Overview

This page provides a brief history of Universal Design in higher education and a description of the Universal Design principles that connect with empirically researched theories of learning and should be considered when designing an online learning environment.

History of Universal Design

A term coined by Ronald Mace in the 1970s and originally applied to architecture. One of the key concepts underpinning Universal Design frameworks is the notion that designing with accessibility in mind benefits all users. The classic example from architecture is the “curb cut,” which enables wheelchair users to move easily from sidewalk to street intersection and back to sidewalk, but also benefits parents pushing strollers, travelers pulling wheeled luggage, and bicyclists permitted to use sidewalks.

Although Universal Design began as an approach to inclusive design for people with disabilities, by the early 2000s, it was recognized as a design approach that both eliminated barriers to access and benefited all users. Proponents of Universal Design in higher education argue that the approach not only eliminates the need for students to request accommodations, but also benefits diverse learners, such as students who are not native English speakers, traditionally underrepresented students, and students with situational limitations.

For example: a working student who has no visual processing issues can listen to course content delivery while cooking dinner. This student benefits from access to the audio content, even though they can access the material visually as well.

Universal Design Frameworks in Education

There are five Universal Design frameworks that have been developed for specific application to education. There are varying degrees of overlap among these frameworks, and many of them are based on the original Universal Design principles developed by the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.

• Universal Design for Learning: originally developed by Anne Meyer and David Rose in the mid-1990s as an attempt to leverage technology to make learning accessible for K-12 students with disabilities.
• Universal Instructional Design: first articulated by Silver, Bourke, and Strehorn in 1998, the same term is also used to refer to a framework developed by the University of Guelph in 2002. Both frameworks focus on inclusive instruction in higher education.
• Universally Designed Teaching: a framework developed by Frank Bowe in 2000 that incorporates Universal Design principles and Universal Design for Learning guidelines to develop inclusive instruction in higher education.
• Universal Design of Instruction: developed by Sheryl Burgstahler in 2002, this framework adapts Universal Design principles and Universal Design for Learning guidelines to make it more user-friendly. It is focused on accessibility in higher education.
• Universal Design for Instruction: originally articulated by Scott, McGuire, and Foley in 2003, this framework incorporates Universal Design principles and Universal Design for Learning guidelines to develop inclusive instruction in higher education.

Although each framework has slightly different emphases and approaches, they all share these common features:

• Curriculum should be delivered in multiple methods.
• Students should be provided options for demonstrating their learning.

When using these two features as a guide for developing the online learning environment, three considerations must be kept in mind:

• Information presented in digital form must be perceptible in order to meet the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. More specific details are provided under Accessibility.
• Simply using multimedia to deliver information does not automatically enhance learning. In fact, research in Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning has demonstrated that some uses of multimedia interfere with learning. Recommendations for developing multimedia resources is provided under Curriculum Delivery.
• Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy suggests that simply providing students with unstructured options can interfere with learning and student confidence. Recommendations for providing options and choices to students at the undergraduate level are provided under Student Demonstration.