You are here:

Engaging, Accessible, and Memorable: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Applications in Online and Blended Higher Education Courses
PROCEEDING

, University of Houston, United States ; , University of Rhode Island, United States ; , University of Louisville, United States ; , EDA Solutions; New York Institute of Technology, United States ; , , Eastern New Mexico University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This interactive panel presentation and discussion offers insights and conversation around applications of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to online and blended higher education courses Panelists will explore how the UDL principles of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression can address learner variability and improve access and connection in online learning Strategies and exemplars from research and practice will be shared, and the audience will take part in contributing questions and generating solutions from the UDL perspective.

Citation

Gronseth, S., Dalton, E., Bauder, D., McPherson, S., Singh, A. & Viner, M. (2018). Engaging, Accessible, and Memorable: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Applications in Online and Blended Higher Education Courses. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2169-2174). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 14, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2015). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-reportcard-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015
  2. Anderson, D.L., Standerford, N.S., & Imdieke, S. (2010). A self-study on building community in the online classroom. Networks, 12(2). Retrieved from http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/networks/article/download/261/392Bailey,J.(2016).Everyonecommunicates:Courses&tutorials.Retrievedfromhttp://www.everyonecommunicates.org/resources/courses.html
  3. Bigatel, P.M. (2016). Student engagement strategies for the online learning environment. Magna Publications. Retrieved from: https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/student-engagement-how-to-help-students-succeed-in-theonline-environment/
  4. Brouwer, N., Ekimova, L., Jasinska, M., Van Gastel, L., & Virgailaite-Meckauskaite, E. (2009). Enhancing mathematics by online assessments, two cases of remedial education considered. Industry and Higher Education, 23(4), 277-284.
  5. Cavanagh, T. (2013). The new is now the norm. Pegagus. Retrieved from http://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/the-new-is-now-the-norm/ Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2017). UDL on campus: Universal Design for higher education. Retrieved from http://udloncampus.cast.org/home
  6. Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation. (2017). How can you teach inclusively? Retrieved from https://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/building-inclusive-classrooms/inclusive-teaching-strategies.html
  7. Dalton, E.M. (2017). Universal design for learning: Guiding principles to reduce barriers to digital& Media literacy competence. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 9(2), 17-29. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol9/iss2/2 Dalton, E., Gronseth, S., & Anderson, C. (2017). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in higher education: Possibilities, pitfalls, & Practices. In P. Resta& S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1501-1506). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing
  8. He, Y. (2014). Universal Design for Learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–298.
  9. Kharbach, M. (2016, December 30). 9 Fundamental digital skills for 21st century teachers. Retrieved from http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2016/12/9-fundamental-digital-skills-for-21st.html.
  10. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 327-337.
  11. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(030303), 1-47.
  12. Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., and Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: Center for Applied Special Technology, Inc.
  13. Neuhauser, C. (2010). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 2, 99-113.
  14. Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers' beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122-131.
  15. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575.
  16. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html
  17. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Success Act (ESSA). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa U.S. Department of Education. (2016). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/
  18. Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A.M., & Rabah, J. (2014, January). Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of Web 2.0. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 110-119). IEEE.
  19. Viner, M., & Singh, A. (2017, March). Teacher candidates and self-efficacy using instructional technology. In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2497-2498). Association for the

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts