2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Understanding the needs of students with disabilities (SWD) is crucial for inclusive learning in college education. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)-based methodologies are recognized as a best practice to improve the accessibility for SWD. Although we see increased technology usage and changes in course design after COVID-19, it is still unclear if UDL-based practices will continue to be adopted and persist in their use, and where the future opportunities are for more inclusive engineering education for all students, and for SWD in particular. In this study, we surveyed faculty and undergraduate students (predominantly in engineering) about their experiences with 16 UDL-based course design practices and their perceived usefulness at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). These practices span the three UDL guidelines (representation, engagement, action-expression) and essential accessibility features. We also surveyed instructors about their knowledge of UDL and the barriers to implementing these practices in engineering/STEM courses. We also identified the differences in responses between underrepresented groups in engineering and the general student population, as well as differences between students and faculty. The survey design allowed students with physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities to self-report as a SWD. Additionally, we identify students as Students with Access Challenges and Accommodation Needs (SACAN) if they faced conditions that prevented them from attending class at some point while not having an officially recognized disability by the university or if they are a SWD. Preference regarding feedback methods, class formats, and demographic questions such as gender and major were also included. Our survey results from 148 students (including 50 SWD, 77 SACAN) of more than 20 majors showed that: 1) The five most useful UDL practices among all students are: searchable recorded lectures, flexible deadlines, transcripts for videos, official discussion platform, and alternative learning formats to lectures (i.e: textbooks, and slides); 2) Female students experience UDL practices in their courses significantly less (False Discovery Rate (FDR) controlled p < 0.03 for 13 practices); 3) Female students and SWD are significantly more uncomfortable giving direct feedback to instructors (chisq p < 0.006); 4) SWD experience recorded lectures, onboarding forms for accessibility, and alternative learning formats significantly (FDR controlled p < 0.015) less than students without disabilities (SWOD); 5) All groups of students rank and experience the UDL guidelines in the following order: representation, action-expression, and engagement; 6) Although students rate the usefulness of all the UDL features higher than their frequency (except
“autograders”), some features show large differences between students perceived usefulness and how often they are actually experienced. For example, “flexible deadlines” is considered useful (ranked 2nd in usefulness) while experienced very infrequently (ranked 7th in frequency).
The 25 faculty responses on rankings of the UDL practices differ with that of the students; notably, “frequent low-stake tests” is valued among the faculty, but was not in the top five of the students’ responses. Faculty responses suggest that the major barriers in implementing UDL practices are the lack of awareness of accessibility features and lack of training for technologies such as creating recordings and transcripts. Our study provides empirical findings about opportunities and barriers for implementing UDL practices for all stakeholders in developing more inclusive courses.