Craig Spooner, Jesse Hausler, Cathy Schelly & Marla Roll The ACCESS Project Strategies for UDL Research, Campus Change and Dissemination at Colorado State University

Learning Outcomes Today you will learn about…  Universal Design for Learning  Groundbreaking research and how it may help your efforts to implement UDL.  An approach to institutionalization of UDL that you can use at your campus.  UDL tools and resources you and your faculty can use.

The ACCESS Project  Funded by U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education  Grant #P333A  Our Goal:  Ensuring that students with disabilities receive a quality higher education  Our Method:  Universal Design for Learning (UDL)  Student Self-Advocacy

What is Universal Design for Learning?

History  Universal Design (UD)  Accommodate the widest spectrum of users without the need for subsequent adaptation  Public buildings, city streets, television, kitchen utensils…  Universal Design for Learning (UDL)  Inclusive pedagogy  Applies to both teaching and technology

Student Diversity  Ethnicity & Culture  ESL/Native language  Nontraditional  Gender  Learning Styles  Disabilities

Language Quiz What is your good name, sir? A.Full name B.Last name C.Nickname or pet name

Learning Styles 1. Visual a) Visual-Linguistic (reading and writing) b) Visual-Spatial (graphs and pictures) 2. Auditory (listening) 3. Kinesthetic (touching and moving)

Disabilities  Both short-term and long-term, apparent and non-apparent  Mobility Impairments  Blindness/Visual Impairments  Deafness/Hearing Impairments  Learning Disabilities  Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD)  Autism Spectrum Disabilities  Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Disabilities  National statistics*  11.3% of undergraduates report some type of disability  Colorado State University**  8%–11% (ACCESS research, )  Non-apparent disabilities are by far the largest proportion and growing  Even among students who say they have a disability, few seek accommodations *National Center for Education Statistics, 2008; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009 **Schelly, Davies & Spooner, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, in press.

3-Part Model* 1.Represent information and concepts in multiple ways (and in a variety of formats). 2.Students are given multiple ways to express their comprehension and mastery of a topic. 3.Students engage with new ideas and information in multiple ways. *Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST)

Representation

Expression

Engagement

Universal Design for Learning Universal Design for Learning is a set of principles and techniques for creating inclusive classroom instruction and accessible course materials. teaching technology “ ”

UDL and Technology  Educational Videos  Course Materials  Lecture Presentation Systems  Course Management Systems

EducationalVideo  Transcript  Written or text-based record of dictated or recorded speech  Captions  A transcript timed to display with the video track  Descriptive Audio  Narration of key visual elements in a video or multimedia product

Activity  Identify problems using PDFs  Participants brainstorm on PDF woes, lead into criteria of universally designed documents

What makes a document Universally Designed?  Searchability  Copy and Paste  Bookmarks or an Interactive TOC  Text to Speech capability  Accessibility

A Tale of Two PDF Documents Scanned OCR and Tags

Lecture Presentation Systems  Captions and/or Transcripts  Search-ability  Navigation Options  Keyboard Accessibility  Example 1 Example 1  Example 2 Example 2

Course Management Systems  Areas we may not have control over  Accessibility  Consistency between courses  Areas we do have control over  Explanation of how CMS will be used  Universally Designed Documents

UDL Tech Modules  Microsoft Word  PowerPoint  Adobe PDF  HTML  E-Text  Multimedia (in process)  Course Management System (in process)

UDL Research

Purpose of Project Research  Examine the effectiveness of instructor UDL training as measured by student and instructor perceptions.  Investigate the number of students who report having a disability and the percentage who seek accommodations  Examine perceptions regarding what promotes an effective teaching and learning environment  Lay groundwork to monitor persistence and retention

First Intervention Effectiveness Study  Early research efforts – Develop and validate questionnaires  5 section of calculus and 6 sections of Psychology lower level gateway courses  5 instructors  1,170 students enrolled; 722 students completed questionnaires  First intervention effectiveness study – only experimental group  9 sections of Intro to Psychology  5 instructors  1,615 students enrolled; 1,362 students filled out the pre- questionnaire and 1,223 students filled out post-questionnaire

Procedure: First Intervention Effectiveness Study  Pre-questionnaires given to instructors and students early in the semester  Student questionnaires administered in class – 27 questions  Data used to tailor training to instructor needs  Instructors participated in UDL training for five one- hour sessions during the semester  Instructors then implemented UDL strategies in their courses  Post-questionnaires administered at the end of the semester

Results: First Intervention Effectiveness Study  Statistically significant, meaningful effect sizes (student perspective):  Information is presented in multiple formats  Instructors provide electronic equivalents of paper handouts  Instructors made the key points in videos significantly more apparent to the students after training  Instructors supplemented significantly more of the lecture and reading materials with visual aids following the UDL training Research — Schelly, Davies & Spooner (in press, JPED)

Second Intervention Effectiveness Study  Experimental group  9 sections of Psychology courses, 6 instructors  1,164 students enrolled; 622 students filled out the pre-questionnaire and 421 students filled out post-questionnaire  Control group  646 students enrolled; 276 students filled out the pre-questionnaire and 223 students filled out post-questionnaire

Procedure: Second Intervention Effectiveness Study Experimental Group  Pre-questionnaires given to instructors and students early in the semester  Student questionnaires administered through WebCT – 52 questions  Data used to tailor training to instructor needs  Instructors participated in UDL training for five one-hour sessions during the semester  Instructors then implemented UDL strategies in their courses  Post-questionnaires administered at the end of the semester

Procedure: Second Intervention Effectiveness Study Control Group  Pre-questionnaires given to students early in the semester  Student questionnaires administered through WebCT – same 52 questions  No UDL training provided for instructors  Post-questionnaires administered at the end of the semester to students and instructors  Data being analyzed

Results: Second Intervention Effectiveness Study  Quantitative - Statistically significant, meaningful effect sizes (student perspective)  Information is presented in multiple formats  Instructor actively engages students in learning  Instructor relates key concepts to the larger objectives of the course  Instructor begins class with an outline  Instructor summarizes key points  Instructor highlights key points of instructional videos

Results: Second Intervention Effectiveness Study Qualitative Strategies to Increase Student Engagement  i>clicker questions  Asks questions  Videos  Partner/group discussion and activities  In-class mini writing assignments Strategies to Increase and Support Learning  Videos  Provides examples  i>clicker questions  PowerPoint (format, structure, organization)  Checks/teaches for understanding

Research Discussion  Examine the effectiveness of instructor UDL training  Just a few hours of training can produce significant changes in instructor teaching behavior  Number of students who report having a disability  Corroboration of national disability statistics (9-11%)  Perceptions regarding what promotes an effective teaching and learning environment  Multiple modes of representation, expression and engagement  Monitor persistence and retention  Track student IDs

Activity Question 1 What percentage of essential information provided during the session was presented in multiple formats? A.0%-20% B.21%-40% C.41%-60% D.61%-80% E.81%-100%

Activity Question 2 In what percentage of the session, were you actively engaged in learning? A.0%-20% B.21%-40% C.41%-60% D.61%-80% E.81%-100%

Activity Question 3 How were you actively engaged? A.Videos B.Q & A C.Group Activities D.Presenter checks for understanding E.Other

Activity Question 4 In what percentage of conference presentations does the presenter begin with an outline of what will be covered? A.0%-20% B.21%-40% C.41%-60% D.61%-80% E.81%-100%

Dissemination and Institutionalization

The Old Approach  Accessibility workshops:  Course materials and documents  Web based information  Course management systems  Instructional media  Compliance with regulations, guidelines  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)  Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act

We Failed to Gain Traction  Narrow Focus  Disability  Assistive Technology  Faculty & Administrative Perceptions  “I don’t have students with disabilities.”  Low on list of priorities  “Not my job!”

Paradigm Shift  Benefits for all students  Disabilities are part of the range of diversity  Enabling the learning environment  Broader definition of “accessible”  Materials usable with a wide range of technologies, including assistive technologies  Tie our goals to those of the University

Goals of the University  Access, Diversity, and Internationalization  Enhance accessibility for students with physical, learning and other disabilities  Active and Experiential Learning Opportunities  Student Engagement Outcomes (curricular and co- curricular)  Learning Outcomes  e.g., critical thinking  Retention and Graduation

Institutionalization Plan 1. Dissemination (embedding into existing professional development) 2. Creation of award for UDL implementation 3. Formation of advisory group with campus Administrators 4. Strategic Campus Partnerships

UDL and SA Dissemination  Colorado State University  Master Teacher Initiative  Teaching with Technology  Professional Development Institute  Provost’s Course Redesign  GTA Orientation  Key Plus Learning Community  Rocky Mountain Coalition for Veteran Support Services

UDL and SA Dissemination  Regional  Colorado/Wyoming Consortium of Support Programs for Students with Disabilities  Colorado Association for Developmental Education  eLearning Consortium of Colorado (eLCC)  SWAP – School to Work Alliance regional meeting  CDE – Colorado Department of Education’s Transition Institute (June educators)  National  Accessing Higher Ground  EDUCAUSE  NASPA  AHEAD

UDL Award  Associates UDL with instructional innovation  Promotes awareness of UDL  Provides monetary incentive for the adoption of UDL

Creation of Advisory Group  Campus representatives  Provost’s Office  Institute for Learning & Teaching  Student Affairs  Central Computing  Retention Offices  Strategic goals of the institution  The “WIIFMs”  It starts with one administrator  Offer a key role on your project

Benefits of Advisory Group  Advice  Experienced external perspectives  Project directions  Opportunity  Tie UDL to the institution’s goals  Remind administration of institutional benefits of UDL  Credibility and Access  Buy-in all the way to the top  Introduction to Professional Development venues  Develop partnerships

Strategic Partnerships  The Institute for Learning and Teaching  Central Computing  CSU Libraries  Academic Departments  Student Affairs

Summary of Institutionalization  Institutionalization of UDL is being achieved through:  Dissemination plan  UDL award  Advisory group of key administrators  Strategic partnerships  UDL research

Discussion Questions  What professional development opportunities for UDL inclusion exist on your campus?  What university/college strategic goals align with your UDL implementation goals?  What key players on your campus would be interested in joining an advisory board?

Discussion Questions  3-5 pearls of wisdom from this session?  How does this session help you understand where your campus stands in the paradigm shift from individualized accommodations to accessibility through universal design?  What from this session would you take to key stakeholders on your campus?  How might you implement a version of this on your campus?  How does this session inform the 2-5 year outlook on your campus?  How does technology play a role here?

The ACCESS Project, Colorado State University Funded by U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education Grant #P333A Thank you! Website: accessproject.colostate.edu Craig Spooner Jesse Hausler Cathy Schelly Marla Rollaccessproject.colostate.edu