Transcript AHEAD Conference Presentation

Strategies for
UDL Research, Campus Change
and Dissemination
at Colorado State University
Craig Spooner, Jesse Hausler, Cathy Schelly & Marla Roll
The ACCESS Project
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


Our Goal:


Grant #P333A080026
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)
b)
Visual-Linguistic (reading and writing)
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, 2007-10)
Non-apparent disabilities are by far the largest
proportion and growing
Even among students who say they have a
disability, few seek accommodations
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.
Representation
Expression
Engagement
Universal Design for Learning
“
Universal Design for Learning
is a set of principles and techniques for
teaching
creating inclusive classroom instruction
technology
and accessible course materials.
”
UDL and Technology

Educational Videos

Course Materials

Lecture Presentation Systems

Course Management Systems
EducationalVideo

Transcript


Captions


Written or text-based record of dictated or
recorded speech
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 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
http://accessproject.colostate.edu

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 prequestionnaire 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 onehour 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
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
Strategies to Increase and
Support Learning

i>clicker questions

Videos

Asks questions

Provides examples

Videos

i>clicker questions

Partner/group discussion
and activities


In-class mini writing
assignments
PowerPoint
(format, structure,
organization)

Checks/teaches for
understanding
Research Discussion

Examine the effectiveness of instructor UDL training


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


Just a few hours of training can produce significant changes in instructor
teaching behavior
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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
0%-20%
21%-40%
41%-60%
61%-80%
81%-100%
Activity Question 2
In what percentage of the session, were you
actively engaged in learning?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
0%-20%
21%-40%
41%-60%
61%-80%
81%-100%
Activity Question 3
How were you actively engaged?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Videos
Q&A
Group Activities
Presenter checks for understanding
Other
Activity Question 4
In what percentage of conference
presentations does the presenter begin
with an outline of what will be covered?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
0%-20%
21%-40%
41%-60%
61%-80%
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



Broader definition of “accessible”


Disabilities are part of the range of diversity
Enabling the learning environment
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 cocurricular)

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 300 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






Strategic goals of the institution


Provost’s Office
Institute for Learning & Teaching
Student Affairs
Central Computing
Retention Offices
The “WIIFMs”
It starts with one administrator

Offer a key role on your project
Benefits of Advisory Group

Advice



Opportunity



Experienced external perspectives
Project directions
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?
Thank you!
Website: accessproject.colostate.edu
Craig Spooner
Jesse Hausler
Cathy Schelly
Marla Roll
The ACCESS Project, Colorado State University
Funded by U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education
Grant #P333A080026