- 15 students (12:3): 11 undergraduate; 5 with LD/CD; 5 with PD; 6 with more than one disability (4 with MRD, 1 with PD, and 1 with LD)
Common phenomenon between SDs and SwoDs called a phenomenological approach.
Dependent variables (Data collection: Structured interview using an interview protocol):
- SDs’ perceptions of instructional methodologies and strategies to enhance their learning.
- Matching SDs’ perception of UDL principles.
- Perceptions of instructional methodologies and strategies found to enhance learning: SDs addressed issue more than SwoDs; organization of physical environment (11 SDs vs. 2 SwoDs), equity (9 SDs vs. 1 SwoD), the degree of professors’ familiarity with disabilities (11 SDs), frustration with accommodations and policies (9 SDs), stigma associated with disabilities (7 SDs), and stress from dependency on others, need for extra time for study, and challenges with transportation.
- Accommodation issues: Satisfaction from nine SDs; Students’ concerns: Inadequate time given for tests; faculty members’ lack of understanding SDs; lack of provision of built-in accommodations (e.g., human reader vs. built-in computer screen reader); functional mismatch between SDs’ needs and technology (e.g., voice recognition software for the students with communication impairment [CI]).
- Learning preference: Varied between learners, but the flexible combination of learning preferences leading to the best learning outcomes.
- The highest learning preferences by SDs, visually (n = 3), hands-on (n = 3), picture graphs, charts (n = 3), and practice or demonstration (n = 3). The least preferred methods were explanation with words (n = 2).
- Matching SDs’ perception of UDL principles: Effective strategies based on the SDs’ perception: Class and small-group discussion, clarity of class expectations, dissemination of class outlines and instructional materials before class, frequent feedback before the final grades of the projects, writing center, general feedback, screen readers, use of computer, transition from class to class, tutoring, and counseling services.
- Equitable use: Access to the same instructional materials.
- Flexibility of use: Class discussion or small-group discussion.
- Simple and intuitive: Clarity of class expectations.
- Perceptible information: Dissemination of class outlines ahead of time.
- Tolerance for error: Frequent feedback before final grades of the projects.
- Low physical effort: Use of screen reader.
- Size and space for approach and use: Transitions between classes.
- Community of learners: Tutors, counseling services, and class and small-group discussion.
- Multiple means of representation: Equitable use, flexibility of use, perceptible information, tolerance for error.
- Multiple means of expression: Flexibility of use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, instructional climate.
- Multiple means of engagement: Flexibility of use, simple intuitive (clarification of class expectations), tolerance for error, low physical effort, size and space of approach and use, a community of learners, and instructional climate.
- 16 disability service providers at postsecondary institutions; two focus groups of eight
- Keynote presentation addressing UDI principles, construct, and application for instruction for student with LD (SLD), and inclusion using UDI.
- Focus group discussion.
Dependent variables (Data collection: Qualitative method):
- Responses to open-ended questionnaires of the protocol developed by UDI project team with foci on experiences with or teaching SLD/ADHD and analysis of discussion.
- Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of UDI as a strategy for faculty to increase inclusion in their teaching.
- Perceptions of the participants’ responsibility for enhancing UDI on campus.
- Perceptions on office for students with disabilities (OSD) supports to incorporate UDI as strategies of faculty development.
- Focus group discussion audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed as data: Code book and multiple processes of interrater reliability were used.
- Benefits of UDI implementation: Increased instances of enrollment and graduation of students with different cultural backgrounds, adequate instructional approaches to all students, support for data-based teaching practices, and decrease in stigma related to disabilities.
- Weakness of UDI implementation:
Faculty resistance, training issues, technology requirements, lack of students’ self-advocacy, lack of instructional knowledge of service providers, and legal void of UDI implementation.
- Perceptions of participants’ responsibility: Widely spreading knowledge about UDI to campus leadership, collecting data and supporting faculty who incorporate UDI in their teaching, and facilitating faculty members’ UDI implementation, different appreciation from a campus based on culture and disciplines.
- Perceptions of OSD supports: Supports needed from campus leaders to incorporate UDI; provision of knowledge about UDI, including information about instructional technology and research on the efficacy of UDI.
- Findings from the interviews: Data collection as a facilitator of UDI implementation; service providers’ expertise ― learning strategies vs. faculty members’ expertise ― the content areas.
- Categorized as effective.