Volume 2 - Accessible Instructional Design - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 11:20 23 February 2019 (PT)
DESIGN
ACCESSIBLE INSTRUCTIONAL
ADVANCES IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
Series Editor: Dave L. Edyburn
Other Volumes in this Series:
Volume 1: Efficacy of Assistive Technology Interventions

ADVANCES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
VOLUME 2
ACCESSIBLE
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
EDITED BY
DAVE L. EDYBURN
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee,
WI, USA
United Kingdom North America Japan

India Malaysia China
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2015
Copyright r 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78560-289-4
ISSN: 2056-7693 (Series)
ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.
Certificate Number 1985

ISO 14001
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Randall Boone University of Nevada Las Vegas,

Las Vegas, NV, USA
Dave L. Edyburn University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,

Milwaukee, WI, USA
Keith D. Edyburn Maternity Neighborhood, Charlottesville,
VA, USA
Anne Guptill California State University East Bay,
Hayward, CA, USA
Evelyn Hickey Calgary Board of Education, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada
Kyle Higgins University of Nevada Las Vegas,
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Cyndi Rowland Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Jared Smith Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Jonathan Whiting Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
vii
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Gerald Craddock Matthew T. Marino

Chief Officer, Centre for Excellence Associate Professor, College of
in Universal Design, National Education & Human Performance,

Disability Authority, Ireland University of Central Florida, USA
Therese M. Cumming Cynthia Okolo

Senior Lecturer, Special Education, Professor, Department of
School of Education, University of Counseling, Educational
New South Wales, Australia Psychology, and Special Education,
Michigan State University, USA
James E. Gardner
Professor, Department of Amanda Watkins
Educational Psychology, University Assistant Director Project
of Oklahoma, USA Implementation, European Agency
for Development in Special Needs
Prabha Hariharan Education, Denmark
Assistant Professor, Faculty of
Disability Management and Special
Education, Ramakrishna Mission
Vivekananda University, India
ix
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

ACCESSIBLE INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN: DESIGNING FOR
DIFFERENCES
Dave L. Edyburn
ABSTRACT
Design is a creative activity. However, when designers fail to properly

understand the full array of human diversity, their work can include
barriers that make it difficult or impossible for individuals with disabil-
ities to access, engage, and benefit. This issue has huge implications
on the context of the design of educational materials for 21st century
learners. This chapter provides an introduction to the issues associated with
accessible instructional design and provides an overview of the chapters
selected for inclusion in this volume.
Keywords: Accessibility; instructional design; usability
The essence of design is found in the vision, planning, and creation of

objects that are used to solve a problem. Design is purposeful, intentional,
and creative.
Accessible Instructional Design

Advances in Special Education Technology, Volume 2, 1 12
Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002001
1
2 DAVE L. EDYBURN
Tangible artifacts of the design process may include sketches, drawings,

blueprints, prototypes, and more. Design is a foundational activity in many
disciplines. As a result, readers may come from any one of many different
disciplines actively engaged in the design of materials, products, and/or
services:
• Architecture
• Art
• Engineering design
• Fashion design
• Game design
• Graphic design
• Industrial design
• Information architecture
• Instructional design
• Process design
• Product design
• Software design
• Urban design
• User experience design
• Web design.
Advances in technology, and widespread interest in design, have contrib-

uted to an emerging trend known as the “Maker Movement” (Bajarin,
2014; Ramsden, 2013; Rawsthorn, 2011). Advocates argue that new tools
now make it possible for everyone to create: “We are all designers!”
Consider the following examples that illustrate the emerging trends made
possible by the Maker Movement:
• A person can write a book using Microsoft Word, save the file as an elec-
tronic book (epub), self-publish the book in print, and/or digital formats
using CreateSpace (https://www.createspace.com/), and then sell the
book through Amazon (http://www.amazon.com). Now, everyone can
be an author!
• A similar trend can be observed in the music industry where a musician
or group can use GarageBand to record and edit their music and then
partner with a distributor like TuneCore (http://www.tunecore.com/)
that allows them to retain 100% of their music rights and receive 90% of
the royalties while providing distribution access to over 30 online music
services including iTunes, Spotify, AmazonMP3, and GooglePlay. Now,
everyone can be a musician!
Designing for Differences 3
• The availability of 3-D printers (also known as personal fabricators)

makes it possible for anyone to design and print 3-D objects. Services
such as Inventables (https://www.inventables.com/) provide a commu-
nity where users can exchange ideas, download blueprints, and purchase
materials and supplies. Online marketplaces like Etsy (https://www.etsy.
com/) make it easy to create and manage a digital storefront to sell one’s
creations. Now, everyone can be a product designer!
The Maker Movement is driven by a do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic.

Technological advances have not only lowered the cost of entry into a
new market, but DIYers profit from managing the entire value chain. The
reality of this trend is that motivated individuals gain control over their
creative work by assuming multiple roles including designer, manufac-
turer, and distributor of the products they create. A designer who success-
fully participates in the Maker Movement is likely to quickly enumerate
the personal benefits relative to creative freedom, the risk/reward ratio,
quality of life, and so on.
Some design industry leaders welcome the changes caused by the Maker
Movement as indicative of a design renaissance (Brown, 2014). However,
others see a more ominous trend within the Maker Movement that involves
the devaluing of authority and expertise. In this perspective, the designer is
no longer the sole source of ideas as the design process becomes more
collaborative (Merholz, Wilkens, Schauer, & Verba, 2008). Yet, some
technology experts view the disruption as a predictable consequence of the
application of innovative technologies in new markets (Christensen, 1997).
However, in the context of inclusive design, the maker movement repre-
sents a significant challenge and opportunity.
BARRIERS AND POOR DESIGN

When you have trouble with things whether it’s figuring out whether to push or pull
a door or the arbitrary vagaries of the modern computer and electronics industries
it’s not your fault. Don’t blame yourself: blame the designer. (Donald Norman)
Most people do not think about design until they encounter a product that
doesn’t appear to work correctly (Norman, 2002). For example, when you
last tried to insert a USB drive into a port on your computer, how many
times did you have to turn the device over before you were able to connect
it properly? The location of USB ports and the variety of USB drives
4 DAVE L. EDYBURN
illustrates a fundamental design flaw that confounds users of all ages, and
all levels of technological skill: To properly insert a USB drive correctly on
the first try. This situation reveals a fundamental design flaw as it makes
the product needlessly difficult to use.
Barriers in the physical environment are fairly obvious to identify. For
example, when a science class is held on the third floor of an old high
school building that does not have an elevator, the class may not be accessi-
ble to a student in wheelchair or a student who recently broke her leg.
Sensory barriers occur when information is provided in a format that is not

compatible with an individual’s sensory abilities. For example, traditional
handouts are of little value to a student who is blind. Likewise, audio
recordings are of little value to a student who is deaf. Historically, the field
of assistive technology has been devoted to providing technology tools that
offer access to individuals with physical and sensory disabilities because the
barriers they experience in daily life, and in the classroom, are significant.
Cognitive barriers are challenging because the individual may not
display obvious features that signal a disability. Historically we have
focused on learning problems as a deficit within the learner rather than a
mismatch between learning capabilities and learning materials. Only
recently have developers and researchers begun to focus on the accessibility
of information (Inclusion Europe, 2009; W3C Web Accessibility, http://
www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility).
Perhaps the most difficult barriers to overcome are attitudinal barriers.
Discrimination is one form of an attitudinal barrier where people make
judgments about a person with a disability. For example, most people use
the terms impairment, disability, and handicap as synonyms. However, the
distinction between the three terms is quite important.
An impairment involves an abnormality or loss of function in a physical,
anatomical, or a psychological structure. Impairments to human function
may be congenital (present at birth) or acquired through accident or dis-
ease. It is important not to make assumptions concerning a person’s ability
or limitations simply because he or she has an impairment.
When an impairment limits an individual from performing an activity
(communicating with others, hearing, movement, manipulating objects,
and so on) in a manner normally expected for human beings, we refer to
this as a disability. A student who has lost the function of his right arm has
an impairment; this condition may have little or no impact on a variety of
life functions. However, this student may encounter situations where the
inability to use two arms places him at a disadvantage with others.
A handicap arises when an individual is unable to fulfill a role due to a

disability. It is critical to understand that a handicap is not a characteristic
of an individual, and thus, the term is neither used to describe an individual
nor the condition of a disability or impairment. Instead, its use is restricted
to identifying the impact or negative consequence of the disability within
the individual.
In order to improve the design of learning materials and environments,
we must be attentive to barriers, both explicit and implicit.
DESIGNING FOR DIFFERENCES

Indifference towards people and the reality in which they live is actually the one and
only cardinal sin in design. (Dieter Rams)
When designers assume that all users are like them, they commit an egre-
gious error known as ego design. Ego design involves a narrow conceptua-
lization of the target user, their background knowledge, skill level, etc. In
essence, the designer fails to consider the fully array of human diversity
and how individuals might interact with the product if they are differently
abled, are not native English speakers, have low literacy skills, and so on.
It is important to understand two related concepts: accessibility and
usability. Accessibility refers to the inclusive goal of designing tools,
products, and information resources to be usable by all people regardless
of their skills or abilities. Usability, in turn, refers to how easy it is to learn
and use a product. When considering any tool, product, or information
resource, it is necessary to evaluate both the accessibility and usability
(Lazar, 2007).
A key principle of accessible design involves understanding the special
needs of individuals with disabilities can produce solutions that benefit
other groups. For example, knowing the some people have a vision impair-
ment can translate into a design principle that all text should be adjustable,
if necessary, by users so that they can enlarge the text to a size sufficient for
comfortable viewing. Whereas vision impairments are a specific disability,
the same text enlargement intervention can benefit most adults who experi-
ence decreased visual acuity as they age. The historical lessons learned
through these cases have led to a statement that serves as a mantra for uni-
versal design, “Good design for people with disabilities can benefit
everyone.”
6 DAVE L. EDYBURN
EVIDENCE BASE
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created
them. (Albert Einstein)
Researchers have explored many issues associated with accessibility and

usability that have important implications for classroom instruction. For
example, providing audio supports embedded in text passages has been
shown to produce increased access to content-level text that students with

disabilities could not independently and modest gains in reading compre-
hension (Boyle et al., 2003; Wahl & Duffield, 2007; Wood, Kelley, Test, &
Fowler, 2010).
Researchers have also recognized that digital text has unique properties
that allow the text to be more flexible than printed text and support learner
differences through hyperlinks (Anderson-Inman, 2009; Boone & Higgins,
2003, 2005). Emerging research evidence supports the design and use of
digital text by students with disabilities to foster enhanced reading compre-
hension (Anderson-Inman, Terrazas-Arellanes, & Slabin, 2009; Bangert-
Drowns & Pyke, 2001; Douglas, Ayres, Langone, Bell, & Meade, 2009;
Izzo, Yurick, & McArrell, 2009; Lawless, Mills, & Brown, 2002). A small
how-to literature has also emerged that provides teachers with practical
how-to guidance on creating accessible reading materials for their students
(Hoffman, Hartley, & Boone, 2005; Kauppila, 2009; Stahl & Aronica,
2002)
Some questions have been raised about whether or not students with dis-
abilities have the cognitive function to effectively manage a hypertext envir-
onment (McEneaney, 2003). In particular, considerable research attention
has focused on issues of cognitive load, that is, how much working memory
is needed to comprehend the content, navigate the digital environment, and
perform executive function decisions (Doering & Veletsianos, 2007;
Nelson & Erlandson, 2008; Schar & Zimmermann, 2007; Schnotz & Rasch,
2005; Sweller, 2008; van Gog, Ericsson, Rikers, & Paas, 2005; Wallen,
Plass, & Brunken, 2005). The emerging evidence base reveals the complex-
ities associated with the interactions of the learner, task, and instructional
design. This knowledge must be made accessible to instructional designers
if we are going to improve the accessibility and usability of educational
materials.
In the United States, federal law has been used to establish repositories
of accessible educational materials (AEM) with the expectation that IEP
teams will assess the need for AEM and document it on the child’s IEP
(Zabala & Carl, 2010a, 2010b). However, there is considerable evidence

that printed textbooks are not accessible to students with disabilities
(Bruhn & Hasselbring, 2013; O’Connell, 2001; Okolo, 2006; Wiazowski,
2010) and that schools are still engaged in making accommodations
(Dimmitt, Hodapp, Judas, Munn, & Rachow, 2006; Edyburn, 2002, 2003,
2006; Hudson, Browder, & Wakeman, 2013; Leko, Mundy, Kang, &
Datar, 2013). Some industry observers are predicting a death watch for
printed textbooks as electronic textbooks make their way into schools
(Salpeter, 2009). Finally, developers have created promising prototypes of

accessible digital learning materials (Edyburn & Edyburn, 2012; Harniss,
Caros, & Gersten, 2007; Kim & Jung, 2010) that have the potential to
inspire new instructional designs that take full advantage of a new genera-
tion of technology tools.
SERIES PURPOSE
At the present time, there are few international forums for disseminating
special education technology research that afford cross-cultural implica-
tions of the findings. This book series, Advances in Special Education
Technology, is designed to focus international attention on applications of
technology for individuals with disabilities. Readers will appreciate the spe-
cific attention authors devote to summarizing and evaluating the quality of
the extant research knowledge base for each topic and recommendations
for policy, new product development, practice, and future research.
Contributors will provide chapters synthesizing the research evidence on
specific types of technology interventions that improve access, engagement,
and learning outcomes of diverse learners. The scope of contributions will
cover subfields known as assistive technology, instructional design, instruc-
tional technology, online learning, personalized learning, and universal
design for learning and will encompass both formal (i.e., school) and infor-
mal learning settings (i.e., self-directed, museums) across the lifespan (i.e.,
preschool adult).
OVERVIEW OF VOLUME 2
The focus of Volume 2 is on understanding the advances in the area

of accessible instructional design. An outstanding group of researchers
8 DAVE L. EDYBURN
were invited to contribute manuscripts and this volume represents a

state-of-the-art collection of chapters regarding research and development
in the areas of instructional design, online learning, assessment, web acces-
sibility, and universal design for learning.
Rowland, Whiting, and Smith provide a comprehensive review of issues
associated with web accessibility. While their work focuses predominately
on U.S. educational contexts (i.e., K-12; postsecondary), they provide a
valuable snapshot of the use of the web in education and the status of web
accessibility. They provide a detailed description of one promising solution,

that of enterprise-wide change to accomplish the goal to both create and
maintain educational accessibility. As the profession seeks to establish glo-
bal accessibility of web-based information, the authors outline a future
research agenda concerning enterprise-wide web accessibility and the impli-
cations for system-change as a solution to the ever widening digital divide
in education.
Guptill provides a thoughtful review of the evolution of universal design
within the larger context of instructional design. She describes how tradi-
tional instructional system design models, agile development, learning
objects, web accessibility, universal design, and universal design for learn-
ing all contribute to contemporary knowledge about the design of build-
ings, products, and learning. In particular, her review and analysis
illustrate how universal design for learning can be applied to online learn-
ing. This chapter provides a useful introduction to the topic for readers
seeking to make sense of the overlap between a wide variety of disciplines.
Large scale assessment is increasingly viewed as a core tactic associated
with educational reform around the world. Hickey provides an analysis of
the possibilities associated with applying universal design to large scale
assessments with a particular emphasis on the Canadian context. Her work
challenges status quo concepts of access and accommodation while arguing
that universal design can increase not only access and engagement but also
the validity of testing outcomes. Despite the growing literature on this topic
over the past decade, she helps us understand the need for a comprehensive
research agenda in this area.
In the chapter “Refocusing Instructional Design,” hypermedia pioneers
Boone and Higgins describe the convergence of accessibility and universal
design in the context of the mobile device operating system. They use a
metaphor known as “cognitive friction” to describe the conflict that results
when users do not understand the new inner workings of a device that
appears to be familiar. This conflict can arise in the transformation of
instruction from software to apps. As they note, learner characteristics
matter. This work represents an important bridge from our legacy under-
standing of instructional design to the demands needed to create a new gen-
eration of educational materials and products that will ultimately prove to
be effective with increasingly diverse student populations.
In the final chapter, D. L. Edyburn and K. Edyburn challenge tradi-
tional conceptualizations of universal design for learning by describing a
universal design engineering approach known as Design for More Types.
They focus on the design of text-based learning materials by outlying both
a theoretical framework for their multidisciplinary work as well as a series

of case studies to illustrate the practical application of a taxonomy of inter-
ventions. This work seeks to operationalize universal design interventions
in ways that can be measured and evaluated in order to come to a new
understanding about the active ingredients implemented in technology-
based interventions that are designed to enhance learning.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
As Editor, I’m extremely proud of each of the authors who accepted my

invitation to participate in this new publishing project to focus interna-
tional attention on applications of technology for individuals with disabil-
ities. I believe the series will serve an unmet need of the research
community by providing an international perspective on special education
technology research.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the vision, support, and encour-
agement of Mark Moreau, our Publisher at Emerald. Without his support,
this project would not be possible.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Inman, L. (2009). Supported etext: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabil-
ities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 1 7.
Anderson-Inman, L., Terrazas-Arellanes, F. E., & Slabin, U. (2009). Supported etext in
captioned videos: A comparison of expanded versus standard captions on student compre-
hension of educational content. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 21 34.
Bajarin, T. (2014). Why the maker movement is important to America’s future. Time, May 19.
Retrieved from http://time.com/104210/maker-faire-maker-movement/
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with educa-
tional software: An exploration of literature thinking with electronic text. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 24, 213 234.
10 DAVE L. EDYBURN
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2003). Reading, writing, and publishing digital text. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(3), 132 140.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2005). Designing digital materials for students for disabilities. In D.
Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 481 492). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Boyle, E. A., Rosenberg, M. S., Connelly, V. J., Washburn, S. G., Brinckerhoff, L. C., &
Banerjee, M. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content
by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203 214.
Brown, T. (2014). IDEA CEO Time Brown: “Everyone is a designer.” The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/tim-brown-davos_n_

4635681.html
Bruhn, A. L., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2013). Increasing student access to content area textbooks.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(1), 30 38.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to
fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dimmitt, S., Hodapp, J., Judas, C., Munn, C., & Rachow, C. (2006). Iowa text reader project
impacts student achievement. Closing the Gap, 24(6), 12 13.
Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). Multi-scaffolding environment: An analysis of scaffold-
ing and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 37(2), 107 129.
Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Bell, V., & Meade, C. (2009). Expanding literacy
for learners with intellectual disabilities: The role of supported etext. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 24(3), 35 44.
Edyburn, D. L. (2002). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive
accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, 21(1), 10 11, 21.
Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Reading difficulties in the general education classroom: A taxonomy of
text modification strategies. Closing the Gap, 21(6), 10 13, 31.
Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Text modifications. Special Education Technology Practice, 8(2),
16 27.
Edyburn, D. L., & Edyburn, K. D. (2012). Tools for creating accessible, tiered, and multilin-
gual web-based curricula. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(4), 199 205.
Harniss, M. K., Caros, J., & Gersten, R. (2007). Impact of the design of U.S. history textbooks
on content acquisition and academic engagement of special education students: An
experimental investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 100 110.
Hoffman, B., Hartley, K., & Boone, R. (2005). Reaching accessibility: Guidelines for creating
and refining digital learning materials. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(3),
171 176.
Hudson, M. E., Browder, D., & Wakeman, S. (2013). Helping students with moderate and
severe intellectual disability access grade-level text. Teaching Exceptional Children,
45(3), 14 23.
Inclusion Europe. (2009). Information for all: European standards for making information
easy to read and understand. Brussels: Author. Retrieved from http://www.citizensin-
formationboard.ie/publications/social/downloads/Accessible_Information_For_All.pdf
Izzo, M. V., Yurick, A., & McArrell, B. (2009). Supported etext: Effects of text-to-speech on
access and achievement for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Special
Kauppila, J. (2009). Creating digital text files from printed materials. Closing the Gap, 28(5),
6 9.
Kim, J. H., & Jung, H. (2010). South Korean digital textbook project. Computers in the
Schools, 27(3/4), 247 265.
Lawless, K. A., Mills, R., & Brown, S. W. (2002). Children’s hypertext navigation strategies.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 274 284.
Lazar, J. (2007). Universal usability: Designing computer interfaces for diverse populations.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Leko, M. M., Mundy, C. A., Kang, H., & Datar, S. D. (2013). If the book fits: Selecting
appropriate texts for adolescents with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 48(5), 267 275.

McEneaney, J. E. (2003). Does hypertext disadvantage less able readers? Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 1 12.
Merholz, P., Wilkens, T., Schauer, B., & Verba, D. (2008). Subject to change: Creating great
products and services for an uncertain world: Adaptive path on design. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Nelson, B. C., & Erlandson, B. E. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user
virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 56(5/6), 619 641.
Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
O’Connell, K. (2001). Looking at textbooks. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3),
57 58.
Okolo, C. M. (2006). Digital texts in the content-area classroom. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 21(4), 58 61.
Ramsden, D. (2013, November 19). Trends for 2014 − Everyone is a designer, everything can be
designed. Retrieved from http://danramsden.com/2013/11/19/trends-2014-everyone-
designer/
Rawsthorn, A. (2011). Can anybody be a designer? New York Times, October 2. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/arts/design/can-anybody-be-a-designer.html
Salpeter, J. (2009). Textbook deathwatch. Technology and Learning, 30(1), 26 28.
Schar, S. G., & Zimmermann, P. G. (2007). Investigating means to reduce cognitive load from
animations: Applying differentiated measures of knowledge representation. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 64 78.
Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in
multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on
learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59 72.
Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education
Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the use of educational technology. Educational
van Gog, T., Ericsson, K. A., Rikers, P. M., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional design for
advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cog-
nitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(3), 73 81.
Wahl, L., & Duffield, J. (2007). Audio text to go. Learning and Leading with Technology,
34(7), 30 31.
12 DAVE L. EDYBURN
Wallen, R., Plass, J. L., & Brunken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehen-
sion of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59 72.
Wiazowski, J. (2010). (In)accessible digital textbooks. Closing the Gap, 29(3), 17 22.
Wood, C. L., Kelley, K. R., Test, D. W., & Fowler, C. H. (2010). Comparing audio-supported
text and explicit instruction on students’ knowledge of accommodations, rights, and
responsibilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2), 115 124.
Zabala, J. S., & Carl, D. (2010a). The AIMing for achievement series: What educators and
families need to know about accessible instructional materials. Part one: Introduction
and legal context. Closing the Gap, 29(4), 11 14.
Zabala, J. S., & Carl, D. (2010b). The AIMing for achievement series: What educators and
families need to know about accessible instructional materials. Part two: Navigating the
decision-making process. Closing the Gap, 29(5), 1 15.
This article has been cited by:
1. Catherine A. Anderson. Follow-up, follow along, service completion, and

outcomes 177-185. [Crossref]

WHAT DO YOU NEED TO CREATE
AND MAINTAIN WEB
ACCESSIBILITY?
Cyndi Rowland, Jonathan Whiting and Jared Smith
ABSTRACT
Several factors must align if web accessibility can be achieved and main-
tained. It is critical that web developers, designers, and content creators
each know what to do. Moreover, it is vital that administrators create
systems to support enterprise-wide web accessibility. The chapter will
cover key issues found in education, predominantly higher education, and
share resources to accomplish this complex endeavor.
Keywords: Web accessibility; technology access; online learning;
education access; disability
While it may be trite, it is true. The internet has changed our world in
immeasurable ways. Across all countries and all sectors of society, the web
has left an imprint. Few people can imagine a future without access to the

ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002002
13
14 CYNDI ROWLAND ET AL.
internet (e.g., for education, commerce, employment, government, or enter-

tainment); this includes browser-based access to the internet from a variety
of hardware configurations including desk or laptop computers to tablets
and smartphones. Assuming gateway access, web content has been dis-
played and retrieved anywhere at any time; including in developing coun-
tries where cell phones proliferate (Pew Research Center, 2014; West &
Chew, 2014). This rapid growth helps us all consider that online education
could deliver on the decade-long promise to be delivered “anytime, any-
where, to everyone” (Schmetzke, 2001).

Yet, there is a continuing struggle to provide educational web content to
everyone. For those individuals with a disability affecting computer and
internet use, thinking of a future without the web is all too easy. That is
because they struggle now to fully access content on the web, even with assis-
tive technologies that would allow them to do so. Barriers to internet access
are generally the result of the design of web pages and applications. High-end
designs, even those with embedded media, can be made accessible without
substantial changes to look or feel. The promise of Universal Design for
Learning will be impossible if instructional content is not accessible to all.
THE FOCUS OF THIS CHAPTER
There is an agreement that web accessibility is a necessary, albeit insuffi-

cient, element of a Universal Design for Learning. Since it is necessary it
should be addressed overtly which is why we will focus on it in this chapter.
Yet, how does one limit a discussion to only instructional materials?
Moreover, should that limit our discussion to only education contexts? For
us the answers are “no,” and “no, but we will here.”
While it would be easy to think that addressing the accessibility of
instructional materials in schools should be limited to just those materials
used in the teaching and learning context, doing so would be naive. What
should be said to a college student who is blind looking to register for
classes, seek financial aid, or secure student employment on their campus?
What should be said to a double-amputee who is a parent of a 4th grade
child trying to get access to the school district’s website to view their child’s
grades or check out teacher feedback on their child’s homework assign-
ments? What should be said to the university employee who is deaf and
cannot benefit from a series of web videos by the institution’s President,
“Our Institution: New Challenges, New Directions?” All of these examples
Web Accessibility 15
do occur in an education context, and each represents a problem of persons

with disabilities trying to access web-based content. Yet the argument that
this web content is not instructional in nature could be won. Thus, if we
narrowly limit our discussion to pure instruction, those individuals repre-
sented in the statements above would be doomed to hear, “I’m sorry but
we only make instructional materials accessible.” The real journey for
accessibility in education lies in how we can make all content accessible,
not merely those that are deemed to be instructional in nature.
Also, it is important to be mindful of the fact that instructional content

pervades our society and does not merely live through educational organi-
zations. Here are some examples: an e-commerce site hosts an instructional
video on using their product; an employer offers web-based instruction on
how to follow equal opportunity laws during hiring process; a state govern-
ment provides instruction to help with filing state taxes. Of course we
would agree that not all instruction occurs solely within formal systems of
education.
The examples above illustrate why we will focus this chapter on accessi-
bility of the broader architecture of educational websites, and not any nar-
row interpretation of “instructional materials” alone. While we will focus
on the use of the web broadly in education, we recognize that the nature of
instruction and learning is pervasive across all sectors of society. We believe
that accessibility is required at all levels, and as such, solutions must be in
place to achieve them. We believe that our approach to create and maintain
web accessibility could be used no matter the ecosystem, organization, or
societal affiliation.
In this chapter, we will specifically discuss the use of the web in educa-
tion today and the current picture of accessibility in predominantly U.S.
education contexts (i.e., K-12; postsecondary). Next we will discuss some of
the reasons accessibility is difficult to achieve and maintain. Then we will
offer one promising solution, that of enterprise-wide change to accomplish
the goal to both create and maintain educational accessibility. Finally, we
will discuss the limitations of this solution as well as the future research
potential that stems from this idea, along with the implications for system
change as a solution to the ever widening digital divide in education today.
WEB ACCESSIBILITY IN EDUCATION
There are two mechanisms for the delivery of accessible web content for
individuals with disabilities in education. The first is to create content that
can be accessed as soon as it is developed; this is often termed “native

accessibility” and is one component of Universal Design for Learning. The
second is to provide an accommodation to a qualified student or employee
after they request such accommodation (Rowland, Burgsthaler, Smith, &
Coombs, 2004). When students must rely on the accommodation process, it
often results in the untimely delivery of content (e.g., a course website,
readings, and assignments are not ready until the third week of the class),
or unacceptable delivery (e.g., an individual is hired to read the contents of
the site to the student). When this happens it often has a negative effect on
student outcomes.
Moreover, inaccessibility and the accommodation process have become a
recent focus of legal complaints for students, faculty, and staff with disabil-
ities (e.g., see Carlson, n.d.; Feingold, 2015a). This may be due to the fact
that individuals with disabilities are no longer willing to wait for access
when their peers do not. Because of its growing importance in society, web
accessibility is increasingly viewed as an issue of equality. In the United
States, the Department of Justice considers it an issue of civil rights. It is
codified as such in Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and
applies as well in the Americans with Disabilities Act (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2010), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA, 2004), and other U.S. Federal laws (e.g., Section 508.gov, n.d.).
It is viewed as such an important issue in the United States that in June
of 2010, the White House sent letters to college and university Presidents to
clarify an accessibility controversy (i.e., over the Kindle DX) by warning
them “It is unacceptable for universities to use emerging technology without
insisting that this technology be accessible to all students” (Perez & Ali, 2010).
Moreover in the same letter, White House staff reminded the reader that
President Obama underscored the need to “strengthen and expand the educa-
tional opportunities for individuals with disabilities,” noting that, “[i]f we are
to build a world free from unnecessary barriers … we must ensure that every
American receives an education that prepares him or her for future success.”
Eliminating the need to provide after-the-fact accommodations for electroni-
cally mediated content is critical for preparing students for future success.
Moreover, it is in line with the pedagogical principles of just-in-time learning
and student-centered processes (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2010;
Duffy & Jonassen, 2013), both hallmarks of effectiveness in education.
Globally, countries have enacted laws and policies to assure that their
citizens with disabilities have access to web content as well (Rodgers, 2015).
Basic access to information and services represents the very type of social
contract many nations have made with their citizenry as equality in a civil
society is pursued. With that said, there has been a persistent problem of
web inaccessibility across nations (Nomensa, 2006; U.S. Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division, 2012).
K-12 Education
Use
The accessibility of web content continues to be a pain point across K-12

education. This is in part because the use of the web is ubiquitous in educa-
tion. For example, in the United States most K-12 settings use web content
for student learning. In a Federal Communications Commission report
(2009), 71% of teens indicated that they had used the web as a primary
source for a recent assignment. Moreover, it is predicted that by 2018, 99%
of students in K-12 settings will have access to next-generation broadband
in their schools, thus enabling nearly all U.S. children to engage their learn-
ing using twenty-first century digital tools (White House Office of the Press
Secretary, 2015). Currently, U.S. schools use the web for blended and
wholly online K-12 education across all 50 states (Watson & Murin, 2014);
some states also have full time online options for students. State Special
Education Directors identified that students with disabilities are involved in
online learning opportunities yet the accessibility of content is identified as
a challenge for many (Burdette, Greer, & Woods, 2013).
Accessibility
There is a paucity of data on the accessibility of web content in the K-12
arena, but what is available paints a disappointing picture that has
remained relatively unchanged for over a decade in the United States
(Krach & Jelenic, 2009; Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer, & Liu, 2010 as cited
in Greer, Rice, & Dykman, 2014; Rowland, 2003). While there have been
improvements in some areas, there is little improvement in achieving the
overarching goal of full access.
Higher Education
Use
While there has been a great deal of focus on accessibility in the United
States due to Office of Civil Rights complaints and litigation (e.g., see
Feingold, 2015a; Carlson, n.d.), this focus has not resolved the crisis that
many experience. As in K-12 settings, the problem of inaccessible web con-

tent for individuals with disabilities in higher education is in proportion to
the use, and both are high. It is difficult to find any higher education insti-
tution in the United States today not using the web extensively to execute
their mission. Allen and Seaman (2014) reported that rates of enrollment in
online learning in U.S. higher education have increased far in excess of
overall higher education. Moreover, they indicated the criticality of online
education, with nearly 70% of institutions in their sample responding that
online education was a vital component of their long-term growth strategy.

Nearly, 100% of college students, aged 18 24 are online (Smith,
Rainie, & Zickurh, 2011), and it was reported that over a third of college
and university students (i.e., over seven million) took at least one online
course (Allen & Seaman, 2014). Students in the United States are accessing
the internet across devices, and the use of mobile technologies is rising
quickly. In a 2014 Harris Poll, 83% of U.S. college students reported using
smartphones to access educational content, and 89% were doing so using
laptops so that anytime, anywhere learning could be realized (Harris,
2014). Unfortunately, we return to the central premise of this chapter that
unless accessible web content can be created and maintained, these “any-
time,” “anywhere” opportunities will be limited to a subset of “everyone.”
Accessibility
There has been a call within U.S. higher education for over 15 years to
make web content accessible; this has not been achieved. There are broad
issues of inaccessible web content in higher education today from instruc-
tional websites in departments (Lewis, Yoder, Riley, So, & Yusufali, 2007);
to departmental websites themselves (Krach, 2007; Ringlaben, Bray, &
Packard, 2014), library and information sciences (Green & Huprick, 2009),
and Land Grant Universities as a whole (Bradbard, Peters, & Caneva,
2010). Given the length of time that the higher education community has
been working on web accessibility, one would think most problems would
have been resolved. Actually, Seal (2015) argues that there have been only
minimal improvements in the data and practices of the higher education
community over time. This is disheartening.
Internationally there are problems with web accessibility in higher edu-
cation as well. Many countries already have laws on the books that require
accessible web content (Rodgers, 2015), yet problems are prevalent. In
2007, Thompson, Burgstahler, Moore, Gunderson, and Hoyt evaluated
8,557 higher education home pages and 6,872 government pages from
across the globe. They reported that fewer than half would have passed on
accessibility issues. What they did find, however, was that countries clus-
tered into subgroups that were more or less accessible (e.g., Australia,
Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom were
in a group that fared better). It is unknown if data on accessibility in educa-
tion within those countries has improved since that report. More current
reports point to continuing problems. For example Asia is reported as
being well behind their Western counterparts (Wijayaratne & Singh, 2010),
and in Asia, Narasimhan (2012) reported that India has serious issues with
accessibility in higher education.
The Problem over Time
Past Efforts to Solve the Problem

It is unfortunate that several initiatives in the United States over the past
15 years, have failed to substantively alter the picture of web accessibility in
education. These attempts to solve the educational inequity that arises
from web inaccessibility can be classified into three phases.
The first phase included projects that delivered awareness, training, tech-
nical assistance, and created tools and open resources for web developers
and others (see WebAIM.org; Washington.edu/doit; ITTATC.org; easi.cc;
NCDAE.org). With awareness of web accessibility and an array of sup-
ports for web developers, the problem persisted as some developers made
the decision to create accessibly, while others did not. This created an
unevenness of the web, where individuals with disabilities could access sin-
gle pages, but not navigate to get to them, or from them.
The second phase built on the knowledge that web developers needed a
request or requirement from supervisors for them to commit to accessible
design. This phase included the development of models to support the
daunting process for postsecondary system-change (e.g., Whiting et al.,
2004). Many projects, including WebAIM and NCDAE, participated in
developing systems that could be implemented by entire campuses to trans-
form their web architecture into an accessible one. Outcomes for these
initiatives were good, as well over 100 institutions adopted them. But many
other institutions chose to not engage in the work of web accessibility.
The third phase was a focus on policy (i.e., State and Federal), including
national summits hosted by the National Center on Disability and Access
to Education (e.g., NCDAE, 2004, 2005), with solid outcomes that affected
policy making on many campuses (e.g, Cornell, George Mason University,
Arizona State, University of Arkansas). However, even with governmental

regulations in place, educational saturation continues to be elusive.
So What Is the Problem?

It may be that the very high rates of inaccessibility that persist in education
today are the result of an extraordinarily complex problem. Issues with
accessibility are exacerbated in part due to the evolving picture of the web,
and the complexities inherent in education organizations (e.g., large num-

bers of staffs, reliance on procured technologies, generalized decentraliza-
tion of IT, shrinking budgets, and staffs with more duties than time). While
several problems combine that make achieving web accessibility more diffi-
cult today than it was a decade ago (Rowland, 2014), three of them are
worth mentioning here:
1. The web is growing faster than our accessibility efforts. We continue to
experience a logarithmic growth of the web. In just past 15 years it has
grown over 700% (World Internet Users Statistics and 2015 World
Population Stats, 2015). While the overall number of accessible pages
has also increased, those pages represent a smaller percentage of total
web content, and this growth trend is expected to continue (Mead,
2013).
2. The technical skills needed to make content accessible is increasing.
There has been a rapid migration from static to dynamic web content.
This requires more sophisticated personnel to design and develop acces-
sibly. We are no longer talking about simple fixes such as adding alter-
native text labels to the image tag or adding a link so a user can skip
navigation to the main content on a page. Now web designers and devel-
opers need to be skilled to address elements such as Accessible Rich
Internet Application (ARIA) landmarks, and address the complex issues
of gaining keyboard navigation within dynamic content elements with-
out trapping the user. Without highly skilled personnel, the dynamic
content, along with the simulated and immersive environments used in
education settings will never become accessible. This fact may pose ser-
ious challenges to the concept of UDL being used without the involve-
ment of persons skilled in technical accessibility.
3. The proliferation of templates and management tools has made it easy
for non-technical individuals to post web content. They are doing so in
high numbers without understanding the impact their actions have on
accessibility or without understanding what they can do about it. So
while the web is becoming more complex from a technical accessibility
standpoint, it is also becoming much simpler for inaccessible content to

be posted, by decidedly non-technical individuals. Many users can easily
upload content they wish to place online (e.g., text, docs, images, videos,
and PDF’s) without understanding a single technical concept regarding
content creation or accessibility. In doing so, the simple act of placing
content into a template may make online materials unavailable for
many users. The problem in education then becomes that everyone who
touches web content will require training and support to do so accessi-
bly. The sheer size of this group can be massive. For example in an edu-
cation institution with 30 web developers and designers they may have
over 1,000 faculty and staff who place content into their Learning
Management System. Now training, tracking, and supporting those who
need accessibility knowledge and skills has become a complicated
endeavor.
Of course creating, and procuring, accessible web content is a separate

issue from maintaining it, or having it flourish in an organization. While
there are any number of resources designed to help an individual web
designer or developer create an accessible website (e.g., WebAIM, n.d.),
there are fewer resources for non-technical staff who “touch” content that
will live on the web (e.g., Whiting, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d). In educa-
tion circles, creating accessible content is only half of the battle. While the
education sector struggles to procure accessible products, or help employ-
ees understand and be skilled to execute their role in the accessibility puz-
zle, a larger problem looms. At the end of the day, the entire architecture
of a “.edu” domain must be accessible. Thus, there must be a coordinated,
centralized effort to affect large systems such as a state education system,
K-12 district, college, or university. We are essentially talking about system
change work for every educational entity. And once such large-scale work
is complete, it must be maintained.
Given shifts in personnel, administrative priorities, and technologies,
maintaining web accessibility is an under-identified battle. This battle can
only be achieved with attention to the entire system and a dedication to the
principal that the entire web architecture of the enterprise must be accessi-
ble. Not accessible pages. Not accessible units or departments, but accessi-
bility at the level of all pages within the domain string. No matter your
country of origin, if you are a medium to large organization, this can be a
daunting task. For example, in education in the United States, it is com-
mon for a large K-12 district or a community college to have hundreds of
thousands of pages that are maintained on local servers. While it is
imperative to make web accessibility happen for all content, some will pose
challenges especially if students go outside the institution to access materi-
als; examples would include, the rise of Massive Online Open Courses
(MOOC’s), Open Education Resources (OER), and gaming environments.
Certainly the accessibility of purchased software is critical as well. If an
organization does not pay attention to the accessibility of their Learning
Management System, their Financial Management System, or their Human
Resources System, they may never be fully accessible. Likewise, the prolif-
eration of mobile technologies, the growth of the Internet of Things, and

overall technology integration will each have an effect on the ways in which
educational organizations will accomplish the goal of equal access for all.
While individual local champions are important to this work, they will be
unable to steer the Titanic around the iceberg. This effort requires leader-
ship and it requires enterprise-wide coordination. This may be why web
accessibility is one of the six top policy issues to watch in higher education
in 2015 (Roscorla, 2015).
It is clear that what is needed is a coordinated system-wide approach.
Yet, without top administrative engagement, it will not succeed broadly.
The ingredient that may have been missing across all prior efforts could
well be a focus on motivating top administrators on a broad scale. The
question remains “how is it that they are compelled to select web accessibil-
ity as a campus wide initiative?” The current wave of web accessibility
work in U.S. education surrounds institutional motivation to do the work
of web accessibility on an enterprise-wide scale.
It should be noted that most administrators desire access for all, and
support the concepts of equal opportunity and web accessibility. What is at
issue for many of them are the loss of competing initiatives and the ability
to use institutional resources to affect the widest benefit possible.
While shrinking resources have added complexities and competition for
local decisions to move forward on web accessibility, at least two motiva-
tions are believed to have some traction with decision makers. One motiva-
tion is the need for top administrators to have fully formed solutions with
supports as they make decisions. During times of constrained budgets and
competing priorities, administrators are more likely to devote limited
resources to issues that offer complete information and provide scaffolding
and assistance through the entire process. Having shovel-ready solutions
that have been executed well by others with good outcomes is key. This
may help them feel that they can lead their institution in new directions
and achieve intended results. Also, having access to known solutions also
creates a conservation of resources because an administrator knows they
are not developing a local solution from the ground up, alone. Another
motivation that might influence an administrator to choose accessibility
work would be the degree to which they see the work as part of what could
be recognized by their regional accreditation commission. Institutions are
required to engage in continuous improvements during cycles of reaffirma-
tion for accreditation. It is possible that top administrators, understanding
that web accessibility efforts could also count toward required continuous
quality improvement, would choose to select web accessibility as one insti-
tutional priority. In this way they tackle one institutional problem but
receive double benefit.
ORGANIZATIONAL INDICATORS OF
WEB ACCESSIBILITY
The National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE)

capitalized on the potential to leverage both of these motivations when
they engaged in work to create a self-study process for postsecondary insti-
tutions that could be recognized by regional accreditation commissions.
The work was patterned after the success of the 2001 “Best Practices for
Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs” (Western
Cooperative for Educational Technology [WCET], 2001) which began as
an institutional self-study measure of the then unknown best components
for distance education. It resulted in adoption across all regional accredi-
tors in the United States as the de facto standard of practice across distance
education programs.
NCDAE, along with WebAIM and other partners (i.e., the Kentucky
Council on Postsecondary Education, the Southern Regional Education
Board; the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education; and the
regional accreditation commission, the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools Commission on Colleges) developed and evaluated the uti-
lity of a set of “institutional indicators” of web accessibility (Rowland,
Mariger, Whiting, & Christensen, 2009) to be used predominantly in self-
study for the purpose of continuous improvement, even during the accredi-
tation cycles of reaffirmation. It was hypothesized at the time that those in
educational settings did not have adequate models that would support the
complex needs for system change to occur in education. This system effort
bakes in both the creation and maintenance of web accessibility within an
organization. The project, Gaining Online Accessible Learning through
Self-Study (GOALS) was funded by the U.S. Department of Education

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. Through valida-
tion efforts (Mariger, 2011), and external evaluation (Worldwide Institute
for Research and Evaluation, 2011, 2015), these indicators “offer important
and effective support for creating enterprise-wide accessibility” (Worldwide
Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2015, p. 34). It should be noted that
this project was developed and executed solely in a higher education con-
text, although it is believed that it would work across organizational types.
There are four indicators GOALS staff associated with successful system
change efforts in accessibility. Each indicator is comprised of a series of
benchmarks, and each benchmark has a set of evidentiary statements
(Rowland et al., 2009). The main four institutional indicators for web
accessibility are the presence of (1) an institutional vision and a leadership
commitment for web accessibility; (2) the creation, then implementation, of
policy and plans for web accessibility; (3) provision of resources and sup-
ports for success; and (4) cycles of evaluation for both the process and the
outcomes. Simply put, the four indicators are each action steps calling for
an organization to: Commit, Implement, Support, and Assess. As each step
is a vital part of how an institution would create and maintain web accessi-
bility, each Indicator is further described.
Indicator 1: Administrative Vision and Leadership Commitment
Because enterprise-wide change will be a permanent part of the organiza-

tion, it should begin with not only the support (i.e., approval) of top
administrators, but with their leadership too. When web accessibility efforts
come only from grass roots levels which is important in its own right
it will fail to reach the saturation needed across the organization. This may
be because it never quite receives the respect or the attention that is
required. At some point, key administrators need to convey publically that
this new work is welcomed, and that results are expected within their
organization.
There are two benchmarks within this indicator that need to be
addressed. The first is that an organization needs to have a permanent pro-
duct communicating the leadership commitment to web accessibility.
Examples would include an Executive Order from a Chancellor to all
Presidents in a system (e.g., Reed, 2004), or a Presidential Directive to all
staff (e.g., Kassing, 2007). These crucial communications remind the system
of the expectations that are held at the uppermost levels. Moreover, it is a
way for the system to reflect whether or not their efforts are aligned with
these expectations.
The second benchmark in this indicator is the notion that stakeholders
are involved and that they provide input and feedback throughout the pro-
cess. Stakeholders in this context would include members from two groups.
The first are those end users with disabilities who will consume the fruits of
an organization’s labors (e.g., students, staff, and community members
with disabilities). The second are those who will be required to do some-
thing different from that which they already do to achieve accessibility.

Examples of this group would include administrators, faculty and staff,
technical personnel, accessibility specialists, organizational trainers, and
disability support personnel. At times individuals from purchasing, spon-
sored programs, risk management, and the organizational attorney may be
involved too. The reason this second benchmark is contained within an
indicator reflecting administrative commitment and vision is that represen-
tatives from each of these stakeholder groups should be expressly invited
by the uppermost administrative levels to participate in the process (i.e.,
the work of a standing committee). Few staff, students, or community
members would ignore an invitation to participate in a committee if it were
to come from a Superintendent, a President, or a Board of Trustees.
Indicator 2: Creating and Implementing the Policy and Plan
To execute web accessibility, an organization should first engage in detailed

and strategic planning. Four benchmarks comprise this indicator. The first
benchmark echoes the importance of having many stakeholder voices dur-
ing the planning process. This benchmark calls for the inclusion of key per-
sonnel. It is slightly different from the one above in that this benchmark
means that appropriate stakeholders are at the table, doing the work of
planning, whereas in the above indicator, we highlighted the criticality of
an administrative invitation to participate in the process as a sign of an
administration’s commitment to the work of the organization.
The second benchmark calls for the establishment of a comprehensive,
written organizational policy on web accessibility. Data from the GOALS
project demonstrate that system change is more likely to occur when an
organizational policy is in place (Worldwide Institute for Research and
Evaluation, 2015). This makes it less likely that shifts in personnel or
administrative initiatives will derail the organization’s efforts. Many aspects
of a policy should be considered and executed. Rowland (2012, 2013c)
provided samples of how policies in use in education address each of the

components listed below. Typical components of a policy in higher educa-
tion include the following:
• A summary statement of the policy
• Effective dates
• The scope of the policy
• A technical standard to which the organization will adhere
•
A provision for accessible procurement

• Consequences for non-conformance to the policy
• Mechanisms for ongoing review.
An Important Note about the Technical Standard

A commitment to, and declaration of, support for accessibility is meaning-
less unless measures of accessibility are defined to whom and to what
levels will your site be accessible? While an accessibility policy provides the
broad roadmap for an accessibility implementation, the technical standard
provides measures along the way to ensure that accessibility is actually
being realized.
Accessibility is about the human experience. Such experiences are diffi-
cult to quantify because users, especially those with disabilities, are so dif-
ferent. While no set of technical guidelines can guarantee a positive user
experience, guidelines do support end user accessibility and provide mea-
sures along the continuum of an accessible user experience. Guidelines also
help support implementation and evaluation of accessibility. Whiting
(2012) sketched out the relative strengths and challenges of choosing across
different technical standards (i.e., Section 508, WCAG 2.0, or a hybrid).
While there are several standards or guidelines that could be selected, we
would like to make a recommendation. The prevailing international stan-
dard, and the guidelines that are the basis for most accessibility laws
and legal actions, are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
version 2.0 (see http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/). WCAG 2.0 is a set
of guidelines formulated by the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) and
finalized in 2008. While not fully comprehensive of all aspects of accessibil-
ity, they are the most effective and well-documented guidelines readily
available.
WCAG 2.0 is organized by guiding principles. They are that web content
is Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Each success criter-
ion of WCAG 2.0 (a measure upon which compliance is defined) is assigned
a level A, AA, or AAA. Meeting level A success criteria ensure basic
access for most users with disabilities. Level AA success criteria help
remove additional barriers, difficulties, or delays in accessing web content.
Level AAA success criteria are often more burdensome to implement,
though they may provide benefit to users with certain disabilities. Most
organizations set as their technical standard the WCAG 2.0 goal of Level
A and Level AA success criteria (while addressing AAA criteria when it is
reasonable to do so). Level A/AA compliance also meets or exceeds all
legal requirements for accessible web content, including current and near-
future U.S. Section 508 requirements (U.S. Access Board, 2015). There
may be aspects of WCAG 2.0 that are not reasonable to meet at early
stages in an accessibility effort. It is recommended that you document such
deficiencies and include them in your policies and planning. It will help you
define the steps you will be required to take to address any end user impact
from those deficiencies.
The third benchmark for this indicator is translating the policy into a
written implementation plan. The plan will be more detailed, and will high-
light decisions that the committee has made. For example, how accessibility
might be rolled out over time; the sequence of individuals who will receive
training and supports; or how critical communications will be made to the
organization as a whole. This is not unlike a written transition plan enacted
by a business when the Americans with Disabilities Act worked to trans-
form the built environment. As long as a business stayed true to their
posted transition plan, they were given consideration from the courts in the
event of a complaint; nearly a safe-harbor. Two examples of web accessibil-
ity implementation plans include those from Penn State (see http://accessi-
bility.psu.edu/ati/implementationplan/) and Sonoma State (see http://www.
sonoma.edu/accessibility/web/documents/campuswebaccplan_final-draft.
pdf).
The final benchmark in this indicator is for the organization to “Do” the
work of the written implementation plan. It is unfortunate that this even
needs to be said, yet sometimes a wonderful plan is set in place, but then
never fully executed. The documentation is there, but the organizational
behavior around it is absent. Completing the strategic plan assures that
accessibility plans will be achieved as envisioned.
Indicator 3: Resources and Supports
Beyond the commitment of leadership, a policy, and a plan, the success of

any accessibility effort should include sufficient resources and supports for
those implementing accessibility. To ensure a successful effort, a proper set

of accessibility guidelines should be established, then adequate resources
and supports given to allow implementation and evaluation of those guide-
lines. There are five benchmarks for the successful implementation of this
critical indicator.
The first benchmark is a focus on personnel and the specific supports
that will be uniquely needed by each group. For example, the knowledge
and skills needed by a web developer, a faculty member, and a purchasing
agent are all different. As such, supports should be viewed as highly cus-
tomized to the needs of the individual. It is easy for organizations to con-
sider what is needed by the “system,” and forget what the individual
within the system needs. Starting to think of resources and supports with
a focus on who will be using them and how they will be used can be trans-
formational. Although web accessibility efforts will focus on the needs of
users with disabilities, attention must be given to the personnel who will
implement these efforts. Personnel should feel that expectations are realis-
tic, standards are attainable, and resources and support are available. If
employees are given new responsibilities, their role descriptions should be
updated to reflect these changes. These responsibilities should also be
communicated when interviewing and hiring new employees; preference
could even be given to applicants that already possess this skillset. In all
but the smallest organizations, a web accessibility coordinator is a neces-
sity. In fact, it is often a requirement of legal settlements and agreements
(Feingold, 2015b). This person will likely be the linchpin to this whole
process and should be selected with great care. An individual chosen from
within the organization may be familiar with the organizational structure
or culture. However, it can take several months or even longer to develop
the necessary expertise to spearhead this effort, so many groups choose to
search outside their organization for an individual with experience in this
process.
The second benchmark under Resources and Support is dear to most
employees. That is their time, and what they are tasked to do with it.
Allocating appropriate time and effort to staff so they can accomplish the
new work of web accessibility is crucial. Without understanding the impact
this will have on their time, all web accessibility effort will feel as if it is
merely an add-on. Over time personnel will be able to better integrate this
work into what they do, but failure to account for the initial learning curve
will result in abandonment by many; then the battle is one of compliance.
Also, some individuals will take a larger role in the organization’s web
accessibility work. It is important that this be considered as part of their
formal written role description, with appropriate time and effort expected
of them and evaluated annually.
As Joe Biden famously said, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me
your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value” (Eggert, 2012). The third
benchmark speaks to this concept. It is to assure that there is a sufficient
budget to support the shift to web accessibility. As with any system-level
change, sufficient budget must be allocated to meet the efforts outlined in
the implementation plan. This may include shifting salary, supporting train-
ing, funding external consultation, and purchasing equipment (Rowland,

2013a). Many accessibility efforts begin with a one-time gift to address
immediate needs, but the continued lack of a budget should be a warning
that accessibility efforts are not likely to be sustainable over time. While
the components of an accessibility budget may vary by institution, a few
important areas include salary and benefits for key accessibility staff, travel
and registration for conferences and trainings, equipment such as hardware
and software, and contracts for services such as captioning of multimedia.
Training and technical support is the fourth benchmark of this indicator.
It is a critical aspect of any accessibility effort. Personnel must be empowered
with the time, tools, knowledge and skills needed to build and maintain acces-
sibility over time. It will be critical to think through how you will deliver
training not only to the technical side of the house (i.e., web developers and
designers), but also the non-technical side (e.g., many faculty, assistants, and
student employees). For those who are technical, they will need to have a
working understanding of what you select as your technical standard. So
some training will be needed. These are typically provided in-house or
through consultants. Occasionally, an organization will structure individual
release time for technical personnel to learn on their own and then come
together for technical assistance and Q&A sessions or create mentor relation-
ships or communities of practice to accomplish this support. If you have
selected WCAG 2.0, know that it is a highly technical set of guidelines.
Interpreting and implementing them can be difficult, especially by those not
already very familiar with accessibility. However, there is a wealth of mate-
rial available so that personnel can understand and know how to meet
it (e.g., see http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/; and
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/). WebAIM has developed a
simplified checklist to aid in accessible design, development, and evaluation
(see http://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist). It is also valuable to have
customized guidelines that include techniques, resources, and supports that
address an organization’s distinct needs while still being centered on meeting
WCAG 2.0 conformance.
Even staffs that are not highly technical will need tools and education to
ensure that the web content they produce is accessible. While it is not rea-
sonable that all staff who create web-based content become web accessibil-
ity experts, the greatest success is achieved when a few core staff are given
in-depth training and when all staff that create web content understand at
least the basics of web accessibility. Some materials are beginning to appear
that cater to the non-technical crowd (e.g., Whiting, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c,
2014d).
Although some organizations provide standalone training in accessibil-

ity, those who chose to embed accessibility training when and where it
would happen naturally seem to do better at maintaining it in training over
time (e.g., a typical training on HTML, or using Word, or PowerPoint, or
Adobe Acrobat includes accessibility as part of the training). However, rea-
lize that this now means that all training staff from an organization must
be skilled in accessibility themselves.
Such a significant training investment is not always easy or even feasible,
but entities that engage in broad training with a focus on the creation of
accessible content will see far greater success than those that have key staff
tasked to resolve web accessibility issues after-the-fact. Remediating exist-
ing accessibility efforts is time-consuming and difficult, and in large entities
with a significant web presence, even a small web accessibility team may
not be able to keep up.
Fortunately most aspects of web accessibility are not difficult. Staff who
author content or design interfaces, but who are not familiar with accessi-
bility techniques or HTML code can implement basic strategies for sup-
porting accessibility such as using basic heading structures and adding
alternative text to images. Optimally, everyone who creates web content
should gain a basic understanding of the perspective of users with disabil-
ities and how they access and use the web. This can be very powerful in
motivating them to address accessibility. It makes it real and personal to
them. Web authors should also understand the incentives for implementing
web accessibility beyond the ethical motivations, accessible content is
more efficient, more search engine friendly, more usable by everyone, is
required by policy, and may help avoid complaints or lawsuits from users
or employees with disabilities. A web accessibility effort is significantly
easier when everyone involved has a basic understanding of web accessibil-
ity and empathy for the disability experience.
Despite many aspects of web accessibility being easy to understand and
implement, some systems and applications will require much more technical
web accessibility knowledge and implementation. Having key staff with

in-depth accessibility knowledge will be vital in these cases; these indivi-
duals will also end up providing technical support to others implementing
or learning web accessibility. A knowledgeable accessibility point person or
team is critical to support the accessibility of complex systems and organi-
zations. Training for these staff may be more difficult to obtain while
there are many wonderful resources online, external training and work-
shops may be most effective and will help ensure thorough and up-to-date
skills.
A Note about Resources, Tools, and Systems

While knowledgeable and well-supported staffs are the most important
aspect of a web accessibility effort, additional resources, tools, and systems
can be beneficial. Providing educational resources, such as tutorials, guide-
lines, accessibility documentation and code samples, etc. can support
ongoing education. The resources from WebAIM (see http://webaim.org/)
are freely available. Evaluation tools, such as the free WAVE (http://wave.
webaim.org/) or Tenon (http://tenon.io) or commercial tools, should be
available to help web authors test their content for accessibility. Such tools
can also be used to monitor accessibility progress over time. It is important,
however, to note that automated tools can only identify a small portion of
possible accessibility and compliance issues human evaluation will be a
necessary component of any evaluation scheme.
The last (5th) benchmark determining if an organization has adequate
Resources and Supports for web accessibility is a focus on those things that
help the user attain accessible web content. Specifically including web
accessibility into procurement, as a requirement of local web development,
and the use of tools (e.g., authoring tools) in such a way that results in
accessible content. It is critical that the systems used by site authors sup-
port accessibility. If a web-based or web authoring system does not natively
support accessibility, it becomes very difficult to achieve conformance to
the institution’s accessibility standard. Consideration should be given to
accessibility when choosing or procuring software, content, and course
management systems, e-mail platforms, business-support software, website
authoring, etc. As additional pressure is exerted on companies to build and
provide educational web-based systems that support accessibility; this pain
point in education will become less severe. Education entities are including
accessibility stipulations in procurement contracts and in early negotiations
with vendors (Rowland, 2006).
Indicator 4: Evaluating Web Accessibility Process and Outcomes
The fourth indicator of an organization which will be able to create and

maintain web accessibility over time is one who engages in ongoing assess-
ment of their process and their outcomes. There is room for improvement
in even the best-organized efforts, but these needs may not be obvious.
Sometimes they can only be uncovered through organized and systematic
evaluation.
The first of three benchmarks for this indicator requires regular evalua-
tions of the process in which your organization will engage. That is to
assess the adequacy of the policy and implementation plan that you pre-
viously created. You will want to make sure to note successes or challenges
you had as you worked to adhere to your policy and plan. Pay special
attention to deviations in your planned timelines as they may reveal impor-
tant aspects of the overall approach that needs to be changed. If you are
interested in taking an easy route, The National Center on Disability and
Access to Education (see NCDAE.org) developed a “Benchmarking and
Planning Tool” based on the four indicators for web accessibility (see
Fig. 1). The tool (http://ncdae.org/goals/planningtool.php) is designed to
Fig. 1. GOALS Benchmarking and Planning Tool.

assist organizations in this self-study process and is available free-of-charge

to institutions of higher education. From 2011 to 2014, over 50 colleges
and universities utilized the tool with good outcomes. If you use your own
internal evaluation, make sure you identify data sources that will help you
determine if your process is on track and if it is the right process for your
organization. Course corrections over time are typical.
The second benchmark for this indicator would have you evaluate the
outcomes (i.e., actual accessibility) of your websites. Policies and plans are
only useful if they result in improved web accessibility. The only way to
know if your accessibility efforts are successful is to conduct a web accessi-
bility evaluation. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the Worldwide
Web Consortium (W3C) has developed a methodology that can provide an
informative evaluation framework (Vellerman & Abou-Zahra, 2014) named
“The Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology
(WCAG-EM) 1.0.” It breaks the evaluation procedure into five steps.
While the specific requirements within this methodology may be too pre-
scriptive for some organizations, the five main steps provide a good overall
framework. They are
• Define the Evaluation Scope,
• Explore the Target Website,
• Select a Representative Sample,
• Audit the Selected Sample, and
• Report the Evaluation Findings.
The first three steps in this methodology involve preparing for the eva-
luation. Defining the scope entails specifying areas within a site that will be
included or excluded in the evaluation (e.g., subdomains, mobile versions,
additional domain names, third-party content), identifying a standard or
target (e.g., WCAG 2.0 Level AA), and listing supported browsers and
assistive technologies. Next, explore the site and identify common tem-
plates or page types, essential areas or functionality, and any out-of-the
ordinary technologies that should be included in the evaluation. Pages that
are relevant to people with disabilities (e.g., a page outlining accessibility
features) should also be included. Use this information to select a represen-
tative sample. The ideal sample size will vary based on any number of fac-
tors, such as the site’s size or complexity and number of unique pages or
functions. The reality is that time and other resources will often limit this
sample. The sample should also include a number of randomly selected
pages. WCAG-EM requires a random sample that is 10% of the structures
sample. Finally, you audit the sample. The accessibility audit is at the heart
of this evaluation process. A complete accessibility audit requires a fairly

technical background and familiarity with web accessibility principles.
However, there are a number of tools and techniques that even less techni-
cal evaluators can use to identify many accessibility issues. These tools can
help developers and content creators identify potential accessibility pro-
blems within their own content. Some tools will crawl an entire site and
report on accessibility issues that can be detected programmatically. These
types of tools can be valuable, especially in monitoring accessibility compli-
ance over time, but only a small percentage of accessibility issues can be
tested in a completely automated way. The most valuable information is
uncovered through a manual evaluation of a site sample.
A Note about Using WAVE with Your Outcome Assessment

As mentioned earlier, WAVE is a free online tool from WebAIM that can
help users identify accessibility issues on a page-by-page basis. It does this
by inserting color-coded icons that identify accessibility issues, potential
issues, and potential features that must be verified by the reviewer. WAVE
can be used to evaluate alternative text, form labels, headings,
table headers, link text, reading order, and ARIA. To use the WAVE tool
online, visit wave.webaim.org and enter the URL of the page to be evalu-
ated. WAVE will then add icons to your page (see Fig. 2).
For additional information on a specific issue, click on the correspond-
ing icon for a pop-up dialog with additional details (Fig 3). Select “More
Information” and details will appear in the left-hand sidebar about why a
specific icon appeared, how this issue can impact users with disabilities,
and how to fix it. This sidebar can also be used to hide icons for a specific
rule and filter results by WCAG 2.0 and Section 508 standards.
For those comfortable with HTML, WAVE also contains a feature to
display the source code of a page at the bottom of the screen. Fig. 4 dis-
plays this page code option.
While tools such as WAVE can be used to facilitate evaluation, some
issues must be tested manually within a browser. Additional accessibility
tests include navigating through content with a keyboard, zooming web
pages, and enlarging text (WebAIM, 2013). Testing with a screen reader
such as JAWS, NVDA, or VoiceOver is also an important step in evalua-
tion testing, but learning to use a screen reader correctly can take some
time. Testing with speech recognition software such as Dragon Naturally
Speaking can also be helpful.
The final benchmark in this indicator is the simple notion that evalua-
tion information should be used to improve the process, thereby improving
Fig. 2. WAVE Adds Icons to Your Web Page and Provides a Summary Panel.
Fig. 3. Using the “More Information” Feature of WAVE to Understand Issues.

Fig. 4. WAVE Source Code Panel.
outcomes. Sadly, some organizations engage in perfunctory evaluations

without using that information to leverage the best outcomes. Changes
are inevitable, and data-based tweaks that improve how an organization
proceeds should be welcome.
Evaluating the organizational accessibility process, progress, and out-
comes will not be worthwhile until the findings are communicated effectively
to the right people. This is where a solid report will be helpful. The structure
of a report will vary widely based on its purpose and audience, but common
elements include the report date, persons involved, introduction to the
report noting the technical standard, methodology, findings, recommenda-
tions, and an executive summary. When reporting on technical accessibility,
unless the sample is very small, most reports benefit from dividing accessi-
bility issues into one section of recurring issues and another of issues that
are unique to a specific page or section. If an automated tool was used to
analyze a larger sample, these findings should be included as well (Whiting,
2013). Reports should also include some prioritization of issues. Factors
that should be considered include impact of the issue on users with disabil-
ities, ease of repair, prevalence, and visibility (Groves, 2011).
The web-based WCAG-EM Report Tool (W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative, 2015) is available to assist in the creation of reports that align
with the above evaluation methodology. While this tool may be too rigid
for all report types, it does not have to be used in its entirety. For example,
it could be used to record the scope and collect the sample pages, but not
to record the findings of the actual audit.
The GOALS Benchmarking and Planning Tool also contains a reporting
feature that will create an automatic report from information provided by
the self-study team. This report, complete with graphs on performance
across the four key indicators is then ready for editing (Rowland, 2013b).
A sample of this report format can be found on the NCDAE website
(http://ncdae.org/resources/tips/reporting.php).
Of course it is vital to make sure that all reports are presented to indivi-
duals or teams who are empowered to implement change and that the
report format is appropriate for this audience. This usually means including
an executive summary that outlines important discoveries or issues, com-
municates the significance of these issues, and provides recommendations
and/or next steps. These recommendations must then be reintroduced into
relevant policies, plans, and development practices. Remember, the final
outcome of this entire process must be improved accessibility for indivi-
duals with disabilities.
DISCUSSION
Key Findings
Inaccessible web content is a persistent problem in education today. Until

widespread system change occurs on this topic, it is unlikely that we will
see broad improvements. Educational entities that wish to create and main-
tain accessible materials will need to grapple with enterprise-wide change at
some point. When entities attend to the four indicators for success pre-
sented in this chapter during a system change process, accessibility can be
attained and maintained. Gaining true administrative support and leader-
ship, combined with written policies and implementation plans are key to
those in education who wish to begin the journey. Once in place, providing
resources and supports to those who will do the work of accessibility writ
large is critical, as is the never-ending cycle of assessment to make data-
based improvements in the system and its outputs.
In some ways the easier part of the equation is getting web designers or
developers to make the technical changes necessary for initial accessibility
of the pages under their purview. More complex are the system issues that
will crop up to derail your efforts. One example of this would be failure to
support non-technical individuals who create accessible content since they
often do not understand the ramifications of what they do; these are often
the faculty and staff who create a great deal of content that is subsequently
posted online. Another example would be failing to include procurement in
your accessibility efforts. Until vendors routinely offer products that con-
form to international standards of web accessibility, those in education will
have to make tough choices, and many of those choices have legal and ethi-
cal implications.
Limitations
There are several limitations to using system change efforts to achieve web
accessibility in education; however, we will discuss three of the most impor-
tant. First and foremost, it is a time intensive process that should be con-
sidered continuous. For example, the California State University System
began with a three-year plan to achieve web accessibility on each of their
23 campuses. This quickly morphed to a four-, then five-year plan.
Currently, in its seventh year, the accomplishments of this system are note-
worthy, but incomplete. It may be preferable to highlight near term and
long range goals without creating an artificial endpoint.
Second, while the system of enterprise-wide change is designed to create
an institutional culture around accessibility that should be impervious to
individual decisions, it is more delicate than we would want to admit. In the
past year, we heard of a large top-tier university with which we had worked
who was at or near the height of campus implementation of web accessibil-
ity nationwide. Then they had a change in Chancellor. The new leadership
selected different institutional priorities, realigned budgets, and the accessi-
bility coordinator position was eliminated. While the policy and plan con-
tinue on paper, problems are quickly flooding into what had been a bastion
of accessibility policy and practice. This reinforces for us that each of the
four indicators should be revisited on a regular basis (e.g., annually or bian-
nually). Just because you “can do” or you “have done” does not mean you
“will do.” Getting administrative buy-in is a complex endeavor that was
thought to occur at one point in time. Now it is believed to continuously
occur or occur in regular cycles with each leadership change. It is not
because administrators lack empathy for those with disabilities. Rather,
they may experience the pull of competing priorities in conjunction with
shrinking budgets. At the end of the day, for web accessibility to raise to the
level of action for many educational organizations the problem must be well
understood by those who will make decisions. As these individuals change,
this critical component will need to be revisited.
Third, some of the components are incredibly difficult. For example,
take the simple task of making sure that all content creators have the
knowledge and skills they need to create with accessibility in mind. In
many districts, or higher education institutions this group could represent
hundreds, if not thousands of individuals. Executing successful education
and supports for such a massive endeavor is difficult, plain and simple.
Future Research
From our experience, there are any number of important questions that
should be explored. By far the topic that would benefit most from future
research would be on issues of motivation to make accessibility changes.
For example, “What are the motivators of change for an institution?”;
“Are there specific motivators that cause administrators or faculty and staff
to act?”; and, “To what degree does motivation to make the change result
in actual change?” We have heard that for many administrators, the possi-
bility of litigation does not move them to action. The thinking is that they
will wait until there is an imminent threat before they devote resources to
the problem. To help provide an additional motivator to complete the
work of web accessibility, staff from project GOALS worked with a regio-
nal accreditation commission (i.e., SACS-COC) to inculcate web accessibil-
ity into their processes (Mariger, Rowland, & Whiting, 2014). The idea was
to see if placing web accessibility into the accreditation process would
enhance motivation of top administrators to choose to work on it. We
were able to include web accessibility into the five-year reaffirmation pro-
cess where an institution can select to engage in system improvements
across any number of dimensions. The project ended before we could see if
this approach yielded positive impacts. Future research should be con-
ducted on the value of web accessibility initiatives working in consort with
reaffirmation cycles. Of course the decision to work with an accreditation
entity was designed to enhance the motivation of a top-level administrator,
but what are the motivators that help faculty and staff make the changes
that are needed today? While there are approaches that center on the use of
the “carrot” or the “stick,” do some approaches lead to more efficient, or
more sustained, behavioral changes in the ways in which individuals
perform their work? Do some act to fundamentally shift the broader cul-
ture seen in education today?
While these indicators were developed with efficiencies in mind, are there
some approaches to achieving the indicators that are more efficient than
others? Do some lead to more effective, or sustained accessibility? Cost is
an important factor too. Rowland, Goetze, and Whiting (2014) published
some cost case studies in web accessibility. Yet what does it cost to imple-
ment full-scale system change efforts across the enterprise?
Another area that deserves attention is the degree to which these indica-
tors and benchmarks for change are transferable across organizational struc-
tures. For example, while it is believed that the GOALS Benchmarking and
Planning approach should work equally well in K-12 settings, or outside of a
U.S. postsecondary context, its efficacy remains an empirical question.
Finally, future development will broaden the tools helpful to all who
engage in this work, as well as support for the most vulnerable; those per-
sonnel who are not technical. In doing so, web accessibility will become a
reality for many educational entities.
Implications for Practice
Educational organizations can create and maintain the accessibility of their

digital content yet they must do so ahead of the need. While engaging in
system-wide change it is a complex task, many tools and processes are in
place. Motivations to make the changes are being addressed, and the work
continues to gain traction at top policy levels. Even the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2006), is
concerned that distance and open education will be accessible and include
those with disabilities.
Individuals with disabilities will not have equal access to instructional
materials, and other important web communications and opportunities,
until such time as all educational organizations have engaged in the heavy
lift that is enterprise-wide change. For this is the only way to assure that
these organizations can truly create and maintain accessible web content.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the U.S. Department of
Education, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
(P116B100152). Opinions are those of the authors. No official endorsement

should be inferred.
REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.
Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Bradbard, D. A., Peters, C., & Caneva, Y. (2010). Web accessibility policies at land-grant uni-
versities. Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.007

Burdette, P., Greer, D., & Woods, K. (2013). K-12 online learning and students with disabil-
ities: Perspectives from state special education directors. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 17(3), 20 27.
Carlson, L. (n.d.). Higher Ed accessibilty lawsuits, complaints, and settlements. Retrieved from
http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/atteam/lawsuits.html
Cornelius-White, J. H., & Harbaugh, A. P. (2010). Learner-centered instruction: Building rela-
tionships for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (2013). Constructivism and the technology of instruc-
tion: A conversation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Easi. (n.d.). Equal access to software information. Retrieved from http://easi.cc
Eggert, D. (2012). 5 points vice president Joe Biden made during his Michigan campaign stop. |
MLive.com. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/5_points_
joe_biden_made_during.html
Federal Communications Commission. (2009, September). National broadband plan:
September commission meeting. Retrieved from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DOC-293742A1.pdf
Feingold, L. (2015a). Digital accessibility legal update (March 2015) Law office of Lainey
Feingold [Web log post], March. Retrieved from http://lflegal.com/2015/03/legal-
update-csun15/
Feingold, L. (2015b). US Department of justice enforcement actions (March 2015) Law office
of Lainey Feingold [Web log post], March. Retrieved from http://lflegal.com/2015/03/
legal-update-csun15/#doj
Green, R. A., & Huprich, J. (2009). Web accessibility and accessibility instruction. Journal of
Access Services, 6(1 2), 116 136. doi:10.1080/15367960802247825
Groves, K. (2011). Prioritizing remediation of web accessibility issues [Web log post], June 12.
Retrieved from http://www.karlgroves.com/2011/06/12/prioritizing-remediation/
Harris, P. (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey 2014 National report: College
students. Retrieved from http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/Pearson-HE-
Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-PUBLIC-Report-051614.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
ITTATC. (n.d.). Information technology technical assistance and training center. Retrieved from
http://ittatc.org
Kassing, D. (2007, March 12). Presidential directive 2007 02 | Office of the president | San
jose state university. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/president/directives/current/
pd0702.html
Krach, K., & Jelenic, M. (2009). The other technological divide: K-12 web accessibility.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 31 37.
Krach, S. K. (2007). Snapshot-ten years after the law: A survey of the current status of
university web accessibility. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4), 30 40.
Lewis, K., Yoder, D., Riley, E., So, Y., & Yusufali, S. (2007). Accessibility of instructional
web sites in higher education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(3), 29 35.
Mariger, H. (2011). The social validation of institutional indicators to promote system-wide web
accessibility in postsecondary institutions (10770). Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Mariger, H., Rowland, C., & Whiting, J. (2014). Web accessibility and accreditation: A blue-
print for regional agencies. National Center on Disability and Access to Education web-
site. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/documents/AccreditationBlueprint.pdf

Mead, D. (2013). The next five years of explosive internet growth, in seven graphs |
Motherboard [Web log post], June 3. Retrieved from http://motherboard.vice.com/
blog/the-next-five-years-of-explosive-internet-growth-in-seven-graphs
Narasimhan, N. (2012). Technology for accessibility in higher education − [Web log post],
January 29. Retrieved from the Center for Internet and Society website. Retrieved from
http://cis-india.org/accessibility/accessibility-in-higher-education
National Center on Disability and Access to Education. (2004, May). National summit on dis-
ability and distance education. Retrieved from http://www.ncdae.org/resources/archives/
summitnotes/
National Center on Disability and Access to Education. (2005, January). Summary of NCDAE
2005 summit meeting. Retrieved from http://www.ncdae.org/resources/archives/summit-
notes/summitatia.php
NCDAE. (n.d.). National center on disability and access to education. Retrieved from http://
NCDAE.org
Nomensa. (2006). United nations global audit of web accessibility. Retrieved from United
Nations website. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/fnomen-
sarep.pdf
Perez, T. E., & Ali, R. (2010). Joint “dear colleague” letter: Electronic book readers. Retrieved
from Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education website. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html
Pew Research Center. (2014). Emerging nations embrace internet, mobile technology. Retrieved
from http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/02/Pew-Research-Center-Global-Attitudes-
Project-Technology-Report-FINAL-February-13-20147.pdf
Reed, C. (2004). Chancellor’s office executive Order 926. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.
edu/eo/EO-926.html
Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer, & Liu. (2010). Reviewing a decade of published, peer-
reviewed research on online learning and students with disabilities. Pg 136 in Greer,
D., Rice, M. & Dykman, B. (2014). In R. E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.),
Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 135 159). Pittsburgh,
PA: ETC Press.
Ringlaben, R., Bray, M., & Packard, A. (2014). Accessibility of American university special
education departments’ web sites. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(2),
249 254.
Rodgers, M. (2015, July 4). Government accessibility standards and WCAG 2. Retrieved from
http://www.powermapper.com/blog/government-accessibility-standards/
Roscorla, T. (2015, January 15). Top 6 higher ed digital policy issues to watch in 2015.
Retrieved from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/news/Top-6-Higher-Ed-Digital-Policy-
Issues-to-Watch-in-2015.html
Rowland, C. (2003). Accessibility in our schools. CPD News, 26(1 2), 6 10.
Rowland, C. (2006, April). Let the buyer be aware: The importance of procurement in accessibility
policy. Retrieved from http://www.ncdae.org/resources/articles/procurement.php
Rowland, C. (2012). NCDAE Blog Looking to the work of others as you create your institu-
tion’s web accessibility policy [Web log post], December 13. Retrieved from http://
ncdae.org/blog/web-accessibility-policy/
Rowland, C. (2013a, February). Writing a solid web accessibility policy: Cornell gets it right.
Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/tips/cornell.php

Rowland, C. (2013b). NCDAE Blog Budgeting for web accessibility [Web log post], April.
Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/blog/budgeting-for-web-accessibility/
Rowland, C. (2013c, July). Reporting on your web accessibility findings: It can be easy using the
GOALS tool. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/tips/reporting.php
Rowland, C. (2014). A traveler’s notepad: Reflections on a journey toward web accessibility.
Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from http://itd.athen-
pro.org/volume14/number1/index.html
Rowland, C., Burgsthaler, S., Smith, J., & Coombs, N. (2004, April). Issues in accessing dis-
tance education technologies for individuals with disabilities. Retrieved from http://ncdae.
org/resources/articles/technology.php
Rowland, C., Goetze, L., & Whiting, J. (2014). GOALS cost case study: Costs of web accessibil-
ity in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ncdae.org/documents/GOALS_
Cost_Case_Study.pdf
Rowland, C., Mariger, H., Whiting, J., & Christensen, W. (2009). Best practice indicators for
institutional web accessibility. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/goals/indicators.cfm
Schmetzke, A. (2001). Online distance education −“anytime, anywhere” but not for everyone.
Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.itd.
athenpro.org/volume7/number2/axel.html
Seal, J. K. (2015). Review of the book E-Learning and disability in higher education:
Accessibility research and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 38(2), 305 307.
Section 508.gov. (n.d.). Other relevant laws. Retrieved from http://www.section508.gov/other-
relevant-laws
Section 508 of the Revised Rehabilitation Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. Retrieved from http://www.
section508.gov/Section-508-Of-The-Rehabilitation-Act
Smith, A., Rainie, L., & Zickurh, K. (2011). Pew research center report: College students and
technology. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/07/19/college-students-
and-technology/
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., Moore, E., Gunderson, J., & Hoyt, N. (2007). International
research on web accessibility for persons with disabilities. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),
Managing worldwide operations and communications with information technology.
Hershey, PA: Information Resources Management Association. Retrieved from http://
staff.washington.edu/tft/research/international
UNESCO. (2006). ICTs in education for people with special needs. Retrieved from http://iite.
unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214644.pdf
U.S. Access Board. (2015). About the section 508 standards. Retrieved from http://www.access-
board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-
standards
U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Advance notice of proposed rulemaking Accessibility
of web information and services of state and local government entities and public accom-
modations. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/web%20anprm_2010.htm
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2012, September). Section 508 report to the
president and congress: Accessibility of federal electronic and information technology.
Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/508/508_Report.htm
Vellerman, E., & Abou-Zahra, S. (Eds.). (2014, July 10). Website accessibility conformance eva-
luation methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. Retrieved from www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2015, February 26). WCAG-EM Report tool website accessi-
bility evaluation report generator. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/
Watson, J., & Murin, A. (2014). A history of K-12 online and blended instruction in the
United States. In R. E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12
online and blended learning (pp. 1 24). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
WebAIM. (2013, October 28). WebAIM: Quick reference Testing web content for accessibil-
ity. Retrieved from http://webaim.org/resources/evalquickref/
WebAIM. (n.d.). WebAIM: Keeping web accessibility in mind. Retrieved from http://
webaim.org
West, M., & Chew, H. E. (2014). Reading in the mobile era: A study of reading in developing
countries (227436e). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
website. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002274/227436e.pdf
Western Cooperative for Educational Technology. (2001). Best practices for electronically
offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved from http://wcet.wiche.edu/wcet/
docs/cigs/studentauthentication/Accrediting_BestPractices.pdf
White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2015, June 25). FACTSHEET: ConnectED: two
years of delivering opportunity to K-12 schools and libraries. Retrieved from https://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/25/fact-sheet-connected-two-years-deliver
ing-opportunity-k-12-schools
Whiting, J. (2012, September 17). Choosing a technical web accessibility standard. Retrieved
from http://ncdae.org/blog/choosing-a-standard/
Whiting, J. (2013). Evaluating your Institution’s web accessibility efforts. Part 2: Evaluating the
product. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/tips/2012product.php
Whiting, J. (2014a, April). Creating accessible microsoft powerpoint 2011 presentations (Mac).
Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/cheatsheets/powerpoint-mac.php
Whiting, J. (2014b, April). Captioning youtube videos. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/
resources/cheatsheets/youtube.php
Whiting, J. (2014c, June 14). Creating accessible microsoft word 2013 documents (Windows).
Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/cheatsheets/word2013.php
Whiting, J. (2014d, September). Creating accessible spreadsheets in microsoft excel 2010/13
(Windows) & 2011 (Mac). Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/cheatsheets/excel.php
Whiting, J., Rowland, C., Dane, J., Smith, J., Anderson, S., Lyman, M., Bohman, P., &
Pavithran, S. (2004). Coordination and leadership training [CD-ROM]. Logan, UT:
Utah State University, Center for Persons with Disabilities.
Wijayaratne, A., & Singh, D. (2010). Is there space in cyberspace for distance learners with
special needs in Asia? A review of the level of Web accessibility of institutional and
library homepages of AAOU members. International Information & Library Review,

42(1), 40 49. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.01.002
World Internet Users Statistics and 2015 World Population Stats. (2015, July). Retrieved from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Worldwide Institute for Research and Evaluation. (2011). Summative evaluation of the GOALS
report: External evaluation of P116B070167. Logan, UT: WIRE.
Worldwide Institute for Research and Evaluation. (2015). Evaluation of the national consortium
to broaden access to electronically mediated education through institutional accreditation:
External evaluation of P116B100152. Logan, UT: WIRE.
1. Rita Ismailova, Yavuz Inal. 2018. Accessibility evaluation of top university websites:
a comparative study of Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Universal
Access in the Information Society 17:2, 437-445. [Crossref]

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR ONLINE
LEARNING
Anne Guptill
ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses a bottom-up design strategy to support the princi-

ples of Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning adapted for
online course development. The concept of Universal Design demands a
holistic, bottom-up instructional design model for online course develop-
ment that integrates technology, accessibility, recent instructional and
learning theories, and a participatory postmodern worldview. This study
is intended for faculty, instructional designers, administrators, assistive
technology staff, and Web multimedia software vendors associated with
higher education. The research assists these target audiences to design
and develop online courses that are accessible without special adaptation
or modification. The components of Universal Design for online learning
support newer emergent approaches to instructional design, various pro-
gramming solutions used in the software engineering field for efficiency,
Universal Design for Learning, and legal guidelines associated with
accessibility.
Keywords: Universal design; instructional design models; online
learning

ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002003
47
48 ANNE GUPTILL
Universal design started as a movement in architectural design in 1985 to

address accessibility in housing. However, during the past 20 years, the uni-
versal design approach is practiced in such fields as product design, urban
design and civic engineering, landscape design, information technology,
telecommunications, and education. The impetuses for this movement in
the United States were the legal mandates of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and the American Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Both of these acts
have provisions for people with disabilities. The principles of universal
design have expanded from concerns about legislated accessibility guide-

lines that address only the special needs of a few, to an inclusive design pro-
cess that benefits everyone. The seven principles of universal design
promote equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive, perceptible
information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and appropriate size
and space for approach and use when designing products or environments
(Center for Universal Design, 2008).
Allen and Seaman (2014) in a survey conducted by Babson Survey
Research Group for the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) found that
over 7.1 million students took an online course in the fall of 2012. From
2002 to 2012, this is an increase of 16.1% and compares to 1.2% growth in
the total student population of higher education. Brault (2012) reports sta-
tistics from the U.S. Census Bureau that 56.7 million people in the United
States have a disability, 19% of the population, or 1 in 5 people.
Narrowing the statistics to the audience of adult learners in higher educa-
tion, Microsoft (2004) reports that 57% of adult computer users have a
disability.
There are many benefits and future possibilities of universal design
for distance education. The impact of technology is greater in the field
of distance learning than any other area of education. New assistive
technology tools have been developed to assist a person with a disabil-
ity using the online environment and the anonymity of the online envir-
onment has given disabled learners the chance to take courses when it
may not be possible, or at least difficult, in the traditional face-to-face
classroom. However, there are many challenges to be considered. Many
of the specific challenges of implementing universal design in distance
education are the same challenges being experienced in other fields;
however, Universal Design for online learning as a subset of Universal
Design has unique instructional design, legal, and technological issues
to consider.
Universal Design 49
ADAPTIVE, ACCESSIBLE, USABLE, AND

UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The definition of Universal Design (UD) is distinguished from related

terms such as accessible design, adaptable design, or usable design. The
terms are similar but have important subtle differences. Universal Design
strives to design products that are usable by all people, to the greatest
extent possible. Whereas accessible design meets the needs of a selected
segment of the population with disabilities and adaptive design includes

features that can be adapted to the needs of particular users. To further
illustrate the differences, Table 1 lists the distinguishing characteristics and
indicates that if design is based on the Universal Design concept at the first
stage and throughout a project; all necessary functions are embedded so
that the functions can be used without modification of adaptation.
The practice of universal design emphasizes quality and a bottom-up
design approach that begins with the needs of all users, with disabilities or
without disabilities, making the incorporation of accessibility requirements
transparent. Designing products and environments from the outset pro-
duces a visual and functional integration that distinguishes universal design
from accessible design. Universal design should also be distinguished from
assistive technology. Since universal design can reduce the need for assistive
technology by providing for accommodations in the design (Bowe, 2000).
Sandu (2001) maintains that although not everyone needs assistive technol-
ogy or specialized products, everyone needs good design. “Good design
enables, and bad design disables, irrespective of the user’s abilities” (p. 3.7).
There are two types of accessibility for learning applications: equivalent
access and alternate access (Egan, Guptill, Johnson, Nozicka, & Van
Duzer, 2004). The disabled learner is provided the same content as a lear-
ner who is not disabled, but in a different with equivalent access. For exam-
ple, digital text that can be read by a screen reader is considered equivalent
access. Alternative access gives disabled learners a different learning activ-
ity. The goal is to provide equivalent access whenever possible. When
equivalent access is built into the environment, the results benefit all.
Speech recognition software is an example of technology that that has
become mainstream and used by people that do not have disabilities.
Compliance with accessibility requirements is the cornerstone of univer-
sal design but universal design is not a synonym for accessibility.
Accessible designs are usually different from “normal” designs and have
50
Table 1. Distinctions among Accessible Design, Adaptive Design, and Universal Design.
Accessible Design Adaptive Design Universal Design
Definition The design of specialized The design of environments to The design to be usable by all people,
products to meet the needs of include features that can be to the greatest extent possible,
a selected segment of the total readily adapted to the needs of without the need for adaptation of
user population. particular users. specialized design.
Good example(s) Building code accessibility Braille overlays. Auto door opener and curb cuts.
requirements such as a ramp.
Distinguishing Typically different from Existing product or environment Integration is in the early part of the
characteristics “normal” designs such as an must be adapted, adjusted, or design phase and not adapted after
add-on ramp. added onto in order to make it construction. Solutions do not
May contribute to segregation more usable. segregate users.
and stigma. Does not become less usable by those
Design solutions tend to be who do not have a disability.
more expensive.
Source: Adapted from Definitions: Accessible, Adaptable, and Universal Design by the Center for Universal Design (2008). Retrieved
from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/Fact%20Sheet%206.pdf. Copyright 2006 by the Center of Universal Design.
ANNE GUPTILL
Universal Design 51
added expense. Universal designs require no adaptation and do not segre-

gate users (Ostroff, 2001).
MOVING BEYOND THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES

ACT
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 2010 ADA standards
for Accessible Design protect the rights of people with disabilities to ensure
that they are not denied access to goods or services because of their disabil-
ity (2010 ADA standards, 2010). There is a commonality between the ADA
requirements and Universal Design, but there are also differences. The
ADA protects the rights of people with disabilities, while Universal Design
is about good practice in design with everyone in mind, or at least the
majority.
It is not accurate to categorize people as having a disability and not hav-
ing a disability since the range of capabilities varies with life stage, the task
and the environment. Monaghan (2010) states that most people will have a
disability in their lifetime, especially with an aging population. Universal
design, being inclusive, is not limited to physical disabilities such as mobi-
lity impairments, blindness, or hearing impairments. Changes in a person’s
capabilities can occur any time in the life of a person that can affect a per-
son’s ability to interact in the online environment. A person with a broken
wrist or a repetitive strain injury has similar needs as a person that is per-
manently paralyzed. Someone working in a noisy environment needs alter-
nate sources of information like a deaf person (Burgstahler, 2005;
Monaghan, 2010).
DESIGNING FOR THE SECONDARY AUDIENCE

THOSE WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Instructional designers do an analysis based on understanding learner char-
acteristics, needs, tasks, and environments. While claiming learner needs,
most analyses have a limited view and do not include students with disabil-
ities. Bergman and Johnson (1995) argue that designing for the average is
exclusionary because the average user is fictitious. Learning styles, age, gen-
der, and spatial memory are discussed often in the literature while disability
52 ANNE GUPTILL
issues are ignored (Monaghan, 2010). When the learner is redefined in

universal design, a much wider range of people with multiple individual dif-
ferences can be accommodated.
A criticism of universal design is that it limits creativity in design.
Architects soon realized that if the needs of users could be considered at
the beginning of the design process, accessibility requirements could be sub-
tly integrated into the design. The entrance to the Louvre Museum in Paris,
with an elevator designed within a spiral pyramid-shaped staircase is a
good example of how architects improved esthetics and functionality when

they were challenged to be innovative. Morse-Fortier and Reiter (1994)
describe a current MIT course in architectural design where students are
asked to continue this innovative thinking by reflecting on whether the
typical stair and disability ramp dual structure is an architectural necessity
as a response to accessibility legislation or if there are possibilities and ben-
efits other than designing two separate paths.
It became apparent that many features that incorporated accessibility
accommodation could actually benefit everyone by being less expensive as
well as attractive. This laid the foundation for the universal design move-
ment with the intent of making products and communications that simplify
the life of everyone at little or no extra cost to benefit people of all ages
and abilities. The concept of a design that focused on access for all spread
to design in other fields with the realization that there was an unexpected
benefit: “addressing the divergent needs of special populations increases
usability for everyone” (Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. 71).
An example of the benefits to all users includes the curb cutouts that were
designed for people with wheelchairs. Another example is the change in door
handles. It is easier to push down a handle than turn a knob for all users.
The cutouts benefited people pushing strollers and made walking easier for
everyone. Television captioning is another example. Closed-captioning that
was intended for individuals who are hearing impaired also benefits people
who watch television in a quiet environment and captioning digital video
allows people to work online in the quiet environment of a library or office.
At the Open University in the United Kingdom, a virtual microscope was
developed for students with disabilities to allow participation in the learning
activities necessary to reach the learning objectives in an online course. The
virtual microscope proved to be superior to the mainstream microscope and
it is now used by all of the students (The Virtual Microscope, n.d.; Making
Educational Software and Web Sites Accessible, n.d.).
When designing online learning courses, thought must be given not only
to accessibility for individuals with disabilities but also to how does the
Universal Design 53
design benefit the majority of people as well. Every student should receive
what he or she needs regardless of ability. Lifelong adult learners can espe-
cially benefit from universally designed Web-based courses in higher educa-
tion. Osborne (2001) considers implementing universal design and going
beyond accessibility requirements in Web-based materials as “communicat-
ing across a lifetime” (para. 1).
WEB ACCESS
WebAim (2010) explains that the Web is a solution for people with disabil-
ities to access information, not a barrier. When the design of instruction for
Web-based learning begins with incorporating accessibility and Universal
Design principles are integrated throughout the process, accessibility fea-
tures become transparent and instruction does not need to be retrofitted to
accommodate disabled learners. Examples of retrofitting instructional
design in online education are adding closed-captioning to a video for an
online hearing impaired student or adding alternative text to explain a
complex graphic diagram to a blind student. Closed-captioning can benefit
not only the hearing impaired but those working in a quiet environment
who cannot hear the video sound. Alternative text for graphics can benefit
all users with graphics turned off on small computers, PDAs, and cell
phones. Accessible digital multimedia for online instruction can provide
multi-modal access to information that can improve learning for non-dis-
abled students (National Center for Accessible Media, 2009).
United States Access Board (n.d.) explains the legal history of accessibility
guidelines related to electronic and information technologies. An amendment
to the Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was signed into law in the
United States in 1998 that overhauled Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
requiring web sites and online courses that were developed or purchased by
the federal government to be accessible by people with disabilities.
Section 508 guidelines for Web and multimedia accessibility were based on
the Web accessibility guidelines developed by the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C). W3C standards for accessibility have three different
checkpoint priority levels. Section 508 guidelines compare to the priority one
checkpoints of the W3C. Australia and Germany have also based their
guidelines on the priority one checkpoints. Other countries such as the
United Kingdom and Canada have extended compliance to include priorities
two and three (Egan, et al., 2004). If distance learning programs are not
54 ANNE GUPTILL
required to comply with Section 508, the Section 508 guidelines can be used
as a model to ensure that individuals can participate in online courses.
Instructional design has moved to designing courses for the Web and it is
critical that the insights of Universal Design be integrated into the profession
of online instructional design (Bergman & Johnson, 1995; Burgstaher, 2001).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING

The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), a nonprofit organiza-
tion, was founded in 1984 to develop technologies that would expand learn-
ing opportunities to individuals with disabilities in the K-12 traditional
classroom (CAST Universal Design for Learning, 2010). CAST is credited
with starting the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) movement in K-12
education, reflecting similar advances being made in architecture and pro-
duct development, stating that the future is in the margins of the learners
who get pushed aside. The principles of universal design used in architec-
ture and information technology expanded to education. Universal design
for learning addresses diverse ways of learning. When the design of pro-
ducts and environments is extended to educational settings, the application
of universal design goes beyond the classroom space and into cognitive
learning space. Universal design for learning considers both the physical
and cognitive environments (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Danielson (1999) pro-
moted universal design of instructional materials to make learning goals
achievable by students with differences in abilities “to see, hear, speak,
move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and
remember” (p. 2).
Flexible materials provide alternatives that are built into the instruc-
tional design and systems and not added after-the-fact. The principles of
Universal Design for Learning draw on the latest brain research, multime-
dia technology, and assistive technology. UDL principles include (a) multi-
ple and flexible means of representation to support recognition learning
and give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge,
(b) multiple means of expression to support strategic learning and provide
learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know, (c) multiple means
of engagement to support affective learning and offer appropriate chal-
lenges and increase motivation (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The commonality of
these principles is a wider variety of options for accessing, using, and enga-
ging with learning materials to reduce barriers for learners with disabilities
Universal Design 55
but also increase opportunity for all learners based on the individual
strengths and needs of every student (see Table 2).
The concept of UDL had been called an “intersection of initiatives”
(Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. 7) that integrates varied media, tools, and meth-
ods to support findings about multifaceted learning from new brain
research, embedded performance-based assessment, cooperative learning,
multiple intelligences and other differentiated instruction initiatives, along
with the demonstration of learning through resources made available with
computers and digital media.

To accomplish individualized instruction that is inclusive, UDL advo-
cates using diverse tools and media with flexibility built into the materials
to support recognition learning, affective learning, and strategic learning.
Rose and Meyer (2002) describe how individualized instruction can be
accomplished with diverse tools and media and flexibility built into the
materials. To provide recognition learning, multiple examples, media, and
formats are provided while highlighting critical features and supporting
background knowledge. To provide affective learning, choices of learning
context, content, and tools are provided that provide adjustable levels of
challenge. To provide strategic learning, models, practice with supports
and ongoing feedback are provided supported with multiple tools for skill
expression.
The Role of Digital Media
Rose and Meyer (2002) compare the traditional instructional media that
includes speech, text, and images with digital media that is more flexible
and can be networked, transformed, and marked. Markup languages such
as XML give more options than HTML for tagging structural components
Table 2. Principles of Universal Design for Learning.

Principle Definition and Guidelines for Use
Multiple means of This principle supports recognition learning and gives learners
representation various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.
Multiple means of This principle supports strategic learning and provides learners
expression alternatives for demonstrating what they know.
Multiple means of This principle supports affective learning and taps into learners’
engagement interests by offering appropriate challenges and increases
motivation.
56 ANNE GUPTILL
and even allow the designer to invent markup tags. Using markup and
tags, the display can be directed with different components. Digital tools
can be used by instructional designers to tailor media to the task, indivi-
dualize instruction, and learning that can reduce the barriers of printed
text. The transformability of digital media improves learning access since
assistive technology relies on digital media (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
The Role of Assistive Technology
Assistive technologies include such tools as screen readers, screen and video
enlargers, alternative keyboards, single ability switches (allowing different
muscles such as an eyebrow or elbow to activate a mouse-click), refreshable
Braille displays, and voice-recognition software. Instructional designers
should understand how learners with disabilities experience access to online
course content or their ability to address problems will be limited (Egan,
et al., 2004). These tools assist people with disabilities and are necessary for
access. However, Rose and Meyer (2002) state that if students need to
obtain individual tools to overcome barriers in an inflexible curriculum,
proponents of universal design for learning believe it is contrary to the con-
cepts of universal design for learning (similar to the idea of retrofitting
buildings in architecture). Instead, the curriculum should build in the flex-
ibility, using digital media, to access information with the individual’s assis-
tive devices. Assistive devices become like eyeglasses and a disabled person
is not separated to the category of “disabled.” One of the goals of universal
design for learning is to minimize the need for assistive technology and
special adaptation. Many types of digital media have been developed that
are not accessible with assistive devices. These barriers can be removed if
technology developers and instructional designers can implement the prin-
ciples of universal design for learning, making the use of assistive devices
transparent.
THE TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL

DESIGN PROCESS
The traditional or generic design model for the instructional design process
is a linear process defined by sequential steps within the phases of analysis,
design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The process is
Universal Design 57
Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and has commonly been referred to as

ADDIE, an acronym for the major phases that comprise the model
Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. Based on an
instructional design process developed by the Florida State University in
1975, the ISD process model was first used by the Armed Services to
develop training. At that time, the military called the process Systems
Approach to Training (SAT) and civilians called the approach ISD (Clark,
2005; Molenda, 2003). The ADDIE model has become synonymous with
ISD and variations of the ADDIE model have been developed over time.
Linear instructional design processes are no longer considered the most
appropriate processes for creating e-learning in rapidly changing learning
environments (Kays & Sims, 2006; Reigeluth, 1999; Sims & Jones, 2003).
The ISD linear process has been criticized and challenged due to the impact
of computer technology coupled with evolving theories of learning and
design. Hakkinen (2002) argues that more sophisticated models of design-
ing instruction are called for that support the more open computer-based
learning environments, emphasize deep, rather than surface knowledge,
and focus on customized models that support teamwork. The open
computer-based learning environments include online learning where the
Internet transfers information to the computer. Hakkinen further states
there is a discrepancy between the body of knowledge about learning
theories, instructional theories, and instructional design principles and the
knowledge about online learning technologies. Examples of areas affected
by these discrepancies are the student’s identification with learning styles
and strategies, and looking beyond the course structure and content to find
other channels of information. He suggests that instead of comparing com-
puter-based learning environments with other modes of instruction, it
would be beneficial to focus on improving quality, increasing access, and
reducing costs.
Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2004) describe some of the problems with
the linear ISD approach. Following a linear path, without exception, can
be mechanistic rather than humanistic and limits creativity. For example, a
humanistic approach should recognize individual differences, capabilities,
and personal goals and development. The approach to learning paths can
be more humanistic if an integrated approach is used that can be arranged
as necessary to accommodate student-centered learning.
Bransford (1991) states that one of the reasons why the ISD approach is
used in instructional design is because, “In many cases systematic instruc-
tional design seems to have been a response to the pragmatic reality of
instructors with no or little teaching knowledge or expertise” (p.16).
58 ANNE GUPTILL
Similarly, Wilson (1997a) observed that the ISD approach may be used
because it simplifies the process for novice designers as well who use it as a
“recipe” (i.e., cookbook approach).
Gordon and Zemke (2000) argue that the linear instructional design
methodology of ISD is too slow and clumsy since it is time consuming and
costly and by the time a course is complete, the training opportunity may
have passed; it is too process-driven, rather than results-driven; produces
bad solutions; and people do not follow the complex steps of the process.
Regarding academic online courses, Zemke and Rossett (2002) report that
many ISD experts believe that the ISD process should not be used as step-
by-step guide, but instead, it should be used as a general guide or project
management tool because of time and effort constraints. Zemke and
Rossett further state that although the need for a systematic approach for
design is valued as a disciplined method, attempting to follow all of the
steps in the long linear process can present significant cost and speed issues.
Zemke and Rossett quote Gustafson as saying, “Compromise is one of
those words we don’t use very often with our students …. We don’t teach
them anything about efficiency … and we do a lousy job of preparing them
for the real world” (para. 15). Wilson (1997b) states that instructional
designers must be willing to break the rules. Models are meant to serve and
instructional designers should have the wisdom to know when to use them
and when to change the rules, placing principles above procedures.
Gordon and Zemke (2000) argue that the ISD linear model is holding on
to the wrong worldview. The authors state that the model assumes that lear-
ners are “stupid” by presenting the lowest common denominator of instruc-
tion. The ISD approach gives attention to low-level outcomes rather than
higher-order outcomes because of the inflexible elements of the ISD process.
Instructional design theorists started to question the compatibility of the
linear ISD design with emerging constructivist learning theories
(Bransford, 1991; Tobias, 1991). The emergence and influence of construc-
tivism and student-centered instruction versus instruction-centered learning
made the shortcomings of the traditional ISD model more apparent.
Reigeluth (1999) stated that if instructional systems are undergoing sys-
temic changes, the subsystems need to change or risk becoming obsolete.
Gordon and Zemke (2000) attached the ISD model and questioned the
contemporary relevance and efficacy of the ISD process. This chapter
prompted much controversy such that Zemke and Rossett (2002) later
wrote a follow-up to summarize additional issues with the ISD model such
as whether or not the model was still relevant or if the fundamental pro-
blem involved how the model was translated into practice.
Universal Design 59
BOTTOM-UP DESIGN
Universal Design is a holistic, integrated, bottom-up approach to design

where the inclusion of accessibility requirements is transparent since the
elements of the system are specified in detail at the beginning, and then
linked together as subsystems until the top-level system is complete
(Goldsmith, 2001; Ostroff, 2001). Pullin (2009) believes that the fields of
design and accessibility can be inspirational to each other since designers
challenge constraints and explore. The bottom-up approach to design

requires designs that begin with the needs of all users, instead of using a
top-down design that includes prescriptive legislated requirements for
accessibility. The top-down approach for making buildings accessible, for
example, does not make buildings more convenient for everyone and retro-
fitting later to accommodate individuals with disabilities relates to the con-
cept “separate is not equal” (p. 1.5), established precedent of equal
opportunity (Ostroff, 2001). Butler, Holden, and Lidwell (2003), identify
accessibility as a universal design principle and propose that following
design principles “increases the probability that a design will be successful”
(p. 11). Stanford University’s Online Accessibility Program (2006) states,
“Producing accessible web content needs to be integrated into all aspects of
the work flow web accessibility is not a bolt on feature” (para. 22). The
bottom-up approach to design also eliminates the need for retrofitting with
increased costs after-the-fact. Kays and Sims (2006) state that a bottom-up
design is a shift from systems or process design. A design process that fol-
lows a prescribed form may not be the best approach for solving complex
problems that deal with systemic and chaotic thinking. Emergent learning
theory, a design where systems operate from the bottom-up, encourages
adaptation and creativity. When applying emergent theory to the online
environment, the authors state that this environment is an example of com-
plex problem solving since the interaction is spontaneous and even random.
Universal design should be infused in the design process from the begin-
ning and continued throughout the process. Taking this a step further,
including people with disabilities, as well as disability resources, in all
phases of the process is critical. Input from the end-user as the ultimate sta-
keholder, or learners who will actualize the system, is crucial to the team.
Working in a team, online faculty can receive “on the job” professional
development to understand the knowledge provided by a design support
team, learning about accessibility implementation, the online learning
environment, and online pedagogy that is constructivist and inclusive based
on the principles of universal design for learning.
60 ANNE GUPTILL
Salingaros (2006) defines bottom-up design as an evolving design in real

time with the form changed in collaboration with users. In contrast,
Salingaros (2006) describes top-down design as intentional design based on
prototypes with predictable results and bottom-up design as evolving with
unexpected results and novel configurations. A top-down approach uses
proven forms and therefore is less collaborative and the result is usually the
work of a single person. Salingaros describes the bottom-up approach to
design as having significant input from several people that work within the
design constraints allowing for self-organization and adaptation. The

design becomes participatory as a collective design.
Goldsmith (2001) describes the bottom-up approach of Universal
Design as being incompatible with prescriptive design standards since
designers should “constantly be looking to expand accommodation para-
meters of normal provision” (p. 25.1). Since designing for all may be an
elusive goal, Goldsmith does not believe prescriptive design standards
based on regulatory controls are possible with a bottom-up approach. For
example, a door handle, designed specifically for accessibility, may be use-
ful for a person with a disability, or a person holding groceries, but it may
be dangerous for a small child that can open the door to the street. In terms
of online courses in education, this means that we cannot only design
courses based on accessibility mandates, we must design courses for the
greatest number of people. Goldsmith adds, however, that following broad,
informative design guidelines can help.
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PROCESSES
In the fields of engineering and software development the long linear devel-
opment processes of the traditional methodologies have received similar
criticisms. One of the biggest issues with the linear Software Development
Life Cycle (SDLC) model is the amount of time spent in the up-front
design and analysis phases followed by development before reaching the
implementation and evaluation phases. The SDLC process has been called
the waterfall model since it steps through stages of design and development
in a strict sequence (Sommerville, 1982). Spending more time in the analysis
and design phases was supported by the logic that good planning can pre-
vent costly mistakes and time in development (Pressman, 2005). In the engi-
neering field, this assumption has been discredited after 30 years of work
with databases and software development practices, finding that the cost of
Universal Design 61
change rises exponentially by phases, but the linear model of development

is so ingrained, it is certain to last for some time (Smith & Reinertsen,
1998). Since each phase flows to the next, the delay of evaluation and test-
ing still creates rework with changes. In a long linear process, when there
are changes in functionality or scope and time has been invested in plan-
ning, design, and development, the time lost and expense of redesigning
and redevelopment can be significant (Bransford, 1991).
In the software engineering domain, agile methodologies and other
newer adaptive or “light weight” methodologies (i.e., agile development)

have been developed that are lists of features, individual qualities and tech-
niques or heuristics, instead of rigid steps for design and development
(Fowler, 2003). The adaptive agile methodologies allow changing require-
ments even late in development to be accommodated. Pressman (2005)
states that these newer methodologies are considered “light” methodologies
but they are not anti-methodology, instead balance in the process is the
goal. Concurrent development, rather than sequential, is achieved by itera-
tive planning and development where people are moved around and cross-
trained. Delivery is made directly after each development iteration. With
this approach, the implementation and evaluation phases do not need to
wait until the development cycle is complete. At the end of each iteration
cycle, project teams ask what went well, what could be improved, and what
enhancements can be made. These are action points to carry forward to the
next iteration (Pressman, 2005; Reinertsen, 1997; Smith & Reinertsen,
1998). An additional feature of the agile software development process is
the emphasis on face-to-face communication with teams that work in a
“bullpen” and include programmers, clients, business analysts, testers, tech-
nical writers, and project managers (Boehm & Turner, 2004). The close
proximity of the working team and highly collaborative environment elimi-
nates the need for much written documentation. The emphasis is on effi-
ciency and building software in a short time frame.
COURSE CREATION AND DELIVERY USING

LEARNING OBJECTS
Software engineering and instructional design have different methodologies

for design. Within software engineering, there are also programming para-
digms or programming solutions. Object-oriented programming is one pro-
gramming paradigm that uses objects to design applications since objects
62 ANNE GUPTILL
can be used for repeatable solutions to common problems in software

design. The reusability of objects is time and cost effective in software pro-
gramming. The concept of reusing objects extended to instructional design
with the work done on knowledge objects by Merrill (2000). Since then,
learning objects have been a popular solution or “instructional paradigm”
similar to the programming paradigm in software engineering. The goal is
for reusability of educational resources in different learning environments
by different learners.
Feasibility of Using Learning Objects
The literature on learning objects describes their potential for cost and time
savings (Downes, 2000; Hodgins, 2000; Wiley, 2002). To examine the feasi-
bility of using learning objects in the design of online courses, Christiansen
and Anderson (2004) analyzed three case studies in different university-
level disciplines with emphasis on the availability, benefits and barriers of
using publicly available learning objects.
Object-oriented designs have facilitated reusability since learning content
can be designed in small chunks. These chunks of learning content can be
combined and edited for reuse within a discipline or across disciplines
(Wiley, 2002). The learning objects can be reused in different learning con-
texts. There are many different definitions of learning objects in the litera-
ture, but Wiley’s (2002) of a learning object is “any digital resource that
can be reused to support learning” (p. 6). Longmire (2000) categorizes the
benefits of using learning objects in course design as flexibility, ease of
updates, customization, interoperability, facilitation of competency-based
learning, and increased value of content.
In the three case studies performed by Christiansen and Anderson
(2004), new instructional designs were not introduced to the subject matter
experts or faculty, rather the study only incorporated the use of learning
objects that could fit with their existing practice. An instructional designer
was purposely not included in the production process. Results of the study
encountered issues with search strategies, copyright, and finding learning
objects with strong content. There was a perceived scarcity of course rele-
vant learning objects and the process of searching and gathering learning
objects was time consuming. The reported benefits included accommodat-
ing student needs and learning styles above a book-based learning experi-
ence that enhanced course lessons with improved graphics content,
interactive capabilities, and online assessment. Timely content of learning
Universal Design 63
objects on the Internet was considered superior to textbooks that can be

out of date. The study found the learning object approach to online course
development to encourage spontaneity, creativity, diversity, and a variety
in learning resources.
The use of learning objects in online course development requires a
means of locating and distributing the objects. Downes (2005) states that
one of the issues with finding learning objects is it takes for a subject matter
expert to find and customize objects for online courses:
Unless human designers were used (whatever the cost), the result would be nothing but
sterile, cookie-cutter learning design, something of no learning value at all … People
will begin to ask why learning resources must be organized by hand by a designer
before they can be used students. Systems will emerge that allow students to be their
own designers. Instead of viewing learning design as some sort of script in which stu-
dents are actors, following directions, we will begin to see a model where students are
players, following no script at all. (p. 2)
Customizing Learning Objects
One solution to addressing the time factor of searching for and customizing
learning objects is to create separate databases for personal, collaborative,
and external repositories of learning objects using the open source model
based on XML (Fiaidhi & Mohammed, 2004). Since available learning
objects are currently not intended for one context only and not wide distri-
bution the solution of creating a collaborative e-Learning system. The
authors state that multiple databases can be used for student development
of customized learning objects. A student can comment on a collaborative
learning object and save a new copy into the personal learning object repo-
sitory. If student query is not found in the collaborative database, a query
can be sent to search for external learning objects.
COLLABORATIVE DESIGN
A theoretical model developed by Sims and Jones (2003) for an academic

online course, is a three phase model that uses the process (a) develop func-
tionality, (b) evaluate/elaborate/enhance, and (c) maintain. The model pro-
poses that the cost and time issues of the traditional ISD model can be
addressed by focusing on production efficiency and actually extending the
64 ANNE GUPTILL
development process by continuing development after implementation,

emphasizing continuous improvement, and maintenance. This addresses
the time to delivery issue of the traditional ISD model. The “wrong world-
view” issue is addressed with participatory design using communities of
practice. The goal of this process is a long-term development process that
promotes flexible and rapid modifications using teams, templates, and stan-
dards, and specified delivery platforms.
Instead of placing the isolated effort of instructional designers and mul-
timedia developers in the design and development phases of the linear ISD
model, functionality is developed with a team or community of practice
that heavily involves the course instructor in each stage of the process.
Engaging the course instructor as a viable team member also serves as pro-
fessional development since the instructor becomes familiar with the online
pedagogy and technology. This model aligns the instructional design pro-
cess with other processes and resources within the institution, moving in
the direction of collaboration and less isolation from other fields of teach-
ing, learning, and technology. A scaffolding strategy is used to address
scarce developer and academic resources. The academic instructor receives
professional development by receiving training in online teaching and
learning through the community of practice and receives support from
other resources. By working in a community of practice, everyone on the
team has a shared understanding of the pedagogical shift from lower level
outcomes (commonly taught in the traditional face-to-face course) to criti-
cal thinking, analysis, and application that are necessary in an online aca-
demic course. The concept of the community of practice builds rapport and
confidence between team members and informal communication increases
shared understanding about the content and concepts.
The three phases of the 3PD model are functionality, enhancement, and
maintenance. The functionality is developed in the first phase using a “try it
and see” approach with initial prototypes that provide functional delivery.
The course is reviewed within the community of practice. In the second
phase, the course has been delivered. The content and structure are evalu-
ated within the community of practice, collaborating with the instructor to
assess the outcomes of the functional components that have been developed
and enhancements are made. The last phase of maintenance is ongoing and
development is modified based on the evaluation. The iterative approach
and continuous development maintenance and improvement after delivery
add another dimension to the process. Different elements of the instructional
design are worked on simultaneously with a concurrent design, making the
3PD model nonlinear in contrast to the linear, sequential ISD model.
Universal Design 65
LEARNING THEORIES AND ID MODELS
In education, there has been a learning theory shift from behaviorism and
cognitivism to constructivism and postmodernism. Constructivism has
been accepted as the most popular approach to teaching and learning
since the second half of the twentieth century. The learning theory of
Constructivism takes the position that knowledge and meaning are
actively constructed from experiences. Real-world situations and the con-
text of the learning are emphasized in an authentic environment since

experience takes a critical role. Learning is student-centered and content-
oriented and the natural curiosity of learners is nurtured with the empha-
sis on learners constructing knowledge. The instructor’s role is to create a
rich and socially meaningful learning environment, guiding a learner
through authentic tasks that the learner can understand and demonstrate
in terms of facts, contexts, and multiple perspectives (Hendricks, 2003).
Group activities, collaboration and dialogue are encouraged. Interaction
with others is critical since the socialization process supports learning.
Assessment emphasizes performance and understanding. The beliefs and
attitudes of the learner are considered.
Conrad and Donaldson (2004) suggest that the emergence of problem-
based learning that involves learners to work together in teams is another
evolutionary step that combines with constructivist philosophy within the
collaborative context. In addition to problem-based learning, there are
many other variations in the context of teaching and learning applications
of constructivist principles such as situated learning, discovery learning,
cognitive apprenticeships, and inquiry learning (Hendricks, 2003). Their
work describes the major constructivist perspectives and suggests learning
activities for implementing strategies that support constructivist principles
in the online environment.
The shift to constructivism departs from the systems approach, moving
toward learning environments that support such methods as problem-based
and project-based learning. The challenge of constructivism for instruc-
tional designers using the linear ISD model is determining common out-
comes for learning and designing a learning environment that is not linear
with instructional sequences. Instead of mastery and focusing on the
desired responses to a specific set of exercises, the constructivist learning
environment focuses on learners constructing knowledge through events
and learning activities as the learner interacts with the material, environ-
ment, and fellow learners. The pedagogical rational of constructivism with
dynamic instructional planning is associated with nonlinear approaches to
66 ANNE GUPTILL
instructional design since creating materials and task analysis is based on

learner responses (Sims & Jones, 2003). Online pedagogy, with its emphasis
on collaborative and constructivist methods, requires a nonlinear approach
to instructional design.
In addition to objectivism, cognitivism, and constructivism, other post-
modern views have influenced instructional design models. Hakkinen
(2002) notes that the idea of participatory design, cooperative design, and
the concept of “user-designers” suggest that a new design approach is
needed. Hakkinen states that instructional design has a history of devel-

oping in isolation from other fields of teaching, learning, and technology.
The more recent diversity and discussion about instructional theories and
instructional design processes is necessary, but also a challenge for
instructional designers because of more complex issues involving open
computer technology. Barab and Duffy (2000) suggest that being a parti-
cipant in a community of practice is essential in the educational process.
The concept of a community of practice aligns with the postmodern
worldview of participatory and cooperative design. Wenger (1998) defines
a community of practice as individuals pursuing a shared enterprise while
sharing practices, beliefs, and understandings over an extended time
frame.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR ONLINE LEARNING AND

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN STRATEGIES
In the field of instructional design for online learning, designing instruction

that can be usable by the greatest number of learners in the Web-based
education environment aligns with Reigeluth’s (1999) statement that the
nature of instructional design has changed partly because of advances in
technology. The advances in technology associated with the growth of the
internet and online education have produced alternative models. The litera-
ture review concluded that by bringing together principles of universal
design, universal design for learning, participatory design, learner designed,
emergent theory, accessibility guidelines for Web development, more agile
methodologies used in other fields, including learning object repositories,
integrated with online learning theory, could lead to the development of a
model that can meet the complex requirements of accessibility and the
online environment.
Universal Design 67
Learner-Defined Content
Since instructional design is a combination of design and pedagogy, Sims

and Stork (2007) propose that Web-based environments should be designed
for contextual learning. The authors propose that the context should be
learner-defined content, the objectives should emerge from learner interac-
tion, and assessment should be based on successful performance of the
learning tasks. A design for contextual learning uses a strategy that does
not assume learner characteristics. Instead, contextual learning caters to a

diverse audience by focusing on the individual learner with individual out-
comes encountered in the course of study. Instructional design for online
learning can benefit from design approaches used in other fields such as
architecture and software and interface design. A bottom-up design is a
shift from systems or process design (Irlbeck, Kays, Jones, & Sims, 2006;
Kays & Sims, 2006). A design process that follows a prescribed form
may not be the best approach for solving complex problems that deal with
systemic and chaotic thinking. Emergent Design, based on Emergence
Theory, is a design where systems operate from the bottom-up and
encourages adaptation and creativity. When applying emergence theory to
the online environment, the authors state that this environment is an exam-
ple of complex problem solving since the interaction is spontaneous
and even random. Similar to Emergent Design, Universal Design uses a
bottom-up approach to design.
Universal Design Principles and Universal Design for Learning Guidelines
Morrison et al. (2004) described the need for an instructional design model
to be flexible and adaptable. The authors promote the application of heur-
istics to instructional problems. Roberts (2004) asserts that it is vital for
education and software engineering to work together to address pedagogi-
cal soundness, in addition to addressing the needs of people with disabil-
ities. Instead of rigid steps for design, adaptive agile methodologies develop
feature lists that support quality and use heuristics instead of steps for
design and development (Fowler, 2003). Albion (1999) expresses the need
for heuristics for evaluating educational design, multimedia, and content
since heuristics have been shown to be cost effective in user interface
design. Nielsen (1994) describes heuristic evaluation in user interface design
as a systematic inspection of the design for usability. It is a part of the
68 ANNE GUPTILL
iterative design process and uses usability principles or heuristics. The prin-
ciples of Universal Design are similar to the usability principles which fol-
low equitable use; flexibility in use; simple and intuitive use; perceptible
information tolerance for error; low physical effort; size and space for
approach and use (Universal Design Principles, 2008). Universal Design
for Learning [CAST] (2010) developed guidelines based on the principles of
Universal Design for Learning that can be used as heuristic evaluations. In
the online environment, technology adds another facet to course develop-
ment. To ensure accessibility, content must adhere to accessibility guide-

lines for the Web. The W3C (2010) standards for Web accessibility and
Section 508 are actually heuristic lists. Currently, there are no heuristics
that address both universal design for learning, technology requirements,
and accessibility considerations of the virtual online environment.
Universal Design for Learning considers both the physical (classroom) and
cognitive environments (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The guidelines of Universal
Design for Learning and the principles of Universal Design can support
Universal Design for Learning as shown in Table 3.
Learning Object Repositories
In addition to guidelines for the process, learning object repositories should

also include templates and standards, using a bottom-up approach to
development that ensures accessibility and usability. The bottom-up
approach to design also eliminates the need for retrofitting with increased
costs after-the-fact.
Emergent Learning Theory
Kays and Sims (2006) state that a bottom-up design is a shift from systems
or process design. A design process that follows a prescribed form may not
be the best approach for solving complex problems that deal with systemic
and chaotic thinking. Emergent learning theory, a design where systems
operate from the bottom-up, encourages adaptation and creativity. When
applying emergent theory to the online environment, the authors state that
this environment is an example of complex problem solving since the inter-
action is spontaneous and even random. Learning objects help support this
type of interaction.
Universal Design 69
Table 3. Proposed UDOL Guidelines to Support the Principles of

Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive Use, Perceptible
Information, Tolerance for Error, Low Physical Effort, and Space for
Approach and Use.
1. Provide multiple means of representation
Display information in a flexible format to vary size, amplitude, contrast, color, speed, and
layout of elements
Provide multiple media and formats
Provide alternatives for auditory information

Provide alternatives for visual information
Illustrate key concepts non-linguistically
Provide models
Provide multiple examples
Highlight critical features and main ideas to maximize legibility of essential information
Provide adequate contrast
2. Provide multiple means for action and expression
Provide varied ways to respond
Provide varied ways to interact with materials
Allow choices of media for communication
Provide ways to scaffold practice and performance
Facilitate managing information and resources
Provide searchable learning object content databases
Provide practice with supports
3. Provide multiple means for engagement
Provide simple, consistent navigation
Offer choice of learning content and tools
Vary levels of challenge and support
Foster collaboration and communication
Develop self-assessment and reflection
Economic Impact
A common argument is that developing online courses that meet accessibil-

ity requirements is costly. The task of retrofitting materials to meet accessi-
bility compliance can be time consuming and may require additional
project work. If accessibility is “built in” to the initial design process, it is
more cost efficient than retrofitting later and the front-end design leads to
better design (Pacific Bell Universal Design Policy, 1996). Bergman and
Johnson (1995) point out that it is more costly if products are not made
accessible for the population with disabilities since an estimated 48 million
Americans have a disability. The growing market for online education
coupled with the potential market of disabled learners who can benefit
70 ANNE GUPTILL
from education makes inaccessible systems cost much more because of

missed opportunity. The increased market for accessible online courses off-
sets the development costs. When accessible design is considered as part of
the initial design process, it can become a consideration like any other
design factor. Costs of development are higher if accessibility is considered
an add-on or retrofit after the design is complete. Evaluation of accessible
courses can be automated with accessibility checkers and validators.
Training and Professional Development
Universal design should be infused in professional and continuing profes-

sional development to appreciate diversity or designers will continue to
design for “a mythical average norm” that will continue to exclude millions
of people (Ostroff, 2001, p. 1.3). Sandu (2001) when discussing the chan-
ging role of designers due to the impact of technology and the focus on a
barrier-free information society makes the point that designers need to per-
form detailed multilevel analyses of the user/task/environment interrela-
tionship to understand how to build a seamless product. To accomplish
this feat, Sandu suggests a multidisciplinary team approach that gives input
from a broad base of expertise and specialties.
The andragogy model works exceptionally well in online education
because of the student-centered and experiential-based education it pro-
vides. It follows what many people describe as a true Socratic method of
learning. The pedagogy model used in traditional lecture style courses in
most institutions today does not. That difference in instructional design
models and the way in which they integrate with the technology available
to institutions is precisely why course content must be redesigned before
being offered over the Web.
There are powerful legal, economic, social, and moral arguments for pro-
viding learners with disabilities access to Web-based learning. In addition,
the universal design concept fosters a connection between designing for
access and designing a better environment for all learners. The legal require-
ments of Section 508 for accessible online courses in the state of California
are an impetus to create accessible courses. However, the social considera-
tions go beyond the legal requirements. Universal design for online educa-
tion is inclusive and values diversity. Access to learning opportunities can
be increased for a significant adult population of underserved learners with
universal design for online learning. Economically, universal design benefits
society as a whole considering the cost of producing ad hoc educational
materials for the disabled. Universally designed online courses may reduce
Universal Design 71
the need to pay out benefits to people with disabilities for specialized equip-
ment and materials. Over a larger market, these cost reductions can reduce
costs to everyone. The increase in potential online students is an obvious
economic benefit to making online courses in higher education accessible.
The linear instructional design process of ADDIE is similar to the tradi-
tional software engineering process SDLC with a waterfall process that
consists of sequential steps. The linear instructional design process has
been criticized like the linear software engineering process. Many new soft-
ware engineering processes have been developed that are considered “light”
methodologies. They are nonlinear and entail concurrent, rather than
sequential processes. Many of the newer processes used in software engi-
neering can be applied to the instructional design model of ADDIE to
improve efficiency. Coupled with newer models in instructional design that
use learning objects and communities of practice for participatory design, a
conceptual model can be used to explain the abstract relationships between
concepts and the methods in a process. Online courses in higher education
have unique problems that can benefit from the newest learning and design
theories. When the design of products and environments is extended to
educational settings, the application of universal design goes beyond the
classroom space and into cognitive learning space.
DISCUSSION
Incorporating all elements may be complex and require detailed policies
and process procedures to manage, understand, and implement Universal
Design for online learning. As a result, the role of the instructional designer
changes. Instead of working in isolation with the subject matter expert, the
participatory design extends the knowledgebase and skill set by including
external stakeholders such as software/assistive technology vendors, dis-
ability services, and students. It is necessary for the instructional designer
to manage media in repositories, develop heuristics, and organize, categor-
ize, and tag learning objects. Management of a design team will increase
the project management responsibility of the instructional designer.
Recommendations for Further Research
Universal Design for online learning should be tested with an online course
to further revise the model. Reigeluth (1999) argued that many instruc-
tional design theories and models have not been applied to diverse
72 ANNE GUPTILL
situations that may allow for the theory or model to be refined. However,
the Universal Design for online learning conceptual model would benefit
from research in application. Examination of some of the theories on which
this model was created such as Universal Design and Universal Design for
Learning need to be articulated in practice in the online environment.
Universal Design and accessibility are not synonymous. Even though
the cornerstone of universal design is accessibility, it also includes thinking
about design the design of products that are usable to the greatest number
of users (Ostroff, 2001). Because of technology, communication, and the

growth of online learning, designers must consider the needs of diverse cul-
tures and design online courses that adopt global awareness with multicul-
tural designs. Demographics such as gender and age should also be
considered. An increase in the aging population also calls for research into
the needs of an older population to support lifelong learning. The needs of
an older population may be different from the needs of the traditional col-
lege-aged student. Further research is needed for a model that incorporates
the needs of the greatest number of users to truly represent universal design
in online learning.
REFERENCES
Albion, P. (1999). Heuristic evaluation of educational multimedia: From theory to practice.

Proceedings ASCILITE 1999: 16th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Responding to Diversity (pp. 9 − 15).
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved from:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6987/2/Albion_ASCILITE_1999_PV.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.
Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. London:
Erlbaum.
Bergman, E., & Johnson, E. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. In
J. Nielson (Ed.), Advances in computer interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2004). Balancing agility and discipline: A guide for the perplexed.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Bransford, J. (1991). Some thoughts on constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(9), 16 18.
Brault, M. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Burgstahler, P. (2005). Universal design of instruction: Definition, principles, and examples.
Retrieved from http://www.smith.edu/deanoffaculty/Burgstahler.pdf
Universal Design 73
Butler, J., Holden, K., & Lidwell, W. (2003). Universal principles of design. Gloucester, MA:
Rockport.
CAST Universal Design for Learning. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/index.html
Center for Universal Design. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/
Christiansen, J., & Anderson, T. (2004). Feasibility of course development based on learning
objects: Research analysis of three case studies. International Journal of Instructional
Technology & Distance Learning, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/
Mar_04/article02.htm
Clark, D. (2005). ADDIE 1975. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_
isd/addie.html
Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources
for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Danielson, L. (1999). Universal design: Ensuring access to the general education curriculum.
Research Connections, 5, 2–3.
Downes, S. (2000). Learning objects. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/downes.html
Downes, S. (2005). Are the basics of instructional design changing? Retrieved from http://www.
downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?db=post&q=crdate=1120241890&format=full
Egan, C., Guptill, A., Johnson, A. M., Nozicka, P., & Van Duzer, J. (2004). Web accessibility
learning modules: A tigers grant project. California Virtual Campus Web Site. Retrieved
from http://host3.cvc4.org/learningmodules/Default.htm
Fiaidhi, J., & Mohammed, S. (2004). Design issues involved in using learning objects for teach-
ing a programming language within a collaborative elearning environment.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(3), 39 46.
Fowler, M. (2003). The new methodology. Retrieved from http://www.martinfowler.com/
articles/newMethodology.html
Goldsmith, S. (2001). The bottom-up methodology of universal design. In W. Preiser &
E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal Design Handbook (26, 6 9). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD: Have we got instructional design all
wrong? Training, (April), 43 53.
Hakkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 4(33), 461 469.
Hendricks, V. (2003). Theoretical framework for online course development. The UNU Online
Learning Web site. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearning.unu.edu/Resources/
UNUOL1-Theory.pdf
Hodgins, H. W. (2000). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional
use of learning objects. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology.
Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The pheonix rising: Emergent models of
instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2).
Kays, E., & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design: A theory for
emergent learning. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite confer-
ence. Who’s learning? Whose technology? Ascilite 2006 Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning objects. Learning Circuits, 1(3). Retrieved from
http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/primer.html
Merrill, M. D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The
Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved from http://reusability.
org/read/chapters/merrill.doc
74 ANNE GUPTILL
Microsoft. (2004). New research study shows 57 percent of adult computer users can benefit
from accessible technology. Retrieved from http://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/02/
new-research-study-shows-57-percent-of-adult-computer-users-can-benefit-from-accessible-
technology/
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Indiana State University.
Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%
20ADDIE.pdf
Monaghan, P. (2010). Design for disability will become the Nnrm. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 56(22), B6 B7.
Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2004). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Morse-Fortier, L., & Reiter, W. (1994). The bridge to universal design. In P. Welch (Ed.),
Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 45 52). Boston, MA: Adaptive Environments.
National Center for Accessible Media. (2009). Retrieved from http://ncam.wgbh.org/
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection
Methods (pp. 25 64). New York, NY: Wiley.
Osborne, H. (2001). In other words … communication across a life span … universal design in
print and web-based communication. Retrieved from http://www.healthliteracy.com/
oncalljan2001.html
Ostroff, E. (2001). Universal design: The new paradigm. In W. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.),
Universal design handbook (pp. 1.3 1.12). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pacific Bell Universal Design Policy. (1996). Trace Center: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Retrieved from http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm
Pressman, R. S. (2005). Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach (6th ed.), New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets accessibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruc-
tional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reinertsen, D. (1997). Managing the design factory. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Roberts, K. (2004). The need for universal design in online learning environments. Association
for the Advancement of Computing Education. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/
pubs/aacej/temp/05roberts188-197.pdf
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Salingaros, N. (2006). Design methods, emergence, and collective intelligence. Katarxis, 3.
Retrieved from http://www.katarxis3.com/Salingaros-Collective_Intelligence.htm
Sandu, J. (2001). An integrated approach to universal design: Toward the inclusion of all ages,
cultures, and diversity. In W. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook
(pp. 3.1 3.14). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design
for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information
Technology Education and Society, 4(1), 3 20.
Sims, R., & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual learning: Web-based environments that
engage diverse learners. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Australasian World Wide
Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Australia.
Smith, P., & Reinertsen, D. (1998). Developing products in half the time: New rules, new tools.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Universal Design 75
Sommerville, I. (1982). Software engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley.
Stanford Online Accessibility Program. (2006). Retrieved from http://soap.stanford.edu/index.
php
The Virtual Microscope. (n.d.). The knowledge media institute/The Open University Web site:
Retrieved from http://met.open.ac.uk/vms/vms.html
Tobias, S. (1991). An eclectic examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD contro-
versy. Educational Technology, 31(9), 41 43.
United States Access Board. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm
United States Department of Justice. (2010). ADA home page. Retrieved from http://www.
ada.gov/
Universal Design Principles. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/
about_ud/udprinciples.htm
WebAim. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.webaim.org/
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Retrieved from http://
www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml
Wiley, D. (2002). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a
metaphor and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning
objects. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology. Retrieved from http://
reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Wilson, B. (1997a). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. Retrieved from
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html
Wilson, B. (1997b). The postmodern paradigm. Retrieved from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/
~bwilson/postmodern.html
W3C. (2010). Standards. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/
Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Trainingmag.com. [Online Journal].
Retrieved from http://www.trainingmag.com
1. Anton Wardaya, Yosef Dedy Pradipto. Factors for improving quality education
startup : A review of the literature 1-4. [Crossref]

ACCOMMODATION, ACCESS,
LARGE SCALE ASSESSMENT:
POSSIBILITIES FOR UNIVERSAL
DESIGN
Evelyn Hickey
ABSTRACT
Barriers exist on large scale assessment when students are not able to
perform at potential for a variety of reasons. Accommodations are
mostly available for students who meet criteria for diagnosed disability
or criteria for the identification of students who have English as a second
language. However, knowing that students have diverse needs, accommo-
dations for a few may not be providing appropriate access for all.
Options for designing broader universal design for learning (UDL) on
large scale assessment, through strategies that are typically restricted to
special accommodations, increase access.
Keywords: Assessment; accommodations; accessibility; universal
design for learning
Providing both the stairs and ramps is preferable to trying to invent a single method of
entry that works for all people at all times.
David H. Rose

ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002004
77
78 EVELYN HICKEY
Barriers, negative or not, restrict people. Barriers are not negative in situa-
tions where people need to be kept safely in or out of an area. They are not
negative when obstacles are meant to create specific physical challenges,
such as in sports events. They are not negative in military training where
barriers are designed to break bad habits and build intestinal fortitude.
In education, especially, when writing large scale assessments, students do
not typically need to be kept physically safe since schools are fundamen-
tally secure, nor given physical challenges nor required to build intestinal
fortitude. During large scale assessments, if they exist, barriers are negative.
They make assessments less accessible. “Potentially every learner could
benefit from intentional changes that remove unnecessary barriers to
performance” (Hickey, 2013, p. 33).
The purpose of this chapter is to review the notion of diversity in schools
and to explore the possibility of using accommodations less restrictively to
provide access as a universal design intervention in large scale assessment.
The growing research in this area for assessment illuminates that broader
access is as important as special accommodations (Hickey, 2013). Students
who do not “qualify” for accommodations may benefit from a revised
viewpoint that all students are diverse and may require varying supports in
different situations. The chapter concludes by examining the implications
for practice at the ministry, school, and classroom level concerning how to
reduce barriers in large scale assessment.
DIVERSITY IN SCHOOLS
Given that schools are full of diversity, planning for myriad learners rather
than the illusionary average means that the environment, whether in the
classroom or in examination contexts, needs to address the variety of stu-
dents (Katz, 2015; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose, 2013).
Recognizing diversity is more than just addressing the population of stu-
dents who meet specific diagnostic criteria for an individual program plan
(IPP) due to learning, sensory, physical, or emotional disability. It is also
more than supporting students who meet criteria for English as a second
language. Student diversity includes variations such as different back-
grounds in learning, linguistics, language, culture, religion, family composi-
tion, and socio-economic status. Students also have differences in attributes
such as cognitive ability, attention, talents, vocabulary, memory, curiosity,
and motivation. “Each student, every single one of them has a jagged
Assessment 79
learning profile; they have strengths, they are average at some things, and
they have weaknesses” (Rose, 2013). Katz (2015) asserts that this profile is
also dependent on the specific environment since one can respond differ-
ently in different environments. Katz (2015) shares a creative post to illus-
trate this idea through animals, remarking that “a polar bear has a
disability in the tropics, and is gifted in the arctic,” where another animal
may fit in everywhere. It parallels the experience of students. Students may
have strengths and weaknesses in one environment that may be different in
another. Looking through the lens of universal design for learning (UDL)
brings an understanding that students have diverse needs that may be diffi-
cult to readily meet through inaccessible instructional design (CAST, 2015).
From the perspective of UDL and knowing that students are diverse, it
makes sense to consider universal design that embraces all learners to cre-
ate better access for large scale assessments, a completely different environ-
ment than other school experiences. Much like the polar bear described by
Katz, some students may be in the tropics when they are in a formal exam
environment.
Research literature illustrates that not all students can master learning
and therefore perform at potential in an environment that relies primarily
on the medium of text for gaining knowledge and then demonstrating that
knowledge (Edyburn, 2011; Rose & Dalton, 2009; Thurlow, 2010;
Thurlow, Johnstone, & Ketterlin-Geller, 2008). Hehir (2011) asserts that
assuming there is only one “right” way to learn or walk, talk, paint,
read, or write is the root of fundamental inequities. This notion also has
traction when students participate in large scale assessments. Using only
one medium of access will mean there are barriers and therefore likely to
interfere with students’ ability to perform at potential (Dolan, Hall,
Banerjee, Chun, & Strangman, 2005; Edyburn, 2006; Hehir, 2005, 2011).
Using a specific length of time also assumes that every student is expected
to need the same amount of time. Although some students are able to gain
broader access through accommodations, the conundrum lies in the fact
that others are restricted. How can assessment be designed “to make every-
one’s experience better?” (Dolan & Hall, 2007, p. 96). How education is
delivered is viewed as best practice at any given time but research continues
to help policymakers and educators with the evolution of best practice. The
confluence of research about diversity, learning, assessment, the brain, and
technology help inform current practices, which may influence student
learning and potentiality (Almond & Karvonen, 2007; Dolan & Hall, 2007;
Edyburn, 2011; Katz, 2013; Ketterlin-Geller, 2005; Rose & Dalton, 2009;
Salend, 2009; Thurlow, 2010; Thurlow et al., 2008). People are different
80 EVELYN HICKEY
and they learn in different ways. “One of the clearest and most important
revelations stemming from brain research is that there are no typical
students. Instead learning is as unique to individuals as their fingerprints.
The notion of broad categories of learners smart-not smart, disabled-not
disabled, regular-not regular is a gross oversimplification that does not
reflect reality” (Hall, Meyer & Rose, 2012, p. 2).
LARGE SCALE ASSESSMENT

What are large scale assessments meant to accomplish? The purpose of
these assessments depend on the jurisdiction and may include measuring if
students are learning what they are expected to learn; determining student
achievement; exploring how to improve student learning; identifying trends;
guiding professional development; providing support for curriculum imple-
mentation; keeping parents informed; sharing with the public; and regulat-
ing school or district accountability (Klinger, DeLuca, & Miller, 2008;
Volante, 2006a).
In Canada, education comes under provincial jurisdiction and each pro-
vince is in charge of its own curriculum and its own large scale assessments
(Volante & Ben Jaafar, 2008). “Currently, every province and territory,
with the exception of Prince Edward Island, administers some form of
large-scale student assessment” (Volante, 2007, para 1). The data from
these assessments are used predominantly within the province for specific
purposes and nationally they have become a “central construct in
Canadian education and, in particular, appears to play a critical role in
shaping and guiding instruction, curriculum, and policy” (Klinger et al.,
2008, para 2). Across Canada there are differences in large scale assess-
ments in different provinces, such as the specific grades being tested, sample
size, and structure throughout the k-12 education (Volante, 2006a, 2007).
The assessments are criterion-referenced and are developed by Canadian
educators, not external commercial organizations (Volante & Ben Jaafar,
2008). At present, large scale assessment is a part of the k-12 educational
environment not only in Canada but also in a number of countries around
the world.
This chapter is not disputing whether large scale assessments should or
should not be a part of the education landscape. Research explores on both
sides (Black & Wiliam, 2006; Gambell & Hunter, 2004; Ricco & Berger,
2005; Sawyer, 2006; Volante, Cherubini, & Drake, 2008). However, in
Assessment 81
Canada, the present design of the large scale assessments, primarily

multiple choice text medium, supplemented mainly with a few pictorial
graphs, illustrations, or cartoon depictions, may inhibit the capacity to
perform optimally on the intended task (Haladyna & Downing, 2004;
Hickey, 2013). As discussed, research supports that students are all very
different; how, then, can a one-dimensional large scale assessment be effec-
tive in determining what students know? Looking at what all students can
do within set time parameters on a one-size-fits-all test may offer some
particular insights but does not necessarily illustrate students’ full knowl-
edge of concepts. The test results reflect the minimum that a student knows.
Barriers that interfere with performance may result in a less accurate
picture of student knowledge. Perhaps, education ministries may be bat-
tling with balancing the knowledge about diversity and the knowledge
about the limitations to access with the parameters of large scale assess-
ment. For example, the education ministry in the province of Alberta has
stated that by 2030, “if Alberta is to truly foster learning excellence, there
will be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. What is taught, how it is taught, and
how the community is engaged will reflect what is valuable to the commu-
nity. Similarly, accountability processes will reflect the appropriate degree
of complexity and formality required by teachers, governors, leaders,
managers and funders” (Alberta Education, 2010a, p. 37). Ontario’s
Ministry of Education (2009), as part of its equity and inclusive education
strategy states that “all boards and schools will demonstrate continuous
progress towards meeting the needs of our diverse student population and
our ever-changing society” and that they “will rise to realizing the promise
of diversity” (p. 24).
Access
Accessibility is about advancing access for all students and describes “the
degree to which a service or product gives learners the ‘ability to access’
functionality, services or materials” (Lewthwaite, 2011, p. 85). Reducing
barriers to large scale assessment would mean better access. It would create
opportunities for students to demonstrate knowledge that is hindered if stu-
dents have to jump over hurdles that are not actually testing the construct
intended (Haladyna & Downing, 2004). For example, some students may
know the material, yet they run out of time as they work through a test
and think deeply about the best way of approaching the answer. Others
may find readability a barrier in the test (Haladyna & Downing, 2004;
82 EVELYN HICKEY
Rose & Dolan, 2006; Salend, 2009). Typically, reading is not part of the
assessment consideration especially in subjects such as Social Studies,
Physics, and Math, although text and therefore, reading still seems to be
the primary medium (Dolan et al., 2005; Rose, 2011).
In a pilot study conducted by Hickey (2013), teachers voiced frustration
that the reading level on large scale assessment may not meet the needs of
all students since it assumed that everyone has the same reading level.
Being unable to read a text where one needs to demonstrate specific con-
cept knowledge may be challenging for students who have difficulty with
fluency issues or have problems decoding print, or who have struggles with
deciphering specific vocabulary because of lack of exposure to the English
language. Other students may find these challenges create anxiety and per-
haps run out of time as they tackle the uneasiness associated with it. These
are only a few examples of barriers that may unintentionally interfere with
performance and therefore not represent student competency in a subject
area. While not high stakes for students at the elementary level or middle
school level in Canada, it becomes high stakes at the secondary level since
“the results of most provincial assessments comprise a significant percen-
tage of a secondary student’s final grade (i.e., typically between 30% and
50%) or serve as a graduation requirement or compulsory requirement for
post-secondary …” (Volante & Ben Jaafar, 2008, p. 205).
Although accommodations are available for those who qualify, this pre-
mise of “qualification” does not address the diversity of student popula-
tions. Students do not get to choose. Typically students, who meet
diagnostic criteria for specific learning needs or who have considered
English as a second language, qualify with an application where essentially
“proof” of a specific criterion is required. A good question to ask is how a
more universal design may enhance educational opportunities and thus
improve outcomes for all students, especially since, “academic performance
problems are not limited to students with disabilities” (Edyburn, 2010,
p. 39). Research about UDL, access, accommodations, and large scale
assessment demonstrate that designing an assessment with appropriate
access for all learners may reduce the need for extra accommodations
(Almond & Karvonen, 2007; Bolt, 2011; Hickey, 2013).
How can assessment be designed to provide opportunities for all stu-
dents to be more independent in managing their own learning needs and
styles as they make individual choices about the tools they need for a more
satisfactory experience or to demonstrate their knowledge more accurately?
Knowing that for now large scale assessment has a specific format of con-
tent and structure, using the UDL principle of multiple representation is a
Assessment 83
way of creating a design that is more inclusive of the plethora of needs

(Hickey, 2013). Multiple representation means that content of the large
scale assessment is provided through more than one means (CAST, 2015).
Since every learner brings unique characteristics, aptitudes, and experiences
to the learning environment, coupling learner differences with educational
technology to enhance learning is promising. This facilitation is a deliberate
consideration of how learning is impacted by instructional design and tech-
nology-enabled processes. The premise of educational technology, accord-
ing to Januszewski and Molenda (2008) is to “facilitate learning and

improving performance by creating, using and managing technological
processes and resources” (p. 1). What differences can this make for
assessment?
The present research is positive (Hickey, 2013; Morra & Reynolds, 2010;
Parette & Peterson-Karlan, 2007; Pellegrino & Quellmalz, 2010; Salend,
2009). Given that technology affords more opportunities to customize
learning tasks for assessments, it may offer potential by providing multiple
access points for learners during formal assessments, thereby reducing bar-
riers (Almond & Karvonen, 2007; Pellegrino & Quellmalz, 2010; Thurlow,
2010; Thurlow et al., 2008). Hickey (2013) discovered that some students,
who were strong readers, yet accessed an audio format for the large scale
assessment, “believed that it helped them reduce the number of reading
errors made in a test situation” (p. 98). Without even considering the tre-
mendous flexibility and power inherent in digital text, multiple representa-
tion offers choice for access through audio or text to speech. This choice
does not alter the content, or the outcome, or create personalization of the
material. It is a small alteration that still respects the nature of a large scale
assessment, as it is today, in terms of accountability and security; yet it is
more inclusive of the myriad students who would be in any exam setting
(Hickey, 2013). Given the availability for audio or digital representation
with text to speech, it is possible. These tools, in one form or another, are
already being used as an accommodation on large scale assessments.
Should these accommodations only be available to students who meet
restricted criteria? It would mean an adjustment in the present viewpoint of
one-size-fits-all to a perspective of universal access that respects diversity.
Determining Who May Benefit
In addition to students who “qualify” for accommodations, using assistive

technology or audio file and/or extra time affords access to students who
84 EVELYN HICKEY
may benefit for multifarious reasons. Possible vignettes include a student

who may:
• have come from another English speaking country; yet still benefits from
extra support for high text medium because of the nuances in dialect, lin-
guistics and culture during class activities (although not considered
ELL). Extra time helps with figuring out nuances in language resulting
from different experiences.
• have been considered as a second language student (ELL) in the past,

but has exceeded the time period that allows him/her to apply for accom-
modation, yet still challenged by the vocabulary. Hearing the language
of the test, along with reading, affords deeper comprehension.
• miscue words on tests, especially more formal tests, although he/she has
a reading ability that allows the student to generally function indepen-
dent of teacher assistance. Hearing the tests reduces changes of miscuing
words.
• have a stronger preference for listening than reading and is more engaged
or motivated when using this preference. It will be more engaging to use
the learner’s preference and history shows the student performs better
when listening. The student is not diagnosed with any form of disability
and is successful in school.
• have an issue with focus that slightly impacts learning but not enough
for a formal diagnosis; yet, the issue becomes exacerbated in formal test
settings. Since it uses a different part of the brain, listening may provide
alternative to focusing on print. This coupled with frequent breaks is
responsive to student needs. The student can generally maintain focus
for smaller or shorter tests. The teacher allows for the occasional break
but the student does not “stand out.”
• have completed psycho-educational testing and in the process of being
diagnosed but does yet have specific recommendations. Student may ben-
efit from a number of accommodations but the process of getting the for-
mal assessment takes time, sometimes delaying the special application
required for upcoming large scale assessment. Although anecdotal
records may be used to “override” the specific requirements, teachers
may not be fully aware that this process is available.
• have been regularly requesting the teacher read some words sporadically
on classroom tests and “in-house” final exams but is barred from this
support during large scale assessment. Student is an academically strong
learner who needs slight scaffolding intermittently for reading unfamiliar
vocabulary words or phrases. Hearing makes a significant difference for
Assessment 85
comprehension. It seems to be a particular strength. The student reports

that parents/tutor read content material with him/her during homework.
• have read a lot but is nervous about competency for reading in many
tests situations, so fidgets or skims and may not understand the question
although knows the answer. The student will perform better if anxiety is
diminished. Access to extra time and audio format calms this student sig-
nificantly and the student usually does well with minimal accommoda-
tion simply because it is available.
• be challenged, in particular, by the wording on the large scale assessment

because it differs from the regular class assessment. Student is capable,
albeit vocabulary needs work. Student needs extra time in the class some-
times when long sources are used. The student uses scaffolding, although
in a limited manner, in the class and occasionally uses extra time.
• not usually need support but is feeling overwhelmed by the high stakes
(for secondary students). The students have requested extra time because
he/she is feeling out of his/her element with the extra formality of large
scale assessment. The student likely will not use the extra time, but access
gets rid of the “fish out of water feeling” and is responsive to the emo-
tional needs making it a significantly more satisfying experience.
• find it difficult to concentrate because of particular life circumstances
(i.e., conflict at home that is influencing the student during exam writ-
ing time). Student is dealing emotionally with significant issues that are
not known at school. Student may be running late with increased adre-
nalin and may benefit from access to extra time whether or not it is
used because of the reduction of stressors. Because little is known
about the circumstances, student may just seem disorganized and not
motivated.
• have a very strong concept knowledge yet weak reading skills, although
not enough to meet a reading disability. The student knows a lot, is
highly motivated about the particular topic, but builds knowledge
through activities and mediums other than reading. The student extends
knowledge outside of class but not usually through printed medium.
• be a reluctant reader. The student does not have as much reading experi-
ence; therefore, not as comfortable or competent with handling the heavy
text medium of a large scale assessment. The lower fluency stifles achieve-
ment on tests, especially formal testing. The student does not see himself/
herself as a strong student. The student is keen about learning through
other means but does not recognize his/her own potential as a learner.
• have a disability but does not want to be stigmatized or isolated so
chooses to not take the accommodation. Student would rather perform
86 EVELYN HICKEY
poorly than have to be ostracized. Student may use the accommodation

if it is offered universally which reduces or eliminates the stigma.
These students, like others who qualify based on present criteria, would
benefit from access to accommodations (Hickey, 2013). “All learners want
and need to learn in ways that are engaging and accessible to them,” not
just in activities in the classroom but also in assessment (Dalton & Brand,
2012, p. 3).
Rose (2011) presented the idea that if students use “screen voicing,” the
program is merely voicing the content on the screen or paper to provide an
option to access. This supports individual student needs and the “diverse ways
of recognizing, strategically interacting, and engaging with an assessment”
(Dolan et al., 2005, p. 8). On a large scale assessment, students, whether they
hear it or read it, or a combination of hearing and reading, need to understand
the question in order to perform the task. Edyburn (2007) posits that assistive
technology can improve performance in assessment and “challenges tradi-
tional entitlements held by those who can complete a task and claim that their
performance is superior to the performance of those who must rely on tech-
nology” (p. 151). Through the perspective of UDL, assistive technology, such
as text to speech, would be offered as a universal tool, eliminating the compar-
ison of those who use or do not use the support since it is a choice for all.
Students who are not eligible for accommodations or who decline
accommodations because they do not want to be identified must go into an
exam room and demonstrate their knowledge through “naked indepen-
dence” (Edyburn, 2006). This means that students who may be able to
enhance their learning or performance through supports are not permitted
to use these in large scale assessments because of the perception that it
would be unfair or would skew the results of the exam. This perception
does not honor the diversity of any given student population.
As research grows it will build greater understanding about using assis-
tive technology as a universal design in large scale assessment (Almond &
Karvonen, 2007; Bolt, 2011; Edyburn, 2006; Hickey, 2013). Since the pur-
pose of the large scale assessment, particularly in many high school core
subjects, is not to measure students’ reading or more specifically decoding
proficiency, reading should not mandatory. When supports are “embedded
universally, but displayed individually,” all students get to choose which
supports are most helpful for their individual needs (Rose & Dalton, 2009,
p. 79). This power to choose may improve student engagement in the
assessment because student diversity is better addressed (Dolan & Hall,
2007; Ketterlin-Geller, 2005).
Assessment 87
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FURTHER

RESEARCH
This chapter has explored the barriers to large scale assessment such as
diploma exams or departmental exams that may interfere with students’
ability to perform optimally without broader access than is presently avail-
able for most students. It is meant to stimulate thinking about the possibili-
ties to inform practice. The research about UDL, assessment, access,
accommodations, and large scale assessment is helping to provide knowl-

edge for purposefully designing for diverse learners.
The growing research illustrates that when diversity is ignored, students
may not have the appropriate access to their learning environment
including assessments (Edyburn, 2010; Meyer et al., 2014). Pellegrino and
Quellmalz (2010) suggested that understanding and planning to adequately
use technology for assessment was in its infancy. Since then, and over the
next decade, research will be valuable in growing the capacity of using
technology, assistive technology and other accommodations through
acknowledging what is known about diversity and learning. It is incumbent
upon educators and stakeholders to continue to explore and build knowl-
edge about assessments and barriers that may inadvertently impact stu-
dents. “And there needs to be a mix of committing to best practice (existing
practices that already have a good degree of widely agreed effectiveness)
and having the freedom, space and resources to create next practice (inno-
vative approaches that often begin with teachers themselves and that will
sometimes turn out be the best practice of the future)” (Hargreaves &
Fullen, 2012, p. 51). When it is known that these assessments have barriers
that may compromise optimal performance because of the limited access,
what are the implications for practice?
Ministry, School, and Classroom
It is important to consider implications at a ministry level because the lea-

dership for large scale assessment, including policy around administration,
comes from that government department in each province. Policymakers at
ministries of education illustrate through publications that they understand
students have diverse needs and that research needs to play an integral role
in their decision-making (Alberta Education, 2010a; British Columbia
Ministry of Education, 2008; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009). Being
88 EVELYN HICKEY
open to strategies that may dismantle barriers for all, not only in the class-
room but also on large scale assessments, may reflect how education
evolves with new knowledge.
Along the lines of considering what makes a difference in assessment,
Volante (2007) recommends consultation with stakeholders. He asserts,
“ongoing collaboration allows us to not only discuss the direction we want our
schools to take, but more importantly, examine how we are going to get there.
Talking with students, parents, educators, and other primary stakeholders may
reveal important factors that stand in the way of academic excellence”

(Volante, 2007, p. 14). As more teachers understand the benefit of multiple
representation when formal exam writing such as large scale assessment occurs,
they would have particular insight that may be beneficial to share with the
ministry. This first-hand knowledge is important to consistently gather.
Ministries are encouraged to be cognizant of the studies that are available
that relate to assistive technology being utilized in a universal design on
large scale assessment (Hickey, 2013; Johnstone, 2003; Ketterlin-Geller,
2005). As students have more opportunity for choice they build their knowl-
edge about their own learning and what works optimally for them (Alberta
Education, 2010b). Ministries are encouraged to have openness and colla-
boration with the faculties of education at local, national, and international
universities to nurture further research. In addition to fostering collabora-
tion with faculty members at a university, ministries could seek out and
invite doctoral students who are interested in the areas of accommodation,
access, and large scale assessment to contribute to the research within their
districts to build further understanding. When research is conducted in the
specific jurisdiction, it complements what is already known for local per-
spectives. Most powerfully, the direction of the ministry in how they con-
sider assessment for diverse learners impacts the schools under their
authority. Pilot studies that give broader access to accommodations on large
scale assessment to allow all students to benefit, may model the practice for
school boards and educators across their jurisdiction.
Schools are restricted in what they can do with large scale assessment
because the policy for procedures is set by the ministry, and schools follow
the directions from the ministry. They are not restricted, however, in setting
the tone for their own professional development. School leaders make a dif-
ference in how staff approach innovation and change (Handford &
Leithwood, 2013). Administrators guide staff about whole school strategy for
the school’s development plan including how diversity, student learning, and
assessment are addressed. Often accommodations are viewed as “special,”
instead of thinking about how all students may need accommodations, from
Assessment 89
time to time, depending on the circumstances. Professional development

about UDL, its value within the school culture, and its benefit to students,
needs to be valued by school leaders to increase staff capacity in this area.
For example, understanding more deeply the implication of using only the
medium of text in assessment is helpful for the whole staff, not just individual
teachers. Like others in the field, Meo (2008) recognizes that it is important
for teachers to be well versed in the differences, since, in reality, “each student
is special” (p. 21). It is a different paradigm that enhances teacher capacity
for addressing the myriad needs.

In the classroom, assessment, formal and informal, happens regularly to
gauge performance and learning. Volante (2006b) attests that “students
must be active partners in the assessment process” (p. 136). Part of this
involvement should include choice for access: if teachers and students are
active in exploring the barriers in assessment within the class, students
become more knowledgeable about what works for them individually as
learners, it reduces the negative impact for students who are stigmatized by
being identified as needing a particular tool and it may positively influence
motivation for students (Meyer et al., 2014). Given that assessments can be
text heavy, it is incumbent that teachers consider how the barriers to such
assessment can be reduced. If the test is about demonstrating knowledge
of the concept, not about how fast or if one can read the material, the stu-
dents should be able to choose to access through a different medium if they
trust that it will better meet their needs. Students may not know that it
could or should be an option (Hickey, 2013). When students are more
aware of their needs as they participate in assessment, particularly formal
assessment, they may take more ownership of their learning.
Multiple representation is one way for students to access the material on
an assessment that has a heavy text medium. For example, using multiple
choice tests that are modeled on large scale assessment is one means tea-
chers measure learning in secondary school; yet this type of testing, like the
large scale assessment, creates barriers. When teachers choose to use multi-
ple choice tests, they need to be aware of the limitations for accurately
assessing student knowledge. If all students are given the opportunity to
use multiple representation, not as a special accommodation for a few, they
learn what works for them in terms of accessing the material. Using multi-
ple representation for exams/tests within the school setting builds student
experience. Some students would choose to listen while others would not.
The point is that they would have access and choice. This is empowering.
Should teachers worry about disadvantaging students who may not be able
to access audio/text to speech versions for large scale assessment? If
90 EVELYN HICKEY
anything, it provides evidence of “history of use” which may give grounds

for requesting that access on the large scale assessment. It may begin the
process of students advocating for access for themselves.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research on multiple formats of large scale assessment would help

increase our knowledge. It is important to further develop new knowledge

about accommodation, access, and assessment to influence the implementa-
tion of a more universal design in tests that have heavy text medium. The
following are some possible research topics that could extend the existing
knowledge base:
• How does access to multiple representation on diploma exams affect stu-
dent satisfaction with the process?
• How does access to multiple representation on diploma exams impact
student achievement?
• What are students’ understanding about access and their own learning
needs?
• How should student self-advocacy for meeting needs on assessment be
encouraged in secondary school?
• How does teacher understanding about diversity influence their practice
around accommodations, access, and universal design for assessment?
• How does fluid access to technology impact secondary teacher percep-
tions for incorporating UDL into their summative assessments?
• What factors are most important in influencing professional development
around diversity and access?
• What are secondary students perspectives about their experience with
classes using UDL perspective for activities and assessments?
• How can specific technology tools such as electronic dictionaries disman-
tle barriers in large scale assessment?
• What is the impact on stigma for secondary students who have universal
access?
CONCLUSION
When barriers are reduced, all students benefit, including those who are
stigmatized by a diagnosis of a disability, those who are left in the fringes
Assessment 91
without a diagnosis, those who no longer qualify for accommodations, and

those who have specific learning preferences. Diversity is the lived reality in
all classrooms because students come from a wide variety of backgrounds
and have a wide continuum of strengths. When these diverse students write
large scale assessments, it is critical to consider that they bring myriad
needs into the examination room. Access cannot be narrowly defined and
used only for those who meet specific criteria. The research that is available
today is supportive of the notion that accommodations such as assistive
technologies used universally through principles of UDL increase access on

large scale assessments. What are the possibilities?
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. (2010a). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Retrieved from
http://www.inspiringeducation.alberta.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wqYRVMa%20WPH
8%3d&tabid=124
Alberta Education. (2010b). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differen-
tiated instruction. Retrieved from http://www.education.alberta.ca/teachers/resources/
cross/making-a-%20difference.aspx
Almond, P., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Accommodations for a K to 12 standardized assessment:
Practical implications for policy. In C. Cahalan Laitusis & L. L. Cook (Eds.), Large-
scale assessment and accommodations: What works? (pp. 117 136). Arlington, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). The reliability of assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment
and learning (pp. 9 26). London: Sage.
Bolt, S. E. (2011). Factors to consider in providing appropriate test accommodations to indivi-
duals students with disabilities. In M. Russell & M. Kavanaugh (Eds.), Assessing stu-
dents in the margin: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 3 30). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2008). Diversity in BC schools: A framework.
Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/diversity/diversity_framework.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2015). UDL guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.cast.org/library/UDLguidelines/index.html
Dalton, E., & Brand, S. (2012). The assessment of young children through the lens of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Forum of Public Policy Online, 2012(1).
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ979436.
Dolan, R., & Hall, T. (2007). Developing accessible tests with universal design and digital tech-
nologies: Ensuring we standardize the right things. In C. C. Laitusis & L. L. Cook
(Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works? (pp. 95 111).
Arlington, VA: Council of Exceptional Children.
Dolan, R., Hall, T., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of
universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test per-
formance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology,
Learning, and Assessment, 3(7), 4 32.
92 EVELYN HICKEY
Edyburn, D. (2006). Failure is not an option. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(1),
20 23.
Edyburn, D. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda.
Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146 152.
Edyburn, D. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten pro-
positions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 33(1), 33 41.
Edyburn, D. (2011). Harnessing the potential of technology to support the academic success of
diverse students. New Directions for Higher Education, 154, 37 44. doi:10.1002/he.432
Gambell, T., & Hunter, D. (2004). Teacher scoring of large-scale assessment: Professional
development or debilitation? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 697 724.
Haladyna, T., & Downing, S. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17 27.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom.
New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of
Educational Administration, 5(2), 194–212.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullen, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. Toronto: Ontario Principals Council.
Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hehir, T. (2011, July). UDL Summer Institute lectures presented at Harvard University.
Hickey, E. (2013). Dismantling barriers via multiple representation on grade nine provincial
achievement test in mathematics and social studies. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved
from http://theses.ucalgary.ca/handle/11023/810
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary.
New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnstone, C. J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student per-
formance. Technical Report 37. University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/
NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical37.htm
Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging stu-
dents in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153 194.
Katz, J. (2015, July 14). Polar bears in the tropics. Retrieved from http://www.threeblockmo-
del.com/blog
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing
universal design for assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(2),
1 25.
Klinger, D. A., DeLuca, C., & Miller, T. (2008). The evolving culture of large-scale assess-
ments in Canadian education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and
Policy, 76, 1 34.
Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Critical approaches to accessibility for technology-enhanced learning.
Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 85 89.
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure,
52(2), 21 30. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30
Assessment 93
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and prac-
tice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
Morra, T., & Reynolds, J. (2010). Universal design for learning: Application for technology-
enhanced learning. The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 15(1), 43 51.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy.
Retrieved from http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf
Parette, H. P., & Peterson-Karlan, G. (2007). Facilitating student achievement with assistive
technology. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(4), 387 397.
Pellegrino, J., & Quellmalz, E. (2010). Perspectives on the integration of technology and assess-
ment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 119 134.
Ricco, C., & Berger, E. (2005). Exams and the learning environment. Encounter, 18(2), 45 47.
Rose, D. H. (2011, July). UDL Summer Institute lectures presented at Harvard University.
Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2009). Learning to read in the digital age. Mind, Brain and
Education, 3(2), 74 83.
Rose, D. H., & Dolan, R. P. (2006). Implications of universal design for learning for classroom
assessment. In D. H. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for
learning (pp. 73 83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rose, T. L. (2013, June 20). The myth of average. Retrieved from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/
video/The-Myth-of-Average-Todd-Rose-a
Salend, S. (2009). Using technology to create and administer accessible tests. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 41(3), 40 51.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thurlow, M. (2010). Steps toward creating fully accessible reading assessments. Applied
Measurement in Education, 23(2), 88 102. doi:10.1080/08957341003673765
Thurlow, M., Johnstone, C., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. (2008). Universal design of assessment. In
S. Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to
practice (pp. 73 81). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Volante, L. (2006a). An alternative vision for large scale assessment in Canada. Journal of
Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1 14.
Volante, L. (2006b). Principles for effective classroom assessment. Brock Education, 15(2),
134 147.
Volante, L. (2007). Educational quality and accountability in Ontario: Past, present, and
future. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 58. Retrieved from
https://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante_educational%20_quality.html
Volante, L., & Ben Jaafar, S. (2008). Profiles of educational assessment systems worldwide:
Educational assessment in Canada. Assessment in Education, 15, 201 210.
Volante, L., Cherubini, L., & Drake, S. (2008). Examining factors that influence school admin-
istrators’ responses to large-scale assessment. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 84, 1 30.
REFOCUSING INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN
Randall Boone and Kyle Higgins
ABSTRACT
Accessibility design over the past several years has focused much of its
attention on the development of a universal standard or a set of guide-
lines for delivering a diverse array of both content and instructional
processes. Universal design for learning (UDL), for example, promotes
providing multiple means of (a) representation, (b) action and expres-
sion, and (c) engagement for learners who have a wide range of disabil-
ities as well as their typical peers. And while each instructional design
element that represents a means of providing the differentiation
required by the principle generally has a strong evidence-based support
individually, it is difficult to assess any one of them within the larger
ULD “multiple means” milieu of options. It is especially difficult to
do this in regard to learners associated with any particular disability
category. When it comes to targeted instruction, learner characteristics
matter. It follows then that when it comes to developing an instructional
design, that the learning characteristics of a targeted population be
first and foremost considered as the point of departure in the design
and development process. This chapter considers a wide range of
instructional targets within the context of specific disability groups with

ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002005
95
96 RANDALL BOONE AND KYLE HIGGINS
a focus on learning goals, instructional design supports for those goals,

and underlying cognitive processes that may help clarify the goals
themselves as well as the instructional supports to achieve those goals.
Keywords: Instructional design; universal design for learning
Things have changed.

The psychology of design in the current digital environment needs to be
reconsidered from that which emerged in the early years of computer inte-
gration into the basic fabric and culture of the developed, industrialized
world. Cooper (1999) declared that the computerization of previously ana-
log or mechanical systems had created a widespread “cognitive friction”
(p. 20) for users who failed to understand the new inner workings of what
appeared to be a familiar device or appliance. As early as 1988, Norman
was admonishing designers to take care during the transition from an exist-
ing, non-computerized product to one that was controlled by a computer.
An example from those early years was the multi-function button, one that
provided a different outcome based on some supplemental action such as
time duration or keystroke combination. For example, consider the differ-
ence between a Shift-X and a Ctrl-X in a word processing program. One
makes a capital letter; the other deletes anything that was highlighted. An
example from current technology is the on/off button on an iPhone. Press
once and the app that is currently in use will quit and a menu screen will
appear. Hold your finger on it just a bit longer and a seemingly intelligent
agent will become available to answer your loftiest or basest questions.
MENTAL MODELS
So Cooper (1999) asked the question: What do you get when you cross a
(insert any product or device here) with a computer? And the answer was
always the same: You get a computer. The computer would inhabit any
device or system like something from the classic horror movie, Invasion of
the Body Snatchers (1956) in which the unfortunate neighbor still looked
the same, but was really being “operated” by an alien pod-creature.
Refocusing Instructional Design 97
Likewise, our cameras, our phones, our thermostats all had been funda-
mentally changed in how they worked, while our mental models of these
devices had not changed; cognitive friction.
So, what could go wrong?
On December 20, 1995, a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the side of a
mountain in Colombia. One hundred fifty-nine passengers and eight crew-
members were killed (American Airlines Flight 965, n.d.). The crash was
attributed to pilot error. With local radar non-functional, the pilots were
using a flight management computer system that relied on navigational

beacons or waypoints. A series of miscommunications resulted in the pilots
having to re-program the appropriate waypoints into the navigation com-
puter. Due to a difference in navigational beacon identifiers between those
in the navigation computer and those on printed charts, the pilots entered
a waypoint that directed the plane straight into the side of a mountain.
Was the pilot at fault or was his an honest mistake due to poor information
design within the navigation computer? Pilot error or information design
error?
Less catastrophic, but not without negative results, similar difficulties
occur in the course of one’s everyday life. The “pocket dial” and “mystery
music” are two that manifest when smart phones are carried in one’s
pocket or purse. At the automated bank teller machine, new protocols or a
change in the order of user actions can cause alarm when one’s debit card
does not reappear at the expected point in the transaction process. And for
many students, similar instances of cognitive friction occur when, as Boone
and Higgins (2007a, 2007b) suggested, a computer is crossed with a teacher;
that is, students are given inappropriate or poorly designed educational
software and are expected to learn but don’t. Did the feedback provide a
clear link back to the content? Did the student have an opportunity to
change an answer before entering it into the system? Were the accompany-
ing graphics supportive of the text or were they distracting and immaterial
to the learning task? Student error or instructional design error?
While these design issues remain today, significant resources have been
spent in overcoming the difficulties that this analog-to-digital paradigm shift
presented, especially for individuals with disabilities. The World Wide Web
consortium for accessibility standards (http://www.w3.org/standards/web
design/accessibility), the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) legislation
(http://www.ada.gov/ pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm), and software evaluation
tools such as Worldspace (http://worldspace.deque.com) or the Firefox
Accessibility Extension (http://www.accessfirefox.org/ Firefox_Accessibility_
Extensions.php) are some of the positive steps that have been effected.
CURRENT DESIGN FOCUS
Accessibility and instructional design over the past several years has focused
much of its attention on the development of a universal standard or set of
guidelines for delivering a diverse array of both content and instructional
processes. Universal design for learning (UDL), for example, promotes pro-
viding multiple means of (a) representation, (b) action and expression, and
(c) engagement not only for learners with physical or cognitive disabilities
but also for their typical peers as well. Likewise, the Center on Online
Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD) (http://centerononline-
learning.org), a funded project of the Office of Special Education Projects,
U.S. Department of Education, identified three basic domains for research:
(a) learner variability, factors that impact both academic progress and cog-
nitive processing, (b) environment and contextual variability, the effects of
different environments and contexts, and (c) instructional design variability,
features of the online content and the delivery systems employed.
All of this work is evidence, to some degree, of a re-shaped collective
mental model of digital instruction and content delivery for students with
disabilities and their typical peers. Countless students across the globe are
drawn to online courses that are provided through sophisticated learning
management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard (www.blackboard.com)
and Moodle (www.moodle.com), with class sizes ranging from individua-
lized single-student instruction to massive open online courses (MOOC)
that can have thousands of students enrolled. However, there appears to be
an offshoot to Moore’s Law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
moore%27s%20law), which states that the processing power of micropro-
cessors doubles about every 18 months especially relative to cost. The cor-
ollary would note that new technology appears regularly that takes
advantage of the increased processing power observed by Moore. In this
sense, technology is defined not just by the objects, devices, or systems pro-
duced, but also by their application to life, culture, and the environment
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology). It is not just the
devices, but how we choose to use them.
MOBILE DEVICES
Enter the mobile device. One must ask if the mental model for creating
effective instructional and accessible materials within a large scale LMS
such as Moodle for online learning, or a specific purpose computer assisted

instruction system such as Read 180 (http://www.scholastic.com) will be
transportable to mobile devices.
In the United States, it is estimated that more than 50% of high school
students carry a smartphone to school with them every day, with smart-
phone ownership perhaps as high as 78% (Shuler, Levine, & Ree, 2012).
The number is 25% for all students in K-12 and as many as 8% of students
in grades 3 5 (i.e., 8 − 10-year-olds) bring a smartphone to school every
day (Cavanaugh, 2013; Zickuhr & Smith, 2012). And this has all happened
really fast.
• The iPod was introduced in 2001, 14 years ago, and provided music
only.
• The first PodCast came in 2004, 11 years ago, and was voice only.
• The iPhone became available in 2007, only eight years ago, along with
the first apps.
• iPads appeared in 2010, only five years ago.
• And the iWatch, a wearable mobile device, arrived only this year, 2015.
There are between 80,000 and 100,000 education apps on the Apple
online app store alone. More than 80% of the top-selling, paid apps (i.e.,
many are free) in the education category of the iTunes store target students
in grades K through 12. In 2009, 47% of the top-selling apps targeted pre-
school or elementary age children. By 2012 that number had increased to
72% (Shuler et al., 2012). People are buying education apps.
Mobile Apps Are Different
And while problems persist for parents or teachers who want to use these
apps with their children or students, most prominently the issues of quality
instructional design and appropriate content, there are significant differ-
ences between educational apps for mobile devices and traditional educa-
tional software that runs on stand-alone computers or is accessed online
via the Internet or a network server. First and foremost is the cost.
Inexpensive
Apps can be very inexpensive compared to traditional computer software.
An app for teaching the alphabet to preschoolers can be purchased for as
little as 99 cents, with optional free versions that may include advertise-
ments or a curtailed amount of content. A full-featured symbol-based
augmentative communication (AAC) app for a tablet such as the iPad can
be acquired for less than $300, with a free version available as well. The
cost for a single-purpose AAC device, both hardware and software, can be
in the thousands of dollars. Unquestionably an app on a tablet will not be
appropriate for every individual who requires an AAC device, however,
there will be many who can benefit.
Availability
Second is the immediacy of access and acquisition of apps, and the asso-
ciated ability for access via cellular telephony. This provides quick access
pretty much anywhere. A teacher literally could determine a skill or content
deficit for a student during a lesson or from a progress-monitoring system,
and on-the-fly search for an appropriate app, download it to a mobile
device such as a tablet, review it, and have the student using the app within
the “teachable moment.” This intervention could easily take place within
minutes without the teacher ever leaving the classroom.
Marketplace
A third chief difference is the marketplace for apps. Apple products with the
iTunes store and Google Play for Android devices are two of the larger of
just a handful of online markets for mobile apps. So the marketplace is
somewhat restricted. However, the same marketplace is available to both
teachers and parents. The importance of parental involvement in a child’s
education is profound (Henderson, 1987; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000;
Olivos, 2009), and educational apps may provide an opportunity for tea-
chers and parents to find common ground for appropriate collaborations.
Global
The marketplace also does not limit access only to the technologically
advanced countries; this has global implications. For example, many devel-
oping nations that were never able to provide a traditional telephone infra-
structure for their citizens have successfully implemented a cellular system
(Handjiski, 2015), bypassing the need for miles of wires strung across the
country. In the West Central African country of Mali, which has a popula-
tion of about 15 million, as of 2012 there were enough cell phones activated
and in service within the country such that every man, woman, and child
could have one (Polgreen, 2015). This certainly doesn’t mean that every
person in Mali has a cell phone, but they could. And they are not just using
them for voice communication. The texting feature is being widely
exploited for providing information for public health initiatives, market
availability of crops, and financial services. Also, there is a very popular

digital music business in which entrepreneurs download music from the
Internet that is locally popular, and provide it on memory cards, USB
sticks, or directly to their customers phones (Polgreen, 2015).
Cultural
Imagine educational apps being widely distributed on the smart phones
that are undoubtedly destined to arrive soon. With a cultural consensus
that education is the best path to escaping poverty and its accompanying
social ills, it could be that in the near future, educational apps might
become as attractive and sought after as popular music is currently. This
perhaps suggests that our definition of diversity will be expanded to include
different cultural imperatives. There is a current TV commercial for a salad
dressing that depicts a community in which children clamor for broccoli
and carrots (to eat with the dressing of course) rather than cake and
cookies. It is not such a fantasy, however, that educational apps will in the
future become more popular for much of the developing world than enter-
tainment and trivial social media applications. Already, MOOCs are widely
accessed outside of the countries in which they originate, but with mixed
results regarding student success and learning outcomes (Altbach, 2014;
Liyanagunawardena, Williams, & Adams, 2013). This indicates a signifi-
cant interest for online educational opportunity but perhaps in a more
targeted and learner specific format.
Killer Apps
In 1980 an arcade-based video game called Space Invaders was released in a

format that ran on a home video-game console, the Atari 2600, which led
to a quadrupling of sales for the Atari. This result of a single application
having a significant effect on the popularity of any select piece of
technology has widely been referenced as a “killer application” (Killer
application, n.d.). VisiCalc, the first widely used spreadsheet application,
was first available in 1980 and only for the Apple II operating system. This
popularity created a high demand for Apple II computers with many con-
sumers purchasing a personal computer for the first time specifically to use
the VisiCalc program. There are many other examples: (a) word processors
such as WordStar came before Word, (b) spreadsheets such as Lotus 1-2-3
and Excel have replaced VisiCalc, (c) email through early online services
such as CompuServe and America Online (i.e., AOL), (d) the first Web
browser, Mosaic, has been followed by Netscape, Internet Explorer,

Firefox, and Chrome, (e) and there are the relatively new retail sites (e.g.,
Amazon and eBay) and social media platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter)
that likely would be considered killer apps as well. Educators have long
been watchful for the next killer app for educational purposes, much as
have most other professionals across a broad spectrum of fields.
The Operating System

It is arguable, however, that the current killer app is not a single applica-
tion but rather the mobile device operating system. The two most popular
are the iOS for Apple products (e.g., iPhone, iPad) and the Android OS,
currently owned by Google, for a wide variety of similar smart phones and
tablet devices. One can argue that it is not any individual application or
even a sum total of the most popular apps that has led to the ubiquity of
the smart mobile device, but rather the mobility created by the operating
systems that has earned killer app status.
Targeted Instruction
When it comes to instructional design, learner characteristics matter

(Higgins & Boone, 2001; Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 2002). It follows then
that when it comes to developing educational materials, that the learning
characteristics of a population be first and foremost considered as the point
of departure in the design and development process (Dick & Carey, 1990).
For example, students with learning disabilities (LD) generally will not ben-
efit from the same instructional strategy that works for students with aut-
ism or students who have an intellectual disability (Higgins & Boone, 1996;
Higgins et al., 2002). Differentiation, in fact, historically has been at the
heart of the distinction between assistive technology and instructional tech-
nology (Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabala, 2005). Instructional technology
typically has focused more on pedagogy and materials design, and assistive
technology has been more about the individuals with disabilities themselves
and their specific accessibility requirements. So while recent research and
development efforts such as universal design for learning, with a goal of
designing all systems for all learners is laudable, this focus may have
diverted too much attention away from targeting instruction for individual
learners, especially those with specific learning, cognitive, and physical
disabilities.
DESIGN CONVERGENCE
Returning to the title of this second volume of the Advances in Special

Education Technology book series, “Accessible Instructional Design,” the
remainder of this chapter centers on the convergence of accessibility and
instructional design, but with an eye focused on the latest killer app, the
mobile device operating system. These devices, with touch screen and voice
access are cheaper, more flexible, less obvious, and more transportable than
almost anything most of us could have imagined just a decade ago. And
new possibilities are seemingly always just around the corner. Currently, the
new Macintosh laptops are available with a force-touch track pad that pro-
vides a haptic feedback response to the user’s contact with the pad. This
technology may open up even more opportunities for accessible educational
interventions by expanding the available media from visual and auditory to
include touch.
Many accessibility tools that mitigate some of the difficulties encoun-
tered by persons with sensory, physical, and cognitive disabilities are
already included as part of the operating systems for many mobile devices.
Table 1 lists most of the accommodating features of the typical smart
phone or mobile tablet. This example is from the iOS 8.4 (i.e., up to date
July 2015) for the iPhone and iPad. Designers and developers can hardwire
these supports into the apps that they create, or the supports can be incor-
porated through user selection either by system options of the device OS,
or through user options of the app itself. Presenting the supports via user
options provides the design foundation for the operational principles for
systems such as UDL and digital content accessibility guides (e.g.,
Section 508; http://www.section508.gov).
Too Much of a Good Thing
Many of the features once viewed primarily as accommodations for per-

sons with disabilities, now have been incorporated into everyday use of the
typical user who does not have a documented disability. Some examples
are (a) predictive text, (b) user programmable keyboard shortcuts, (c) text-
to-speech for content as well as application controls, (d) screen magnifiers
and font adjustment, and (e) visual and vibrating alerts.
It is worth noting, however, that having these assistive supports turned
on all the time may or may not be a good thing. Deciding which
Table 1. Typical Accommodations of a Mobile Device Operating System.

Tool Accommodation Provided
Dictation Talk rather than type (i.e., speech to text).

Predictive text Choose from suggestions to finish a word or produce a subsequent word.
Keyboard A custom substitution for a frequently used word or phrase (e.g., “F2F”
shortcuts becomes “face to face or in person”).
Voice over A screen reader for limited text selected by a simple touch to the screen.
Speak screen Text-to-speech for email, text messages, web pages, e-books.
Zoom Screen magnifier that works with all apps.

Font adjustments Font size is controlled across a range of apps; as well as
selectable contrast and color.
Braille translate Supports a wide selection of Bluetooth wireless Braille displays.
Switch control Sequential navigation through Bluetooth-enabled switch hardware.
Assistive touch Allows user-changeable touch screen movements.
Visible alerts LED light flashes in place of an audible alert.
Vibrating alerts The device vibrates in place of an audible alert, with custom vibration
patterns.
Mono audio Plays both audio channels into both earpieces.
Siri An “intelligent” agent that responds to voice queries and commands. It
can provide content and perform functions such as making phone calls.
Guided access Constrains the device such that the user must remain working within a
single app.
Note: Examples from the iPhone, Apple iOS.
accommodations should be on as a default and which should be left to the

discretion of the user poses a difficult conundrum. It may be too much of a
good thing if the user must take on the task of navigating these features
and filtering out the helpful ones from those that are not. This proliferation
of accommodations is similar to the feature creep (Feature creep, n.d.) that
many ascribe to other complex digital systems as well (Elliot, 2007;
Surowiecki, 2007). Fig. 1 depicts a scenario in which having the predictive
text feature turned on might cause some embarrassment to the sender.
It should not be surprising that when the complexity of a system is
increased, that a resulting increase in problems or difficulties might arise.
Gould advised that “the more complex the device, the greater the number
of potential side consequences” (Gould, 2000, Kindle Loc 481). Gould pro-
vided the example of a personal computer purchased for a specific task
(e.g., personal finances) that “by virtue of the inbuilt structure and quite
apart from my intent” (Gould, 2000, Kindle Loc 481) can perform a vast
array of unanticipated tasks, many of which the user hasn’t even conceived.
In fact, the Apple iOS has an accommodation feature that serves as an app
Fig. 1. Unintended Message.
“wrangler,” that is, it can limit the user experience to a pre-selected app or
set of apps. This type of constraint (Norman, 1988) can be a powerful
instructional design element, especially for students such as those with cer-
tain types of autism (Bölte, Golan, Goodwin, & Zwaigenbaum, 2010;
Mirenda, 2001; Stockall & Dennis, 2014).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING

Universal design for learning (UDL) provides a set of guidelines or over-
arching principles for delivering both content and instructional process.
Much of the work and codification of the concept has emanated from the
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST; http://cast.org) and periph-
eral organizations such as the National Center on Universal Design
for Learning (http://www.udlcenter.org) and the National Center on
Accessible Educational Materials (http://aem.cast.org).
Universal design for learning is especially important as a design arche-

type for a couple of reasons. First, its set of principles focuses both on
instructional support features as well as traditional accessibility considera-
tions and affordances. The UDL guidelines promote providing multiple
means of (a) representation, (b) action and expression, and (c) engagement.
For example, under the construct of representation, (a) providing multiple
ways of customizing the display and (b) offering alternatives for auditory
and visual information are presented as precepts for content modification
to provide accessibility mainly for users with visual or hearing impairments.

This is traditional accessibility design. However, under the same thematic
heading, the guidelines suggest that options be provided for (a) comprehen-
sion support, (b) background knowledge retrieval, and (c) information
transfer and generalization (http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevi-
dence). These supports are clearly instructional.
Another reason for a careful review of UDL is its interconnection with
public policy and educational legislation. Universal design for learning
quickly became a widely discussed and popularized topic in both the aca-
demic and educational policy arenas. It was included in the Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 and defined as a “scientifi-
cally valid framework for guiding educational practice” (Higher Education
Opportunity Act [HEOA], 2008, p. 12). There is some evidence, however,
that this definition is not completely accurate.
Evidence Base
Providing an evidence-base for instructional practices is an important fea-

ture of current education policy and philosophy. The What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC; http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc), an arm of the Institute
of Education Sciences, was specifically created to provide leadership in
defining a set of parameters for educational research that would help
ensure validity in published research on educational outcomes. And while
the WWC promotes a relative strict experimental design for research that it
includes in its database of reviewed studies, it also acknowledges that the
absence of positive outcomes from appropriately conducted studies does
not automatically mean that a particular intervention can’t be effective
(WWC; http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document.aspx?sid=15&pid=2). This is
an important point when looking at the evidence base for UDL.
In the introduction to a special journal series in Learning Disability
Quarterly that focused specifically on universal design for learning, the
series editor stated that “there are hundreds of practitioner articles in peer-
reviewed educational journals touting the merits of using UDL techniques
for students with LD …[and]… there is an intuitive appeal” (King-Sears,
2014, p. 68). The passage continued: “one major claim for students with
LD is how the use of UDL techniques in general education settings pro-
motes their achievement.” However, the empirical basis for this claim, it
was pointed out, “is severely lacking” (2014, p. 68). A dearth of evidence-
based research with UDL systems seems to be a problem for the promotion
of UDL (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012; Roberts, Park,

Brown, & Cook, 2012). Edyburn (2010) summed it up stating that UDL as
a scientifically validated approach “… cannot be substantiated at this time”
(p. 34). Clearly, experimentally, it is difficult to separate the many variables
associated with the multiple supports that are part and parcel with UDL.
While each instructional design element that represents a means of provid-
ing the differentiation required by a UDL principle generally has a strong
evidence-based support individually, it is difficult to assess any one of them
within the larger UDL multiple means milieu of options. It is especially dif-
ficult to do this in regard to learners associated within a particular disabil-
ity category.
Multiple Variables
The multivariate elements included in many instructional strategies only
exacerbate the confusion when combined with the multiple supports,
accommodations, and positive constraints that constitute a UDL design.
Kennedy, Thomas, Meyer, Alves, and Lloyd (2014) used UDL principles,
along with the principles of multimedia learning theory (Mayer, 2002,
2009; Mayer & Moreno, 2003) for implementing a set of multimedia-based
content acquisition podcasts, which were also mediated by a curriculum-
based measurement (CBM) progress-monitoring system. Separating the
effects of the UDL from multimedia learning theory from CBM is a
Herculean task that may be more like that of Sisyphus actually, impossible
to achieve. The goal of universal design of educational materials such that
“everyone learns” is compelling and hard to resist. It is the implementation
of a successful strategy to achieve the goal that is most difficult to demon-
strate. In fact, the research base for UDL is built primarily on a collection
of separate, independent research findings, from which the multiple means
supporting the components of each UDL principle is derived.
The National Center on Universal Design for Learning provides a com-
prehensive list of publications under the heading of “research evidence”
that are associated with each element of the UDL guidelines (http://www.
udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence). For example, associated with the

design principle of “Illustrate through multiple media,” more than 60 publi-
cations are listed that provide “experimental and quantitative evidence” for
this single UDL component.
There is little evidence to suggest that designing materials for one med-
ium is substantively different from designing for another. The traditional
systems approach to instructional design (Dick & Carey, 1990) has focused
on each element of the process rather than the delivery mechanism (e.g.,
instructor, computer, television). It would follow, then, that appropriately

designed materials for delivery via networked computer systems should
also work with the mobile device. Many online systems offer mobile device
access. However, the mobile device appears to be a “bearer of values” as
well (Wasik, 2015, p. 18).
DEVICE NEUTRALITY
Some argue that the smartphone is not a culturally neutral device (Wasik,
2015). Evidence to support this claim generally centers on the interconnec-
tivity design built into the apps that so many people are using across the
globe. Many of these apps have been designed to make one’s presence in
the world more public through seamless uploading of content to the
Internet in a “cycle of escalating self-revelation” (Wasik, 2015, p. 18).
Many apps are also moving into the realms of more established businesses,
much as computer access to airline scheduling encroached into the travel
industry. There are apps that find hotel and hospitality accommodations,
transportation, and other personal services. Many of these are single-
purpose apps; they do only one thing, and they are very popular. A Google
search for “single purpose app” returns many examples, along with an
equally impressive number of blog posts regarding the utility of single-pur-
pose apps (SAP). Many of the current SAPs use the location feature of the
mobile operating system to personalize response; a good example is the
Uber app (www.uber.com), which finds the user transportation that is
available in the vicinity of where the person is located. Others include simi-
lar help for locating a barber or hair salon, a bar, a flower shop, iPhone
repair, ice cream, and finding a date. The SAP is also providing users with
quick, simple solutions to some mundane, everyday tasks. Three that have
been quite successful (Wortham, 2015) include Yo (www.yo.co), an app
that sends a message saying only one thing, “Yo.” And there is Lo
(https://lo-yo.com), which allows the user to send his/her location to friends

quickly and simply; and a similar simple message app, 1minlate (en.1min-
late.com), that automatically alerts a list of contacts that the user is run-
ning late.
Likewise, there are a growing number of education apps for mobile
devices that have a limited or single purpose (https://itunes.apple.com/us/
genre/ios-education/id6017?mt=8). Teachers can choose from tools to facil-
itate class-wide communication such as Edmodo (www.edmodo.com) or
support classroom management and positive behavior supports with

ClassDojo (www.classdojo.com). Students across a wide age range can uti-
lize apps that are keenly targeted to content and user interest and ability.
The following are just a few examples from the Apple iTunes education
apps collection (https://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/ios-education/id6017?
mt=8): the alphabet song, common sight words, geometric shapes, the
anatomy of the human brain, and American sign language.
Wow Factor
And one must admit that all of this is quite impressive. It is easy to be awe-
inspired by such compelling technology, sometimes to the point of being
less cautious in examining the true efficacy of the new device. This brings
back Cooper’s (1999) cautionary tale of the “dancing bear” that lumbers
into the ring of an old-time circus. “The bear is really a terrible dancer and
the wonder isn’t that the bear dances well but that the bear dances at all”
(p. 26). The wonder today may be not that we are doing anything educa-
tionally important or effective with our mobile devices, but that these
things work at all. It is important to look past the wow-factors associated
with mobile devices and evaluate them and their apps the same as any other
learning and teaching tools. This process has begun.
App Evaluation
Several Websites offer ratings of educational apps indicating a quality

score, a generally short description, suggested age, and devices supported.
Common Sense Media (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/reviews) and
the American Association of School Librarians (http://www.ala.org/aasl/
standards-guidelines/best-apps/2014) both provide similar services.
Additionally, some of the early work done regarding evaluation of
educational software (Boone & Higgins, 2007a) is being replicated and

extended to focus specifically on apps for mobile devices. Ok, Kim, Kang,
and Bryant (in press) provided an evaluation rubric specific for students
with learning disabilities, which looked at 13 categories of features: (a) sta-
ted objectives, (b) suggested strategies, (c) examples, (d) practice opportu-
nities, (e) feedback and error correction, (f) error analysis, (g) progress
monitoring. (h) motivation, (i) simple navigation, (j) appropriate visuals
and audition, (k) font control, (l) individualization via custom settings, and
(m) error and bias-free content. These features are very similar to the
instructional variables reported by Boone and Higgins (2007a) regarding
computer-based educational software for students with disabilities.
Likewise, the question of “Is there an app for that?” now is followed by a
closer review (Douglas, Wojcik, & Thompson, 2012; Newton & Dell, 2011;
Shuler et al., 2012).
DESIGN IMPERATIVES
There is much about teaching and learning that could be incorporated into
a wide range of educational apps that are targeted (a) to the learner, (b) for
a particular content, skill, or process, and (c) through an effective strategy.
While there are endlessly recurring arguments regarding pedagogy for
teaching specific skills such as literacy and mathematics, recent advances in
both brain research and cognitive science may provide a basic set of learn-
ing principles that can act to support many of the tried and true pedagogi-
cal strategies that teachers have been utilizing for decades. Likewise, the
evidence base is solidly established for learning from multimedia and for
strategies that work with specific populations.
Recurring themes from different disciplines can provide a reasonable
degree of reliability through triangulated data. For example, Medina (2014,
p. 244) outlined one of his brain rules as: “We are powerful and natural
explorers.” Norman (1988, Kindle Loc 62) in discussing basic design princi-
ples stated that “the human mind is a wonderful organ … we are always
trying to find meaning in the events around us.” And the first of
Willingham’s (2009, Kindle Loc 159) nine cognitive principles of learning is
that “people are naturally curious …” Together these authors seem to be
saying that humans are well adapted to learn.
There are some caveats, however. Medina (2014, p. 4) admits that while
we still “know precious little about how the brain works,” there are some
important things to be inferred from evolutionary history. He pointed out

that for most of history, humans have successfully solved problems relating
to survival in an unstable outdoor environment while constantly moving.
He called this the brain’s performance envelope. Willingham (2009, Kindle
Loc 220) agreed that problem solving is fundamental to the human condi-
tion, but argued that “for the vast majority of decisions we make” memory
is key; it stores not only factual information but also strategies for working
through similar problem-solving situations.
Another item of consensus is the importance of repetition. Medina’s

(2014, p. 3) rule number 7 simply said: “Repeat to remember.” Willingham
(2009, Kindle Loc 3655) stated that “proficiency requires practice.” And
Tufte (1990) indicated that repetition through the use of “small multiples”
(p. 67) is one of the best solutions for a wide range of data presentation
problems.
Other principles worth noting from these disciplines include the
following:
• We don’t pay attention to boring things (Medina, 2014).
• Vision trumps all other senses (Medina, 2014).
• Stressed brains don’t learn the same way (Medina, 2014).
• Factual knowledge precedes skill (Willingham, 2009).
• We understand new things in the context of things we already know
(Willingham, 2009).
Multimedia Learning Theory
The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) contains another

well-established set of principles for effective learning from digital materials
(Mayer, 2009). The basic five principles are the following:
1. Multimedia principle: Word and graphics together are more effective
than words alone. This is fairly basic and has its roots in folk wisdom
such as “a picture is worth a 1000 words.”
2. Contiguity principle: Place printed words near corresponding graphics.
An important idea but certainly not a new one. Leonardo’s treatise on
how to draw a horse shows drawing instructions overlaid on a drawing
of a horse.
3. Coherence principle: Too much entertaining or motivational material
can cause distractions that disrupt learning. These are the “bells and
whistles” that have been cautioned about.
4. Modality principle: This principle is heavily based in the dual-coding the-

ory that supports cognitive load theory. This principle suggests that gra-
phics with accompanying audio can be more effective than graphics with
accompanying on-screen text.
5. Redundancy principle: Similar to the modality principle, it suggests that
presenting words in both text and audio narration simultaneously can
harm learning.
These principles are not hard and fast rules, however, and there are
some notable exceptions from applied research in these areas. Boone and
Higgins (2007a) found competing and sometimes contradicting evidence
when comparing the five principles of the cognitive theory of multimedia
learning to key evaluation areas from their Software Evaluation Tool
(SET; Boone & Higgins, 2007a) as well as UDL principles. Fig. 2 is from
the SET category listing positive instructional design aspects.
Highlighted is the statement indicating that “multiple representations” is
a positive characteristic for providing good instruction. This is certainly
compatible with UDL, with its focus on multiple means of representation.
However, there is a potential for conflict with several CTML principles: (a)
it may violate the contiguity principle by having text and graphics inappro-
priately combined, (b) it may violate the modality principle by not substi-
tuting audio for text to accompany a graphic, and (c) it may violate the
redundancy principle if text is accompanied by a verbatim narration.
Another example of possible problems can be seen with feedback (see
Fig. 3). Although it is clear that feedback is important and that it be consis-
tent, immediate, and obvious, it also has the potential to be used
Fig. 2. Positive Instructional Design Elements from the SET.

Fig. 3. Positive Aspects of Feedback from the SET.
ineffectively if it violates the contiguity principle. That is, the feedback

should not be separated from the input event. Some common design mis-
takes include (a) feedback provided on a separate screen, (b) feedback sepa-
rated from event screen because of scrolling, and (c) feedback provided in a
pop-up window that overlaps the event screen.
Adapting Content
There is a long history within special education of adapting content to

make it more accessible for the learning needs of students with disabilities
(Bruhn & Hasselbring, 2013; Fenty & Barnett, 2013; Higgins et al., 2002).
Textbooks, either digital or traditional paper, remain the predominant
instructional tool in most schools. Students are required to read them inde-
pendently although textbook content has been criticized for its instruc-
tional design, level of difficulty, and topical relevance (Higgins et al., 2002).
Accommodations to textbooks that have proven effective for students with
disabilities have included (a) advance organizers, (b) vocabulary support,
(c) study guides, (d) graphic organizers, (e) supplemental visual information
displays, (f) comprehension supports such as interspersed questions, and
(g) mnemonic devices.
One must remember that all these pedagogical strategies and learning
principles are not really the focus of designing effective learning experiences
for students with disabilities. A specific focus on students as individual lear-
ners is key. In that same vein, access to content alone isn’t enough. That is,
access to information doesn’t necessarily mean access to learning.
Designing for access and designing for learning are separate but equally
important processes (Boone & Higgins, 2005). Subtle differences can be
very important.
Fig. 4. Targeted Instruction for Student with LD. Source: Text used by
permission, Hayes (2004).
Fig. 4 depicts a typical instructional support for a student with a learn-

ing disability in reading. The questioning and feedback strategy is shown
on a tablet device prototype app. After reading a short passage the student
is prompted with a question, the answer for which is contained within the
passage. The student is asked to touch the sentence within the passage that
contains the answer to the question. A correct response provides some sort
of positive feedback, however, an incorrect response sets up an error cor-
rection strategy in which the student is given the same question again, but
the text in which the answer resides has been constrained. Similar in con-
tent and instructional goal, the screens depicted in Fig. 5 show an instruc-
tional strategy that might be more appropriate for a student who needs a
more guided process, such as a student with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD). In this strategy, the initial amount of text shown at one time is lim-
ited (i.e., chunking; Keennan, 1984) and the answering mechanism to the
same question is constrained to multiple choice. As in the previous exam-
ple, an error correction strategy accompanies the student’s second attempt
Fig. 5. Targeted Instruction for Student with ASD. Source: Text used by
permission, Hayes (2004).
to answer the question. This strategy provides support through the con-
straint of removing one distractor (i.e., the previous incorrect choice by the
student) and by providing the affordance of boldface type over the sentence
where the answer is found. Same content, same goal, but differentiated
instruction based on the learning needs of the individual student.
While both of these instructional strategies (along with many others)
could be resident in a single app, doing so would add an additional layer of
non-transparent application navigation and decision-making for the stu-
dent or for the teacher. With simplicity as a watchword for effective design,
the limited scope or single-purpose app that has become such a popular
cultural occurrence may serve well as a focus for educational apps in the
future. There is enough anecdotal evidence from the usage patterns from
this popular phenomenon to suggest that a re-evaluation of the design
paradigm of the past is warranted.
Additionally, the research is clear on providing instructional content
in limited amounts at a time for students with disabilities. Chunking
(Gobet, 2005) has been shown to be an effective instructional strategy

across a variety of research studies for several decades (Doyle, 1977).
DISCUSSION
The mobility and ubiquitous connectivity of mobile devices today allow

users to connect and “pull” the information that they want from the
Internet piece by piece as they need it. In addition to the widespread adop-
tion of downloading e-books rather than patronizing a bookstore, many
users are now subscribing to streaming music sites such as Spotify (www.
spotify.com), Pandora (www.pandora.com), and Apple Music (www.apple.
com/music/). A proliferation of educational apps for mobile devices, avail-
able “as needed” might bring a similar mindset to students and teachers of
a wide variety of learners around the world.
Based on the observations from this chapter, the proposal is this:
Accessibility now must include not only the traditional alternative modal-
ities for content delivery and interaction but also attend to the device affor-
dances and learning proclivities of the intended users. It is possible that
continuing a focus on large online or network based learning systems may
be misguided. Making predictions regarding the impact that mobile devices
are likely to have on education in the future is perhaps risky. Prophets
rarely fare too well. But, with the advent and wide distribution of mobile
platforms for distributing interactive digital content, specific targeted apps
should be considered as an alternative to large, multipurpose instructional
system designs, especially for diverse learners, such as individuals with dis-
abilities and non-dominant language learners.
Deus Ex Machina
As the field moves forward to create more effective and accessible technolo-
gies for persons with disabilities, it is worth remembering Stephen J.
Gould’s observation regarding the complexity of devices and systems, such
as the tiny computers that are now called smart phones and mobile tablets.
“The more complex the device, the greater the number of potential side
consequences” (2000, Kindle Loc 481). Excessive complexity may also
impede the construction of appropriate mental models (Cooper, 1999),
which would in turn affect how the technology is utilized.
The path forward for designing effective instructional and assistive tech-
nology is not simple. There are many and sometimes competing guidelines,
principles, exemplars, models, and standards to consider. Designers of digi-
tal materials must carefully sift through the educational implications in the
professional literature of (a) universal design for learning, (b) the cognitive
theory of multimedia learning research, (c) educational neuroscience,
(d) cognitive psychology, and (e) the pedagogical evidence base for specific
populations of learners. They must also consider (a) their own personal
biases, and (b) the reality of the marketplace. Designing for simplicity
within such a complex and diverse set of constraints is difficult, no doubt;
but not without some strategies for success. The first of Madea’s “laws” for
simplifying within digital systems is to reduce. “The simplest way to achieve
simplicity is through thoughtful reduction” (Madea, 2006, Kindle Loc 90).
He continued “When it is possible to reduce a system’s functionality with-
out significant penalty, true simplification is realized. When everything that
can be removed is gone …” (Madea, 2006, Kindle Loc 95). Other suggested
ways to achieve simplicity included (a) effective organization, (b) appropri-
ate context, and (c) time saving (Madea, 2006).
Meeting these goals will require a new distributive model for the design
of digital educational products. These products will incorporate targeted
(e.g., single purpose) instructional interventions that can be used
independently or coordinated through an executive function or progress-
monitoring system.
In many ways this distributive model already exists with the thousands
of education apps that are currently available and in use. In the future, a
Mali-ian marketplace for educational apps like the one that has developed
there for music is not all that unlikely. Imagine a swarm of “learning bots”
available almost instantaneously for inclusion in a teacher’s laboriously
crafted lesson plan or for any impromptu teachable moment or indepen-
dent learning effort.
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G. (2014). MOOCs as neocolonialism: Who controls knowledge? International

Higher Education, 75(Spring), 5 7.
American Airlines Flight 965. (n.d.). In wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
American_Airlines_Flight_965
Bölte, S., Golan, O., Goodwin, M. S., & Zwaigenbaum, L. (2010). What can innovative tech-
nologies do for autism spectrum disorders? Autism, 14, 155 159.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2005). Designing digital materials for students with disabilities. In
D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 481 492). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007a, November). Evaluating educational software for use by stu-
dents with disabilities: The software √list. TAM Technology in Action, 3(1), entire issue.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007b). The role of instructional design in assistive technology
research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135 140.
Bruhn, A. L., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2013). Increasing student access to content area textbooks.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 21 29.
Cavanaugh, S. (2013). Smartphones a standard for majority of students by high school, survey
finds [Web log post], May 2. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/%

20DigitalEducation/2013/05/more_than_half_of_students_car.html
Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high tech products drive us crazy
and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Douglas, K. H., Wojcik, B. W., & Thompson, J. R. (2012). Is there an app for that? Journal of
Special Education Technology, 27(2), 59 70.
Doyle, W. (1977). Learning the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Journal of
Teacher Education, 28, 51 55.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten
propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 33, 33 41.
Elliot, B. (2007). Anything is possible: Managing feature creep in an innovation rich environ-
ment. Proceedings of the IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, July,
2007, Austin, TX (pp. 304 307).
Feature creep. (n.d.). In wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%20Feature_
creep
Fenty, N. S., & Barnett, K. N. (2013). Using alternate texts to support comprehension of the
core content curriculum. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 21 29.
Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implication for education. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 19, 183 204.
Gould, S. J. (2000). Questioning the millennium: A rationalist’s guide to a precisely arbitrary
countdown. New York, NY: Crown/Archetype. Kindle edition.
Handjiski, B. (2015). Mobile connectivity in Africa has already arrived [Web log], March 18.
Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/future-development/posts/2015/03/18-
africa-mobile-connectivity-handjiski
Hayes, J. (2004). The day it snowed tortillas [el dia que nevaron tortillas]. El Paso, TX: Cinco
Puntos Press.
Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves stu-
dent achievement. ED315199.
Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1996). Creating individualized computer assisted instruction for stu-
dents with autism utilizing multimedia authoring software. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 11, 69 78.
Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (2001). Adapting instruction for children with disabilities. In L. W.
Searfoss & J. E. Readence (Eds.), Helping children learn to read: Creating a classroom
literacy environment (4th ed., pp. 330 365). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. C. (2002). Adapting challenging textbooks to improve
content area learning. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for
achievement and behavior problems (2nd ed., pp. 755 790). Silver Spring, MD: National
Association for School Psychologists.
Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). PL 110-315, 122 STAT. 3088.
Keennan, S. A. (1984). Effects of chunking and line length on reading efficiency. Visible
Language, 18(1), 61 80.
Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, J. P., Alves, K. K., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evi-
dence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A
UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 71 86.
Killer application. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_

application. Accessed on July 30, 2015.
King-Sears, P. (2014). Special series introduction: Universal design for learning. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 37, 68 70.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school concep-
tualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk fac-
tors. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 501 523.
Liyanagunawardena, T., Williams, S., & Adams, A. (2013). The impact and reach of MOOCs:
A developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1 8. ISSN: 1887 1542.
Madea, J. (2006). The laws of simplicity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example
of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 2002, 55 71. doi:10.1002/tl.47
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learn-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43 52.
Medina, J. (2014). Brain rules (Updated and expanded): 12 principles for surviving and thriving
at work, home, and school. Edmonds, WA: Pear Press. Kindle edition.
Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology: What do
we really know? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141 151.
Newton, D., & Dell, A. G. (2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best
practices tell us? Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 47 49.
Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ok, M. W., Kim, M. K., Kang, E. Y., & Bryant, B. R. (in press). How to find good apps: An
evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4).
Olivos, E. (2009). Collaboration with Latino families: A critical perspective of home-school
interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 109 115.
Polgreen, L. (2015). The downloaders. The New York Times Magazine, June 7, pp. 37 41.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (Eds.). (2012). A research reader in uni-
versal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2012). Universal design for instruction in
postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 5 15.
Rose, D., Hasselbring, T., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal
design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R.
Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice
(pp. 481 492). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. (29 U.S.C. 794d) as amended by the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220).
Shuler, C., Levine, Z., & Ree, J. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of
apple’s app store. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop.
Stockall, N., & Dennis, L. (2014). Using pivotal response training and technology to engage
preschoolers with autism in conversations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49,
195 202.
Surowiecki, J. (2007). Feature presentation: Feature creep. The New Yorker Magazine, May
28. The Financial Page.

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Wanger, W. (Producer), & Siegel, D. (Director). (1956). Invasion of the body snatchers.
[Motion picture]. United States: Allied Artists.
Wasik, B. (2015). Welcome to the age of digital imperialism. The New York Times Magazine,
June 7, pp. 16 20.
Willingham, D. (2009). Why don’t students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wortham, J. (2015). The app gap. The New York Times Magazine, June 7, pp. 42 46.
Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Report of the Pew Internet and American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.
aspx
1. Kathy B. Ewoldt. 2018. Productivity Apps Supporting Higher Order Writing

Skills for Secondary Students With Learning Disabilities. Intervention in School
and Clinic 53:5, 313-320. [Crossref]

DESIGN FOR MORE TYPES:
DESIGNING TEXT TO SUPPORT
THE ACCESS, ENGAGEMENT, AND
SUCCESS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS
Dave L. Edyburn and Keith D. Edyburn
ABSTRACT
In grades K-3, the primary focus of instruction is learning to read. In

grades 4 and beyond, however, the focus shifts to reading to learn.
Whereas teachers may use a variety of instructional approaches,
research has clearly documented that learning from text is the primary
instructional model found in most classrooms. This means that efforts to
close the achievement gap must focus on ensuring that all students can
access text-based learning materials, engage with the content in mean-
ingful ways, and ultimately demonstrate success in the form of measur-
able gains in learning outcomes. Whereas the philosophy of UDL is
relatively easy to understand, it has proven problematic to design, imple-
ment, evaluate, and scale. The purpose of this chapter is to describe a
universal design engineering approach known as Design for More Types
that can be applied to the design of text-based learning materials, this
chapter will describe the conceptual and practical issues involved in the

ISSN: 2056-7693/doi:10.1108/S2056-769320150000002006
121
122 DAVE L. EDYBURN AND KEITH D. EDYBURN
development of text-based learning materials for diverse learners. We

begin by providing some foundational concepts for this multidisciplinary
work. Next, we provide a series of case studies to illustrate how universal
usability can be applied to various instructional designs. Finally, we
describe how the Design for More Types framework can be used in both
research and practice.
Keywords: Accessibility; Design for More Types; text; universal
design; usability
A sizable body of literature describes the potential of universal design for

learning (UDL) (Gordon, Gravel, & Schifter, 2009; Hall, Meyer, & Rose,
2012; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2013; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, &
Rose, 2012; Rose & Meyer, 2002, 2006; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005).
The philosophy of UDL is relatively easy to understand: (a) It is important
to design educational environments and materials to be accessible for indi-
viduals with disabilities so that they can access and engage in learning and
(b) In an increasingly diverse world, universal design is an intervention that
seeks to provide direct benefit to individuals with disabilities while simulta-
neously offering benefit to everyone at no additional cost.
Despite the intuitive appeal of UDL, in practice it has proven proble-
matic to design, implement, evaluate, and scale (Edyburn & Edyburn,
2012). In our experience, we have noticed that while many teachers, admin-
istrators, professors, content developers, and publishers espouse a personal
commitment to the principles of UDL, there is little evidence that they can
design interventions that enhance accessibility or meaningful engagement
in learning. As one example, a group of college professors, after working
on a series of projects over a two-year period to integrate UDL into their
courses, discovered that they had hit a wall that they called, UDL Fatigue.
That is, despite a sincere commitment to the goals of UDL, attaining a
UDL curriculum always seemed out of their reach. We believe this problem
is widespread because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the leverage
points for implementing universal design within the ecology of instructional
material design, development, and use.
Researchers have encountered similar problems. To date, there is little
research evidence demonstrating the efficacy of UDL (Edyburn, 2010; Rao,
Designing Text 123
Ok, & Bryant, 2014). Particularly problematic is an inability to define what

UDL is, and what it is not. Since the current definition of UDL (Rose &
Meyer, 2002) involves multiple concurrent interventions (multiple means of
representation, expression, and engagement), it is not possible to (a) isolate
the active ingredients of this intervention cocktail to determine which com-
ponents impact individual student learning or (b) determine what dose is
needed to produce successful learning outcomes. As a result of the funda-
mental flaws in operationalizing and measuring the construct of UDL, we
predict that widespread UDL Fatigue is imminent and that UDL will fail
to achieve the potential ascribed to this transformative theoretical
construct.
NEW DIRECTIONS
In a provocative lecture, Media for Thinking the Unthinkable, MIT

Professor Victor (2013) describes the difference between science and engi-
neering. Whereas both professions involve methods for understanding how
systems work, and both have an emphasis on the use of technology, there
are fundamental differences between the two disciplines. Science begins by
observing a system, such as the solar system, and then builds models based
on the measurements and observations that have been collected. Scientific
knowledge is produced by studying systems in order to generate theory
(i.e., system to theory). In contrast, engineering uses theory to build sys-
tems (i.e., theory to system). For example, when engineers set out to build
a rover to explore the surface of Mars, they must solve complex problems
that are not initially apparent in the theoretical model of how the solar sys-
tem works.
Victor’s observation of how scientists study systems in order to
develop theories, and how engineers use theories to develop systems, was
a clarion call for our work. The inability of the education field to widely
implement and scale UDL over the past 15 years has demonstrated the
inadequacy of theory alone to alter educational practice. Victor helped
us understand that applying more science to the theory of universal
design would not be sufficient to solve the problem of actually creating
instructional materials. As a result, it is time to recognize that the pro-
blem of applying universal design to education is a task that needs to be
tackled with the same excitement and rigor as developing a Mars rover
by approaching the task as a design problem that requires engineering

problem solving.
As an alternative, we believe a universal design engineering (UDE)
approach will remedy the deficiencies identified with universal design for
learning (Edyburn & Edyburn, 2016). We define UDE as follows:
Universal design for engineering involves the application of engineering processes and
universal usability principles to the creation of digital learning materials. The goal is to
proactively value academic diversity by embedding supports that expand access,

engagement, and ultimately learner success, given the constraints of cost, time, and
expertise.
Applying engineering problem-solving methods to the challenge of

designing accessible, engaging, and effective learning materials will opera-
tionalize universal design theory in ways that have not been possible to
date. Briefly, UDE involves (a) operationalizing the characteristics of
diverse students in order to produce design requirements that will serve as
the blueprints for instructional design, (b) transforming information into
digital learning materials that have properties known to generate positive
student learning outcomes, (c) subjecting new learning materials to rigorous
testing to determine whether or not the materials do in fact produce the
desired learning outcomes for specific targeted students and/or the majority
of students, and (d) determining the cost-benefit of the intervention since
there are constraints associated with every product design project. We refer
to this framework as Design for More Types as we seek to integrate multi-
ple disciplines such as cognitive science, instructional design, learning ana-
lytics, engineering, and economics into a coherent model that clarifies how
to implement universal design principles, measure outcomes, and evaluate
the alternative designs.
To illustrate how the Design for More Types framework can be applied
to the design of text-based learning materials, this chapter will describe
the conceptual and practical issues involved in the development of text-
based learning materials for diverse learners. We begin by providing some
foundational concepts for this multidisciplinary work. Next, we provide a
series of case studies to illustrate how universal usability can be applied to
various instructional designs. Finally, we describe how the Design for
More Types framework can be used in both research and practice. We
target our message directly to authors, content developers, and publishers
but believe this conversation will also be instructive to teachers and
administrators.
Designing Text 125
FOUNDATIONS
Given the multidisciplinary focus of this work, it is essential that readers

understand the fundamental concepts and core vocabulary involved in the
design and development of text-based learning materials. We begin by pro-
viding a primer of seven key concepts.
The Achievement Gap
The achievement gap is a well-documented problem in schools (Greenwald,

Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, 1989; Haycock, 2003; Hedges, Laine, &
Greenwald, 1994; Kober, 2001; Lee, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2004). One visual
representation of the problem is illustrated as a graph in Fig. 1 The diagonal
line represents expected achievement. That is, one year of academic achieve-
ment (vertical axis) for each year in school (horizontal axis). Students who
are performing at grade level are expected to be on the diagonal line. The
lower curve illustrates the pattern of achievement of many under-performing
students. These are students who enter school with some academic deficits
and fall further and further behind in their academic career. The area
between the gray line of performance by low achievers and the diagonal line
of expected grade-level performance is known as the “achievement gap.”
More than 50 years of educational research documents the effects of the
achievement gap (Lee, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2004). In fact, there is not just one
achievement gap but many. Achievement gaps may be found in the academic
performance between white students and African American and Latino stu-
dents, between students attending affluent suburban schools and students
attending schools in poor urban areas, between students with disabilities and
their non-handicapped peers, and between native English speakers and dual
language learners (i.e., students whose primary/home language is not
English). One basic premise of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was
that schools needed to be held accountable for closing the achievement gap
as experienced by four groups of students: (a) students of color, (b) students
living in poverty, (c) students with disabilities, and (d) dual language learners.
While it is admittedly a over-simplification of a complex problem, Fig. 1
reveals the insidious effects of the Achievement Gap: (a) small delays left
unabated in the lower grades evolve into big gaps in the later grades;
(b) once a student falls behind, it is exceedingly difficult to catch up; and
12
11
10
Achievement in Grade Levels
9
8
7
6
Performance Gap
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade in School
Fig. 1. The Achievement Gap.
(c) the impact of leaving school with below average skills has significant
costs to both the individual and society in terms of unemployment, under-
employment, reduced earnings over a lifetime, encounters with the correc-
tional system, and more.
To be clear, there are several lessons concerning the achievement gap
that must be understood.
First, contemporary schooling practices are not effective for all students.
Second, continuing to do what we have always done, under the guise of high
standards, will perpetuate rather than eliminate the achievement gap. Third,
repeated failure over time creates an achievement gap that is exceedingly dif-
ficult to close. Finally, the achievement gap represents the status quo of con-
temporary instructional design practices. Hence, the fundamental design
problem that instructional designers must confront is how to design educa-
tional materials that will ameliorate the effects of the achievement gap.
Accessibility and Usability
A foundational concept implicit in universal design involves accessibility

for individuals with disabilities. Accessibility involves the design of features
Designing Text 127
that accommodate the special needs of an individual that arise because of a

physical, sensory, or cognitive impairment. For example, if a designer does
not consider the fact that some users of the product will be blind or deaf,
the designer is likely to build their products with inherent barriers. As a
result, an important aspect of universal design training is to sensitize
designers how to apply principles of accessibility to their product designs to
ensure that individuals with disabilities will be able to access the product
and information directly, or indirectly access the product and information
through the use of assistive technologies (Assistive Technology Industry

Association [ATIA], 2010; Vanderheiden & Henry, 2003).
For example, a person who is blind will not be able to access text
directly because their impairment limits their function in ways that may be
considered a disability. However, many individuals who are blind have a
computer system that enables them to place print information into a scan-
ner, have the print converted to a digital format within the computer, and
then reads the information aloud to them (to learn more, visit: http://www.
freedomscientific.com/Products/Blindness/ JAWS). This type of assistive
technology serves to minimize the impact of a disability by providing alter-
native access to the same information that is available to everyone else for
a person who is blind.
Whereas accessibility is concerned specifically with the special needs of
individuals with disabilities, usability is a broader construct that focuses on
how a product will be used by everyone. Effective designers understand
that they must have intimate knowledge about the characteristics of the tar-
get user in order to ensure that the product will meet the needs of the
intended user. Designers will often develop personas and/or develop pro-
files about prototypical users as a means of inspiring their design to ensure
that the product features match the requirements of the intended user. The
design process may also reveal that multiple user groups have similar func-
tional needs (e.g., young children with limited vocabulary, second language
students, and adults with dementia) that can be addressed with a particular
design (e.g., making choices based on selecting items from a menu rather
than searching for what they want by using natural language). Designers
will iteratively test their design with actual users to obtain evidence about
how the design works, a process known as usability testing, in order to
obtain information about whether or not the product meets the needs of
the target users and what areas of the design need improvement.
Accessibility and usability tend to be prioritized differently based on the
designer’s domain perspective (ATIA, 2010; Vanderheiden, 2000).
Mainstream designers may minimize the importance of accessibility
because individuals with disabilities are perceived to be such a small seg-

ment of the population. Designers concerned about accessibility may focus
exclusively on disability access interventions and neglect the broader con-
cerns of usability by the general population. Unfortunately, neither of these
two silo perspectives advances the profession. In contrast, three terms are
often used to describe a philosophical approach to inclusive design: Design
for All (Mellors, 2004), Barrier-Free Design (Preiser & Ostroff, 2001), and
Universal Usability (Shneiderman, 2000). Vanderheiden (2000) defines uni-
versal usability as:

A focus on design products so that they are usable by the widest range of people oper-
ating in the widest range of situations as is commercially practical. (p. 32)
In our view, Vanderheiden’s perspective involves a relentless focus on

usability, informed by a deep understanding of human diversity and the
need for accessibility considerations across the lifespan, to create products
that are not only functional and effective, but also do so within the
constraints of time, skill, and cost. We believe the Design for More Types
framework will contribute to this process of change by understanding that
all designs involve constraints and that designers must focus on both the
general population and groups of individuals with special needs.
Beneficiaries
One method of operationalizing the principles of universal design in the

context of learning is to proactively value diversity. That is, supports can
be embedded into instructional materials before a student needs them. For
example, research has demonstrated that the span of reading levels in a
third grade classroom can span more than nine reading levels and exceed
more than 11 reading levels in grade five (Firmender, Reis, & Sweeny,
2013). This means that text should not be delivered to the classroom in a
one-size-fits-all container but rather in formats that allow the information
to be accessed by students at a variety of reading levels (i.e., below grade
level, at grade level, above grade level). This not only helps facilitate the
academic performance of students with disabilities, who may be considered
the primary beneficiary of accessible design interventions, but it also
supports secondary groups of diverse learners, for whom we may not be
able to identify such a need in advance, that is, secondary beneficiaries. We
believe this insight has critical implications for the measurement of UDE
outcomes and our understanding of universal usability interventions.
Designing Text 129
For example, a designer who is concerned about students’ independent

reading skills may elect to include a text-to-speech feature within the digital
materials. To assess the efficacy of this intervention, we will want to
monitor the use of text-to-speech by the targeted students (i.e., primary
beneficiaries such as students with disabilities, dual language learners, and
students with reading difficulties). If a design feature is used by only a few
targeted students, it could be argued that the intervention is an assistive
technology intervention that enhances accessibility. However, we also need
to monitor whether or not there is use and benefit by secondary benefici-

aries (i.e., students for whom we cannot identify in advance). In the case of
text-to-speech, we are likely to discover that this is a universal design fea-
ture since it is not only used extensively by both the primary and secondary
beneficiaries but produces measurable gains in reading comprehension for
both groups.
Text Structure, Typography, and Containers
Text Structures
As authors create content they organize the information using an appropri-
ate text structure (e.g., description, order/sequence, compare and contrast,
cause and effect, problem and solution, question and answer). Authors
sometimes will explicitly assist the reader in understanding the structure of
a text by providing advanced organizers and other overt messages about
the structure, relationship, and meaning of core concepts, a writing conven-
tion also known as considerate text (Konopak, 1988). In contrast, authors
of advanced or complex texts will make assumptions about the reader’s
background knowledge. Skilled readers know how to comprehend a wide
array of signal words that reveal the implicit structure used to organize a
text passage.
Texts are also organized using external structures (i.e., format). Teachers
will emphasize that students survey a text before reading it by reading the
title, headings, subheadings, tables, figures, images, and chapter summary
to obtain clues about the content and its structure. As students mature in
their use of textbooks, they often learn to apply these types of study skills
to discern text structure.
Typography
Typography refers to the style and appearance of text. Commercial publishers
will provide authors with a style guide that directs them how to consistently
format certain types of text features such as the chapter title, subheads,
table name and number, figure caption, as so on. Table 1 summarizes a
number of typographic elements that authors, editors, and publishers need
to understand as they design and publish text-based materials. Readers
may or may not know all of these specialized terms.
Table 1. Elements of Typography.

Element Description
Whitespace An area without text.

Glyphs A representation of a character (letter or symbol).
Font A collection of glyphs, e.g., Times New Roman, Helvetica.
Typeface A collection of closely related fonts; generally interchangeable with
“font” in the age of digital typography.
Serifs Small lines on the ends of letters or symbols, (i.e., Serif) or the absence of
such stylistic feature (i.e., Sans-serif).
Font size The height of a font, often measured in points, e.g., 12 pt, 10 pt. The
font size necessary depends on the application (e.g., a projected slide
vs. a book), and the visual acuity of the reader.
Slope When the letters are slanted, usually for emphasis, e.g., italic, oblique.
Decoration When extra lines are added to the glyphs, e.g., underline, strikethrough.
Weight The width of lines (strokes) within the glyphs, e.g., regular, bold.
Color contrast The difference in luminance and color between the text and background.
Certain combinations of colors may be indistinguishable to readers
with colorblindness.
Ligatures When two letters are combined into a single glyph, e.g., fi.
Kerning An adjustment of the spacing between a pair of letters to be more
visually pleasing.
Tracking The overall spacing between letters.
Leading The spacing between lines, often measured in points or a percentage of
the line height, e.g., single or double.
Line length Number of characters or letters before the text is continued on a new
line. Text with long line lengths can be difficult to read.
Word wrapping When the end of the line is reached, the last word may be hyphenated or
pushed to the next line.
Widows and When the first or last line of a paragraph is left in a column or on a page
orphans separate from the rest of the paragraph or when the last line of a
paragraph is a single word or very short.
Breaks The explicit insertion of whitespace, e.g., a line break pushes the
following text to the next line, a page break pushes the following text
to the next page.
Margin An area of whitespace between edge and content.
Justification or How the text flows relative to the edge of its container, e.g., right, left,
alignment center, justified.
Designing Text 131
Containers
Text-based information can be created and disseminated in a variety of for-
mats (i.e., containers, see Table 2). The selection of a particular container
can enhance accessibility or create barriers to access. For example, the
author of a science textbook may create his or her manuscript in a Word
file. However, the publisher may use a desktop publishing program like
InDesign to format the manuscript into chapters, pages, columns, and then
distribute the textbook in a locked PDF format. Here we see the problem
that although the content of the textbook was “born digital,” the textbook
as it is distributed is not “born accessible” (Benetech, 2015). As a result,
publishers need to understand the attributes of the containers they select
for their educational materials (see table footnote).
Academic Diversity
Numerous reports document the current and projected demographics of

the United States and the implications of these changes for public policy,
Table 2. Common File Formats for Text.

File Attributes
Format
.doc .docx Proprietary formats associated with Microsoft Word. Requires Microsoft Word
or a compatible word processor to open.
epub An open standard for electronic books. Supports word wrap, CSS, embedded
images and video, metadata, and digital rights management.
.html A file format containing information formatted for the web. HTML files will open
in a web browser.
.pdf A proprietary format created by Adobe to facilitate the transfer of documents
between computers to ensure compatibility when one user may not own the
software that was used to create the original document. Generally recognized as
a universal format. While PDF documents can be created to be accessible, in
many cases, when a document is scanned as an image, the information within a
PDF may be inaccessible to users using a screen reader or text-to-speech tools.
.rtf Allows some basic formatting (e.g., bold, italics) to be included in the text. The
rich text format file type opens in all word processors.
.txt A file containing text with no formatting. This text file type opens in all word
processors.
Note: Each of these containers has its own subtleties. Most have undergone several revisions,
and advanced features may not be supported by all software that claims to support the format.
The .txt format is particularly problematic as different programs may expect different charac-
ter encodings (e.g., ASCII, UTF-8, ISO 8859-1) that can cause the text to be unintelligible.
education, and the workforce (Frey, 2014; Taylor, 2014). American class-
rooms, at every level of education, are now more racially and ethnically
diverse than ever and reflect the larger demographic patterns found in
society (New York Times, 2010). Whereas diversity is often discussed in
terms of race and ethnicity, it is important to refine our understanding of
the dimensions of diversity found in classrooms.
We must begin to think more deeply about differences that have a pro-
found impact on learning. To this end, we use the term academic diversity
to encompass the array of meaningful differences that students bring to the

classroom that have an impact on their individual learning profile. We
define academic diversity as a continuum of differences in which learners
may have more or less of a given trait (e.g., attention, reading comprehen-
sion, vocabulary knowledge). We know that all learners fall on a conti-
nuum: The low end might be called “novice,” and the high end might be
called “expert.” Given any topic, each of us falls somewhere on the
novice expert continuum. The goal of instruction is to provide the con-
text for learners to gain knowledge and skills that moves them along the
novice expert continuum.
Consideration of these differences is essential when designing instruction
that allows diverse learners to be successful. This approach is in keeping
with recent educational theory relative to thinking about, and responding
to, learner differences. For example, Rose and Meyer (2002) argue that we
should not think about students as being disabled, but rather, consider the
curriculum disabled as it poses barriers to access, engagement (and ulti-
mately, success). Tomlinson (2004) suggests that we think about learning
differences as a Mobius Strip; a continuum of knowledge and skills with no
clear demarcation on the journey from the starting point as a novice and
the end point as an expert. McLeskey and Waldon (2007) suggest that
classrooms must be places where differences are ordinary. Wormeli (2006)
convincingly illustrates that fair isn’t always equal.
Academic Diversity Blueprint
In order to effectively design curricula for diverse learners we believe it is

necessary to construct an academic diversity blueprint to guide instructional
design efforts. That is, we explicit develop design features to support
both targeted learners (primary beneficiaries) and secondary beneficiaries
Designing Text 133
(see Table 3). The development of an academic diversity blueprint will

clearly be constrained by a designer’s knowledge and skills, resources, and
time relative to how to implement specific interventions (column 1).
Likewise, if a designer has minimal understanding of special needs (column 2),
they may have reduced motivation to explore the need to introduce new
features into their product design. However, concern about universal
usability (column 3) is a powerful motivator for designers interested
in developing a product that is commercially successful. Ultimately, an
academic diversity blueprint must be developed by a team whose members

contribute interdisciplinary expertise. The blueprint will subsequently serve
as the engineering list of requirements/specifications.
Table 3. Aligning Instructional Design with Diversity Characteristics to

Create an Academic Diversity Blueprint.
Design Feature Primary Beneficiary Secondary Beneficiary
Web-based curriculum Students who are blind may Any student can access the
created in accordance access the information with a information by using a web
with accessibility screen reader browser
standards
Physical characteristics of Students with low vision Any student who feels the need
the text should be to adjust the text because of
alterable by the reader glare, tiredness, or
undiagnosed vision problem
Text should be tiered to Students who lack background All students can seek the level
accommodate different knowledge, students who that is of most interest and
interests and reading struggle to read grade-level appropriately challenging for
abilities text, advanced students who them
would like to be challenged
Reading materials that Reluctant readers with low All students benefit from the
offer choice enhances motivation and interest to opportunity to choose their
motivation and engage in reading reading materials
engagement
Audio support should be Students with low decoding Any student who would like the
available for readers skills and poor fluency may opportunity for a media shift
who need this support benefit from hearing the that transforms a reading
information read aloud task into a listening activity
Text should be available in Learners whose first language is Any student who would like the
additional languages for not English opportunity to read the
English language information in a second
learners language
The academic diversity blueprint represents a new generation of design

artifact. As a designer/design team gains more knowledge and skills (i.e.,
Design for More Types), one anticipates the number of features (i.e., rows)
will grow as the designer reuses code implemented in previous projects and
recognizes previously unmet needs that will be addressed.
Active Ingredients
Technologies are often described as a black box (Cuban, 1986, 2009; Kelly,
2010). This pejorative comment reflects the fact that how and why some-
thing works the way it does is a mystery. In the field of special education,
we cannot allow this type of thinking (e.g., a student hasn’t learned his
math facts, let’s try using an app). We must be intentional, prescriptive,
and insist on knowing why, how, and for whom an intervention will work.
Researchers have referred to this concept as a need to isolate the active
ingredients (Clark, 2009; Clark & Saxberg, 2012; Levac, Rivard, &
Missiuma, 2012; Whyte & Hart, 2003). That is, which components impact
individual student learning, and in what dose they are needed to produce
successful learning outcomes?
As we have contemplated the design features that appear to offer possi-
bilities for enhancing the access, engagement, and success of diverse stu-
dents, we believe we have identified a number of active ingredients that
warrant further examination by the design community. This work forms
the basis of the analysis presented in the subsequent case studies. However,
before we can share the case studies, we must first turn our attention to
understanding the process of creating text-based learning materials.
VALUE CHAIN
Teachers, professors, administrators, authors, instructional designers, curri-
culum developers, product developers, and publishers generally recognize
that learning materials need to be more accessible, engaging, and effective
for diverse learners. As various stakeholders readily embrace the goal of
universal design to make products more usable for the widest possible num-
ber of users, their excitement and collective energy is often undermined by
the lack of clarity around roles, responsibilities, and practical interventions.
Designing Text 135
A value chain is a management concept that describes the life cycle of a

product from conception to end-user (Hartley, 2004). In practical terms,
how does a textbook or digital learning object end up on a student’s desk-
top? To answer this question we have found it useful to adapt an accessibil-
ity framework (Di Iorio, Feliziani, Mirri, Salomoni, & Vitali, 2005) that
describes four phases of a value chain that produces accessible educational
materials (AEM): Authoring, Production, Delivery, and Use. In the sec-
tions that follow, each phase of the process will be described in order to
identify the key stakeholders, the tasks and tools used in that phase of pro-
duction/work, culture and context, change drivers, and more.
Authoring
An author is anyone who creates content. In the context of educational

materials, we often consider an author to be a context expert. That is,
someone who knows the content exceptionally well and is able to highlight
the most important facts and concepts, organize information in an appro-
priate sequence, provide relevant connections to applying the information
to real-life applications, and determine what to leave out (i.e., information
that is not developmentally appropriate for the target learner).
Because content experts know their material so well, they can fall into
one of several design traps. For example, when a designer assumes that all
learners are like him/her, this is a problem known as ego design. Sometimes
authors attempt to create learning materials using specifications that
describe the average student. This approach is known as design for the
mean and results in a very narrow conception of the students who will use
the learning materials. In our opinion, both of these design errors contri-
bute to the problem of the achievement gap. Hence, a major question that
has received little attention in the literature is what types of instructional
designs foster achievement for diverse learners (Burke, Hagan, & Grossen,
1998). We will argue that it is necessary to develop academic diversity blue-
prints to break this cycle.
Historians have observed that we have entered an age where almost all
information is now born digital (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/con-
tent/born-digital-text), that is, text, images, and multimedia are almost
always created in a digital format. The field of special education has eagerly
anticipated this day because it would likely mean an end to scanning print
documents into the computer to make them accessible to students who
could not physically manipulate paper-based instructional materials, or
could not see print, or could not comprehend print without audio support
(Stahl, 2009). However, just because information is available in a digital
format does not mean it is accessible (Benetech, 2015).
For example, when an author creates a Word document but fails to use
a style sheet to format the text, when that digital file is made available to a
student who is blind, the navigational features that could be available as a
result of a style sheet are missing, thereby preventing an individual who
uses a screen reader from moving efficiently through the document.
University of Illinois researcher Jon Gunderson recognized this problem

and worked with Microsoft to create tools that authors can use to check
the accessibility of the Word and PowerPoint documents they create (www.
virtual508.com/). Accessibility experts often present at special education
technology conferences (e.g., Accessing Higher Grounds, ATIA, CSUN)
about how to create accessible documents. In short, we have considerable
knowledge about accessible design and technical standards that can be used
by authors to create accessible information and products, but as shown by
a series of recent actions of the U.S. Department of Justice, there is little
evidence that eBook Readers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), high-
stakes assessments (National Federation of the Blind [NFB], 2014), or
online instruction materials (National Federation of the Blind [NFB], 2015)
are born accessible despite being created in a digital format.
Production
The tasks of production formerly were the domain of publishers and com-
panies that would pay authors a royalty for their intellectual content in
exchange for the right to market and distribute a product (e.g., textbook,
software program). If an author or publisher does not have the necessary
skills to create accessible original source files, they could contract with pro-
viders known as Accessible Media Producers (AMPs). AMPs are adept at
markup languages and file conversion and can produce output in any num-
ber of accessible formats: Braille, Large Print, Audio, DAISY, Digital
Text, and file formats needed for use on mobile devices. However, this
extra step of ensuring that products are accessible is often viewed as an
“added expense” rather than an added benefit that improves the quality of
the user experience (ATIA, 2010). This mindset contributes to the relent-
less, and exponential, distribution of inaccessible materials.
The accessible educational materials (AEM) field has devoted significant
attention and investment in standards that operationalize procedures for
Designing Text 137
creating accessible textbooks (Stahl, 2009; Wiazowski, 2010), assessments

(Kettler et al., 2012), teacher made materials (Hoffman, Hartley, & Boone,
2005), web sites (Skylar, 2007), and software (Golden, 2002). However, one
study of technology developers found that accessibility standards are not
taught in college programming courses, and internal culture often mini-
mizes accessibility as high-cost/low-return features (ATIA, 2010). Despite
the considerable investment in technical accessibility standards, little is
known about the personal and cultural mores that motivate a developer to
spend time learning about accessibility standards and then implementing

them in his/her code, or curriculum, or product.
Delivery
In 2011, for the first time, more ebooks were sold than printed books
(Miller & Bosman, 2011). In this domain, it has been argued that compli-
ance with the ePub standard would result in all ebooks being accessible;
however, each major vendor has introduced their own proprietary addi-
tions to the XML code which as caused tremendous variation in perfor-
mance and lack of portability across devices (R. Schwerdtfeger, personal
communication, April 23, 2015).
Theoretically, delivery of digital educational materials to the classroom
is easier than it has ever been. However, security concerns within school
districts have resulted in restrictive policies of what content can be down-
loaded, installed, and used on district servers, computers, and tablets. As
schools and society become more accepting of digital products, they are
discovering a tremendous end-user problem of integrating a potpourri of
products into the educational environment. Often this may involve the use
of a learning management system (LMS) that serves a portal for teachers
and students to manage their digital learning objects. However, as publish-
ers have sought to control their value chain, consumers are now expected
to navigate any number of proprietary systems (e.g., proprietary textbook
systems, Apple App Store, Google App Store, Kindle App Store) to obtain,
and manage their digital content. Online learning researchers have discov-
ered that while learning resources may be accessible, sometimes these deliv-
ery systems are inaccessible (Stahl, 2009).
In addition, while AEM repositories (e.g., Bookshare, Learning Ally)
have been established to provide educational materials in accessible for-
mats, such files are not “student ready” and schools have been slow to
clearly define who is responsible for ensuring that each student has AEM.
The state of West Virginia has reported that of the 23,000 students with
read-aloud accommodations on their IEP, less than 2% (n = 400) had
signed up to obtain digital textbooks from Bookshare. This statistic is one
indication that AEM policy initiatives, and the top-down change model,
are not effective in getting AEM materials to students’ desktops.
Use
The ultimate end-user of AEM is a student with a disability. However, tea-

chers serve as gatekeepers and curators to the materials used by students in
the classroom, and to some extent, for homework. This is problematic
because general education teachers have little knowledge of AEM and spe-
cial education co-teachers do not appear to include AEM as part of their
responsibilities for student success. As teachers use new technologies and
media as part of their instruction, little is known about the sources of digi-
tal learning materials that students experience on a daily basis or their
accessibility and usability characteristics. In addition, because teachers are
responsible for making curriculum accommodations and modifications, lit-
tle is known about the quantity or quality of these interventions. In the
end, the lack of data allows us to offer a single observation: Clearly stu-
dents with disabilities cannot receive a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) if their instructional materials do not afford access, engagement,
and benefit.
Summary
Whereas the evolution of printed materials in the classroom occurred over

300 years, the evolution of digital learning materials has emerged over the
past 20 years (Boone & Higgins, 2003). Clearly advances in technology
have altered the containers used by educators to transmit knowledge and
reach larger segments of a diverse population. However, advances in tech-
nology have disrupted the traditional publishing value chain by allowing
individuals to control the entire value chain of their product (e.g., self-
publishing authors, independent musicians) thereby disrupting the tradi-
tional business model and power of educational publishers. This creates
new problems. As long as authors have little knowledge about accessible
content design and/or motivation to ensure that their content is usable by
everyone, the exponential production of inaccessible content means that
Designing Text 139
individuals with disabilities will forever be left behind in information access

and social and cultural opportunities. If everyone is a content creator (i.e.,
author), then everyone needs to know how to make information and pro-
ducts accessible for persons with disabilities and usable by all.
DESIGN FOR MORE TYPES

In the context of the universal design of learning materials, we believe there

are five critical factors of universality that have been overlooked and have
yet to be adequately accounted for in universal design theory, particularly
as it relates to learning. A brief summary of these five factors is provided.
Background Knowledge
Background knowledge is the foundation on which new knowledge is built

(Marzano, 2004). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) outline a model concerning
the stages of learner development as they acquire new skills: novice,
advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. This model reveals
important characteristics about the range of knowledge, vocabulary, and
skills the learner brings to the learning task and what supports might be
necessary to ensure their progress and mastery of the content. Therefore, it
is not unreasonable to think about the need to develop educational materi-
als that support five levels of access points and pathways in recognition of
the continuum of learner’s background knowledge.
Equalizers
The promise of universal design suggests that instructional materials could

be designed to provide adjustable instructional design controls. Tomlinson
(1999) speaks of this concept as an equalizer. One way to think about
equalizers is to consider a volume slider control that is adjustable to be off,
or provide more/less of a variable (e.g., font size, text complexity). Digital
learning materials that utilize equalizers could be adjusted by the student,
set by the teacher, or dynamically adjusted by a learning management sys-
tem using student performance data. It is not unreasonable to challenge
instructional designers to create equalizers that are implemented to adjust

the time, complexity, representation, structure, etc. of learning materials.
Flow
Motivation is often considered outside of the realm of instructional design

as a characteristic that the learner brings to the learning task. However,
work by psychologist Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1998) suggests there are

situations when an individual is deeply engaged, or completed absorbed in
a task, a state of mind that he calls flow. To achieve a flow state, a balance
must be struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the perfor-
mer. The optimal design of learning materials should be able to contribute
to the intrinsic motivation associated with flow through a deeper level of
engagement than is typically found with learning materials that do not
match the student’s abilities, interests, or needs.
Dual Language Learners
A person’s first language, learned from birth during the critical early devel-
opmental years, is known as their native language, mother tongue, or L1.
In contrast, a second language (L2) is any language that one speaks other
than one’s first language. Research by Cook (2003), Cook and Singleton
(2014) reveals that L2 users develop distinct differences in L1 language and
cognition as a result of their multi-competence. Twenty-first century,
instructional materials must be designed to support both L1 and L2 lear-
ners in order to move beyond the discrimination associated with English-
only expectations and the achievement gap experienced by dual language
learners.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been defined as “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent pro-
blem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more cap-
able peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). ZPD is a theoretical context that
describes the optimal conditions for learning, that is, the zone where the
Designing Text 141
challenge is neither too hard nor too easy. Since teachers and instructional
designers are unable to determine ZPD by looking at a student, efforts
must be made to engage the student in manipulating digital equalizers that
produces what the fictional character Goldilocks in The Story of the Three
Bears determines is “just right.” Naturally ZPD is related to the concept of
flow discussed above.
Design Features
Whereas the educational research literature and the instructional design lit-
erature address each of the five components, it is necessary to operationa-
lize these theoretical constructs into a form that can be implemented in
digital learning materials. Toward this end, we created a taxonomy of
design features that could serve as a menu of interventions for designers
interested in implementing active ingredients in their text-based digital
learning materials that have the potential to improve access, engagement,
and success for diverse learners (see Table 4).
Table 4. Active Ingredients Associated with Digital Text.

Feature Description
Digital text (DT) Text that is available in a digital format is flexible. The text can be
highlighted, selected, cut, copied, and pasted or read by screen
readers.
Digital text and Digital text that is formatted using Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
CSS (FT) involves a semantic markup. This means that the text has been
structured relative to both content and style. CSS affords the
designer the option to change the characteristics of text in a single
location. It also means that the user can apply their own style sheet
to customize the presentation aspects of the text to their liking.
Navigation (N) Digital text that is correctly styled allows the user to move between
sections of text (e.g., from one heading to the next).
Hyperlinks (H) Digital text can contain hyperlinks that allow users to access
additional information (e.g., definition, related article).
Digital text with Digital text can also be supplemented with an audio to enhance
audio (TA) comprehension.
Digital text with tiers Digital text can be presented at multiple levels of difficulty in order to
(TT) provide access to readers with various reading skills.
Multilingual digital Digital text can be made available in multiple languages on-demand.
text (ML)
The Design for More Types framework is an approach to operationalize

universal design engineering. After establishing the theoretical foundations
of our work, we now pose the following exploratory design-based research
question:
• Using existing exemplars of text-based learning materials, is it possible to
assess the accessibility and usability of various instructional designs to deter-
mine the benefits associated with the Design for More Types framework?
METHODS
In order to study the application of the Design for More Types framework,
we sought to identify real-life exemplars of text-based learning materials.
The intent was to analyze selected exemplars to identify the presence, or
absence, of specific design interventions thought to have active ingredient
properties for enhancing learning for diverse students (primary and second-
ary beneficiaries).
The authors searched for exemplars representative of each intervention
presented in Table 4. The following section describes the results of the case
studies that were developed.
RESULTS
Case Study #1: Status Quo
Printed textbooks are sacrosanct as the de facto curriculum and often have
undue influence on instructional methods (Budiansky, 2001; Jobrack,
2011). When a school adopts a single textbook for a particular subject, this
one-size-fits-all solution is problematic for diverse students (Allington,
2002; Cibrowsi, 1993). Whereas a textbook can be highly cost-effective in
delivering a body of knowledge to students, the fixed format of the printed
textbook will create access barriers for several groups of students
• who are blind,
• whose first language (L1) is not English,
• with learning disabilities who do not read at grade level,
• with reading disabilities who do not read at grade level, and
• with motor impairments that prevent them from turning pages.
Designing Text 143
The inability to access the standard curriculum creates the need for cur-
riculum accommodations. That is, can the information be provided in an
alternative format? Among the solutions that school district officials may
explore: obtaining a digital copy of a print textbook from a repository for
students with print disabilities, contacting the publisher for an alternative
format, scanning the textbook into an accessible PDF to provide to stu-
dents, and/or teaching students to use assistive technology (e.g., scan and
read systems, text-to-speech). The problem with each of these approaches is
that they are reactive. That is, access to the instructional content is delayed
for the student and is predicated on the need for an adult to initiate a
request for accessible educational materials.
We consider the status quo case study to be a baseline. That is, the sta-
tus quo of instructional design training, workflow systems, and deliverables
contributes to the annual production of inaccessible textbooks that have
been designed to meet the needs of a narrow range of students. However, is
it possible to introduce incremental change into the design process that will
enable instructional designers to learn to Design for More Types in ways
that will enhance access, engagement, and student success with digital
learning materials over printed textbooks? We turn our attention to other
case studies to explore the issues of cost, time, and expertise.
Case Study #2: Pseudo Digital Text
It is not uncommon for teachers to assign historical literary texts. While

specific statistics are not available, this practice may be becoming more
common because (a) declining school district budgets make it difficult to
purchase commercial textbooks, (b) book scanning projects (like Google)
are making orphan works more accessible, and (c) historical works have
been adopted within the Common Core State Standards English Language
Arts (http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf) as a means of
circumventing the restrictions associated with copyrighted texts.
To view one example of how historical texts have been scanned
and made available online, visit:
Mrs. Peter Rabbit
http://www.read.gov/books/pageturner/peter_rabbit/#page/2/mode/2up
In this case we discover that text-based learning materials have been
converted from print form to digital form. However, the PDF is simply a
photographic (i.e., bitmap) image of the pages. The text does not have
properties associated with digital text because the text is physically con-
tained in an image. Accessibility in this context has two meanings. First,
the digital format does provide physical access to literary historical text, at
no cost, to many more individuals than would be possible if a reader had
to visit a specific library to view the text. However, the format of the file
does not provide access to individuals with disabilities who use assistive
technology to access the information (e.g., navigate the sections, listen to
descriptions of images, text-to-speech).
In Case Study #2 we conclude that the designer was able to scan the
source document and make it available in an online format to reach many
more potential readers. In this context, s/he may believe that they have
enhanced accessibility of the physical book to reach more readers than would
otherwise be possible by a book stored in a single library. However, without
a full understanding of the usability features of the container (e.g., bitmap
images, pdf), the designer has distributed learning materials that have intrin-
sic barriers for some students. This pseudo digital text file will create the need
for reactive accommodations when a student discovers that the file is not
properly formatted to work with his/her screen reading assistive technology.
Whereas, it was relatively easy for the designer to scan the original
book, compile the bitmap images into a PDF, and then post the file online,
the outcome of this work is what we have termed pollution. The concept of
pollution in the design of educational materials occurs when an author/
publisher distributes content that is inaccessible because they do not have
the time, interest, or resources to make the information fully accessible. In
essence, they are pushing the costs of accessibility into the user community.
Economically speaking, pollution costs are not borne by the producer but
offset to others (i.e., teachers, students) who must commit significant indivi-
dual resources to convert the information into an accessible format for
their personal use. These costs are astronomical (i.e., cost for the author/
publisher to create an accessible version of a text-based digital learning
materials vs. the costs of thousands of users who must convert the inacces-
sible file). Benetech (personal communication) has estimated that the cost
of converting inaccessible math content is 2,500 times more expensive
because the materials were not born accessible.
Case Study #3: Digital Text
Digital Text (DT) is inherently different than printed text. That is, digital
text can be manipulated (e.g., edited, copied, pasted). Whereas digital text
Designing Text 145
has long been appreciated by writers for its flexibility in the process of
creating content (e.g., error correction, revision, moving text from one sec-
tion to another, deleting), its value to readers has only recently been discov-
ered by ebook readers who find themselves finding value in enlarging text,
copying, and pasting selected quotes to share with friends, and more
(Boone & Higgins, 2003; Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 1996). However, read-
ers may also discover that fanatical intellectual property concerns by an
author/publisher can implemental digital rights management options to
essentially lock a text in a digital format that prevents viewing, copying,

and/or printing.
Information and software share a common attribute: The economic cost
of development is fully absorbed in the creation of the first copy. That is,
the first copy may cost hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars.
Thereafter, the cost of replicating subsequent copies is minimal in contrast
to physical products that have a relatively stable per-unit cost to produce
(Shapiro & Varian, 2013, 1998).
When the author and/or publisher owns the source file of a text docu-
ment, it is relatively easy and inexpensive task to convert the file into alter-
native formats using conversion tools or by applying specific markups
(e.g., Calibre, RoboBraille, YouConvertIt, Zamzar). As a result, pollution
does not have to be an intrinsic by-product of information creation. When
an author/publisher provides a document in multiple formats, the user is
able to select the version that best meets their need (e.g., html to read on-
screen in a web browser, pdf to download and read when offline).
As an example of how an author/publisher might provide a text docu-
ment in multiple formats, we direct readers to visit the following web page:
World Report on Disability
http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/
Readers will discover that the report is available in six formats: accessi-
ble PDF, DAISY, Easyread, ePub, Kindle, and American Sign Language.
Authors who have learned the basics of html programming and the
mechanics of web page authoring are able to create web pages with digital
text with the same ease that they create text in a word processor. When an
author does not have these skills, a publisher will hire a web designer to con-
vert word processing text into html. Digital content creation tools like
InDesign can produce (a) pdf files for printing, (b) html files for the web, as
well as (c) ePub files for digital book readers. In Case Study #3, we conclude
that the time, expertise, and cost involved in creating multiple formats of a
text document is minimal when compared to the time and effort required by
end users to create alternative formats as an individual accommodation.

Since the author/publisher owns the source file, it is a philosophical convic-
tion that drives the design process to ensure that the information will be
accessible to diverse readers. In this case, equal access involves both primary
beneficiaries (individuals with disabilities, non-native English speakers) as
well as secondary beneficiaries (anyone who wants to read the report on a
mobile device). Case Study #3 suggests a quantum leap of progress in
Design for More Types over the status quo as described in Case Study #1.
Case Study #4: Digital Text with CSS
A significant advance in the development and maintenance of web-based

information involves the use of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). The innova-
tion associated with CSS is that content contains semantic markup so the
content can be separated from the presentation. With semantic markup, a
heading is marked as a heading without specifying the details of presenta-
tion like font size. Imagine a large web site that has 500 pages and that a
designer needs to change the text font style. A system that requires changes
to be made in 500 places is a recipe for disaster. When designing web pages
with CSS, the text style rules are defined in a single file that is referenced by
all web pages on a site. That way, any changes to the text style (e.g., alter-
ing the font, size, style, margins) can be made in one single place.
A second element of CSS involves the consistent use of styles (e.g., head-
ing levels, body text, captions) to format a text document. Authors, editors,
and publishers use styles to communicate the organization of a text.
When these styles are properly implemented, they also provide a means for
readers to effective browse a document and assistive technology users to
navigate (N) a document (e.g., move quickly between chapters). However,
just because text is created in a digital format does not mean that it is prop-
erly structured (recall our earlier example of Word style sheets).
Readers who are not familiar with CSS are encouraged to visit the fol-
lowing web site to discover how the same content can be rendered in any
number of interesting ways simply by changing the CSS:
CSS Zen Garden
http://csszengarden.com/
Whereas CSS is an important tool for web designers, it has extraordin-
ary implications for readers. That is, why should a publisher have all the
power concerning how a text is presented? Ultimately, it is not unreason-
able to predict that readers will develop their own favorite format for
Designing Text 147
reading text and then apply their CSS to override the publisher’s layout
and design. In fact, this scenario already exists in the form of a bookmark-
let that readers download and install in their web browser. Users persona-
lize the text settings (e.g., color contrast, font size, margins) and save
the settings. Whenever they want to apply their text settings to a web
page, they simply click on the bookmarklet and the current web page is
re-rendered into their preferred text style. To learn more, visit:
Readability
https://readability.com/
In evaluating the intervention of digital text plus CSS (FT) in Case
Study #4, we conclude that the cost, time, and expertise needed to imple-
ment this type of design intervention is minimal. That is, the use of CSS
saves the instructional designer considerable time and effort and provides
exponential benefit to typical users as well as assistive technology users. We
find this case study to be an exciting example of the convergence of good
design practices with enhanced usability for diverse learners.
Case Study #5: Hyperlinks
A design feature that many authors find useful to enhance digital text (DT)
is to create hyperlinks (H) that offer the reader the option of clicking on a
link to learn more. Utilization of hyperlinks is not so much a technology
skill as it is a content design principle. That is, why and when would a con-
tent creator add a hyperlink within a text?
A considerable literature describes the tactics of hypertext authoring
(Higgins et al., 1996; Jonassen, 1991; Kearsley, 1988; Park & Hannafin,
1993; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). Common applications of hyperlinks
include: hyperlinking key vocabulary to definitions, and hyperlinking refer-
ences to historical events or to source documents. Hyperlinking is an excep-
tional technique for supporting novice learners who can simply click for
more information as well as supporting experts who want to access original
source documents supporting a statement or observation.
For readers not familiar with hyperlinks, we encourage you to visit and
select a topic of interest to explore:
Wikipedia
https://www.wikipedia.org/
Case Study #5 reflects a technology design intervention (H) as well as a
content design principle that requires the designer to anticipate the ways a
reader might want to interact with a text. It is unlikely that hyperlinks can
be implemented alone. That is, they are likely to be found concurrently
with digital text (DT), digital text plus CSS (FT), tiered text (TT), and mul-
tilingual texts (MT). As with several earlier case studies, we conclude that
the cost, time, and expertise needed to implement hyperlinks is minimal.
Case Study #6: Digital Text with Audio

Converting text into audio is an example of the complexities associated

with universal design engineering. It’s not that the technical process is diffi-
cult. Rather, this situation represents that problem that efforts to improve
accessibility for one group of individuals with disabilities can create access
barriers for other groups. For example, web pages with accessible digital
text (DT) that are formatted appropriately (FT), allow users who are blind
to navigate (N) the text information through their screen reading assistive
technology. Adding an audio file (TA) to the page may be very useful for
individuals with learning and reading disabilities, but creates an access bar-
rier for individuals who are deaf unless they are properly supported with a
transcript to accompany the audio file.
Instructional designers will need to consider several tactics that can be
used to provide audio support of a text:
• Ensure that the digital text is compatible with screen readers
• Provide an audio file and media player embedded on the page (e.g.,
StarChild)
• License an audio support tool that is embedded on the web site (e.g.,
BrowseAloud)
• License an avatar to provide directions (e.g., SitePal).
Instructional designers will need to be familiar with two formats for creat-
ing audio files. Synthesized speech is created by the computer. This type of
speech can vary from very low quality (i.e., computer sounding voice) to high
quality (i.e., natural sounding voice) and tends to be the least expensive
approach because the files are generated from a text file. Digitized speech is
the process of encoding the voice of a human reader. Naturally, the costs
involved in hiring a human reader, preparing the text, monitoring the record-
ing, editing the sound file, and quality assurance testing makes this form of
audio more expensive and time consuming to produce. To date, the research
is inconclusive on which format is more effective (Balajthy, 2005; Douglas,
Ayres, Langone, Bell, & Meade, 2009; Garrison, 2009; Higgins & Raskind,
Designing Text 149
2000; Izzo, Yurick, & McArrell, 2009; Lange, McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie,
2006; Parr, 2012) and therefore many designers elect to implement synthesize
speech since it is less expensive to produce.
To explore how an instructional designer could record an audio version
of the text on a web page and then embed the audio file to support young
and/or struggling readers, visit:
StarChild
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/StarChild.html
Alternatively, see how texts can be transformed into media to provide
technology-based storytelling experience to the reader/listener:
Storyline Online
http://www.storylineonline.net/
Bookbox
http://www.bookbox.com
Case Study #6 reveals that audio-supported text is an intervention that
can vary greatly in cost, time, and technical skill to implement. On the low
end, a designer can provide compatible digital text and expect users to take
advantage of the text-to-speech capabilities built into most modern operat-
ing systems. However, this relies on users knowing that this feature exists
and how to use it. As a result, a designer committed to universal usability
may take the more difficult path of embedding audio files or an audio sup-
port tool in their content.
Case Study #7: Multilingual Digital Text
One area that is particularly under-represented in the universal design lit-

erature is the issue of multilingual support for diverse learners. As an indi-
vidual accommodation, a person can copy digital text (DT) from a web
page and paste it into Google Translate (http://translate.google.com).
While this strategy is completely functional, it is not efficient when serving
a large dual language learner population since it uses more server resources
and requires several minutes of work by each student for each reading pas-
sage. Therefore, as instructional designers develop academic diversity blue-
prints, it may be revealed that a large number of students need multilingual
text (MT), and therefore it would behoove the designer to provide text in
multiple languages to ensure that student learning time is spent engaging
with content rather than creating accessible curriculum materials.
Instructional designers interested in implementing multilingual digital

text (ML) could use any one of a variety of strategies. For example:
Wikipedia
http://wikipedia.org
Commission multilingual authors to generate content in L1 that can
be linked to the English source text.
Early Childhood
http://www.literacycenter.net/
Create content in multiple languages using text (DT) and audio (TA)
that offer alternative access points.
Google Translate API
https://translate.google.com/manager/website/
Install a free gadget on your web page to provide access to Google
Translation services in more than 90 languages.
Case Study #7 focuses on how changing demographics requires new

attention to the multilingual needs of dual language learners. Services like
Google Translate can be implemented on any web page with a moderate
amount of skill to provide high-quality multilingual translation on-
demand with no cost. This intervention certainly represents a modest
investment in cost, time, and expertise. A more substantial investment
would involve engaging multilingual authors to create L1 content (e.g.,
text, audio) that could be linked to the English source text. Similar to the
conclusion in Case Study #6, we view the implementation of multilingual
digital text (MT) as concrete evidence that a designer is committed to uni-
versal usability.
Case Study #8: Digital Text with Tiers
Researchers have observed a wide range of reading levels in classrooms

(Firmender et al., 2013). In anticipation of the academic diversity of stu-
dents’ reading abilities, it appears appropriate to design digital instructional
materials at multiple reading levels. In our work we refer to this design
principle as tiered text (TT). That is, providing comparable information at
multiple difficulty levels in order to provide students with the Goldilocks
experience of finding the level that is just right for them.
Readers interested in experiencing digital text that has been developed in
tiers, are encouraged to visit:
Designing Text 151
What happens in a brain when you read Harry Potter?

http://tweentribune.com/tween56/what-happens-brain-when-you-read-
harry-potter
This current events science article is written at multiple Lexile Levels.
To alter the complexity of the text, select a lower or higher Lexile level
from the slider on the right side of the page.
The Brain From Top to Bottom
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/
This instructional resource was created for use in the Medical School
at McGill University (Montreal, Canada). After selecting a topic to
learn about, the user can explore the information at three different
levels (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) of presentation where
the text and graphics are simplified or enhanced.
Case Study #8 involves the development of instructional text at multiple
levels of difficulty in anticipation that one-size will not fit the needs of
diverse learners. Clearly this intervention requires additional time on the
part of the content developer to generate comparable texts. However, once
the content has been created, there are really no additional technology,
implementation, or expertise costs associated with tiered texts (TT). We
view the implementation of tiered texts (TT) as a significant commitment to
proactively valuing academic diversity as students with a variety of reading
skills and interests will be supported as these differences are anticipated
before we even know which students will be entering a particular
classroom.
Case Study #9: Comprehensive Design
In the previous Case Studies we have examined components of universal

design interventions that have the potential to increase the accessibility and
usability of text-based learning materials. These interventions may be
applied individually, or in combination, based on students’ needs and the
constraints the designer is operating under relative to cost, time, and his/
her expertise.
In this final example, we consider what a web site might look like if it
was designed to incorporate as many of the text design features as possible.
Toward this end, the following features were included: Digital Text (DT) +
Text and CSS (FT) + Navigation (N) + Hyperlinks (H) + Text with Audio
(TA) + Text with Tiers (TT) + Multilingual Text (ML). Readers interested
in experiencing the application of the UDE principles discussed in this

chapter are encouraged to visit:
Helping Students Gain Access to Complex Text
http://uwm.kbd.on-rev.com/text/
This web site was developed by the authors to illustrate the principles of
UDE in the context of online professional development. Each of the active
ingredients discussed in Table 4 were implemented in these digital learning
materials. (However, we are not arguing that all texts need to have all the
features we included in this example.) The design experience challenged us
to consider how to proactively value diversity by embedding supports for
targeted groups of learners (primary beneficiaries) but could be made avail-
able to everyone with the goal of improving the user experience (secondary
beneficiaries).
Case Study #9 illustrates one type of outcome associated with the theory
of universal design engineering. Beginning with an academic diversity blue-
print challenged the instructional designers to create content, and utilize
technology interventions, that would support diverse learners as they
access, engage, and ultimate succeed in mastering text-based information.
With the taxonomy presented in this chapter, we believe developers and
researchers now have new tools for designing, implementing, and evaluat-
ing Design for More Types interventions to quantify the costs, time, exper-
tise required to implement, and benefits in terms of student learning
outcomes.
DISCUSSION
Key Findings
The failure to understand the entire value chain, roles, and responsibilities
associated with providing text-based learning materials to students has led
to a misunderstanding of the leverage points for fostering universal usabil-
ity. Clearly, teachers do not have the skills or time to create accessible edu-
cational materials. As a result, much more work is needed to facilitate an
understanding of accessibility and usability by everyone who works as a
content creator.
When instructional designers fail to develop an academic diversity blue-
print they risk falling into two traps: ego design (assuming all learners are
Designing Text 153
like them) or design for the mean (considering only the average student).
Increased attention to the special needs of students of color, students living
in poverty, students with disabilities, and dual language learners requires
that authors/publishers need to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions to
curriculum development.
Design for More Types is a framework for implementing universal
design engineering that identifies specific design interventions that can be
implemented to enhance the accessibility and usability of educational mate-
rials. The taxonomy presented in this chapter represents an important step

forward in helping developers, researchers, and practitioners operationalize
universal design concepts into active ingredients that can be defined, mea-
sured, and evaluated. Many of the interventions can be implemented with a
modest investment of time, skill, and resources. Identifying the active ingre-
dients in instructional designs is absolutely essential for advancing the
learning sciences through universal design engineering.
When inaccessible educational materials are distributed, an author/
publisher is contributing to the pollution of the information environment.
In economic terms, they have failed to adequately account for the total costs
necessary to produce accessible instructional materials that are usable by
diverse students found in every classroom. Instead, states, school districts,
teachers, and even students are expected to make curriculum accommoda-
tions to convert the inaccessible materials into a format that they can use.
Shifting the conversion costs of creating accessible educational materials
from the author/publisher to the end-user represents a heretofore neglected
accounting cost. Challenging authors, content developers, and publishers
to account for the costs of pollution needs to be addressed if we want to
close the achievement gap by ensuring that students are actively engaged in
learning rather delayed, distracted, and discouraged by text conversion
activities that have nothing to do with their learning.
Limitations
The purpose of this project was to develop a taxonomy of design interven-

tions that illustrate how principles of universal design could be implemen-
ted in educational materials. Within the engineering problem-solving
environment, these cases represent preliminary designs that deserve further
testing to ensure that the designs meet the design requirements (i.e., helping
diverse students close the achievement gap) and whether the inter-
ventions have positive impact on both the target students (i.e., chronically
low-achieving students) as well as the secondary beneficiaries (i.e., all stu-

dents). Therefore, a fundamental limitation of our work at this point is
that our laboratory work must be moved into the field where the various
instructional designs can be used and evaluated with actual students to
ascertain the contributions to enhanced learning.
Future Research
The taxonomy presented in Table 4 provides developers and researchers

with a method for describing their interventions. The Case Studies offer
concrete exemplars that could be provided to control groups as a placebo
to measure efficacy of each component as we isolate the active ingredients.
Additional research is urgently needed on how to implement Tomlinson’s
(1999) equalizer construct into technology tools (e.g., http://www.textcom
pactor.com). Such instructional designs would provide invaluable informa-
tion about how students elect to use a controller to functionally implement
Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development.
Whereas Case Study #9 illustrates a comprehensive design, the web site
still reflects an unknown dose of concurrent interventions. Therefore, more
research is needed to isolate the active ingredients of the individual design
elements (DT, TA, H, MT) in order to understand more specifically which
features make a difference for which groups of students. Indeed, additional
research is needed to understand the dosage requirements of universal
design interventions.
Implications for Practice
The construct of active ingredients is an important issue for the field of spe-
cial education as we seek to move beyond black box intervention. In this
chapter we have identified a series of instructional design interventions that
appear to have potential for enhancing access, engagement, and success of
diverse learners as they interact with text-based learning materials. The
case studies provide educators with real-life exemplars that can be used
with individual students as well as the entire class in order to help students
appreciate their work as Goldilocks (i.e., given these multiple options,
which one(s) work best for me?).
Hattie (2009) makes the argument that effective teachers are always
working to understand what works for students. And, when we discover
Designing Text 155
something that doesn’t work, our task is to come back the next day with a
new strategy. The Design for More Types framework has a similar pur-
pose: Learning how to embed supports for text-based learning materials in
ways that proactively value academic diversity.
We need 21st century educational materials that support students before
they fail. And, when we fall short, we need to re-engineer the materials to
meet higher design standards. For students trapped in the throes of the
achievement gap, it is not enough to focus on interventions that produce
one year of achievement growth. Instead, we need to be laser-focused on

finding interventions that produce more than one year of academic achieve-
ment. Otherwise, the achievement gap becomes a perpetual trap.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you can’t read. Educational
Leadership, 60(3), 16 19.
Assistive Technology Industry Association. (2010). ATIA/AIA developer’s survey on accessibil-
ity final report. Retrieved from http://www.atia.org/files/public/ATIA-%20AIA_
Developers_Survey_on_Accessibility-Final_Report-PDF_Version.pdf
Balajthy, E. (2005). Text-to-speech software for helping struggling readers. Reading Online,
8(4). Retrieved from http://www.%20readingonline.org/articles/art_index.%20asp?
HREF=balajthy2/index.html
Benetech. (2015). Born accessible. Retrieved from http://benetech.org/our-programs/literacy/
born-%20accessible/
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2003). Reading, writing, and publishing digital text. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(3), 132 140.
Budiansky, S. (2001). The trouble with textbooks. Prism, 10(6), 24 27. Retrieved from http://
www.prism-magazine.org/feb01/html/textbooks.cfm
Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular designs and strategies
accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1), 34 38.
Cibrowsi, J. (1993). Textbooks and the students who can’t read them. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher educa-
tion: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1),
4 18.
Clark, R. E., & Saxberg, B. (2012). The “active ingredients” approach to the development
and testing of evidence-based instruction by instructional designers. Educational
Cook, V. J. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Cook, V., & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Di Iorio, A., Feliziani, A. A., Mirri, S., Salomoni, P., & Vitali, F. (2005). Simply creating
accessible learning object. In Proceedings of elearning and human-computer interaction:
Exploring design synergies for more effective learning experiences (INTERACT 2005
Workshop). Retrieved from http://www.cs.unibo.it/~mirri/paper/interact_2005.pdf
Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Bell, V., & Meade, C. (2009). Expanding literacy
for learners with intellectual disabilities: The role of supported etext. Journal of Special
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980, February). A five-stage model of the mental activities
involved in directed skill acquisition. Washington, DC: Storming Media. Retrieved
from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=U2&doc=
GetTRDoc.pdf
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten
propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.
Edyburn, D. L., & Edyburn, K. D. (2012). Tools for creating accessible, tiered, and multilin-
gual web-based curricula. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(4), 199 205.
Edyburn, D. L., & Edyburn, K. D. (2016). Universal design engineering: Design for more types.
Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency
levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction
and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3 14.
Frey, W. H. (2014). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Garrison, K. (2009). An empirical analysis of using text-to-speech to revise first-year college
students’ essays. Computers and Composition, 26, 288 301.
Golden, D. C. (2002). Instructional software accessibility: A status report. Journal of Special
Gordon, D. T., Gravel, J. W., & Schifter, L. A. (Eds.). (2009). A policy reader in universal
design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom:
Practical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Research, 18(4), 45–51.
Hartley, J. (2004). The “value chain of meaning” and the new economy. International Journal
of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 129–141.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achieve-
ment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Designing Text 157
Haycock, K. (2003). Toward a fair distribution of teacher talent. Educational Leadership,

60(4), 11–15.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of
studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational
Research, 23(3), 5 14.
Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. dis-
crete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 19 30.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. C. (1996). Hypermedia text-only information support for
students with learning disabilities and remedial students. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29, 402 412.

Hoffman, B., Hartley, K., & Boone, R. (2005). Reaching accessibility: Guidelines for creating
and refining digital learning materials. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(3),
171 176.
Izzo, M. V., Yurick, A., & McArrell, B. (2009). Supported etext: Effects of text-to-speech on
access and achievement for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Special
Jobrack, B. (2011). Tyranny of the textbook: An insider exposes how educational materials
undermine reforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Hypertext as instructional design. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 39(1), 83 92.
Kearsley, G. (1988). Authoring considerations for hypertext. Educational Technology, 28(11),
21 24.
Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Kettler, R. J., Dickenson, T. S., Bennett, H. L., Morgan, G. B., Gilmore, J. A., Beddow,
P. A., & Palmer, P. W. (2012). Enhancing the accessibility of high school science tests:
A multistate experiment. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 91 106.
Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Center on
Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/publications/index.cfm?
selectedYear=2001
Konopak, B. C. (1988). Effects of inconsiderate vs. considerate text on secondary students’
vocabulary learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(1), 25 41.
Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for
secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3 12.
Levac, D., Rivard, L., & Missiuma, C. (2012). Defining the active ingredients of interactive
computer play interventions for children with neuromotor impairments: A scoping
review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 214 223.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McLeskey, J., & Waldon, N. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162 168.
Mellors, W. J. (2004). Design for all. Telektronikk, 100(1), 14 19. Retrieved from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.574&rep=rep1&type=pdf#
page=16
Meyer, R., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2013). Universal design for learning: Theory and prac-
tice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Publishing.
Miller, C. C., & Bosman, J. (2011). E-books outsell print books at Amazon. New York Times,
May 19. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/20amazon.
html
National Federation of the Blind. (2014). National federation of the blind applauds settlement
with PARCC, Inc. Retrieved from https://nfb.org/national-federation-blind-applauds-
settlement-%20parcc-inc
National Federation of the Blind. (2015). National federation of the blind applauds DOJ settle-
ment with edX. Retrieved from https://nfb.org/national-federation-blind-applauds-doj-
%20settlement-edx
New York Times. (2010). Diversity in the classroom. New York Times, November 23.
Retrieved from http://projects.nytimes.com/immigration/enrollment
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive
multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63 85.
Parr, M. (2012). The future of text-to-speech technology: How long before it’s just one more
thing we do when teaching reading? Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69,
1420 1429.
Preiser, W. F., & Ostroff, E. (Eds.) (2001). Universal design handbook. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educa-
tional models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153 166.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (Eds.). (2012). A research reader in uni-
versal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.). (2005). The universally designed classroom:
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and find-
ings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.,
pp. 605 620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Versioning: the smart way to. Harvard Business Review,
107(6), 106 114.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (2013). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network econ-
omy. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84 91.
Skylar, A. A. (2007). Section 508: Web accessibility for people with disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 22(4), 57 62.
Stahl, S. (2009). The promise of accessible textbooks: Increased achievement for all students
Policy brief. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://
aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/promise_of_accessible_textbooks
Taylor, P. (2014). The next America: Boomers, millennials, and the looming generational show-
down. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Designing Text 159
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The mobius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516 524.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Joint “Dear Colleague” letter: Electronic book readers.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html
Vanderheiden, G. (2000, November). Fundamental principles and priority setting for universal
usability. Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (pp. 32 37), ACM.
Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gregg_Vanderheiden/publication/
234794143_Fundamental_principles_and_priority_setting_for_universal_usability/links/
004635340f4e9e914f000000.pdf
Vanderheiden, G. C., & Henry, S. L. (2003). Designing flexible, accessible interfaces that are
more usable by everyone. CHI 2003 Tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.sigchi.org/
chi2003/docs/t10.pdf
Victor, B. (2013). Media for thinking the unthinkable. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/
67076984
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional
practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.
edu/ojs/article/view/219
Whyte, J., & Hart, H. (2003). It’s more than a black box; it’s a Russian doll: defining rehabili-
tation treatments. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(8), 639.
Wiazowski, J. (2010). (in)accessible digital textbooks. Closing the Gap, 29(3), 17 22.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Randall Boone, Ph.D., <randall.boone@unlv.edu> is a Professor of

Educational Computing and Teacher Education in the Department of
Teaching and Learning at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA. His
research interests include computer-mediated teaching and learning, with a
specific focus on accessibility and instructional design. He is Co-Editor of
Intervention in School and Clinic, A Hammill Institute on Disabilities publi-
cation and is the recipient of a Telly Award for excellence in educational
television.
Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D., <edyburn@uwm.edu> is a Professor in the
Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, USA. His research interests include assistive technology, access
to text, and universal design engineering. He is Editor of the Journal of
Research on Technology in Education and a Past President of the
Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
(TAM/CEC) and the Special Education Technology Special Interest Group
of the International Society of Technology in Education (SETSIG/ISTE).
Keith D. Edyburn, B.S., <keith@edyburn.info> is a Software Developer at
Maternity Neighborhood, Inc. in Charlottesville, VA, USA. Trained as a
mechanical engineer, he has developed several web-based tools focused on
accessibility, such as http://textcompactor.com/.
Anne Guptill, Ph.D. <anne.guptill@csueastbay.edu> is a Professor and
Director of the M.S. Ed, Option in Online Teaching and Learning program
at California State University East Bay, USA. With many years of experi-
ence in systems design, development, integration, management, and train-
ing, she has been dedicated to technology-based training and education.
She has been developed web-based courses since 1998 and been teaching
online since 2001. Her research interests include instructional design, online
course design and development, and accessibility in the online
environment.
Evelyn Hickey, Ed.D., <ejhickey@ucalgary.ca> is a Learning Leader for
Student Engagement at the Calgary Board of Education where she works
161
162 ABOUT THE AUTHORS
at a high school that serves a diverse multilingual and multicultural popula-

tion from more than six different countries. She also works as a Sessional
Instructor, teaching graduate students, at the University of Calgary in the
Werklund School of Education. She has worked in three Canadian pro-
vinces and has more than two decades of experience working in a variety of
roles at the school and system level, particularly in special education and
deaf education. Dr. Hickey’s interests are universal design for learning,
educational technology, assessment, diversity, and student potentiality.
Kyle Higgins, Ph.D., <higgins@unlv.nevada.edu> is a Professor of Special

Education in the Department of Educational and Clinical Studies at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA. Her research interests include the
use of technology to teach students with disabilities, translating evidence-
based research into effective practice, and teacher training in special educa-
tion. She is Co-Editor of Intervention in School and Clinic, A Hammill
Institute on Disabilities publication.
Cyndi Rowland, Ph.D., <Cyndi.Rowland@usu.edu> is the Executive
Director of WebAIM and the Technology Director for the National Center
on Disability and Access to Education, both projects of the Center for
Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University, USA. Her research
interests include web accessibility in general, however she is interested in
cognitive disability and web access as well as helping systems transition to
web accessibility. She is a frequent speaker on issues of web accessibility,
particularly in education, at both national and international levels. She was
a member of the Section 508 refresh (i.e., TEITAC), and of a UNESCO
working group on distance education guidelines.
Jared Smith, M.S. <jared@webaim.org> is the Associate Director of
WebAIM at the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State
University. He is a highly demanded presenter and trainer and has pro-
vided web accessibility training to thousands of developers throughout the
world. He is particularly interested in researching and providing technology
solutions to improve web accessibility for people with disabilities. With
over 16 years working experience in the web design, development, and
accessibility field, he brings a wealth of knowledge and experience that is
used to help others create and maintain highly accessible web content.
Jonathan Whiting, M.S., <jonathan@webaim.org> is the Director of
Training and Evaluation at WebAIM, based at Utah State University’s
About the Authors 163
Center for Persons with Disabilities. His research interests include the
development of web accessibility curricula and materials, and the system-
level implementation of accessibility. With over 12 years of experience in
the field of web accessibility, Jonathan has published dozens of instruc-
tional resources and has traveled extensively to train thousands of web
developers and other professionals.
INDEX
Academic diversity blueprint, 132, Accessible Rich Internet

133, 134, 149, 152 Application (ARIA), 20
Academic diversity, 131, 132 Accessible web content, 15, 18, 59

Access to extra time, 85 Accommodations, 7, 16, 78, 82, 83,
Accessibility accommodation, 52 86, 87, 91, 103, 104, 107,
Accessibility and instructional 113, 143, 144
design, 98, 103 Accountability, 83
Accessibility audit, 33 Achievement gap, 125, 153, 155
Accessibility checkers, 70 Active ingredients, 9, 123, 134, 141,
Accessibility design, 106 153, 154
Accessibility documentation, 31 Adaptable design, 49
Accessibility guidelines, 48, 53 Adapting content, 113
Accessibility knowledge and skills, ADDIE, 57, 71
21 Administrative support, 25, 37
Accessibility mandates, 60 Advance organizers, 113
Accessibility of information, 4 Advanced organizers, 129
Accessibility of web content, 17 Affordances, 106, 115, 116
Accessibility standards, 97 After-the-fact accommodations for
Accessibility tests, 34 electronically-mediated
Accessibility tools, 103 content, 16
Accessibility training, 30 Agile development, 8, 61
Accessibility, 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, Alternative access, 49
21, 24, 25, 26, 49, 52, 66, 69, Alternative format, 143
72, 81, 116, 126, 144, 152 Alternative text, 53
Accessible design, 19, 49 Amazon, 102
Accessible educational materials America Online, 101
(AEM), 6, 136, 137, 138, American Association of School
143, 152 Librarians, 109
Accessible instructional design, 7 American Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessible Media Producers of 1990, 48
(AMPs), 136 American Sign Language, 109, 145
Accessible PDF, 145 Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessible reading materials, 6 (ADA), 16, 51, 97
165
166 INDEX
Analog-to-digital paradigm shift, 97 Benefit everyone, 52

Android OS, 102 Best practices, 23
Apple App Store, 137 Black box intervention, 154
Apple II computers, 101 Blackboard, 98
Apple iOS, 104 Blindness, 51, 53
Apple iTunes education apps, 109 Bookshare, 137
Apple Music, 116 Born accessible, 131, 136, 144
Apps, 8 Born digital, 131, 135
Architects, 52 Bottom-up design, 60, 67, 68

Architectural design, 48 Braille, 136
Architecture of educational Brain’s performance envelope, 111
websites, 15 Broken wrist, 51
ARIA, 34 Browser-based access to the
Asia, 19 internet, 14
Assessment, 8
Assistive devices, 56 Canada, 53, 80
Assistive technology, 33, 48, 49, 54, Canadian context, 8
56, 83, 86, 87, 88, 91, 102, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), 146,
127, 129, 144, 146 147
Atari 2600, 101 Cell phones, 14, 53, 100
Attitudinal barriers, 4 Center for Applied Special
Audio support, 6, 148 Technology (CAST), 54,
Audio, 83, 85, 136, 148, 149 105
Audio/text to speech, 89 Center on Online Learning and
Audio-supported text, 149 Students with Disabilities
Augmentative communication (COLSD), 98
(AAC), 100 Choice, 82
Australia, 19, 53 Chrome, 102
Authoring tools, 31 ClassDojo, 109
Authoring, 135 Closed-captioning, 52, 53
Availability, 100 Closing the achievement gap, 125
Avatar, 148 Code samples, 31
Average user, 51 Cognitive barriers, 4
Awareness, 19 Cognitive friction, 8, 96, 97
Cognitive load, 6
Background knowledge, 106, 139 Cognitive psychology, 117
Barrier-Free Design, 70, 128 Cognitive science, 110
Barriers, 3, 4, 5, 56, 78, 79, 82, 89, Cognitive theory of multimedia
90, 142 learning (CTML), 111,
Behaviorism, 65 112, 117
Index 167
Cognitivism, 65 Design artifact, 134

Coherence principle, 111 Design flaw, 4
Common Sense Media, 109 Design for All, 128
Community of practice, 64, 66 Design for More Types, 9, 124, 128,
Complexity, 116 134, 139, 142, 152, 153,
Compliance, 31, 49, 53 155
Comprehension support, 106, 113 Design for the mean, 135, 153
CompuServe, 101 Design process, 3
Considerate text, 129 Design, 2

Constructivism, 65 Designers, 2, 5
Containers, 131 Designing effective learning
Content accessible, 20 experiences, 113
Content creation, 21 Designing for all, 60
Content creator, 39, 139, 152 Designing for simplicity, 117
Content delivery, 116 Developing countries, 14
Contiguity principle, 111 Developing nations, 100
Continuous improvement, 23 Differentiation, 102, 107
Conversion costs, 153 Digital content accessibility guides,
Convert the file into alternative 103
formats, 145 Digital divide, 8
Cost case studies in web Digital multimedia, 53
accessibility, 40 Digital text (DT), 6, 49, 83, 136,
Cost, 40, 52, 57, 63, 70, 98, 99, 122, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148,
128, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151
150, 151, 152 Digital text plus CSS (FT), 141,
Cost-benefit, 124 146, 148
Create [accessible web content], 40 Digital text with Audio (TA), 141
Creating [accessible web content], 21 Digital Text with Tiers (TT), 141,
Culturally neutral device, 108 150
Curb cutouts, 52 Digitized speech, 148
Curriculum accommodations, 153 Disability, 4
Curriculum-based measurement Discrimination, 4
(CBM), 107 Disruption, 3
Customizing learning objects, 63 Distinctions among Accessible
Cycles of evaluation, 24 Design, Adaptive Design,
and Universal Design, 50
DAISY, 136, 145 Diverse learners, 116
“Dancing bear”, 109 Diversity, 70, 78, 81, 82, 87
Dear Colleague Letters, 16, 136 Dosage requirements of universal
Delivery, 137 design interventions, 154
168 INDEX
Dose, 154 Essence of design, 1

Dragon Naturally Speaking, 34 Evaluation of educational software,
Dual language learner, 140, 149 109, 110
Dynamic content, 20 Evaluation tools, 31
Dynamic content elements, 20 Evidence-base for instructional
Dynamic web content, 20 practice, 106
Excel, 101
Easyread, 145 Executive function, 6
eBay, 102 Expert, 139

ebooks, 116, 137, 145 Expertise, 151
Ecology of instructional material
design, 122 Facebook, 102
Edmodo, 109 Feature creep, 104
Educational apps, 99, 110 Feedback, 112
Educational neuroscience, 117 Financial Management System, 22
Educational reform, 8 Firefox, 102
Educational software, 99, 110 Flexible materials, 54
Educational theory, 132 Flow, 140
Ego design, 135, 152 Font adjustment, 103
eLearning system, 63 Force-touch track pad, 103
e-learning, 57 Formal systems of education, 15
Embed supports, 155 Free appropriate public education
Embedded media, 14 (FAPE), 138
Emergent Design, 67
Emergent learning theory, 68 Gaining Online Accessible Learning
Engagement, 140 through Self Study
Engineering problem solving, 124, 153 (GOALS), 23, 24
Enterprise-wide [accessibility], 15 Generalization, 106
Enterprise-wide change, 40 Germany, 53
Enterprise-wide coordination, 22 GOALS Benchmarking and
Enterprise-wide scale, 22 Planning approach, 40
ePub, 137, 145 Goldilocks, 150, 154
Equal access to instructional Good practice in design, 51
materials, 40 Google App Store, 137
Equal access, 146 Google Play, 100
Equal opportunity, 59 Google Translate, 149
Equality, 16 Graduation requirement, 82
Equalizer, 139, 154 Graphic organizers, 113
Equity, 81 Guidelines of Universal Design for
Equivalent access, 49 Learning, 68
Index 169
Handicap, 4, 5 Instructional design process, 56

Haptic feedback, 103 Instructional design theorists, 58
Hearing impairments, 51 Instructional design, 6, 8, 9, 54, 57,
Higher Education Opportunity Act 61, 102, 113, 126, 141
(HEOA) of 2008, 106 Instructional designers, 51, 56, 64,
Higher education, 18 66, 71, 152
HTML, 30, 34, 55, 145 Instructional materials, 14, 15
Human evaluation, 31 Instructional system design models, 8
Human Resources System, 22 Instructional Systems Design (ISD),

Hyperlinks, 6, 141, 147, 151 57, 58, 63, 64
Hypermedia, 8 Instructional technology, 102
Hypertext, 6 Instructional text at multiple levels
Hypertext authoring, 147 of difficulty, 151
Intelligent agent, 96
Image tag, 20 Interaction, 116
Impairment, 4 Internet Explorer, 102
Improving outcomes, 34, 36 IOS, 102
Inaccessibility, 20 iPads, 99
Inaccessible content, 21 iPhone, 96, 99
Inaccessible materials, 136, 153 iPod, 99
Inaccessible web content, 37 Ireland, 19
Incentives for implementing web iTunes store, 99, 100
accessibility, 30 iWatch, 99
Inclusive design, 3, 48, 128
Inclusive education, 81 JAWS, 34, 127
InDesign, 131, 145 Just in time learning, 16
India, 19
Individual program plan (IPP), 78 Key terms highlighted, 13, 47, 77,
Individuals with Disabilities 95, 121
Education Improvement Keyboard navigation, 20
Act, 16 Killer app, 101, 102, 103
Information design error, 97 Kindle App Store, 137
Information transfer, 106 Kindle, 145
Insidious effects of the
Achievement Gap, 125 L1, 140, 142, 150
The Institute of Education Sciences, L2, 140
106 Large Print, 136
Instructional design error, 97 Large scale assessment, 8, 78, 79,
Instructional design for online 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88,
learning, 66 89, 90
170 INDEX
Learner characteristics, 8, 51, 102 Moodle, 98, 99

Learner differences, 132 Moore’s Law, 98
Learner-defined content, 67 Mosaic, 102
Learning Ally, 137 Multilingual digital text, 141, 149,
Learning bots, 117 150
Learning from multimedia, 110 Multilingual needs of dual language
Learning management system learners, 150
(LMS), 21, 22, 98, 137 Multilingual text (ML/MT), 148,
Learning object repositories, 63, 66, 149, 151

68 Multimedia accessibility, 53
Learning objects, 8, 62, 63 Multimedia based content
Learning outcomes, 152 acquisition podcasts, 107
Learning theory, 59, 65 Multimedia learning theory, 107
Legal complaints, 16 Multimedia principle, 111
Level A, 26 Multiple choice, 114
Level AA, 27
Level AAA, 27 National Center on Accessible
Leverage points, 152 Educational Materials, 105
Lexile Levels, 151 National Center on Disability and
“Light weight” methodologies, 61 Access to Education, 32
LMS, 98 National Center on Universal
Logarithmic growth of the web, 20 Design for Learning, 107
Lotus, 1-2-3, 101 Native accessibility, 16
Low-level outcomes, 58 Navigation (N), 115, 141, 146, 148,
151
Maintain accessible web content, Netscape, 102
21, 40 New Zealand, 19
Maker Movement, 2, 3 Novice expert continuum, 132
Mali, 100 Novice designers, 58
Massive Online Open Course Novice, 139
(MOOC), 22, 98, 101 NVDA, 34
Media player, 148
Mental models, 97, 98 Object-oriented programming, 61
Mnemonic devices, 113 One-size-fits-all, 142, 153
Mobile device operating system, Online education, 14, 17
103 Online instructional design, 54
Mobile device, 98 Online Learning Consortium
Mobile technologies, 18, 22 (OLC), 48
Mobility impairments, 51 Online learning theory, 66
Modality principle, 112 Online learning, 8, 52
Index 171
Online pedagogy, 59 Product design, 48

Open Education Resources (OER), Production, 136
22 Progress-monitoring, 107
Open source, 63 Project GOALS, 39
Operating system, 102 Prototypes, 60
Organizational policy, 25 Pseudo Digital Text, 143
Psychology of design, 96
Paralyzed, 51 Publishing value chain, 138
PDF, 131, 143, 145

Pedagogical evidence base for Qualify for accommodations, 83
specific populations of
learners, 117 Read, 180, 99
Pedagogical principles, 16 Readability, 81
Personal biases, 117 Reading comprehension, 6
Personalization, 83 Reality of the marketplace, 117
Physical access, 144 Redundancy principle, 112
Physical disabilities, 51 Refreshable Braille displays, 56
Physical, 4 Regional accreditation commission,
Pilot error, 97 23, 39
PodCast, 99 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 48
Policy, 19, 22, 24, 27, 88, 106 Reluctant reader, 85
Policymakers, 87 Repetitive strain injury, 51
Pollution, 144, 145, 153 Research evidence demonstrating
Poor design, 3 the efficacy of UDL, 122
Positive student learning outcomes, Retrofitting instructional design,
124 53
Postmodernism, 65, 66 Retrofitting, 68, 69
Postsecondary system change, 19
Poverty, 101 Scan and read systems, 143
Predictive text, 103 Screen magnifiers, 103
Primary beneficiaries, 128, 146, 152 Screen reading assistive technology,
Principles of universal design for 144, 148
learning, 54, 56 Secondary beneficiaries, 51, 128,
Principles of universal design, 48, 129, 146, 152, 154
54, 68, 128, 153 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Problem-based learning, 65 Act, 53, 54
Procure accessible products, 21 Sections 504 and 508 of the
Procurement contracts, 31 Rehabilitation Act, 16
Procurement, 31, 38 Security, 83, 137
Procuring accessible web content, 21 Self-study, 23
172 INDEX
Semantic markup, 146 Text conversion, 153

Sensory barriers, 4 Text structure, 129
“Separate is not equal”, 59 Text to speech, 83, 149
Simplicity, 117 Text with Audio (TA), 151
Single-purpose apps (SAP), 108 Text with Tiers (TT), 151
Skilled in technical accessibility, 20 Text-based digital learning
Skip navigation, 20 materials, 141
Smartphone, 99 Text-based learning materials, 9,
Software Development Life Cycle 124, 125, 155

(SDLC), 60 Textbooks, 7, 63, 113, 129, 131, 142
Software engineering, 61, 67 Text-to-speech, 103, 129, 143, 144
Software, 8 3-D printers, 3
Source code, 34 Tiered text (TT), 148, 150, 151
Space Invaders, 101 Time, 79
Spain, 19 Tools and open resources for web
Speech recognition software, 49 developers, 19
Spotify, 116 Top-down design, 60
Status Quo, 142 Touch screen, 103
Student error, 97 Tracking, 21
Student success, 101 Traditional systems approach to
Student-centered processes, 16 instructional design, 108
Study guides, 113 Training and technical support, 29
Study skills, 129 Training, 19, 21
Styles, 146 Tutorials, 31
Style guide, 129 Twenty-first century digital tools,
Style sheet, 136 17
Subject matter experts, 62 Twitter, 102
Switzerland, 19 Typical accommodations of a
Synthesized speech, 148 mobile device operating
System-change, 8, 15 system, 104
Typography, 129, 130
Taxonomy of design interventions,
153 Ubiquitous connectivity, 116
Technical accessibility, 20, 36 UDL Fatigue, 122, 123
Technical assistance, 19 Unanticipated tasks, 104
Technical skills, 20 United Kingdom, 19, 53
Technical standard, 26, 29 United Nations Educational,
Templates, 20, 33 Scientific, and Cultural
Tenon, 31 Organization (UNESCO),
Text and CSS (FT), 151 40
Index 173
United States Access Board, 53 W3C standards for accessibility, 53

Universal design (UD), 5, 8, 48, 49, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, 36
59, 67, 72, 82, 88 Waterfall model, 60, 71
Universal design engineering WAVE, 31, 34
(UDE), 9, 124, 142, 152, WCAG 2.0, 26, 29, 33, 34
153 WCAG-EM, 33, 36
Universal design for distance Web accessibility evaluation, 33
education, 48 Web accessibility initiatives, 39
Universal design for learning Web accessibility, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19,
(UDL), 8, 9, 14, 16, 20, 54, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 38,
79, 82, 87, 98, 105, 117, 39, 59
122 Web architecture, 19, 21
Universal design for online Web designers and developers, 20
education, 70 Web designers, 37, 145, 146
Universal design for online Web developer, 28
learning, 48, 71, 72 Web inaccessibility across nations,
Universal design in distance 17
education, 48 Web inaccessibility, 19
Universal design principle, 53, 59 Web page authoring, 145
Universal design theory, 139 WebAIM, 31, 34, 53
Universal designs, 51 Web-based content, 15
Universal usability, 128, 133, 150, Website Accessibility Conformance
152 Evaluation Methodology
Usability, 5, 6, 127, 144, 152 (WCAG-EM) 1.0, 33
Usable design, 49 What Works Clearinghouse
Use, 138 (WWC), 106
User programmable keyboard Wheelchairs, 52
shortcuts, 103 Willingham’s nine cognitive
principles of learning, 110
Value chain, 134, 135, 138 Workforce Rehabilitation Act of
Virtual microscope, 52 1973, 53
VisiCalc, 101 World Wide Web Consortium
Vision impairments, 5 (W3C), 53, 68
Visual and vibrating alerts, 103
Vocabulary, 85, 113 XML, 55, 63, 137
Voice access, 103
VoiceOver, 34 Zone of proximal development
Voice-recognition software, 56 (ZPD), 140, 154

Volume 2 - Accessible Instructional Design - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Volume 2 - Accessible Instructional Design - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 11:20 23 February 2019 (PT)

Volume 1: Efficacy of Assistive Technology Interventions

United Kingdom North America Japan

First edition 2015

Copyright r 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Certificate Number 1985

Randall Boone University of Nevada Las Vegas,

Dave L. Edyburn University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,

Gerald Craddock Matthew T. Marino

in Universal Design, National Education & Human Performance,

Therese M. Cumming Cynthia Okolo

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Design is a creative activity. However, when designers fail to properly

The essence of design is found in the vision, planning, and creation of

Accessible Instructional Design

Tangible artifacts of the design process may include sketches, drawings,

Advances in technology, and widespread interest in design, have contrib-

• The availability of 3-D printers (also known as personal fabricators)

The Maker Movement is driven by a do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic.

BARRIERS AND POOR DESIGN

Sensory barriers occur when information is provided in a format that is not

A handicap arises when an individual is unable to fulfill a role due to a

DESIGNING FOR DIFFERENCES

Researchers have explored many issues associated with accessibility and

shown to produce increased access to content-level text that students with

(Zabala & Carl, 2010a, 2010b). However, there is considerable evidence

(Salpeter, 2009). Finally, developers have created promising prototypes of

The focus of Volume 2 is on understanding the advances in the area

were invited to contribute manuscripts and this volume represents a

accessibility. They provide a detailed description of one promising solution,

a theoretical framework for their multidisciplinary work as well as a series

As Editor, I’m extremely proud of each of the authors who accepted my

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/tim-brown-davos_n_

Clinic, 48(5), 267 275.

1. Catherine A. Anderson. Follow-up, follow along, service completion, and

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Cyndi Rowland, Jonathan Whiting and Jared Smith

Accessible Instructional Design

internet (e.g., for education, commerce, employment, government, or enter-

where, to everyone” (Schmetzke, 2001).

THE FOCUS OF THIS CHAPTER

There is an agreement that web accessibility is a necessary, albeit insuffi-

do occur in an education context, and each represents a problem of persons

Also, it is important to be mindful of the fact that instructional content

WEB ACCESSIBILITY IN EDUCATION

can be accessed as soon as it is developed; this is often termed “native

The accessibility of web content continues to be a pain point across K-12

many experience. As in K-12 settings, the problem of inaccessible web con-

online education was a vital component of their long-term growth strategy.

accessibility in higher education.

The Problem over Time

Past Efforts to Solve the Problem

Arizona State, University of Arkansas). However, even with governmental

So What Is the Problem?

and the complexities inherent in education organizations (e.g., large num-

standpoint, it is also becoming much simpler for inaccessible content to

Of course creating, and procuring, accessible web content is a separate

eration of mobile technologies, the growth of the Internet of Things, and

The National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE)

Self-Study (GOALS) was funded by the U.S. Department of Education