Introduction: Embracing improvement instead of pursuing perfection

Accessibility in online learning has continued to gain attention in recent years (Fenneberg, 2022; Lewicki-Townley et al., 2021; Oyarzun et al., 2021). This may be due to a combination of factors including a societal shift in awareness of accessibility, an increase in learners disclosing disabilities (NCES, 2016, 2019), the growth and reliance on online learning (Garrett et al., 2022), and recent legal pressures (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023). This increased attention highlights the need for instructional designers (IDs) to consider accessibility in their online course designs from the start. However, there has been limited research into instructional designers' role, responsibilities, ethical considerations, and processes in accessible online course design (Lomellini et al., in press; Singleton et al., 2019).

Instructional designers must navigate ethical challenges associated with legal mandates for accessibility, technological advances, limited resource allocation, and the need to ensure an inclusive educational experience for all learners. On one hand, institutions are legally mandated to ensure accessibility for all students. Alternately, instructional designers grapple with the practical reality that achieving “perfection” in accessibility can be a challenging and, at times, unattainable goal. When accessibility is thought of in terms of all-or-nothing, it often results in instructional designers feeling intimidated, overwhelmed, or as if they have failed in some way if they do not achieve totality. More research on the impact of the increased ethical and legal pressures on IDs to create accessible online learning environments is warranted. We argue for a more iterative, flexible, and reflective design-based approach incorporating accessibility as a core tenet to drive progress and reduce the preoccupation with perfection.

Avoiding bias in design and conducting ethical design practices is a much-discussed topic in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). Friedman and Hendry (2019) argue for clear goals across human-centered professions in the use of broad and more flexible design methods. The scope of ethics in accessibility extends beyond merely reacting to specific issues; instead, it asks professionals to take a proactive and intentional approach. Significantly, the ethical obligation for IDs is to make adjustments that are not contingent on the presence of disabled learners but rather to consider the inevitable diversity of learners (Meyer et al., 2014). However, the current instructional theories and models of practice often do not consider the ethical role of IDs in creating equitable and inclusive futures.

Often stakeholders including faculty, leadership, and even IDs contend that accessibility remediations should wait for a person with a disability to request accommodations. This perspective is problematic for several reasons. The reactive approach places the burden on the individual to disclose a disability and go through an often convoluted and lengthy process to obtain accommodations that may be limited by institutional resources (De Los Santos et al., 2019; Friedensen et al., 2021). Assuming that all learners will request accommodations overlooks the reality that some may not or do not feel comfortable making this type of request due to stigma, discrimination, lack of diagnoses, not wanting to be treated differently, etc. (Black et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2021). This can lead to their needs being unmet. If a student chooses to disclose their disability, any delays in accommodations can impede their ability to stay current in the course. Retrofitting courses for accessibility can be more time-consuming and costly than integrating accessibility from the start. By building accessible content initially, designers prevent delays in the delivery of course materials and disruptions to the learning experience for those learners with disabilities. A proactive approach ensures that all learners, including those with disabilities, have equitable access to educational materials at the outset. This shift in approach aligns with the principles of UDL, which advocates for creating learning environments that are accessible and reducing the need for individual accommodations (Meyer et al., 2014).

Designing courses with accessibility in mind from the beginning also promotes a culture of inclusivity and respects the diversity of learners. It acknowledges that disabilities are a part of human variation and that accessible design benefits all learners (Meyer et al., 2014). For example, adding closed captions to videos can aid learners who have a different first language than the video content, viewing in noisy environments, as well as learners with hearing impairments. Overall, waiting for requests to provide accommodations to learners is insufficient, ineffective, and potentially discriminatory. Proactive design promotes equity, reduces barriers for all learners, and acknowledges the diverse needs of the student population from the outset.

Despite the increased attention on proactively creating accessible online learning to meet diverse learners' needs, research into the processes and implications for instructional designers remains limited. In this chapter we explore the ethical considerations that guide IDs to actively incorporate the perspectives and needs of disabled individuals, demystifying the decision process, and navigating considerations made during development. Our aim is the need for genuine commitment towards online learning that fosters an inclusive environment where every individual has the opportunity to thrive. We analyze specific ethical issues surrounding accessible online course design and guide IDs to embrace a “progress over perfection” mentality. In practical terms, prioritizing progress over the action of perfection involves distinguishing between achievable tasks and working towards them. This entails embracing lessons from our mistakes, refining our ideas through iteration, and maintaining openness to alternative approaches.

Legal Mandates

Legal mandates are an often cited driver for accessibility initiatives (Katsiyannis, et al. 2009). Educational institutions are required by law to comply with legal frameworks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, including public colleges and universities. This includes ensuring that electronic and information technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities, such as providing access to online course materials. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs, including public universities. It requires institutions to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to educational programs and activities offered by the institution, including those conducted online. Section 508, which applies to institutions receiving federal funding, sets standards for the accessibility of electronic and information technology, including websites, for individuals with disabilities. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a “Dear Colleague” letter reiterating the importance of complying with these accessibility laws. Accessibility laws are generally aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), a set of highly technical guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to make web content more accessible.

Legal mandates and guidelines, while an essential step to close the equity gap for people with disabilities, can also reduce the complexity of accessibility to a simplistic yes/no with a negative effect on the overall implementation of instructional design. It can lead instructional designers and other stakeholders to assume that content is either accessible or it is not. This type of all-or-nothing perspective limits the potential for progress and incremental steps toward more accessible design.

The Challenges of Imperfect Accessibility

Instructional designers in higher education face various challenges when seeking to comply with laws and align online course design with WCAG (Gronseth, 2018). First, WCAG is highly technical and at a minimum, requires knowledge of HTML and ARIA, making it difficult for instructional designers to interpret. Second, Instructional designers are rarely taught more than an introductory lesson in accessible course design and potential frameworks that create accessible and inclusive online learning in preparatory programs (Lomellini & Lowenthal, 2022; Singleton et al., 2019). Research also suggests a lack of accessible course design as a core competency in instructional design job frameworks (e.g., IBSTPI, 2012; Klein & Kelly, 2018; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017; Lowenthal et al., 2021; Ritzhaupt et al. 2021). Further complicating matters, IDs often collaborate with faculty members who also have varying levels of awareness and training in accessibility principles (Oyarzun et al., 2021).

Ensuring instructors understand the importance of accessibility and possess the skills to implement changes can be a persistent challenge for IDs. Assisting instructors in this regard can include ongoing professional development that enhances instructors’ skills and knowledge in creating accessible online content (Singleton et al., 2019; Westine et al., 2019). Instructors are subject matter experts but may not have the opportunity or resources to develop the knowledge, skills, and pedagogical strategies to incorporate accessibility best practices into their course designs (Burgstahler, 2022; Xie & Rice, 2021). Instructional designers are thus faced with the ethical dilemma of preserving their relationships with faculty to efficiently collaborate on the overall course design or risk that relationship by pushing specifically for more accessibility. For example, a recent study conducted by Xie et al. (2021) suggested that advocating for accessible online course design can lead to strain in the collaboration between faculty and instructional designers. This tension is attributed to faculty members' misconceptions about disability and a reluctance to embrace changes in teaching methodologies. Focusing on adaptability, flexibility, open-mindedness, and empowerment should be at the core of any effort to change mindsets or approaches towards accessibility.

In cases where existing online courses must be retroactively aligned with WCAG standards, instructional designers encounter the challenge of addressing legacy content that may not have been initially designed with accessibility in mind. Reconstructing courses to meet WCAG requirements can be labor-intensive, and may require creative solutions to balance the need for accessibility with the constraints of pre-existing content. For instance, let’s think about an instructional designer working at a public institution with a legal obligation to provide accessible online learning for a learner. The legal obligation reinforces a perceived dichotomy between content that is ‘legal or illegal’ in the course, with the latter being considered unethical and undesired. The instructional designer has limited knowledge of code and finds WCAG hard to comprehend. The designer understands the legal obligation but fears repercussions if they do not create a “perfectly accessible” online course. Most instructional designers desire to reduce barriers for all learners, but the pressure and fear of failure can be daunting. In this scenario, the yes/no dichotomy is reinforced. This in turn may lead the designer to take on the approach of completing a ‘checklist’ to provide accessibility, failing to explore other solutions, technologies, or frameworks that may improve accessibility and usability on a broader scale.

Instructional designers recognize that technology and design practices are constantly evolving, and achieving perfect accessibility can be elusive. Technological advancements may outpace the development of universally applicable accessibility solutions, leading to a perpetual struggle to keep pace with evolving technology and standards. For example, recent advancements in video communication have demonstrated the benefits of multimedia in online learning (Morris et al., 2016). However, automated captioning technology is rarely accurate enough to provide an equivalent experience for those who may need it (Anderson, 2020). Likewise, audio description technology, or an audio track that describes the visual content for those with vision issues, is not yet widely available. Online course developers can edit captions or create audio descriptions, but that is often time-consuming and costly. There are several design strategies and best practices for creating video content that can reduce barriers such as working from a script that can become a transcript, editing automated captions as a starting point, and describing the visual content as a part of the presentation. However, when resources are limited, instructional designers may have to decide whether to devote time, money, and personnel toward editing captions or other priorities.

Ethical decision-making in delivering accessible online learning involves a nuanced approach to resource allocation. Instructional designers often grapple with the challenge of prioritizing accessibility initiatives within budgetary, time, and other resource constraints. Balancing the need for timely course delivery with the nuanced nature of accessibility enhancements presents a significant challenge. This dilemma raises questions about whether institutions can reasonably be expected to meet ever-evolving accessibility standards within the constraints of academic timelines.

The ethical responsibility of instructional designers, therefore, involves navigating this delicate balance between legal compliance and the pragmatic challenges associated with achieving “perfect” accessibility. While recognizing the imperative to prioritize the needs of students with disabilities, designers may find themselves advocating to implement best practices for design within the constraints of available resources.

Accessible Frameworks

Design is all about options, possibilities, feedback, and iteration - not perfection (Moore, 2023). The design of online courses and materials is intended to be a purposeful activity that optimizes benefits and minimizes barriers. Accessible design should be an extension of this thinking. However, instructional designers frequently fall into the accessible or inaccessible dichotomy spiral. This leads to feelings of failure or unethical/imperfect accessibility in a course. Others grow increasingly adverse to striving for this perceived perfection as an unattainable goal. In fact, instructional designers may forgo the challenging conversations advocating for accessibility with administrators and faculty in favor of design considerations (Lomellini et al., in press). If there is no such thing as a perfectly accessible course or a perfectly designed course, how can we utilize the resources and knowledge we do have to design the most accessible courses possible?

IDs have other resources and tools that can be used as a guideline to inspire critical thinking and iterative design. For example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which has been aligned with WCAG (Gronseth, 2018), is a less technical set of guidelines intended to optimize learning for all by reducing barriers and empowering independent learners (CAST, 2024). The framework is centered on three core principles: Engagement (The “Why” of Learning), Representation (The “What” of Learning), and Action and Expression (The “How” of Learning). Embedded within each of these principles are suggested guidelines for implementation and application. Rejecting the idea of a typical learner, the concept of learner variability as found in UDL underscores the uniqueness of individuals in the learning process, emphasizing that there is no singular path to mastery (Meyer et al., 2014). No singular path to mastery also means there is no perfect design that would work for all students. However, designing multiple options for engagement, representation, and action and expression empowers students to both explore and tailor learning independently to their needs in any given situation, including temporary and permanent disabilities.

UDL is often positioned on the other extreme compared to the technical guidelines of WCAG. UDL can seem too loose and without clear, reproducible steps to guarantee inclusive learning environments. The perceived lack of clarity on how to implement UDL can also cause tension for those trying to achieve perfect accessibility and comply with legal obligations. There is an opportunity to shift this perception and debunk the myth that UDL is either too nebulous, not applicable, or too time-consuming. In this instance, concise and accessible language must be used to not only define UDL as a learning framework but to demonstrate how its guidelines and principles can be tangibly applied in relevant and manageable ways. IDs can start by positioning UDL as a flexible and proactive framework that encourages learner preference, empowerment, and an equitable learning experience for all. UDL materializes in the variety of assessments offered to learners (thinking beyond the traditional research paper and multiple choice exam), the diversity of learning materials made available (i.e., eBooks, podcasts, Word documents, videos with captions), and the ability to pivot and adjust expectations or goals for learners.

The UDL guidelines can serve as suggestive solutions that guide the design and development of more inclusive learning experiences. Instructional designers do not need to check each box to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of an online course design. Moving away from the all-or-nothing approach can help make accessible course design more approachable for instructional designers and faculty alike. Instead of trying to check off each UDL principle and apply all of them to an entire course, an instructional designer can help a faculty member narrow their focus to one area of the course where students often struggle (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Identifying a real need for intervention and then trying various solutions guided by UDL and other course design and accessibility best practices can help make incremental improvements in the course. This approach favors progress and improvements in accessibility over the idea of attempting to achieve “perfection” by implementing all items in the UDL framework at once.

It is crucial to underscore that the goal of UDL is not to multiply resources or require each guideline to be explicitly checked off but to create a learning environment that proactively addresses diverse learner needs. By adopting UDL principles, educators can design instructional materials that are inherently flexible, reducing the necessity for duplicative efforts and improving inclusivity without compromising efficiency. Research suggests that training on UDL-related topics translates to improved implementation (Linder et al., 2015; West et al., 2016; Westine et al., 2019). With this in mind, we are reminded that focusing on progress makes accessible course design possible and a worthwhile goal to pursue.

While UDL can be a more digestible framework to draw ideas and solutions that support learners while reducing accessibility barriers (CAST, 2024), UDL does not answer all questions about accessibility and uncertainty around the legitimacy or compliance of the instructional designer’s work in the course. UDL is not the sole framework or learning theory for these purposes, nor is it the panacea for addressing inequities in learning. However, UDL has been linked to other frameworks such as the Community of Inquiry framework (Rogers & Gronseth, 2021), active learning (Rogers & Gronseth, 2021), Inclusive ADDIE (Gamrat, 2022), and quality assurance frameworks (Baldwin & Ching, 2021; Evmenova, 2021; Lowenthal et al., 2021).

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) is another complementary framework that recognizes the importance of adopting a flexible teaching approach by emphasizing the cultural experiences of students as valuable strengths in their educational progress. In this context, CRT, as an instructional approach, encourages the significance of positionality and cultural diversity as assets that enrich the broader learning environment while fostering principles of equity, inclusion, and belonging. Instructional designers and professional development opportunities can assist instructors in enhancing and refining their abilities as culturally responsive professionals empowering them to create learning environments that are pertinent and impactful for today’s learning (Muñiz, 2019).

The key to ethically leveraging pedagogical frameworks is to remember that they are guidelines and not intended to be perceived as checklists with definitive answers. Design itself involves creativity to solve problems and iteration to improve designs over time.

Moving Beyond Quality Assurance Checklists

When building toward consistent and quality online courses, many institutions turn to a variety of quality assurance frameworks (Conklin et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2020). Some examples of these frameworks include the Open SUNY Course Quality Review Scorecard (OSCQR), Quality Matters (QM), and National Standards for Quality Online Courses (NSQOC). Research suggests that institutions leverage these frameworks in a spectrum of ways ranging from strict adherence to peer review programs to internal adaptations mapped to institutional needs and resources (Lenert & Janes, 2017). Quality assurance frameworks can play a crucial role in establishing benchmarks for excellence in online course design. They can provide a structured approach to evaluating and improving various aspects of instructional design, thereby promoting consistency and high standards across educational offerings (Baldwin & Ching, 2021).

The ethical tension for instructional designers arises when these frameworks place disproportionate emphasis on particular components of design, potentially diverting attention away from equally vital aspects, such as accessible design. From the perspective of an instructional designer, the dilemma raises ethical concerns related to the potential neglect of accessibility in pursuit of a predetermined framework score. For example, in the pursuit of achieving a specified score within a quality assurance framework, instructional designers may feel compelled to prioritize elements that contribute directly to gaining enough points to “pass” the evaluation. One example might be measurable learning objectives. This particular item in development may be perceived as a “quick win" that is readily quantifiable, achievable, and demonstratable within the framework's parameters. Therefore emphasis on developing measurable objectives may inadvertently leave less time and resources for designers to allocate to the nuances of accessible design (Lomellini et al., in press).

Previous research cautioned against relying too heavily on standards and highlighted the risk of oversimplifying the essential elements of designing accessible and inclusive online courses (Baldwin & Ching, 2021; Lowenthal et al., 2021). The reduction of inclusive course design to a brief checklist in quality assurance frameworks may also foster a problematic compliance perspective similar to the dichotomy of accessible versus inaccessible or legal versus illegal (Lowenthal et al., 2021). It also reinforces the perception of accessibility as a checklist rather than a comprehensive approach focused on learners’ needs and design solutions. Instead, accessibility should be considered an integral dimension of online course design, ensuring that educational content is inclusive of diverse learner needs. Neglecting accessibility in favor of achieving a desired score on a quality assurance framework undermines the ethical responsibility of instructional designers to create an equitable learning environment for all students, including those with disabilities. This tension highlights the potential for a trade-off between adherence to a predefined framework and the comprehensive integration of accessibility principles.

To address this ethical dilemma, instructional designers can advocate for a balanced approach that prioritizes both quality and accessible design components. Institutions should recognize the interconnectedness of quality considerations and accessibility to avoid creating a hierarchical structure within quality assurance frameworks that may inadvertently steer resources away from critical components. Moreover, fostering a culture of awareness and continuous improvement can help mitigate the risk of neglecting accessibility in the pursuit of framework scores. Instructional designers can certainly use quality assurance frameworks and other accessibility checklists as a guide or a starting point. Accessible design supports and empowers learners to think, engage, and demonstrate learning. Purposefully keeping disabled students in mind and critically analyzing designs can be one tool in an instructional designer’s toolbox.

In conclusion, the ethical dilemma faced by instructional designers when required to adhere to quality assurance frameworks lies in the potential prioritization of certain components at the expense of critical elements like accessible design. Balancing these priorities requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the interconnected nature of quality online course design, advocating for the comprehensive integration of both quality and accessibility principles to fulfill the ethical obligation of creating inclusive learning environments.

Reflective Practice

Instructional designers recognize that adherence to WCAG and laws is not only a legal obligation but also a moral responsibility. Upholding these standards is seen as an ethical commitment to promoting social justice and eliminating barriers to education for individuals with disabilities. From an instructional designer's perspective, the ethical dilemma is rooted in the tension between legal compliance (perceived and real) and the inherent imperfections in making online courses accessible. Ethical considerations in instructional design play a pivotal role in shaping the learning experiences of individuals, and designers bear the responsibility of ensuring educational content is not only effective but accessible and inclusive. Striking a balance between technology integration and learner success is essential, as designers navigate the ever-evolving landscape of educational technology and accessibility.

One way to strike such a balance is to be intentional in how we think about the problem of ethical and accessible online course design. Problem framing in ethical design refers to the deliberate and systematic process of defining the ethical challenges and considerations inherent in a given design context. It involves shaping the boundaries and parameters of a design problem in a manner that brings attention to the ethical dimensions, potential implications, and stakeholder perspectives. Central to problem framing in ethical design is the recognition that ethical considerations are integral components of the design context and should not be treated as mere add-ons or afterthoughts. By explicitly framing ethical issues from the outset, designers can navigate the complexities of ethical decision-making, balancing competing values and interests.

We’ve discussed the ethical decisions and problem framing for accessible online learning. Let’s explore some practical approaches you can consider in your designs by way of an activity.

Summary

In conclusion, the complexities surrounding legal mandates, the challenges of imperfection, and the pressures of adhering to quality assurance frameworks present significant challenges for instructional designers striving to create inclusive online learning environments. Legal requirements like the ADA and Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act serve as critical drivers for accessibility initiatives, yet they can also reduce accessibility efforts to a binary compliance issue. This oversimplification can hinder incremental progress and stifle creativity in solving accessibility problems. Furthermore, the technical nature of guidelines such as WCAG, coupled with limited training and resources for instructional designers, compounds the difficulty of achieving (and moving beyond) compliance without sacrificing instructional quality. Addressing these issues through more research can uncover how to better motivate and equip instructional designers to embrace accessibility as a core design principle rather than a mere legal obligation.

Additionally, exploring the benefits of problem framing and other innovative approaches could transform the way instructional designers tackle accessibility challenges. By shifting focus from an all-or-nothing compliance mentality to a more nuanced, reflective, and iterative process, designers can make meaningful, incremental improvements in course accessibility. Incorporating frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and culturally responsive teaching can further enrich this process, offering flexible, adaptable strategies that meet diverse learner needs. This research can guide the development of supportive training and resources, enabling instructional designers to effectively balance legal mandates with creative, student-centered design. Ultimately, fostering a culture that values continuous improvement and inclusivity will empower instructional designers to create more accessible and equitable online learning environments.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Understanding of how the current accessible versus inaccessible and compliant versus incompliant thinking impacts instructional designers' motivation and ability to create accessible online learning environments is limited. More research is essential to uncover how these ethical dichotomies influence designers' decision-making processes and the quality of the learning materials they produce. For instance, the legal ramifications of failing to design accessible content might pressure instructional designers to prioritize accessibility, but without adequate support and resources, this pressure could lead to frustration and decreased motivation. Conversely, understanding how accessibility, as an intrinsic value, influences motivation could help develop better support systems and training programs for instructional designers, ensuring that accessibility is seen not only as a legal requirement but as a fundamental aspect of good instructional design.

Further research could also explore the benefits of incorporating problem-framing activities into the instructional design process, particularly when focusing on accessibility. Problem framing involves defining and understanding the context and requirements of a problem before devising solutions. By employing this technique, instructional designers can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the accessibility challenges faced by diverse learners. This approach could lead to more innovative and effective design strategies, ultimately enhancing the accessibility of online learning environments. Studies could investigate how problem framing influences the designers' approach to accessibility, their creativity in finding solutions, and the overall quality and inclusivity of the learning experiences they create. Understanding these dynamics would provide valuable insights into how to better support instructional designers in creating accessible online education.

This line of research could significantly impact ID practice by informing the development of better policies, training programs, and resources. By understanding how a shift in thinking towards progress as opposed to compliance influences motivation and ability, institutions could create more supportive environments that encourage the prioritization of accessibility. For instance, if research reveals that legal pressures alone are insufficient and may even lead to frustration, organizations might focus on fostering intrinsic motivation through professional development opportunities that highlight the benefits and importance of accessibility. This shift could lead to more instructional designers seeing accessibility as a fundamental part of their design process rather than a burdensome requirement, ultimately resulting in more inclusive and effective online learning experiences.

Moreover, incorporating problem framing into instructional design practice could be another significant outcome of this research. If studies show that problem framing enhances designers' ability to create accessible content, instructional design programs could integrate this technique into their curricula and ongoing professional development. This integration could help designers approach accessibility challenges more strategically, leading to innovative solutions that address the diverse needs of learners. By emphasizing problem framing, instructional designers would be better equipped to understand and address accessibility from the outset of the design process, resulting in more thoughtful and comprehensive online learning environments. This approach could also foster a culture of continuous improvement and creativity in accessibility practices, ultimately benefiting both designers and learners.

References

Anderson, G. (2020, April 6). Accessibility suffers during pandemic. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/06/remote-learning-shift-leaves-students-disabilities-behind

Baldwin, S. J., & Ching, Y. H. (2021). Accessibility in online courses: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 65, 731–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00624-6

Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2015). Universal Design for Learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v25i2.7723

Boysen, G. A. (2021). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and Universal Design for Learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280

Burgstahler, S. (2022). Leveling the playing field for students with disabilities in online opportunities. In M. Bonous-Hammarth (Eds.), Bridging marginality through inclusive higher education. neighborhoods, communities, and urban marginality (pp. 235–250). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8000-7_11

CAST. (2024). About Universal Design for Learning. https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl

De Los Santos, S., Kupczynski, L., & Mundy, M. -A. (2019). Determining academic success in students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n2p16

Friedensen, R., Lauterback, A., Kimball, E., & Mwangi, C. G. (2021). Students with high-incidence disabilities in STEM: Barriers encountered in postsecondary learning environments. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(1), 77–90.

Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001

Gronseth, S. (2018). Inclusive design for online and blended courses: Connecting web content accessibility guidelines and Universal Design for Learning. Educational Renaissance, 7, 1-9. https://edtechbooks.org/-fML

Hall, T., Vue G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. http://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-ud.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmark, L., & Reber, A. (2009). Postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 35-45. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leena-Landmark/publication/240731498_Postsecondary_Education_for_Individuals_With_DisabilitiesLegal_and_Practice_Considerations/links/5596b9b708ae793d137ca5ff/Postsecondary-Education-for-Individuals-With-DisabilitiesLegal-and-Practice-Considerations.pdf

Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-931777-04-9.ch020

IBSTPI (International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction) (2012). The 2012 Instructional Designer Competencies. IBSTPI. http://ibstpi.org.

Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60–72. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-21

Lenert, K. A., & Janes, D. P. (2017). The incorporation of quality attributes into online course design in higher education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 32(1). http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/987

Linder, K. E., Fontaine-Rainen, D. L., & Behling, K. (2015). Whose job is it? Key challenges and future directions for online accessibility in US institutions of higher education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1007859

Lomellini, A., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2022). Inclusive online courses: Universal Design for Learning strategies for faculty buy-in. In J. E. Stefaniak & R. M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional designer’s training guide: Authentic practices and constructive mentoring for ID and ed tech professionals (pp. 101–111). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109938

Lomellini, A., Lowenthal, P. R., Snelson, C., & Trespalacios, J. (in press). Instructional designers' perceptions of accessible and inclusive online course design.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Lomellini, A. (2022). Creating accessible online learning: A preliminary investigation of educational technologists' and faculty's knowledge and skills. Tech Trends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00790-1

Lowenthal, P. R., Lomellini, A., Smith, C., & Greer, K. (2021). Accessible online learning: A critical analysis of online quality assurance frameworks. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 22(2), 15–29. https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Quarterly-Review-of-Distance-Education-22-2

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST. https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2014/universal-design-learning-theory-practice-udl-meyer

Moore, S. L. (2023). Ethics and educational technology. Reflection, interrogation, design with Stephanie Moore [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/y3WqtA8CVY0?si=tO4TTuEwxy63Eq2p

Moore, S. L. (2021). The design models we have are not the design models we need. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.59668/329.5266

Morris, K. K., Frechette, C., Dukes, L. III, Stowell, N., Topping, N. E., & Brodosi, D. (2016). Closed captioning matters: Examining the value of closed captions for “all” students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(3), 231–238. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-29

Muñiz, J. (2019). Culturally responsive teaching: A 50 state survey of teaching standards. New America. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594599.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Table 311.10 : Number and percentage of distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2007-08 and 2011-12. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_311.10.asp

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Table 311.10 : Number and percentage of distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by level, disability status, and selected student characteristics: 2015-16. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_311.10.asp

Oyarzun, B., Bottoms, B. L., & Westine, C. (2021). Adopting and applying the Universal Design for Learning principles in online courses. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.51869/jaid2021105

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Kumar, S., & Martin, F. (2021). The competencies for instructional designers in higher education. EdTech Books.

Rogers, S. & Gronseth, S. L. (2021). Applying UDL to online active and interactive learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.51869/jaid2021101

Singleton, K., Evmenova, A., Jerome, M. K., & Clark, K. (2019). Integrating UDL strategies into the online course development process. Online Learning, 23(1), 206–235. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1407

Smith, S. A., Woodhead, E., & Chin-Newman, C. (2021). Disclosing accommodation needs: exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1358–1374.

Tobin, T. J. & Behling, K.T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal Design for Learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press. https://wvupressonline.com/node/757

United States Department of Justice. (2023). Dear colleague letter on online accessibility at postsecondary institutions. https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/dear-colleague-letter-online-accessibility-postsecondary-institutions

West, E. A., Novak, D., & Mueller, C. (2016). Inclusive instructional practices used and their perceived importance by instructors. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(4), 363–374. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-29

Westine, C. D., Oyarzun, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Casto, A., Okraski, C., Park, G., Person, J., & Steele, L. (2019). Familiarity, current use, and interest in Universal Design for Learning among online university instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258

Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Professional and social investment in universal design for learning in higher education: Insights from a faculty development programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 886–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1827372

Xie, J., A. G., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526