Online Universal Design

United States Education Model for the 20th Century

As we enter the new millennium we are met with many challenges. Education is no exception. The way we have known and practiced education in our society today began with the advent of the industrial revolution, education for the masses. Miller (2004) summarized that at the beginning of Progressive Era in the early 20th century the demographic of students was quite different from what we experience today. The United States was flooded with immigrants; the education model that was established for the masses mirrored the factories. If a student could not work within the confines of a narrowly defined uniform ideal they were to be dropped from the system.

The Civil Rights Movement


In the early 1950s following two world wars a barrier-free movement began to address the needs of disabled veterans. However, as documented by Story, M. F., et. al. (1998) it was not until the Civil Right Movements of the 1960s which inspired subsequent legislation in the following decades which specifically addressed the needs of individuals with disabilities through the Disability Rights Movement. These new laws prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities and provided access to education, public place accommodations, telecommunications, and transportation. From the 1960s through the 1990s United States legislation would be enacted to address children with disabilities, fair housing for the disabled and their families, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which addressed the employment, access, public services, transportation, and telecommunications needs of people with disabilities.

Recognizing the Need for Online Universal Design

Expanding on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Telecommunications Act of 1996 encompassed not only phones and televisions but also computers. In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act, creating Section 508, which required Federal agencies to make their electronic information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Section 508 indicates that inaccessible technology interferes with an individual's ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily.

A Seven Points Principles for Universal Design

Ron Mace, founder of the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University coined the term Universal Design (UD) meaning the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of universal design is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost. Universal design benefits people of all ages and abilities.

At the CUD, a group Connell, et. al. (1997) of architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental design researchers established seven principles of UD to provide guidance in the design of products and environments. The CUD's principles of UD are listed below. They are followed by an example of applications in instruction.

• Equitable use. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Example: A professor's website is designed so that it is accessible to everyone, including students who are blind and using text-to-speech software.
• Flexibility in use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Example: A museum, visited as a field trip for a course, allows each student to choose to read or listen to a description of the contents of display cases.
• Simple and intuitive use. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Example: Control buttons on science equipment are labeled with text and symbols that are simple and intuitive to understand.
• Perceptible information. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. Example: A video presentation projected in a course includes captions.
• Tolerance for error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Example: Educational software provides guidance and background information when the student makes an inappropriate response.
• Low physical effort. The design can be used efficiently, comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue. Example: Doors to a lecture hall open automatically for people with a wide variety of physical characteristics.
• Size and space for approach and use. Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility. Example: A flexible science lab work area has adequate workspace for students who are left- or right-handed and for those who need to work from a standing or seated position.

Burgstahler (2008) suggests that by employing universal design principles, does not eliminate the need for specific accommodations for students with disabilities. For example, you may need to provide a sign language interpreter for a student who is deaf. However, applying universal design concepts in course planning ensures full access to the content for most students and minimizes the need for special accommodations. For example, designing web resources in accessible formats as they are developed means that no redevelopment is necessary if a blind student enrolls in the class.

Barriers in Implementing Universal Design

Understanding the principles of universal design are one thing, implementing them is a totally different one. Scott, S. S., et. al. (2003) as part an initiative for the Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) convened a think tank to examine the vision and potential of UD approaches to expanding inclusive environments and a host of questions and unknowns that need to be explored. They documented the discussion of the potential of this paradigm to offer a broader view of educational access, they explored possible barriers to achieve change, and they provided recommendations for future directions. They broke the issue of implementing universal design in higher education into two areas; barriers at the department level and barriers at the institution level. To summarize; at the department level major barriers were a focus of services that would only meet minimal legal requirements, insufficient number of staff, and staff without UD training. At the institutional level the barriers were identified as high costs, staffing issues, limited UD knowledge, and lack of ownership for the education access of diverse learners.

Accessibility is Not at the Forefront of Institutions Online Development

The barrier issues that were identified by the 2003 AHEAD think tank are not uncommon at other intuitions. For example within twenty-four personal communication interviews provided by the students in the California State University’s Masters in Education, Online Teaching and Learning, EDUI6705 Fall 2009 course,by working professionals in the fields of online or technology services, only three either directly or indirectly commented on UD. John Blachey’s interview with Mr. Tom Gillman, Coordinator of Online Learning, College of the Desert Community College, Palm Desert, CA stated, I think that future online coordinators need to insure that the classes developed are pedagogically sound and student-needs oriented. He was speaking to not letting technology drive the classes, but he did recognize student’s needs. Both Carolyn Smith’s interview with Zachary Dowell, Innovations Director for Folsom Lake College and Anne Nicolson’s interview with Dr. Danika Bowen, DeVry Online brought up the idea of a standard curriculum and consistent program design. It was however, unclear if they were also referring specifically to accessibility issues. The most significant discussion to come out of the expert interviews about UD was in Cindi Dale’s interview with Brad Neily, Disabilities Coordinator, Department of Student Services, University of California, Merced. He articulated that the student’s need drove the accessibility services that were offered. Efforts to provide accommodations to meet each students needs were identify at the first meeting and follow-up occurred throughout the tenure of the student at the university. Granted this was also the only disabilities specific interview within the twenty-four expert interviews.

Incorporating Online Accessibility Policy into Higher Education

In order for accessibility to become a central element in higher education, future design of online programs and services, policies must be written, monitoring compliance needs to be created, and assessments should be ongoing. Web Accessibility in Mind (AIM) created a series of questions that institutions can begin to ask themselves as the set-out to develop policies:

• Who is responsible for creating accessible web content?
• How the responsible individuals will receive training and technical support?
• What "accessible" means, and how to tell when content is "acceptably accessible?"
• When or how soon the content must be made accessible (especially if the purpose of the policy is to convert inaccessible content into accessible content)?
• Who verifies that the content passes the minimum standard?
• How and by whom the standard will be enforced?
• What consequences will befall those who violate the standard?

These questions serve as a guide, but the AIM authors’ caution that without these types of considerations the policies that are developed have less of a chance for success. They go on to say that, based on a small study they conducted of 20 institutions only 20% had technical standards to address Section 508 and that 15% based their standards on the guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which does not address technical web access. For institutions to better address the Section 508 standards they need to implement policy, which includes:

• Establishing specific technical standards
• Establish the resources (staff, training, and equipment) to carry out the standards
• Establish a timeline to implement the standards
• Establish a means to monitor compliance of the standards
• Establish consequences for non-compliance of the standards

“Best Practices” in Universal Design for Online Learning

In light of all that has been mentioned there are institutions, which are actively engaged in developing and implementing “best practice” models to address the Section 508 laws. One example of this is the ACCESS Project at Colorado State University, which won the 2008 N. Preston Award for Instructional Innovation. They developed state-of-the-art accessibility and usability techniques for instructional design. They also developed training modules for faculty, professional development programs, research on universal design effectiveness, and web develop training is provided through their Journalism department for faculty, staff, and students. This type of program could serve as a good role model to inspire other institutions to take such action.

Creating Change: One Online Instructional Designer at a Time

In 2008 the United States Census Bureau reported that 19% of the U.S. population reported some level of disability. Change is needed to accommodate this growing demographic. As the web engulfs our lives in every way imaginable we have an opportunity to take the lead to insure that these great societal strides are for everyone. Online instructional designers are poised to take the lead in this initiative. Armed with new technology, constructivist learning, and a greater acceptance for online delivery for education; if each online instructional designer made a commitment to incorporate accessible design into every program they create, mentor others to do the same, share resources, and take the initiative to incorporate online accessible issues into all policy, mission, and goals statements at institutions they are affiliated with the change will take hold. Time and commitment to change will lead us into the new millennium with a different way of thinking; that difference should never be an issue.


References

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (2008), United States Government. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.ada.gov/

Assessment of Campus Climate to Enhance Student Success (ACCESS). Postsecondary Education through Universal Design for Learning. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO: Author. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://accessproject.colostate.edu/udl/video/video.cfm

Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD). Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.ahead.org/about

Burgstahler, S. (2008). Universal design of instruction (UDI): Definition, principles, and examples. University of Washington, Seattle, WA: DO-IT. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprincipleshtmlformat.html

Mace, R. (n. d.). Founding Director, Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm

Miller, T. (2004). Progressive period: Impact of business and industry. In D. Schugurensky (Ed.), History of Education: Selected Moments of the 20th Century. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/

Rangin, H. (2009). Web accessibility for online learning: How-to guide for creating accessible online learning content. CANnect. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://projectone.cannect.org/

Scott, S. S., Loewen, G., Funckes., C., & Kroeger, S. (2003). Implementing universal design in higher education: Moving beyond the built environment. Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16(2). Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD). Retrieved on October 24, 2009 from http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Mp2biYH1kCgJ:www.ahead.org/uploads/docs/jped/articles/Volume16/16_2/

Section 508. United States Government. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3

Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages & abilities. Center for Universal Design (CUD), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460554)

United States, Census Bureau. (2008). Number of Americans with a disability reaches 54.4 million. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg

WebAIM: University web accessibility policies: A bridge not quite. Web Accessibility in Mind (AIM). Utah State University, Logan, UT: Author. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.webaim.org/articles/policies/policies_pilot/