Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
2007, Volume 31, No. 2,167-169
EDUCATION &TRA1NING
Universal Design for Learning
V
Charles Bernacchio
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
MicheUe Mullen
University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey
i he concept of universal design (UD)
emerged from architectural design of
buildings that offer access for all who
enter them. An innovation that was
promulgated following state and feder-
al legislation, UD is now required in all
public buildings to make them fully ac-
cessible to the widest spectrum of
users, including people with disabili-
ties (Mace, 1997). The extension of UD
to Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
emerged in two key ways: through
built-in flexibility and through im-
proved access to information and
learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
One simple example of flexibility in ed-
ucational or training curricula is the
use of digitized forms of readings and
materials, making them available elec-
tronically through a computer. A fully
flexible curriculum ultimately requires
instructors to inject flexibility into three
core elements of teaching/learning:
setting goals, selecting materials and
methods to support students in reach-
ing their goals, and designing accurate
ongoing assessments (Rose & Meyer,
2002). Within a UDL context, learners
have a responsibility to be actively
thinking about their needs and prefer-
ences for knowledge and skills, based
on their capacity to learn and their un-
derstanding of their own learning
strengths and limitations. Guided self-
evaluation can be a highly effective
strategy to increase students' success.
EDUCATION
167
Copyright 2007 Trustees of Boston University
DOi; 10.2975/31.2.2007.167.169
Promoting increased access to learning
requires clarifying the instructional
goals in order to match needed types
and levels of support to the demands
ofthe learning environment. A broad
concept of access requires courses be
designed using web-based platforms,
digital resources, support through li-
brary and media services, and alter-
nate formats, such as digital text for all
course documents, readings, and sup-
plemental course materials. Access
also must be fostered in all assign-
ments, activities, and relationships in
order to connect students to a range of
teaching materials, instructional re-
sources, and learning pathways.
The UDL framework provides guidance
for creating flexible curricula and in-
structional environments, and for using
technology to maximize success for all
students, including those with physical
and/or psychiatric disabilities.
Flexibility requires variation in the
modalities through which information
is presented, in the opportunities pro-
vided to students for expressing their
knowledge and demonstrating compe-
tencies, and through engagement
among students in a learning commu-
nity that offers choices, incentives,
supports, and learning contexts.
Transforming educational structures to
improve access creates more equitable
and socially just learning environments
(Pliner & Johnson, 2004).
PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION )OURNAL
By promoting responsive practices that
adjust to individual needs, UDL mini-
mizes attention to disabilities and im-
pairments, reduces the need for
requiring disclosure of disability, and
shifts the institutional focus towards
specific skill areas that are critical to
learning. Greater flexibility in curricu-
lum and instruction also can increase
supportive exchange and interaction
between student peers, as well as be-
tween students and instructors. The
UDL learning community evolving from
these interactions results in socializa-
tion and a sense of membership within
the academic culture, which helps stu-
dents achieve a scholarly identity,
rather than just to cope with their limi-
tations—an outcome valued by stu-
dents with disabilities (Daugherty,
Campana, Kontos, Flores, & Shaw,
1996).
Guiding Principles of tJDt
The Center on Postsecondary Education
and Disability (CPED) at the University
of Connecticut (http//:www.cped.
uconn.edu) has created a resource
bank for post-secondary education of
faculty-designed instructional materi-
als that meet UD principles Qorgenson
& Weir, 2002). Beyond access (or
"equitableness"), flexibility, and the
development ofa community of learn-
ers, the principles of Universal Design
for Learning identified by the CPED
include:
• Simple and intuitive instruction that
is designed in a straightforward
and predictable manner, regardless
ofthe student's experience, knowl-
edge, language, skills, or current
concentration level;
• Perceptible information that is com-
municated effectively to the user re-
gardless of ambient conditions
(e.g., light and noise level) or the
user's sensory abilities, which may
require multiple instructional
modalities (e.g., readings, slides.
summary handouts, and audio-
recordings);
• Tolerance for error within the cur-
riculum that anticipates individual
variations in learning pace and pre-
requisite skills, which may include
multiple pathways for practice and
expression, prompts for multi-step
tasks, a rubric or checklist that
guides students in self-assess-
ment, opportunities for revision,
and/or students working in pairs to
monitor and assess their mastery of
the content;
• Low physical effort, when possible,
that allows maximum attention to
learning while acknowledging that,
in some instances, physical effort is
integral to essential requirements
ofa course;
• Size and space for approach and
use that takes into account the stu-
dents' approach, reach, manipula-
tion, and use of equipment and
materials, regardless of body size,
posture, mobility, and communica-
tion needs;
• Instructional climate that creates a
welcoming and inclusive environ-
ment, while maintaining high ex-
pectations for all students.
Effective UDL practices also must incor-
porate ongoing evaluation of students'
learning. Assessments need to accu-
rately measure the specific outcomes
relevant to course objectives and to in-
dividualized student goals, while al-
lowing for necessary supports and
accommodations. By using scoring
rubrics or study guides, and providing
them to students, clear expectations
for performance will help to facilitate
student self-assessment and learning.
Although UDL is not intended to avoid
the use of accommodations in the
classroom and in testing, providing al-
ternate assessment formats for demon-
strating knowledge will reduce the
Universal Design for Learning
need for accommodations by consider-
ing the needs of diverse learners.
Applying UDL can help address the his-
torical difficulties experienced by stu-
dents with psychiatric disabilities in
post-secondary settings (Unger, 1990;
Megivern, Pellerito, & Mowbray, 2003;
Mowbray, Bybee, & Collins, 2001).
Supported education strategies and
techniques (Blacklock, Benson, &
Johnson, 2003; Unger, 1990) will be en-
hanced by applying a UDL lens to cur-
riculum development and instruction.
The UDL perspective embraces the idea
of instructor creativity in developing
teaching strategies and assessment
techniques that are effective for all
learners, while still maintaining the in-
tegrity ofthe course and achieving its
objectives. UDL creates a learning cul-
ture in which diversity is accepted and
embraced, and where all students are
encouraged to learn and demonstrate
their knowledge in a variety of ways
Oorgenson &Weir, 2002).
References
Blacklock, B., Benson, B., & Johnson, D.
(2003). Weeds assessment project:
Exploring barriers and opportunities for
college students with psychiatric disabili-
ties. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from
Association for Higher Education and
Disabilities: www.ahead.org.
Daugherty, S. J., Campana, K. A., Kontos, R. A.,
Flores, M. K., Lockhart, R. S, & Shaw, D. D.
(1996). Supported education: A qualitative
study ofthe student experience.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 19(3)
59-71-
Jorgenson, C. M., & Weir, C. (2002, Spring).
Reflections on teaching. In Equity &
Excellence in Higher Education newsletter.
Retrieved from
http://iod.unh.edu/projects/equity_excel
lence.html.
Mace, R. (1997). Principles of universal design.
North Carolina State University. Retrieved
February, 2007 from The Center for
Universal Design, NCSU Website:
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/p
ubs_p/ppubpdflist.htm.
 FALL 2007—VOLUME 31 NUMBER 2

Megivern, D., Pellerito, S., & Mowbray, C.

(2003). Barriers to higher education for in-
dividuals with psychiatric disabilities.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 26(3),
217-231.
Mowbray, C. T., Bybee, D., & Collins, M. E.
(2001). Follow-up client satisfaction in a
supported education program. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 24(3), 237-247.
Pliner, S. M. & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical,
theoretical, and foundational principles of
universal design in higher education.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 37,
105-113.
Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every
student in a digital age: Universal design
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Unger, K. V. (1990). Supported postsecondary
education for people with mental illness.
American Rehabilitation, 14,10-14.

CHARLES BERNACCHIO, EOD, CRC, UNIVERSITY OF

NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL.

MICHELLE MULLEN, M.S., CRC, CPRP, UNIVERSITY

OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY.