Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the Universal Design Paradigm to College Instruction

Universal design for instruction (UDI) represents the systematic application of universal design, the construct from architecture and product development, to instructional practices in higher education. In addition to a description of the deliberative process by which UDI was developed, this article provides confirmatory evidence of the validity of this construct in its details of three studies undertaken to explore its application. Readers are encouraged to reflect upon the impact of UDI on the practice of disability services and the importance of examining its efficacy to sustain its long-term relevance. The new millennium marks a period in higher education that is increasingly different from the decades of the 1980s and 1990s during which postsecondary disability services were evolving and expanding. Changes involve diversity among college students, a more consumer-oriented clientele, demographic trends within the professoriate, and the impact of disability legislation. These changes have implications for the profession of Postsecondary Disability Services and the goal of universal access to postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities (Association on Higher Education And Disability; AHEAD, 2005). While it may sound radical, the time has come to move the paradigm relating to instructional access from accommodation to full inclusion. Consider these facts. The profile of students entering higher education is changing, with growing numbers of older students, first-generation college students, and minority students comprising a notable presence on campus. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (2003), the 2001 demographic profile of students confirms this diversity: 40% of the student population was 25 or older; 12% more women than men were enrolled; 31% were racial/ethnic minorities; and 34% were attending college part time. In addition, there was a 20% increase in the number of international students between 1998-2000. Yet, data on outcomes raise concerns. According to a recent government study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003), the outcomes for a cohort of first-time beginning students who were followed over a six-year period (1996-2001) warrant attention. Twenty-nine percent of these students earned a bachelor’s degree; 10% had an associate’s degree; 12% received a certificate of some sort; 14% were still enrolled. Alarmingly, 35% left without a degree and/or were no longer enrolled. In an era marked by a more diverse student population as well as a focus on accountability, consumers and government agencies are posing challenging questions about why students are leaving college before completing their program of study and what efforts are underway to address student retention (Tinto, 2004). Projections of faculty retirements in the new millennium underlie the statements regarding the changing professoriate. According to Morrison (2003), higher education is in a state of transition given that more than 20% of college and university faculty will retire within the next decade. The potential this trend may have for transforming the instructional environment is powerful. Classes will be taught by faculty, instructors, and graduate assistants who will incorporate information technologies into their teaching, and the more traditional focus on providing instruction will change to one that focuses on producing learning (Fink, 2003). At the same time, as a group today’s faculty are described as “not very well prepared for their profession of teaching” often “armed with voluminous and intricate knowledge of their specialty ... with little understanding of how students learn” (Cross, 1999, p. 38). Finally, legislation including the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act has heightened consumer awareness about access to col-