Running Head: A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

EDUC 5001G - Assignment #2

A barrier free future: Where have all the accommodations gone?
Sandy Odrowski (100157733)
For: Dr. Bill Hunter
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
February 14, 2014

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

Abstract
This paper provides a futuristic view of accessibility in postsecondary education. It highlights
how changes in social policy, disability services offices (DSO), adoption of Universal Design for
Learning (UDL), and changes in physical learning spaces, can result in a decreased need for
accommodations. . The use of technology as a catalyst for change is a key concept presented in
this paper. From a disability perspective, social and critical theories are examined as a basis for
understanding the need for change from accommodations to a UDL approach. Discussion of a
UDL framework, constructivism and connectivism provides the reader with a glimpse into the
future where students learn 21st century skills to be consumers of knowledge by using
personalized learning that works best for them

Keywords: accommodations, disabilities, Disability Services Offices, learning spaces, social

policy, Universal Design for Learning.

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

Fast-forward to the year 2025 and picture a learning environment that is barrier free and
meets the needs of all learners regardless of ethnicity, age, disabilities, or gender. Envision a time
when students with disabilities learn amongst their peers without the need for accommodations
by a disabilities service 0ffice (DSO). Think about a future where the medical model of
disability is replaced with a social model emphasizing that the impairment is not about the
individual but rather the societal constraints and barriers of the learning environment (Fuller,
Healey, Bradley, & Hall, 2004; Hughes & Paterson, 1997). Imagine course design focusing on
proactive inclusion rather than retrofitted accommodations. Picture a learning environment
where technology meets accessibility in such a way that personalized learning is the norm, not
the exception.
Postsecondary institutions are on the brink of such change and if you could see students
in their learning environments ten years from now you would see a technology- enhanced
inclusive classroom where all students have equal access to learning. In this paper, the
following areas will be explored as an avenue for such change: (1) Social Policy; (2) the future
landscape of disability services offices (DSO; (3) a pedagogical shift to Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) enhanced with technology; and a (4) a futuristic view of learning spaces.
Discussion
Social Policy
Students with disabilities are no longer an anomaly but are representative of todays
diverse post-secondary classroom. Data from Ontario universities and colleges suggest that
approximately 5% of university students and 11% of college students are registered with a DSO
(McCloy & DeClou, 2013). The percentage of college and university graduates who reported a

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

disability has been increasing steadily since the 1980s, rising from 3 per cent of
certificate/diploma graduates and 2.2 per cent of bachelors degree graduates in 1986 to 8.7 per
cent and 6.6 per cent, respectively, for the 2005 graduating class (McCloy & DeClou, 2013).
One reason for such an increase is enactments of disability legislation (Fuller et. al, 2004;
McGuire & Scott, 2006)
Social policy can be a driving force for change (McGuire & Scott, 2006). Changes in
legislation have resulted in moving toward a barrier free built environment. Evidence of this
progress is apparent with such changes as pay phones equipped with Telstra's Teletypewriter
(TTYs), audible traffic signals, ramps, curb cuts, and Braille elevator buttons. Historically,
legislation such as the Ontario Human Rights Code (1962) and the recent release of the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA, 2005) have made the path towards
equality a reality for the foreseeable future. Such legislation focuses on the removal of barriers
in order to enable full participation in all aspects of society for persons with disabilities. The
effects of such legislation on higher education are clearly outlined in the AODA (2005).
The AODA was introduced in 2005 with the following purpose: AODA is to benefit all
Ontarians by developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve
accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities by 2025 (AODA, 2005). A roll out plan that spans
20 years will affect every type of organization in Ontario regardless of size. Postsecondary
institutions are mandated to provide accessible formats of all teaching and learning materials
upon request. In addition , obligated organizations that are school boards or educational or
training institutions shall provide educators with accessibility awareness training related to
accessible program or course delivery (AODA, 2005).

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

Such legislation has acted as a catalyst for long overdue changes to promote inclusion in
the learning environment. The shift from accommodation to designing accessible postsecondary
programs will initiate change in the way colleges and universities develop and deliver
curriculum. Fuller et al. (2004) discussed the need to move away from a medical model of
accommodation towards a social model of inclusion. To start from the perspective that disability
is misfortune, is to buy into a framework of charity, and pity rather than equality and inclusion
(Fuller et al., 2004; Reaume, 2012).
The concept of the learning environment as the barrier in relation to disability issues is
grounded in critical theory where the tragedy interpretation that surrounded much of the
construct of disability over the last few decades is slowly being replaced with the emancipation
of the oppressed. The rate of students attending postsecondary is on a steady incline which
questions the sustainability of an accommodation model. Keeping up with the demands and
specific needs of students registered at the DSO provides a new set of challenges involving such
things as the quality of the service, cost and resource allocation of retrofitting courses which is
repeated every semester for different students (Fovet , 2013; Lightfoot& Gibson, P. 2000).
Disability Services Offices
What has also changed is the diverse range of disabilities that are supported through a Disability
Services Offices (DSO). A sustainability report released by McGill University noted that many
disabilities are becoming increasingly invisible (Fovet, 2013). Mental Health issues are the
most prevalent with 25% of students being registered followed by learning disabilities, multiple
impairments, organic impairment, Attention Deficit Disorder, motor impairments, and visual
impairments, with the smallest number of students having hearing impairments ((Fovet, 2013).
Figure 1 shows a very similar picture at the Centre for Students with Disabilities at Durham

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

College in Ontario. The diverse ranges of disabilities are realities of DSO which makes the role
of the disability advisor very complex, requiring the need for a definite shift from traditional
accommodation practices. In response, a move towards a social model has started to reveal itself
at some institutions, with a focus on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Cavanagh, 2013;
Rose et al., 2006).
Figure 1

Source: Durham College: Centre for Students with Disabilities, 2012

Universal Design for Learning
UDL has been around for a few decades and is steadily picking up momentum with
advances in technology and cognitive psychology (Edyburn, 2010). An enhanced understanding
of how the brain works provides connections between UDL and neuroscience by revealing that
we each learn in unique combinations of neurological activity (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo et
al., 2008; Rose, 2002).
UDL draws upon three main guidelines: multiple means of representation (multi-modal
teaching); multiple means of engagement (maximizing student learning through relevancy); and

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

multiple means of expression (allowing students to demonstrate learning in multiple ways) (Rose
& Meyer, 2002; Walters, 2010; Ward & Sylvester, 2011). These guidelines align to the three
different networks in the brain found through brain imaging. Brain imaging conducted while
individuals were engaged in learning tasks (e.g., reading, writing) revealed three networks at
work in the brain during learning: recognition network (the "what" of learning), strategic
network (the "how" of learning), and affective network (the "why" of learning) (Rose & Meyer,
2002).
UDL is a proactive design rather than a reactive retrofit. It takes on the burden of
adaptation so that the student doesnt have to, minimizing barriers and maximizing access to both
information and learning (Pace & Blue, 2010). Furthermore, the evidence on educational
progress suggests that well-structured and supported inclusive practices such as UDL are
beneficial for both disabled and non-disabled students alike (Rose et al., 2006). The use of
technology drives the three principles to maximize accessibility for the learner (Gradel & Edson,
2010; Pace & Blue, 2010).
Multiple Means of Representation
Transfer of learning occurs when course materials are represented in multiple ways because it
allows students to make their own connections within, as well as between, concepts in a manner
that suits their learning needs (Center for Applied Special Technologies [CAST], n.d).
The variety modalities for information available on the Internet provide ample choice for
students to construct their learning in a way that is accessible to them. Unlike the printed word
with its fixed size, color and spacing, digital media can be converted from text to audio and
translated from one language to another. The availability of information technology provides

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

tools to support instructional approaches previously not feasible at colleges (Higbee, 2011; Scott,
Mcguire, & Shaw, 2003). Videos, podcasts, interactive websites, gamification, and social media
are only a few examples of how course content can be represented in multiple ways. Open
Educational Research (OER) commons is a website where digitized materials offered freely and
openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and re-use for teaching, learning and
research. Edyburn (2010) reminds us that one of the key tools for implementing a UDL
philosophy involves recognizing the value of digital media.
With so much choice and a plethora of information in various formats, students will need
to self-determine what digital media best suits their learning needs. Seimens (2005) explains
how principles of connectivism to support decision making as a learning process in itself
Choosing how to learn and the meaning of incoming information cultivates transfer of learning:
Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right
context in order to be classified as learning (Siemens, 2005). The role of the educator shifts
from providers of knowledge to facilitators of learning (Harrison, 2006). Designing clear
objectives and teaching learners how to research will guide the learner to be consumers of
knowledge rather than passively regurgitating content. UDL supports choice and options in
learning. The purpose of UDL is not just to make information accessible, but also to teach
learners how to transform information into useable knowledge (CAST, n.d).
Multiple Means of Engagement
The use of the World Wide Web provides a platform for all students to become researchers of
their own preference for learning. The focus of multiple means of engagement is to establish
relevancy and motivation for different groups of learners by providing a supportive and

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

collaborative learning environment (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley & Abarbanell, 2006,
Walters, 2010). Driscoll (2000) points out that constructivist theory corroborates the need for
learning to be meaningful and related to real life situations and for learners to pursue their own
learning ( as cited in Seimens, 2004, p.14). Learners need to be actively involved in their
learning and knowledge construction is fostered through social interaction (Jonassen, 1991).
The use of applications such as Dropbox facilitates social interaction in learning. Dropbox is a
web-based file hosting service that uses networked storage to enable users to store and share files
and folders with others across the Internet using file synchronization (CAST, n.d). All students
can access, share and collaborate on documents to foster learning.
The Internet presents incredible potential to increase the inclusion of people with
disabilities and facilitate online education. Sites such as Second Life (a virtual world where users
develop online personas called avatars and interact with others), offers students the opportunity
to construct their own learning through inquiry, problem-solving and discovery. Another
example of technology enhanced learning is GhostReader. GhostReader is a document and
selection reader used by people with dyslexia; it is used for language learning and by people
who prefer to listen to text rather than read it (CAST, n.d). Livescribe Smart Pen is a tool
which allows the learner to take notes and record their own voice or that of the teacher to
organize their learning in a way that works for them (CAST, n.d). Microsoft Office has an
application called Microsoft OneNote that allows you to organize notes, files, articles, pictures
and more in a single digital notebook on a PC. Furthermore, it allows students to record lectures
and sync PowerPoint presentations so they can easily search to find important information
without having to listen to the entire lecture over again. The accessibility of computer-mediated

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

10

information and technology-enhanced tools is truly leveling the playing field for students with
disabilities (Edyburn, 2010; Harrison, 2006).
Multiple Means of Expression
Another way to level the playing field is to allow for options in how students show what
they know which does not place unnecessary restrictions with a one-size fits all approach. The
use of clear, measurable and observable course learning outcomes provides the platform for
choice. In this manner course learning outcomes serve as a road map that provides a link
between accessible instruction and accessible evaluation (Ofiesh, Rojas, & Ward, 2006). For
example, a learner with dyslexia may have problems expressing their learning through the
written word but may excel at expressing their learning in a verbal manner or with images. Free
digital story websites such as Animoto, Photo Story, Meograph and Storyboard that can provide
a podium for such students to express their learning using images, words and audio recordings.
Providing options by using different modalities allows learners to express their learning in
authentic ways (Rose et al., 2006, Lightfoot & Gibson, 2005). Gone will be the days of objective
testing and final exams, making way for authentic performances that can be evaluated in a
myriad of ways.
Learning Spaces
In order for a barrier free inclusive learning environment to evolve, changes within
physical spaces in postsecondary institutions need to occur. Twentieth century classroom design
is not the best way to prepare learners for the 21st century knowledge economy (Steelcase, n.d).
Current classroom design does not recognize that students are no longer coming to class with
pens and pencils but instead with mobile computers, cell phones and iPads.

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

11

To benefit from constructivist theory of learning in which students take charge of their
own learning, classrooms must be dynamic and flexible spaces (Jonassen, 1999). Steelcase, a
company that is a leader in designing learning spaces for the 21st century, reveals that new
learning spaces will not see instructors at a podium but moving around mobile tables where pods
of learners are working collaboratively. Technology-enhanced learning will encompass moving
projectors and screens that give everyone an unobstructed view, portable display screens and
movable whiteboards allowing students to easily access what is needed. Another benefit of a
redesigned classroom is accessibility to all students. The movable furniture and multiple ways of
viewing or hearing information create an accessible environment for students with physical and
learning disabilities. A student using a wheelchair can easily maneuver around joining different
groups as necessary. The student with a learning disability can see, hear and modify content with
the use of readily available technology. Figure 2 displays an example of future learning spaces
created by Steelcase.
Figure 2

Source: Steelcase, 2014

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

12
Conclusion

This paper proposes that changes in social policy, disability services offices, UDL and
futuristic learning spaces will provide catalysts for inclusive learning environments. New social
policy clearly outlines the changes that must occur at educational institutions (AODA, 2005).
Implementation of a variety of digital technologies will be instrumental in abiding to legislation
and moving the UDL agenda forward. The reason UDL is possible today as opposed to the
1950s or 1970s is that digital technology provides a higher degree of flexibility (Edyburn,
2010). A shift away from the traditional classroom to a learning environment rich in information
and communications technology (ICT) will open the doors for all learners.
What else will move the UDL agenda forward? The increase in students with disabilities
will demand an equal learning opportunity and institutions will need to deliver to keep the
customer satisfied. Some postsecondary institutions are already building UDL centers and
removing Disability Services Offices. For example, the University of Alberta has created a UDL
center with the express purpose of facilitating faculty and students in the creation of UDL
solutions (Cavanagh, 2013). As well, they support faculty in the design of online learning
objects, blended learning approaches and effective teaching with technology based on UDL
principles. Institutions must recognize the value of change and support activities that will
facilitate access to learning for all students. Teachers must learn to use technology in a
knowledge society that enhances learning and empowers all students to be competent users of an
ICT environment in which they live. This approach will result in widespread progress of equity
and inclusion in postsecondary education.

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

13

References
Bernacchio, C., Ross, F., Washburn, K. R., Whitney, J., & Wood, D. R. (2007). Faculty
collaboration to improve equity, access, and inclusion in higher education. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(1), 56-66.
Centre for Applied Special Technologies (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/
Durham College: Centre for Students with Disabilities, 2012. [Pie chart].
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten
propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41.

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

14

Fovet, F. (2013). 22. UDL-From Disabilities Office to Mainstream Class: How the Tools of a
Minority are Addressing the Aspirations of the Student Body at Large. Collected Essays
on Learning and Teaching, 6.
Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A., & Hall, T. (2004). Barriers to learning: a systematic study of
the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in higher education, 29(3),
303-318.
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 38(2), pp. 111-121.
Harrison, E. G. (2006). Working with faculty toward universally designed instruction: The
process of dynamic course design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
19(2), 152-162.
Higbee, J. L. (2011). Implementing universal instructional design in postsecondary courses and
curricula. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 6(8).
Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19, http://canlii.ca/t/51tsz retrieved on 2014-02-09
Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body:
Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3), 325-340.
Integrated Accessibility Standards, O Reg 191/11, http://canlii.ca/t/51xrz retrieved on 2014-0209
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The Faculty Perspective on Universal Design for
Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60-72.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5-14.

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

15

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional design

theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 215-239.
Lightfoot, E., & Gibson, P. (2005). Universal instructional design: A new framework for
accommodating students in social work courses. Journal of Social Work Education,
41(2), 269-277.
Longmore, P. K. (1987). Uncovering the hidden history of people with disabilities.
McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2006). Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the Universal
Design Paradigm to College Instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 19(2), 124-134.
McCloy, U. & DeClou, L. (2013). Disability in Ontario: Postsecondary education
participation rates, student experience and labour market outcomes. Toronto: Higher
Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Ofiesh, N. S., Rojas, C. M., & Ward, R. A. (2006). Universal Design and the Assessment of
Student Learning in Higher Education: Promoting Thoughtful Assessment. Journal Of
Postsecondary Education And Disability, 19(2), 173-181.
Pace, D., & Blue, E.V. (2010). Cutting Edge Educators: Preservice Teachers use of Technology
within universal Design for learning Framework. Insights on Learning Disabilities 7(2),
19-29.
Reaume, G. (2012). Disability History In Canada: Present Work In The Field And Future
Prospects.Canadian Journal Of Disability Studies, 1(1), 35-81. Retrieved from
http://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/20/19

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

16

Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal
Design for Learning in Postsecondary Education: Reflections on Principles and their
Application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135-151.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 N. Beauregard
St., Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Scott, S. S., & Gregg, N. (2000). Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing
access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.
Scott, S. S., Mcguire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal Design for Instruction A New
Paradigm for Adult Instruction in Postsecondary Education. Remedial and Special
Education, 24(6), 369-379.
Statistics Canada. (2006). Participation and activity limitation survey 2006: Facts on learning
limitations [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/89-628x2009014-eng.pdf
Steelcase (n.d). Retrieved from
http://www.steelcase.com/en/products/category/educational/documents/ses_active_learni
ng_spaces_interactive.final.pdf
Steele, M.M. (2005, April 30). Teaching Students With Learning Disabilities: Constructivism Or
Behaviorism? Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(10). Available:
http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number10/

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

A BARRIER FREE FUTURE

17

Walters, S., (2010). Toward an Accessible Pedagogy: Dis/ability, Multimodality, and Universal
Design in the Technical Communication Classroom. Technical Communications
Quarterly, 19(4), 427-454.
Ward, H. C., & Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: improving teaching in
higher education. Educational Studies, 38(1), 111-121.