Universal Instructional Design

Universal Instructional Design in Higher Education

Tori Jackson

1. Introduction

The main premise of Universal Design (UD) involves the anticipation and planning for the varied requirements of possible users in the design process for the purpose of developing a product or outcome that will be beneficial to the needs of all users (University of Guelph, 2003). UD is a plan of action that fully appreciates diversity, equality, and inclusion (Burgstahler, 2015). Within UD there is a process, as well as several principles, and applications. The process of UD involves various steps including: (1) identify the application; (2) define the universe; (3) involve consumers; (4) adopt guidelines or standards; (5) apply guidelines or standards; (6) plan for accommodations; (7) train and support; and (8) evaluate (Burgstahler, 2015).

According to Burgstahler, the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University, espouses seven UD principles. These seven principles are meant to guide the design of products and environments. See infographic below (NC State University,1997).

UD as a concept is applicable to a number of disciplines, products, and locations including: communications and information technology, buildings and sites, recreation facilities, streets and sidewalks, transportation, and health care (United States Access Board, n.d.). In terms of education, the applications of UD are wide-ranging and applicable to many areas and topics including: instruction, distance learning, and software to name a few.

Under the umbrella of UD there are three design approaches: Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) (University of Guelph, 2016). Below is a comparison of the three approaches:

Each of these design models may be used in educational environments throughout the various stages of course design in an effort to improve learning experiences for all students (University of Guelph, 2016). UID and UDI are both founded on principles from the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University and are best suited for teaching and learning in postsecondary environments. UDI is somewhat more extensive than UID in that UDI has considerations for educating students with disabilities and the principles of UDL. UDL views course design from the alternative angle of the neuroscience of learning. UDL is more widely associated with secondary educational environments, but has made its way in to higher education and is currently the preferred model of accessibility legislation in the United States.

For the purpose of this case book, UD will be discussed in the context of Universal Instructional Design (UID). UID is very much akin to UD in that its overarching goal is to anticipate and plan for a persons’ diverse needs, in this case students, including students with disabilities and those without disabilities (University of Guelph, 2003). UID as a practice is designed to provide all students with a better learning experience while facilitating an increased sense of equity. This belief stems from the notion that by creating instructional designs suited for all students, there is less of a need for individual accommodations which saves the instructor time and possibly reduces the stigma surrounding the request for special accommodations.

Similar to UD, UID also espouses seven guiding principles as depicted in the following infographic (University of Guelph, 2003).

These seven principles are applicable for instructional developers who are planning for face-to-face or distance learning courses.

To that end, the University of Guelph has compiled the following set of valuable resources pertaining to UID:

2. Overview of the Case

The concept of Universal Design (UD) has its start in the physical domain and is commonly associated with architecture and the professional practice of designing products, devices, objects, and services which is commonly known as industrial design (Palmer & Caputo, 2003). Both architecture and industrial design are concerned with designs that are flexible, consistent, accessible, explicit, and supportive. Universal Instructional Design (UID) is concerned with the same principles, only they are applied to teaching and learning. To be clear, UID as a design strategy is not primarily concerned with accessibility for those living with a disability. Instead UID is to be regarded as a mindset that is forward thinking in anticipating the probable requirements and preferences of all learners in the design and delivery of instruction (Palmer & Caputo, 2003). By exemplifying this mindset, instructional designers can identify and eliminate barriers to teaching and learning and increase the learning potential for students across a spectrum of categories. Additionally, the need for special accommodations is reduced and academic rigor is maintained.

Why should instructional designers consider UID?

Well there are a myriad of reasons to answer this question including many of the aforementioned benefits to the teaching and learning process (Palmer & Caputo, 2003). However, instructional designers should consider that experience and research has indicated that a number of factor’s affect a student’s ability to learn. Major factors that affect a student’s learning are noted in the table below.

In the higher education environment, many of the above-mentioned factors are often manifested as barriers to the teaching and learning process. According to an article from the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical students are being ill prepared to be effective physicians due to the inability of medical schools to keep up with societal needs (DaRosa, et al., 2011). Specifically, there are multiple complex factors including curricular, cultural, and financial challenges that impede institutional efforts to graduate well-prepared medical students.

3. Solutions Implemented

DaRosa, et al. note that some curricular obstacles to effective teaching are identified as being a disagreement on learning needs, misunderstood or unstated goals and objectives, and curriculum sequencing challenges. To mitigate these obstacles several recommendations are offered. Many of the recommendations correspond directly to the seven principles of UID as demonstrated in the chart below. This corroboration of recommendations should serve as a basis for the purposeful inclusion of UID principles when designing medical school curricula.

From an international perspective, the Association for the Study of Medical Education in the United Kingdom also examined the barriers to medical school teaching in the study titled: Facilitators and Barriers to Teaching Undergraduate Medical Students in General Practice (Barber et al., 2019). The context of this study focuses on workforce shortages in primary health care. The researchers sought to understand the contemporary facilitators and barriers to general practitioner engagement in undergraduate education programs. The table below outlines the barriers and facilitators that have been identified in past research studies.

The method of the study involved interviewing experienced, novice, and veteran general practitioner teachers at four medical schools. This sample selection allowed the researchers to corroborate the barriers and facilitators in the table above and to discover new factors to consider. The theories used in the study were instrumental in understanding the issue of general practitioner recruitment and retention from a perspective beyond the benefits and disadvantages that befall tutors and faculties, and is inclusive of their sense of identity and belonging.

4. Outcomes

Results of the study surveys indicated that teachers within three communities of practices reported that the delivery of clinical care and teaching may be cohesive, but that it exists in tension. The researchers demonstrated that the mounting challenges associated with teaching and learning are perpetuating the marginalization of undergraduate teaching. To mitigate these challenges the researchers, offer the following recommendations to positively affect retention and recruitment.

Again, these recommendations further corroborate the rationale to incorporate UID principles into medical school curricula. The first recommendation advises to keep teachers abreast of curricula changes. Further down the list suggests that teachers have an opportunity to express their ideas. Another recommendation is to validate the role of general practice learning skills and knowledge. Also recommended is purposeful structuring of student placements to allow for the formation of teacher-student relationships which in turn can facilitate a supportive learning environment. The researchers cite that there appears to be an untapped teaching resource in general practice, but that a change in communications within schools would be needed for access and support.

5. Implications

Implications of the study suggest additional research to better understand how medical schools can provide enhanced teacher support and improve retention rates. Perhaps an additional perspective to consider is that general practitioners’ perceived barriers of lack of time, space, and money; lack of confidence; and organization of teaching and increased workload could be lessened with well-planned and relevant curricula using UID.

References

Barber, J.R.G., Park, S.E., Jensen, K., Marshall, H., McDonald, P., McKinley, R.K., Randles, H. and Alberti, H. (2019), Facilitators and barriers to teaching undergraduate medical students in general practice. Med Educ, 53: 778-787. doi:10.1111/medu.13882

Burgstahler, S. (2015, January 26). Universal design: Process, principles, and applications. DO-IT, University of Washington. https://www.washington.edu/doit/universal-design-process-principles-and-applications

DaRosa, D. A., Skeff, K., Friedland, J. A., Coburn, M., Cox, S., Pollart, S., Smith, S. (2011, April). Barriers to effective teaching. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21346500

NC State University. (1997). The principles of universal design. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf

Palmer, J., & Caputo, A. (2003). The universal instructional design implementation guide. University of Guelph Open Learning and Educational Support. https://opened.uoguelph.ca/instructor-resources/resources/uid-implimentation-guide-v13.pdf

United States Access Board. (n.d.). Guidelines and standards. Home – United States Access Board. https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards

University of Guelph. (2003). Universal instructional design (UID): A faculty workbook. Open Learning and Educational Support. https://opened.uoguelph.ca/student-resources/Universal-Instructional-Design

University of Guelph. (2016). Educational models. University of Guelph Open Learning and Educational Support. https://opened.uoguelph.ca/instructor-resources/Educational-Models

[Back to Home]

ID Case Book

LT8000 Case Studies

Universal Instructional Design