Universal Design For Learning In Postsecondary STEM .

Schreffler et al. International Journal of STEM (2019) 6:8International Journal ofSTEM EducationREVIEWOpen AccessUniversal Design for Learning inpostsecondary STEM education for studentswith disabilities: a systematic literaturereviewJillian Schreffler1* , Eleazar Vasquez III1, Jacquelyn Chini2 and Westley James2AbstractUniversal Design for Learning is not widely used in postsecondary STEM education. The purpose of this literaturereview is to synthesize the empirical literature using Universal Design for Learning in postsecondary STEM educationfor all learners. The criteria for this review are (a) empirical literature in (b) peer reviewed journals (c) published after2006. Keywords used were STEM, UDL/UDI/Universal Design, and postsecondary/university/college/higher education.This review identified four studies and three literature reviews that met the search criteria; the analysis of the identifiedliterature provides a model for how Universal Design for Learning can impact postsecondary STEM instruction,including an increase in inclusive teaching methods and self-advocacy from students with disabilities, and leadsto recommendations for additional research.Keywords: STEM, UDL, UDI, Universal Design, PostsecondaryIntroductionNationally, fewer than 40% of undergraduates whointend to major in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) field complete a STEM degree (Olsonand Riordan, 2012). Economic projections point to theneed for an increase in the number of STEM degreesproduced nationally (Olson and Riordan 2012). Manystudents with disabilities (SWD) are capable of completing STEM degrees and achieving STEM careers. However, many qualified students drop out beforecompleting their college degrees, and individuals withdisabilities represent an undertapped population inSTEM (Stamp et al., 2014). Diverse learners are capableof becoming talented professionals in STEM, but theyneed opportunities to develop (Roberts 2010).SWD have increased opportunities to attend postsecondary institutions (Newman et al., 2011). At 2-yearand community colleges, SWD are significantly morelikely to enroll in STEM majors compared to students* Correspondence: jschreffler@knights.ucf.edu1Department of Child, Family, and Community Science, University of CentralFlorida, Orlando, FL 32816, USAFull list of author information is available at the end of the articlewithout disabilities (SWoD) (Lee, 2011) demonstratingan interest in STEM careers that does not currently result in equal representation. Surprisingly, in light of thereverse trend in the population of SWoD, low-incomeSWD are more likely to select STEM majors, possibly toincrease their chances of securing employment, as individuals with disabilities are employed at a much lowerrate (18.28%) compared to individuals without disabilities (63.82%) (Lee, 2014). However, Newman et al.(2011) reported based on the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2 (NLTS2) that less than 66% ofstudents with disabilities enrolled in any 4-year program actually complete the program within 6 years(SRI International, 2002). Completion rates betweendisabilities also fluctuated. Approximately, only 38.8%of students with Autism completed their postsecondaryeducation (Newman et al., 2011).Large universities (i.e., 20 k students) often presentall undergraduates in STEM fields with an array of institutional barriers that can be difficult to overcome. Theseobstacles can be compounded for students with disabilities (SWD) who may struggle with large class sizes,fast pace of instruction, lack of scaffolding in the The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Schreffler et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2019) 6:8curriculum, precision of the content, and the pedagogicalapproach from STEM faculty (Street et al., 2012). Traditional institutional reform efforts focus on system-levelchanges in instructor behaviors and supports. However,current institutional reform efforts have not had an immediate wide-scale impact on the attrition rate of STEMmajors (Basham & Marino, 2013). Universal Design is apromising strategy to support SWD, which emphasizesmultiple ways of presenting curriculum to engage alllearners (Basham & Marino, 2013).A review of literature in 2011 on Universal Design inpostsecondary education suggested UDL in postsecondaryeducation is lacking a significant research base (Roberts etal., 2011). This systematic review of empirical literaturewill investigate research involving Universal Design inhigher education and how UDL is implemented in postsecondary education for STEM majors to help retentionand persistence of students with disabilities.Fig. 1 Timeline of CAST and UDLPage 2 of 10Universal Design’s roots in architectureThe term “Universal Design” (UD) was coined in 1988by architect Ron Mace and his colleagues at NorthCarolina State University (Fig. 1). Mace defined “Universal Design” as “the design of products and environmentsto be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible,without the need for adaptation or specialized design”(ACCESS Project, 2011, p. 1; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1988). As architects, Maceand his colleagues were interested in designing buildingsand roadways accessible to the entire public, includingthose with disabilities (College of Design, N. S. U, 2008).A familiar example of UD is the sidewalk “curb cut,”which allows individuals with mobility disabilities tomore easily transition from a sidewalk in to the roadway.While designed to meet the needs of individuals withdisabilities, these curb cuts also improve the experienceof individuals pushing strollers, bicyclers, and many

Schreffler et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2019) 6:8others. Table 1 provides the seven principles Mace’sgroup developed to guide Universal Design in architecture in addition to the principles designed forlearning and instruction.History of CAST and Universal Design forLearningIn 1984, Anne Meyer, David Rose, Grace Meo, SkipStahl, and Linda Mensing from the North Shore Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts created the Center forApplied Special Technology (CAST) with the goal ofusing technology to enhance learning for students withdisabilities in grades K–12 (Center for Applied SpecialTechnology 2011). CAST has become a leading authority on adopting the principles of UD for education,through Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Instead offocusing on accommodations for students with disabilities, UDL provides a framework to change the actuallearning environment (Fovet et al., 2014). CAST’s seminal paper introduced the three principles of UDL: usingmultiple means of representation, expression and action,and engagement (Basham & Marino 2013). Representation provides varying methods for learners to perceiveinformation. Expression and action provides studentsoptions for planning and performing content-specifictasks. Engagement provides opportunities for students tostay involved and motivated in their learning (Center forApplied Special Technology, n.d.). The 3 principles arefurther described by 9 guidelines and 31 specificcheckpoints.In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act provided the first statutory definition of UDL as “a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practicethat- (A) provides flexibility in the ways information ispresented, in the ways students respond or demonstrateknowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, providesappropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges,and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students whoare limited English efficient” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. 103). Additionally, the Higher EducationOpportunity Act included guidelines for implementationPage 3 of 10in postsecondary settings and preservice teacher programs. CAST continues to build on the concept that UDLshould focus on changing content and curriculum, notstudents. To this ends, CAST (2011) has developed anumber of resources, such as the “UDL on Campus” website, providing postsecondary educators resources formaking the classroom accessible to all students; the UDLcurriculum toolkit, a web-based platform for developingweb-based curricula and content based on UDL (http://udl-toolkit.cast.org/home); Universal Design for Learning:Theory and Learning, a multimedia book summarizing adecade of research and practice (Meyer et al. 2014); and avariety of free learning tools aimed at educators, parents,and students .WNv7yVXyuUk) (Center for Applied SpecialTechnology, 2011).Universal Design in Postsecondary EducationThe majority of research relating to UDL has been conducted in the K–12 education setting (Rao et al., 2014).In 2001, researchers at the University of Connecticutexpanded on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)and created the nine principles of the Universal Designfor Instruction (UDI) to aid faculty in the postsecondarysetting in increasing access to curriculum for diverselearners (Rao et al., 2014). As shown in Table 1, UDIretains the seven principles from UD in architecture andadds two principles specific to the educational setting.Universal Instructional Design (UID) is a third commonly used framework for applying UD in postsecondary education, derived from Chickering and Gamson’sprinciples of food practice for undergraduate education(Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Higbee & Goff, 2008).All students learn in many different ways, whetherthey have a disability or not. Postsecondary coursesdesigned with UDL and include technology applicationsprovide all students with multiple ways to access thecurriculum (Izzo and Bauer, 2015). Students withoutdisabilities also benefit from a UDL classroom the sameway students with disabilities benefit. They are able tobe more engaged and motivated and have a greaterinterest in their own education (Ralabate, 2011). UDLhas provided a framework that challenges the idea of aTable 1 Universal Design models and their principlesModelUniversal Design (architecture)Universal Design for LearningUniversal Design for InstructionPrinciples1. Equitable use2. Flexibility in use3. Simple and intuitive4. Perceptible information5. Tolerance for error6. Low physical effort7. Size and space for approach and use(Burgstahler, 2009)1. Provide multiple means of representation2. Provide multiple means of action and expression3. Provide multiple means of engagement(Meyer et al., 2014)1. Equitable use2. Flexibility in use3. Simple and intuitive4. Perceptible information5. Tolerance for error6. Low physical effort7. Size and space for approach and use8. A community of learners9. Instructional climate(Burgstahler, 2009)