Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inclusive Practices in Instructional Design
Patricia Dyjur
274114
Historical and Theoretical Foundations
Of Educational Technology
February 14, 2004
Patricia Dyjur
2
2
In this paper, I will explore the area of inclusive practices in instructional design.
I will discuss why inclusive design in important for marginalized groups, and
how it benefits all learners. Finally, I will note some strategies that instructional
designers and other educators can use to make the learning environment more
inclusive.
What is Inclusive Design?
Inclusive design is “a process that results in inclusive products or environments
which can be used by everyone regardless of age, gender, or disability” (Centre
for Education in the Built Environment, 2003). The concept of inclusive design
has been evolving. In much of the literature it also addresses race, socioeconomic
status, education, culture, and language. Inclusive design is an approach to
designing products that address the needs of as much of the audience as
possible. Other terms that are used in a context similar to inclusive design are
‘design for all’, designing for diversity, and ‘respect for people’ (Centre for
Education in the Built Environment, 2003).
Inclusive design is based on the premise that certain groups of people are
discriminated against or disadvantaged at certain times (Centre for Education in
the Built Environment, 2003). With regard to educational environments, this can
happen in a multitude of ways, from the physical limitations of the classroom, to
more implicit factors such as cultural bias. Thus, inclusive design involves
careful planning to engage all learners, and a critical examination of the learning
environment to determine if anyone is excluded.
Working towards the goal of inclusive design requires that education be
equitable, not necessarily equal. Academic standards are not lowered, but certain
adaptations may be made. Learners do not receive identical instruction; they
Patricia Dyjur
3
3
may start at different points, use different materials, and be assessed in different
ways. Equity means that the instruction meets the learners’ needs (McAllister,
2002).
Although the terms ‘universal design’ and ‘inclusive design’ are sometimes used
interchangeably in the literature, many people assign them separate meanings.
Universal design can be defined as “the design of products and environments to
be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for
adaptation or special design” (Connell et. al., 1997 ). It is often used more
narrowly than inclusive design, to denote accessibility issues for people with
physical, cognitive, or perceptual disabilities. Inclusive design, on the other
hand, takes a user-centred approach, encompassing factors such as age, gender,
experience and ethnicity (Personal communication, Katy Campbell, Feb. 2, 2004).
Since differing ability is a learner characteristic, I will include universal design
issues as one part of inclusive design. Universal access is an aspect of universal
design, with an emphasis on information and communication technology
(Coleman, 2003).
My understanding of inclusive design is one that includes universal design
principles. It also advocates inclusion of social factors, such as language and
culture, and other learner characteristics, such as age. In my paper, I will address
some of the major issues regarding inclusive practices in education, and
strategies that instructional designers can use to make the learning environment
more inclusive.
Why is Inclusive Design Important?
All education is grounded in a social framework, based on certain assumptions.
When certain educational decisions are made, the door is closed to other options.
Patricia Dyjur
4
4
As content is selected, other content is excluded; instructional designers and
educators are constantly making decisions about what will be learned and how,
methods of learner assessment, and many other factors that affect the learning
environment. Currently, many educational decisions reflect the dominant culture
perspective. The curriculum and teaching environment tend to reflect a middle
class, Eurocentric approach to education: no surprise, as teachers tend to be
middle class, and curriculum construction is a design task performed by humans
with particular social and cultural traits.
Basing their comments on Ralph Tyler (1949), Cervero and Wilson (1994) assert
that
Objectives are a matter of choice, and they must therefore be considered
value judgments of those responsible for the school…After all the
information is collected about what might be taught in an educational
program, the values of those who are responsible for the program
determine what is actually taught. (p. 163).
When designing instruction for the mainstream, certain groups tend to be
discriminated against or disadvantaged. Often the instructional bias is not
obvious, but hidden under a blanket of inertia (“We’ve always done it this way”)
and even good intentions (“This is the best education possible”). Some educators
take the hegemonic view that their way is naturally best for the learners,
regardless of who those learners are.
Some practices are hidden under a veneer of neutrality, not even recognized as
privileging some learners while discriminating against others. It is not only
through the curriculum that learners can be disadvantaged. Classroom policies
and practices can work against some students. Learning activities and student
Patricia Dyjur
5
5
assessment techniques are often seen as value-neutral; yet, the learner’s gender,
age, ability, culture, language, religion, and social class can all have a significant
impact on how he or she learns (Barajas & Higbee, 2002).
Inclusive practices in instructional design are important because they ask us to
question whose needs are being served in the education process. Inclusive design
is user-centred, placing the needs of the learners at the heart of this question.
Gender, age, culture, socioeconomic status, and many other factors affect a
person’s learning experience. Therefore, instruction that is inclusive will
accommodate a wide range of learner needs, not just those that match the
instructional designer’s or educator’s.
Instructional designers can make a difference in the world through their efforts,
and the ways they shape the educational environment for the learners (Personal
communication, Katy Campbell, Dec. 13, 2003). Cervero and Wilson (1994) state
that
As social beings with interests and values, planners do care about and are
committed to bringing about a certain kind of world through their efforts.
Planners are always affecting the world in a particular direction and
closing off other directions (p. 163).
They note that this is where a planner’s ethical values are so crucial. They can
choose to plan for the needs of diverse cultural groups, or not. They can consider
the interests of the learners, or not. Instructional designers can not only affect the
design and development of instruction, they can play an influential role with
other educators, by encouraging them to use inclusive practices.
Patricia Dyjur
6
6
As I was reading over the information for this paper, I tried to keep this quote in
mind:
The literature has paid so much attention to the technical information and
skills that planners need that many people believe, even in the face of
daily experience that teaches them otherwise, that their primary role is
that of a technical consultant, artfully managing the planning process with
a repertoire of strategies and techniques. Although this is clearly is one
role that planners play, it sells the complexity of their practice far short.
For, as planners negotiate interests, they also play the role of social activist
(as they deal with ethical questions) and political organizer (as they deal
with questions of power) (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p. 170).
Inclusive practices involve more than having a well-stocked toolbox of strategies
and ideas. By using inclusive practices, instructional designers and educators are
advocating for a fair learning environment for all students.
Universal Design
For the purposes of this paper, I will consider ‘universal design’ to refer to
accessibility issues for people with disabilities. Universal design for learning is
based on the premise that instruction should include alternatives to make it
accessible to a diversity of needs. Instruction that is delivered one way to all
learners will not address every learner’s needs. Additionally, any method of
presenting information that aids learning for some people will be problematic for
others (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). For
example, any visual materials I used with my class hopefully benefited most of
my students; however, I knew they would add nothing to the instruction for my
Patricia Dyjur
7
7
blind student. The Center for Applied Special Technology has identified three
principles of universal design for learning: providing flexible means of
representation, expression, and engagement. I’ll elaborate on each one in turn.
Providing flexible means of representation involves finding alternative ways of
delivering the instruction to suit the needs of the learner. Printed text can be a
barrier for students with learning disabilities or low vision, but print in digital
form can be altered in size, shape, or color to suit the learner. With the right
technology, it can be delivered orally to blind users. Audial presentation is
preferred by some people, but meaningless for deaf people. Oral information
with captions meets the needs of most learners. Similarly, graphics and text are
stronger than just one mode of presentation. Some learners may have a slight
impairment that isn’t readily apparent, but affects their learning nonetheless.
Flexible means of representation can help these learners to access the content
(ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). For example,
my older son has a low-level hearing loss that goes unnoticed for the most part.
He sometimes doesn’t catch what is said in a noisy classroom or gymnasium.
Multimodal presentation helps him (and others) to understand the instruction.
The second principle of universal design for learning is to provide flexible means
of expression. Writing with pencil and paper can be a painful exercise for
students who have poor fine motor skills, or have difficulty spelling words.
Using the computer to write can overcome many barriers: enlarged keyboards
and spell checkers can be most helpful. Oral presentations can overcome motor
barriers for some, but are problematic for others. Because we want learners to
develop in all areas, not just where they are strong, creating multimedia
presentations can be an excellent tool (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and
Gifted Education, 2001).
Patricia Dyjur
8
8
The third principle of universal design for learning, providing flexible means of
engagement, recognizes that learners have individual differences in
developmental experience, abilities, and motivation (ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). Instruction should provide an
appropriate balance between support and challenge, based on learner needs.
Some learners will require more scaffolding than others to engage the material.
Finding a balance between novelty and familiarity can also keep the learner
engaged. The optimum amount of repetition, familiarity, randomness, and
surprise in the instruction is an individual preference. Again, presenting the
instruction in more than one way, such as graphic, text, and orally, can lead to
deeper engagement. Having a flexible curriculum with some learner choice and
control is another strategy to promote engagement. Students with differing
abilities make decisions about their own learning (ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). In Saskatchewan, the adaptive
dimension could help fulfill this goal.
How Universal Design has Affected Education
In education, universal design has meant a shift in how we think about teaching
and learning in some basic ways. First of all, people are not ‘disabled’ so much as
having a variation in ability. Their skills fall along a continuum of abilities with
regard to physical, psychological, and mental abilities, and this variation can
change over time and according to context (Fletcher, 2002). A second aspect to
universal design for learning is that it aims to modify the instruction for all
learners, not just those with varying abilities. As a result, the instruction is
strengthened for all learners (Fletcher, 2002). Thirdly, universal design guidelines
expand on the choice of curriculum materials to include digital and online
resources as well as texts. Additionally, universal design for learning takes a
different approach to ‘disability’, viewing it not as something to be fixed, but as
Patricia Dyjur
9
9
differently abled. As a result, it is the curriculum that must be fixed to become
flexible enough to accommodate all learners (Rose, Sethuraman, & Meo, 2000).
Cognitive Accessibility in Universal Design
Universal design aims to create products and environments that are accessible to
people with cognitive challenges as well as physical ones. Cognitive accessibility
is “the super layer of strategies and methods that help any learner or user
understand or cognitively integrate the interface and content” (Roberts, n.d.). In
that regard, designing for cognitive accessibility helps all the learners to access
the content.
Design strategies for cognitive accessibility include things that organize the
content in a way that makes sense for the learners. Using advanced organizers,
sequencing of content, and chunking information for better retention increase
cognitive accessibility (Roberts, n.d.). Other strategies include building
prerequisite skills before introducing new ones, and progressing from concrete to
abstract ideas (McAllister, 2002). When evaluating web sites for cognitive
accessibility, consistency in layout is critical. Menus should be located in the
same spot on each page. If they move around, the user has to re-discover how to
navigate different pages of a site.
Universal Access
Griffith University (2004) offers some basic guidelines for people who want to
make their web site more accessible to people with perceptual challenges. First of
all, provide information about the accessibility of the site, to alert learners as to
how the materials are presented, icons and signposts that have been used, and
the technology needed to access the site. This information should be readily
available. Accessibility is also increased through textual descriptions of non-print
items, such as audio or video components. Web builders will want to be careful
Patricia Dyjur
10
10
with using color. Ensure there is enough contrast between colors by printing out
a page in black and white, and don’t rely on color as the only way to distinguish
something. Language usage is particularly important: state the information in the
clearest way possible. Spell out all abbreviations and acronyms the first time they
are used, even common ones such as days of the week. Last of all, make sure that
downloadable documents are fully accessible or available in alternate formats.
For example, audio and video content in a PowerPoint presentation can be
problematic. (Griffith University, 2004).
Learner Characteristics and Inclusivity
Gender
As instructional design is a human activity performed by people who are
gendered, and hold certain social values, the education they design is not a
value-free, scientific fact, but a human construct. Some gender issues may be
fairly obvious, such as the use of exclusionary language (I just loved the quote
from Cunningham (1986), who is advocating for a constructivist and semiotic
approach to educational research: “There are no good guys and bad guys, only
guys”.) (In Hlynka, 1991). Other issues, such as differences in learning styles, are
harder to recognize. Designers must actively examine their gender assumptions
so they can create instruction that is more gender-inclusive.
Gender bias in language usage involves more than exclusionary terms. Certain
types of jargon and cliches are favored more by males than females. The sports
metaphors and violent terms that are so pervasive in our culture speak more to
males than to females (Powell, 1997). The ways in which men and women tend to
discuss their ideas can differ, too. Men tend to ‘state the facts’. Women tend to
Patricia Dyjur
11
11
look for an interconnectedness of ideas, which can be perceived as weak by men
(Campbell, 1999).
It is not always girls who are disadvantaged in regard to language and literacy
issues. Females typically favor narrative forms of discourse, while males tend to
favor nonfiction, action and adventure. Narrative stories, however, tend to be
given more importance academically than forms of discourse favored by males.
Such preferences tend to put boys at a disadvantage in the early school years
(Newkirk, 2002). Instructional designers and other educators can address this
issue by providing flexibility in reading and writing assignments.
Learning theory literature states that learning styles may be influenced by
gender, especially for adults. Men tend to be autonomous or independent
learners. The majority of women, on the other hand, tend to learn in a relational,
connected, or interdependent way. Inclusive design practices acknowledge and
accommodate these different approaches to learning. (Campbell, 1999).
Since women have different learning preferences from men, we need to consider
how inclusive or gender-neutral learning environments can be designed. Also, if
a learning environment is structured to support relational and collaborative
learning, the question is whether or not that will put autonomous learners at a
disadvantage. According to standpoint theory, learning environments that
support the needs of previously marginalized groups provide better learning
opportunities for all people (Campbell, 2000).
An inclusive learning environment that supports gender preferences is one that
offers different ways to learn, and more than one form of representation; it offers
activities that are connected, relational, and holistic; it values feelings, intuitions,
and experiences as well as knowledge; and it offers learner control. Instructional
Patricia Dyjur
12
12
designers can play an important role in the creation of gender-balanced
instructional materials (Campbell, 2000).
Gender and technology. The internet and web-based courses have the
potential to offer diverse learning opportunities to students. According to
Campbell (2000), these new technologies can accommodate many learning styles,
preferences, and experiences; verbal, visual, and aural presentation of content
create environments that are more inclusive. With regard to instructional
technology, “constructivist approaches to learning design encourages the inter-
relatedness of perspectives, and supports relational ways of knowing and being
in the world, ways that may be preferred by women” (Campbell, 2000).
Technology holds the potential to be inclusive for a wider audience than ever
before.
In reality, though, technology is not yet gender-inclusive. Campbell (2000)
describes technology as androcentric in design, “reproducing and reinforcing
sexist gender stereotypes.” Procedural, linear thinking, competition, and
autonomous situations often typify computer environments, which differs from
many females’ preferred learning style. Factors that may exclude females from
technology are personal attitudes, anxiety, and motivation, access, socialization
and culture, learning context, learning design, the nature of the content, and
learning and cognitive style differences (Campbell, 2000).
Even the way in which many computer work spaces is designed tends to favor
males’ preferences over females’ preferred style of working (Campbell, 2003).
Many workspaces are organized in strict military rows, sometimes with dividers
between computers to eliminate distractions and interaction. Girls, who tend to
favor social learning, could be put off by such as arrangement. A computer
environment that is more responsive to their preferences could have computers
Patricia Dyjur
13
13
grouped together to facilitate interaction. Computer workspaces tend to have
harsh lighting and a clinical look, not very appealing to most girls.
Instructional designers and educators can help to correct the imbalance, though.
Campbell (1999) offers some suggestions for making technology more accessible
to females, including:
• Required computer classes at all age levels
• Group projects
• Use of computers in humanities and social science content areas
• Learning with computers as opposed to about them
• Same sex groupings and classes
• Female role models
Suggestions for software include:
• No competitive arcade-style games
• Evaluate for bias in language, graphics, and design
• Emphasis on social values and ethics
• Constructivist design, multiplicity of perspectives
• Collaborative exercises
• Open-ended assignments (Campbell, 1999).
The reasons for gender bias in technology may be complicated and
interconnected, but improvements can be made through a concerted effort.
Gender-inclusive design. According to Knupfer (1997), it can be difficult to
recognize, analyze, and explain when instruction is gender-biased. Obvious
gender biases, such as language that is exclusionary, are fairly easy to identify.
Hidden gender bias can involve how the learning is structured, what is
Patricia Dyjur
14
14
neglected, and how the design reflects the needs of females and males. Knupfer
(1997) asserts that
the field of instructional design has been shaped by male influences for
many years, and it will take many years to correct some of the inequitable
practices that have resulted from individual and collective practice within
a social system that perpetuates gender bias (p. 32).
Inclusive design practices can help to point the way.
Culture
Culture has a huge impact on learning. McLoughlin (2001) states that it pervades
learning, with respect to factors such as language and semantics, learning style
differences, and educational values. When planning the learning environment,
instructional designers should assess whether the needs of culturally diverse
learners are being addressed. Considering the multicultural nature of Canadian
society, this is an important issue in most learning environments.
Before discussing culture and inclusive design, I will discuss three terms that
frequently appear in the literature: culture, diversity, and pluralism. Culture can
be defined as “the sum total of ways of living, including values, beliefs, aesthetic
standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behavioral norms, and
styles of communication” (Powell, 1997, p. 15). Culture is not the same as
ethnicity, which implies a person’s historical heritage determined by birth, such
as Belgian, Japanese, or Italian (Powell, 1997). A person can have a certain ethnic
background that he or she does not identify with culturally: social practices, not
biology, are the basis for culture. For example, while my father looks like a
visible minority to many people, culturally he is Polish. He identifies with Polish
culture, and spoke Polish as his first language.
Patricia Dyjur
15
15
Diversity means variety, or difference. This term is often used with a descriptive
modifier, to identify the kind of difference, such as culture. As a stand-alone
term, diversity often refers to variety in a number of aspects, such as culture,
race, gender, religion, language, and socioeconomic status (Powell, 1997).
However, diversity can include less obvious differences, such as age, sexual
orientation, education, personality, learning style, and physical attributes
(Kincaid & Horner, 1997). Educators and instructional designers may also be
interested in diversity of special educational needs, such as visually impaired, or
different lifestyles, such as rural or urban (Powell, 1997).
A term that is similar to diversity, pluralism refers to variety. Powell (1997) notes
that “Pluralism is the condition in which cultural groups are able to maintain
their collective associations while retaining membership in a macro society” (p.
15). Cultural pluralism implies that different groups of people retain their
cultural, racial, language and religious connections, as opposed to being
assimilated into mainstream society. According to Branch (1997), educational
technologists can use plurality of the learners’ preferences, backgrounds, and
experiences to make instruction more meaningful and contextualized.
It is vital for instructional designers to consider culture when planning;
otherwise, they will plan the learning from an ethnocentric standpoint.
Hegemony is the preconceived notion that one’s own way of doing things is the
best way; people sometimes think this way without realizing it. It can be difficult
to plan for cultural groups other than one’s own, but instructional designers
need to plan for more than the dominant culture perspective. Educators tend to
emphasize mainstream knowledge and values, which can be quite different from
the values, experiences, language, and learning style of many of the learners. An
example of this is how critical thinking and discussion are allowed and
Patricia Dyjur
16
16
encouraged in our society. In many other cultures, though, students show
respect to the teacher by agreeing with him or her. Even expressing an opinion is
discouraged (Bates, 2001). Students who are accustomed to such a learning
environment may struggle with collaborative learning.
According to Powell (1997), our education system “reflects a cultural dictate
rather than a universal mandate” (p.8). We must recognize the cultural
differences that learners bring to the learning task as valuable assets, not
problems to overcome. He claims that “a culturally sensitive educator would
create learning experiences and environments with the realization that each
learner has a distinctive communication style, learning style, orientation, value
system, expectation, and norm which is culturally based and influenced”
(Powell, 1997, p.6). Cultural plurality can add richness to the learning
environment. It is not enough to just accept the cultural diversity of learners,
however. Instructional designers and educators must also incorporate the
students’ culture into instructional practices and relate the curriculum to student
experiences (Powell, 1997).
Designing for a certain cultural group is not inclusive; rather, it targets a certain
audience that may have been marginalized in the past. The learner analysis can
inform decisions about instructional strategies and preferred learning styles,
strengthening the instruction. Care must be taken not to overgeneralize about a
cultural group, as this can lead to stereotyping. To avoid making biased
assumptions, an instructional designer can learn about cultural preferences by
asking people from the target audience about their educational values and
preferred learning environment (Sheffield, 1997).
Cultural factors and the learning environment. A culturally sensitive designer
will examine many factors that could affect the learning environment:
Patricia Dyjur
17
17
• How does the classroom and instructor reflect cultural assumptions?
As a beginning teacher, I realized how arbitrary and culturally bound
it is to put students in rows of desks and assume they will learn best
this way.
• What are the learners’ views of time: It can be puzzling for teachers
with a Western notion of time, that is, valuing punctuality, to
encounter students who do not like to be slaves to the clock.
• What are the learners’ traditional means of communication? This can
vary between cultures; for example, Aboriginal and Inuit cultures have
a strong oral tradition. I have taught students whose families placed
little importance on reading and writing, in direct contrast to my own
emphasis on the value of literacy.
• How do the learners view competition? Values placed on competition
and collaboration are culturally bound.
• What is the learners’ locus of control? Different cultures have different
perspectives on the amount of control individuals have over
happenings.
• What are the learners’ preferred learning styles? A number of factors
could influence people’s preferences, including culture, gender, age,
and prior experience.
• What are the learners’ cognitive styles? Some studies indicate that
learners from different cultural groups may develop different
cognitive styles. Western education tends to favor abstract, conceptual
thought (Powell, 1997).
Educators and instructional designers might need to consider several other
factors when structuring a culturally inclusive learning environment, depending
on the context of the situation.
Patricia Dyjur
18
18
Learners who are from a different culture than the dominant Western
perspective may experience a variety of difficulties in learning situations. They
may be self-conscious of language differences, and therefore reluctant to
participate in oral discussions. Cultural differences in student and teacher roles
may inhibit them from speaking freely, disagreeing with the instructor, or asking
questions. Students may be uncertain about the expectations placed on them, and
may lack the cultural capital needed to participate in the learning (Schallert &
Reed, 2003/2004). Biggs (1999, in McLoughlin, 2001) classifies international
students’ learning problems into three categories: socio-cultural adjustment,
language issues, and teaching and learning issues relating to different
expectations and perspectives on learning.
Designing culturally sensitive material is not easily done, though; an
instructional designer or educator could unintentionally use something
culturally inappropriate for some of the learners. Reeves (1997) advocates
collaborating with members of the intended audience to prevent cultural
insensitivities in instruction. For example, heads and hands are commonly used
icons in multimedia, but some African cultures regard them as taboo images
(Reeves, 1997). Children’s software sometimes personifies animals, which is
culturally insensitive to Muslims (Reeves, 1997). Colors have different meanings
in different cultures. The Eurocentric notion of the study of science, something to
be dissected, segmented, measured, analyzed, deduced, and recorded, is
different from an Aboriginal view of nature: holistic, and to be understood
through experience (King, 1991).
Of course, groups of learners are rarely homogeneous. Instructional designers
and educators are usually challenged by a pluralistic learning group in which the
core pedagogical values of some students are inappropriate for others. According
Patricia Dyjur
19
19
to Reeves (1997), their job is not to design culturally neutral instruction, but to
use pluralism to build rich learning environments.
Instructional strategies for a multicultural audience. Given that no single
strategy will work for all learners, instructional designers and educators will
need to offer a choice of learning activities. Sheffield (1997) asserts that these
strategies can work well in a multicultural learning environment: mastery
learning, learning centres, peer tutoring, independent study, cooperative
learning, experiential learning, laboratory exercises, discussions, hands-on
materials, instructional games, field trips, and guest speakers. Because learners
from different cultural backgrounds may have different learning styles, they will
want to go about learning in a different way. For example, the social
constructivist learning theory is currently popular in the field of education.
Campbell (Personal communication, Katy Campbell, Dec. 13, 2003) asserts that a
collaborative learning environment is not ideal for everyone; people from
cultures that value competition and independence may not be comfortable in a
constructivist setting. In such cases it makes sense to give the option of working
independently.
Socioeconomic Status
While there is an abundance of literature on the effects of culture on learning, I
could find very little devoted specifically to the inclusion of a range of
socioeconomic status groups. Yet I know from experience that a learner’s
socioeconomic status impacts on how he or she regards education. Educators
tend to reflect their own middle-class values, which many lower socioeconomic
status learners cannot relate to. As a result, they are distanced from the learning.
Students from a lower socioeconomic status may be alienated from the
instruction in many different ways. The classroom environment and practices,
Patricia Dyjur
20
20
things under the teacher’s control, may be based on values that learners do not
share. Learners may not relate to the curriculum. The activities and examples
that the teacher chooses may not relate to the life experiences of students from a
lower socioeconomic status.
Language usage is another way in which lower socioeconomic status learners
may not relate to the instruction. Teachers tend to expect the use of standard
English in their classrooms. Some students from a lower socioeconomic status
background are accustomed to speaking English in a non-standard way: they
have different language patterns, use slang, and assign different meanings to
words. Powell (1997) notes that:
For some children there is a discontinuity between home and school in
linguistic system, in orientation toward the use of language, and in the
form of social relations in which the language system is rooted. Many
teachers fail to understand and value these children’s linguistic system (its
content or potency); they are unaware of the demands they make when
they expect their pupils to operate in standard English (p.10).
Instructional designers and educators can make the learning environment more
inclusive by acknowledging the learners’ language usage as valuable. They can
also make the curriculum more relevant to lower socioeconomic status students
(the adaptive dimension may help in this regard), and include activities and
examples that relate to the students’ lives.
Inclusive Practices in Education: Principles, Guidelines, and Examples
of Educational Implications
Patricia Dyjur
21
21
The Center for Universal Design has created a set of guidelines for designers to
use in order to maximize accessibility (Connell et. al., 1997). These principles and
guidelines can be adapted and stretched to promote the larger domain of
inclusive design issues, such as gender and culture. I will briefly summarize each
principle, and offer some suggestions as to how it can inform educators and
instructional designers about inclusive practices in face-to-face and online
settings. No design can achieve complete inclusivity for all users (and this
naturally applies to any learning environment); designers can however create a
better product for as many people as possible (Connell et. al., 1997).
Principle One: Equitable Use
The principle of equitable use states that the design is useful to people with
diverse abilities. Instructional designers can strive for this through strategies
such as avoiding segregating or stigmatizing learners, and making the design
appealing to all learners (Connell et. al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Learning experiences are designed to be more concrete and relevant to
students
• Ensure learning is cognitively accessible
• The content recognizes diverse cultural values
• Multimodal presentation of information (text, graphic, oral,
kinesthetic) makes the instruction accessible for people with functional
limitations
• Different starting points for those with more or less prerequisite
knowledge
• Women, people with disabilities, people from diverse socioeconomic
and cultural backgrounds are visible in the course materials, including
Patricia Dyjur
22
22
graphics, examples, and reading resources. Value is placed on
diversity of contributions.
• Examine instruction (including mass media) for gender bias and
cultural stereotyping
• Do a thorough learner analysis to better understand the target
audience
• Modify the amount of scaffolding to suit the learner’s needs
• Allow for extra time on exams and assignments
• Low-technology learning aids may include things such as sticky notes,
highlighter pens, calculators, digital clocks, and note pads (McAllister,
2002).
Examples for educational technology:
• Ensure adequate contrast between text and background for people
with visual limitations
• Asynchronous communication allows people with motor impairment
to take as much time as needed to input a message
• Icons are an adequate size and easily distinguishable from the
background
Principle Two: Flexibility in Use
The design can accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and
abilities by providing a choice in methods of use, facilitating the user’s accuracy
and precision, and allowing the learner flexibility in pacing (Connell et. al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Design for different learning styles: choice of collaborative or
independent activities
Patricia Dyjur
23
23
• Flexible student assessment techniques, such as a presentation, paper
or portfolio
• Multiple pathways to reach an objective
• Flexible completion schedules
• Choice of learning activities, such as case studies, discussion, video
presentation, concept mapping, and so on
• Content from multiple perspectives
• Use a variety of learning resources that differ in interactivity level and
format
• Design goals based on learner strengths and weaknesses, with
assessment tied to individual skill level
Examples for educational technology:
• Provide a text equivalent for non-text items: alt tags for links, images,
and other graphical, video, or audio items
• Do not rely on color alone to convey information (for example, maps
that are color coded only will be useless to some viewers)
• Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets (Griffith
University, 2004).
• For data tables, identify row and column headers
• Asynchronous communication allows time for reflection
• Learner control of pacing
• Learners manipulate objects on-screen
• Provide links to supporting materials
• Modify size, shape, and color of digital text
• Audio and captions are better than just one format
Patricia Dyjur
24
24
Principle Three: Simple and Intuitive Use
This principle states that the design is easy to understand, regardless of the
learner’s experience, knowledge, or language skills. Guidelines to help achieve
this include eliminating unnecessary complexity, being consistent,
accommodating a wide range of literacy skills, arranging information according
to importance, and providing effective feedback (Connell et. al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Proper sequencing of information
• Chunking of information to promote cognitive accessibility
• Prompt, effective feedback (O’Connor, 1999)
• Use examples that are relevant to the learners
• Amount of scaffolding is appropriate for the learner
• Progress from concrete to abstract (McAllister, 2002)
Examples for educational technology:
• Consistency in web page design
• Divide solid blocks of information into smaller chunks
• Accurate descriptors of links
• Icons are simple, consistent, and concrete representations
• Glossary of essential terms
• Tutorials for prerequisite knowledge are available if needed
• Clear menu structure (Campbell, 1999)
Principle Four: Perceptible Information
The fourth principle states that the design communicates information effectively.
Instructional designers and other educators can aim for this goal through
Patricia Dyjur
25
25
strategies such as multimodal presentation of information, and ensuring
compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with
sensory limitations (Connell et. al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Provision of accessible formats based on the learner’s needs (such as
Braille, captioning, or synthesized speech)
• No puns, slang, or culture-specific terms
• Abbreviations and acronyms are spelled out in full the first time they
are used
• Avoid war terms and sports metaphors, which may exclude some
female learners (Campbell, 2000)
• Highlight main points
• Use advanced organizers
• Proper sequencing of information
• Chunking of information for better retention (Roberts, n.d.)
• Build prerequisite skills before introducing new ones
• Use information summaries for repetition and reinforcement
• Review is sufficient and cumulative (McAllister, 2002).
Examples for educational technology:
• Web sites comply with accessibility standards (Connell et. al, 1997).
• Directional cues are used
• Consistency in layout (Roberts, n.d.)
Patricia Dyjur
26
26
Principle Five: Tolerance for Error
The fifth principle states that hazards can be minimized through making the
most used elements most accessible and providing fail-safe features (Connell et.
al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Ensure that the learning environment is safe for people of all abilities
• Proper lighting and clear pathways are essential
• Encourage individual and group responsibility for safety issues
• Provide a supportive learning environment in which people feel
comfortable expressing ideas, including a difference in opinion
Examples for educational technology:
• Provide a navigation history
• Educate students about web safety
Principle Six: Low Physical Effort
This principle states that the design can be used comfortably and with a
minimum of fatigue through ways such as minimizing repetitive actions and
physical effort (Connell et. al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• The building and classroom are accessible to people in wheelchairs
• Computer work stations suit the physical needs of the users, with
adaptations such as modified keyboards as needed
Examples for educational technology:
• Switch for physically disabled users (Roberts, n.d.)
Patricia Dyjur
27
27
Principle Seven: Size and Space for Approach and Use
This principle can be achieved through techniques such as providing a clear line
of sight for all learners, and having space for using assistive devices (Connell et.
al., 1997).
Examples of educational implications:
• Create learning environments that allow for individual physical
differences
• Ensure an adequate number of power outlets are available
• Arrange for proper storage of bulky learning resources (O’Connor,
1999).
Implementing principles of Inclusionary Practices
While these guidelines provide concrete ways in which instructional designers
and other educators can move closer to the goal of inclusive design, they are not
all easy to implement in real learning environments. Some things are difficult to
implement due to cost. For example, many older buildings are not accessible to
people in wheelchairs, and making them accessible would be a major expense.
Technology and equipment are expensive as well, so most institutions have to
carefully select what technology they need most, within budgetary constraints.
Many educators have large classes with a diversity of needs, and a lack of
planning time. They may not have training to work with special needs students,
nor a whole lot of support from special education staff. In reality, implementing
principles of inclusionary design is not always realistic.
As an example from my own teaching experience, one year I had a class with one
blind student and two others who had individual education plans. The other
twenty-one students had a typical range of skills and abilities for a grade one
Patricia Dyjur
28
28
classroom. I would routinely provide instruction in more than one format, alter
assignments, create tactile materials, and so on. However, I never really felt
finished. I never felt as if I provided for all the needs of all the kids in my class.
What educators can do through their efforts is move the instruction closer to the
ideal of inclusive design. Even if it cannot be completely achieved, that doesn’t
mean we don’t try. Professional development, such as conferences and in-service
workshops, can inform educators about special needs, individual preferences
and learner characteristics, and technology use. Peer and administrative support
can also be instrumental.
Conclusion
Instructional design is a human activity; the education is affected by the social
and cultural influence of those people who are involved in the design process. It
is not possible to create instruction that is completely inclusive. But instructional
designers can play an important role in ensuring that instruction reflects more
than the dominant culture perspective. Through learner analysis and an
examination of the learning environment, they can take a critical look at who the
instruction serves, and who is excluded.
If we see the instruction as a target, inside the circle are the people who are
‘included’: the instruction meets their needs. Outside of the circle are the learners
who are excluded from the instruction, for whatever reason: the learning is not
cognitively accessible, it is gender-biased, and so on. Consider the figure:
Included: the instruction meets their needs
Excluded: the instruction does not meet their needs (marginalized groups)
Patricia Dyjur
29
29
Instructional designers need to ask the question: whose needs and interests are
being served, and which people are marginalized from the instruction (Personal
communication, Katy Campbell, Dec. 13, 2003)? How can we widen the circle of
inclusion to serve previously marginalized groups: males and females, people
with functional limitations, those other than the dominant culture perspective?
Instructional designers can affect people’s lives through inclusive practices. The
lines of the circle may never be gone, but it can be expanded to include more
learners, improving the educational experience for everyone.
Patricia Dyjur
30
30
Resources
Barajas, H.L., & Higbee, J.L. (2002). Where do we go from here? Universal design as a
model for multicultural education. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from
http://www/gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul/rtf/CTAD/chapter_21.rtf.
Bates, T. (2001). International distance education: Cultural and ethical issues.
Distance Education, 22 (1), 122-136.
Branch, R.M. (1997). Educational technology frameworks that facilitate culturally
pluralistic instruction. Educational Technology, 37 (2), 38-41.
Campbell, K. (1999). Learner characteristics and instructional design. Retrieved
January 20, 2004 from
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/idesign/learnchar.cfm#part7.
Campbell, K. (2000). Gender and educational technologies: Relational
frameworks for learning design. [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9 (2), 131-149.
Centre for Education in the Built Environment (2003). An introduction to inclusive
design. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/learning/sig/inclusive/whatisinc.pdf.
Cervero, R.M., & Wilson, A.L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education: A
guide to negotiating power and interests. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Patricia Dyjur
31
31
Coleman, R. (2003). Inclusive design primer: Glossary of terms. Retrieved January 20,
2004 from http://idesign.wiredesign.net/pdfs/intro024.pdf.
Patricia Dyjur
32
32
Connell, B.R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et. al.
(1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/principles/udprinciples
.htm.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (2001). Appendix: A
framework for universal design in curriculum development. Retrieved January
30, 2004 from http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/appendix.html.
Fletcher, V. (2002). Universal design, human-centered design for the 21st century.
Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://www.adaptenv.org/examples/humancentered.php?f=4.
Griffith University (2004). GFLS Accessibility Initiative: Information for educational
designers and academic staff. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://www.gu.edu.au/text/ins/webdev/accessibility/mod03/content_
m03bod.htm.
Hlynka, D. (1991). Applying semiotic theory to educational technology. In D.
Hlynka & J. Belland (Eds.), Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative,
semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology
(pp. 37-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kincaid, T.M., & Horner, E.R. (1997). Designing, developing, and implementing
diversity training: Guidelines for practitioners. Educational Technology, 37
(2), 19-26.
Patricia Dyjur
33
33
King, C. (1991). Indian world view and time. In E.J. McCullough & R.L. Calder
(Eds.), Time as a Human Resource (pp. 183-187). Calgary: The University of
Calgary Press.
Knupfer, N.N. (1997). Gendered by design. Educational Technology, 37 (2), 31-37.
McAllister, C.J. (2002). Tips for creating an inclusive mathematics classroom using
universal design principles. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from http:// cstl-
.semo.edu/mcallister/mainpage/Tips%2520for%2520creating
%2520an%2520inclusive%2520mathematics%2520classroom.ppt
McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task
and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance
Education, 22 (1), 7-29.
Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.
O’Connor, B. (1999). Universal design principles and guidelines with examples of
educational implications. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://www.gu.edu.au/text/ins/webdev/accessibility/modp3/content_
m03t02.htm.
Powell, G.C. (1997). On being a culturally sensitive instructional designer and
educator. Educational Technology, 37 (2), 6-14.
Powell, G.C. (1997). Understanding the language of diversity. Educational
Technology, 37 (2), 15-16.
Patricia Dyjur
34
34
Reeves, T.C. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational
Technology, 37 (2), 27-31.
Roberts, S. (n.d.). Instructional design and accessibility: Cognitive curb cuts.
Retrieved January 30, 2004 from
http://www.aect.org/Divisions/roberts.htm.
Rose, D., Sethuraman, S. & Meo, G. (2000). Universal design for learning.
[Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15 (2), 56-60.
Schallert, D., & Reed, J.L. (2003/2004). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and
cultural considerations in teaching and learning with computer-mediated
discussion. [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36 (2), 103-118.
Sheffield, C.J. (1997). Instructional technology for teachers: Preparation for
classroom diversity. Educational Technology, 37 (2), 16-18.
