The impact of Universal Design for Learning in higher education. Experiences of university teachers two or three years after attending a workshop series on UDL

(1)

Degree Project with Specialisation in

Special Education

30 Credits, Second Cycle

The impact of Universal Design for

Learning in higher education

Experiences of university teachers two or three years after

attending a workshop series on UDL

Påverkan av Universal Design For Learning i högre utbildning Högskolelärares erfarenheter av UDL två eller tre år efter att

ha deltagit i en workshopserie

Pia Häggblom

Master of Science in Education Major Special Education 120 credits, 2-year master 14 January 2020

Examiner: Anders Jakobsson

Supervisor: Marie Leijon DEPARTMENT OF

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP

(2)

(3)

Abstract

The purpose with this study is to problematize implementation of the concept of universal design for learning (UDL), (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014) in higher education. The study focuses on what university teachers express regarding their experiences of the concept of UDL two or three years after having taken part of a series of workshops to learn UDL. The analysis was done using content analysis (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011) and the theoretical framework of Designs for Learning (DFL) was used in order to highlight the results (Marie Leijon & Lindstrand, 2012; Selander, 2008; Selander & Kress, 2010).

The results cannot be generalized but imply that UDL, without any particular adaptation for a Swedish context, is a concept for widening participation. After participating in a workshop series on UDL the concept has had a lasting impact with the respondents. The respondents use all three of the main principles of UDL; provide multiple means for engagement provide multiple means for representation and provide multiple means for action and expression. UDL is indicated to be a concept towards student centered learning and teaching, towards improving student’s possibilities of learning to learn and as a concept for manifesting a mindset for widening participation. UDL is by the respondents in this study also seen as a concept to develop widening participation. They see UDL as a concept for management to strategically implement widening participation. which is missing and asked for by the respondents. The possible drawbacks with the concept is just that, that few use UDL, few know about it and there is no recommendation from management to use UDL. Another drawback is that it takes time implementing UDL, though some respondents point out that it saves time in the end.

Key words: designs for learning, higher education development, special education, student centered learning, UDL, universal design for learning, widening participation

(4)

Acknowledgements

To the university teachers who took part in the workshop series and a few years later generously agreed to be interviewed for this thesis. Thank you! I would also like to thank my colleagues, wherever you are, for collegiality, inspiration and help.

To Marie Leijon, my supervisor, for critical guidance, advice and encouragement. Thank you!

(5)

INTRODUCTION

Inequalities can be found in various aspects of our society, and education is one of them. Special needs educators and special needs coordinators in Sweden work towards making education accessible to all and mostly see it as a pedagogical problem according to Göransson, Lindqvist, Klang, Magnússon & Almqvist (2018). Having more heterogenous groups of students in higher education there is an increased need for research from the views of special education and on how to make higher education inclusive and accessible to its students (Nilholm, 2006).

Out of the OECD-countries Sweden is among those with the highest social imbalance between the population and students as regards to a background with parents without higher education (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2019; Statistics Sweden, 2020). In Sweden, the number of students with a disability has rapidly increased and are getting closer to 20000. Between the years of 2017 and 2018 the increase was 16 percent compared to 2018 (Stockholm University, 2018). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2016) describe how persons with disabilities historically were seen by society as recipients of welfare, not as persons with equal opportunities. In accordance with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (The United Nations, 2015), and the goal “a world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels”, Sweden cannot rest on its laurels in reference to for example the social imbalance in reference to just over 50 percent of the students in bachelor programs or other long programs complete their studies. A number which is among the lowest of the 36 OECD-countries (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2019).

To summarize, higher education in Sweden is welcoming a more diverse group of students today, many of whom do not take a degree. How can universities work towards educational development that reaches and helps a great many more of the students to reach their potential and at the same time increase student completion rates? The answers are of course both many and complex. There is not just one solution. The question with this study is whether the concept of universal design for learning (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014) might be a part of the solutions?

(8)

7

Limitations of the study and definitions of

concepts

The scope of the study is limited to two prior series of workshops on educational development and to eight university teachers who partook in those workshops. The teachers interviewed all worked at the same university at the time of the workshop series and of the interviews.

The Swedish Council of higher education wrote a report (Sjöstrand, Barck-Holst & Hellgren, 2016) on widening participation. It suggests that, possibly, research done on Swedish and international universities as regards to widening participation often concentrate on specific student groups such as underrepresented groups of students and the widening participation for that particular group. This lack of research entails a limitation for this study, at the same time as it motivates it. Research on specific subgroups such as students with dyslexia or with other disabilities for example were an integrated part of the research focusing on widening participation for heterogenous student body as a whole.

The factor that there is a wide variety of concepts make it more difficult to do research in the field. The concepts being essential to this study, and defined in the list below, are disability, inclusive teaching and learning, student centered learning, universal design, universal design for learning (UDL) and lastly widening participation.

• Disability: According to the Discrimination act of Sweden (SFS 2008:567) a disability can be a permanent physical, mental or intellectual limitation of a person’s functional ability. The disability can be congenital, rise or have arisen at any time.

• Inclusive teaching and learning: The concept of inclusion in education systems is according to Nilholm (2006) based on that we are all different and the differences are seen as something positive instead of being thought of as something that are obstacles and something that should be used to dived pupils or students.

(9)

8

• Student centered learning: In 1999 29 Ministers of higher education began the Bologna process in order to increase student and staff mobility in Europe. Making higher education comparable and transparent was therefore necessary. As a result higher education turned in a new direction, towards focusing on learning outcomes and for students to learn about their own development as learners in higher education, hence student centered learning (SCL). Boyer (1990) explains the concept as just that, the student at the center. SCL increases the focus on interactivity and flexibility as well as a shift from the teacher towards the student, according to the EU Lifelong learning programme (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, EACEA, 2010) which promoted student centered learning and established that there is no definition that is universally agreed upon of the concept of SCL.

• Universal Design: The concept of Universal Design consists of seven principles för accessible architecture and product development (North Carolina State University, the Center for Universal design, 1997).The seven principals of universal design are: equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort and size and lastly space for approach and use.

• Universal Design for Learning: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework of principles and guidelines for inclusive teaching and learning and based on educational research and neuroscience (the Center for applied Special Technology [CAST], 2011). UDL is a framework of three principles and connecting guidelines that aim to make education more accessible to all learners (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014). The framework and guidelines of UDL are based on three networks in the brain that UDL refer to are called the affective networks, the recognition networks and the strategic networks (Meyer et al., 2014). The affective networks focus on how we get motivated, interested, engaged, challenged and excited. The recognition networks focus on how we collect facts and how we recognize and categorize what we see, hear, read and perhaps feel. The strategic networks focus on executive functions, i.e. how we organize, plan, perform and express what we think (Meyer et al., 2014).

(10)

9

• Widening participation: The concept widening participation is in Sweden described in the earlier referendum (SFS, prop. 2017/01) as a concept for support to all students in order to reach the learning outcomes of their respective courses or programmes.

Widening participation in higher education in

Sweden

The higher Education Act of Sweden was changed in 2002 in accordance to the proposition on a more open higher education (SFS, prop. 2001/02:15). Higher education institutions were given the task to increase and widen recruitment, to assure the high standards in courses and in study programmes, and to give students an active role and possibility to influence the development on both courses and programmes. Thus the proposition can be said to stress that higher education should be a catalyst in social change. The diverse population should be reflected in higher education and the rights to knowledge and development were reasons to increase recruitment regarding social and ethnical background. In 2019 65 percent of the population had a lower education in Sweden, i.e. without secondary education, while 40 percent of the students come from a background where the parents have lower education (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2019).

The now closed Swedish National Agency for Higher Education did in 2007 a follow-up on widening recruitment in universities and university colleges (The Swedish National Agency for National Education, 2007). In the report it was stated that it was unfortunate that there had become a separation of the concepts of widening recruitment and widening participation, since of course they are inseparable.

The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2009) also saw according to the follow up in 2009 widening recruitment and widening participation as part of the same question.

Widening recruitment, but not distinctly widening participation, is in 2020 mentioned as something university teachers have to strive towards according to the demands of the Swedish higher education act (SFS, 1992:1434).

(11)

10

In 2017, the Swedish government wrote a bill to add widening participation to the Higher Education Act (SFS, 1992:1434). Widening participation would expressly entail both widening recruitment and widening participation. The goal was to give students that are accepted as students at a university education the support that they need throughout their studies, and also before they apply to widen recruitment to higher education. Widening participation, should according to the bill, entail an increased accessibility to higher education from a geographical point of view. Higher education was to promote that students, no matter their gender, belief, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic background, disability, age or social background would apply to, and become students in, higher education. The proposal was withdrawn.

More than ten years have passed since the last follow up, and in the appropriation for 2020 the Swedish Higher Education Authority has been given the task to do a survey on how institutions of higher education work with widening recruitment (SFS, prop. 2019/12). If widening participation is included and to be seen as part of widening recruitment, as earlier stated by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2007, 2009) it is yet to be seen how this question is addressed in the follow up.

Increased focus on student centered learning

Heterogenous student groups is the new norm, as is the need for widening participation, no matter the resources allocated, but universities need more research on how to meet the students of today, and the statistics mentioned earlier show a need to know how to support university teachers in their job. How do we prepare and educate university teachers to meet their heterogenous students? Students who come from a non-academic background, students with disability and students who recently arrived in our country, just to mention a few of the diverse students teachers meet today.

A study by Blomberg, Järkestig, Berggren and Bergbäck (2013) showed that students with disabilities in the USA, in Sweden and in the Czech Republic express that the university education that they partake in do a lot to try to be accessible. At the same time many students in particularly Sweden, out of the three countries in the study, experience accessibility to higher education in Sweden as being arbitrary. In Sweden the individual teachers have a lot of mandate in deciding just how accessible the education is to be. One

(12)

11

of the factors for a difference between the countries might be that in the USA students pay for higher education while it is free in Sweden, but still, the results in Sweden speak for themselves.

The European Commission (2014) stated that what for a long time has been the focus for European higher education, namely to widen the recruitment to its institutions is not enough. Higher education must also help and support the students once they have begun their studies. In aid of this task among others, the European Union has agreed upon European Standard and guidelines (ESG) as presented in The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA, 2015). The ESG are to be used by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (2019) for the national quality assurance process, and the ESG also serve as a governing document that Swedish universities are to adhere to in their individual annual quality assessments.

It has been argued that we are not obliged to follow the ESG (2015), though in fact we are. In the English version, which is the one Sweden ratified and have to follow, the word ‘shall’ is used. Student centered learning, teaching and assessment is focus for one of the ESG- standards. Students are to be assured an active role in how the learning process is created, as well as in the assessment. Key words are motivation, engagement, self-reflection, flexibility of pedagogical methods and learning paths and feedback on the students learning process (ESG, 2015).

Reservations towards widening participation

According to the referral response by the Swedish Association of University Teachers and Researchers (SULF, 2017) to the bill to add widening participation to the Higher Education Act (SFS, 1991:1434) there is a need for educational development and for the educational development to be funded. This was possibly one example of the referral responses that contributed to the Swedish government withdrawing the proposal to add widening participation to the Higher Education Act (SFS, 1992:1434). Instead, the question on widening participation was said to be addressed in a control and resources investigation (SOU, U2017:05). The result of this investigation came in 2018. Widening participation is mentioned, but no suggestion of funding designated solely towards widening participation (SOU, U2017:05).

(13)

12

An answer to reservations towards widening participation is that according to a national Swedish report on previous knowledge, social background and recruitment to higher education (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2018), widening recruitment might lead to potentially higher grades for the new students. This due to the fact that many students who come from a lower social background do not apply to higher education to the same extent as people with higher social background, even though they have lower grades.

Herein lies one of the difficulties for university teachers, how to teach a diverse group of students and maintain the standards of the teaching. The objectives of a course and a programme are the same for everyone. The Association of Swedish Higher Education (2016) advocates that teachers should be able to work towards meeting the diverse student body of today and show a professional approach to equal opportunities

The discrimination act (SFS, 2008:567) states that students’ rights not to be discriminated, due to for example disabilities, but to obtain an education on equal terms as their peers. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and on the right to inclusive education. by the (UN, 2008) give reasons why widening participation is an aspect of the higher education agenda, and therefore not something one can choose to ignore. The legal requirements for higher education are clear, universities need to proactively work towards widening participation.

Universal design for learning

There are many roads that lead to Rome, and of course there are many methods and concepts to use in teaching and learning for the benefit of all students. There are several concepts besides UDL that build on universal design, for example universal instructional design (UID) and universal design for instruction (UDI) (McGuire, 2014).

The founders of the organization the Center for applied Special Technology [CAST] (2011), took the idea of universal design into learning and teaching, and coined the concept UDL (Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D., 2014).

UDL is a framework of three principles and connecting guidelines that claims to make education more accessible to all learners (Meyer et al., 2014). The principles are as follows, providing multiple means for engagement, providing multiple means for

(14)

13

representation, and providing multiple means for assessment. The principle multiple means för engagement consists of guidelines to improve student’s motivation and engagement, with the end goal that the student will be able to increasingly motivate themselves. The principle multiple means for representation consists of guidelines to give students possibilities to choose ways in how they acquire knowledge with a goal of teaching the students to be resourceful. The principle multiple means for action and expression consist of guidelines to give students possibilities to choose how to present the knowledge they have acquired. An end goal is to teach the students to become strategic and goal-directed learners. The goal for all three principles according is that the students should increasingly improve their knowledge and possibility in how to learn how to learn. UDL aims, in short, to be a concept and a guidance to meet the needs of students by giving them various ways to become motivated and increasing their engagement to learn, by giving them various ways to learn and to express what they have learnt (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014). Using digital technologies was a significant part of the concept early on (Meyer et al., 2014).

The concept of UDL is based on knowledge regarding three networks in our brain, the affective networks, the recognition networks and the strategic networks (Meyer et al., 2014). The affective networks focus on how we get motivated, interested, engaged, challenged and excited. The recognition networks focus on how we collect facts and how we recognize and categorize what we see, hear, read and perhaps feel. The last networks are the strategic networks which deal with executive functions, i.e. how we organize, plan, perform and express what we think (Meyer et al., 2014) The three main principles of UDL has guidelines stated to be based on, as mentioned above, neuroscience and educational research to improve and guide teaching and learning (Meyer et al., 2014). The guidelines are constantly evolving sine our knowledge is constantly increasing.

The report of the control investigation on Swedish disability policy (SOU, 2019:23) holds universal design as the principle to use in all areas to help fulfil the objectives of the Swedish disability policy. UDL has in studies (Fovet & Mole, 2013) shown that the concept omits the need of talking about subgroups since everyone can chose to learn in ways that are best suited for them. The students can to a bigger extent chose how and when to get help or the level or form of support suitable to them as individuals, and the support is built so that as much of it as possible is available to all students (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014).

(15)

14

Concepts towards widening participation

How do we teach and train university teachers in the complex work of teaching and learning, so that our teaching in fact reaches all our students and more of our students succeed? Again, there are several methods and concepts to be used. One example is a framework inclusive excellence by Salazar, Norton and Tuitt (2016). Inclusive excellence focuses on diversity and all students who for various reasons run the risk of being marginalized. It consists of five dimensions: intrapersonal environments, interpersonal pedagogy, curriculum transformation, inclusive pedagogy and inclusive learning environments. To each dimension there are guidelines. The framework of inclusive excellence seems to put an emphasis on racial discrimination.

Blomberg, Järkestig, Berggren and Bergbäck (2013) suggest using one of the concepts for universal design in order to come to terms with the expressed inaccessibility of higher education.

McGurie (2014) sees a difficulty in there being so little research in teaching accessibly and in the wide variety of concepts as regards to teaching according to concepts on the ideas of universal design. McGuire (2014) also suggests from her research that concepts that are built on the idea of universal design can promote widened participation, but that more research is needed. McGuire (2014) sees that courses for university teachers show results when it comes to giving teachers a deeper knowledge on disabilities.

Fovet and Mole (2013) are in their article advocates for UDL as a means towards student centered learning and widening participation. They (Fovet & Mole, 2013) also find that workshops on rules and regulations make university teachers aware of students with disabilities, and UDL help make teachers improve their pedagogy for students with disabilities. The drawback is that they are worried that it will be more time- consuming.

Savvidou (2011) found that an obstacle for widening participation was lack of support from the University in how to teach and learn more accessibly. Her research also found that university teachers believe that there is support for students when it comes to accessibility, but not for staff in facilitating widening participation. West, Novak & Mueller (2016) as well as Lombardi, Murray & Dallas (2013) find a lack of knowledge on the rights of students, and of obligations for teachers when it comes to disabilities. Teachers’ views on the integrity of their teaching methods, and the fear of losing some of it, can be yet another obstacle according to West, Novak and Mueller (2016). Maybe that

(16)

15

is true in Sweden as well? It would be interesting to concretely here about how the integrity of teaching might be lost if a teacher tries to help his or her students achieve the learning outcomes.

How then do we teach and train university teachers in the complex work of teaching and learning so that our teaching in fact reaches all our students and more of our students succeed? Research say that there is a need for courses on how to teach inclusively in higher education (Lombardi, Murray & Dallas, 2013; Savvidou, 2011; Mc Guire, 2014; Fovet & Mole 2013; West, Novak & Mueller 2016; Gorard & Smith, 2006; Glowacki; Murray & Concepcion, 2012).

Aim and research questions

Teachers at a university in Sweden took part in either six workshops or four workshops to learn the concept of UDL. The aim for this study is to investigate whether university teachers attending a series of workshops on UDL two or three years later still have the concept play a part in their work. What are their experiences of UDL? Questions regarding students with disability are part of the study and is part of the research referred to, but the focus is the whole student body. Eight teachers, three lecturers and five senior lecturers at the same university are interviewed. They teach within four different faculties. The research question is as follows:

• What is the experience of university teachers regarding UDL two respective three years after learning the concept?

(17)

16

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The aim for this chapter is to present an insight into some of the research on the phenomena of this study, universal design for learning (UDL) and widening participation in higher education, and in doing so clarifying where there is need for further research, and giving reasons for this study (Nilholm, 2017). The databases used for both subject matters were primarily Summon, ERIC and Web of Science. The results were categorized into themes and issues (Cohen, Manion & Morison (2011). The search on widening participation respective UDL were done were separately. Therefore it was a surprise that research on widening participation in higher education not targeting a subgroup of students, surprisingly often entailed the concept of UDL.

There is to date little national research on implementation of UDL in higher education in Sweden, and few if any research on university teachers’ experience on UDL some years after having been taught the concept, especially not in Sweden. These are arguments that validates this study. The text below attempt to give examples of relevant research on UDL and widening participation.

Implementation of Universal Design for Learning

A systematic review by Seok, DaCosta and Hodges (2018) on the effects of empirically based studies on the implementation of UDL for all students, in other words widening participation, confirm the concept to be effective for postsecondary students. Fifteen of the seventeen studies show that implementation of UDL based principles on coursework or educational development programme is effective. Since the number of articles were not that many it would have been possible and interesting if a list on the articles were included. Out of the 17 studies one reported a varied (blended) effect and implementation was not discussed in another one of the studies. Here one can wonder why the subject matter of a study was not discussed in the actual study. This also puts a question to the systematic review it is a part of. UDL was reported effective for all students, including students with disability (Seok et al., 2018). In four of studies the training was online. Most

(18)

17

implementation-strategies in the 17 studies focused on training the participants in designing courses based on the framework and principles of UDL (Seok et al., 2018).

The second most common approach was to do actual implementation in courses and thirdly collaborative work was used as an implementation strategy. Out of the 51 references for this systematic review one of the authors had written six of the articles, alone or with a colleague. This was somewhat surprising and influences the validity of the article.

Craig, Smith and Frey (2019) find that there has been but little research on professional development with the view to implement UDL, and in addition no research on the effects on professional development on UDL and its’ effects on learning. Though they did their research on instructors in schools and not in higher education the results might still be of interest. Their study focuses on the impact of 73 teachers attending a summer institute to learn about UDL and 70 teachers who did not attend the summer course (Craig et al., 2019). It would have been interesting to know who the owner of this institute was for the sake of validity. Craig et al. (2019) summarize their results in saying that the learning and implementation of UDL must be done in correlation with the instructors’ own practice, and they find seven factors for professional development to be of importance. They are:

• content-focused training

• the incorporation of active learning • collaboration in job-embedded context • models and modelling of effective practices • ongoing support using coaching

• opportunities for feedback and reflection • sustained duration

Craig et al. (2019) suggest that abiding by these seven criteria is crucial in professional development and will influence or change the instructors’ work. In addition to using these factors in professional development, the student will not only be more motivated but also improve academically. They also indicate the value of resources and continued support for the instructors to be as successful as possible. This speaks against research (Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell & Browder., 2007) stating that as little as an hour’s workshop has effect.

One of the reviews with a more critical approach is the literature review by Rao et al. (2014). They first state that besides UDL there are two other educational models based

(19)

18

on universal design, universal instructional design and universal design for instruction. The study of Rao et al. (2014) is based on 13 research studies in education before 12th grade as well as in post-secondary institutions. One of the main concerns is that the results showed a very varied use of the UD principles. Therefore Rao et al. (2014) end their paper with recommendations for future research on implementing UD principles. The interventions have to be described in detail, what has been done and also the results. Researchers are asked to be clear about the link between UD principles and the way in which instructors were taught, how and why they used a certain principle. The second aspect suggested by Rao et al. (2014) is to report characteristics in more detail, such as disabilities.

Schelly, Davies & Spooner (2011) studied perceived effects of UDL being implemented before and after university teachers had been trained in UDL and then made changes to their teachings and their course material. The results implied that if university teachers for a few hours are educated or informed of the UDL concept, and how to implement it this has positive effect on the learning of students with or without disabilities. Schelly, Davies & Spooner (2011) also suggest a study on the long-term effect of UDL.

Effects of UDL

A research project that gives substantial implications and would seemingly easy to duplicate, is a test that Spooner et al. (2007) conducted to find possible effects of UDL-training when developing lesson plans. 72 undergraduates and graduates, focusing on careers as general education teachers or special needs teachers, were put either in an experimental group or in a control group to have a class on UDL The experimental group was given an hour of UDL-training, and the others got the same training after the tests were done. One task the participants had to do was to modify their instruction according to the examples they were given and then they were asked to come up with ideas on their own. In the post test they were asked to make new lesson plans. The results imply that an hour of learning about and training UDL is effective in helping teachers plan for lessons that is for all students. Both special needs teachers and general education teachers learn to modify their lesson plans to meet the needs of heterogenous student groups. The results

(20)

19

of Spooner et al. (2007) are therefore interesting for higher education as well. The quality of the survey scores high in every aspect, even though the authors profess that one should take the results with scepticism since positive results could be random due to randomly and lucky circumstances.

The background of the authors will of course be beneficial to their work. The groups consist of three professors, one person with an MA degree doing a doctorate and one with an MEd doing a doctorate, all within the field of education, special education, UDL and disabilities. Spooner et al. (2007) suggest doing a similar survey with a larger group of teachers so that the results indeed would be able to generalize.

An additional result is that the use of technology is not necessary to be successful implementing UDL according to Spooner et al. (2007). This on the other hand is contradicted by Edyburn (2010). Another result by Spooner et al. (2007) is that the teachers suggest that the time, 20 minutes, which they had to write their lesson plan was too short. Therefore, a new survey could let the teachers use more time. Lastly letting the students use different modalities, different media for example, in their learning is one way that the teachers define UDL.

In Kennette’s and Wilson’s study (2019) eleven members of university teachers answer questions regarding to what extent they provide or incorporate 36 UDL ideas or items in their courses and how useful they think this is for the students.

Al-Azawei, Serenelli and Lundqvist (2016) performed a content analysis of Journal papers between 2012 and 2015 that were peer- reviewed and focused on the framework of UDL and empirical results. Twelve papers were found to fulfil the criteria set up by Al-Azawei et al. (2016) for their review. Most studies show UDL to be effective in creating accessibility and flexible learning environments to meet the needs of all students. Another positive outcome of one of the reviews is that UDL lessens the need for accommodations by disability coordinators and university teachers. In the discussion it is claimed categorically that in courses inspired by UDL special accommodation for most students is not needed since the learner need have been addressed in planning the course (Al-Azawei et al., 2016). The study implicates further that UDL can be used both as an evaluating concept and to begin planning for accessible curricula.

Nevertheless, at the time of their research, they did not find any studies that had looked into which checkpoints of the UDL-framework that were used, and to what extent. In the above-mentioned study by Kennette et al. (2019) this was done. The studies by Black et

(21)

20

al. (2014, 2015) looked at which principles of the UDL framework that were used and found useful by students as well as university teachers.

The issue of time is beeing addressed in several studies. Al-Azawei et al. (2016) find this issue being of potential importance in looking for reasons why UDL as of yet has not been even more used in higher education. In their conclusion Al-Azawei et al. (2016), as in their introduction, make a clear separation between learning styles theory and UDL as contrasting concepts to approach the diversity of learners, where in fact UDL uses from a to z the preferences of individual learners.

Learning UDL online

Learning online is a mode that university teachers in higher education is encouraged to explore and develop, not least to increase widening participation. Then a natural step is of course to see how university teachers can learn about UDL online themselves, and with the help of the UDL framework.

In a study by Evmenova (2018) 70 educators, mostly teachers but also some librarians, some special need teachers and school leaders, took asynchronous university courses on UDL at two different universities in the USA. The results imply an increase in positive attitudes towards inclusion and in using technology to improve inclusion while using the UDL framework (Evmenova, 2018). The strategy for Evmenova’s (2018) study was to let the educators try to improve existing lessons by analysing them to see which parts of the UDL framework’s guidelines and checkpoints (appendix 1) could be used to lessen the barriers found for accessibility. The educators found ideas to widening participation by using UDL without technology and of using technology that was easily available.

The strength of UDL as a concept is according to Black, Weinberg and Brodwin (2014) to give students different modalities, different ways to obtain or express knowledge, which is also apparent to the educators in Evemenova’s study (2018).

The reliability of the survey was heightened by various strategies, such as using expertise in qualitative research to analyse the coding process and results. It could be made somewhat clearer what Evmenova (2018) means by her using triangulation. She states that she used different educators, different sections of the project and lastly a variation of data sources. Which sections and which data? It would have been interesting

(22)

21

if Evmenova (2018) included more information on potential drawbacks with implementing UDL asynchronously.

The results of the review of Al-Azawei et al. (2016) suggest that using the framework of UDL in online learning may be of help to retain students, with or without disability.

Barriers to UDL

Evmenova (2018) did a survey on the attitudes of educators towards widening participation. According to the survey, educators were surprised to find that there were so many barriers for accessibility in their lessons.

Black, Weinberg and Brodwin (2015) studied the perspective of students with disabilities when using universal design for instruction and learning and found barriers for students with disabilities. Both the 12 students with disabilities and the 3 without disabilities who were interviewed find UDL and UDI helpful for them as students. A strength of the study is that students with a wide variety of disabilities were interviewed (Black et al., 2015).

A year prior to doing the study on students’ perspectives on UDL and UDI Black, et al.(2014) did a pilot study on the methods and attitudes of university teachers towards UDL and universal design for instruction (UDI). The research show that there are attitudes among university teachers that are a hindrance for students with disabilities towards higher education based on equal terms. The findings show that university teachers profess a lack of knowledge and training to teach students with disabilities and that this is often the cause of the attitudes. One of the obstacles for university teachers is not knowing enough about accommodations and why they are recommended or essential. Black et al. (2014) summarize their findings by stressing that attitudes of university teachers are a barrier to inclusion of students with disabilities, and that these barriers would be diminishing if university teachers were trained in universal design methods.

A study by Kennette and Wilson (2019) show that there are discrepancies such as a difference between how much instructors think they highlight patterns and relationships and how much this is being done according to the students. Where university teachers believe that they provide a study environment free from distractions students are of another opinion.

(23)

22

One of the gaps Al-Azawei et al. (2016) find in their literary research is on implementation and one on empirical studies outside the USA, hence Al-Azawei et al. (2016) suggest the need for research that take the cultural setting into consideration.

The student perspective

The research of Black et al. (2015) imply benefits for students when teachers learn about UDL or UDI, but also the benefits from mentorships as regards to university teachers learning about students with disabilities. Another implication is to educate students on for examples their rights and training them in self-advocacy skills, i.e. the ability to speak for themselves. The students said that the following approaches from their teachers that made it possible for them to make the most of their studies: establishing clears expectations, providing advanced organizers, presenting information in various formats, giving frequent informative feedback, and using diverse assessment strategies (Black et al. 2015). According to the interviews done, students are sometimes uneasy in communicating their disability to university teachers and fear being met by negative responses at their higher education institution (Black et al. 2015).

High expectations are of importance and one student said, “If I am expected to perform at a lower level, then that does not validate a person with a disability. It validates the disability (Black et al., 2015, p. 16). The results of the study of Black et al. (2015) validates UDI and UDL as concepts to be used in higher education.

According to Edyburn (2010) there are three phases in working towards an education that adheres to the need of students with disabilities, and they are advocacy, accommodation and accessibility. To get to accessibility the accommodations used today are not enough. Black et al. (2015) suggest working with UDL both when programs are constructed and when programs are running. Black et al. (2015) state that according to students UDL and UDI work as concepts for meeting the needs for all students, and as a result of the study the need for collaboration between student, disability support staff and university teachers when designing curricula is underlined. A systematic approach is needed, across the system of the educational institution (Black et al., 2015).

Kennette and Wilson (2019) claim that until their study only the above mentioned study by Black et al. (2015) had researched how useful students find the UDL principles

(24)

23

(appendix 1) to be, but according to Kennette and Wilson (2019) their study is more comprehensive. Students were asked to which extent they had encountered 36 ideas or items for UDL in certain courses during a period of two years. The second question was on how useful they found these items. For example, they were asked if they got subtitles for videos and sufficient or unlimited time for tests. Then they were asked to rate how useful these items were in their learning. Future research and something that would improve on this study according to Kennette and Wilson (2019) is to have more respondents and to have a follow up with data on student performance.

This is something that Schelly et al. (2011) in part did during a study on how students perceive the effects of UDL. 1362 psychology students took part in a survey at the beginning of a semester and 1233 took part of survey at the end of the semester. The survey did not include the issue on the students’ own motivation and engagement, which today 2020 is put as the first of the three main principles of UDL. Nor was there an investigation as to which strategies the students thought most helpful. The instruments of the survey were not validated, as Shelley et al. (2011) state.

Research on widening participation in higher

education

This section presents research on widening participation and how to strategically work towards widening participation in higher education. Widening participation can be described in different ways using different concepts. This warranted a wide search for this study using several search words.

Implementation of widening participation

The starting point regarding research for this study was how higher education institutions work in promoting widening participation within higher educational development. Gorard & Smith (2006) show that research in the UK until 2006 concentrated on social class or ethnic groups. Their study (Gorard & Smith, 2006) stress that research on

(25)

24

widening participation is mostly on subgroups and not on the student body as a whole. The same conclusion was drawn by a report by the Swedish Council of Higher Education on widening participation in higher education worldwide (Sjöstrand & Barck-Holst., 2016).

Barriers to widening participation

Savvidou (2011) sees in her research a lack of support to university teachers on how to plan and work towards widening participation. The teachers express that they are alone with tasks that they feel are outside their knowledge. Saavidou (2011) concludes by the implications of her analysis that there is a conception that universities provide pedagogical support for students for widening participation but not for staff in working towards it. Another barrier to widening participation is seen by Lombardi, Murray and Dallas (2013) in their research which find an uncertainty on laws and regulations and of the mandate of university teachers regarding students with disabilities.

McGuire (2014) conclude there being a lack of empirically based research on accessible teaching. Another difficulty she stresses is a terminology that sprawls. For instance, McGuire (2014) mentions Universal Design in Education, Universal Design for Instruction, Universal Design for Learning, Universal Design of Instruction and Universal Instructional Design. McGuire (2014) also sees an obstacle in the sceptical views on pedagogy as a science.

West, Novak and Mueller (2016) let 52 instructors at a university college in the USA answer a survey using a tool called Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI). The survey concentrated on what strategies instructors used for helping students with disabilities and on how confident they were in using the concept for universal design in their work. The results imply that some teachers are hesitant to adjustments if there is a risk of the integrity of their teaching being affected or diminished, and thus not being able to choose how to teach. West et al. (2016) as Lombardi et al. (2013) see lack of knowledge as an obstacle for inclusive higher education. In addition, O’Donnell’s (2016) results show that teachers lack knowledge on how to make reality out of the intentions of the universities´ governing documents.

(26)

25

Fovet and Mole (2013) analysed qualitative data from a project on implementing universal design. One barrier expressed by faculty members is that they worry about their workload increasing if using the concept of UDL.

Training for developing widening participation

All articles bring up training on inclusion for university teachers. O’Donell (2016) state that it is necessary to challenge the praxis and the current mindset prevailing on development on higher education and the autonomy of university teachers. For this O’Donell (2016) suggests small change projects driven with the help of one person or one group who is assigned the task on the merit of professional expertise, not academic rank. Savvidou (2011) find possibilities to create space for university teachers to see connections between their own praxis and governing documents to enhance an understanding of inclusive practice and widening participation.

The research of Lombardi et al. (2013) imply that university teachers that have taken part of courses regarding disabilities more strongly express the importance of inclusion. Their results emphasize that the amount of and the variation of training and skills development is more important than the length of the training itself. In addition, the results from West et al. (2016) implicate that a deeper understanding on disabilities give university teachers insight into their responsibilities towards students.

West et al. (2016) see the need for example for bridging information and workshops on how to teach students disabilities. In this work, they see advantages of using the techniques of digitalization.

Fovet and Mole (2013) encourage through their results staff who work for students with disabilities not to wait to implement inclusion with help from UDL. Their standpoint is that UDL changes the role of the teachers and disability coordinators since the teachers get tools to support students with disabilities. The study of Fovet and Mole (2013) also found that skills development like workshops on UDL made teachers aware of students with disabilities and their needs, and at the same time focusing on questions regarding laws and governing documents. Their results show that UDL (CAST, 2011) is perceived useful not only by university teachers but also by administrative staff like for example

(27)

26

counsellors. They also viewed UDL (CAST, 2011) as a bridge between university teachers and administrative staff. As do McGuire (2014) who points to the need of training administrative staff on concepts based on the idea of universal design, and that not only university teachers are subject to skills development but also administrators and ICT-staff among others.

In the research of Glowacki-Dudka et al. (2012) university teachers who take part in training on inclusion become more aware of equal rights to learning and inclusive pedagogy. Training show that university teachers begin using new ways of working for inclusion.

Student centered learning

Student centered learning is emphasized in several of the articles on widening participation. One of the results of O’Donnell (2016) is that students need to be given more influence on the development of higher education.

McGuire (2014) presents what she calls a fundamental framework for designing accessible teaching environments using concepts on creating teaching that aims to meet the need of all students.

A survey of Fovet and Mole (2013) suggest that UDL can lead the way for research intense universities to open up to student centered learning. Their results indicate that using UDL addresses subgroups such as students who do not study in their mother language, and that these and other subgroups become superfluous when working student centered towards widening participation and using UDL.

Strategies towards widening participation

This presentation of prior research focus on how higher education work to promote widening participation. The results show many gaps in the research field and some of the research lack scientific strength. The articles who best meet scientific standards are Lombardi et al. (2013), West et al. (2016) and O’Donnell (2016). The need for further and substantial research on widening participation is clear. Only a few of the studies meet

(28)

27

all of criteria for a peer reviewed article. O’Donnell (2016), Lombardi et al. (2013) and West et al. (2016) had a more scientific substance than some research partly due to more thoroughness on methodology and reliability. The two latter studies were based on an aid to do an inventory of pedagogical inclusion, Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI). The study of O’Donnell (2016) is part of a larger research project and the methodology is explicitly accounted for.

Some of the articles are in part unclear as to what results are based on conclusions from the research data and what is based on personal views, for example the article of Savvidou (2011). She clearly portrays her views, which is essential where the author is close to the respondents or is biased in promoting a certain way of working. There is a need for the author to stand back further and take the role of the critical researcher.

Fovet et al. (2013) submit early on that their article and research is based on the hypothesis that UDL can become the pedagogical model for this century, and that besides creating accessible teaching for students with disabilities UDL is a concept for increasing the number of students who complete their studies. Their values are stated clearly.

It is notably easier to find research on widening participation when looking at specific subgroups as opposed to research on the entire heterogenous student body. If we are to do research on and implement widening participation the results will possibly say more if we actually focus on the whole student body during the entire research process, then always and only focusing on subgroups and pedagogy that suits this particular group. In higher education in Sweden, it might according to students, be possible for the individual teacher to a great extent decide how accessible his or her teaching is according to Blomberg et al. (2013). This might be one of the reasons why there is little research done on the matter of widening participation, in Sweden. More research on both UDL and widening participation is called for, thus giving reason for this study.

The results of the research on the two concepts are that they are linked. Studies in both fields show similar barriers, similar focus on student centered learning and the lack of educational development training, as well as a need for training on laws and governing documents and a call for strategies at higher levels than the individual to work proactively towards widening participation.

(29)

28

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework used as inspiration for the analysis of the results of this study is designs for learning (DFL), which is divided into design for learning and design in learning as presented by Selander and Kress (2010), Leijon (2010) and Leijon and Lindstrand (2012). Selander and Kress (2010) point out that education is a political question, and that except for developing knowledge in different disciplines, education mean development of responsibility and identity.

Design for Learning

DFL is explained by Selander & Kress (2010) as the staging for learning, like for example the rooms, the norms and traditions of the institution, everything produced for the process of learning, from laws to buildings and textbooks to planning a course or a lesson, as well as the methods used for both teaching and assessment. Leijon and Lindstrand (2012) describe design for learning as an answer and a critique towards the social cultural perspective that might not focus on the learning process at hand but looks at the conditions for learning in a more descriptive way. Design for learning on the other hand is seen as way to focus on both perspectives, the student and the teacher, as didactic designers (Leijon & Lindstrand, 2012).

Selander (2008) describe DFL as a map or road to how you learn. Leijon (2010) explains the model, the first transformation unit, as follows. First, there is a formal setting guided by both what is to be learnt and what resources are at hand. For the process of learning, the student uses different media and modes like for example new technology to make information their own by transforming the information. Then, Leijon continues (2010), the student presents the results, and what they might be in the form of new representations. The next stage, the second transformation unit, includes assessment by the teacher, discussions and meta-reflection of the new representation and of the process that has led to it (Selander & Kress, 2010).

According to Leijon (2010) DFL is a dynamic model and can be described as a form of result, signs of learning, assessment, or grading. (Leijon, 2010). Selander and Kress

(30)

29

(2010) explain representation as a phenomenon which has been processed enough, for example an essay or a verbal presentation.

Design in learning

According to Selander and Kress (2010) Design in learning is another word for the student’s individual learning process when they design their own learning recreating or creating something and presenting it. Design in learning is described as having focus on the process of learning and what catches the attention of the student, and what choices are made by the student in the particular situation. What ways and with what media for example is a student’s learning taking place? In other words, with which multimodality, which spectrum of the theory of DFL is learning taking place (Selander & Kress, 2010) today?

In interpreting the world, we create signs that represent something meaningful and we always do this in a context (Selander & Kress, 2010). Signs, or modes, are in abundance around us, from sound, colour, digital media and communication. At times other modes than the written language are better suited for the task at hand. Selander and Kress (2010) give the example of photography during surgery.

The written language is a mode that is having its status shifted according to Selander and Kress (2010). It is a fact that students today not only consume information but are active in communicating and producing information themselves, and in doing so they use many more modes today than were available a few years ago and the arena has extended quickly to be global. Leijon and Lindstrand (2012) put the finger on digital media bringing along a diminishing status of the textbook and an expansion of our rooms for learning, with for example virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI).

Another change has come through professional computer programs making their way into higher education and in doing so pushing the world of writing a step to the side to allow room for a combination of academic learning and professional knowledge. Selander and Kress (2010) state that more ways of teaching and learning, more representations, are changing which also has effects on teaching and on DFL.

(31)

30

Changing roles of students and university

teachers

Selander & Kress (2010) point out that the new groups of students and thoughts on life-long learning give us a change in the balance between teacher and student, and a need for an openness on the process of learning, where the expert knowledge of the students has to be considered (Selander & Kress, 2010). According to Selander & Kress, (2010) the students are creators of what they learn, and they want to learn using different ways and using different modalities.

The didactics of DFL is a flow of choices made and of sign making using multimodality (Selander & Kress, 2010). Teachers might be helped in understanding some of the complexity in how the student navigates through to this landscape of signs, and the situations and resources that the students chooses to work with, which situations that are obstacles to get passed and also how the student uses these resources and the multimodality to communicate (Selander & Kress, 2010).

Teaching is according to Selander & Kress (2010) understanding the sign making activities and the principles of navigating and interpreting through a learning process. The students interpret their teacher’s instructions differently depending on what prior knowledge they have and what they see as important. Therefore, in facilitating for the student to reach their learning goals teachers are to focus on motivation, and here one cannot motivate everyone in the same way (Selander & Kress, 2010). To see learning as a series of meaning making signs and activities is the core of design of learning and multimodality according to Selander and Kress.

UDL is, as DFL, a dynamic concept (Meyer, Rose, Gordon, 2014; Selander & Kress, 2010) and as such the order of the three main principles of UDL has changed so that the principle of motivation and engagement is first (Appendix B) to stress the importance of motivation. In this aspect as well, it will be interesting to use DFL in describing the results of the study. The results of this thesis might benefit from being viewed in comparison with DFL.

According to Selander and Kress (2010) we cannot see actual learning but what we can see are the signs and representations made by students, and of course in part the stage we set for learning. To understand learning, we can dissect the different parts that we do see and analyse them (Selander & Kress, 2010). The idea from DFL on dismantling

(32)

31

teaching and learning to improve both teaching and learning will be a possibility to highlight the results in the analysis. The changing roles of teachers and students in this process is a focus of the theoretical framework DFL, as it is in UDL (Burgstahler, 2015). This aspect is also a reason for the use of Designs for Learning as a theoretical framework.

Critique towards designs for learning

A critique towards the theory of DFL is that it grasps over a lot, including not only pedagogy but also didactical aspects as well as sociological aspects, according to Leijon and Lindstrand (2012). The theoretical framework also covers a lot for the individual teacher, with the increasing world of multimodality and that this brings with it an openness to co-working with the students to a greater extent than before.

At the same time, not talking about it does not make the different aspects of teaching and learning less complex. Leijon (2010) points out that DFL helps us dissect and get closer to understanding teaching and learning. The theoretical framework of DFL (Selander & Kress, 2010) is in this study used to highlight the results.

(33)

32

METHOD

This chapter describes the method of the study, how the data was collected, processed, transcribed, translated and analysed. The chapter concludes with addressing ethical considerations made and the validity and reliability of the study (Cohen, et al., 2011; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

The respondents, the setting and my role

The respondents are eight university teachers and work at four different faculties in a mid-size university in Sweden. Some of the respondents worked only with online courses. They had all taken part in an education on the concept of UDL in one of two similar workshops series (see appendix 1), where I was the workshop leader.

Eight teachers took during spring of 2016 part in a series of six workshops which formed a project to try to see whether workshops for university teachers on the concept of UDL was a way to work towards widening participation. They were all given 25 hours by the university to take part of the workshops and to do assignments at home in preparation for the next workshop. The workshops lasted for three hours in the afternoon every fortnight and included a half hour break. The last workshop was a time to present how they had planned to develop a course of their own choice.

The same concept was used in 2017 when five university teachers took part in what had turned into a course in higher educational development. They partook in four workshops with basically the same outline and core elements. They were asked to attend minimum three of the four workshops and to hand in a written assignment at the end pf the course on how they planned to or in fact started to implement UDL in a course of their own choice. These teachers were not given extra hours for their work, since their workshop series was a course in higher education development. They were given a certificate stating that had the equivalent of 1,5 credits on completion of the course and of the final assignment.

Being the person giving the workshops series I tried to work in line with the UDL concept as regards to the UDL framework and its guidelines (CAST, 2011). In both

(34)

33

groups there were teachers who worked solely with online courses. The workshop series began with lectures on relevant laws and regulations. Both groups were given examples on how to use media such as digital tools and they were encouraged to use them. The first group were given a lecture in using digital tools for teaching and learning. The second group were given a shorter introduction to digital tools, just as example on what they could use.

After each workshop the teachers were given assignments to revise parts of a curriculum or a course according to the UDL concept. They were asked and encouraged to do the presentations in whichever way they preferred. Many used PowerPoint presentations and some had made a table of the curricula that they had worked with, pre and post UDL being implemented into the curricula. They focused on information, communication, teaching, assessment, work placement and feedback which constituted the themes of the workshops. The teachers were reminded that the learning outcomes were to be kept in mind and in alignment with UDL to give the students various ways to learn and to express what they had learnt. They were also encouraged to incorporate as much of the pedagogical support as possible so that it would be available, if wanted, to all students.

This background and context evoke an interest to try to find whether the concept of UDL through the workshop series had any form of impact on university teachers in their work. What will university teachers that learnt about UDL two or three years prior express about UDL?

A formal letter of intent was sent to the participants of the different groups, asking whether they would like to take part of the study as respondents. The formal letter of intent was enclosed with an informal e-mail explaining the study at hand. Two teachers did not have time to partake. Two were no longer working at the university. I began interviewing before I knew exactly how many that would take part. The idea was originally to interview five persons, but since new information continued to emerge further interviews were made, until no new information came forward. Thus, eight interviews were held in total.

Five of the respondents had a PhD and three were lectures. They had all worked between 8 and 13 years at university level and they worked at four different faculty departments at the same midsize university, where I also worked at the time.

Objectivity is the core of research but is not possible to be objective when the researcher is part of the process (Cohen et al., 2011). Describing my part of the