Removing Barriers to Online Communication for Students with Disabilities

Running head: ENGAGING ONLINE, REMOVING BARRIERS 1
Engaging Online: Removing Barriers to Communication
Gisèle Kirtley
University of Redlands
Author Note
This paper was prepared for Master’s Seminar, EDUC 637
Taught by Dr. Pauline Reynolds

ENGAGING ONLINE, REMOVING BARRIERS 2
Intro
Higher education today has changed in many ways since the days of the colonial
colleges. Institutions of higher education (IHE) can be public, private, or for-profit corporations
that offer two- and four-year degrees to students who live on campus, commute, or access their
education online. In 2006, 66% of Title IV two-and four-year institutions offered online courses
with an estimated enrollment of 12.2 million (Parsad & Lewis, 2008; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2009). Just as today’s IHEs vary in their characteristics, so, too do the
students who seek a postsecondary education. There are fewer traditional college students, those
who graduate high school and immediately enroll in a four-year degree program, and a growing
number of non-traditional students who vary in age, life stage, culture, language, location, etc.
For many, the possibility of attending school fulltime, during the day for either a bachelor’s or
master’s degree is not possible. Therefore, these non-traditional students, who want to learn
when and where they want, turn to online learning opportunities to access the education they
need. Within this changing student demographic, students with disabilities, about 10.9 % of total
online enrollment (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009), also want access to higher
education online sometimes for the same reasons, but also because online learning can offer
some advantages to students with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2011).
Legislation like Sections 504, 508, and the Effective Communication Act of the
American with Disabilities Act have helped institutions understand their legal responsibilities in
providing equal access to education for students with disabilities through reasonable
accommodations. However, despite our best efforts and growing awareness, people with
disabilities are still underrepresented in higher education (Schmetzke, 2001) and continue to be
overlooked while facing significant barriers in accessing a postsecondary education not only in

the classroom, but online through distance learning environments as well (Nichols & Quaye,
2009).
To gain a better understanding of students with disabilities in higher education and how
IHEs can create a more inclusive environment, this paper reviews the literature regarding barriers
to effective online communication for students with disabilities and reviews principles and
design techniques that can greatly reduce those barriers. Specifically, this paper focuses on
barriers to communication between students and instructors within the online learning
environment that impair student-faculty engagement. Based on this review, the final section of
this paper explores solutions to reduce barriers and improve the online learning experience for
students and instructors.
On the one hand, the federal government has enacted several laws to ensure students’
rights to an education. On the other hand, legislating inclusiveness is no guarantee (Smith &
Tyler, 2011) and does not fit with the mission to serve society, an idea that originates with the
colonial colleges (Thelin, 2004). For ethical reasons IHEs need to provide equal access to
education for all students that puts moral obligation over compliance (Schmetzke, 2001;
Coombs, 2010). Quite simply, it is the right thing to do (Betts et al., 2013; Coombs, 2010; Smith
& Tyler, 2011).
Serving Society Equally and Inclusively
The foundations of education in America are based in the colonial colleges whose
mission was to educate students for public service and to create the next generation of good
citizens for the benefit of society (Thelin, 2004). Today’s IHEs remain committed to developing
valued members of society, as evidenced in two current mission statements and key messages
from two of the original colonial colleges. The University of Pennsylvania promises “to train

young people for leadership in business, government and public service” (University of
Pennsylvania, n.d.) and to promote “service to individuals and communities at home and around
the world” (Gutmann, n.d.). Harvard University promises to “lead them [students] in their later
lives to advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to serve society (Harvard University,
n.d.). While these missions are similar to these of colonial times, the difference, of course, is
that society has changed. The society our students will serve is not only a multicultural society,
but it is one where people of different abilities seek and expect to take part in all aspects of life.
Student demographics in higher education reflect an increasingly diverse population with many
having a disability that affects their ability to read, compute, pay attention, and participate.
These students may not be able to see or hear web content, manipulate a mouse or other device,
or may have attention differences due to cluttered web pages (Burgstahler, 2011). Society labels
these students as being disabled because they are different physically, emotionally, or cognitively
(Evans, Assadi, & Harriott, 2005, p. 67). This social constructive perspective focuses on society,
not the individual, such that a characteristic becomes a disability when it does not match an
existing norm (Marks, 1999, p. 77). If IHEs are committed to preparing students to serve
society, then they must include all members of society (Hurtado, 2007).
Attaining inclusivity is a lofty goal (Schmetzke, 2001), but, from a social justice
perspective, it is for the public good (Brennan & Naidoo, 2008). IHEs have a history of
educating for the public good and today that means that higher education’s mission must include
exporting “equity and social justice to the wider society” (Brennan & Naidoo, 2008, p. 293).
IHEs have a responsibility to prepare future scholars to fight for equity and justice for all
students (Nieto & Bode, 2012). Institutions have an ethical reason (Higbee, 2003; Kerschbaum,
2012; Schmetzke, 2001;) to provide access to all by creating an inclusive learning environment

where all students benefit from participating in higher education not only for their individual
futures, but also so that they can contribute more fully to society as a whole (Brennan & Naidoo,
2008). Further, institutions need to foster a culture of diversity so that a disability is not seen as
an individual’s problem to be fixed, but rather, takes a social justice perspective to create
environments that include people with disabilities physically and socially (Kerschbaum, 2012).
The challenge for educators, within the context of the changing demographics of today’s
postsecondary students, becomes how to provide equal access to a shifting student population.
When Harvard was founded in 1636, traditional students were the young sons of rich, white land
owners (Thelin, 2004). That definition of a traditional student is no longer relevant and difficult
to define (Buerck, Malmstrom, & Peppers, 2003). Modern day students have backgrounds rich
in diversity—rather than wealth alone—such as race, culture, language, socioeconomic status,
employment status, age, and a wide range of abilities where “individual variability is the norm,
not the exception” (CAST, 2011, p. 5). Even the National Center for Education Statistics
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1996) has had a difficult time defining a traditional
student because the trend for student characteristics is one that includes more variables rather
than a homogeneous groups of students who share a select set of identifiers (National Center for
Education Statistics, 1996).
Meeting the needs of a diverse student body that accesses education in traditional,
classroom settings and in online, virtual classrooms is a daunting task. Rather than cover the
entire spectrum of postsecondary education in a modern society, this paper reviews the literature
with respect to removing barriers to faculty-student engagement in online learning environments.
The review included the importance of student-faculty engagement, barriers to communication,
and an inclusive design approach to reduce barriers.

As in any educational setting, the role of the instructor is pivotal to student success and
it is especially true in online learning (Betts, et al., 2013). The next section explores the
importance of student-faculty engagement in an online learning environment.
Faculty-Student Engagement
Although student characteristics and they way students access a postsecondary education
continue to evolve, the concept that instructors play a pivotal role in the learning process through
interacting with their students (Astin, 1999; Betts, et al., 2013; Chickering & Gamson, 1987)
remains constant. By sharing ideas, instructors guide students in the application of knowledge
and help them with the meaning-making process (Hill, Song, & West, 2009; Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2005). Though many of these principles on student development and learning pre-
date online or virtual classrooms, they apply equally to online learning (Hockings, Brett, &
Terentjevs, 2012). Of Moore’s (1989) well-known classifications of interaction in distance
education, (i.e., learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner,) learner-instructor “is
regarded as essential by many educators and highly desirable by many learners” (Hockings et al.,
2012, p. 2). For the student, interaction with the instructor plays a key role in many facets of
learning such as motivation, interest, support, and encouragement (Astin 1999; Kuh, Kinzie,
Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Moore, 1989). Unlike a book or other static content, the
relationship between learner and instructor is built on feedback and knowledge transfer where
the experiences and philosophies of the instructor pass to the student (Moore, 1989; Webber,
Krylow, & Zhang, 2013).
The student-faculty relationship, built through engagement, offers additional benefits
such as giving the student access to resources he or she might not otherwise have been aware of
like academic support or career services (Dika, 2012). This type of social interaction is critical

for academic success and highlights the social or personal interactive portion to online learning
(Muilenburg & Berge, 2005, p. 45). The interaction between student and faculty does not need
to be spoken or synchronous to be effective as long as they can share ideas and information
(Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Ke & Chavez, 2013).
Like a traditional classroom setting, interaction between student and instructor online is
also an integral and necessary part of learning (Betts, et al., 2013). Academic success is not
necessarily a function of the type of learning environment (Buerck et al., 2003), but, as previous
studies have shown, depends more on a well-established student and instructor interaction.
Additionally, because technology now allows students and instructors to communicate in real
time, (Buerck et al., 2003) interaction more closely resembles the traditional classroom learning
environment. Without that interaction, especially real-time communication, online learning is
less effective (Cao, Griffin, & Bai, 2009; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005). To understand how that
interaction occurs, the next section reviews the definition of communication in relation to
student-instructor interaction in an online setting.
Communication
Students and instructors need to engage for learning, e.g. knowledge transfer, to take
place (Moore, 1989; Webber et al., 2013), but what is the nature of that interaction when they are
not face-to-face? In terms of the learning environment, interaction is communication, where
learning, by definition is communication (Berge, 2013; Charalambos, Michalinos, &
Chamberlain, 2004; Moore, 1989). Communication occurs through “meaningful dialogue, either
formally or informally, that employs critical thinking skills to synthesize and transfer
information as appropriate to the audience, purpose, and context of the communication”
(Grammer, Kirtley, Sharif, & De Loera, 2013, p. 5). Using this definition, communication

implies a two-way exchange or transfer of information. Communication between participants, in
this case student and instructor, needs to flow freely one to the other and back again where they
employ listening and speaking skills (National Communication Association, 1998). Therefore it
is equally important for students to read—listen—content and comments and to respond—
speak—and express their own ideas related to the topic to be part of the conversation. When
students with disabilities can experience both sides of the communication pathway, they are
communicating effectively and can express an idea or concept in a new way and can synthesize
new information (Krathwohl, 200;).
In an online learning environment, communication takes place in two basic formats:
synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication takes place in real-time, much like
a face-to-face conversation, using a phone, video conference, or text messaging. Asynchronous
communication is not time-dependent and there can be a notable delay between contributions.
Asynchronous communication can take place via email, posts to forums or social media,
recorded webinars, and other situations where one participant does not receive immediate
feedback from another.
Whether communication is synchronous or asynchronous, participation requires the
student must first be present (Skinner, 2009) so they can development an effective student-
instructor relationship through meaningful engagement. If they encounter barriers that prevent
them from communicating, they cannot engage with their instructors and in the learning process.
The next section reviews the types of barriers students with disabilities encounter in online
learning environments that essentially prevent them from being present.

Barriers to Communication
As mentioned in the previous section, communication between student and faculty is an
essential part of learning and constructing knowledge (Abrami, et al, 2012; Berge, 2013; Cao et
al., 2009; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Moore, 1989; Myers &Bastian, 2010; Skinner, 2009;
Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Communication in an online learning environment takes many
forms and interaction can be asynchronous as in email, discussion forums, and course wikis, or
synchronous as in live chat with or without video, text messaging, and real-time discussion
forums. While each of these have contributed to improving online education, they also present
challenges to students with disabilities whose varying abilities impact if and how they can use
those various communication vehicles (Berge, 2012; Boyd & Moulton, 2004; Burgstahler, 2011;
Gornitsky, 2012; Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabala, 2005). Students have varying abilities in
three main categories: sensory, cognitive, and physical (Pearson & Koppi, 2006; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). Sensory challenges include visual, audio, and speech difficulties such as students
who are color blind, deaf, or where English is their second language (ESL). Students with
cognitive challenges, such as dyslexia or delays in word retrieval, may need more time to process
information or may be inhibited by overly complicated web pages and long lectures. Finally,
students with physical or mobility issues may have problems typing on a keyboard, using a
mouse, or sitting for long periods of time at a computer (Berge, 2013; Boyd & Moulton, 2004;
Burgstahler, 2011; Rose et al., 2005; Gornitsky, 2012). Further, students who are dyslexic not
only face challenges with reading comments and posts, but also may be reluctant to participate
and expose their disability (Gornitsky, 2012). These three categories provide a framework for
identifying the types of barriers to communications students encounter online.

Sensory-Related Barriers
Sensory challenges cover a wide range of differing abilities related to sight, hearing, and
speech. Students with impaired vision have difficulty reading text on a screen or in printed
format like PDF transcripts, especially if the text is not in a large format (Burgstahler, 2011;
Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006). While imagery like graphics and tables can help to
explain complex ideas and relationships, students who are blind cannot benefit (Burgstahler,
2011). Many instructors use PowerPoint presentations during their lectures, but this content, like
other visual aids, is lost to students with visual impairments (Betts et al, 2013; Bugstahler,2011;
Coombs, 2010; Healey et al., 2006; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006).
Providing students with downloadable PDF transcripts is helpfully, but, as mentioned earlier,
they can be difficult to read if the font cannot be enlarged or if they are not accessible to screen
readers. In addition to differences in vision, other impairments include not being able to
distinguish specific colors like red or green (Boyd & Moulton, 2004). Text or images that use
these colors can make visual content nearly invisible.
Lectures and discussions that use videos or video conferencing prevent students who are
deaf from engaging unless they have an accommodation like a sign-language interpreter; the
option for lip reading may not be a viable option given the quality of the videos (Boyd &
Moulton, 2004; Burgstahler, 2011). Again, PowerPoint presentations can cause challenges when
they include voice-overs, but no captions (Betts et al, 2013). Even with accommodations
students with hearing impairments miss the full impact of a lecture that is often conveyed by the
intonation of the speaker (Rose et al., 2006). ESL students, like students with hearing
impairments, can easily miss content conveyed by a fast-paced conversation or narrative
(Burgstahler, 2008).

In real-time chat environments, ESL students and students with speech impairments, like
stuttering, can have a difficult time participating because they can feel intimidated by others who
may be more fluent (Betts et al., 2013; Burgstahler, 2011; Hatch, Ghere, & Jirik, 2013). For
students who are deaf, they can miss out on participating because they simply cannot hear the
conversation (Betts et al., 2013). Class assignments that require students to give oral
presentations are particularly challenging and can prevent students from communicating their
ideas and knowledge (Betts, et al., 2013; Hatch et al., 2013).
Cognitive-Related Barriers
Cognitive challenges cover a wide spectrum that can include difficulties with memory
and word retrieval, dyslexia and other learning disabilities, attention span, and needing extra time
to review and process information (Boyd & Moulton, 2004; Burgstahler, 2011; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). Students who take medication for a disability can also suffer due to side effects
that impact how they assimilate information (Burgstahler, 2011; Healey, et al). For example,
students with dyslexia face barriers related to text-based communications like online discussion
forums where the requirement to read and write can be difficult (Healey et al., 2006). Other
barriers arise when lectures are long, making it difficult for students with cognitive differences to
stay focused (Boyd & Moulton; 2004; Burgstahler, 2011). For some students, flickering or
overly complex web pages present barriers because students become distracted or anxious and
cannot engage with the environment (Burgstahler, 2011). When chatting in real-time, like
teleconferences, delayed word retrieval can lead other students to perceive a lack of intellect,
which makes the student with the disability feel insecure or self conscious about participating
(Hatch et al., 2013).

Physical Barriers
This category includes physical limitations or challenges like carpal tunnel syndrome,
arthritis, paralysis, or any other condition that limits mobility and the use of a computer to
engage in an online learning environment (Burgstahler, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012;).
Using a mouse or keyboard may not be possible and a student would need to rely on other
methods to navigate a course website, communicate by email, or post to a discussion forum. At
another level, a student may be able to type or use a mouse, but more slowly than others (Betts et
al., 2013; Boyd & Moulton, 2004). So, in a text-based, synchronous forum, a student who types
slowly may not be able to keep pace with the discussion and could fall behind, causing others to
perceive a lack in intelligence (Fetzner, 2013; Hatch et al., 2013; Johnson & Fox, 2003). When
students with disabilities experience these misperceptions, they are less likely to participate
(Fung, 2004), leading to feelings of isolation (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Owens, Hardcastle, &
Richardson, 2009). In addition, not being able to use technology effectively can create feelings
of fear and anxiety (Berge, 2013; Winter, Cotton, Gavin, & Yorke, 2010). These difficulties and
the associated anxiety impact students’ abilities to communicate effectively (Charalambos et al.,
2004), becoming another type of barrier to engagement (Betts et al., 2013; Hatch et al., 2003).
Although three, main categories, sensory, cognitive, and physical (Pearson & Koppi,
2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), describe the types of barriers to communication students
encounter, these categories are not mutually exclusive or comprehensive. A student could have
any combination of disabilities that overlap these categories, thus creating multiple barriers.
Likewise, students may have disabilities that do not easily fall into one of the three categories,
yet their disability could result in significant barriers to communication (U.S. Census Bureau,
2012). These disabilities could include post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS), diabetes,

seizures, or other conditions that cause functional limitations (Boyd & Moulton, 2004; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012). Further, a disability could present during the course timeframe and may
not be permanent, like an injury or illness (Franke, Bérubé, O'Neil, & Kurland, 2012). When
thinking of barriers to communication, categories help bring focus to key challenges among a sea
of complex and often changing issues related to facilitating effective interaction online. Rather
than limiting what could be considered as barriers, these categories serve as a starting point from
which to explore and expand our understanding of how students with different sensory,
cognitive, and physical abilities engage in an online learning experience.
Online engagement for the student is only one part of the communication process. The
other part, which is equally important, requires engagement and communication from the
instructor. When students with disabilities face barriers to communication, their instructors with
disabilities can face the same barriers.
Faculty Encounter the Same Barriers
This paper’s theme focuses on the student and faculty interaction as a key component in
student success in online learning environments. Therefore, when discussing barriers, the faculty
experience must also come into consideration.
Students need and welcome faculty interaction through feedback, knowledge, and sharing
expertise (Cao et al., 2009; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Ross, 2010). Faculty interaction,
particularly in the form of feedback, is critical to learning, to helping students correctly apply
what they’ve learned, and to stay on track (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Owens et al., 2009; Ross,
2010). For this needed interaction to take place, the instructor also needs to have equal access
and the ability to communicate effectively. They, too, need to be present (Skinner, 2009),
especially for synchronous communication with their students (Cao et al., 2009), perhaps in part

to relieve a sense of isolation students feel when they cannot communication fully. More
important, with effective instructor engagement, students gain access to the “social capital”
(Dika, 2012) needed to take advantage of resources beyond the classroom. Students rely on the
knowledge and responsiveness of instructors and when instructors face barriers to
communication, they cannot participate or engage with students (Owens et al., 2009; Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2005). Therefore, just as we strive to provide equal access to an educational
environment for students, we must extend that to include instructors, to “create an atmosphere of
inclusion and openness” (Kerschbaum, 2012, p. 1).
In addition to facing the same barriers to communication as students (Coombs, 2010)
faculty encounter challenges beyond the classroom. They also experience a cultural disconnect
between what we should be doing and what we are doing (June, 2014). Take, for example, Dr.
William J. Peace, a bioethicist and disability-studies scholar, who uses a wheelchair. This
disconnect came to life when he attempted to attend a workshop on disabilities, but the
conference room was not wheelchair accessible, and he was forced to miss the workshop (June,
2014). Similarly, at a three-day philosophy-of-disabilities conference earlier this year, he
encountered many barriers such as a broken wheelchair lift on a shuttle bus, a dining room layout
that made it impossible for him to serve himself, and online proceedings that were not accessible
to blind scholars. Peace referred to this conference as an “access nightmare” (June, 2014).
As stated earlier, accessibility is the right thing to do (Betts et al., 2013; Coombs, 2010
Smith & Tyler, 2011), and it is also the legal thing to do for instructors. Legislation like Sections
504, 508, and the Effective Communication requirements of the American with Disabilities Act
apply to all people, not just students, and certainly include faculty and instructors with the goal
that “communication with people with these disabilities is equally effective as communication

with people without disabilities” (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d., p. 1). Despite these federal
mandates, scholars, like Dr. Peace, have had and continue to have many challenges.
The experiences of Norman Coombs, Fulbright scholar, professor of history, and
recipient of a National Endowment for the Humanities grant in addition to many other accolades
throughout his career, further illustrate the need for faculty accessibility. Coombs, who became
blind at an early age, earned his Ph.D. in 1961 and began his career using “cumbersome tools”
(Coombs, 2010, p. 12) like Braille and tape recordings. In the 1980’s he began using an Apple
computer, which finally allowed him the autonomy to write class handouts, proofread them, and
communicate with his students via email using a voice synthesizer, or text-to-speech technology.
As technology advanced, he connected more with students with less reliance on intermediaries,
improving communication and engagement.
Coombs represents one of many inspirational scholars, not because of their disabilities,
because of their significant contributions to academia. Imagine if scholars like Temple Grandin
and Stephen Hawking had faced barriers that prevented them from earning their degrees? The
loss of their education would not only have impacted them as individuals, but all those they have
educated and inspired during their careers.
In the faculty-plus-student engagement equation, learning environments must meet the
needs of both communicators. Otherwise, it would be like hitting a tennis ball over a net to
someone who is not able to return the volley. The game quickly fails. For communication to be
truly engaging and effective, all parties need to be able to participate equally. The next section
offers an approach for developing online courses that provide a more inclusive environment for
students and instructors with disabilities by reducing barriers to communication.

An Inclusive Approach to Removing Barriers
Accessing postsecondary education courses and programs through online learning
environments is a mainstay of higher education and the trend points to an increase in students
opting for the time and location flexibility this type of education offers. Similarly, the number of
students with disabilities who seek a higher education continues to rise, especially for online
learning (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Unfortunately, accessibility for online
learners has not kept pace with this changing demographic; students and instructors continue to
face significant barriers related to different sensory, cognitive, and physical abilities (Pearson &
Koppi, 2006). IHEs need to find an approach that creates an inclusive learning environment for
all students (Boyd & Moulton, 2004; Burgstahler, 2011).
Providing reasonable accommodations through assistive technologies like screen readers,
video captions, and transcripts help to remove barriers (Coombs, 2010; Rose et al., 2005), but
technologies that reduce a barrier for one person, can simultaneously create a barrier for another
person. For example, online chat sessions, like Skype, work well for people who have mobility
problems and cannot use a keyboard or mouse. On the other hand, for those who are deaf or
where English is their second language synchronous, oral communication can be particularly
challenging both practically and emotionally. Relying entirely on assistive technology to
provide access is like “retrofitting individuals” and sends the message that people with
disabilities are not truly welcomed in a fully inclusive environment (Kerschbaum, 2012).
Rather than trying to meet the ever-changing needs of individuals by providing
accommodations, a more inclusive approach focuses on the environment to meet the needs of
many people for many situations (Burgstahler, 2011; Burgstahler & Corey, 2008; Rose et al.,
2006). That is to take the position that the learning environment needs to change to

accommodate the participants, rather than making the participants accommodate to the
environment (Rose et al., 2005). Taking a proactive approach to designing a learning
environment to be inclusive and not wholly dependent on individual accommodation employs
concepts of universal design. “Universal design focuses on eliminating barriers through initial
designs that consider the needs of diverse people, rather than overcoming barriers later through
individual adaptation” (Rose et al., 2005, p. 2).
The next section describes the origins of the term and its relevance to higher education.
What is Universal Design
The term universal design dates back to the 1970s when it was first used by an architect
named Ronald Mace who “challenged the conventional practice of designing products for the
average user” (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008, p. 6). Like Dr. Marc Harrison (1928–1996) before
him, Mace promoted an approach to design that was more accessible and more usable to people
of all abilities (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008).
Universal design presents a model that “makes products and services accessible and
usable for a broad audience” (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008, p. 9). Since that time, the definition of
universal design has been applied to various settings like home design and assistive technology,
which is used to help people with impairments access products or services (Burgstahler & Cory,
2008). However, in all instances there is a common theme when defining and implementing
universal design: the user does not adapt to the inflexible limitations of the product; instead, the
product adjusts to the needs of any user (Burgstahler &d Cory, 2008). A global positioning
system (GPS) demonstrates applied universal design principles because the GPS device has
many features that the users can customize based on their particular needs or preferences (Rose
& Gravel, 2010). For example, directions to a destination can be visual, as on a map with turn-

by-turn directions, or spoken, or both simultaneously. Other features include the option to select
the language and screen resolution, and the user can change the display to show one instruction
at a time or see an overview of the entire route (Rose & Gravel, 2010). So, rather than designing
for the average user, the GPS incorporates options and flexibility into the design that can
accommodate many of the user’s individual characteristics. Of course, even with the many
options of the GPS, it cannot meet all needs for all users. A single design to meet everyone’s
individual needs is unrealistic (Ke & Chavez, 2013; Rose et al., 2005). However, taking a
proactive approach to developing products that meet diverse needs is realistic.
From the social constructionist perspective, universal design seeks to change the
environment, rather than requiring the student to change or adapt to the environment (Rose et al.,
2006). When courses are designed for “normal” students, students with disabilities must change
or ask for accommodations in order to benefit fully from the learning experience, a requirement
if they want to receive accommodations. Students with disabilities are often reluctant to disclose
their disability (Evans et al., 2005), because after revealing their disability to others, students
often feel “marginalized and perceive themselves to be different or not worthy (Myers &
Bastian, 2010, p. 266).
Certainly, assistive technology plays an important role in reducing or removing barriers
and there will be situations when individuals will need assistive technology to fully access a
learning environment. Universal design cannot completely remove all barriers and is not one-
size-fits all approach (CAST, 2011). Rather, it lessens the need for accommodations (Barnard-
Brak, Paton, & Sulak, 2012; Johnson & Fox, 2003). When online learning environments use
universal design and accommodations together, students and instructors enjoy greatly improved

outcomes (Hitchcock & Stahler, 2003). They are “two sides of the same coin” (Rose et al.,
2005).
Although universal design originated in architecture and industry, the principles support
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and,
as shown in the Table I. below, support improved interaction between student and instructor.
The table (Burgstahler, 2008, p. 31) shows point-by-point how well universal design supports
each of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles. The universal design examples in the
right-hand column suggest one of many ways to support good practice in undergraduate
education. The first principle is “Encourages contact between students and faculty,” and the
corresponding universal design principle suggests a statement in the syllabus inviting students to
meet with instructors. Taking this suggestion a step further could include letting students know
that they can connect with their instructor by telephone, text message, email, or any other method
that allows for easy communication depending on the student’s, or instructor’s, needs or abilities.
A review of the remainder principles and suggestions illustrates how universal design aligns with
recognized pedagogies. Universal design promotes engagement and cooperation, active
learning, high expectations, and respect for diversity in talents and ways of learning. In this way,
universal design does not ask instructors to abandon their current teaching methods, but can
make their methods more inclusive (Burgstahler & Corey, 2008).
Table 1. Universal Design and Good Practices in Undergraduate Education
Principles of Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987)
Example of Universal Design Applied
to the Principle of Good Practice
(Burgstahler, 2008, p. 31)
Encourages contact between students and
faculty
Encourage multiple ways for students to interact
with each other
Develops reciprocity and cooperation
among students
Encourage multiple ways for students to interact
with each other

Encourages active learning
Provide multiple ways for students to participate
and ensure that all students, including those with
disabilities, can engage
Gives prompt feedback
Regularly assess student progress using multiple,
accessible methods and tools and adjust
instruction accordingly
Emphasizes time on task
Ensure that all students, including those with
disabilities, have adequate time to complete tasks
Communicates high expectations
Keep expectations high, including those for
students with disabilities, and provide
accommodations to level the playing field without
giving unfair advantage
Respects diverse talents and ways of
learning
Adopt practices that reflect high values with
respect to both diversity and inclusiveness
In addition to aligning with good practice, the universal design approach received support
from the federal government as “a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational
practice” (Burgstahler, 2011, p. 5). This approach provides flexibility to address the different
ways in which students learn and reduces barriers to education while maintaining high
expectations for all students (Burgstahler, 2011).
In higher education, universal design is a paradigm that can address equality, diversity,
accessibility, and social integration (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; p. 3). Although no one design or
application can be used to benefit every individual, universal design can be as inclusive as
possible to benefit many individuals. The next section explores an important aspect of universal
design that specifically addresses inclusive design in learning environments.
Universal Design for Learning
Based on the principles of universal design, universal design for learning (UDL) goes
beyond physical access, addressing all aspects of learning and builds on the idea that the
“curricula, not the learners, are disabled” (CAST, 2011, p. 3). UDL has three main principles:
multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means

of engagement. These principles, based on research in the fields of neuroscience, learning
sciences, and cognitive psychology, represent the what, how, and why of learning, respectively
(CAST, 2011; Rose et al., 2006) and recognize that students learn and engage differently. The
first principle, multiple means of representation, recognizes that students differ in ways they
process and perceive information (CAST, 2011). Some students may more easily understand
concepts through visual representations, while other students prefer reading or a hands-on
approach to learning new ideas. Next, multiple means of action and expression recognizes that
students use different methods to navigate a learning environment and express knowledge
(CAST, 2011). That is, a student with physical challenges may have difficulty using a mouse on
a website or a student with cognitive differences may struggle with strategic and organizational
tasks (CAST, 2011). Also, where one student is proficient with oral expression, another student
expresses ideas better in writing. Finally, multiple means of engagement recognizes that
students’ motivations for learning also vary. Personal motivation comes from a variety of
sources and influences like culture, personal preferences, abilities, prior knowledge, and more
(CAST, 2011). For example, a highly structured environment may be preferred by some
students, motivating them to engage, while this same structure can feel restrictive and cause
some students to disengage (CAST, 2011).
As a whole, these three principles of UDL consider that there is no one style or approach
to teaching and learning. Instead, UDL promotes flexibility to meet the needs of a variety of
learning styles and needs. However, while employing UDL principles to course design can
reduce barriers or challenges, it does not seek to remove the challenges integral to learning
(CAST, 2011). UDL rejects the notion of an “average” or “typical” student in favor of designing
a flexible learning environment that considers the needs of all students with or without

disabilities. A “one-size-fits-all” approach does not fit (CAST, 2011), but like the GPS device,
the UDL approach presents a flexible environment that gives the user, or in this case the student,
options on how to interact (Rose & Gravel, 2010). The next section will explore how IHEs can
use UDL principles to improve communication and engagement between students and faculty in
online learning environments.
Designing with Accessibility in Mind
In an online learning environment, students and instructors face many barriers that can
prevent communication, engagement, and the learning process from taking place. These barriers
include sensory, cognitive, and physical (Pearson & Koppi, 2006) challenges related to web
technology, computers, or how digital information is presented. UDL’s three primary principles,
multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means
of engagement, promote a framework based on flexibility that offers choices for how a student or
instructor interacts with the learning environment (Rose et al., 2006; Rose & Gravel, 2010).
When designing online learning opportunities, IHEs need to consider techniques that support
good practice in education like those established by Chickering and Gamson (1987) and
techniques that meet the needs of today’s increasingly diverse student populations. UDL meets
both these requirements while maintaining academic rigor. The next section applies UDL’s
multiple means approach to typical components of an online learning experience like lectures,
PowerPoint presentations, videos, and discussion forums to show how IHEs can take a proactive
approach to building accessibility into a learning environment.
UDL in Practice

Lectures in an online learning environment can take the form of videos, PowerPoint
presentations (live or recorded), video conferencing, or teleconferencing. Each of these venues
presents a different challenge to different students depending on their sensory, cognitive, or
physical abilities. While one solution, like video transcripts, may help students who are deaf, a
basic transcript may not help students with low vision because they cannot appreciate content
displayed as charts or images. Using UDL’s multiple means of representation as a guideline, a
more inclusive approach would involve enhanced transcripts, captions, and perhaps a recording
of a sign-language interpreter embedded within the video (Betts et al, 2013.; Burgstahler, 2011).
Enhanced transcripts or voice-over scripts could include rich descriptions of images or graphics
used in the presentations (Burgstahler & Corey, 2008; Rose et al., 2006). Transcripts, in digital
PDF format, could be created to work effectively with text-to-speech software and the font could
be in a large format so that students with low vision have the option to read the document or use
the assistive software (Coombs, 2010). Transcripts also benefit students whose first language is
not English and students with cognitive challenges because it gives them the opportunity to
review the material multiple times and at their own pace. Any live video presentations could
also be made available as recordings for the same reasons (Rose et al., 2006).
Incorporating multiple means of action and expression can improve class participation in
online learning environments that can otherwise create significant barriers to communication on
many levels, whether the conversations take place synchronously during a specified class time or
asynchronously through posting to discussion forums. For live chat sessions, it is important to
give students the choice to interact verbally or to type their responses. Conversely, comments by
other participants need to be in multiple formats as well to meet the needs of students who

cannot hear, read captions, or have mobility challenges limiting their use of a mouse or
keyboard.
Asynchronous discussion forums do not require students to hear or speak to engage, but
they do require students to type and read what others have posted. For students with physical
challenges or dyslexia, this text-only method for communication can be troublesome. However,
by offering multiple means for students to participate, everyone can be part of the conversation.
For example, students could have the option of posting an audio clip to the forum, rather than
typing. If audio clips are uploaded, faculty could engage a volunteer to transcribe the content.
Such involvement helps students understand the concepts of universal design and inclusion
(Rose, et al., 2006). The discussion forum application selected should provide students with
options in terms of how they navigate the interface. That is, students could have to the option to
use a mouse or other pointing device, a keyboard, or voice-activated commands.
Providing options and inclusive design for specific areas of an online learning
environment like discussion forums and videos could be irrelevant if students cannot access the
website or learning management system associated with the online class. Here especially, the
learning environment needs to include all three UDL principles of multiple means of
representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement.
Although making a website accessible also relies on skilled and knowledgeable web designers,
educators need be familiar with some of these techniques to be effective partners with web
designers. First and perhaps foremost, the website should work well on a traditional PC or tablet
computer to take advantage of “built-in” accessibility functions like changing screen resolution,
text-to-speech, language choice, and voice-only commands like Siri on an iPad or Google Voice
on an Android device. From an educational content standpoint, text or graphics should adapt

well to small (seven inches) and large screens. The website design should consider those with
visual differences so font sizes can be adjustable, a text-only version of the site is available, and
careful attention is given to the use of color and contrast for students with color-related
challenges (Burgstahler, 2011). In addition, the website layout and navigation should be logical,
predictable, and easy to use. Not only does this break down barriers to students with cognitive
challenges or learning disabilities, but these design concepts are good practice for all website
design (Smith, 2014). That is not to say the website design cannot be creative. On the contrary,
a creative, but intuitive site with creative design elements can support multiple means of
engaging students. The website should present content textually and visually while avoiding
flashing or flickering imagery that could be problematic for students with seizures (Burgstahler,
2011; Healey et al., 2006). Of course, an instructor cannot control or design websites students
access for research or course assignments. However, instructors can give students the option of
additional time, finding similar content in print or audio format, or let students know of their
options for accommodations and support through a university’s office for disability services.
In any of the scenarios described above, students or faculty may use assistive technology
like screen readers or speech-to-text software to improve access to the learning environment
(Burgstahler, 2011; Rose et al., 2005). Remember, UDL does not eliminate the need for specific
accommodations like assistive technology, but it can reduce the need for and improve the use of
assistive technology when it is needed (Rose et al., 2005). For example, PDF documents and
web pages can be optimized to take advantage of embedded content that screen readers use to
read content aloud. Web developers can code web pages in a way that improves functionality for
screen readers and voice-activated navigation. With this in mind, inclusive design takes into

consideration the needs of diverse students and faculty and what kinds of assistive technologies
they may need (Rose et al., 2005).
By incorporating flexibility and options into online learning design, IHEs can start to
break down barriers to communication between students and instructors. The multiple means
inherent in UDL provide a framework to make inclusivity part of the initial design, rather than an
afterthought that requires retrofitting individuals to an environment that was not designed with
their unique characteristics in mind (Betts et al., 2013; Kerschbaum, 2012).
Limitations
Because the focus of this literature review was to explore ways to remove barriers to
communication for students with disabilities in online learning environments, this researcher did
not review several relevant, yet equally important topics. First, while communication and the
student-faculty interaction is key to learning, curriculum design for access and equality cannot be
ignored when considering the needs of a diverse population. UDL offers solutions for this aspect
of inclusive curriculum design and this would be an area worthy of future study to understand
how physical access and accessible, inclusive curriculum design can work together. Second, of
Moore’s (1989) three types of interaction in distance learning, (i.e., learner-content, learner-
instructor, and learner-learner) this literature review only focused on the learner-instruction
interaction because many scholars have posited that learner- instructor engagement is the most
important component to learning in any environment (Astin, 1999; Chickering & Gamson, 1987;
Hill et al., 2009; Hockings et al., 2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Third, in the section on
inclusive design, this researcher chose to omit Web Content Accessibility guidelines set forth by
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) because those guidelines speak primarily to web
designers and the guidelines may be too technical for the purpose of this literature review, which

is to introduce the concepts of universal design and UDL to break down barriers to
communication and engagement in online learning environments.

Recommendations
Removing barriers to communication and engagement between students and faculty with
disabilities in online learning environments can be challenging, but the literature demonstrates
that IHEs can take a proactive approach to equity and accessibility by using a universal design
for learning (UDL) approach. In addition to removing barriers, this inclusive design approach
not only reduces the need for costly accommodations, but can help to make accommodations like
assistive technology more effective for those who need it. To transition to a model that
proactively incorporates inclusivity in online course development, IHEs could create a roadmap
that combines awareness, education, and support for the entire campus community because
accessibility is a shared responsibility in which everyone plays a part (Betts et al., 2013; Hatchet
al., 2003). This effort could be led by a group representing constituents from all aspects of
university life that could customize awareness, education, and training to the needs of their
community based on variables such as university culture, existing programs, and budgetary
considerations. Although each university would have a unique roadmap, the next sections
present ideas that could be incorporated into a plan to improve access to online learning
environments.
Awareness and Education
Many universities have recognized the importance of diversity and inclusion by offering
courses with such titles, organizing workgroups, and hiring professors and student life
professionals whose task is to build awareness and education for an inclusive campus
community. On the other hand, there seems a gap in how universities specifically address
accessibility for students, and faculty, with disabilities, although the literature contains many
studies that support faculty training and development in this area (Betts et al., 2013). Building

awareness on the needs of non-traditional students, including students with different abilities, can
take many forms. Workshops, brownbag forums, and guest speakers from within the community
and industry leaders could cover a number of key topics such as diversity and inclusion,
demystifying the ADA and our role as educators, what is an office of disability services and what
do they do, and other topics. There could be two types of sessions: audience-specific, (i.e.,
faculty, student, web developer); and mixed audience sessions. Each type offers benefits such as
detailed information and techniques relevant to that audience and an opportunity to share
experiences, perceptions, and understanding across groups.
Awareness leads to action and educating the community on how to incorporate the UDL
principles effectively into online learning environments. Organizations like Academic
Impressions, The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), and the University of
Washington’s Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center, and
the IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, offer training materials, webinars, and other
resources. Some of these resources and webinars are at no cost.
Support
Along with ongoing awareness and education, IHEs need to provide technical and
administrative support for faculty who often struggle with course workloads, time constraints,
and hesitation when asked to take on new responsibilities related to online course requirements.
Like awareness and education, support can take many forms but could include workshops
specifically for faculty, as mentioned above, and expert staff trained in using web technology for
accessibility. Support could also take the form of a standardized course syllabus that still allows
instructors options to customize for their discipline. Other templates, like course templates and
webpage templates, provide faculty with ready-to-use course structures that save time and effort

when developing new courses. Another option for faculty support could include a faculty-only
wiki or discussion forum where faculty could share best practices, offer mutual support, and give
faculty members new to the online experience practice in engaging online with others.
Awareness, education, and support may seem intuitive and overly simple. In realty, a
cultural shift to a new paradigm that builds accessibility into online learning environments, rather
than relying on accommodations after-the-fact can be incredibly complex and challenging, but as
Schmetzke (2001) reminds us, it is a goal worth fighting for. Therefore, this path along a road to
more inclusive online course design requires patience, practice, and a willingness to look at
creative methods to engage the community at large. How to accomplish such a complex goal
merits further research to reveal best practices and successful methods to encourage adoption of
a new framework for course design that centers on accessibility and inclusion. It would be
interesting to investigate a UDL framework that provides multiple means of representation,
multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement for the purpose of
educating the campus community on the importance of and implementation of inclusive course
design.
Conclusion
IHEs’ missions to prepare students to serve society have not changed much since the
colonial colleges; they are still committed to not only educating students, but also to preparing
them to serve society. The students who seek a postsecondary education have changed and they
now represent a diverse group of people whose cultures, languages, ages, and more defy
definition as traditional. Further, these non-traditional students seek an education in non-
traditional ways such as online and distance education, which, along with legislation, has helped
a growing number of students with disabilities pursue a postsecondary education. This

combination of non-traditional students seeking a non-traditional education presents IHEs with
significant challenges in how to meet the needs of these students, particularly those with
disabilities. Students with different sensory, cognitive, and physical abilities face numerous
barriers when taking classes online. One of the biggest challenges they face is the ability to
communicate effectively online with their instructors.
A comprehensive review of the literature shows that IHEs can use a universal design
approach to reduce barriers to communication and improve faculty-student engagement in online
learning environments. Universal design incorporates a process that addresses that needs of
many, rather than the “average” or the “normal.” By definition, universal design “makes
products and services accessible and usable for a broad audience (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008, p.
9). In higher education, universal design is a thoughtful, proactive approach for creating
products like courses, materials, services, programs, etc., that meet the needs of students with
multiple characteristics (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008). Rather than relying on a social
constructionist view of who is normal and who is disabled (Evans et al., 2005), this more
inclusive approach adopts a social justice perspective (Brennan & Naidoo, 2008) to provide
equity and access to education by removing barriers, including barriers to communication and
engagement.
The principles of UDL, multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and
expression, and multiple means of engagement can help reduce barriers to communication in an
online learning environment by giving students options in how they interact with the online
environment. UDL’s flexible approach to course development and curriculum acknowledges
that students differ in what they learn, how they learn, and why they learn in a way that meets the
needs of students with disabilities, but also students without disabilities (CAST 2011).

Techniques like providing documents in multiple formats, both audio and print, making
instructions and website or online courses intuitive to navigate, considering use of color and text
size before creating documents or online content not only make content more accessible, but also
exhibits good website design practices (Smith, 2014).
Universal design for learning in online learning environments provides a practical and
guided means to remove barriers to communication and improve student-faculty engagement.

References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2012).
Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory
to improve practice. In L. Moeller, & J. B. Huett (Eds.), Next Generation of
Distance Education (pp. 49-69). New York, NY: Springer.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010: Household economic studies.
Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Barnard-Brak, L., Patton, V., & Sulak, T. (2012). The relationship of institutional
distance education and students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 25(1), 5 – 19.
Berge, Z. (2013). Barriers to communication in distance education.Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 14(1)
Betts, K., Cohen, A. H., Veit, D. P., Alphin Jr., H. C., Broadus, C., & Allen, D. (2013)
Strategies to increase online student success for students with disabilities. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 49-64.
Boyd, R. K., & Moulton, B. (2004). Universal design for online education: Access for all.
In D. Monolescue, C. C. Schifter, & L. Greenwood (Eds.), The distance education
evolution: Issues and case studies (pp 67-116). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Publishing.

Brennan, J. & Naidoo, R.(2008). Higher education and the achievement (and/or
prevention) of equity and social justice. Higher Education, 56 (3), pp. 287-302
Buerck, J. P., Malmstrom, T., & Peppers, E. (2003). Learning environments and learning
styles: Non-traditional student enrollment and success in an Internet-based versus
a lecture-based computer science course. Learning Environments Research 6(2),
137-155.
Burgstahler, S. (2008). Universal design in higher education. In S. Burgstahler & R. Cory
(Eds.), Universal design in higher education: From Principles to Practice (pp. 3-
20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Burgstahler, S. (2011). Universal design: Implications for computing education. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://staff.washington.edu/sherylb/ud_computing.html
Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, C. C., (2008). Universal design in higher education: From
principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cao, Q., Griffin, T. E., & Bai, X. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for
student satisfaction with course web sites. Journal of Information Systems
Education, Vol. 20(3), 331-338.
CAST (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA:
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST).
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1997). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. Washington Center News.

Charalambos V., Michalinos, Z., & Chamberlain, R. (2004). The design of online
learning communities: Critical issues. Educational Media International Volume
41(2), 135-143.
Coombs, N. (2010). Making Online teaching accessible..San Francisco, CA : Jossey-
Bass.
Dika, S. L. (2012). Relations with faculty as social capital for college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(4), 596-610.
Evans, N. J., Assadi, J. L., & Herriott, T K. (2005). Encouraging the development of
disability allies. New Directions for Student Services, (110), 67-79.
Fetzner, M. (2013).What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13-27.
Franke, A. H., Bérubé, M. F., O'Neil, R. M., & Kurland, J. E. (2012). Accommodating
faculty members who have disabilities. American Association of University
Professors, 98(4), 30-42.
Fung, Y.Y.H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting
factors Open Learning, Vol. 19, No. 2,135-149.
Gornitsky, M. (2012). Distance education accessibility for students with disabilities.
Distance Learning (8)3, 47-53.
Grammer, G., Kirtley, L. G., Sharif, S., & DeLoera, P. (2013). Oral communication
assessment project. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, University of
Redlands, Redlands, CA.

Gutmann, A. (n.d.). Penn compact: Building on a decade of progress. University of
Pennsylvania. Retrieved from: http://www.upenn.edu/president/penn-
compact/penn-compact-landing)
Hatch, J. T., Ghere, D. L., & Jirik, K. N. (2003). Empowering students with severe
disabilities: A case study. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and
disability: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp.171-183).
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy.
Harvard University (n.d.). What is Harvard’s mission statement? Retrieved from:
http://www.harvard.edu/faqs/mission-statement
Healey, M., Bradley, A., Fuller, M., & Hall, T. (2006). Listening to students: the
experiences of disabled students of learning at university. In M. Adams & S.
Brown (Eds.), Towards inclusive learning in higher education: developing
curricula for disabled students (32-44). New York, NY: Routledge.
Higbee, J. L. (2003) Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal
design in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
Hill, J. R., Song, L. & West, R. E. (2009) Social learning theory and web-based learning
environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. American
Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88-103.
Hitchcock, C. & Stahler, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal
design for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, (18)A.

Hockings, C. Brett, P. & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference—inclusive learning
and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance
Education, (33) 2, 237-252.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196.
Johnson, D. M. & Fox, J. A. (2013). Creating curb cuts in the classroom: Adapting
universal design principles to education. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum
transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education
(pp.7-21). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education
and Urban Literacy.
June, W. A. (2014). Indifference toward disabled scholars, especially at conferences,
troubles a disabilities scholar. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from: http://chronicle.com/article/Indifference-Toward-Disabled/147149/
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different interaction on learning
achievement. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(2), 153-
162.
Ke, F. & Chavez, A. F. (2013). Web-based teaching and learning across culture and age.
New York, NY: Springer.
Kerschbaum, L. K. (2012) Access in the academy. American Association of University
Professors, 98(5), 37-40.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. (2006). What matters to student
success: A review of the literature. Commissioned report for the National
Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student

Success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Retrieved August 27, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from
http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/si/sites/bcrc.bio.umass.edu.si/files/Krathwohl_Revised_
Taxonomy.pdf
Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives.
London: Routledge
Menchaca, M.P. & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors
in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Muilenburg, L. Y. & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor
analytic study. Distance Education (26)1, 29–48.
Myers, K. A., & Bastian, J. J. (2010). Understanding communication preferences of
college students with visual disabilities. Journal of College Student Development,
(51)3, 265-278.
National Communication Association (NCA). (1998). Speaking and listening
competencies for college students. Retrieved from:
https://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Teaching_and_Learning/Assessment_Res
ources/PDF-Speaking_and_Listening_Competencies_for_College_Students.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates /
Definitions and Data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Distance education at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf
Nichols, A. H. & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Removing barriers academic and social
engagement for students with disabilities. In S. R. Harper, & S. J. Quaye (Eds.),
Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations (pp. 39-52). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of
multicultural education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Owens, J., Hardcastle, L., & Richardson, B. (2009). Learning from a distance: The
experience of remote students. Journal of distance education 23(3), 53-74.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
Pearson, E. & Koppi,T. (2006). Supporting staff in developing online learning, In M.
Adams & S. Brown (Eds.). Towards inclusive learning in higher education:
developing curricula for disabled students (56-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rose, D. H. & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Getting from here to there: UDL, global positioning
Systems, and lessons for improving education. Retrieved from: CAST.org.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006).
Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on

principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 19(2), 17.
Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and
Universal Design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. L. Burn, K.
Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of Special Education Technology
Research and Practice (pp. 507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge By Design,
Inc.
Ross, C. (2010). Engaging distance students in learning: What matters to students, what
motivates them and how can engagement in learning be fostered? Lower Hutt,
New Zealand: The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.
Schmetzke, A. (2001). Online distance education: 'Anytime, anywhere' but not for
everyone. Information Technology and Disabilities, 7(2), 1-23.
Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student
engagement in online discussion: a case study. Research in Learning Technology
17( 2), 89–100.
Smith, J. (2014, March 26). Accessibility Lipstick on a Usability Pig. [Web log post].
WebAim.org Blog. Retrieved from: http://webaim.org/blog/accessibility-lipstick-
on-a-usability-pig/
Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2011). Effective inclusive education: Equipping education
professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects, 41(3), 323-339.
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Umbach, P. D. & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college
faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education,
46(2), 153-184.
University of Pennsylvania (n.d.). Penn’s Heritage. Retrieved from
http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2012). Understanding
the implications of online learning for educational productivity. Washington,
D.C.
Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., &, Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter?
Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student
Development, 54(6), 591-611
Winter, J., Cotton, D., Gavina, J., & Yorke, J. D. (2010). Effective e-learning? Multi-
tasking, distractions and boundary management by graduate students in an online
environment. Research in Learning Technology ,18,(1), 71–83.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 08).
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (n.d.). Effective Communication.
Retrieved from: http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.pdf

Removing Barriers to Online Communication for Students with Disabilities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Removing Barriers to Online Communication for Students with Disabilities

Similar to Removing Barriers to Online Communication for Students with Disabilities (20)

Removing Barriers to Online Communication for Students with Disabilities