Universal Design is part of the effort of disability studies to produce space and pedagogy that meet the requirements of all students (Dolmage, 2005). In the 1970s, Ronald Mace, an architect and wheelchair user, coined the concept of ‘universal design’ (UD) (Center for Universal Design, 1997). A growing awareness of the value of UD has taken place within the past three decades (Center for Universal Design, 1997; Scott, McGuire & Shaw, 2003). Mace defined UD as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for
Universal Design, 1997, para. 1). The concept ‘universal’ is used to mean that a design is adapted to allow easy access not only for people labelled as disabled, but to all people including those with different abilities, languages, cultures and approaches to learning (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). Mace and colleagues at the Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, developed and refined seven UD principals which offer guidance for designers of products and environments. They expound these principals as follows:
1. Equitable use: Useful and accessible to people with diverse abilities.
2. Flexibility in use: Accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Provides choice in methods of use.
3. Simple and intuitive use: Straightforward and easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.
4. Perceptible information: Communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. Uses different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information.
5. Tolerance for error: Minimises hazards and adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
6. Low physical effort: Can be used efficiently and comfortably, with a minimum of fatigue.
7. Size and space for approach and use: Appropriate size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility (adapted from Center for Universal Design, 1997).
Although the UD concept originated in the field of architecture, researchers and designers from a range of disciplines apply it to the design of a variety of fields: technology (e.g. TV captions for individuals labelled with deafness or hearing impairments); instruction (e.g. the
use of texts and international symbols such as toilet signs which are useful for English and non-English-speakers); curricula (e.g. Ebooks for people who cannot read standard print but also useful for all); and environment (e.g. sidewalk drop kerbs which allow easy access to wheelchair users as well as all people) (Burgstahler, 2001). As Alexander (1995, p. iii) puts it:
“The concept of UD goes beyond the mere provision of special features for various segments of the population. Instead it emphasizes a creative approach that is more inclusive, one that asks at the outset of the design process how a product, graphic communication, building, or public space can be made both aesthetically pleasing and functional for the greatest number of users”.
Educational researchers expand this notion to the educational milieu. They have devised several UD applications (e.g. universal design for learning and for instruction) to meet the requirements of the faster growth of pupil diversity in mainstream schools, support their inclusiveness and teachers’ effective teaching (Center for Universal Design, 1997). Rose and Meyer (2002) argue that the educational applications of UD inform teachers about the unique requirements of their pupils and provide a framework to be adapted to accommodate pupils’ diversity. This supports the creation of an inclusive environment that fits and maximises the learning of all pupils regardless of differences. The goal of UD and its educational applications reflect the social model of disability in which imperfection is not related to individuals but to surrounding conditions. It means that society must be fixed to fit all people and not otherwise (Oliver 1990; Slee, 2011; Goodley, 2011, 2014, 2017). The notion of UD might work well for this.
The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was seeded and developed by The Centre for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (Orkwis & McLane, 1998; CAST, 2015a) in 1984 to provide flexible guidance for educators to design instructional goals, assessments, methods, and materials that could be customised and adjusted to meet the requirements of all students
(CAST, 2015b) regardless of “their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember” (Orkwis & McLane, 1998, p. 10). CAST relates UDL to the following three fundamental qualities: 1) Curriculum provides multiple means of representation to give pupils the opportunities to obtain information and knowledge through various ways; 2) Curriculum provides different types of expression for pupils to respond with the suitable types, and; 3) Curriculum offers multiple means of engagement for pupils to respond to each individual’s interests and to motivate them to actively learn (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). However, curriculum means not only content but also instructional aims, teaching/learning methods, academic activities, and assessment procedures (Orkwis & McLane, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 2002) which leads us to discuss another UD educational application – the Universal Design of Instruction (UDI).
UDI is being developed and researched by the Center of DO-IT (i.e. Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) at the University of Washington and the Center of Postsecondary Education and Disability (CPED) at the University of Connecticut. DO-IT (2015, para. 4) defines this concept as a combination of the principles of UD: “(1) equitable use, (2) flexibility in use, (3) simple and intuitive use, (4) perceptible information, (5) tolerance for error, (6) low physical effort, and (7) size and space for approach and use”; and the UDL framework (i.e. develop a curriculum that offers different ways of representation, expression, and engagement) to create UDI strategies that could be applied to all aspects of instruction (DO-IT, 2015). The CPED describes UDI as “an approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners including [disabled students]” (CPED, 2001, para. 1). Scott, McGuire and Shaw (2001) argue that UDI supports an inclusionary approach that enables all students to actively engage and learn. They propose nine UDI
principals to guide educators in constructing educational instruction to respond to the different requirements of pupils in classrooms where they teach. The principals encompass the design and use of instruction that is: 1) accessible; 2) flexible; 3) straightforward; 4) perceptible; 5) approachable, reachable and usable for all regardless of physical, mobility, speaking, reading and writing differences; 6) supportive and inclusive; 7) accommodates variations in student learning; 8) minimises pointless body effort in order to maximise attention to learning; and 9) encourages mutual interaction among students and between students and their teachers (adapted from Scott, McGuire & Shaw, 2001; CPED, 2001). Applying such concepts and principals to mainstream schools could help all students to be actively involved, participate and feel a sense of belonging and value.