Remedial and Special Education - Shared Work

Remedial and Special Education http://rse.sagepub.com/

Universal Design for Learning : A Look at What Algebra and Biology Students With and Without High Incidence Conditions Are Saying Larry J. Kortering, Terry W. McClannon and Patricia M. Braziel Remedial and Special Education 2008 29: 352 originally published online 10 June 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0741932507314020 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/29/6/352

Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/29/6/352.refs.html

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on July 29, 2010

Universal Design for Learning A Look at What Algebra and Biology Students With and Without High Incidence Conditions Are Saying

Remedial and Special Education Volume 29 Number 6 November/December 2008 352-363 © 2008 Hammill Institute on Disabilities 10.1177/0741932507314020 http://rase.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Larry J. Kortering Terry W. McClannon Appalachian State University

Patricia M. Braziel National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center This article examines findings on student perceptions of individual interventions based on the principles of universal design for learning (UDL). The examination includes a comparison of the reported perceptions of mainstreamed students with high incidence disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, or other health impairments under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) to that of their general education peers. Findings showed that relative to their other academic classes, both groups of students had high levels of satisfaction and expressed similar themes as to what they perceived to be the best and worst parts of the interventions and ideas for improvement. Both groups also reported near unanimous agreement as to wanting their teachers to use more UDL interventions. The reported perceptions and subsequent comparison forms the basis for discussing the implications of UDL in high school settings. Keywords:

S

algebra; students with disabilities; general education; high school

ucceeding in general education settings is an increasingly important goal for all students, including those identified as having high incidence disabilities (CobbMorocco, 2001; Schulte & Villwock, 2004). This importance stems from various social and political forces, including the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002), which establishes higher performance standards for all students seeking to earn a standard diploma, and the (2004) Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s stress on improved performance in general education. Another force is the evolving labor market that, given its increasing complexity and foreign competition for jobs (see Friedman, 2005), has become such that a standard diploma has become a minimum requirement to access suitable postschool employment and most forms of postsecondary schooling or training (Kortering, deBettencourt, & Braziel, 2005; Symonds, 2006). These forces have been successful at getting the vast majority of students with high incidence disabilities into general education settings (see Office of Special Education Programs, 2006). The emerging issue, relative to these students, is shifting away from access concerns to how best to foster success in general education (Bradley & Danielson, 2004; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). 352

The concept of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has emerged as a point of emphasis for improving how students with high incidence disabilities perform in general education (see Hitchcock & Stahl, 2004; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003). According to the Center on Applied Special Education Technologies, UDL provides alternatives to make curriculum accessible and applicable to students with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities in widely varied learning contexts (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL does not imply that one size fits all; rather, it recognizes the unique needs of every learner. The principles of UDL seek to help educators to design their instruction to help more students have better access to the curriculum and a better opportunity to succeed (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). This type of instructional environment provides an alternative to the teachercentered instruction, in-class seatwork, and printed textbooks that are dominate features of the typical high school general education classroom. The typical format also relies on course materials such as standard textbooks and related support materials to represent the curriculum (Pisha & Coyne, 2001) and can be characterized as having an overemphasis on the reproduction of basic facts or ideas (Cobb-Morroco, 2001). Furthermore, Hagborg


Kortering et al. / Universal Design for Learning 353

(1999) demonstrated how the state-set curriculum and final examinations pressure teachers to cover the prescribed curriculum in a timely manner. It is not surprising that as eloquently described by Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984), students often find such settings to be disengaging and frustrating (Cushman, 2003; Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 2002; Kortering et al., 2005; Kortering & Braziel, 1999a). Given the nature of the typical high school classroom, students with high incidence disabilities often fail to access the necessary information (Deshler & Schumaker, 2005), decide to disengage from the learning process (Reschley & Christenson, 2006), or perform poorly on typical measures of their learning (Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Kortering, 2007). Each of these features helps, in part, to explain why so many of these students eventually decide to drop out or fail to complete high school. As noted earlier, UDL expands content accessibility by meeting the unique needs of students with varying backgrounds, styles, and abilities. Alternative instructional methods are used to remove the barriers to student learning inherent in the typical high school classroom. For instance, UDL as a framework provides teachers with a context for focusing their instruction on how best to help students access (e.g., engaging format) the course content by providing students with multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement. This new arrangement provides students with increased opportunities to succeed (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Some experts have linked UDL to technology-based interventions (see Rose & Meyer, 2002), and others have suggested a broader approach inclusive of how teachers structure learning opportunities and engage students in their classroom (see Howard, 2003; Scott et al., 2003). This study focuses on the latter definition of UDL. Authorities have directed attention to three general approaches, all of which relate to UDL, to improve the performance and school completion rates of students with high incidence disabilities. The first approach involves changing teacher behaviors (Bost & Riccominni, 2006). Researchers at the University of Kansas stressed the importance of helping teachers to change how they plan and actually teach their content area classes (Deshler et al., 2001). Their research establishes the effectiveness of getting teachers to adopt new teacher routines that, when deployed, help students with high incidence disabilities to access course content (see Bulgren & Schumaker, 2005; Schumaker, Deshler, & McKnight, 2003). These routines, once adopted, have the effect of changing the educational environment so students improve their access to and success with key course information.

Similarly, Hamilton, Seibert, Gardner, and TalbertJohnson (2000) showed that teachers, in an incarcerated setting, could deploy guided notes in their daily routines to improve the academic performance of students with learning and behavior problems. Lovitt, Plavins, and Cushing (1999) provided further support for a change in teacher routines in their study of 285 special and general adolescents. A majority of respondents wanted teachers to offer more assistance, explain things better, and provide more individual attention. Similarly, Kortering and Braziel (2002) interviewed more than 50 9th-grade students with learning disabilities and found that a large majority felt that if they were to stay in school and be successful, teachers should be more caring and supportive of student learning while offering more engaging learning opportunities and opportunities to work with their peers. Similar perceptions were expressed by 33 9th- to 11th-grade students identified as having behavior disorders (Kortering, Braziel, & Tompkins, 2002) and 44 dropout youths with high incidence conditions (Kortering & Braziel, 1999a, 1999b). Finally, Bost and Riccominni (2006) remind readers that successful in-class instruction requires the use of the time-tested strategies of effective teaching. A second approach to change in high school has been a focus on helping students change in some way, including becoming more proficient learners (see Gleason, Archer, & Colvin, 2002) or improving their in-class social skills (Lane, Pierson, & Givner, 2004; Maag, 2005). Bremer, Clapper, and Deshler (2002) pointed out that many students with learning problems enter high school without the necessary skills to decode unfamiliar words, which puts them at risk of considerable difficulty in such content-area classes. They argued for teaching students specific word identification strategies to help offset their lack of decoding skills. Similar arguments have been put forth in such areas as improving students’ general and specific knowledge of and application of key learning strategies (deBettencourt, Kortering, & Braziel, 2007), expressive writing skills (see Walker, Shippen, Alberto, Houchins, & Cihak, 2005), and related learning strategies (Schumaker & Deshler, 2005). Another aspect of student skills to improve is their use of note taking. For instance, Boyle and Wesihaar (2002) found that students with learning disabilities who learned how to take strategic classroom lecture notes, relative to peers’ taking conventional notes, improved their performance in the areas of immediate free recall, longer term free recall, and comprehension. Similar findings emerged from a study of incarcerated adolescents with learning or behavior problems (Hamilton et al., 2000). As for in-class behavior, Lane et al. (2004) found that high school teachers rated


354 Remedial and Special Education

eight social skills as key to success in their classes. These skills, for general educators, focused on self-control, good study habits, and teacher compliance. This study confirmed the results of a similar study in 1986 (see Kerr & Zigmond, 1986), which suggests that teachers generally want the same from students of today. A final approach for change in high schools has been a focus on changing various aspects of the general high school setting. The earlier cited research also included student requests for more in-school support and access to individual and small-group learning (Kortering & Braziel, 2002; Lovitt et al., 1999). These requests entail general and specific change in the nature of school-based services, including before- and after-school tutoring services (Hock, Pulvers, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2001), peer or adult mentors (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000), and smaller class sizes. Higgins et al. (2002) suggested that schools adapt their textbooks to improve the content area of learning for students with disabilities. Specific adaptations range from expanding the use of traditional modifications (e.g., study guides, advance organizers, graphic organizers) to the use of digital textbooks. These adaptations have the effect of making course content from standard textbooks more learner friendly. In this study, we provide findings as to how students with and without high incidence disabilities perceive individual interventions anchored by one or more of the three key UDL principles: • • •

multiple means of representing course content, multiple options for student expression and control, and multiple options for engagement and motivation (Blamires, 1999; Rose & Meyer, 2002).

As a framework for guiding teacher behavior, we feel that interventions incorporating the key principles of UDL also effect change in the students themselves by improving their ability to access important course information, change in teacher behavior by helping them focus on ways to better engage students in learning, and change in the school itself by providing an alternative or at least a supplement to the traditional high school textbook and lecture.

Method Setting The study was set in two high schools with traditional general education offerings (e.g., individual classrooms

for 20 to 34 students, whiteboards or chalkboards at the front of the room, standard arrangements of individual student seating, close proximity of content area classrooms). The high schools are in adjacent counties in North Carolina with respective per capita personal income in 2002 of $23,890 and $24,265, respectively. These rates rank them as 47th and 40th among the state’s 110 county school districts and well below the national average (see U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration, 2004). The respective 2001 to 2002 school year per pupil expenditures (including child nutrition) for the respective districts were $6,102 (ranking 103rd out of 110 county and city school districts) and $7,091 (ranking 45th). In this time period, High School A had about 2,400 students, of which 12% were African American; 4% were Hispanic, non-Latino; and 4% were Asian, including Hmong. High School B served 1,400 students, of which 6% were in ethnic minorities (African American and Hispanic, non-Latino). The schools had 36% and 11% of their students receiving free or reducedprice lunches during the 2002 to 2003 school year, rates that may be underestimates of actual poverty rates in that eligible adolescents often fail to request lunch assistance once they enter high school. Both schools have strong academic reputations, as evidenced by routinely being in the state’s top quarter of end-of-course test performances across six content areas at the high school level. More specifically, in the 2003 to 2004 school year, both schools again exceeded the average state passing scores for all students in algebra (91% and 90%, respectively, as compared to a state average of 82%) and biology (75% and 79%, respectively, vs. 62% statewide). The actual class settings ranged in enrollment from 12 to 30 students. The general education classes were not team taught and were infrequently supported by a special education teacher in the actual classroom. Special education support for students was limited to occasional outof-class help, which included individual or small-group tutoring by a special education teacher, individual test administration, or consultation. All but four classes were on a standard diploma track, which is designated for students aspiring to enroll in postsecondary schooling at a 2-year institution or seeking immediate employment after being graduated. Other tracks include a university or technical track, which accounted for four classes, and an occupational diploma track. The former is for students planning to attend 4 or more years of college, and the latter serves students with more involved handicapping conditions (generally disabilities of lower incidence and a developmental nature such as mental retardation or pervasive developmental disorder).



Student Participants The student participants provided 1,061 individual responses (714 algebra and 347 biology student responses) from 290 different students. These students included 37 with identified high incidence disabilities, including 17 (6%) identified as specific learning disabled, 6 (2%) as behavior disordered, and 2 as mildly mentally handicapped. In addition, 12 (4%) student participants were identified as attention-deficit disordered with or without hyperactivity under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. All but two students with identified disabilities, who each had one class of resource support, were enrolled in general education for all their classes and received nominal support from the special education staff. Student participants were exposed to as many as eight different UDL interventions and as few as one, depending on their teacher.

projector, digital still camera, and digital video camcorder. The training included hands-on activities to introduce teachers to the technology and related resources for implementing UDL interventions (e.g., developing instructional movies with the camcorder). Subsequent sessions focused on helping teachers incorporate Internet-based curriculum resources, follow-up work with the new technology, and an opportunity to work in teams of two or three to develop specific UDL instructional interventions. Each session included a refresher on the concept of UDL and practical examples of how to implement it in their classroom setting. Teacher participation was voluntary as was their decision to actually use UDL interventions in their instruction. Teachers received $125 for their participation in each training session and the project paid for their substitute. Teachers also received $150 to develop a UDL intervention and collect student feedback.

Interventions

Teacher Participants There were 22 teacher participants, of which 14 taught algebra and 8 taught biology. Each school had a team of algebra (7 and 7 teachers, respectively) and biology teachers (3 and 5 teachers, respectively). The teachers taught one to three classes of standard- or honors-track algebra (total of 24 sections) or biology (21 sections). Each class was on the block schedule, lasting 90 minutes; six (three each for biology and algebra) were for selected at-risk populations (i.e., students with and without disabilities deemed at risk of school dropout), and six algebra sections were for students who had failed the previous semester. The class size ranged from a low of 12 (a class for students deemed at risk of school dropout) to a high of 31 students, with an average of between 23 and 27 students. Of the teachers, 14 were deemed as fully participating or actually participated by developing one or more UDL interventions for their students. More specifically, 3 teachers used eight individual UDL interventions, and 11 teachers used one to six.

Teacher Participant Training In terms of training, we offered teachers an opportunity to participate in up to 10 full-day training sessions on the principles and implementation of UDL interventions. All 22 teachers attended at least 2 sessions. On six occasions, representatives from the algebra and biology content areas attended combined sessions. Four sessions were provided to focus on either algebra or biology. The initial training provided each team of teachers with a set of technology equipment, including a laptop computer, data video

A total of 24 interventions (14 algebra, 10 biology) took place in a standard high school classroom of 20 to 25 individual seats or eight small rectangular tables, each set up for four students (21), or a separate computer lab (4). All interventions took place within a single classroom block of 90 minutes. Table 1 provides a listing and description of the specific interventions. The descriptions came from teachers who were asked to document their intervention. Each of the interventions met the three general features of allowing students to access content information, engage in learning, and demonstrate their learning in ways that deviated from the traditional textbook or related format of assign, lecture, and assess. We further categorized each intervention by one of two dominant features (technology or novel activity) that separated a given intervention from the more typical instruction found in content classes. The selected feature, although not mutually exclusive, helps to show how teachers conceptualize a concept such as UDL in their teaching and classroom. Of the teacher-developed interventions, 14 used technology and 10 relied on the activity itself as the key to incorporating the concept of UDL.

Data Collection Procedures Participating students provided feedback after being exposed to a UDL intervention (see Table 2). Student participants completed the half-page survey at the end of each respective class when a UDL intervention took place. We used student initials or student numbers as identifiers to ensure student confidentiality. We encouraged participating students to be open and honest in their



Table 1 Description of 24 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Interventions 14 UDL Algebra Interventions Technology (8 or 57%) Students worked in pairs and completed an SAS inSchools lesson solving equations. Students worked in the media lab on this review of solving equations. The teacher used the Green Globs and Graphing software program to help students work with graphing linear equations. The teacher used the Calculator Based Ranger to match graphs. Students determined slope and the direction to go to match the graph question. The teacher used the computer lab and test review software for reviewing quadratic equations. The teacher used an SAS inSchools activity to help students learn how to solve one- and two-step equations. The teacher used Quizdom algebra software with remotes. Students answered algebra questions with a remote control using different game formats. The teacher did a review for the EOC test by having students work on the computer’s Academic Learning Software program with practice test questions. The teacher used Academic Learning Software in the computer lab to help students review for EOC test. Novel Instructional Activity (6 or 43%) The teacher used a Terminator Warm Up exercise. Students received a warm-up problem and were asked to volunteer to explain it to the class. The teacher put a list of student names on the board, and then the class randomly “terminated” one student at a time until there was a winner. This person explained the problem and, if done correctly, won his or her choice of candy. The teacher used note-card problems. Selected problems were on cards and the answers were on separate cards. Students were put into small groups to work out the problems. Once all problems were done and discussed, the students searched the room for cards that contained their answers. The teacher had students create flip charts to record notes and examples of rules relating to exponents. These flip charts provided students with easy access to review information. Two teachers developed a PowerPoint Jeopardy-style game for test reviews. This activity covered a variety of competencies (slope, slope intercept, standard form, and inequalities). The teacher made a Race Is On game. Students worked in pairs to complete a review activity. They completed an initial lap using a 3 × 3 puzzle in which they solved equations. The second lap required that they visit each corner of the room to solve word problems. The first team to successfully complete the race won a prize. The teacher used an algebra bingo activity to review information for a test. 10 UDL Biology Interventions Technology (3 or 27%) The teacher had students take a practice EOC test on the computer. The software provided immediate scoring for individual students and allowed for classwide breakout by items for the entire class. The teacher videotaped students reciting parts and functions of the cell. Each student had a name tag or held a sign corresponding to a cell part. As the teacher walked through the cell, going to each person, the student told what his or her cell part was and its function. The class then recited the function and cell part. The entire performance was videotaped for future review. The teacher incorporated the SAS inSchools module for photosynthesis to show the students the overall process. The module allows the students to experiment with light waves, day and night, and gases. Novel Instructional Activity (8 or 73%) Students competed in a Water Olympics activity from an Internet resource to study properties of water for living cells. The activity helped them understand the importance of water to life. Students charted the specific traits within their general school population. This activity allowed students to visualize various traits and identify recessive traits such as widow’s peak, rolling tongue, blue eyes, and blonde hair. The teacher developed an Inquiry Tube Lab. Students observed and produced the same product by going through the steps of the scientific method. Students created a three-dimensional model of a plant or animal cell: They are instructed to design the structure with common household objects or foods, incorporating the actual names of the organelles that the items represent in the model. Ten parts are required in the model with a labeled legend. The projects are presented to the class, put on display, voted on, and the favorites chosen. A large food treat item or bonus point coupon goes to the winning designers. Digital photos can be taken of the top creations and printed for display. The teacher used an in-classroom activity where students work in pairs to manipulate the stages of mitosis on a sheet of paper. The students were to place the correct terms for each phase on a sheet, label the respective cell parts, and move the chromosomes through the phases. The students have a finished product that they can see inside the room for review. Students created a pedigree chart for their immediate family. They used eye color as a genetic trait. The activity requires family photos, colored construction paper, and related equipment. The teacher set up a lab for students to explore different types of fruits and their seeds in everyday life. The students brought various fruit seeds. At the end of the lab, students were able to taste, see, and touch the various fruit seeds. Note: SAS inSchools is a software program used in North Carolina high schools. Quizdom software allows interactive polling. EOC = end of course. Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on July 29, 2010


Table 2 Student Feedback Form Student Code or Number: _________________________ Please use the following scale to rate your perceptions of today’s lesson: 1 = strongly 2 = slightly 3 = 4 = slightly 5 = strongly disagree disagree unsure agree agree In comparison to my other high school ACADEMIC classes . . . 1. Today’s activity was more enjoyable. 2. I learned more important information today. 3. I learned more information that was useful. 4. The information I learned will help me more on the end-of-course exam. 5. I stayed more on task for today’s activity. 6. I worked harder today. Please provide your comments for the following questions: 1. What was the best part of today’s activity? ____________________________________________________________ 2. What was the worst part of today’s activity? ____________________________________________________________ 3. Do you have any ideas on how we could improve this activity? ____________________________________________________________ 4. Would you recommend more of these interventions? YES or NO

responses, and we told them that only the lead authors would read their responses. A few surveys had a word or phrase that was illegible, in which case we went to the individual student for clarification. The survey completion rate for participating students was more than 99%. The resulting data were recorded and tabulated to formulate a report that was provided to the individual teacher.

Results The findings include close-ended survey responses and open-ended comments. Feedback was collected with a locally developed instrument, the Student SelfReported Engagement Scale (Kortering, McClannon, & Braziel, 2006), which assessed students’ perceptions of their engagement when UDL interventions took place. The close-ended items relied on a Likert-type scaling (strongly disagree to strongly agree) as to participant perceptions of the UDL intervention relative to their other academic classes. To gain further insight into students’ perceptions of the UDL interventions, they were asked three questions in addition to the Student Self-Reported Engagement Scale: 1. 2. 3.

What was the best part of today’s activity? What was the worst part of today’s activity? Do you have any ideas on how to improve this activity?

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

Lastly, students were asked whether they would recommend (yes or no) more of these interventions.

Close-Ended Survey Findings We used a Likert-type scaling of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to evaluate participants’ perceptions of the UDL activity (see Table 3). We also asked participants whether they would like to see more of these interventions, and nearly all the responses were “yes.” We initially ascertained the relative usefulness of using a single five-item survey to assess student perceptions of their engagement in the learning process. The principal components analysis yielded only one viable component (eigenvalue = 3.977), accounting for more than 66% of the overall variance. The factor analysis showed that the constructed survey assessed one single factor, termed perceived engagement. The individual six items accounted for 21% (I worked harder today) to 67% (Today’s activity was more enjoyable) of the total variance for the factor component (perceived engagement). Across the five individual Likert-type items, algebra and biology student participants reported strong levels of favorable agreement with the effectiveness of, utility of, and satisfaction with the UDL interventions, in comparison to their other academic classes (see Table 3). Both groups also consistently reported favorable ratings of learning important and useful information, information to help them on their exams, and staying on task and



Table 3 Student Evaluations of Universal Design for Learning Interventions

Item Description

General Education (n = 892) M (SD)

Special Education (n = 169) M (SD)

4.15 (1.07) 3.96 (1.02) 3.94 (1.06) 4.10 (1.03) 4.14 (1.04) 4.03 (1.09) 858 (91%)

4.20 (1.07) 3.94 (1.08) 3.93 (1.12) 4.08 (1.12) 4.12 (1.13) 4.12 (1.09) 109 (95%)

Today’s activity was more enjoyable I learned more important information today I learned more information that was useful The information I learned will help me more on the end-of-course exam I stayed more on task for today’s activity I worked harder today Would you like to see more of these interventions? (Yes)

T-Score 0.083 –0.272 –0.482 –0.367 0.112 1.039

Note: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = slightly disagree; 3 = unsure; 4 = slightly agree; 5 = strongly agree.

working hard. In comparing the participant groups, none of the differences approached statistical significance.

Table 4 Best Part of Intervention by Category and Group

Open-Ended Survey Findings

Category

We used three open-ended questions to help us further understand participant perceptions of the various UDL interventions. The themes, to be considered a key, accounted for a minimum of 20% of total responses for the given question. The sample items that represent each theme were randomly selected (a full listing is available from the lead author). We interpreted the responses in the following manner. Once typed up, a panel of two graduate students combined individual responses using categories that had emerged in a previous study of Year 1 findings (see Kortering et al., 2006). Each author then reviewed the respective categories and the corresponding items. When questions about the placement of individual responses emerged, we discussed the item and its placement further to determine its final placement (which we did for 34 individual comments). Tables 4 through 9 provide a listing of the respective questions and corresponding items, including actual response numbers and emerging themes. As to the best part of the UDL interventions, Table 4 shows the six general themes (i.e., Instructional or Fun Activity, Used Technology in Some Way, Novel Experience, Collaborating With Other Students, Successful Learning, and Incentives) and three nonspecific themes (i.e., Other, No Response, and None) themes that emerged for algebra and biology. The general themes for the best part accounted for about 71% of the responses, with the more dominant theme focusing on the feature that students enjoyed the instructional activity. As to the nonspecific themes, we were unable to interpret any unifying theme or themes within the Other category and suspect that the other two categories represented responses

Instructional or fun activity Other Used technology in some way Novel experience Collaborated with other students No response Successful learning Incentives None, nothing was best, or don’t know Total

General Education

Special Education

Total

245 (26%)

23(19%)

269 (25%)

149 (16%) 118 (12%)

19 (17%) 21 (18%)

168 (16%) 139 (13%)

116 (12%) 104 (11%)

20 (17%) 13 (11%)

136 (13%) 117 (11%)

98 (10%) 44 (5%) 31 (3%) 39 (4%)

4 (4%) 6 (5%) 7 (6%) 3 (3%)

102 (10%) 50 (5%) 38 (4%) 42 (4%)

945

116

1,061

for students who did not enjoy the activity or were simply unwilling to provide a response. Table 5 provides representative quotations for the constructed themes that were randomly selected. Student responses about the worst part of the intervention generated four general and three nonspecific themes (see Table 6). The instructional activity theme (generally in terms of being boring or not being enjoyed) again emerged as the number one theme, followed closely by the nonspecific No Worst Part Theme, which accounted for nearly one in four responses, and the Other category once again followed. We interpreted the former to suggest that these participants could not find anything they did not like about the activity or were unwilling to answer (although all the responses had some writing as opposed to the category of No Response). The former interpretation would be supported by the feature of a fivefold increase in these responses from the best part of the intervention.



Table 5 Best Part: Sample Quotations to Clarify Categories Category Instructional or fun activity Other Used technology Novel experience Collaborate with other students Successful learning Incentives

Illustrative Quotation Cutting out the picture & drawing. Doing the activity. Drawing the picture. Making the cells out of crafts. It was fun. It made learning fun. Writing on the boards. The activity was fun. Trying to figure out who would win. It was fun and challenging. It was entertaining, yet fun and educational. Rolling the dice. The Water Olympics. The part where you put it onto or made a pedigree. Water race. Good movie. [Student’s] creativity. Not winning candy. The competition. It was easy. Glueing things. Getting done with it. Got me out of regular work. Because we got to use a computer. Being taped. Computer work. Videoing. Going on the net. PC/working on computer. The computer part. It was different. Playing a game. Getting out of the classroom. Something different. Doing something different. The stations. Rotating between activities for a change. The warm-up activity. Working with others. Being in a group. Being with friends. Working with partners. We got to work with peers and get to know them. Working with different students. Getting to work with someone else. Learning new things. Being able to do it right. Learn a lot. Learning that helped me out. Learning the process of mitosis. Learning it. Got it all right. Eating. Eating the food. Getting candy. Candy. Getting picked and having a chance to win candy. Eating healthy fruit. Eating the honeydew.

Table 6 Worst Part of Intervention by Category and Group Category Instructional activity in some way Nothing, no worst, or don’t know Other Technology No response Losing Working with others or their behavior Total

General Education

Special Education

Total

258 (27%)

24 (22%)

282 (27%)

218 (23%)

41 (36%)

259 (25%)

211 (22%) 142 (15%) 56 (6%) 46 (5%) 14 (2%)

20 (17%) 5 (4%) 31 (27%) 8 (8%) 18 (16%)

231 (22%) 147 (14%) 87 (8%) 54 (5%) 32 (3%)

945

116

1,061

Table 7 provides the respective themes along with randomly selected quotes. For responses as to improving the intervention, the nonspecific category of No Idea for Improvement accounted for more than half of all responses (see Table 8). We interpreted this to suggest that most of these participants had enjoyed the activity to the point of having no ideas for making it better, as opposed to the 1 in 10 who simply left the answer without a response. The general categories (improve the activity in some way or use it more often) were relatively minor themes, accounting for 1 in 5 responses. Randomly selected quotes that correspond to each theme are in Table 9.

Discussion Prior to a discussion of the implications, the reader should consider the following limitations. First, the two

distinct high school settings may not represent all high schools. Therefore, results may not be generalized to all high school settings. In contrast to national census data, the racial distribution at one high school is 88% White, and one high school had an unusually high rate (6%) of first- and second-generation Asian students (see Donovan & Cross, 2002). A second limitation is that any study that depends on participants’ reporting their perceptions is subject to accuracy concerns. We have assumed that participants were accurate in reporting their perceptions. We cannot prove this, but we do report near perfect rates of responses and response legibility. Both features suggest that participants felt the surveys warranted serious attention. A third limitation is that grouping all students with disabilities into one group was deemed appropriate, given their related learning and behavior problems, similarity in special education services received (i.e., they all received nominal or no meaningful support from their special education program), and lack of differentiated instruction (by disability) in the general education classroom. For further information on the advantages and disadvantages of this grouping of high incidence conditions, see a recent review by Sabornie, Evans, and Cullinan (2006). A fourth limitation is the inability to separate out such potential influences as teacher quality. For instance, we suspect that self-selection played a role in that only certain teachers were motivated to develop and implement specific UDL interventions. A fifth limitation is that this study allowed us to examine interventions that took place within a 90minute period. This limitation, although not by design, is a response to how the teachers felt most comfortable with UDL interventions. Finally, and most important, we were unable to link student participation with UDL interventions to independent measures of having learned content



Table 7 Worst Part: Sample Quotations to Clarify Categories Category

Illustrative Quotation

Instructional activity

Other Technology Losing Working with others

Could not figure it out. Doing the activity. The activity was educational. The worksheets. It took too long. It involved math. It was boring. Answering the problem. It was too hard. Having to take notes. Too hard. We could not get finished. It was kind of childish. It only involved fruit. Not enough food. I never got picked. Having to buy fruit. Some of the directions were unclear. Most problems were really too hard. Cleaning up. Getting messy. The test. Quiz. Tired of it. Being neat. Being on camera. Being taped. Having to use the Web site. Trying to get on a computer. The computer was slow. Not being able to log on. Doing math on the computer. Having to do work on the Web site. Waiting for computer to load. Did not win. When I did not get to win. We always lost. Losing. The losing. We lost. Losing in 2nd place. The same person always wins. When students lost. Others were too loud. Having to work in groups. Having groups picked for us. Everyone talking. Listening to others complaining. Stupid peers interrupting work. Too loud talking.

Table 8 Ideas for Improving the Intervention by Category and Group Category No, none, N/A Other Instructional activity in some way No response Do more of these activities Total

General Education

Special Education

Total

489 (52%) 145 (15%) 127 (14%)

61 (53%) 15 (12%) 15 (13%)

550 (52%) 160 (15%) 142 (13%)

111 (12%) 73 (8%)

26 (23%) 5 (4%)

131 (12%) 78 (7%)

945

116

1,061

including end-of-course scores, midterm grades, and final grades. This limitation emerged as a function of students’ participating with UDL interventions for a limited time. For example, over a 90-day period, students seldom spent more than 5% of their instructional time with specific UDL interventions.

Implications for Research In terms of future research, the most obvious question involves examining the process by which teachers adopt the UDL framework as a means to guide what they do in their classrooms. In this study, student participants reported high rates of perceived engagement with UDLbased activities as compared with their perceptions of their other academic classes. This finding, warranting additional research and replication, suggests that UDL can create learning environments that students deem to be engaging and enjoyable. The key issue, then, becomes how best to help teachers, as argued for by Foreman (2003) and Gee (2003), adopt the pursuit of engaging instruction and activities. This feature posits that student engagement

in learning is a basis of student success and eventual school completion (Reschley & Christenson, 2006). A related area of research involves examining how best to promote teachers’ initial use of UDL over an entire semester, perhaps eventually changing their core practices. For the former, the project from which this study emerged demonstrated that teacher willingness, on an individual and content team level, to pursue a new form of teaching or even individual interventions proved a major barrier. As reported, a minority of teachers was willing to participate in the development and implementation of individual UDL interventions, let alone changing their practices on a daily basis. This limited response to change must be considered in the context of the unique financial incentives for change that would otherwise be unavailable. A related consideration is that the four teachers who were seen as most willing to participate and change their practices each reported a perception that their peers frowned on (read as discouraged) their new practices. Furthermore, we were unable to document any positive influence by the school administration (e.g., encouragement from school principles to change practices), which others have suggested is crucial to school change (see Elmore, 2005; Sarason, 1986). Another area of future research involves focusing on differing types of students and how UDL interventions affect their success in the classroom and on high-stakes tests. Our preliminary data provide insight into features that all students perceive as beneficial (and not beneficial). Future efforts should target specific subgroups of students, including gender and disability status. For instance, students with specific learning disabilities (e.g., reading) may find selected aspects of UDL (e.g., a digitized text) more beneficial than others do. Likewise, a student with a behavior disorder or attention deficit may find



Table 9 Ideas for Improving Activity: Sample Quotations to Clarify Categories Category Other Instructional activity

Do more of these activities

Quotation More fruit. Bigger, better candy. Go over it more. More hands on for math. More student involvement. Let us pick the groups. Get groups together more. Make me win. Let us choose partners. Just get it done. Change the materials. More time for activity so we can be creative. Make it a bigger project. Make it more fun. More fun worksheets. More flexibility and leeway with materials. Offer more ways to win. No write-ups. No notes on activity. Find different materials. Have everybody get cards. Print out the notes for us. Do it more often. Do this every day. Keep doing this. More of this. Have more of these experiences. Better and more labs. Do this a lot more often.

interventions that offer multiple options for engaging in the learning activity as more beneficial. Similarly, an examination of specific interventions by content area and gender seems warranted. Finally, an examination of whether UDL interventions sufficiently affect individual student decisions to complete high school is warranted. Our results provide initial empirical support that students exposed to UDL-based interventions find them enjoyable and engaging relative to their other academic classes. Furthermore, we found it insightful (and hopeful) that more than 90% of the responses called for their teachers to do more of it. We interpret this finding as preliminary but perceive them to be a positive first step in that students can be engaged in high school academic classes. This engagement, contradicting many of the previous studies on student perceptions of high school (Cushman, 2003; Kortering & Braziel, 2002; Lovitt et al., 1999), may prove a major bellwether of general student satisfaction with school and eventual school completion. The thinking here is that as with most any consumer, someone who is satisfied with his or her experiences is likely to continue the patronage of service, in this case high school. Given the increased importance placed on student performance on high-stakes testing, the potential impact that UDL-based interventions has on student outcomes should be explored further (see Schulte & Villwock, 2004; Thurlow, 2002). Preliminary indications are that student engagement and motivation are improved through the use of UDL concepts. Therefore, one could theorize that students in the general education and special education areas would benefit (see Zhang et al., 2007).

Implications for Practice The initial practical implication is that relative to their other academic classes, students report favorable views of UDL-based interventions. As noted, nearly all participants expressed an interest in seeing more of these interventions in their classroom. Furthermore, the interventions, in combination, were consistently rated as better (i.e., slightly to strongly agree) than what students

experienced in their other academic classes. This finding suggests that all students can enjoy their experiences in general education high school settings. We see this as promising and hope that more educators focus attention on whether students are enjoying their high school content classes. As suggested by Cushman (2003) and Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morrison (2006), students have a lot to say about high school, specifically the need to better engage them in the learning process. We simply suggest that high school teachers direct attention to listening to the voices of their students. A second implication stems from the nature of the open-ended responses that, in combination, suggest that UDL interventions can help students to learn, enjoy learning, and use technology as an effective learning tool. In addition, students were less likely to identify a worst part of the UDL interventions and a majority of participants offered no ideas for improving the respective interventions. In combination, the findings provide compelling support for instructional interventions that students deem engaging. Specific aspects, although not unique to UDL, seem to be interventions that engage students through hands-on activities they deem enjoyable or rewarding in some way, allow them to work with their peers, and incorporate suitable technology. A third implication is that our experience suggests that UDL is perhaps best viewed as a leverage for refining existing teacher practices to allow more students to engage in learning and, perhaps, enjoy high school. This suggestion takes into account the feature that changing the core of teacher beliefs or behavior is extremely difficult, so we suggest initially using it as way to modify existing behavior. The suggestion also reflects the following features hindering school reform as outlined by Sarason (1986) and Elmore (2005), including high school teachers’ being reluctant to change their style of teaching (instead preferring to maintain their established routines and behaviors), not adopting an innovative strategy unless they redefine to fit their own local needs and situation, and not always having the goal of serving students better as a priority.



As a closing note, although Stand and Deliver (Musca & Menendez, 1988) was an inspiring movie, we have come to see that it is not the way to inspire all students to become engaged in the high school general education classroom. Nearly all students with high incidence disabilities as 9th and 10th graders report an interest in completing a high school education that prepares them for a productive adulthood while offering them engaging and enjoyable learning experiences (see Kortering & Braziel, 2002). Furthermore, the importance of helping more students succeed in general education settings is incredibly compelling. For instance, consider that Lunenberg (1999) has suggested that nationally, school dropouts account for 82% and 85% of all prisoners and juveniles in court, respectively. Lochner and Moretti (2001) have used a national database to show that 23% of the difference between incarceration rates of African Americans and Caucasian is due to the difference in educational attainment. Yates (2005) even showed that the average dropout will take 3 years to start a job that will last 1 year, and he or she will take 11 years to find stable employment. At an individual student level, by completing high school one is able to raise his or her annual income an average of $8,000 (Moretti, 2005) or some $320,000 in a 40-year work life. Finally, Zuckerman (2006) provided a persuasive commentary on how the evolving globalization and technology in the work world is rapidly making a college education the only way to escape the bottom of the economic ladder. Now consider these statistics against a backdrop of research showing that students with disabilities complete high school (Bakken & Kortering, 2000) and attend college at a rate well below that of their peers (Binkerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). The challenge is both compelling and clear—get students engaged in learning and on the way to a successful experience in their general education classes.

References Bakken, T., & Kortering, L. (2000). The constitutional and statutory obligations of schools toward special education school dropouts. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 360–366. Binkerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Blamires, M. (1999). Universal design for learning: Re-establishing differentiation as part of the inclusion agenda. Support for Learning, 14, 158–163. Bost, L., & Riccominni, P. (2006). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 301–315. Boyle, J. R., & Wesihaar, M. (2002). The effects of strategic note taking on the recall and comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 16, 133–141.

Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. (2004). The Office of Special Education Program’s LD initiative: A context for inquiry and consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 186–188. Bremer, C. D., Clapper, A. T., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). Improving word identification skills using strategic instruction model (SIM) strategies. Research to Practice Brief, 1(4), 1–5. Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises. Bulgren, J. A., & Schumaker, J. B. (2005). Teaching practices that optimize curriculum access. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 79–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cobb-Morocco, C. (2001). Teaching for understanding with students with disabilities: New directions for research on access to the general education curriculum. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 5–13. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. New York: Harper Collins, Basic Books. Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students. New York: New Press. deBettencourt, L., Kortering, L. J.., & Braziel, P. M. (2007). A look at what mainstreamed students with and without LD have to say about learning strategies. Boone, NC: Appalachian State University. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2005). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 96–108. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Elmore, R. F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policies, practices, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Foreman, J. (2003). NEXT generation: Educational technology vs. the lecture. Educause, 38, 12–22. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gleason, M., Archer, A., & Colvin, G. (2002). Intervention for improving study skills. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 651–680). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Hagborg, W. J. (1999). Scholastic competence subgroups among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 3–10. Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 133–140. Higgins, K., Boone, R. & Lovitt, T. (2002). Adapting challenging textbooks to improve content area learning. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 758–790). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2004). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved learning outcomes. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 45–52.


Kortering et al. / Universal Design for Learning 363 Hock, M. F., Pulvers, K. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2001). The effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk students and students with LD. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 172–186. Howard, J. B. (2003). Universal design for learning: An essential concept for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19, 113–117. Kerr, M. M., & Zigmond, N. (1986). What do high school teachers want? A study of expectations and standards. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 239–249. Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (1999a). School dropout from the perspective of former students: Implications for secondary special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 78–83. Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (1999b). Staying in school: What students have to say. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 78–83. Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (2002). A look at high school programs as perceived by youths with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 177–188. Kortering, L., Braziel, P., & Tompkins, J. (2002). The challenge of school completion among youths with behavioral disorders: Another side of the story. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 142–154. Kortering, L., deBettencourt, L., & Braziel, P. (2005). High school algebra: What students with LD are saying. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 191–204. Kortering, L., McClannon, T., & Braziel, P. (2006). Universal design for learning: A look at what students have to say [Research Brief]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Special Education. Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Givner, C. C. (2004). Secondary teachers’ views on social competence: Skills essential for success. Journal of Special Education, 38, 174–186. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2001). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94, 155–189. Lovitt, T. C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. (1999). What do pupils with disabilities have to say about their experience in high school? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 67–76. Lunenberg, F. C. (1999). Helping dreams survive: Dropout interventions. Contemporary Education, 71, 23–34. Maag, J. W. (2005). Social skills training for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and learning disabilities: Problems, conclusions and suggestions. Exceptionality, 13, 155–172. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion at secondary classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 265–274. Moretti, E. (2005). Does education reduce participation in criminal activities? Berkeley: University of California, Department of Economics. Musca, C. (Producer/Writer), & Menendez, R. (Director/Writer). (1988). Stand and deliver [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002 U.S.C. (2002). Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). 26th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004 (Vols. 1, 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 197–205. Reschley, A., & Christenson, S. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: A case for the inclusion of

student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 272–292. Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 1662–1671. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development. Sabornie, E. J., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006). Comparing the characteristics of high-incidence disability groups. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 95–104. Sarason, S. B. (1986). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press. Schulte, A. C., & Villwock, D. N. (2004). Using high stakes tests to derive school-level measure of special education efficacy. Exceptionality, 12, 107–126. Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). Teaching students to be strategic learners. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 64–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & McKnight, P. (2003). Ensuring success in the secondary general education curriculum through the use of teaching routines. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 791–824). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary settings. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 369–379. Symonds, W. C. (2006, November 21). America the uneducated: A new study warns of a slide for the U.S. as the share of low achievers grows. U.S. News & World Report, pp. 120–122. Thurlow, M. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195–202. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration. (2004). Survey of current business. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Walker, B., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, P., Houchins, D. E., & Cihak, D. F. (2005). Using the Expressive Writing program to improve the writing skills of high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 175–183. Yates, J. A. (2005). The transition from school to work: Education and work experiences. Monthly Labor Review, 128(2), 21–32. Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Kortering, L. (2007). Performance on exit exams by students with disabilities: A four year analysis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 48–57. Zuckerman, M. B. (2006, June 12). Rich man, poor man. U.S. News & World Report, pp. 71–72. Larry J. Kortering, EdD, is a professor in special education at Appalachian State University and one of three coprinciple investigators for the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC). Terry W. McClannon, EdD, is technology services coordinator and adjunct faculty for the Reich College of Education at Appalachian State University. Patricia M. Braziel, MEd, is project coordinator for the Dissemination Panel of the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) and an independent school psychologist.
