listing sug-gested accommodations for a particular student.Common accommodations include extended time ontests or modified assessment, note-taking services, orassistive technology devices such as screen readers orbooks on tape (Hawke, 2004). While accommodationsmight be beneficial for students with LD, they alone arenot a panacea. Further, prescribed accommodationsonly serve students who identify themselves as having adisability, and seek support. Such retroactive adjust-ments generally do not address barriers embeddedwithin the curriculum design, and may or may notincrease faculty understanding of best practices forSWDs.

In response to the increasing demands on faculty tomeet the needs of a diverse student population,researchers and practitioners in higher education have

begun to explore and embrace the principles of moreinclusive pedagogies (Arries, 1999; Beacham & Alty,2006; Belch, 2005; Moriarty, 2007; Ouellett, 2004; Scott,McGuire, & Foley, 2003). Universal design provides aframework for instruction that anticipates and addressesthe needs of a variety of learners, including those withLD.

The concept of universal design was first articulatedby architect Ronald Mace in the 1980s (Mace, 1985) andoriginally focused on eliminating architectural barriersfor persons with physical disabilities (Center forUniversal Design, 1997; Scott et al., 2003). Over the pastfew decades, various scholars have modified the conceptto include considerations of diverse learners, and in1998, Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn introduced the the-ory of universal design to higher education in their writ-ings on accessible instruction.

The process of universal design conceptualizationand adaptation has resulted in several acronyms forapproaches to universal design, each with varyingunderlying principles. For purposes of practice, thedifferences in these approaches are less importantthan the commonalities. For instance, the Center onPostsecondary Education and Disability has developednine key principles of Universal Design for Instruction(UDI), which can be used to create a more inclusivelearning environment (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2001).

These principles emphasize equitable and flexibleteaching based on simple and intuitive instructionalpractices with careful attention to ensure that materialis presented in a variety of formats to create access forall learners regardless of disability. UDI requires theinstructor to anticipate and be tolerant of differencesamong students with regard to prerequisite skills, pac-ing, and level of effort necessary to learn course content.The instructor is also expected to create a classroomenvironment that offers the appropriate physical spaceand supports for learning, promotes interaction and asense of community, and communicates high expecta-tions for all learners.

In a similar effort to equate the theory of universaldesign to educational environments, the Center forApplied Special Technologies developed UniversalDesign for Learning (UDL). As discussed in Zeff (2007),UDL's central tenets to guide postsecondary instructionare as follows:

1. Multiple Means of Representation: Course contentshould be expressed using a variety of methods toassist all students, including those with LD.

2. Multiple Means of Expression: Expression of stu-dent understanding should be solicited using anarray of modes.

3. Multiple Means of Engagement: Faculty should becognizant of differing backgrounds and motiva-

Leaming Disability Quarterly 182

tions of students and provide means of interac-tion witb course material tbat support diverselearners.

UDL relegates tbe medical or deficit model of disabil-ity in favor of a more inclusive paradigm in wbicbpersons witb disabilities are seen as part of a contin-uum of learners witb various strengtbs and weaknesses.As sucb, it is more often tbe classroom and instructortbat need "fixing" tban tbe student. Tbis mindset cre-ates opportunities for pedagogical cbange, becausemany of our teacbing practices are under our personalcontrol.

Botb UDI and UDL are in keeping witb Cbickering andGamson's (1987) seminal Seven Principles for GoodPractice in Undergraduate Education, wbicb are as fol-lows: (1) encourages contact between students and fac-ulty, (2) develops reciprocity and cooperation amongstudents, (3) encourages active learning, (4) gives promptfeedback, (5) empbasizes time on task, (6) communicatesbigb expectations, and (7) respects diverse talents andways of learning. In addition, UDI and UDL offer newways of tbinking about, and designing, instruction tbatdelivers optimal levels of learner support.

Mucb like tbe application of universal design inarcbitecture or product development, a universallydesigned teacbing and learning environment is inber-ently more inclusive and likely to meet tbe needs of amore diverse clientele. Still, tbe universal design move-ment in bigber education remains somewbat nebulousin its implementation; faculty may intuitively recog-nize tbe potential benefits of sucb inclusive teacbingpractices, and yet lack tbe understanding needed tobring tbese concepts to fruition in tbe classroom (Rose,Harbour, Jobnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006).

A growing body of literature bas begun to elucidatetbe practical mecbanisms of universally designed post-secondary pedagogy, and serves as tbe focus of tbisreview. Altbougb many recent articles are tbeoretical ordescriptive in nature, we are beginning to see someempirical researcb on tbe efficacy of universal designand inclusive teacbing practices as applied to bigbereducation settings serving students witb LD (Beacbam& Alty, 2006; Brotben & Wambacb, 2003; Getzel,McManus, & Briel, 2004; Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002;Sullivan, 2005). Additionally, we are bearing from tbestudents tbemselves via qualitative and mixed-metbodsresearcb tbat asks, among otber tbings, "Wbat supportsand teacbing strategies do you find most beneficial?"Analysis of tbe results of tbese studies provides furtberinformation on effective inclusive teacbing practicesand adds to tbe growing knowledge base on best prac-tices in postsecondary education.

Tbis review and syntbesis of tbe literature will iden-tify researcb-based recommendations for inclusive ped-

agogy, exploring eacb witbin tbe context of universaldesign tbeories in tbe postsecondary setting.

METHODTbe articles and book cbapters discussed in tbis liter-

ature review were selected using tbe following steps.First, we conducted a tborougb computer searcb viatbe following online databases and searcb engines:Education Abstracts, ERIC, GALE PowerSearcb, GoogleScbolar, InfoTrac, JSTOR, PsycArticles, Psyclnfo, SAGEJournals Qnline, and WilsonSelectPlus, using combina-tions of tbe following keyword pbrases: postsecondaryeducation, college, higher education, universal design,teaching, inclusive teaching, pedagogy, disabilities, andlearning disabilities.

We also searcbed our local university library's bold-ings and tbe table of contents of 38 peer-reviewed jour-nals from 1990 to 2008 from botb tbe LD and bigbereducation fields. (Tbe selection of tbese journals beganwitb tbe inclusion of all related journals from tbe uni-versity library's boldings and was expanded to includenon-university-owned journals identified as potentialsources tbrougb tbe online databases mentionedabove.) For eacb article meeting tbe initial screening cri-teria (i.e., tbe content is related to universal design/inclusive teacbing and postsecondary education of stu-dents witb LD), we examined tbe reference section toidentify additional resources for evaluation. Tbe resultsof tbis initial searcb yielded 184 articles, books, bookcbapters, and reports.

A decision was made not to extend tbe searcb intowork done in bigb scbool settings. Tberefore, wescreened tbe 184 resources to ascertain tbeir focus onpostsecondary settings and excluded any articles tbatwere based on work in tbe K-12 setting. Tbe rationalefor tbis containment of tbe literature searcb, aside frompracticality, was tbat tbe postsecondary setting is adifferent environment tban tbe bigb scbool milieu interms of stakebolders, expectations, teacbing, andlearning (Scott & McGuire, 2005). Effective inclusivepractices at tbe K-12 level will not necessarily transferto bigber education; bowever, tbere is a definite needto study inclusive pedagogies in eacb of tbese arenas.

We furtber reduced our initial pool of resourcesin tbe following ways. First, we reviewed eacb article,book cbapter, or report to verify tbat tbe work wasbased upon actual researcb using quantitative, qualita-tive, or mixed metbodology. Literature reviews andtbeoretical articles were extracted, read for content,and cbecked for primary sources, but were not includedin tbe final analysis. Next, we reviewed tbe remainingpool of tbe researcb-based articles to ensure tbateacb study was focused on students witb learningdisabilities. '


Table 1Included Studies

Author(s) and Year

Allsopp, Minskoff and Bolt (2005)*Alster (1997)Baker (2006)Barazandeh (2005)*Beacham and Alty (2006)Brothen and Wambach (2003)*Burgstahler, Duelos, and Turcotte (2000)*Butler (1997)Denny and Carson (1994)*Elacqua, Rapaport, and Kruse (1996)*Fichten et aL (2001)*Finn (1998)Fuller et al. (2004)*Gaddy, Bakken, and Fulk (2008)Getzel, McManus, and Briel (2004)*Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)*Hadley (2007)Hartman-Hall and Haaga (2002)Higgins and Raskind (1995)Hill (1995)*Jarvis (1997)Keim, McWhirter, and Bernstein (1996)Kitz and Thorpe (1995)Kurth and Mellard (2006)*Lancaster, Mellard, and Hoffman (2001)*Lazarus (1993)Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2003)Moriarty (2007)*National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (2000)*Patwa, Chafouleas, and Madaus (2005)Raskind and Higgins (1995)Reiff, Gerber, and Ginsberg (1993)Roberts and Stodden (2005)Ruhl and Suritsky (1995)Runyan (1991)Smith (1993)Sullivan (2005)Zawaiza and Gerber (1993)

•Studies include students with LD and students with other disabilities.


Twenty-tbree articles met tbis criterion; we alsoincorporated in our syntbesis 15 articles tbat focusedon tbe more general population of postsecondarySWDs. Tbese studies included large numbers or per-centages of students witb learning disabilities amongtbeir participants, but also included students witbotber types of disabilities, sucb as pbysical or sensoryimpairment. To exclude tbese studies because tbey didnot focus exclusively on students witb LD would baveresulted in loss of important data. Wben appropriate,we bave identified tbese articles witb an asterisk inTable 1 or text descriptions to indicate tbeir inclusionof non-LD participants.

A final round of data reduction consisted of elimi-nating resources tbat did not contain findings pertain-ing to inclusive teacbing practices. For instance, weeliminated a qualitative investigation on tbe cbaracter-istics of successful postsecondary students witb LDbecause its findings were focused solely on studentcbaracteristics and circumstances, and tbe teacbing oftbese students was not addressed. Ultimately, oursearcb yielded a total of 38 studies dealing witb univer-sal design/inclusive teacbing practices, postsecondaryeducation, and students witb LD (see Table 1 for studyautbors and year of publication).

Data AnalysisContent-analysis procedures were employed to iden-

tify categorical descriptors representing tbe dominanttbemes in tbe qualifying literature. Following tbe rec-ommendation of Leinbardt and Leinbardt (1997), wefirst immersed ourselves in tbe data by reading and re-reading eacb article, so tbat an inductive approacbguided our subsequent analysis. Information from eacbresource (sample, design, results, etc.) was entered intoan evidence table to provide a structure for our analysis,as per tbe recommendation of Green, Jobnson, andAdams (2006).

Next, guided by tbe principles of universal design,and in particular UDL, we used open coding and cate-gorization to identify tentative subsets of researcb focus.Margin notes were used to record tbe essence of eacbstudy's findings, wbicb later served as tbe basis fordescriptive or categorical labeling. Mucb of tbe opencoding fell into several non-mutually exclusive cate-gories tbat paralleled tbe tbree principles of UDL. Tbesecategories were furtber refined via discussion tbat fol-lowed Jensen and Allen's (1996) guidelines on dialecti-cal and bermeneutic analysis.

First, we examined tbe findings and codes of eacbstudy for accuracy and inter-rater agreement (ber-meneutic analysis). Next, we compared and contrastedtbe findings and codes between studies, looking forsynergy wbile considering otber possible interpreta-

tions (dialectic analysis). As a result of tbis discourse,categories were collapsed or expanded as appropriate,and a final round of review, discussion, and coding wasconducted.

Ultimately, we identified five distinct categories, ortbemes, tbat best syntbesized tbe findings of tbe 38 arti-cles: (a) backward design, (b) multiple means of presen-tation, (c) inclusive teacbing strategies and learnersupports, (d) inclusive assessment, and (e) instructorapproacbability and empatby. Table 2 lists eacb tbemeand associated studies. In tbe following sections, wediscuss eacb of tbese tbemes, first in relation to its tbe-oretical underpinnings, and tben tbrougb an examina-tion of its supporting researcb.

RESULTSBackward Design

Theoretical underpinnings. In tbeory, effectiveimplementation of universal design emanates fromtbougbtful planning witb regard to content, outcomes,and processes. Tbe backward design tecbnique, wbicbbegins witb tbe formulation of learning goals and objec-tives, serves as a tool for inclusive teacbing. Accordingto proponents of UDL, "setting clear goals is tbe essen-tial first step in teacbing" (Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. 87).

Wben faculty clearly identify tbe essential compo-nents of a course, all students benefit because tbe resultis a transparent, "non-discriminatory baseline of coursecontent, metbods, skills, abilities and expectations tbatare required of all students" (Quellett, 2004, p. 139).According to Arries (1999), instructors sbould firstdevelop objectives, tben outline appropriate assessmentcontent, and finally cboose tbe best combination ofsupporting media for conveyance.

By employing backward design, faculty identify andselect metbods for acbieving learning outcomes (Qfiesb,Rojas, & Ward, 2006), including wbat students sbouldbe able to do, know, appreciate, or demonstrate profi-ciency in at various points in tbe course (Quellett,2004). Instructional strategies and learning assessmentssbould consistently reflect course goals and objectives,wbicb sbould also be clearly communicated witb stu-dents (Harrison, 2006; Rose et al., 2006).

Supportive research. Only 4 of tbe 38 studiesaddressed tbe principles of backward design, so we con-sider tbis an emerging tbeme in terms of researcb-supported practice. Results from Hill's (1995) survey of264 SWDs (including 52 witb LD) indicated strongsupport for tbe necessity and value of detailed syllabi.Students also found it very belpful wben faculty pro-vided lists of course readings before tbe start of tbesemester. Writing detailed syllabi and providing coursereadings in advance of tbe first class requires instructorsto tbink tbrougb tbe course from start to finisb.


Table 2Themes and Associated Studies

Themes

Backward Design

Multiple Means of Presentation

Inclusive Teaching Strategies andLearner Supports

Inclusive Assessment

Associated Studies

Brothen and Wambach (2003)*Hill (1995)*Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2003)Sullivan (2005)

Beacham and Alty (2006)Brothen and Wambach (2003)*Burgstahler, Duelos, and Turcotte (2000)*Elaqua, Rapaport, and Kruse (1996)*Fichten et al. (2001)*Finn (1997)Fuller et al. (2004)*Kitz and Thorpe (1995)Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2003)Sullivan (2005)

Allsopp, Minskoff, and Bolt (2005)*Brothen and Wambach (2003)*Burgstahler, Duelos, and Turcotte (2000)*Butler (1997)Elaqua, Rapaport, and Kruse (1996)*Finn (1997)Gaddy, Bakken, and Fulk (2008)Getzel, McManus, and Briel (2004)*Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)*Hadley (2007)Hill (1995)*Kurth and Mellard (2006)*Lancaster, Mellard, and Hoffman (2001)*Lazarus (1993)Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2003)Moriarty (2007)*Patwa, Chafouleas, and Madaus (2005)Ruhl and Suritsky (1995)Smith (1993)Sullivan (2005)Zawaiza and Gerber (1993)

Alster (1997)Baker (2006)Brothen and Wambach (2003)*Burgstahler, Duelos, and Turcotte (2000)*Butler (1997)

continued next page

Learning Disability Quarterly 186

Table 2 continued

Themes and Associated Studies

Themes

Inclusive Assessment continued

Instructor Approachability andEmpathy

Associated Studies

Elaqua, Rapaport, and Kruse (1996)*Finn (1997)Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)*Hadley (2007)Higgins and Raskind (1995)Hill (1995)*Jarvis (1997)Keim, McWhirter, and Bernstein (1996)Kurth and Mellard (2006)*Lancaster, Mellard, and Hoffman (2001)*Raskind and Higgins (1995)Reiff, Gerber, and Ginsberg (1993)Roberts and Stodden (2005)Runyan (1991)Smith (1993)Sullivan (2005)Zawaiza and Gerber (1993)

AUsopp, Minskoff, and Bolt (2005)*Barazandeh (2005)*Burgstahler, Duelos, and Turcotte (2000)*Denny and Carson (1994)*Elaqua, Rapaport, and Kruse (1996)*Fuller et al. (2004)*Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)*Hartman-Hall and Haaga (2002)Hill (1995)*Madaus, Scott, and McGuire (2003)National Center for the Study of Postsecondary

Educational Supports (2000)*Smith (1993)Sullivan (2005)

•studies include students with LD and students with other disabilities.

consider tbe end goals, and carefully select readings tbatwill best support students' learning - all activitiesindicative of a backward design approacb to coursepreparation.

Madaus, Scoff, and McGuire's (2003) study of 23students witb LD from fbree postsecondary institu-

tions produced findings similar to Hill's (1995). Infocus groups, students frequently expressed apprecia-tion of faculty wbo provided clear and consistentexpectations along witb explicit information aboutcourse requirements at tbe outset of tbe semester. Tbesyllabus is fbe first place to begin wifb fbis clarity, but


follow-through is also important as students perceiveinconsistency on the part of a professor as a "barrierto learning" (Madaus et al., 2003, p. 2).

Backward design principles are further supported bytwo case studies on the effectiveness of universal design-influenced courses: Brothen and Wambach's (2003)investigation of a computer-based psychology courseand Sullivan's (2005) study of an introductory mathe-matics course. Both courses offered many supportsindicative of UDL; for instance, the instructors utilizedmultiple means of content presentation, offeredincreased technology supports, and allowed for varia-tions in assessment process and product.

Also inherent in the design of each course was a focuson goals; in the math class, the instructor developed ini-tial goals, which were then customized to each student.These aims, emphasized at the outset of the class, actedas a beacon throughout the course, providing studentswith reminders of learning benchmarks that should beachieved by the end of the course. The psychology classutilized a meticulous, mastery-based course design thatemphasized both short- and long-term goals.

Results from each of these investigations point towardthe advantage of backward design. In Sullivan's (2005)case study, all three participants (students with LD)improved their math performance and understanding.The five students followed in Brothen and Wambach's(2003) study also experienced academic success in theirpsychology course, despite varying levels of disability.These findings are promising; however, more researchin this area is needed in order to infer causal attributionsbetween the use of backward design and SWDs' achieve-ment.

Multiple Means of PresentationTheoretical underpinnings. One of the central tenets

of UDL is the use of multiple means to present infor-mation. According to Rose et al. (2006), presenting con-tent through flexible means addresses physical,perceptual, and cognitive barriers that can interferewith learning. For example, a universally designedcourse may be an amalgam of lecture, discussion, andtechnological methods of interaction and acquisition(Mino, 2004). Furthermore, oral modes of contentconveyance can be bolstered by graphical representa-tion of information (Ouellett, 2004). This can be accom-plished in the classroom by incorporating videos orPowerPoint® presentations. Course websites provideadditional flexibility by enabling faculty to provideinformation in text, audio, graphical, or video formatsthat students can access where and when they choose(Rose et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2003). The fixed print inbound textbooks, often the primary or exclusive man-ner in which content is presented in college courses.

can be an impediment to many students (Rose, Meyer,& Hitchcock, 2005, p. 17). Digital alternatives, whichare available through some publishers, provide a flexibleformat that allows students to highlight, manipulate,and copy information (Ofiesh, Rice, Long, Merchant,& Gajar, 2002), and facilitates the use of potentiallybeneficial assistive technology supports such as text-to-speech programs and online dictionaries (Scott et al.,1998).

The use of multiple formats in the presentation ofcontent is also in keeping with the AmericanPsychological Association's (2002) call for increasedlearner participation and engagement in the learningprocess, and Grasha's (1996) work on teaching andlearning, which emphasizes undergraduates' preferencefor active, experiential learning. Moving away from theone-size-fits-all approach also gives students the abilityto select the formats that are most personally beneficial."There is no one way of presenting information ortransferring knowledge that is optimal for all students"(Rose et al., 2006, p. 137).

Supportive research. Ten of the 38 studies included inthis analysis produced results relating to the principlesand practices of multiple means of content presenta-tion. In interviews, focus groups, and surveys, many stu-dents with LD have voiced support for books on tape(Burgstahler, Duelos, & Turcotte, 2000; Elacqua,Rapaport, & Kruse, 1996; Finn, 1998) and for materialspresented both visually and orally (Madaus et al., 2003).

In Fuller, Healey, Bradley, and Hall's (2004) survey ofSWDs, 44% of the 173 respondents reported difficultieslearning in lecture-based classes. Students voiced a needfor faculty to augment lectures with visual aids, lecturetranscripts, and the like, in order to circumvent func-tional impairments in accessing course content.

Support for the practice of visual and oral presentationof course material was also garnered in Kitz and Thorpe's(1995) investigation of the efficacy of a videodisc (inter-active video) presentation of algebra instruction.Twenty-six students with LD were divided into twogroups for instruction in basic algebra; one groupreceived videodisc presentation of content, the othera more traditional, textbook-based approach. Studentsin the videodisc group outperformed those in the tradi-tional group on posttest measures of algebra skill andalso earned higher grades in their first year algebraclasses.

Fichten and colleagues' (2001) survey of 725 SWDs,37% of whom had LD, indicated strong support for hav-ing course materials available electronically as well as inprinted form. This finding remained constant when onlythe students with LD were considered. As discussed pre-viously, there are many potential benefits to using elec-tronic text for content delivery because of the possibility


for customized modification, and compatibility witbassistive tecbnologies sucb as text readers.

Brotben and Wambacb's (2003) universally designedpsycbology course utilized computers to provide stu-dents witb multiple means of presentation. In additionto traditional lectures and readings, students accessedcourse content tbrougb various types of computer activ-ities, including electronic flasbcards, completion exer-cises, and practice quizzes. Tbe autbors attributed someof tbeir students' success to tbe flexibility and variety ofcomputer-based content presentation. For example, stu-dents could participate in tbe computer-based activitiesrepeatedly, until tbey felt confident tbat fbey under-stood tbe material. Tbe private nature of fbis self-guided, self-paced study reduced fbe necessity ofmaking public students' need for extra time and prac-tice. Tbis medium also allows for instant feedback onperformance - a mucb appreciated feature by strugglingstudents wbo are not sure if fbey are "getting it" or not.

Sullivan (2005), faced witb a less fban reader-friendlytextbook for ber mafb course, culled key excerpts fromfbat and ofber texts to prepare a concise and readablebandouf. In tbis way, altbougb fbe medium (print)remained constant, tbe presentation of content wasavailable in different versions, making tbe informationmore accessible to all. As reported earlier, tbe tbree stu-dents in Sullivan's case study eacb made gains in matbskill and comprebension. Altbougb we cannot directlyattribute tbese gains to tbe multiple means of presenta-tion offered witbin tbe course, tbe study nonetbelessprovides general support for UDL-influenced tecb-niques sucb as tbose Sullivan used to make ber textaccessible to a wider audience.

Even tbougb mucb of tbe literature recommends tbeuse of multiple representations of content, f bere may bemitigating variables fbat would preclude a ubiquitousprescription of tbis practice, particularly wben multipleformats of content are presented simultaneously.Beacbam and Alty's work (2006), based on Dual CodingTbeory, bas indicated tbat tbe cognitive load requiredto attend to multiple simultaneous representations ofcontent (i.e., text and diagrams or diagrams and sound)may be cognitively taxing for students witb dyslexia.Furtber researcb on tbe effect of simultaneous multiplerepresentations of content is warranted.

Inclusive Teaching Strategies and LearnerSupports

Theoretical underpinnings. In addition to providingmultiple formats for relaying information, universaldesign tbeories implore faculty to employ a variety ofinstructional strategies to benefit students. Wbafinstructors actually do and wbat supports tbey provideor permit determines tbe flexibility of tbe course and, in

turn, tbe likelibood fbat a greater number of studentswill be successful.

Rose and Meyer (2002) urged teacbers to provide mul-tiple examples, bigbligbt critical features, and supportbackground context. Furfbermore, teacbers are asked toprovide learner supports sucb as models of skilled per-formance, opportunities for guided practice, and ongo-ing performance feedback. Cboice is also important totbe UDL classroom, tberefore, instructors are encour-aged to offer students some selection in content, tools,and even rewards. Tbe term "accessible pedagogy,"coined by Rose and bis colleagues (2006), is a perfectexpression for wbat UDL expects of educators: teacb intbe most inclusive manner possible.

Research support. Tbe results of 21 studies providedstrong evidence of tbe value of inclusive teacbing strate-gies and learner supports. Tbe majority of tbese investi-gations (17) yielded results pertaining to one or more oftbe following domains: inclusive lecture supports, studyaids, writing assistance, and strategy instruction. Wewill address eacb of tbese topics in turn.

• Lecture. As discussed, lectures present a number ofaccessibility barriers to students witb LD (Fuller et al.,2004). In multiple studies, students reported tbe valueof receiving copies of lecture notes, wbetber created bybired notetakers, fellow students, or tbe instructor(Burgstabler et al., 2000; Elacqua et al., 1996; Finn,1998; Hadley, 2007; Kurtb & Mellard, 2006; Lancaster,Mellard, & Hoffman, 2001; Madaus et al., 2003). Audiorecordings of lectures bave also been viewed as benefi-cial (Kurtb & Mellard, 2006) as bave lecture outlines(Madaus et al., 2003).

Most studies bave relied on student report of tbevalue of various lecture supports; Lazarus (1993), bow-ever, used a case study design to follow tbree studentsusing guided notes (lecture outlines on wbicb studentsfill in defails). Findings indicate fbat use of guided notesresulted in significantly improved academic perform-ance.

In a 1995 study, Rubl and Suritsky examined tbe effi-cacy of lecture outlines and tbe pause procedure, asmeasured by immediate free recall. In tbeir investiga-tion, students witb LD viewed a 15-minute videotapedlecture under tbe following conditions: Group 1: witbtbe provision of an outline. Group 2: witb tbe provisionof an outline and pauses for discussion, and Group 3:witb pauses for discussion alone.

Following tbe lecture presentation, a test was admin-istered to all groups to assess tbe impact of tbe aboveconditions on student recall witbout fbe aid of nofes.Tbe results indicated tbat tbe pause procedure aloneprovided tbe greatest influence on outcomes, insofar astbe students in Group 3 acbieved bigber scores tbaneitber of tbe otber two groups. However, tbe researcbers


noted that the group that received both outline andpause conditions performed nearly as well as the groupthat experienced only the pause procedure. Furtherinvestigation is needed to determine if the use of out-lines in college lectures somehow interferes with thenote-taking ability of students with LD.

• Study aids. Student report studies have producedimportant information regarding useful study supports.Particularly valued are organizational aids such asgraphic organizers (Sullivan, 2005), as well as readingguides, chapter outlines, and study guides (Madaus etal., 2003). In two studies (Burgstahler et al., 2000;Graham-Smith & Lafayette, 2004), students voiced theirappreciation for the availability of various assistive tech-nology supports, especially assistive technology labswhere tools such as text readers and voice recognitionsoftware could be used. Several investigations (e.g.,Higgins & Raskind, 1995; Roberts & Stodden, 2005)went beyond student report to evaluate the efficacy ofcertain technologies. Given their focus on assessment,however, these studies will be reviewed in a later sectionof this article.

• Writing assistance. Smith (1993) interviewed 31students with LD to explore the nature of their writtenexpression difficulties and how faculty might help themovercome them. Students emphasized the value of pro-viding very precise assignment instructions and clearexplanations of required formats. Other welcome writ-ing supports included breaking larger assignments intosmaller chunks, providing more lead time for assign-ments, and allowing extended time for project comple-tion. Students in Finn's (1998) focus groups reportedusing - and valuing - proofreaders for written assign-ments. Similarly, the 10 students who participated inHadley's (2007) longitudinal study of college freshmenwith LD reported frequent visits to the writing center,but were dissatisfied with the availability and quality ofservice offered there. Given the findings of these threestudies, faculty might consider embedding some level ofcourse-specific writing support into the structure oftheir classes.

• Strategy instruction. A number of studies haveinvestigated strategy instruction as a remediation forstudents with LD, and, depending on the nature of thecourse, these interventions may be applicable in a vari-ety of college classes. Students participating in Graham-Smith and Lafayette's (2004) survey valued instructionin time management and study skills. Getzel and col-leagues' (2004) investigation of 26 SWDs given individ-ualized strategy instruction (proofreading, mnemonics,organization, etc.) showed that students who were fre-quent users of these strategies fared better (Dean's List,graduated, etc.) in college than less frequent users.

Gaddy, Bakken, and Fulk (2008) examined the effects

of using text-structure strategies on science text com-prehension (main idea and compare/contrast skills,specifically). Forty students with LD were randomlyassigned to one of two groups: a traditional group wherestudents were instructed to read and listen to text pas-sages and then answer comprehension questions, and astrategy group where students were taught to underlinekey points, use self-dialogue, and write lists of compari-son/contrast details. Students in the strategy group out-performed those in the traditional group on bothimmediate and delayed measures of comprehension.

Similarly, Butler (1997) conducted four studies inwhich 36 students with LD received instruction in taskanalysis, goal setting, and strategy selection, along withscaffolded academic support. In all four studies, stu-dents' task performance and self-efficacy improved.

Using a case study design (N = 5), Patwa, Chafouleas,and Madaus (2005) investigated the impact of thePaired Associates Strategy (PAS; a mnemonic keywordtechnique) on recall of factual information. Results indi-cated the strategy was effective for short-term but notfor long-term recall. The authors suggested that PAS isbest used for short-term preparation prior to exams,rather than for tasks requiring deeper understanding.

Zawaiza and Gerber (1993) examined two types ofstrategies for solving word problems. Thirty-eight stu-dents with LD were randomly assigned to one of threegroups: a translation training group (linguistics-basedapproach where students were taught to define problemvariables), a diagram training group (translation train-ing plus instruction in diagramming problems), and acontrol group (no strategy instruction other than dis-cussion of the problem). Results indicated that the com-bined strategy method utilized in the diagram traininggroup was most efficacious in improving students' abil-ities to solve math word problems.

Inclusive AssessmentTheoretical underpinnings. Just as the literature sug-

gests multiple means of content presentation, there isalso a call for faculty to utilize flexible assessment meth-ods that address barriers to the expression of knowledge(Baer, 1997; Brinckerhoff et al., 2002; Lightfoot &Gibson, 2005). For instance, overreliance on a singlemode of assessment, such as paper-and-pencil testing,does not take into account learners' physical, cognitive,emotional, or sensory differences.

Ouellet (2004) recommended assessing students byusing combinations of writing, speaking, and drawingvia activities such as faculty-student conferences, jour-nal writing, and videotaped presentations. The learninggoals and objectives that serve as the foundation forinstruction must be concretely linked to assessmentactivities (Harrison, 2006; Rose et al., 2006). Just as mul-


tiple formats of presentation are beneflcial to instruc-tion, providing alternative mefbods for assessment fur-tbers tbe inclusive nature of tbe course.

Research support. Tbis tbeme is strongly supportedby researcb, witb balf of tbe studies in tbis analysis pro-viding evidence in favor of using varied and flexibleassessment tecbniques. A substantial number of studies(Alster, 1997; Baker, 2006; Finn, 1998; Hadley, 2007;Jarvis, 1997; Kurtb & Mellard, 2006; Lancaster et al.,2001; Runyan, 1991) bave sbown tbat allowingextended time in testing situations promotes SWDs'success, often leveling tbe playing field for SWDs andtbeir nondisabled peers. Tbus, several of tbese studiesrevealed tbat tbe benefit of additional time is alsoextended to students witbout disabilities wben tbisassessment option is available to tbem (Alster, 1997;Jarvis, 1997; Runyan, 1991). Anotber valued testingaccommodation is a separate, quiet location in wbicb totake exams (Burgstabler et al., 2000; Finn, 1998;Lancaster et al., 2001).

Tbe only dissenting results for tbese types of testingaccommodations came from Keim, McWbirter, andBernstein's (1996) investigation in wbicb no significantrelationsbip was found between use of testing accom-modations and grade-point average (GPA). However,tbe autbors tbemselves noted several flaws in fbeiranalysis, especially tbe way in wbicb dependent andindependent variables were constructed, by averagingrates of testing accommodation usage and GPAs acrosscourses, respectively. Tbey concluded tbat a more pre-cise metbod of analysis is warranted to ascertain truerelafionsbips among testing accommodations andgrades.

Several studies investigated tbe effect of assistive tecb-nology usage on student assessment. Higgins andRaskind (1995) explored tbe compensatory effectivenessof speecb recognition on written composition perform-ance. Twenty-nine students witb LD wrote essays undertbree conditions: witbout assistance, using a bumantranscriber, and using a speecb recognition system.Results sbowed tbat students received bigber bolisticscores using speecb recognition tban wben writingwitbout assistance. No significant differences werenoted between tbe scores of tbe buman-transcribed andtbe voice-transcribed essays.

In a similar study, Roberts and Stodden (2005) trackedtbe written performance progress of 15 sfudents witbLD wbo were trained in tbe use of voice recognitionsoftware. Results indicated tbat ongoing use of tbe tecb-nology leading to written performance improvement isdependent on tbe level of need (severity of disability)and motivation. Altbougb speecb/voice recognitionsoftware cannot be considered a panacea for individualswitb writing-related LDs, faculty migbt steer students

witb significant writing disabilities toward tbis useful,independence-promoting, assistive tecbnology.

Raskind and Higgins (1995) evaluated tbe impact ofspeecb syntbesis on students' self-assessment of tbeirwriting. Tbirty-tbree students witb LD proofread self-generated written language samples under tbree condi-tions: using a speecb syntbesizing system tbatbigbligbted words as it read tbe passages aloud; bavingtbe passage read aloud by anotber person; and receivingno assistance. Using tbe speecb sjoitbesis allowed stu-dents to detect a bigber percentage of total errors and abigber percentage of capitalization, spelling, usage, andtypograpbical errors. Altbougb baving tbe passage readaloud by anotber person allowed students to detectmore grammar-mecbanical errors, speecb syntbesis wassbown to be a better compensatory tool for promotingoverall projecf qualify and greater independence.

Finally, some studies supported multiple formats ortypes of assessment. Sullivan's (2005) successful UDL-based matb course measured student progress in a vari-ety of ways, including journals (atypical for matbclasses), oral presentations, and take-bome projects. InReiff, Gerber, and Ginsberg's (1993) interview-basedstudy of 71 adults witb LD, participants reported on tbebenefits tbey derived from tbe use of multiple means ofassessment in tbe college classroom. Students appreci-ated tbe flexibility of courses tbat allowed tbem cboiceand variety in demonstrating content and skill mastery.

Instructor Approachability and EmpathyTheoretical underpinnings. A fundamental tenet of

UDL is tbe cbarge for all instructors to stimulate affec-tive learning by providing multiple, flexible options forengagement (Rose & Meyer, 2002). According to Roseand Meyer, "affective networks" are key to engagingand motivating tbe student to set goals, establisb prior-ities, and succeed in learning new material. Tbe autborsassert tbat we are more apt to learn wben we are inter-ested in tbe topic, wben it is relevant to us, and wbenwe understand wby learning tbe material is important.In order to maximize sucb affective learning, instructorsmust get to know tbeir students.

Ouellett (2004) cited tbe many benefits accrued wbenan instructor "knows" bis or ber students; for example,knowledge about students belps teacbers determine aca-demic readiness, predict areas of confusion, and planaccordingly for instruction. "Equally importantly, sucbknowledge belps instructors understand students' indi-vidual personalities, learning styles, and interests,wbicb belps instructors determine and tailor appropri-ate supports ..." (p. 138).

According to Scott and colleagues (2003), "Often, tbeinclusiveness of a classroom depends on tbe kinds ofinteractions tbat take place between students and


faculty" (p. 46). Scott urges faculty to make personalconnections with students and use motivational strate-gies to encourage student performance.

Izzo and Murray (2003) developed seven key guide-lines for applying UDL in college classrooms. Notably,the first guideline urges faculty to "create a classroomclimate that fosters trust and respect" (p. 32).Instructors are encouraged to be accepting and avail-able to all students, especially those with disabilities. Byopenly treating disability and accommodations as atypical element of classroom life, students with LD andother disabilities are welcomed and included in thelearning community.

Research support. Twelve of the 38 studies in ouranalysis addressed student-faculty relationships, in par-ticular, the importance of instructor approachabilityand empathy.

Graham-Smith and Lafayette's (2004) survey of SWDsillustrates the importance of socio-emotional factors inhigher education settings. Seventy-one students weresurveyed regarding accommodations perceived as mostbeneficial to them. Overwhelmingly, the responses indi-cated that a caring staff and safe environment were themost important aspects of college life for SWDs. Theseinterpersonal dynamics took precedence over all othersupports, including technology, testing accommoda-tions, and instruction in time management.

Close relationships with faculty may be critical forsome SWDs. The National Center for the Study ofPostsecondary Educational Supports (2000) conductedfocus groups with SWDs at 10 sites across the nation.Among key findings was the importance of faculty men-toring of students; indeed, some study participantsviewed mentoring by faculty as equally important to thepostsecondary experience as academic learning (p. 12).

In a focus group conducted by Burgstahler et al.(2000), students indicated that faculty empathy andapproachability are highly valuable attributes.Specifically, students appreciated respectful, positive,and understanding instructors who are not hesitant towork with them. Denny and Carson (1994) surveyed 41SWDs regarding their postsecondary experiences.Respondents felt that faculty could enhance acceptanceof SWDs by modeling friendliness, assisting with specialaccommodations, and working more closely withSWDs. They also urged faculty to meet necessary accom-modations and special equipment with a welcomingand cooperative attitude.

Fuller et al.'s (2007) survey of 173 SWDs producedsimilar results, as participants emphasized that theactions and attitudes of staff are critical and that "creat-ing an inclusive learning environment" (p. 316) benefitsall students. Participants in Hill's (1995) survey indi-cated their appreciation of faculty who are accepting

and encouraging, who meet with students to discussquestions and concerns, and who solicit questions anddiscussion. Hill recommended that faculty speak totheir classes early in the semester to issue an invitationto talk about learning issues.

Instructor empathy and approachability are charac-teristics that appear to hold particular value to studentswith LD. Participants in Madaus and colleagues' (2003)focus groups stressed that an effective instructor mustbe approachable and available. This is not surprising,considering that a majority of the 37 students inElacqua et al.'s (1996) interview-based study, especiallythose with LD, reported that asking faculty for accom-modations was a stressful experience that oftenincluded a lack of caring and understanding on the partof the instructor. Students desired a more respectfulrelationship with faculty.

Hartman-Hall and Haaga's (2007) investigation of stu-dents' help-seeking behavior yielded similar results.Eighty-six students with LD rated their willingnessto seek help in two experimental manipulations; resultsindicated that instructor behavior influences students'willingness to seek assistance. This finding has seriousimplications for students with LD, many of whom ben-efit greatly from extra supports provided by faculty.

DISCUSSIONThe paradigm of universal design is widely cited as a

framework for assisting students with LD in postsec-ondary settings. Universal design is based on the prem-ise that proactive planning to reduce barriers decreasesthe need for retroactive accommodations, therebyincreasing opportunities for positive outcomes. Becauseflexibility is a key component of universal design, theframework is devoid of rigid mandates for particularinstructional methods.

The literature reflects certain universal design trendsin postsecondary education, including the "backward"design of courses beginning with clearly identifiedrequired outcomes, multiple means of presentationof course content, inclusive teaching strategies andlearner supports, inclusive assessment, and instructorapproachability and empathy. Attention to these fac-tors reinforces the concept of heterogeneity among stu-dents with LD, and emphasizes the importance offaculty awareness of particular student challenges. AsScott and McGuire (2005) stated, universal design "pro-vides a powerful, tacit message - student diversity isnow the norm, not the exception, and college instruc-tors can welcome all students through the creation ofinclusive instructional environments" (p. 136).

Implications for PracticeAlthough a paucity of research exists regarding

backward design course preparation and its impact


on students witb LD, it merits attention and furtberstudy. As witb all universal design-influenced peda-gogy, backward design sbould belp every student,regardless of ability or disability, to succeed. Clearly setand communicated goals, based on identification ofessential learning outcomes, affords students manybenefits, including a "more responsive classroom envi-ronment, greater clarity of instructors' expectations, anincreased focus on tbe connection between learningand course content, tbe ability to become a moreself-reflective learner, and a better understanding ofone's strengtbs and weaknesses as a student" (Stassen,Doberty, & Poe, 2001, as cited in Ouellett, 2004,p. 139). Tbese are invaluable assets to all learners, espe-cially tbose witb disabilities, wbose learning cballengesare typically greater tban tbose faced by tbeir nondis-abled peers.

Tbe researcb on multiple means of presentation andpostsecondary students witb LD strongly suggests tbatvariety, options, and cboice are important to inclusivecourse design. Provision of content in different for-mats, as opposed to relying on lecture or text, is analo-gous to a flsberman casting a net instead of dropping aline from a single pole. Tbe wider tbe net, tbe more flsbcan be caugbt. Instructors wbo utilize printed and elec-tronic text, visual aids witb lecture, video, simulations,and so on, are increasing tbe opportunities for studentaccess and learning. Witb emerging tecbnologies likepod and vod casting, innovative faculty are taking tbeprinciple of multiple means of presentation to newerbeigbts, furtbering tbe inclusivity of tbeir courses viamultimedia content tbat can be accessed on demand.Motivation to learn is likely to be enbanced as wellwben students can cboose among presentation for-mats, selecting tbe treatment most optimal for tbeirown learning (Ficbten et al., 2001).

Tbis review of tbe literature yielded substantial evi-dence for tbe value and efficacy of a variety of inclusiveteacbing strategies and learner supports. As postsec-ondary faculty members, it is gratifying to know tbatwbat we do in class and wbat we provide in terms ofsupport can make a powerful contribution to tbe inclu-sivity of our courses. Wben we see students strugglingwitb content, we can look for intervention in our ever-increasing repertoire of teacbing strategies and sup-ports. Tbis mindset is, in and of itself, very inclusive aswe can never be pacified witb tbe status quo for our stu-dents or ourselves. "Tbere will always be a way to reacbevery student" may be an outlandisb claim, but it ismore optimistic and inclusive tban statements sucb as"tbat's tbe way we've always done it" or "be'll neverbe able to learn tbis."

From grapbic organizers to assistive tecbnologies,strategy instruction to guided notes, a vast array of ped-

agogical possibilities exists in tbe inclusive classroom.As Harrison (2003) asserted:

Instructors need to sbift tbeir focus away frommerely providing instruction, and instead concen-trate on facilitating learning by meeting tbe needsof tbe individual learner in tbe classroom. Implicitin tbe use of learning strategies and learner cen-tered instruction is tbe desire to empower studentsas learners, botb witbin and beyond tbe classroomenvironment, (p. 142)

By utilizing researcb-based inclusive teacbing strategiesand learner supports, instructors can create a moreaccessible and successful learning environment.

As tbe literature suggests, reliance on paper-and-pencil assessments is outmoded; inclusive classroomsmust offer multiple means of evaluating student learn-ing. At tbe very least, faculty sbould carefully considertbe pros and cons of timed versus untimed exams.Most of tbe evidence demonstrates tbat extended timebenefits students witb disabilities and often levels tbeplaying field for students witb LD. Rigidity and unifor-mity used to be tbe ballmarks of assessment; bowever,a more inclusive environment offers flexibility by wayof assistive tecbnologies (e.g., speecb recognition forwriting papers), alternative formats (performance, proj-ect, essay, application), and even location (a quiet,distraction-free place in wbicb to take exams). Facultymigbt do well to keep in mind tbese principles ofassessment: "Tbe key task in evaluation is to be clearabout tbe essential components of tbe course and toconsider bow students demonstrate mastery of tbemfor tbe purposes of assigning grades" (Ouellett, 2004,p. 140). In tbe studies examined in tbis literaturereview, students witb LD were very vocal about tbeirdesire for clarity and tbeir appreciation for flexibleevaluation.

Finally, we come to tbe affective variables, tbe meas-ure of an instructor's approacbability and empatby.We were surprised at tbe bigb percentage of studiesin our sample wbose results addressed tbese interper-sonal cbaracteristics of tbe classroom dynamic. In 12of tbe 38 studies, instructor bebavior was seen as apowerful contributor to, perbaps even determinant of,tbe quality of SWDs' experiences in postsecondaryeducation. Wbat amazing power a teacber bas! Facultymembers appear to be more receptive to working witbstudents witb pbysical and sensory disabilities tbanwitb students witb LD (Hill, 1995). Unfortunately,faculty attitudes and conduct towards students witbbidden disabilities like LD continue to be barriersto postsecondary learning and success (Madaus et al.,2003).

One migbt argue tbat empatby and approacbabilitycannot be planned or strategically embedded in a course


as can pedagogy, materials, and so on. We maintain,however, that instructors can and should be proactiveand "planful" in these domains; indeed, the studies inthis review suggest many behaviors and techniquesthat would promote a sense of caring, respect, and per-sonal accessibility. For instance, faculty can holdonline office hours in addition to building-based hours(Fichten et al., 2001); make inclusive disability state-ments (i.e., invitations for students to speak with fac-ulty personally regarding learning issues) early in thecourse (Hill, 1995); hold high expectations for all stu-dents, including those with disabilities (Barazandeh,2005; Madaus et aL, 2003); and welcome assistive tech-nologies and other accommodations with a cooperativeattitude (Denny & Carson, 1994).

These instructor behaviors will contribute to a senseof belonging for SWDs within the classroom commu-nity. "Care overcomes the sense of isolation and sepa-rateness that a student with disabilities feels and giveshim/herself the permission to nevertheless belong andsucceed in a frightening and challenging college envi-ronment" (Graham-Smith & Lafayette, 2004, p. 98).

Institutional ImplicationsPostsecondary faculty have expressed a desire for

pedagogical training regarding disability instructiontechniques (Burgstahler et al., 2000; Moriarty, 2007).This request needs to be emphatically communicatedto college and university administrative officials.Because of the pressures that teaching faculty face,institutional support is essential for pedagogicalimprovement. Universities need to offer opportunitiesfor faculty improvement with regard to these tech-niques. More-over, effective implementation of courseenhancement strategies will require some degree ofinstitutional change with regard to the way pedagogi-cal skills are valued.

Moriarty (2007) and Skinner (2007) have identified anumber of barriers to the adoption of inclusive post-secondary practices. Skinner's study indicated that fac-ulty willingness to provide accommodations (one facetof inclusive pedagogy) differed by academic discipline.Further research is needed to determine how "academicadjustments can be considered within the context ofdifferences in skills and competencies needed for spe-cific disciplines" (Skinner, 2007, p. 42). Moriarty's(2007) work highlights the lack of time available or des-ignated for instructional improvement. It takes time toself-assess, to design improved courses, and to obtainnecessary professional development. Only when insti-tutions of higher learning recognize the inherent valueof such activities and provide adequate support fortheir execution will widespread progress in equity,access, and inclusion be made.

REFERENCESAllsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized

course-specific strategy instruction for college students withlearning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned from a modeldemonstration process. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 20, 103-118.

Alster, E. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scoresfor college students with and without learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222-227.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Understanding psycho-logical learning goals and outcomes. Retrieved February 10, 2008,from http://www.apa.org/ed/pcue/taskforcereport.pdf

Arries, J. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A cur-riculum approach to the design of inclusive courses. The ModemLanguage Journal, 83, 98-110.

Baer, W. (1997). Teaching strategies and accommodations for stu-dents with disabilities. In B. Hodge & J. Preston-Sabin (Eds.),Accommodations or just good teaching? Strategies for teaching col-lege students with disabilities (pp. 126-132). Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers.

Baker, J. (2006). Effect of extended time testing accommodationson grade point averages of college students with learningdisabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences and Engineering, 67(1-B), 574.

Barazandeh, G. (2005). Attitudes toward disabilities and reason-able accommodations at the university. The UCJ UndergraduateResearch Journal, 8, 1-12.

Beacham, N., & Alty, J. (2006). An investigation into the effectsthat digital media can have on the learning outcomes of indi-viduals who have dyslexia. Computers and Education, 47, 74-93.

Belch, H. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journalof College Student Retention, 6, 3-22.

Brinckerhoff, L. C , McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002).Postsecondary education and transition for students with learningdisabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2003). Universal instructional designin a computer-based psychology course. In J. L. Higbees (Ed.),Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universaldesign higher education (pp. 127-148). Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Educationand Urban Literacy.

Burgstahler, S., Duelos, R., & Turcotte, M. (2000). Preliminary find-ings: Faculty, teaching assistant, and student perceptions regardingaccommodating students with disabilities in postsecondary environ-ments. Seattle: University of Washington, DO-IT.

Butler, D. (1997). The roles of goal-setting and self-monitoring in stu-dents' self-regulated engagement in tasks. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Education ResearchAssociation, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No.ED 409 323)

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2007). Universaldesign for learning. Retrieved February 9, 2008, fromhttp://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=7

Center for Universal Design. (1997). About universal design.Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/htm

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles forgood practice in undergraduate education. American Associationof Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Denny, G., & Carson, E. (1994). Perceptions of campus climate forstudents with disabilities. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas UniversityDepartment of Educational Leadership, Counseling andFoundations. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 380929) Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/


ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED380929

Elacqua, T., Rapaport, R., & Kruse, B. (1996). Perceptions of class-room accommodations among college stiidents with disabilities. Mt.Pleasant, MI: Central Michigan University. (ERIC DocumentReprinting Services No. ED 400 640) Retrieved August 31, 2008,fromhttpV/eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED400640

Fichten, C, Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C, Fossey, M.,Judd, D., Robillard, C, De Simone, C, & Wells, D. (2001).Technology integration for students with disabilities:Empirically based recommendations for faculty. EducationalResearch and Evaluation, 7, 185-221.

Finn, L. (1998). Students' perceptions of beneficial LD accommo-dations and services at the postsecondary level, fournal ofPostsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 46-67.

Frieden, L. (2004). Higher Education Act fact sheet. National Councilon Disability (ED 485 692). Retrieved August 31, 2008, fi-omhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED485692&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED485692

Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A., & Hall, T. (2004). Barriers tolearning: A systematic study of the experience of disabled stu-dents in one university. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 303-318.

Gaddy, S., Bakken, J., & Fulk, B. (2008). The effects of teachingtext-structure strategies to postsecondary students with learningdisabilities to improve their reading comprehension on exposi-tory science text passages. Journal of Postsecondary Education andDisability, 20, 100-119.

Getzel, E., McManus, S., & Briel, L. (2004). An effective model forcollege students with learning disabilities and attention deficithyperactivity disorders. Research to Practice Brief 3, 1-8.

Graham-Smith, S., & Lafayette, S. (2004). Quality disability sup-port for promoting belonging and academic success within thecollege community. College Student Journal, 38, 90-99.

Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhanc-ing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles.Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.

Green, B., Johnson, C, & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative lit-erature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade.Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5, 101-117.

Hadley, W. (2007, Spring). The necessity of academic accommo-dations for first year college students with learning disabilities.Journal of College Admission, 9-13.

Harrison, E. G. (2006). Working with faculty toward universallydesigned instruction: The process of dynamic course design.Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 152-162.

Harrison, S. (2003). Creating a successful learning environment forpostsecondary students with learning disabilities: Policy andpractice. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 131-145.

Hartman-Hall, H. M., & Haaga, D.A.F. (2002). College students'willingness to seek help for their learning disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly. 25, 262-27A.

Hawke, C. S. (2004). Accommodating students with disabilities.New Directions for Community Colleges, 12S(\), 17-27.

Higgins, E., & Raskind, M. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness ofspeech recognition on the written composition performance ofpostsecondary students with learning disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Hill, J. (1995). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabili-ties at Canadian universities regarding institutional policies.Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 11, 5-26.

Horn, L., Berktold, J., & Bobbitt, L. (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.

Izzo, M., & Murray, A. (2003). Applying universal design for learn-ing principles to enhance achievement of college students.In S. Acker & C. Gynn (Eds.), Learning objects: Context andconnections. Ohio State University, 29-42. Retrieved August 28,2008, from http://telr-research.osu.edu/learning_objects/index.html.

Jarvis, K. (1997). Leveling the playing field: A comparison of scores ofcollege students with and without learning disabilities on classroomtests. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 415 261)Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED415261

Jensen, L., & Allen, M. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative find-ings. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 553-560.

Keim, J., McWhirter, J., & Bernstein, J. (1996). Academic successand university accommodation for learning disabilities: Is therea relationship? Journal of College Student Development, 37, 502-509.

Kitz, W., & Thorpe, H. (1995). A comparison of the effectiveness ofvideodisc and traditional algebra instruction for college-age stu-dents with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,16, 295-306.

Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accom-modation process in postsecondary education. Journal ofPostsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 71-84.

Lancaster, S., Mellard, D., & Hoffman, L. (2001). Experiences ofstudents with disabilities in selected community and technical col-leges. Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research onLearning. (ERIC Document Reprinting Services No. ED 452 617)Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452617

Lazarus, B. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and post-secondary students with mild disabilities. Education andTreatment of Children, 16, 272-289.

Leinhardt, G., & Leinhardt, S. (1997). Exploratory data analysis. InJ. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measure-ment: An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 519-528).Cambridge: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Lightfoot, E., & Gibson, P. (2005). Universal instructional design:A new framework for accommodating students in social workcourses. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 269-277.

Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier free environments foreveryone. Designers West, 33, 4.

Madaus, J., Scott, S., & McGuire, J. (2003). Barriers and bridges tolearning as perceived by postsecondary students with learning dis-abilities (Tech. Rep. No. 01). Storrs: University of Connecticut,Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Malakpa, S.W.G. (1997). Problems in the admission and retentionof students with disabilities in higher education [Electronic vei-sion]. Journal of College Admissions, 156, 12-19.

Mino, J. J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instruc-tional design to create a learner-centered community collegeclassroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 154-160.

Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodolo-gies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity &Excellence in Education, 40, 252-265.

Mull, C, Sitlington, P. L., & Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary educa-tion for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of theliterature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97-118.

Müller, L. (2006, November). Research collaboration with learn-ing-disabled students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26-29.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Profile of


undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1999-2000.Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for the Study of Postsecondary EducationalSupports. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment for stu-dents with disabilities: Focus group discussions on supports and bar-riers in lifelong learning. Washington, DC: National Institute onDisability and Rehabilitation Research. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 454 674)

Oflesh, N. S., Rice, C. J., Long, E. M., Merchant, D. C, & Gajar, A.H. (2002). Service delivery for postsecondary students with dis-abilities: A survey of assistive technology use across disabilities.College Student Journal, 36, 94-108.

Ofiesh, N. S., Rojas, C. M., & Ward, R. A. (2006). Universal designand the assessment of student learning in higher education.Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 173-181.

Ouellett, M. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instruc-tional design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 135-144.

Patwa, S., Chafouleas, S., & Madaus, J. (2005). The effects of pairedassociates strategy (PAS) on the recall of factual information bypostsecondary students with learning disabilities. SchoolPsychology Review, 34, 556-570.

Raskind, M., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis onthe proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students withlearning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141-158.

Reiff, H., Gerber, P., & Ginsberg, R. (1993). Learning to achieve:Suggestions from adults with learning disabilities. Journal ofPostsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 12-28.

Roberts, K., & Stodden, R. (2005). The use of voice recognitionsoftware as a compensatory strategy for postsecondary educa-tion students receiving services under the category of learningdisabled. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 49-64.

Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, S. C, Daley, S. G., &Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsec-ondary education: Reflections on principles and their applica-tions. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19,135-151.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digitalage: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universallydesigned classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Ruhl, K. L., & Suritsky, S. (1995). The pause procedure and/or anoutline: Effect on immediate free recall and lecture notes takenby college students with learning disabilities. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 18,2-11.

Runyan, M. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading compre-hension scores for university students with and without learn-ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104-108.

Scott, S. S., & McGuire, J. M. (2005). Implementing universaldesign for instruction to promote inclusive college teaching. InE. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding oppor-tunities for people with disabilities (pp. 119-138). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes Publishing Company.

Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal designfor instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding todisability and other diverse learning needs in the college class-room. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.

Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2001). Principles of uni-versal design for instruction. Storrs: University of Connecticut,Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. (1998). Universal instructionaldesign in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equityand Excellence in Education, 31, 47-51.

Skinner, M. (2007). Faculty willingness to provide accommoda-tions and course alternatives to postsecondary students withlearning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22,32-45.

Smith, J. (1993). Self-reported written language difficulties of uni-versity students with learning disabilities. Journal ofPostsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 2-13.

Stahl, S. (2003). Faculty and administrator modules in highereducation: Universal design for learning. Unpublished manuscript,Ohio State University. Publication funded by the Office ofPostsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education (CFDA84.333) under project #P333AO2OO33-O3.

Stassen, L., Doherty, K., & Poe, M. (2001). Program based review andassessment: Tools and techniques for program improvement.Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Office of AcademicPlanning and Assessment.

Stodden, R. A. (2001). Postsecondary education supports for stu-dents with disabilities: A review and response. The Journal forVocational Special Needs Education, 23, 4-9.

Sullivan, M. (2005). Teaching mathematics to college studentswith mathematics-related learning disabilities: Report from theclassroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 205-220.

Troiano, P. (2003). College students and learning disability:Elements of self-style. Journal of College Student Development, 44,404-419.

Villarreal, P. (2002). Faculty knowledge of disability law: Implicationsfor higher education practice. Waco, TX: Baylor University. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 472463) RetrievedAugust 22, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED472463

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C.(2007). Perceptions and expectations of youth with disabilities. Aspecial topic report of findings fiom the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Available at: www.nlts2.org/reports/2007_08/nlts2_report_2007_08_complete.pdf

Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Clearing a pathfor success: Deconstructing borders through undergraduatementoring. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 87-102.

Wolanin, T., & Steele, P. (2004). Higher education opportunities forstudents with disabilities. Washington, DC: Thé Institute forHigher Education Policy.

Zawaiza, T., & Gerber, M. (1993). Effects of explicit instruction onmath word-problem solving by community college studentswith learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 64-79.

Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. NewDirections for Higher Education, 137(1), 27-44.

Please address correspondence about this article to: Ann C. Orr,Eastern Michigan University, Department of Special Education,126 Porter, Ypsilanti, MI 48197; e-mail: [email protected]


inclusive postsecondary strategies for teaching...

Documents