Preiser W., Smith K.H. Universal Design Handbook
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
38.6 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
of an initiative in that direction is Chap. 9 on creating a universal design thesaurus (by Duncan,
et al., 2010).
2. Chapter 37 presents a web-based international collection of universal design exemplars (Fletcher,
2010), a beginning for establishing universal design guidelines for a cross section of common
building types that makes a lot of sense.
3. A recent development occurred in the area of developing standards for universal design (http://
www.globaluniversaldesign.org), to be carried out by the Global Universal Design Commission.
Their goal is “to develop standards for building design, product design, facilities management
and business practices. All standards will be developed using an ANSI approved process, but they
will not be ANSI designated standards.” There is a plan to review first-draft standards for com-
mercial buildings in 2010.
Building upon the aforementioned, the following are elements and potential outcomes of the future
development of a research agenda for universal design performance assessments:
1. Expand the conceptual basis for a systematic UD assessment process, using key elements from
the Universal Design Handbook (Preiser, 2001, Chap. 9) and the present chapter.
2. Create an outline of tasks, time-line, deliverables, and comprehensive and global literature
review.
3. Field-based assessment research must include these on-site activities:
• Workshops to raise public awareness of UD, also with professional associations and the build-
ing industry as a whole
• Lecture presentation(s) and colloquia for students, professionals, and relevant government
entities
• Research focus groups with representatives of the disability community
• Site visits of exemplary UD solutions and select UD assessment case studies
• Carrying out UD performance case study assessments
4. Liaison with relevant organizations, including The Global Universal Design Commission; the
International Association for Universal Design (IAUD) in Yokohama, Japan; the CIB Committee
W064 in Rome, Italy; the Design for All Foundation in Barcelona, Spain; the biannual INCLUDE
conferences organized by the Royal College of Art in London, United Kingdom; and, the
Designing for the 21st Century conferences held jointly by the Center for Universal Design at
North Carolina State University in Raleigh and the Institute for Human Centered Design (for-
merly Adaptive Environments, Inc.) in Boston.
In the true spirit of universal design, prosperity is expected not just for the sake of creating more
products, environments, and infrastructure, which better support the human aspects of access and
usability, but this will also greatly enhance the future of business. To reiterate, the approach to be
taken sees universal design defined as making products, spaces and buildings, urban infrastructure,
as well as information technology accessible to and usable by (almost) all people. Significant strides
have been made in Europe, the United States, and Japan in creating and developing this field, which,
in its true spirit, aims to transcend government-issued minimum standards, such as the ADAAG
guidelines that have emanated from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
38.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter is based on a revised, longer article: Preiser, W.F.E. “Universal Design: From Policy
to Assessment Research and Practice,” International Journal of Architectural Research (Ashraf
Salama, ed.), vol. 2, issue 2, in July 2008.
TOWARD UNIVERSAL DESIGN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 38.7
38.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Americans with Disabilities Act, Washington: Access Board, 1990; http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index
.htm.
Asaert, C., M. Dujardin, and J. Herssens, Ontwerpen Voor Iedereen—Integraal en Inclusief (Universal Design
Toolkit), Brussel: Ministeriet van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Gelijke Kansen in Vlaanderen, 2006.
Asmervik, S., “Cities, Buildings and Parks for Everyone: A Universal Design Compendium,” in Universal
Design: 17 Ways of Thinking and Teaching, J. Christophersen (ed.), Oslo: Husbanken, 2002.
Bringa, O. R., “Norway’s Planning Approach to Implementing Universal Design,” in Universal Design
Handbook, 2d ed., W. F. E. Preiser and K. H. Smith (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Cambiaghi, S., Desenho Universal; Metodos Tecnicas Para Arquitetos E Urbanista, Sao Paulo: Senac, 2007.
Christophersen, J., Universal Design; 17 Ways of Thinking and Teaching, Oslo: Husbanken, 2002.
Craeger, E., “Some Tourist Destinations Improve Accessibility for Disabled,” Arizona Republic, Dec. 2, 2007.
Devlieger, P., F. Renders, H. Froyen, and K. Wildiers, Blindness and the Multi-Sensorial City, Antwerpen/
Apeldoorn: Garant, 2006.
Duncan, R., B. Brenny, and H. Kelsey. “The Universal Design Thesaurus: Creating a Descriptive Language
for Our Field,” in Universal Design Handbook, 2nd ed., W. F. E. Preiser and K. H. Smith (eds.), New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Fletcher, V., “An International Web-Based Collection of Universal Design Exemplars,” in Universal Design
Handbook, 2d ed., W. F. E. Preiser and K. H. Smith (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Global Universal Design Commission Standards Development: http://www.globaluniversaldesign.org.
Grosbois, L. P., Handicap et Construction, 7th ed., Paris: Editions Le Moniteur, 2007.
Guimaraes, M. P., “Universal Design Evaluation in Brazil: Development of Rating Scales,” in Universal Design
Handbook, 1st ed., W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Harrington, C. B., 101 Accessible Vacations: Travel Ideas for Wheelers and Slow Walkers, London: Demos, 2008.
Hock, D., One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 2005.
IDEA Center, “IDEA Center Receives New Contract from U.S. Access Board,” IDEA Center e-newsletter,
Buffalo: University at Buffalo Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, 2007.
Kose, S., Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Universal Design in Kyoto 2006, Yokohama,
Japan: International Association for Universal Design, 2007.
Nasar, J. L., and J. Evans-Cowley, Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning, Columbus,
Ohio: The John Glenn School of Public Affairs, 2007.
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), The LIFEwise Home, Bowie, Md.: NAHB Research Center,
2002.
Prado, A. R. A., J. M. T. Rodrigues, and M. E. Lopes, Accessibilidade nos municipios—Como apliar o Decreto
5.296./04, Sao Paulo, Brazil: Fundacao Prefeito Faria Lima (CEPAM)/Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas de
Administacao Municipal, 2008.
———, M. E. Lopes, and S. W. Ornstein (eds.), Universal Design: Pathways to Accessibility in Brazil, Sao Paulo,
Brazil: Annablume Editora Communicacao Ltda., 2009.
Preiser, W. F. E., “Kaiser Permanente POE Workshop,” in G. Baird J. Gray, N. Isaacs, D. Kernohan, and
G. McIndoe (eds.). Building Evaluation Techniques, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
———, “Toward Universal Design Evaluation,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. F. E. Preiser and E.
Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
———, Improving Building Performance, Washington: NCARB, 2003.
———, “Universal Design: Paradigm for the 21st Century,” Ultimate Home Design, 1(1), January/February 2006.
——— and U. Schramm, “Building Performance Evaluation,” in Time-Saver Standards: Architectural Design
Data, D. Watson, M. J. Crosbie, and J. H. Callender (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Sandhu, J., “An Integrated Approach to Universal Design: Toward the Inclusion of All Ages, Cultures and Diversity,”
in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
———, and A. Leibert, “User-Centered Deployment and Integration of Smart Card Technology: The DISTINCT
Project,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
38.8 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Story, M. F., “The Seven Principles of Universal Design,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. F. E. Preiser
and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Tauke, B., and D. Schoell, “The LIFEhouse Project,” RERC on Universal Design, University at Buffalo, N.Y.,
2010.
Vavik, T. (ed.), Inclusive Buildings, Products and Services: Challenges in Universal Design, Trondheim,
Norway: Tapir Academic Press, 2008.
Watters, C., “Glendale Man’s Segway Stirs Disability Debate: Rider’s Indoor Access at Heart of Controversy,”
The Arizona Republic, Nov. 16, 2007a.
———, “Convenience Becomes Controversy: Segways Aid Disabled, but Businesses Fear Backlash,” The
Arizona Republic, Nov. 26, 2007b.
CHAPTER 39
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR
LEARNING IN THE
COLLEGE CLASSROOM
Margo Vreeburg Izzo, Steven W. Rissing, Christopher Andersen,
Jack L. Nasar, and L. Scott Lissner
39.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale for incorporating universal design for learning (UDL) principles
into higher education. It also presents examples of how faculty integrate UDL strategies into college
classrooms to enhance learning outcomes for all students. Today’s college students are becoming
more diverse, including students with varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds; students whose first
language is not English; students who are older than the traditional college student; and students with
an array of learning, attention, psychological, and physical disabilities (McGuire and Scott, 2006;
Rose and Meyer, 2002). This increase in diversity challenges faculty members to recognize impacts
of multiculturalism in the classroom, embrace a broad range of students, and address needs of stu-
dents with disabilities to make higher education more accessible (Zeff, 2007). To help address these
challenges, legislation (Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008), educational research (Pliner
and Johnson, 2004), and teaching practice (Rose and Meyer, 2006) promote UDL as a strategy for
raising academic standards for all students. This chapter discusses foundational principles of UDL
and universally designed teaching practices that result in increased achievement.
39.2 UDL BACKGROUND
UDL is growing across universities, a practice increasingly referenced in the research literature,
faculty development, and articles and books. Despite increasing enrollments and benefits of a col-
lege education, underrepresented students—including culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)
students and students with disabilities—lag behind the general population in college participation
and retention (Leake et al., 2006). According to the 2000 Census, 71 percent of four-year college
students were white, 7 percent were Hispanic, 11 percent were black, and 11 percent were from other
races (US CensusScope.org). Harvey (2001) reported that 59 percent of white students at four-year
colleges graduated, whereas Hispanic and black students graduated at rates of 48 and 38 percent,
respectively. Clearly, CLD students seldom enroll in college and often struggle to complete a quality
college education at the same rate as white students.
39.1
39.2 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
As diversification continues in higher education, development of new strategies to improve student
learning remains a priority at national, state, and local levels (Spelling Commission on the Future
of Higher Education, 2006). The universal design movement began in architecture in the 1980s and
has come to represent a cohesive approach to promoting inclusion. UDL considers how curriculum,
instruction, and assessment can meet the learning needs of the greatest number and diversity of
students while maintaining academic rigor (Izzo et al., 2008). UDL capitalizes on instructional best
practices and technology to ensure that students have access to multiple representations of critical
concepts, become engaged in learning, and experience flexibility in expressing what they know.
UDL is a teaching approach that ensures students with a wide range of abilities can access course
content and materials and ultimately succeed in college. From a neurological standpoint, students
learn in different ways regardless of their cultural, economic, or disability characteristics. People
process information using many strategies; no two people have the same strengths and weaknesses
in learning styles (Izzo et al., 2008). College students do not have one general learning aptitude,
but many learning abilities; a disability or challenge in one area may be compensated by abilities in
another area (Block et al., 2006). Adopting flexible teaching strategies that eliminate barriers helps
meet the needs of diverse learners.
Unfortunately, some faculty members continue to teach students using traditional methods,
such as using purely passive lectures to teach and memorization-based exams to assess learning.
The dean of a large college at a Midwestern university shared his concern about this approach in
response to the following interview question: What is your teaching philosophy ... at the College of
Engineering?
I fundamentally believe there’s a mismatch between the way many engineering faculty teach and the
way many engineering students learn…. [F]aculty tend more to teach the focus of “how” to solve a spe-
cific problem. Engineering students prefer to reason visually, but most of their instruction is verbal, more
by lecture. One of my fundamental beliefs in teaching is you should use as many different teaching styles
and as many pieces of information to reach as many different students as possible…. I take advantage of
the technology students are using and often have visual learning, methods of both induction and deduc-
tion and lots of active and peer-to-peer learning. We have to appeal to all of the different ways in which
students learn. This is important for diversity because our students have a much more diverse background
and thought process in terms of how they learn (“Meet Greg Washington,” 2008, p. 2).
39.3 UDL DEFINED
One of the leaders in applying the idea of universal design to education was the Center for Applied
Special Technology (CAST). The theoretical framework developed by CAST provided a strong
foundation for the definition of UDL included in the Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2008
(HEOA):
Universal Design for Learning is a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice
that—(A) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or
demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces challenges in
instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achieve-
ment expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited
English proficient [HEOA, P.L. 110-315, §103(a) (24)].
The inclusion of UDL in the reauthorization of the HEOA demonstrates its escalating impor-
tance. In contrast to the incorporation of universal design into the architectural design field, UDL
concepts and practices are not broadly integrated into policy within higher education. The framework
of UDL consists of instructional approaches that provide students with choices and alternatives in the
materials, content, tools, context, and supports they use. According to CAST, there are three basic
principles of UDL (Rose and Meyer, 2002):
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 39.3
1. Multiple means of representation, including multimodal teaching, rely on a mixture of media to
relay concepts, such as lectures, podcasts, texts, and web resources ranging from YouTube videos
to multiple versions of class notes posted by several students for each class.
2. Multiple means of strategic engagement maximize student learning through motivation and rel-
evancy so students have opportunities to interact with and connect the content to related informa-
tion to enhance retention.
3. Multiple means of expression allow students opportunities to demonstrate their learning through
multiple assessment opportunities, such as multimedia projects, written papers, or multiple quiz-
zes and a project instead of one comprehensive exam.
These principles provide students with options for learning and different methods of assessments to
express knowledge. The UDL framework challenges educators to rethink the nature of their curriculum
and empowers them with flexibility to serve a diverse population of learners (Izzo et al., 2008).
39.4 UDL STRATEGIES
UDL integrates strategies good teachers use—multimodal teaching, differentiated instruction, coopera-
tive learning, self-monitoring, embedded assessment, relevant context, and demonstrated learning via
multiple media—to create a constructivist model of learning where students generate knowledge rather
than receive it (Harrison, 2006; Rose and Meyer, 2002). In addition, UDL integrates accessible technol-
ogy into the teaching and learning process, thereby harnessing a set of technological innovations such
as YouTube, podcasts, and electronic voting machines often called clickers. UDL encourages a student-
centered approach whereby the learning environment enhances the independence of all learners with a
minimum of retrofitting, reducing the need for individual accommodations (Block et al., 2006).
Establishing a clear understanding of the learning objectives of a course renders subsequent deci-
sions about UDL approaches employed much easier. For example, if “be a responsible, scientifically
literate citizen” is a learning objective for a large, general education curriculum (GEC) biology
course, then teaching—and testing—the names of the stages of cell division takes low priority.
Similarly, engaging in small-group discussions about policy options regarding breast cancer, where
some understanding of cell division applies, takes high priority; that such discussions provide an
alternative means for strategic engagement is even better. Discussed below are several UDL strate-
gies used within higher education among specific disciplines and settings, applied across a broad
range of course levels (introductory to graduate) and sizes (5 to ~500).
Architecture
One required course for all city and regional planning (C&RP) students encourages integration
of information from many disciplines, including the seven Principles of Universal Design, as stu-
dents learn to incorporate different purposes and users into a facility. C&RP classes offer multiple
examples and nonexamples of factors one must consider in planning the design requirements of
facilities. Accessibility features are discussed in groups and assessed through projects, papers, and
exams. Because classes employ audio streaming with visual presentation of facilities, students can
view lecture portions of classes at their convenience and use asynchronous, threaded discussions to
comment on the accessibility of design features.
Because architecture is an applied field, C&RP faculty also use multiple means of strategic
engagement. For example, many courses and studio classes have students apply what they learned to
solve real-world problems with real clients. Instructors offer multiple means of expression; e.g., stu-
dents select and complete four of five potential projects as a team. Team members also select a final
project in which they summarize key points of the course with a mix of text and images. In some
courses, students also design their midterm exam according to format, including, essay, true/false
questions, multiple-choice questions, or a mix of those, and weighting of multiple formats. Students
39.4 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
receiving time accommodations for exams can receive oral exams that include nested sets of ques-
tions according to previous answers.
Physics
To increase engagement of students, they use handheld electronic voting machines called clickers
to answer multiple-choice questions during lectures. The instructor asks a sequence of questions to
test students’ understanding of key concepts. The distribution of answers chosen for each question
appears, and the instructor then leads class discussion to clarify any misconceptions. In an experi-
ment to test the effects of clicker technology, two sections of the same physics class were compared.
One class used the voting machines followed by discussion of the questions asked during voting; the
other class did not. No statistical differences on pretest measures of students’ knowledge of physics
concepts existed between the two treatments. Students who used the clickers earned final examination
scores approximately 10 percent higher—the equivalent of a full letter grade—than those of students
who participated in traditional physics lecture (Reay et al., 2008). Students reported that using voting
machines helped them learn. These data could not be disaggregated by diversity due to inadequate
power within ethnic and disability categories. Students with visual or hearing impairments in classes
using voting machines will require appropriate accommodations, e.g., questions in accessible formats
for students with visual impairments and interpreter services for students with hearing impairments.
The above clicker use data were also analyzed for gender differences. In traditional physics class-
es, male students outperform female students. However, in clicker classes, the performance of male
and female students was not significantly different, suggesting that clickers and class discussions
improve performance of female students. Such methods may increase the performance of women in
challenging courses and could encourage more women to pursue science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics disciplines, a priority of many colleges and the National Science Foundation.
Large General Education Curriculum Classes
Required GEC classes can prove vexing; because everybody at a university has to take them, they are
often quite large and impersonal. The multiple methods of representation and engagement inherent
in UDL provide the breaks that punctuate an otherwise long lecture. Students work in cooperative
groups; at least once each class period, each group must provide responses to questions from the
current lecture topic, such as “Should our state screen for more genetically based birth defects, even
though this is expensive?” Groups are called randomly to report their thoughts; subsequent groups
are called to add comments. All groups submit their answers at the end of each class period for
credit. The lecture groups are the same as those in the multiple recitation sections associated with the
course, and recitation sections sit together in reserved blocks of seats in the lecture hall.
Many instructors of courses with a large number of students with disabilities, who require extra
time to take exams, often come to realize that performing well on an exam within some arbitrary
period is not consistent with their stated learning objectives. This can place the instructor in a quan-
dary: Why are there time limits on exams? UDL principles can come to the rescue and suggest that
unlimited-time exams will meet the needs of the students with disabilities and all other students who
may benefit. One finding was that the major benefit of this unlimited-time policy reduced apprehen-
sion among some students. In fact, very few students take more time on exams; the major excep-
tions include foreign students using dictionaries, who are accommodated by “assigning” a teaching
associate (TA) to proctor the exam, just as with time-limited exams.
Another UDL strategy for administering exams that reduces anxiety and increases opportunity
for students to demonstrate what they know is to permit each student to bring one page of notes to
exams. This has the added benefit of helping some students organize the material covered on the
particular exam. In practice, it was also found that permitting such notes helps students appreciate
that the instructor will make good on a promise to not produce a “memory exam.”
UDL principles can be liberating for faculty members. For example, the objectives for GEC
science courses at most universities include expectations for students to recognize connections
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 39.5
between science and political issues such as global warming or stem cell research, to appreci-
ate the history of science, and (often) to recognize ethical implications of scientific applications
in society today. These topics are difficult enough to teach, much less assess in students. UDL
principles provide useful insights in such situations. Standard testing methods do not lend them-
selves easily to such topics. The multiple means of student expression inherent in UDL guidelines
provide a solution. For example, students are asked to prepare policy statements on issues such as
breast cancer that include sufficient biology to justify the proposed policy or policies, as well as
discussion of societal impacts and ethical implications, to meet the underlying course goals. TAs
grade the statements according to rubrics developed by faculty. The TA workload is managed by
training them (and their students) in grade-norming tutorials using exemplary policy statements
representing a range of quality (and grades), by limiting the number of pages for the policy state-
ments, and by requiring group submission of some statements, thereby reducing the number of
statements to grade by a factor of 4.
Recitation or Laboratory Classes
Many classes include recitation or laboratory sections that provide numerous opportunities to
expand on UDL principles. In addition to providing an alternative medium to present information to
students, these sections permit numerous opportunities for students to demonstrate what they have
learned. For example, the recitation sections combine pedagogical tools such as cooperative learn-
ing and jigsaw with opened-ended assignments to understand issues at the interface of biology and
public policy, such as global warming, stem cell research, or other complex, relevant and biologically
rich issues. Student projects include locating, reading, and summarizing articles from a national
newspaper relevant to issues discussed in class. Engaging students in relevant content and providing
multiple means of expression increase opportunities for learning to occur that meets course objec-
tives and prepares students to become active and informed citizens.
Consistent with UDL principles, special emphasis has been placed on multimodal learning by the
students. In practice, this has translated into developing laboratory exercises that begin with a cam-
pus tour to either collect samples of multiple species of trees or observe firsthand university efforts
at sustainability. Recently, it was demonstrated that approaches that maximize students’ ability to
engage directly in the project and explore questions through inquiry result in greater levels of student
learning than traditional, expository approaches (Rissing and Cogan, 2009). UDL principles provide
instructors with strategies to engage all their students more effectively.
39.5 CONCLUSION
Faculty members are attuned to the increasing diversity of college students and to the need for
greater flexibility in instructional design while maintaining high standards to teach effectively in the
twenty-first century. Universal design offers a promising approach to meeting the learning needs of
all students. The UDL framework challenges educators to rethink the nature of their curriculum and
empowers them with the flexibility to serve a diverse population of learners. Researchers must further
develop and validate universal design principles and strategies across contexts and constituencies, so
that more students with diverse backgrounds continue to access and succeed in college and gain the
skills needed to join the workforce and make significant contributions to our global community.
39.6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The content of this chapter was funded in part by NSF Award number HRD-0833561. Any opinions,
findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do
not reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
39.6 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
39.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Block, L. S., G. Loewen, and S. Kroeger, “Acknowledging and Transforming Disabling Environments in Higher
Education: AHEAD’s Role,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19:117–123, 2006.
Harrison, E. G., “Working with Faculty toward Universally Designed Instruction: The Process of Dynamic
Course Design,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19:152–162, 2006.
Harvey, W. B., Minorities in Higher Education, 2000–2001: Eighteenth Annual Status Report, Washington:
American Council on Education, 2001.
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. no. 110-315, § 102 and §103(a) (24), 2008.
Izzo, M. V., A. Murray, and J. Novak, “Universal Design for Learning: The Faculty Perspective,” Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2):60–72, 2008.
Leake, D. W., S. Burgstahler, N. Rickerson, K. Applequist, M. Izzo, T. Picklesimer, and M. Arai, “Literature
Synthesis of Key Issues in Supporting Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Disabilities to Succeed
in Postsecondary Education,” Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2):49–165, 2006.
McGuire, J. M., and S. S. Scott, “Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the Universal Design Paradigm to
College Instruction,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19:124–134, 2006.
“Meet Greg Washington,” News in Engineering, 80(3):2; accessed from The Ohio State University, College of
Engineering, 2008, web site: http://engineering.osu.edu/nie/article.php?e=803&s=1&a=1.
Nasar, J. L., and J. Evans-Cowley, Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning, Columbus,
Ohio: John Glenn School of Public Affairs, 2007.
Pliner, S. M., and J. R. Johnson, “Historical, Theoretical, and Foundation Principles of Universal Instructional
Design in Higher Education,” Equity and Excellence in Education, 37:105–113, 2004.
Reay, N. W., P. Li, and L. A. Bao, “Testing a New Voting Machine Question Methodology,” American Journal
of Physics, 76(2):171–178, 2008.
Rissing, S. W., and J. C. Cogan, “Can an Inquiry Approach Improve College Student Learning in a Teaching
Laboratory?” CBE—Life Science Education, 8:55–61, 2009.
Rose, D. H., and A. Meyer, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning,
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 2002.
———, and ———, A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Education Publishing Group, 2006.
Social Science Data Analysis Network, “Population by Race,” in Race and Ethnicity Selections, 1980–2000
[census graph], n.d., accessed Mar. 26, 2009, from http:///www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html.
Spelling Commission on the Future of Higher Education, “A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s
Commission on the Future of Higher Education,” Washington: Department of Education, 2006; assessed Mar.
27, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html.
Zeff, R., “Universal Design across the Curriculum,” New Directions for Higher Education, 137:27–44, 2007.
CHAPTER 40
CAMP ALDERSGATE: A NEW
MODEL FOR ARCHITECTURAL
EDUCATION
Laura M. Terry
40.1 INTRODUCTION
The education of an architect has a unique tradition. From the apprentice and atelier model where
specific ideas of design, composition, and materiality were passed from master to student to the
Rural Studio, where students design and build for families and communities living in extreme pov-
erty, architectural education has addressed a broad range of design, social, and safety issues. The
Camp Aldersgate design-build program at the University of Arkansas layers accessible and universal
design into a traditional design-build model. Camp Aldersgate, located in Little Rock, is the only
camp in Arkansas serving children with physical and developmental disabilities as well as children
with chronic illnesses. The camp is located on 100 acres in the heart of Little Rock with a preserved
forest, a lake stocked with fish, and plenty of wildlife. Typical camp activities, such as canoeing,
archery, fishing, ropes courses, and nature studies, are reinvented to accommodate every camper.
The camp’s motto, “Common ground for extraordinary people,” accepts every camper’s individual
abilities and achievements, and it celebrates them in simple ways. The philosophy of inclusive and
adaptive design was seen as an ideal situation for a design-build program that transforms the way
architecture students are educated. This chapter discusses the development and outcomes of this
unique program.
40.2 HISTORY
The program, modeled after Auburn University’s Rural Studio (Dean and Hursley, 2002), was begun
in 2002. The pedagogical goals of the program include advancing collaborative design and creative
problem-solving skills, enhancing technical and construction knowledge and skills, and fostering
new approaches to accessible and universal design. The last goal has been the most evident and,
simultaneously, the most difficult goal to achieve. Students are immersed in camp life and activities
so they can experience the workings of the camp on a daily basis, the challenges and triumphs expe-
rienced by campers, as well as the unique skills of camp staff and counselors in working with the
campers. Most importantly, students learn from the campers the vital aspects of a camp experience:
racing down the hill to see who is first to the fishing dock (whether on foot or in a wheelchair), mak-
ing the most bull’s-eyes at the archery range, or excelling at the “adventure challenge” zip line.
40.1