MODELLING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS DEVELOPING ENGAGING EDUCATORS by Carolee Sewell Clyne Dipl. T., British Columbia Institute of Technology, 1984 B. Tech., British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2008 M. Ed., University of Northern British Columbia, 2013 DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2021 © Carolee Sewell Clyne, 2021 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS ii MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS iii Abstract The question explored through this research study is: Does modelling Universal Design for Learning to university faculty as learners deepen their engagement as educators? Through providing training where faculty themselves are learning about Universal Design for Learning (UDL) through a UDL modelled environment (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014), this research project investigates if this experience translates into a stronger role as educators for these faculty. Participants in this research project are faculty members teaching in disciplines associated with Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. Through a virtual World Café, participants of the workshop shared their reflections and experiences as they learned about learning. Using the UDL framework’s horizontal organization, as conceptualized by CAST, as a lens, participant reflections were themed to determine their progression towards learning and understanding the UDL framework in this context. Evaluation of this research data indicated that faculty in this study are located along UDL Access and Build rows of the UDL Guidelines reflecting a novice learning stage where greater cognitive energy is required (Posey, 2019a, 2019b). This knowledge provides evidence that professional development opportunities should support strategies and provide the guidance necessary to foster their skills towards the UDL goal of becoming an expert learner. Elevating faculty to the UDL expert teacher level in this context enhances their skills and understanding in their creation of inclusive learning environments for their classrooms (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Keywords: Universal Design for Learning, UDL, faculty engagement, education, higher education, inclusive education MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS iv Table of Contents Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Acknowledgements ix Dedication xii Chapter 1 Significance Location/Position as a Researcher 1 3 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review Inclusive Education Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education Appreciative Inquiry Faculty Instruction 11 12 13 23 24 Chapter 3 Methodology Overview of the Methodological Framework Mixed Methods Design Planned Research Approach Data Collection The Reality of the Study Process What Research Happened? 30 30 31 32 35 42 42 Chapter 4 Analysis Qualitative Data Quantitative Data Researcher Participatory Observations 48 48 68 71 Chapter 5 Conclusions What Does This Indicate? Recommendations 75 77 83 References Appendix A 88 Research Ethics Board Approval Forms 110 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS v Appendix B Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) Consent Form 113 Appendix C Workshop Permission Form 116 Appendix D Reflective Journal Permission Form 122 Appendix E Workshop Invitation 127 Appendix F Planned Face to Face Workshop Agenda 128 Appendix G Results from World Café 129 Appendix H ITSI Results Accommodations Disability Laws and Concepts Inclusive Classroom Inclusive Assessment Course Modifications Comparison 136 136 138 140 142 144 146 Appendix I Codebook for Thematic Coding 147 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS vi List of Tables Table 1. Planned Research Method Approaches and Research Question to be Answered. 32 Table 2. Comparison of Attitude Across U.S., Spain, Canada, and This Project 70 Table 3. ITSI Survey Questions 113 Table 4. ITSI Results for Accommodation Questions 136 Table 5. ITSI Disability and Accommodation Question Responses 138 Table 6. ITSI Inclusive Classroom Responses 140 Table 7. ITSI Course Modification Related Responses 144 Table 8. ITSI Comparison to U.S., Spain, Canada and This Project 146 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS vii List of Figures Figure 1. Brain Diagram Identifying Neuro Networks associated with UDL 15 Figure 2. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 16 Figure 3. Access Row on UDL Guidelines 18 Figure 4. Build Row on UDL Guidelines 19 Figure 5. Internalize Row on UDL Guidelines 20 Figure 6. Expert Learner Goal Row on UDL Guidelines 20 Figure 7. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 50 Figure 8. Coded Faculty Results to All Horizontal Categories of UDL Guidelines 52 Figure 9. Perceived Faculty Responses of Access Level for all UDL Principles 53 Figure 10. Access Level – Principle of Engagement Checkpoints 53 Figure 11. Access Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints 54 Figure 12. Access Level - Principle of Action & Expression Checkpoints 55 Figure 13. Perceived Faculty Responses of Build Level 57 Figure 14. Build Level - Principle of Engagement Checkpoints 58 Figure 15. Build Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints 59 Figure 16. Build Level - Principle of Action & Expression Checkpoints 60 Figure 17. Perceived Faculty Responses to Internalize Level Only 61 Figure 18. Internalize Level - Principle of Engagement Checkpoints 62 Figure 19. Internalize Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints 63 Figure 20. Internalize Level - Principle of Action and Express Checkpoints 64 Figure 21. Faculty Response Portrait for Coded Themes across Combined Data Sources 66 Figure 22. Engagement Responses Faculty as Learners 129 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS viii Figure 23. Engagement Question Faculty Reflection on Own Courses 130 Figure 24. Representation Question Faculty as Learners 131 Figure 25. Representation Question Faculty Reflection on Courses 132 Figure 26. Action and Expression Question Faculty as Learners 133 Figure 27. Action and Expression Question Faculty Reflection on Courses 134 Figure 28. Closing Reflection Slide 135 Figure 29. ITSI Response Distribution Chart 137 Figure 30. ITSI Inclusive Classroom Response Chart 141 Figure 31. ITSI Course Modification Responses Chart 145 Figure 32. Research Project Self Developed Code System 147 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS ix Acknowledgements I respectfully acknowledge that the land upon which I live, learn, work and play is the traditional, ancestral unceded territory of the Lheidli T'enneh. Lheidli means "where the two rivers flow together" and T'enneh means "the People". This undertaking started as a casual idea over brunch in a little café named Oh Chocolate in early December in 2016. Who knew it was to become a reality and take the turns it did! Thank you, Annie, for inspiring me to take this on and believing anything is possible. Your guidance and encouragement have helped me persevere. I appreciate the tough calls and honest reflections and guiding me to challenge the status quo. This learning journey has been amazing with the support of my committee – each of you has given me so much support and taught me in your own ways – Theresa, Tammy and Catherine. Bill Gottschall you have been my sunshine and a fabulous, amazing champion in my corner helping me when I falter and an unofficial committee member in my view. A sincere appreciation to my external examiner, Dr. Danielle Wilken for her time and for the innovation she has helped bring forward in higher education. The most important recognition is given to my truly spectacular husband, Colin, for his support in this process. Your unfaltering support as I took on this degree while you had your own significant life transitions has reminded me, I need to get this done and see it through. There have been numerous times when I felt “why I am doing this at this point in our lives?” and you encouraged me and helped me get back on track. To my sons, Bill, Brian, and James, thank you for growing up to be such amazing, caring people. Thank you for challenging me and inspiring me to model life-long learning for you. I wish each of you can support your partner and be supported by your partner like your father has supported me. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS x In the realm of UDL I have had the honour to meet some amazing, passionate people who encouraged me; Alexis Reid (becoming a wonderful friend across the continent), Loui Lord Nelson (your inspiration and energy), Allison Posey (your kind nature and creativity), Alie Berg (your bright smile and heartfelt warmth), Richard Jackson (you continue to inspire me long after our chat in the Victoria Airport), Katie Novak (your love for your family and passion for UDL continues to be inspirational), Bryan Dean and Joni Degner (being so open and committed to the cause), and David Rose (for the vision that has inspired a movement to change education, and your tour of Harvard provided such personal stories putting a face to the UDL roots). Thank you to Bill Wilmot, Susan Shapiro, and Melissa Sanjeh for the Presenters Academy 2019 for the affirmation of my understanding and for the participants who supported this idea. To David Gordon at CAST for taking my emails to explore details about the rows of the UDL guidelines and respond about copyright for the UDL guidelines. To so many amazing, dedicated people at CAST and UDL-IRN for the ongoing work creating amazing learning spaces. Your conferences have been such transformational experiences for me on my own UDL journey. There are several people whose encounters were brief but impacted me deeply. I want to thank Alexis Mootoo for inspiring me by sharing your story – not only did you beat the odds but you did it with class and style. More recently, I want to thank Andratesha (Tesha) Fritzgerald your response and kind words rekindled my focus and reminded me why I started on this journey – because I believe every learner needs to be respected for what they know and bring to the conversation and they should be welcomed and supported to grow. Higher education could model for the world to be so much more if we created inclusive learning MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS xi spaces, exchanged perspectives, and truly respected everyone to be the best they can be. Every learner should be inspired and encouraged to strive for outstanding. A sincere note of appreciation to Catharine Dishke for the idea to use the syllabi to provide value to faculty to attend. Thank you to the amazing people I have been lucky enough to meet and continue to connect with from Ireland’s higher education environments - Christine Hynes, Margaret Kinsella, Marian McCarthy, and Trevor Borland. Your encouragement helped keep me progressing forward. I have been blessed with several career opportunities to continue my own personal growth and understanding of UDL. Thank you to Chad Thompson and Grace Dyck for supporting me to take a leap. To Amanda Coolidge, Mary Burgess, and the truly fabulous team of colleagues at BCcampus. I appreciate your support and encouragement as I integrate my UDL views with the opportunities of Open Educational Practices to envision how UDL, Open and Inclusion can make a difference in this world. To Jillian who took the time to read and help me when I could no longer see the words on the page for her editing feedback, your support in that point means more than words can capture. As I started to get overwhelmed in the home stretch, thank you Ruth for your writing guidance and calming voice. And thank you to Brooke for your willingness to be my sounding board as those challenging formatting issues surfaced. To my family and friends who have stood by wondering if I am crazy taking this on but stood by me regardless – Mom, Dad, Janet, David, Chris, Kerry, Anne, Amy, and many others including some of whom are no longer with us but your inspiration lives on – thank you. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Dedication To my granddaughter Charlotte and any other grandchildren yet to arrive – may the higher education world I am hoping for exist by the time you get there. xii MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 1 Modelling Universal Design for Learning to Faculty as Learners Developing Engaging Educators Chapter 1 The classroom in higher education institutions has shifted, becoming increasingly diverse in terms of student backgrounds, cultures, and abilities. This diversity provides opportunities as well as new challenges for creating inclusive learning environments. My goal is to find ways to expand instructors’ knowledge about learning in disciplines outside of the Education discipline so these faculty can create inclusive learning spaces for their students. Today the educational role is increasingly complex and demanding with more being asked of faculty due to increasing expectations, diverse student bodies and changing interactions. Faculty are assuming diverse, often competing roles such as researcher, disciplinary expert, instructor, and mentor, while staying up to date with current research in their field. As instructors, they are to engage learners and offer learning opportunities for everyone, including people with differing physical and neurodiverse challenges, as well culturally diverse learners. My research explores and answer the following questions: Does modelling Universal Design for Learning towards faculty as learners develop engaging educators? - Does this experience change their approach to curriculum development and application? Additionally, I explore whether the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principle of engagement applies to faculty in higher education. This research may facilitate an understanding of how experiencing learning in a positive model could lead faculty to adopt the UDL framework for their own teaching. Fostering collaboration and community among faculty as learners in a MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 2 supported exposure to UDL has the potential to translate into enhanced teaching practices amongst faculty. By experiencing an inclusive learning environment, faculty are encountering experiential learning themselves of UDL design informed curriculum. This research introduces Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (NRES) faculty participants from a Canadian university to the UDL framework while recording and tracking their experiences and reflections as data. Identifying what opportunities and support are required to engage faculty with the concept of thoughtful instructional design is of benefit to both the institutions that employ them as well as the students they teach. Faculty in NRES disciplines can begin to envision appropriate inclusive teaching practices by using an interdisciplinary approach pulling from the discipline of Education through this experience. An additional benefit of this research is a deeper understanding of how UDL benefits higher education institutions. Seemingly, a successful classroom practice could be a key support for the reputation and recruitment ability of the institution as higher education organizations compete to increase student numbers. Recognition for faculty expertise is generally granted through a disciplinary specific credential such as Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). This credential is a major source of validation for faculty as experts in their discipline. However, frequently their expertise is discipline specific, with limited teaching knowledge (Auerbach & Andrews, 2018; Charlevoix, 2008). This tends to result in learning approaches modeled after what they themselves have experienced. The institutions faculty work in are also in a state of transition with higher education institutions looking for pathways to escape the boundaries of traditional learning models in MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 3 efforts to remove inequities, decolonize the curriculum and promote inclusion. In response, UDL is emerging as a common concept in recommendations regarding how higher education can transform to become inclusive spaces of learning (Bracken & Novak, 2019). My premise is that learning happens on both sides of the teaching podium, which suggests UDL principles can be applied to faculty, as well as students, to direct the formation of inclusive learning environments. Significance The conversation in higher education regarding inclusive learning has been expanding and developing since I have started this research journey. Recently released recommendations from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario support making UDL an institutional policy, it is their first listed recommendation to meet the accessibility needs of their students (Pichette, Brumwell, & Rizk, 2020). This kind of recommendation draws the focus to the UDL framework. The extant literature at the higher education level focuses on the preparation of pre-service teachers who will work in the K-12 levels of education (Black & Moore, 2019). Faculty in disciplines outside of the Education discipline often have little to no experience with instructional design educational research, and best practices as an educator. It is more difficult to link findings from educational research to noneducation disciplines such as Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, at the higher education level. These faculty members are hired for their research expertise in their specific discipline. This particular research study explores opportunities to engage faculty from noneducation related disciplines to learn about creating inclusive education by introducing them to the concepts with the faculty themselves as learners. As Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 4 identify, “Teachers need to be expert teachers themselves, continuously growing and changing” (p. 37). As recent world events such as the Black Lives Matter movement draw attention to racism in higher education the result is an attention to ensure all learners have the right to be included. Systemic racism exists throughout the structures of higher education, including the traditional modes of delivery and assessment (Mootoo, 2017). Moving away from traditional ideas around education UDL enables all learners to reach their full potential: allowing their own knowledge contribution to change the learning process (Posey & Novak, 2020). Deep emotion underpins growing calls to action around the world to fix the inequalities and decolonize systems. There is a need to decolonize education, thereby transforming the educational space to embrace different ways of knowing. This creates an opportunity well suited to the implementation of the UDL framework to enable Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) (Fritzgerald, 2020; Ralabate & Nelson, 2017; Torres & Rao, 2019). Inclusive learning means finding ways to support all learners through the principles defined within the framework for UDL (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002, 2011). Guiding faculty to proactively develop materials with this framework in mind has benefits as the field of higher education faces increasing diverse student populations and strives to create inclusive education. The benefits to faculty include effective faculty instructional time, bettering the reputation of the institution and enabling students to maximize their learning opportunities and so derive satisfaction from their educational experience. Higher education has evolved to have a mix of diverse learners comprised of many racial, cultural and identity backgrounds, (i.e., gender identity, ability, sexual orientation and MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 5 identity) present in any classroom. Despite the challenges, this variability can be planned for (Meyers, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The intent behind the evolution of UDL is to proactively anticipate learner variability and prepare for it. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) has stipulated the right of students to receive accommodation for learner needs which is now legally incumbent. Faculty may find it easier to prepare and embed appropriate accommodations at the onset of curriculum design if they understood how. There is additional value to enhancing their instructional skills to better engage their learners. This offers an example of how this research study can contribute to an enhanced learning environment in higher education. Learning how to make the necessary enhancements to higher education classrooms can create a greater impact when faculty share with students their expertise and knowledge. Learning becomes more meaningful and lasting for the students when the learning engages emotions (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007; Posey, 2019a). For example, faculty in the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Graduate Program disciplines are often passionate about understanding climate change and its impacts. As the concerns of climate change are increasingly a focus for these faculty members, it is of high importance for them to find ways of optimizing approaches to guide their learners to a deeper understanding of climate change. From my own experience, when the topic in a class is presented to invoke emotion, students listen and learn more deeply. Finding ways to bring students to embrace the topics deeply valued by their faculty is one of the reasons I embarked on this quest. Learning spaces should create deep learning fueled by passion to learn more and understand more deeply. First, however, faculty need to learn MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 6 about learning. This is how I came to this research of how to teach faculty about UDL, thinking first of faculty themselves as learners. Location/Position as a Researcher My roles and responsibilities, while working in a higher education environment since 1993, were to provide technical support for faculty, staff, and students. I have been in roles supporting the student computer labs, supporting the library systems and web sites, operationalizing governance policies for student systems and academic auditing as well as serving in roles in instructional design support and development. During my support roles, I returned to school in the evenings and expanded my knowledge and understanding in the areas of leadership and education. In 2003, I embarked on a Bachelor of Technology in Management program which I completed in 2008. Subsequently, I undertook a Master of Education in Multi-disciplinary Leadership concurrently with a Leading for Learning Graduate Certificate, both completed in May 2013. I continued with a Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Technology-Based Learning in November 2013. Enjoying the learning experience, I completed a Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Instructional Design in September 2015. In December 2016, I applied to the PhD program. I am now writing this dissertation for defense in 2021. Throughout this educational journey, I have sought to model lifelong learning to my own children. I have been a parent of higher education students, as well as being a mature student myself. I have volunteered on an educational institution’s Board of Governors, overseeing the organization’s business of delivering education. I have also been a woman in the male dominated field of information technology. I have been situated in a university rooted in traditional Euro-centric approaches, while learning that the engagement of all learners in higher education means deeper explorations into our world. The research I MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 7 am undertaking draws on this combination of knowledge and experience to better develop faculty skills and understanding to create inclusive and engaging learning environments using UDL. I strongly believe in lifelong learning as a requirement for our society to better itself and to work towards the betterment of our natural world. Areas such as education, development, healthcare, and technology have continued to grow at blinding speeds. When I entered the information technology field in 1981, the task of compiling a program took up to 14 hours to complete. These same programs compile in nanoseconds in today’s world of technology, which was unimaginable over 30 years ago. The communication between computers has given rise to the entity we know today as the internet. As the internet has created a vast information realm, the skills to learn and adapt in this ever-changing virtual landscape are key for success in any learning space. My own observations in higher education for twenty-eight years have fostered a personal value for equity in education. As a result, I want to do my part to transform higher education to become inclusive. I encountered UDL in a graduate class, Inclusive Education: Learning for All where UDL was suggested as a focus for me because technology provides accommodations for students. While UDL will use technology to deliver options, it is more than a technology tool (Edyburn, 2010). As my understanding of this framework developed, I realized the potential this framework had for every learning environment. But this would mean changes to bring this into the higher education environment. I have witnessed many change initiatives in the years I have been working in the higher educational environment based on various approaches. These changes had varying levels of success. A successful change approach I have experienced used Appreciative MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 8 Inquiry (AI) (Black, Burrello, & Mann, 2017; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stravos, 2008) as a positive source for developing a full understanding of the nature of complex issues and their potential solutions. These are key attributes of the Dream and Discovery stages of AI (Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2017, 2012; Cooperrider, Whitney & Stravos, 2008). I believe this approach plays a pivotal role in developing engagement and building guidance for future planning of any change to traditional structures. The positive focus of AI is uplifting and helps foster innovation towards enacting new solutions. Introduction of new approaches are more favorably received when a positive message is delivered. The introduction of UDL to faculty as a framework for their own instruction is a change to their existing educational approach. I plan to use AI to focus on existing strengths and success stories to facilitate this adoption. UDL focuses on developing curriculum to enable a variety of diverse learners to develop their individual abilities to become expert learners (Meyers, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Ralabate & Nelson, 2017; Torres & Rao, 2019). UDL, as a comprehensive framework, is grounded in research and theory to foster faculty ability to plan lessons for all learners. The aspiration is to provide students the access they require to meet the same course goals although each student may take a different path. There is an increasing demand for higher education and with this increase comes greater diversity in the student population. In comparing the data within the Statistics Canada dataset for Canadian Postsecondary enrolments, by registration status, institution type, status of student in Canada and gender (2019), a 59% increase in the number of students attending higher education between 1992 and 2019 is observed. Isolating the values in this table to the province of British Columbia MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 9 shows a 104% increase. This increase also reflects a growth in diversity in learners such as; race, gender, cultural backgrounds, spoken language, and abilities: physical and cognitive. UDL is explored throughout this dissertation as a solution to access challenges facing individuals with different abilities although it is about more than just providing accommodation (Bracken, & Novak, 2019). The published research data shows an increase in reported disabilities amongst student populations in many countries: 5% of the graduating class population in nine Canadian institutions (Canadian University Survey Consortium, 1997), for example, identified as having one or more disabilities. In a similar survey conducted in 2018 at thirty-two Canadian institutions (Canadian University Survey Consortium, 2018) the data revealed that 22% of the graduating class population who completed the survey identified as having one or more disabilities. In this group of these selfidentified students with disabilities, 36% indicated that they require learning accommodation (Canadian University Survey Consortium, 2018). By proactively designing curriculum using the UDL framework, many of the accommodations required would be addressed. The inclusion of UDL practice in the course syllabus would reduce the effort needed to retrofit existing curriculum to build the accommodations after the semester has commenced. There are many reasons why UDL brings significant value to higher education. As faculty members are the primary facilitators of the learning environments, their interaction within, and the design of, the classroom provides most of the interaction students will have within the institution. A disconnect happens as faculty are hired for their expertise in their discipline rather than for their teaching skills. There is often an expectation that faculty are experts beyond their focus; however, the process to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy seldom includes much learning about learning. As a result, faculty are often unfamiliar with learning MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 10 practice beyond their own personal experience - this results in a limited perspective. In an era of increasing social unrest and call for equity, along with changing legal requirements, faculty are compelled to find support for their teaching role. The following chapter is a literature review of the research developed and published regarding the science and practice of the UDL framework, highlighting its importance at the higher education level. The literature review identifies gaps in the research I seek to address through this study. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 11 Chapter 2 – Literature Review There has been an increasing awareness of the need for higher education to embed UDL in their practices, as evidenced by the increase in material pertaining to UDL and higher education. Several approaches were used in this research study to identify and discover relevant literature on the concept of UDL as applied to higher education faculty as learners and educators. The key phrases listed below were used as search parameters on various educational databases through the university library system and Google Scholar for Canada. The search criteria or key phrases used include inclusive education, universal design for learning + higher education, UDL, faculty instruction, appreciative inquiry, mixed methods, and leadership and change management in higher education. I followed links in the discovered resources as well as using the keywords listed which resulted in further searches using key phrases such as universal design, education, faculty development, disability accommodations + faculty and faculty engagement. Another source of research included following up notable references in articles and recommended books. Included in my references are resources that contributed to my learning journey and shaped my thinking that may not be specifically referred to. There are still limits as I progressed through my doctoral course work and the compilation of this dissertation from 2017 to 2021. However, a significant quantity of research on UDL application at the higher education level remains focused on pre-service teachers in Bachelor of Education programs and in the K-12 classrooms. Themes from conference presentations are starting to focus on higher education. Historically higher education has neglected teaching skills outside of education specific programs and UDL is going to need to play an active part of this change to update MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 12 approaches. This is why this research is important, as it can contribute to this shift after centuries of traditional teaching approaches. Inclusive Education Fundamental to this research is the recognition that higher education needs to ensure that the teaching or classroom environment is inclusive, through the removal of intentional or unintentional barriers that exclude marginalized students. Inclusive education is often assumed to be providing learning accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, accessibility and inclusive education are often confused as being the same thing. Inclusive education, in practice, is where every learner is allowed the space and the opportunity they need to succeed in learning, which is beyond ensuring accessibility (Dalton, Lyner-Cleophas, Ferguson, & McKenzie, 2019). Education is a fundamental human right (Watkins, Treviranus, & Roberts, 2020). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects those rights. Another Canadian document, the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action (TRCA, 2015), identified several educational goals as part of the pathway to reconciliation with the Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The TRCA has presented challenges to Canadian higher education institutions that are struggling to answer these calls with firm plans that address the systemic racism within their organizations. South of Canada, Universal Design for Learning is written into legal requirements in the Higher Education Opportunity Act in the United States of America (HEOA, 2008). Adapting the classroom environment is about creating inclusive learning spaces respectful of different ways of knowing. Fritzgerald (2020) pointed out that all students should be treated with honour and welcomed in contributing to the learning space. An MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 13 inclusive learning environment is also one where knowledge is shared and co-constructed. Watkins, Treviranus and Roberts’ (2020) work described three dimensions for inclusive design and learning: 1) all students are unique and variable; 2) the process of design education should itself be inclusive; and 3) the educational practice strives to create culture change that benefits all within the context of changing complex adaptive systems (p. 3). Transitioning higher education as an institution towards embracing inclusive education will take time. It will have to start with the faculty designing the learning spaces that are inclusive to all. Providing students with choice for their learning is to empower their voice (Fritzgerald, 2020). The question to consider once these concepts are presented to participants is: Does modelling UDL to faculty as learners help them to become the engaging educators capable of designing these required inclusive spaces? The answer to this complex question is presented in this work. Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education Ronald Mace is attributed with coining the phrase Universal Design in the 1970’s in the context of physical spaces (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Mace challenged the practice of designing for the average person and instead advocated that design should focus on creating more accessible and usable outcomes for everyone (Burgstahler, 2015). Rose and Meyer took this concept and applied it to the concept of learning (2002). The concept of proactively designing for variability fits the emerging needs of higher education, which has been grappling with the increasing diversity at the institutions. Scholars began to explore universal design options for higher education such as Universal Designed Teaching (UDT), Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Universal Design for Instruction (UDforI), and Universal Design of Instruction (UDI) (Burgstahler, 2015; Tobin & MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 14 Behling, 2018). These strategies are all similar in their approach to teaching and learning. Burgstahler (2015) summarized the overlapping principles of these universally designed educational frameworks as: proactive, welcoming instruction for all students, accessible and useable for a wide range of learner characteristics and being offered to all students in an integrated manner. Tobin and Behling (2018) echoed the stated principles with a summary of how higher education institutions are seeking to answer the question of finding a successful framework supporting learners’ interactions. The research directive has shifted to focus to the UDL framework due to the introduction of the USA’s Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008. Interest in UDL continues to grow as it provides a solution to the demands for curriculum materials that are adaptable for individual needs (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012). Articles such as Al-Azawei, Serenelli and Lundqvist (2016) evaluated peer reviewed journal papers and provided links to resources helpful to deepening the understanding of UDL for this research. Neuroscience Based Research behind UDL. The neuroscience research behind UDL influenced its structure. The UDL framework is based on three key principles: engagement, representation, and action and expression, each of which is aligned to a general area of the brain based on function (CAST, 2018a, 2018b; Meyer, & Rose, 2000; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Posey, 2019a; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley S. G., & Rose, L. T., 2012; Rose & Meyer, 2002). These groupings of the brain networks are related to tasks of learning. The principle of engagement refers to the ‘why’ of learning and is located in the central area of the brain in an area categorized as the affective network. The principle of representation is aligned to the recognition neuro-network. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 15 Representation refers to the ‘what’ of learning and is located towards the back of the brain. The action and expression principle aligns to the strategic area which is referred to as the ‘how’ of learning. The action and expression principle stems from the pre-frontal area of the brain. Figure 1. Brain Diagram Identifying Neuro Networks associated with UDL Figure 1. This image identifies the areas of the brain associated with the neuro networks that the UDL Guidelines are based on. Adapted from CAST. (2018a). UDL & the learning brain. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. There are multiple levels of structure and meaning to the UDL guideline format (CAST, 2018b). These guidelines details were interesting at the time I started my research study, yet these elements did not appear to be significant. As my work progressed, I have returned to these levels to clarify the various stages that learners progress through (see Figure 2). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 16 Figure 2. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 Figure 2. CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. The colour coded columns represent the three UDL principles. Green is the colour associated with the Principle of Engagement. The Principle of Representation is denoted by the colour purple. The blue column is linked to the Principle of Action and Expression. Within each of these principles are levels or rows reflecting a progression of learning. The act of learning is ultimately an internal individual event. The resulting progression through the framework allows a learner to develop towards becoming an expert learner. These rows reflect the levels of learner progression from external to internal knowledge construction. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 17 There are three guidelines related to each principle, totaling nine guidelines. There are more detailed checkpoints within each specific guideline. On the first row, labelled as “Access”, the guidelines contained here are ways in which access is increased such as recruiting interest, offering options for perception and physical action, but learning is not fully realized until a learner internalizes and develops their own knowledge (CAST, 2018a, 2018b; Degner, 2019; Meyer, & Rose, 2000; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Posey, 2019a; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The UDL framework strives to encourage a learning environment that strives to be inclusive for all learners, improving learning for all and where there are multiple pathways for learners to use to find their own path to constructing learning (Chardin & Novak, 2021; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). The UDL Guidelines are presented in a visual manner as a grid with vertical columns and horizontal rows providing a structure. The vertical arrangement is colour coded and structured for the three principles (Engagement, Representation, Action & Expression). The overall structure within the UDL guideline has been categorized as the following rows: Title, Access, Build, Internalize, and Goal. The title row lists the three principles. In the following section, the various horizontal rows will be described in greater detail. The Access row includes the guidelines suggesting options to increase the learners access towards the learning goal (CAST, 2018b; Degner, 2019). This is where design enables access towards the learning goal and would include elements such as recruiting interest, offering options for perception and choices in physical action. This area is the external introduction for learners and where instructors bring ideas forth for learners to begin to connect to the learners’ own neural pathways. It is in this area that educators can bring content to the learners through design for access (Posey, 2019a). An example of this access level could be where a MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 18 demonstration by the instructor would happen (A. A. Reid, personal communication, Dec 6, 2020). This classroom example of ‘I do, We do, You do’ type lesson scaffolds the learner through the three levels of the UDL guidelines. Figure 3. Access Row on UDL Guidelines Figure 3. This is the horizontal Access row which contains the guidelines related to this level of the UDL Guidelines. Extracted from CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved The Build row includes the guidelines that suggest ways to develop effort and persistence, language and symbols, and expression and communication (CAST, 2018b). The steps or processes for developing skills in learners can be found in the structures from this row of the guideline (Posey, 2019a). Using the classroom example, this would be where the learners still need some support and reminders, as the whole class practices doing what the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 19 instructor had previously demonstrated (A. A. Reid, personal communication, December 6, 2020). Figure 4. Build Row on UDL Guidelines Figure 4. This is the Build horizontal row of the UDL Guidelines containing the guidelines related to this level. Extracted from CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. Finally, the Internalize row includes the guidelines that suggest ways to empower learners through self-regulation, comprehension, and executive function (CAST, 2018b). This row, if implemented properly, is where the learning is internalized by the learner independently of other external factors (Posey, 2019a). The work in this area of the framework resides with the learner as choices are made, and tools and resources are utilized to achieve the learning goal (Degner, 2019). Using the classroom example for comparison, the learner is able to perform the action on their own without instructor or peer interaction as an example (A. A. Reid, personal communication, December 6, 2020). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 20 Figure 5. Internalize Row on UDL Guidelines Figure 5. The Internalize row of the UDL Guidelines which contains the guidelines related to this level. Extracted from CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. These rows and the guidelines within are increasingly shifting the learning process to the learner. The key aspiration of UDL is to develop expert learners. These are learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, as well as strategic and goaldirected in the learning context where the learning is happening (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). There is no single description for an expert learner as the concept of an expert learner is contextual and varies based on the situation and environment (Posey, 2019a). Figure 6. Expert Learner Goal Row on UDL Guidelines Figure 6. The horizonal row describing the Goal of UDL. Extracted from CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 21 Interdisciplinary Work of Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and Education. The UDL framework is designed based on the research done in the combined areas of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and education. UDL framework principles are based on the idea of learning being distributed amongst interconnected brain networks: the affective network evaluates and set priorities for the Why of learning; the recognition network is for receipt and analysis of information in the What of learning; and the strategic network helps to plan and implement action in the How of learning (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Posey, 2019a; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The UDL framework evolved with the recognition that learner variability is a given and planning for variability enables greater opportunity for varied learners to learn. The idea of neuro-variability is key to recognizing that learners rely on the brain’s many parts to function together in a specific context and not in any single way (CAST, 2018a). A significant realization emerging in the readings is how emotion has greater impact on learning than previously understood, with a deeper recognition of the interdependence of cognition and emotion (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012). Exploring designing learning opportunities to support the emotion of learning has broad implications in all academic disciplines (Immordino-Yang, 2016; Posey, 2019a). The most recent version of the UDL Guidelines, released as version 2.2 in 2018, illustrated this value by relocating the principle of engagement to the first column. This change was explained as recognizing the importance of engagement to the process of learning (CAST, 2018b). Even for adult learners, there is still a desire to have interest in our work, and for schoolwork to be relevant and of value (Posey, 2019a). Educators need to understand that there is a strong connection between emotion and cognition (Immordino-Yang, 2016; Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 20007; Posey, MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 22 2019a). Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) stated that a strong connection enables students to take learning from one environment and apply it in other environments. An awareness of the interplay between emotion, social function, and decision-making may allow faculty to leverage this interrelationship to deepen the learning environments they create. Lesson design elements, such as scaffolding where understanding is deepened in small steps, are key. As each learner comes with their own combination of experiences, the plasticity of the brain enables learning as a constant change process being built one experience at a time (CAST, 2018a). The UDL framework was developed through interdisciplinary work connecting research between cognitive neuroscience and education. Ansari, Coch and De Smedt (2011) identified how important the interdisciplinary work between cognitive neuroscientists, educators and educational researchers is: it allows new understandings to emerge and inform society about education. They specifically observed that there is no quick solution for learning and that ongoing research from various approaches are key to identifying workable solutions. Much of this work continues to be driven by application in classrooms at the K-12 level where students are better positioned to enable follow-up and enhanced ability to track progression. The current diversity of students in higher education is unprecedented. A shift in demographics has created an opportunity to call for a new approach to curriculum design. This reimagined approach can be enhanced through technology to enable greater options as Rose and Strangman (2007) noted. Utilizing technology to provide materials in adaptable and accessible formats could provide learners with a variability that works for them. One example that these researchers described is how print delivery is limiting in comparison to MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 23 digital delivery. Technology can enable access to print through features such as text to speech which reads aloud for visually impaired learners. These text to speech features also enables learners struggling with issues such as dyslexia and can be of benefit for those learners who struggle without a diagnosis. Consciously thinking of such opportunities are ways faculty can be facilitators of learning in an inclusive manner. Rose and Strangman (2007) provided a variety of approaches used in their graduate level education courses which maximized the features now available through technology to capture faculty work and to enable students to learn as they require. Quaglia (2015) identified that student variability is increasing in higher education and emphasized the value of proactively developing multiple ways for students to access curricula. These designs enable students to find their path to better understanding while reducing barriers to so doing. Faculty can have their semester workloads eased by considering the reduction of barriers at the start of the instructional design resulting in the reduction for the need to provide reactive accommodations for individual students. Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an action research approach that focuses on developing from the best of what is (Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2008). The application of this approach is using this tone towards conversations with faculty. It is important to keep the focus on positive and visionary as the goal is creating change in the classroom delivery through the experiential learning of faculty. Much of the research supports this approach. Ohlemacher (2015) described how AI uses stories to start the conversations and specifically uses this approach with faculty to encourage reflection of their own learning experiences. Bloom, Hutson, He and Konkle (2013) stated that learning can be enhanced by using MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 24 affirmative recollections to create positive connections between the past, present and future through thoughtful curriculum design. These authors suggested that an appreciative mindset strongly influences positive relations with others. AI is an effective way to shift curriculum development towards inclusion by utilizing positive thinking as a change mechanism. McArthur-Blair and Cockell (2012) described AI as inclusive by its action. AI is incorporated in research practices about engaging educators as it aligns with the UDL values to create inclusion. Black, Burrello and Mann (2017) used the AI approach as a lens towards educational leadership, providing ideas on how this could translate to create change and improve attitudes towards seeing possibilities. Building on the strengths focusing on the positive supports a position of building from the strengths faculty already have (Fifolt & Lander, 2013). Calabrese et al. (2007) recommend AI after exploring the impact of AI in educational administration doctoral programs. I explored this action research approach as part of how I wanted to develop the conversation of learning among my workshop participants. Recognizing that change is part of this conversation, AI fits well as a transformational change agent, as described by Bush and Kassan (2005). The design and dream elements of this AI approach are the underpinnings of a plan for working with faculty (Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2012). Faculty Instruction Education, disability, higher education and psychology literatures are dominated by discussion around developing skills in pre-service teachers and preparing teachers to utilize the UDL framework in the K-12 system. In looking specifically at research related to higher education faculty, a theme emerging within the research is that faculty need community to support them exploring ideas. As identified in Stieha, Shadle and Paterson et al. (2016), MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 25 faculty need the opportunity to build their community and having conversation helped them find confidence and solutions. These researchers noted it is important to incentivize and support faculty transitioning to active learning and looking at assessment tools to shift from the summative approach. In their research, prior to these discussions, faculty were experiencing a disconnect between teaching practices and learning outcome assessments. Stieha et al. (2016) focused on general science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty over a three-year period. These researchers used a focus group in the third year to expand the conversation with faculty about applying active learning strategies in their classes. This study evolved and changed as additional needs were identified using the action research approach. They noted that a long view of teaching is beneficial. Black and Moore (2019) noted that instructors may teach where they feel more comfortable as opposed to designing learning centered approaches; this can lead to some learning environments being less than optimal for student success and inclusion. Encouraging faculty to break from traditional approaches and embrace flexibility towards design is a benefit to students as they prepare to enter the workforce, where they may encounter rapidly evolving workplace practices (Bell, & Kozlowski, 2008). Campbell, Schwier, and Kenny (2007) suggested “clients working with instructional designers in instructional development projects are actually engaging, as learners, in a process of professional and personal transformation that has the potential to transform the participants and the institution” (p 646). Middendorf and Pace (2004) outlined work done at Indiana University, where the professional development project called Decoding the Disciplines placed faculty from diverse disciplines together to identify through questioning what the unique steps are within their discipline. Faculty may be completing steps unconsciously that need to be taught. These faculty members participated in MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 26 a reflection and interview process which sought to capture what thinking steps they go through and how these skills are needed to teach students. This particular research study is about facilitating the way faculty view instruction by placing them in the learner role. A review of theoretical frameworks for change identified diffusion of innovation as an option well suited to this project (Rogers, 2003; Scott & McGuire, 2017). This diffusion of innovation framework identifies an approach fitting for this setting where UDL is a new idea being introduced through adoption diffusing through social communication among peers. Henderson, Finklestein and Beach (2010) completed a literature review on change processes to develop specific instructional ideas. They identified three different areas within an institution involved with improving undergraduate instruction in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Each of these areas exists with a different focus, such as whole unit change or changing individual faculty. These three areas included discipline-based educators in STEM-related departments, faculty development researchers in centres for teaching and learning, and higher education educators in educational leadership such as s school of education or university administration. Looking at change strategies and the intent, these researchers identified value to fostering collaboration from broader viewpoints to achieve an integrated solution. Henderson, Finklestein and Beach (2010) identified that most change strategies focus on the individual. This supports the idea of research targeting the individual faculty. Ryan, Arnott, Chisholm, deGelleke, Gibson et al. (2017) reinforced the need for a safe space to discuss teaching practices and ask questions, through examining faculty support through a community of learning. These educators met regularly at a coffee shop, which was MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 27 considered a safe, neutral location. This group continued to meet and became a source of support, a practice that served as an agent of change at the grassroots level. These conversations provided the necessary diversity in viewpoints to reflect on teaching. Reflections on the effects of teaching networks towards exploration of new approaches and ways to garner support became important. This community setting enabled an opportunity to develop confidence for newer faculty. Reflections on the importance of failure emphasized learning and learning how to recover and grow from mistakes along with recognizing that summative assessment should not be the only measure of success (Ryan et al., 2017). This value of community developing factored into the workshop design to build supportive relationships. Inclusive teaching research literature has been published in rehabilitation journals. Dallas, Sprong and Upton (2014) collected data through an online survey (381/1621) and found that teaching experience, prior disability-related training and academic discipline influence readiness to implementing universal design. Their survey results indicated barriers included faculty experts in various disciplines who lacked educational training to provide inclusive learning environments. Academic reward systems that focus on research rather than teaching limits benefits and thus motivation for faculty to improve in the area of teaching. Through use of the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI), Dallas, Sprong and Upton (2014) identified other barriers, including: perceived costs, faculty resistance, lack of time, and limited staff resources with which to provide training. The survey found different understanding levels based on teaching experience, academic discipline, and the amount of prior disability training. The findings by these researchers suggest value in training faculty and administrators to improve their understanding. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 28 The ITSI was originally developed by Lombardi, Murray and Gerdes (2011). The ITSI was designed to investigate associations between faculty participation in universal design instructional training and their adoption of inclusive instruction. This survey collected responses regarding action and attitudes and compared the two. Lombardi, Murray and Gerdes (2011) noted discrepancies between attitudes and actions. An example of this concept is presented when prior training positively impacts attitudes more than action. This particular survey was used in a Canadian context within a dissertation by Vukuvic (2016). Vukuvic collaborated with Lombardi and Sala-Bars (2015) to compare the results from various studies using the ITSI to compare between countries. This survey method was selected as a source of quantitative data in this project. Mulà, Tilbury, Ryan, Mader, Dlouhá, Mader, Alba, D. (2017) focussed on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in seeking to see the integration of sustainability practices into core university activities and faculty development opportunities. Their work identified the need for staff development and capacity building to support ESD curriculum development. They also noted that this would need policy shifts and institutional incentives in order to occur. The summary provided by Mulà et al. (2017) provided a future-oriented, socially relevant, and purposeful education in a climate of rapid technological change, globalization and increasing participation in higher education worldwide. This education aspiration aligns with the goal of UDL to develop expert learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful, and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal-oriented (CAST, 2018b; Meyers, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Hesketh (1997), as cited in Bell and Kozlowski (2008), noted that “Routine expertise developed through traditional behavioural approaches to training can be a liability in the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 29 flexible and constantly changing work environments” (p. 296). Traditional behavioural approaches can be the experiences faculty have had in their educational journey; eventually becoming the approach they apply in their classrooms. How faculty adapt to innovative approaches in teaching and technology should be considered when exploring faculty instruction. There are a range of reasons as to why faculty will adopt innovative approaches. As Treviranus (2019) commented, preparing the next generation to think critically and to be adaptable for lifelong learning is of paramount importance for our society. Kopcha, Rieber, and Walker (2016) looked at faculty perceptions and provided some strong analysis about the beliefs faculty hold about the value of technology in teaching, which serves to provide ideas for consideration as to optimal approaches for teaching. This same perception extends to the PhD programs developing the instructional skills of their students. The preparation of faculty for their role of instructing should be part of any graduate level programming. The next section describes the methods taken to support this research study to answer if modelling UDL to faculty has value. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 30 Chapter 3 – Methodology This research used a workshop involving faculty participants to collect information on their experience with UDL as learners and with UDL as the topic of learning. The content of the workshop served to both introduce and model the Universal Design for Learning framework. Faculty participants contributed data to answer the question “Does modelling Universal Design for Learning towards faculty as learners develop engaging educators?” Further investigation served to answer the question, “Does this experience as a learner change their approaches to curriculum development and application?” In this research project, all the appropriate Research Ethics Board forms and requirements were submitted, approved and followed. The approval forms as well as various permission forms can be found in Appendices A, B, C and D. All participants completed the required permission forms prior to the data collection. This research called for recruitment of faculty volunteers from the various disciplines included within the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Graduate Program at the University of Northern British Columbia (Prince George, British Columbia, Canada) through an open call to participate in a workshop to develop inclusive syllabi for any of the courses they taught. The use of actual syllabi provided an opportunity to look at their overall curriculum goals, activities and structure within the limitations of a shorter condensed workshop and provided the participants with takeaways benefitting their time investment. Overview of the Methodological Framework This research included both quantitative and qualitative elements. While the intended research included a design providing participants with a broad range of options to submit their contributions in both qualitative and quantitative methods, the type of contributions MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 31 were at the discretion of faculty. This approach was chosen to model multiple options aligning with key UDL framework values. The choice of their individual contributions enabled faculty participants to remain in control and make their own choice as to what and how much they contributed. Mixed Methods Design A mixed method approach was applied for the purpose of this research study to provide an opportunity that appealed to different perspectives and to enable a confirmation between various sources of data. Maxwell (2016) introduced a long view history of mixed methods which identified its practice in natural science dating back to the approach Galileo took to astronomy. Combining the strengths of quantitative research with the holistic perspective obtained through qualitative research created depth in the analysis. Natural sciences often use mixed methods when incorporating field research through such details as describing animal behavior along with providing statistical data (Maxwell, 2016). This integration of methods, as noted by Denscombe (2008), was used for a combination of reasons: 1) it improved the accuracy of data, 2) it enabled a more complete picture through the blending of information, and 3) it avoided biases. Using mixed methods allowed me to look at both learning UDL and assessing the faculty as learners, a theoretical extension of the application of the UDL framework to faculty as the learner (Aurini, Heath, & Howells, 2016). Denscombe (2008) identified how a community of practice enables an openness to change and evolution through using mixed methods to accommodate social factors and different disciplinary perspectives. Mixed methods are important for a researcher working across disciplines with unique perspectives. Identifying strengths in various methods, in MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 32 combination with an equal emphasis of each method to achieve a balance in the results, are recommendations made by Castro, Kellison, Boyd and Kopak, (2010). Factoring multiplicity into my research design ensures triangulation in the findings to heighten reliability (Aurini, Heath, & Howells, 2016). Table 1 provides an overview of the methods of this research and identifies the approach. This table also shows the data collection methods and what methods participants contributed to. Table 1. Planned Research Method Approaches and Research Question to be Answered. Table 1 Compilation of Research Approaches Method Data Proposed Reflective Journal Qualitative All formats ITSI Survey Quantitative Online Pre/Post Workshop Actual ITSI Survey Institution Quantitative Online 11.4% participation World Café Qualitative Flip Charts • • Researcher Participatory Observations Qualitative Notes, Journal, and Reflections Reflections, emails, comments Qualitative Transcript Interactive Slides • Chat recording Notes, Journal, and Reflections Individuals submitted Question Answered Awareness of change and/or understanding shift Comparison of change in perspective pre/post workshop Does an awareness of inclusive teaching exist in the institution and are there areas to target for development opportunities? Does experiencing and learning about UDL as a learner go on to help the individual as an educator? Do faculty shift their thinking? Are they demonstrating a change in approach to instruction? Any of the questions depending on content and context of response Planned Research Approach A research-intensive university, the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, was the site where study participants were recruited. This research study was performed during the Winter Semester (January – April) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 33 2020. There were 3,484 students enrolled at the time of the study (UNBC, 2020)1. This student population included 2,749 undergraduate students and 565 graduate students. There were 397 international students and 358 self-declared Indigenous students. The data for students with disabilities was provided by the Access Resource Centre (ARC) at UNBC, which facilitates supporting the needs of students with disabilities. The total number of students who registered with a disability with the ARC was 218 during this time period. ARC indicated that their data was incomplete with regards to students with multiple diagnoses. The largest number were students with a neurological disability, comprising 44% of ARC registered students, or 96 students. This was followed by mental health disability at 30% or 65 students. These numbers suggest diversity within the university’s enrolment and provide context for the need for faculty to consider inclusion for all in their classrooms. The intended approach was to use data collected from participating faculty who would reflect on their learning and experiences as educators throughout a teaching semester. The faculty would complete reflective journals and offer responses within planned activities, which would be analyzed using an inductive approach using principles from grounded theory (Babbie, 2016; Berg & Lune, 2012). Glaser and Strauss [cited in Babbie (2016)] outlined how theories emerge from an analysis of patterns, themes, and common categories within the collected data. The journals and data collected from a World Cafe activity could enable identification of multiple viewpoints of what faculty experience while learning and experiencing UDL as learners. Comparing these sources would identify points of relevance as it was expected that themes or 1 170 students enrolled in for-credit academic work through continuing studies were included in the overall total. (Personal communication. M. Wood Feb 24, 2021) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 34 concepts would be the key content analysis elements in this research. Other elements used in grounded theory, i.e., words, themes, paragraphs, concepts and semantics, might also have provided analysis points (Berg & Lune, 2012). As faculty are usually experienced with writing and articulating ideas, it was theorized that their personal reflections could have had sufficient clarity to identify concepts of engagement, effort, and persistence as well as the recognition of collaboration and the fostering of community. Questions and actions were framed using an Appreciative Inquiry approach to focus on forward-looking perspectives and to encourage the conversation towards dreaming and discovery. The diffusion of an innovation framework was utilized to evaluate how the adoption happens and where the faculty partaking fit in the framework descriptions (Rogers, 2003; Scott, & McGuire, 2017). As the introduction of a new concept takes conscious effort to adopt, this research study was looking to identify insights for the researcher regarding this process of change. The intent was to have an initial workshop supporting faculty to develop inclusive syllabi supporting the teaching outcomes for the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies disciplines. Initial plans submitted to the Research Ethics Board for the research project had planned to collect limited demographic information of the participants during the workshop via the consent form. The research invitation extended to faculty invited them to participate in a two-day workshop focusing on their own syllabi to reflect upon and enhance their syllabi to build the intent for inclusion for all learners. An invitation (See Appendix E) was sent to all faculty at UNBC within the disciplines of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies for a workshop to be hosted during the reading week break in midFebruary. The Research Ethics Board requested that the invites be sent directly to faculty and MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 35 not through the department chairs to avoid undue influence on faculty to participate. Faculty from any area were welcomed to attend, but the focus was on faculty within the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies disciplines. A research group of 12-18 participants was the intended target to provide sufficient saturation of information for the basis of the analysis. Initially the workshop was to be offered again at the end of the semester as several faculty expressed interest but were not available during the initial offering. The workshop structure would provide an overview of UDL and encourage faculty as learners to explore what creates their best learning experiences as learners. The workshop design included opportunity for peer-to-peer exploration of solutions to problems identified in existing syllabi and encourage diversity in approaches supported by new understandings of UDL. This was deliberate and meant to foster collaboration and community among the faculty participants. The participants were already keen to improve their teaching approaches, as shown by their willingness to volunteer, thereby demonstrating their interest in innovation for their teaching practices. This interest in personal teaching skills development, as demonstrated by the action of volunteering for the workshop, was recognized as an influence on the outcomes. Data Collection The data collection as outlined in Table 1 would be included in the various activities. During the activities of the workshop, excluding the World Café, the only data collection was to be the researcher’s observations. The pre/post surveys, the participant reflective journals, and the World Café were the data collection elements associated with the workshop. Except for the World Café activity, these were scheduled to happen outside of the workshop. When the pivot to online activities happened, due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the workshop was moved to an online learning platform and no data used from this source. Only the World Café MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 36 synchronous session was recorded and used for data. This transaction happened outside the course shell. The pre/post survey was available for the participants on the survey platform used by the university for research. The reflective journals were to be at the participant’s choice as to how they wished to record and share with the research. Workshop. Two face-to-face workshops, with the focus on enhancing existing course syllabi, were planned. These workshops were to run for two days with a free day in between to enable the opportunity to prepare or reflect as well as to be respectful of the time constraints facing faculty. Faculty members were asked to bring a course syllabus that they wished to update to be more inclusive. Anyone attending the workshop was invited to expand on the information collected for this project through keeping a reflective journal. This journal was to capture their reflections on their learning and thoughts as they learned about Universal Design for Learning and to begin the process of looking at their own syllabus material through the lens of inclusivity. This workshop was to be provided in a UDL format, ensuring multiple ways for engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Using practical workshop facilitation approaches, as identified by Lipmanowicz and McCandless (2013), the workshop was intended to engage faculty. A variety of facilitation approaches were to be used to enable deeper discussion about the UDL principles, reflecting on how these principles are seen to apply to faculty as learners as well as how these may be applied in a syllabus. Some of the course content were to include activities to foster collaboration and community amongst the group (CAST, 2018b Checkpoint 8.3). These opportunities to provide between peers support, MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 37 incorporating the progressive stages of Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003; Scott & McGuire, 2017), are useful in bringing forth change in practice. Surveys Pre- and PostThe first dataset collected was to be the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory survey, completed by the workshop participants (Lombardi, Murry, & Gerdes, 2011) as a pre survey. The intended schedule had the participants completing this survey prior to any other actions as a pre-workshop reflection of faculty attitudes. The post survey was to be completed by the participants again one week after the completion of the workshop for a pre/post comparison. This survey has been used in a variety of institutions (Dallas, Sprong, & Kluesner, 2016; Dallas, & Sprong, 2015; Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011; Lombardi, Vukovic, & Sala-Bars, 2015; Reinschmeidt, Buono, Sprong, Upton, & Dallas, 2013; Vukovic, 2016) and enables some cross-institutional comparison analysis as well as a pre/post quantitative measure. An additional opportunity to participate in this survey was planned through distribution across the institution after the completion of the workshops to record the institutional status for future comparison regarding faculty attitudes. Initial Face-to-Face Workshop Agenda Pre-workshop materials were to be made available along with an agenda – these materials included a variety of elements presented by various means such as articles, videos, and podcasts. This was done to provide an opportunity for learners to strategically plan for their learning (CAST, 2018b; Posey, 2019a; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Lunch was to be included as part of the compensation and as an opportunity for informal discussion to engage participants on a social level. This informal opportunity to MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 38 collaborate was also supporting the checkpoint 8.3 to foster collaboration and community (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The activities and agenda for the workshop, found in Appendix F, were to be recorded in a limited fashion. The World Café tables included recording responses to the questions posed. Efforts to record questions asked in the workshop during the learning stages of UDL were intended to be used for analysis on whether the information was understood. Researcher’s Journal The Troika Consulting activity (Lipmanowicz & McCandles, 2013) was selected to enable later reflection by the researcher as a participatory observer perspective - the only recorded data this activity would yield. This activity functions as a quick round robin of consultation where each participant assumes different roles (Lipmanowicz & McCandles, 2013). During this activity, the researcher was to circulate amongst the groups noting emerging trends across the groups in their peer learning discussions. Any frequently asked questions would be noted as topics to further expand upon during the workshop to ensure that the required information was available. The researcher was to record observations throughout the various activities as an observer regarding the actions and reactions observed towards the learning activity. World Café Sessions The World Café format was chosen because it enables transference of ideas deemed of value between groups in a timely manner using an informal conversational atmosphere (Brown & Isaacs, 2001). Using this World Cafe format (Brown, & Isaacs, 2001), this workshop was to reflect on the three principles of UDL: how these principles were reflected in learner needs, how these principles could be part of the syllabus and class structure and MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 39 how these could be developed based on teaching experiences and inclusion in the classroom (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). The first workshop was planned to take place during the reading break of the winter 2020 semester. The topics for the World Café sessions were to be: “what activities enhance faculty participation as a learner?”, “what assessment methods are most effective to you as an educator and how would feedback help?” and “how is content presented for diversity of faculty backgrounds?” These three topics align with the three principles of UDL yet are described in such a manner so that the faculty unfamiliar with UDL could still discuss them. The intent of these sessions was to promote discussion and enable support within a community of learning. Another workshop opportunity was to be provided in the first week of May 2020, after the completion of the semester. This would have enabled a new group of faculty to use the workshop to help contribute to their course syllabi for the upcoming semesters. Faculty interested in attending again were to be welcomed. Ideally these faculty could be encouraged to share their stories of learning and understanding. Reflective Journals It was anticipated that a significant source of study data would be obtained through reflective journaling (Dunlap, 2006). The faculty participating in the workshops were to be asked if they would volunteer to journal their reflections as they left the workshop at the end of Day 1. If they provided consent, they were to be asked to use reflective journaling to record their journey of learning and educating. This would take place for a period of approximately a week during the workshop and shortly thereafter, in order to capture their reflections as their new knowledge was applied. These personal reflections were to allow MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 40 insight as to how faculty were receiving the information as learners and what they perceived the value could be. Ideally, the reflection journaling would take place while faculty were reviewing their syllabi for the next semester. With the varied points at which faculty would undertake this review, it would not have been possible to schedule the UDL workshop to align with this step. As a result of this barrier, this journaling opportunity was linked to the workshop scheduling. The journal timeline of completion one week post workshop was expected to be an opportunity to have a window into faculty thoughts regarding inclusion, UDL and their own work. In keeping with UDL principles, these journals could be submitted in a variety of formats such as video recording, audio voice memo, word document, hand-written or other methods, as chosen by participant. These entries were to be loaded into the software program MaxQDA and would have had identifying elements removed. Prompting questions were intended to be included in journal requirement descriptions to ensure similar data subjects across participants. Prompt questions included: • Are there any teaching tools you use that you view in a different light after learning about UDL? • How did this UDL learning influence your teaching and your syllabus? • What elements of the workshop did you find most engaging? • What new strategies are you preparing to try? • Describe how you think any modifications in your syllabus will meet the UDL principles. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 41 While prompt questions were to be offered as an aide to writing and a guide to obtain data that supports comparison, the journals were intended to be developed as needed by the participants. It was to be a safe space in which participants could be blunt about the issues they were struggling with, questions they were encountering and the problems in resolving these issues. Institutional Survey. Articles are available regarding research completed at an institutional level for faculty self-assessed inclusive teaching (Dallas, Sprong & Upton, 2014; Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011; Lombardi, Vukovic, & Sala-Bars, 2015; Vukovic, 2016). Inviting all faculty at the university studied to complete the same ITSI survey was to be part of the data included in this research as a snapshot of the wider institutional standing. The invitation to complete the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) was distributed through the two college email lists. This survey call had been planned to take place after the primary data had been collected to provide a broader institutional value and a comparison within this research project. The use of this survey (Lombardi, Murray & Gerdes, 2011; Lombardi, Vukovic & Sala-Bars, 2015; Vukovic, 2016) enabled the comparison between other institutions and countries. The results enabled further reflection and comparison beyond the studied institution. The ITSI questions were structured to ask about faculty about their attitudes and actions. As this research targeted faculty attitudes, the ITSI questions pertaining to faculty actions were not asked. The demographic data was also not collected at the institutional survey level as the responses were limited. Within such a small institution, maintaining anonymity would not be possible. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 42 Through this planned approach triangulation of the findings would be available through the scope of input (Christ, 2009; Seifert, Goodman, King, & Baxter, 2010; Torrance, 2012). The Reality of the Study Process Several key factors ended up impacting the study and the data collection. The largest impact factor was the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the closure of the campus on March 17, 2020. The plans for the workshop to be face-to-face could not be achieved due to this closure. A Research Ethics Board Addendum had to be obtained to shift to an online model. Recruitment and enrollment for the research became difficult: because of the rapid pivot to online, faculty were noticeably stressed and overwhelmed as this occurred midsemester. Faculty were experiencing a new normal with social isolation and complex family demands while learning the basics of online teaching. Recognizing that the online element was new to most faculty, examples of the workshop were shifted to support how online learning could embed UDL principles and thus also provide greater value for those participating as well as providing them support in the online pivot (Betts, 2009). Many faculty indicated interest but felt they could not partake as they were not able to learn anything new at the time with so much upheaval happening. Those who did partake were not willing to commit much participation time. What Research Happened? The Research Ethics Board requested that the invitation for workshop participants be only a college wide distribution or by direct invitation from the researcher and not be sent by the department chairs. This limited the opportunity to recruit participants as the global department lists are often emails sent directly to the junk folder. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 43 The first call for a workshop was scheduled for the reading week break in February 2020 when there were no scheduled classes. Once the appropriate Research Ethics Board approvals were granted, the call for a face-to-face workshop went out. With a lead time of less than five days’ notice for the workshop, which resulted in a low enrollment, this workshop was rescheduled to allow for more time and planning. This new date ended up being in late March 2020, which was just as the province of British Columbia entered into a lockdown due to COVID-19. As a result, the face-to-face workshop was cancelled again, and a new approach was envisioned. This vision was a virtual workshop modelled on the same ideas as the face-to-face workshop. Research Ethics Board approval was applied for and granted. The time frame was adjusted to a two-week period to enable a longer opportunity to interact with the materials and to accommodate the new realities of conflicting schedules and demands on time while juggling home and work concurrently. In an effort to enable flexibility for learners, there was only one synchronous session scheduled for this workshop where the modified virtual World Café was to happen. The same opportunities to complete the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory pre- and post-workshop, to keep a reflective journal, as well as the collection of the World Café interaction data were offered as data collection points along with the Researcher’s participatory observations. The observations would include the recorded virtual World Café session, the responses of faculty to the activities in the course modules and any other observations within the course shell online. The online workshop was attended by eight participants, although a snowball effect did result in a few additional faculty. As this session was small, the details about faculty were not collected as it would be too easy to identify participants by the demographic. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 44 The entire workshop was modelled to be available for a two-week period in an asynchronous manner, with one scheduled synchronous session. The workshop structure provided a high-level overview of the goals, choice in materials for each section, and additional materials for those who wanted to know more. The synchronous session encountered system problems and resulted in two concurrent sessions with participants being split between the two and not visible to one another or the researcher. Casual conversation happened between the participants as efforts were made to identify what was happening. After the scheduled hour, it was identified that the Blackboard system had created two separate sessions. As a result, no data was collected at this point. As the premise of the new structure was to not further burden faculty participants, and the timeframe was now overlapping the final exam period for the Winter semester, another synchronous session to collect data was put on hold. None of the participants completed the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory and no participants kept a reflective journal. Another online workshop was offered for early in July 2020 to continue the research and collect more data. Reflecting on challenges encountered in the first workshop offering resulted in some adjustments to the scheduling. This workshop was to have had three synchronous sessions. The first was to enable an icebreaker and foster connection between the participants. Prompted by observations made by the researcher during the first session, with small numbers, it was felt that additional efforts to help foster the trust amongst the participants might help facilitate discussion sooner. As in most learning sessions, there was a delay as everyone becomes comfortable enough to open up and ask questions without participants fearing their questions being perceived as pointless, by the researcher or other participants. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 45 The second session was the data collection session regarding how participants experienced the material. This would be structured as a virtual World Café utilizing a few key questions to start the discussion. This session was to be recorded for transcription and review later as the key data collection period for faculty responses. The third synchronous session was planned to close out the study. It would enable another opportunity to foster deeper connection between the participants and encourage a community of practice continuing after the workshop. It would also allow the researcher to answer any outstanding questions about the research or the UDL framework. Due to low enrollment for this workshop, the one enrolled faculty and one enrolled staff member were invited to use the online course to obtain a UDL background and the formal workshop was suspended. Several faculty expressed interest in attending but felt they could not commit the time given the ongoing upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At this time, a decision to invite the initial workshop participants to partake in a debrief modified virtual World Café was issued. As the faculty are within the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies disciplines, some of the participants were unable to attend this follow up due to commitments for their field research. After a proposed date in July 2020, it was determined that the majority of the participants were able to attend. This session was facilitated by a qualified and experienced World Café facilitator. The conversation benefited from a deeper reflection on the longer-term impact because of the gap in time since first being introduced to the UDL framework in the earlier workshop. As planned, there was a call to all faculty to complete the ITSI after the cancellation of the final workshop offering. The survey was available for completion for a three-week period and did not ask for any demographic information given the small institution. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 46 After attempts to run the workshop, adapting the workshop to online delivery and attempting to offer it again, the data to review was less than anticipated. For the few willing to partake in the workshop, there were no contributions of reflective journals, and no pre- nor post- Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory were completed. With the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to create upheaval, it was agreed to by the supervising committee to proceed with the data obtained. The data for this project resulted from the workshop included the World Café/debrief session, and the Researcher’s journal. Regarding the offer for additional faculty support as both a means to support faculty to pursue the adoption of UDL in their learning design and to potentially provide stories for this research, two of the faculty who participated in the workshop subsequently approached the researcher, requesting assistance and a review of their course syllabi for suggestions on providing multiple means for action and expression in their assessment. The call for institutional participation in the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory was sent via the two College email lists, reaching a total of 315 email addresses. At the time of this survey, the numbers of faculty were 226 full time and 191 part time faculty (UNBC, 2020). This included 98 for College of Arts, Social and Health Sciences and 217 for College of Science and Management at the time of the call. The response rate to the invitation to participate was 36 respondents. The final data sources included the virtual World Café transcript along with snapshots of the interactive contributions to the slides, and the chat dialogue happening during the World café; the institutional ITSI results; and the researcher’s participatory observations. The observations expanded to both faculty participating and those unable to partake but commenting on the framework and/or workshop. With the range of qualitative and MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 47 quantitative sources, the triangulation remained achievable in order to validate the findings (Christ, 2009; Seifert, Goodman, King, & Baxter, 2010; Torrance, 2012). After so many attempts to conduct the research and with the limited number of participants, the decision was made to proceed with the analysis as there was no indication of improving opportunities for faculty participation given the ongoing challenges emerging from the pandemic. The planned methodology was transferred to the online delivery but the willingness of participants to fully partake in all planned activities cannot be designed. The methodology was chosen to provide rich data. As proven engagement approaches the specific actions were selected, but the adaptation for pandemic conditions affecting everyone resulted in reduced data. In the following chapter, the analysis of the data is presented along with reflection to connect the context and enhance the data analysis. . MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 48 Chapter 4 - Analysis This chapter discusses research findings from the data collection, as well as a discussion of the relevance in terms of the overall focus of the research study. This approach has been taken as the isolation of the data causes the loss of key context that is necessary to understanding the findings. The data collected for this research was generated from: a virtual world café session composed of the transcript, the chat dialogue and the markup added to slides, feedback received from participants who attended the workshop, the responses to an institutional wide call to complete the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory, and the researcher’s own observations. Qualitative Data This research study involved an online workshop for eight faculty members during the Winter Semester in 2020 regarding the introduction to the UDL framework. Faculty were invited to participate in a World Café to discuss their reflections once they completed the UDL introductory workshop. Six of the workshop participants were able to join the World Café synchronous session. Qualitative data collected consisted of transcripts of the World Café session, chat dialogue, screen shots where participants were invited to annotate the slides, and comments submitted outside of the virtual café session. These combined sources were evaluated for themes using iterative thematic coding against a self-developed code book. Using the qualitative analysis program MaxQDA, these records have been coded and reviewed. The self-developed code book included three core areas; UDL guideline rows, barriers encountered, and sources of support for participants. Further scrutiny of each of the three UDL principles sought to isolate where faculty understanding of learning was strongest. These themes shaped analysis through identifying trends in participants’ learning-about- MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 49 learning role. MaxQDA did allow for other exploration of the data collected such as matching words used by participants to Bloom’s Taxonomy of verbs to see if there was a trend in that idea. This resulted in a broad distribution throughout the levels of Bloom’s and provided no trend or useful insights. This was not a surprising outcome of the analysis given that faculty participants can be expected to use a broad range of vocabulary. As this research was looking at UDL applying to faculty as learners, using the UDL Guidelines to ascertain where faculty resided as learners in this context emerged as an approach to evaluate the participant responses. Two questions had been asked for each of the three UDL areas in both the virtual World Café and through faculty feedback for those unable to attend the virtual World Café. The first line of questioning had asked for reflection regarding the participants’ own learning experience and the second portion for each UDL principle had asked for reflection from the participants’ perspective as an instructor looking at their course material. In reviewing the outcomes, the researcher’s observation on this twopart framing noted there were more responses regarding the part two questions when the perspective was as an instructor. Faculty struggled with evaluating their own learning perspectives. The data analysis was divided between the nine UDL Guidelines. Faculty responses were coded for where they indicated their requirements for learning or their understanding about learning. The horizontal organization (as described by Dr. David H. Rose, National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2010) [Video File]) has been used to group the thematic coding to identify where the participants are located in their learningabout-learning journey. Ongoing reflection on the detailed checkpoints for each guideline enabled aligning the data with the UDL Guidelines and facilitated clarity in assessing the broad scope of participants’ comments. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 50 Choosing this horizontal component also enabled identifying where faculty are in their learning-about-learning needs and current comprehension (see Figure 7). The three UDL principles added dimension to the space, further evaluation included coding while reflecting on the checkpoints detailed within each UDL guideline. These principles, as discussed, have been included to support readers as these are the various checkpoint details used for ascertaining what faculty statements reflected. The coding was done with the full UDL Guidelines (see Figure 7) close at hand and frequently reflected upon by the researcher during theming using the checkpoints as guides. Figure 7. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 Figure 7 CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 51 Theming. The analysis of the workshop transcript, the collected screenshots of interactive slide markups, chat transcripts from the recorded virtual world café session, and other feedback from faculty, provided insight into faculty as learners. Initially themes began with emphasis towards the UDL checkpoint 8.3, “foster collaboration and community” (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). As analysis of the data continued, a broader UDL Guidelines theme emerged. Analysis of responses began to identify faculty as learners in the early guideline levels of Access and Build in the UDL Guidelines. This was reflected in the language used by the participants and by the actions they chose for their own classrooms, as illustrated in the qualitative data as viewed through the relevant guidelines. The UDL Guidelines have been inserted in this section to enable visualization of links between the findings and these UDL Guidelines. Some of the visual tools within MaxQDA have been used to support the data analysis such as the document mapping of the themes. The comparison of the themed codes to the various horizontal groupings was done to illustrate the dominant understanding within each of the principles. Findings. Theming toward the UDL Guidelines allowed the trends of faculty as learners to emerge. Figure 8 illustrates the strong visual impact of the volume of comments themed by UDL guidelines. This demonstrates the emphasis on the early or external level influences with all the responses. The strong showing at the upper rows of Access and Build are those levels where the influence is external. To further enable reflection, the breakdown by the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 52 UDL principles along each row was utilized. Each of the three principles is noted by their colour from the UDL Guidelines (CAST, 2018b). Figure 8. Coded Faculty Results to All Horizontal Categories of UDL Guidelines Access Build Internalize - Engagement Representation Action & Expression Figure 8. Perceived Faculty Understanding of UDL Guidelines and Principles Coded Results, grouped along the horizonal categories of the UDL Guidelines Access, Build and Internalize while capturing each principle at these horizontal levels. UDL Access level. The external influence on the learning is the key point of the guidelines listed along the horizontal Access row of the UDL Guidelines. At this level, the design is looking at providing access (Posey, 2019a). This area is the initial stage of “Why should I learn about this?”. The various guidelines listed on this row focus on enabling ideas that expand the access to the learning goal through recruiting interest along with providing options for perception and the option for physical action (CAST, 2018b). From the perpective of instructional design, this row is where the instructor has most control (Degner, 2019). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 53 Figure 9. Perceived Faculty Responses of Access Level for all UDL Principles Access Engagement Representation Action & Expression Figure 9: A bar chart displaying the perceived faculty understanding mapped along the UDL Guidelines Access grouping. As illustrated in Figure 9, the perceived faculty understanding of themed comments is strong across all three of the principles and well distributed. Checkpoints listed within the guidelines on this Access row were used to reflect on faculty statements. The Principle of Engagement emerged with the greatest weight in this row. Access – Recruiting Interest. Figure 10. Access Level – Principle of Engagement Checkpoints Figure 10. This is the guideline for the Principle of Engagement along the Access row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 54 The structure of the workshop was developed to enable individual choice and autonomy, in order to enable the participants to progress through with their own choice regarding how much they explored. Within each section, they were directed to look at a minimum of two of the options, but were also welcome to explore as much as they wished. The comments are samples from the participants and would reflect that participants as learners liked to have the autonomy to choose their own level of engagement and participation. “I try my best to mix lecture, discussions and videos in every topic to capture everyone interest” (Participant feedback, 2020). Such statements reflect an understanding that a learner’s choice is important. “What to do to engage different type of learners, whether it's visual, audible or through reading” (World Café Transcript, 09:25, 2020). This comment demonstrates a realization that engagement plays a role to the learning. Participants realized that they too enjoyed having choice as learners given comments like “Content was provided as various readings and videos. I liked the approach that we were asked to pick a few of the options provided“ (Participant feedback, 2020). Access – Perception. Figure 11. Access Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints Figure 11. This guideline is the Principle of Representation along the Access row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 55 version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. “I also present information more than once and in different forms to get to all the learning styles” (World Café Slide Annotations, 47:33, 2020). Comments such as this reflected that the participants could recognize that their own instruction contained components of UDL. Participants realized the challenges of learner variability: “students who need constant stimulation in the classroom versus those who need less stimulation” (World Café Discussion, 47:20, 2020) reflected the participant’s recognition of the relevancy of UDL to their classroom instruction. The variability in the faculty also came through comments such as “I like the lack of a need to read a lot of papers but could read if I wanted to. I do not like too many options though” (World Café Slide Annotations, 32:11, 2020). The perception of choice, but not so much choice as to be overwhelming, emerged. In the previous statement, the need for flexibility and yet not too much is clear. Access - Physical Action. Figure 12. Access Level - Principle of Action & Expression Checkpoints Figure 12. This is the guideline for the Principle of Action & Expression along the Access row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 56 guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. This level of the guidelines is the access point where educators have opportunity to create access to content, as described by A. A. Reid (personal communication, December 6, 2020). Through the actions of the instructors, learners can better connect with content. The participants in the workshop demonstrated understanding of this through comments such as “Encourage them to interact with the content in a variety of ways” (World Café Slide Annotations, 26:06, 2020). This is where providing modelling of expert performance or demonstrations of incorrect methods can help generate patterns for learners to create their own mental models (Rose & Meyer, 2002). This is also where providing multiple examples helps the recognition networks to identify the critical features that are then used to recognize the patterns in new examples. So by this explanation, an overlap between the neuro networks emerges. Any of the UDL Guidelines can easily overlap with other areas as these networks do not function in complete isolation and reflect the complexity of learner variability (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Posey, 2019a; Rose & Meyer, 2002). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 57 UDL Build level. Figure 13. Perceived Faculty Responses of Build Level Build Engagement Representation Action & Expression Figure 13. A bar chart displaying the perceived faculty understanding mapped along the UDL Guidelines Access grouping. The Build level of the guidelines is about building skills and building on the access entry (Posey, 2019a). Another explanation for the Build level can be equated to the idea of classroom activities I do, We do, You do, actions where the first time “I do” is the instructor demonstrating, the “We do” is the class going through practice together and then final stage is “You do”. This is where the student is going through the activity themselves, as they are now familiar enough with the task to see it to completion (A. A. Reid, personal communication, December 6, 2020). It is at this stage and in this area of the guidelines where the learners begin to develop their own clarification such as using multiple tools and building their own fluencies. This is the point where the instructor has some control and influence, but the learner begins to draw their own meanings (Degner, 2019). In this row of the guidelines, the participants demonstrated strengths in options for sustaining effort and persistence as well as expression and communication. The surprise in this chart was the limited alignment with the options for language and symbols. When reviewing the overall findings, the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 58 participants appear to demonstrate stronger internalization of the Principle of Representation. Breaking down the three outcomes at the build level is now explained further. Build - Sustaining Effort & Persistence. Figure 14. Build Level - Principle of Engagement Checkpoints Figure 14. This is the guideline for the Principle of Engagement along the Build row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. Sustaining Effort & Persistence emerged from the analysis as the area with the strongest theme in all of the coded participant responses. This is also influenced by the willingness of the participants to volunteer for this project given their interest in their own learning. They are, by their own actions of participation, seeking to increase the masteryoriented feedback. Faculty on their own learning-about-learning journey demonstrate familiarity with points associated with these guidelines with statements such as “Ice-breaking is also important to connect with others” (World Café Slide Annotation, 28:33, 2020). Recognizing the need to foster collaboration and community is reflected through the identification of icebreakers as being an important part of the class. As one participant MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 59 reflected in the following comment: “… they paid more attention in our class by asking them how we could do the class better for the next group of students” (World Café Transcript, 26:15, 2020). Empowering the class to reflect helped to sustain interest. Adding a researcher’s observation of the interaction during the World Café session, fostering collaboration and community amongst the participants occurred as they shared stories. This exchange extended to encouragement, when a participant spoke of challenges, the others would rally to express support. Build - Language & Symbols. Figure 15. Build Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints Figure 15. This is the guideline for the Principle of Representation along the Build row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. One comment received indicated that the Language & Symbols area of the workshop could use more work: “It took me sometime to understand some concepts in UDL because I had issues relating some terms used with the concepts” (Participant Feedback, 2020). My interpretation of this statement is that there is a language within the UDL realm that a novice MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 60 learner struggles with. With most new knowledge comes the need to absorb a new lexicon of terms. This is where the disciplinary expertise often presents barriers for new learners as they do not yet have the vocabulary. As Middendorf and Pace (2004) explain, the disciplinary expertise may complicate the learning if it is not decoded to be understandable to the learners where they are at. The comment received demonstrates this happens in all contexts. A solution to this barrier could be something as simple as providing a sheet of terms for students to help clarify the vocabulary being used. Build - Expression & Communication. Figure 16. Build Level - Principle of Action & Expression Checkpoints Figure 16. This is the guideline for the Principle of Action & Expression along the Access row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved In the guideline Expression & Communication one statement echoed ways to build fluencies by identifying the action: “Asking students to summarize class” (World Café Transcribed Slides, 47:14, 2020). “I need to be able to repeat it verbally back to someone” (World Café Transcribed Slides, 48:35, 2020) is an example of where participants identify MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 61 how they need to demonstrate their understanding of the learning goal. Through demonstration learners are challenged to consolidate and apply the various parts for performance while also providing opportunity for feedback to further develop the fluency (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL Internalize level. At this level, the learning is an independent and internalized UDL framework (Posey, 2019a). At this point, the learner is demonstrating skills as an expert learner – that is, they are demonstrating purposeful, motivated actions utilizing resourceful and knowledgeable approaches through strategic and goal-directed actions to achieve their learning (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014). The learner is in control of how they strategize their choices, and how they utilize resources and tools made available to them (Degner, 2019). This is the point where learners connect their prior understanding and knowledge to execute strategies to achieve the learning goals. Figure 17. Perceived Faculty Responses to Internalize Level Only Internalize Engagement Representation Action & Expression Figure 17. A bar chart displaying the perceived faculty understanding mapped along the UDL Guidelines Internalize grouping. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 62 Internalize – Self Regulation. Figure 18. Internalize Level - Principle of Engagement Checkpoints Figure 18. This is the guideline for the Principle of Action & Expression along the Access row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. This row is the culmination of the efforts and work in the previous rows Build and Access. This row involves deeper reflection and self-assessment. In new areas of learning, learners are often unsure of what they are measuring or their goals. This is also in the area of the affective network. Within this realm, those who are expert learners are able to set difficult goals and can sustain their efforts through challenges (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). In the data, there was recognition of this for the classroom, but it was not well realized from the perspectives as learners, as captured by the following comment: “Ask them what goals they have and what they the researchers own observations are going to do to achieve those goals and what I can do to support them achieving their goals” (World Café Transcribed Notes, 26:35, 2020). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 63 Internalize – Comprehension. Figure 19. Internalize Level - Principle of Representation Checkpoints Figure 19. This is the guideline for the Principle of Representation along the Internal row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. Activating or supplying background knowledge can be achieved by the use of relevant examples. The participants in this research demonstrated a strong understanding of this guideline. One comment stated: “For my courses I tend to integrate real world examples, guest lectures, films, etc. to bring the course material to life” (World Café Annotated Slides, 23:13, 2020), illustrating this understanding. This guideline, while on the Internalize row, is likely easier for those new to learning-about-learning to understand and to find elements for themselves and for their instruction. This guideline also emerged as the only strongly recognized learning-about-learning at the highly developed level of Internalize. As participants are well-educated (most of them had obtained a PhD in their respective disciplines), it is not unexpected that they are resourceful and knowledgeable regarding obtaining information in this specific setting of learning-about-learning, specifically the UDL Guidelines. This principle of Representation is the most tangible and easily understood MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 64 principle as it is built on the recognition neural networks (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Incorporating new learning into the neural networks is influenced by previous learning (Rose & Meyers, 2002). Because the participants have had extensive educational experience, strengths from other contexts such as their own disciplinary studies likely influence their ability to identify elements that are similar by activating background knowledge. This would explain the strong weighting on this guideline. Internalize – Executive Functions. Figure 20. Internalize Level - Principle of Action and Express Checkpoints Figure 20. This is the guideline for the Principle of Action & Expression along the Internal row with the checkpoints. Extracted from CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. © CAST 2021. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved. When navigating through the UDL Guidelines, the row that represents the Internalization of skills for the principle of Action & Expression, focuses on Executive Functions. This area represents the cognitive complexity necessary to engage in strategic, goal-directed action (CAST, 2018b). Some of the ways the checkpoints within this guideline have been captured by the workshop participants are in the following quotes: “I encourage all my students to connect their world with the materials and so their voice is always in the class MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 65 and I can see how clearly they understand” (World Café Annotated Slides, 50:26, 2020). “Written assignments work best for me. I like to take the time to put my thoughts together and refine them on paper” (Participant Feedback, 2020). These quotes show understanding of the executive function checkpoints both from the learner perspective and the instructor perspective. In one participant’s actions, the limiting of executive function may be demonstrated through the participant’s own procrastination in looking at the workshop material and preparing for the synchronous session, illustrating that the capacity has been directed to managing entry level skills. Thus the capacity for executive functions is reduced (CAST, 2018b). Rabin, Fogel, and Nutter-Upham (2011) discussed effective strategies to aid in fostering skill development such as: contracts for weekly completion of work, development of short goals for assignment completion that build upon each other, along with working with students to set reasonable expectations for the amount of effort involved to minimize the negative consequences of weak executive functioning. Providing such supports scaffolds progress monitoring which aids in executive function development. Additional executive function support within the workshop could have included mapped out expectations in an email to highlight specific goals and ways to prepare for the session. This could have been in the form of a checklist of suggestions for logistical coordination of dates, time, and access to the virtual classroom, what to have prepared, prompts for reflection, or some resources that the participants could have explored to activate background knowledge prior to the workshop (A. A. Reid, personal communication, January 17, 2021). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 66 Closing Reflections on the Qualitative Analysis. Figure 21. Faculty Response Portrait for Coded Themes across Combined Data Sources Figure 21. This graph is displaying the distributed results of the theming across the key themes consisting of: UDL Principle of Engagement, UDL Principle of Action & Expression, Barriers, UDL Principle of Representation and Support. The Faculty Response Portrait for Coded Themes across Combined Data Sources in Figure 21 provides a quick visual summary of the distribution between the principles of UDL, barriers, and supports based on the coded themes. Immediately, the principle of Engagement was seen to be the prevailing idea, followed by the principle of Action & Expression. Figure 21 also shows that the theme of barriers was stronger than the principle of Representation or the “What” of learning (CAST, 2018b). Participants provided limited reflection on supports. The few comments provided reflected a broad scope ranging from MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 67 institutional level supports to personal supports. It is unsurprising to observe the dominance of the Principle of Engagement in the outcomes and reflections as the workshop was designed to support faculty. The two themes identified, Barriers and Supports, had little to contribute to the discussion of UDL and faculty as learners. The topic of barriers resulted in the identification of barriers in diverse technological equipment for learners. This was further expanded as a significant challenge for an instructor to have sufficient technological understanding to assist students. Another barrier discussed involved the complexity of learning-about-learning. This barrier supported the idea that, in this context, faculty are novice learners and require the appropriate support (Posey 2019a, 2019b). The other barrier identified was time. It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to explore the impact of the rapid change in the instructional setting and in uncertainty because of the COVID-19 pandemic. One support statement acknowledged recognition of departmental support towards attending the workshop. With the limited contribution from participants regarding these support and barrier topics/themes, there is not much that can be expanded upon in this research. A closing question asked of the participants was to reflect on whether: “having exposure to UDL concepts changed anything in your courses? Are you aware of consciously looking at how you are providing choice?” There was a unanimous agreement from the participants that having the conversations about UDL had informed their teaching practices. This unanimous response supports the idea that modelling universal design for learning to faculty in learning environments, such as professional development settings, is important while also suggesting ideas about bringing the framework into higher education. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 68 Several themes emerged when looking at the faculty’s recorded reflections. As these themes are explored, such results offer possible insight that could serve to inform institutions about which resources are necessary or where a department leader could focus possible development opportunities. This research indicates that faculty require additional supports as novice learners experience greater cognitive loads (Posey, 2019a, 2019b). One surprising theme was the notion of faculty members as learners. The theme demonstrated that their level as learners appeared to be at the Access or Build level when compared to the UDL Guideline horizontal banding. Many of the responses indicated a limited understanding of UDL and the scope of their options. It would appear that the workshop started a conversation about choices and that the participants are only at the early stages of understanding how such choices could impact their instruction. The workshop enabled an opportunity to see faculty in learning roles. Significant external influences may have contributed to the ability and willingness of faculty to participate. The workload of faculty during the period of this research was higher as the pandemic had resulted in an abrupt shift in teaching approaches. There had been faculty job action in the semester prior that could have also been a factor in the willingness to undertake extra activities. These are just some of the external factors that could have directly influenced the numbers of participants in the project and may have influenced the way in which they participated. These are unprecedented times and present challenges to recruit faculty willing to participate in such studies. Quantitative Data This research project was designed to use the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory as a source of quantitative data to measure self-assessed faculty attitudes towards inclusive MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 69 education. The Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory provides a general framing of how providing inclusive learning is understood or valued from a faculty perspective. This survey was selected for use as it had been used in other research internationally and this would enable comparison between UNBC and other institutions. The inventory was created by A. Lombard, who provided permission to use this survey for my research (personal communication, July 5, 2019). Institutional Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory. The initial plans were to release the survey as a pre- and post-measure to the workshop participants. The participants of the workshop were invited to complete the inventory prior to the workshop. A week after the workshop, the faculty participants were emailed to invite them to complete post workshop. No faculty completed the survey during this period. As a result, this data was not available for comparison for the pre/post evaluation. Once the research from the workshop had been collected, the survey invitation to participate was extended to all of the institution’s faculty to create an opportunity to obtain a “big picture” view. Only the institutional faculty perspective can be reported as only 36 participants contributed to this survey out of a possible 315, representing an 11.6% response rate. Completing the full survey created by Lombardi was not asked of participants due to the small numbers at the institution. The participants were only asked about questions pertaining to attitudes. The action questions were omitted in part as there was a sensitivity surrounding strained labour relations at this institution at the time the project was drafted, and it was seen as a barrier to project progression. The local results of the ITSI are listed in Table Two along with the results published by Lombardi, Vukovic, and Sala-Bars in 2015. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 70 Table 2. Comparison of Attitude Across U.S., Spain, Canada, and This Project Table 2 Comparison of Attitude Across U.S., Spain, Canada, and This Project This Project U.S. Spain Canada ITSI Subscale M SD M SD M SD M SD Accommodations 4.00 2.01 3.02 0.46 2.08 0.43 3.47 0.49 Concepts 3.40 1.45 2.75 0.76 1.62 0.57 2.97 0.59 Inclusive Classroom 4.03 2.05 3.47 0.51 2.52 0.41 3.36 0.49 3.33 1.37 3.01 0.71 2.37 0.45 2.66 0.62 2.53 0.59 3.60 0.69 2.29 0.64 1.86 0.70 Disability Law and Inclusive Assessment Course Modifications Note: U.S., Spain and Canada results are from Lombardi, Vukovic, and Sala-Bars (2015, p. 455). Used with Permission from A. Lombardi. Comparing these local results indicates a strong awareness of the need for accommodations, and the federal/national disability law and concepts among the UNBC faculty. It was noted that faculty in Canada do seem to have a strong awareness of accommodations and disability laws and concepts and the results obtained here demonstrate an even stronger level of awareness (Lombardi, Vukovic, & Sala-Bars, 2015). The results of this survey reflected similar outcomes to Lombardi, Vukovic, and Sala-Bars’ (2015) results. Course modifications ratings were consistently low, reflecting reduced variability in the instructional delivery approaches. Large deviations were observed in the ratings in most categories, reflecting a broad range of faculty perception pertaining to their ability and existing opportunity to provide flexibility in their deliveries. The scope and range within the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 71 Inclusive Assessment and Course Modification areas indicate opportunities for professional development programing with particular focus on these topics. Further illustration of these results is available in Appendix H. In close evaluation of the results, it appears that there are a few faculty who remain uncertain about the legal requirements to provide accommodations as well as disability law and concepts. The mean is quite high, but there is a large standard deviation observed in these results. The areas of accommodations and disability laws and concepts have significant range but are situated to indicate a general awareness of disability law does exist. Researcher Participatory Observations Faculty participating in the research did provide comments and demonstrate actions in a way similar way to students. For the workshop synchronous session, it was observed that faculty only gave a cursory glance at course material ahead of time and in doing so, had skipped going over the course outline. Instead, faculty were expecting specific reminders of tasks, dates, and expectations, to be communicated in small chunks. This would reflect low executive functioning to planning and strategizing over one’s learning plans. It was intriguing to observe this behaviour as these same faculty, during previous face to face semesters, were observed lamenting that students are not following the course outline - when in a learning situation, they demonstrate similar behaviour. This can be seen as an indicator that context matters for learning behaviours. A key element missing from the modified workshop was an icebreaker. Because of the virtual setting and in consideration of faculty demands, there was only to be one synchronous session. The second offering of the workshop had been redesigned to include two key synchronous sessions after identifying a missed opportunity to develop relations MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 72 amongst participants through an icebreaker. This redesign planned for the first synchronous session was to be at the start of the two-week period where the workshop was running, to better enable the connections between participants. Unfortunately, there were insufficient participants signed up to continue to the second workshop. I felt fortunate to have as much interest in the topic given the multitude of issues facing everyone at this time: the sudden pivot to online, isolation due to COVID-19, and the challenges this isolation created. As I emailed out workshop invitations, I would receive responses of interest but apologies as the opportunity would be missed due to conflicting priorities. It was an honour to have some faculty willing to make the space for this research. Once faculty took the time to look at the workshop materials and the various modules, they became enthused about how the information could be useful. The brief overview of UDL was structured to provide a variety of means to access the content to enable choice for the faculty as learners. Ensuring the principles of UDL were modelled was key to the whole project and reflected the possibilities of how learner variability could be supported through thoughtful and proactive design. Providing participants with an experiential learning opportunity as an introduction to the UDL framework helped illustrate the concepts. I sought to identify if value exists in faculty experiencing inclusive learning where they themselves are in the role as learners throughout this research study. This value question was explored to determine if this experience translates to their own course design enhancement to embed expanded inclusion actions. A deeper part of the workshop sought to record if working together among peers deepens collaboration and develops a community of practice. These themes present evidence that this work does aid in assisting faculty in the development of their personal understanding of learning. The low rating on “course MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 73 modification” in the ITSI results supports the novice level with regards to understanding learning observed of faculty. Reviewing the responses with regards to the questions asked, participants provided stronger and more confident viewpoints as an instructor reflecting on learners. The questions posed for reflection from the faculty as a learners presented the greatest challenges and resulted in reduced reflection. The World Café included the following questions “What actions and activities enhance faculty participation”, and “What captures your interest and willingness to learn about something?”. There was very limited response verbally, and no response annotating the slide. One participant indicated “activities that involve a visual component (like videos) or relationship to day-to-day experiences” (Participant feedback, 2020). The theming shifted the conclusions being drawn. Initially the intent of the research and focus was towards fostering collaboration and community checkpoint in the Principle of Engagement at the Build row level. As data from the different sources was reviewed and themed, it became evident that there was a deeper development of understanding that needed to take place to progress the participants towards the expert learner level. The comprehension under the Principle of Representation was at the internalized level. This observation was not surprising as faculty are resourceful and knowledgeable in data management in their discipline, it could be expected that these skills are transferable. The novice levels emerging in the other two principles of Engagement and Action and Expression initially prompted review of the process to confirm this was consistent. Ideas about this novice learning continued to emerge in looking at the data, the entire transcription was reviewed with the lens of where in the UDL Guidelines did the responses position the participants. This was the MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 74 most significant shift in the direction of the research. Once the idea of the overall UDL Guidelines was the focus, the theming emerged to capture the idea of the context these participants found themselves in, that they were novice learners and required those additional supports (Posey, 2019a; Posey, 2019b). The analysis of the data provided insight into faculty learning outside their discipline. There are challenges and opportunities in this knowledge for administrators, instructional designers, accessibility advisors and faculty themselves. As the dynamic work of higher education supports our communities, fostering lifelong learning skills is a worthwhile undertaking. The following section explores some of these opportunities and recommendations coming from this analysis. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 75 Chapter 5 - Conclusions The optimal goal of this research was to identify whether faculty provided with learning based on UDL principles go on to engage further as educators. The opportunity to experience UDL as learners did impact the majority of the faculty participants. Seven of the eight faculty participants indicated a positive change in their instructional practices when the participants were asked this question several months after participating in the workshop. This research identified that faculty new to learning-about-learning are not yet proficient in this topic. Their teaching understanding expanded and started small changes in their instruction when the participants experienced a UDL modelled learning environment. This optimal goal offers benefits to the upcoming generation of students as the learners who will be studying under these educators. If faculty members outside of the Education discipline can learn to apply UDL principles to their instruction, their higher education classroom improves for their students. Developing their students as expert learners contributes to an informed society comprised of individuals with the skills to excel in our dynamic world. UDL is a dynamic and rapidly developing science. Faculty are occupied with maintaining knowledge in their primary discipline and rarely have enough time for keeping up with other disciplines. If educational institutions start with investing in proactive setup and configuration of instructional design, they will garner significant paybacks to ease instructor workload in the delivery of courses. This would require significant investments in keeping current with the research happening in education, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience and understanding the implications of emerging findings. An important component of this investment would be the fostering of relations between faculty across disciplines to support and explore new educational approaches. In this research, when given MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 76 time to reflect on the motivation of learning, one participant responded to the question about capturing interest with; “The importance to enhance learning of my students by giving them alternatives to learn that meet their needs and preferred ways to learn” (Participant feedback, 2020). Faculty are encouraged when results are experienced and supported with data. The results from the ITSI for this institution were consistent with the findings in Lombardi, Vukovic and Sala-Bars’ 2015 research. Questions pertaining to accessible course materials and inclusive lecture strategies were not included in the survey undertaken. The local findings scored higher in all categories than all the previous findings noted except for the US Mean on Course Modifications (p. 455). This exception may be a result of increasing awareness of the need as the local results were collected in the summer of 2020. It is likely that faculty members have increased their awareness of the need for inclusion with the world events spanning 2014-2021 including such events as: #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Report, Pride Parades, and other marginalized group demonstrations. It is worth noting, however, that faculty who were willing to participate in the survey were likely already interested in the topic and therefore were already aware, which may pose as a key limitation of this study. Five areas of inclusive teaching were compared: accommodations, disability law and concepts, inclusive classroom, inclusive assessment, and course modifications. Using the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory for identifying areas of focus for faculty development and connecting back to the Universal Design for Learning elements, demonstrated that the areas with the lower scores were inclusive assessment and course modifications. This comparison and alignment to UDL would support a conclusion that faculty could use support to develop skills in learning-about-learning. The scores would MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 77 indicate a strong understanding about what accommodations are and what the disability legal obligations are. The areas of weakness identified in the comparison were pertaining to instructional delivery related areas, and what action and expression may look like for faculty as learners to demonstrate their understanding. This would include recognizing inclusive assessment as an area that could benefit from enhanced professional development. New knowledge was developed regarding ways to create engaging inclusive learning experiences and environments to benefit the institution, faculty, and learners. The completed analysis process resulted in better understanding the motivating factors for faculty towards their instructional roles. These roles include the recognition of new learning and providing supports for faculty to develop new skills in instruction, and inclusive design. All of these factors are valuable in fostering a positive and inclusive environment for learning. What Does This Indicate? Applying UDL to professional development for faculty is a valid but underutilized approach. The challenge is looking at faculty as learners and recognizing that they may be experts in their discipline but lack the familiarity with, and skills in, learning-about-learning. There is a need to provide opportunities for novice learners to be introduced to concepts; this increased cognitive load should be recognized and planned for through the workshop design with supports such as a glossary for new words (Rosagaron & Novak, 2020; Posey, 2019b). Faculty seem to have a challenge seeing themselves as learners. Their responses became more animated when the questions shifted to what they may be doing in their curriculum where they had greater confidence. This is similar to how students in a classroom remain reserved until they better understand what they are talking about. Faculty participants seemed to find value in better understanding the UDL framework. A barrier in faculty members’ MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 78 classrooms is discipline literacy, based on the subsequent conversations throughout the research study. Thoughtful design, as observed in mathematics literacy, can reduce the barriers of language enabling students to better develop and expand their discipline literacy (Newman Thomas, Van Garderen, Scheuermann, & Lee, 2015). Some faculty participants have asked for continued support and review of materials as they wished to adapt their curriculum to prepare for learner variability even after the research study concluded. These observations are encouraging and illustrate that having the conversation and the workshop opportunity planted the concept, which can begin to grow. Through experiential learning for faculty, participants develop an understanding of the UDL framework to apply to their classroom environments which can support their students to develop as expert learners who know how to learn (Rose, et al. 2018). The findings of this project indicated that professional development opportunities for faculty need to be welcoming and based on UDL principles for learners. Adult learners are variable, which is much like the variability of students in a classroom (Derbiszewska &Tucker-Smith, 2020). Professional development opportunities for faculty should model the best practices for learning environments. As there is no average learner within professional development of faculty, the UDL framework serves to model for faculty their own learner variability. Faculty participants in this research demonstrated that they are in the early learning stages about learning; this indicates the importance of providing support as the learning develops. This concept is supported by the UDL Guide regarding the path for faculty members to go from novice to expert learners (La, Dyjur & Bain, 2018). In this dynamic world, the context for learning is as varied as the learners in it. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 79 There have been significant world events influencing everyday decisions that have occurred since I enrolled in my doctoral studies such as: #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Pride Parades, Wet’suwet’en (Indigenous) pipeline protests, and Indigenous protests on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. These uprisings have all occurred in recent years and can be seen as supporting the need for inclusion in the design of our learning environments. Faculty within Natural Resources and Environmental Studies need support for their efforts in learningabout-learning. This need has been supported in the literature in that learning needs to put relationships first, including relationships with faculty and with student (Couros & Novak, 2020). Commitment needs to be made and resources need to be allocated if institutional objectives and priorities are to support the instruction in their classrooms reflecting a UDL framework. UDL needs to become part of the conversation at all levels of an institution to support faculty unfamiliar with learning-about-learning. The benefits will be ongoing and can produce significant value for the reputation of an institution. Goodwin University embraced UDL and implemented a program to support faculty moving towards adopting a UDL framework in 2017 (Wilken, 2019). They rewarded those willing to complete their inhouse program with recognition and support. The institution put in place structures to support and reward faculty. The organization shifted to celebrate the successes and to foster the exchange of experiences and conversations between faculty towards what worked and what did not. Facilitating the redesign of classrooms to enable flexibility is one way the institution demonstrated its commitment. Only faculty who had participated in the UDL cohort are eligible to teach in these new and flexible spaces. Students found the opportunities such flexibility proved beneficial to their learning. Students have begun to demand that their MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 80 instructors participate in the UDL professional development so that their classes could be in these flexible classroom spaces (Wilken, 2019). It is also important for institutions to think of allowing opportunity for information processing time, as well as providing opportunities for formative assessment when planning for professional development for faculty (Hammond, 2015). All of those elements and considerations recommended for students hold value for faculty as learners. Faculty members, as expert learners in their discipline, may not realize the unconscious steps that they are going through in processing their own critical thinking in that subject because they have become experts (Middendorf and Pace, 2004). What is missing? The overall institutional understanding, support, and willingness to commit significant resources was missing in the environment of higher education as was examined in this research. The flexibility in classrooms is another place an institution can demonstrate commitment. Too often the classrooms are rigid configurations which do not afford the opportunity for variable learning options such a group work. The term lecture theatre often brings images of tiered space with rows of seats facing a stage like setting. The lecture setting does not enable flexible instructional options such as group work or enabling student contributions as the focus is on the instructor on stage. Classroom space with flexible options can still accommodate large groups. CAST hosts an Annual UDL Symposium at the Harvard Law School which I have attended and experienced. I will describe one of these rooms to provide an example. The room had an occupancy rate of approximately 50 with the flexibility to enable discussion and breakout groups because the chairs and most of the tables move. There were two levels within the room and there were access ramps to empower MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 81 students to move between levels. There were a few table countertops centered around a central podium. The room was not outfitted with a wide range of technology except through a central podium connection to a ceiling mounted projector. The choice was in the configuration of desks, tables, countertops, and chairs, enabling flexibility. This room still had blackboards, yet they were also flexible to allow different seating arrangements and allow technology displays. There was also significant wall space for posting posters or collaborative work and was utilized by one presentation. This is one way that institutions can offer the faculty support for flexibility and choice with physical space. Many faculty are overwhelmed with the challenges of COVID- 19 and the pivot to fulltime online teaching and learning. One space in which support can emerge is in resources to help faculty design thoughtful, UDL informed online delivery. One example could be enabling learning for how faculty members can intentionally design discussion boards to foster student collaboration (Novak & Thibodeau, 2016). There are easy opportunities for Institutional Teaching and Learning Centres to aid faculty entering the online learning space. It was observed in the data that faculty had that the learning opportunities provided by the institution’s Centre for Teaching and Learning had assumed their audience (faculty) knew the basic steps to using technology. Too often the latest and greatest technology is where the Teaching and Learning Centres focus their training. Instead, simple basic elements help bring the UDL framework into the learning environment in a way that is not overwhelming to the faculty unfamiliar with this space. Part of demonstrating UDL framework would be to model scaffolding these basic technology steps for the sessions ensuring the faculty learners could access the technology. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 82 In order to support faculty, support for faculty to transition their learning environments is required, just like the students need to be supported to learn new skills. An organization that recognizes this will model the value of supporting everyone as learners. There are a multitude of ongoing opportunities once this attitude is adopted. The learning can be about learning new systems being deployed by the IT department or learning about new approaches to their instruction and kinds of interaction with students. These faculty members are learning in this process and additional support needs to be provided by those knowledgeable in the topic. This transformation should also include changes to the faculty evaluation process, recognizing and supporting expanded opportunity for faculty to explore and develop their instructional approaches. Faculty agreements at research intensive institutions tend to focus on the production of publications and research grants. Ensuring that inclusive teaching is valued and rewarded in promotion processes such as tenure and promotion language within faculty agreements is another opportunity. Other Examples. Inspiring stories have emerged of success at other institutions since this research commenced. Goodwin University, formerly Goodwin College, received a large funding grant to establish a UDL pilot project in 2017 (Nave, 2019). This UDL project, funded by the Davis Foundation, enabled three cohorts of faculty to be instructed in the UDL framework between 2017 and 2019. This funding allowed Goodwin University faculty to receive support while learning about the UDL framework and working to implement the UDL framework in their classrooms. These faculty at Goodwin also received recognition of their work as part of the project by being recognized at the institution as Faculty Rock Stars (Wilken, 2019). This project included a step where the cohort would bring back and share MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 83 their successes and failures. These experiences deepened their reflection and experience while also fostering a community of practice. Goodwin Provost Wilken shared how the student voice has increased the value of this UDL training cohort model at Goodwin University, as students are now demanding this opportunity be available for all faculty (personal communication, August 7, 2019). This model and the measurable impacts of success are encouraging as it presents a model where the whole institution is involved and demonstrates the important role that the administration has in UDL implementation. Takacs and Zhang have developed a practical guide for learning about the UDL framework (2020). This guide has case studies and examples to help provide context and relevancy for faculty new to UDL ideology. A similar type of resource is also available from the University of Calgary’s Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (La, Dyjur, & Bair, 2018). This resource points out the idea that faculty possess implicit knowledge within their discipline; knowledge that must be accessible to their students. La, Dyjur, and Bair (2018) also brought forth benefits, supported by research, regarding the application of UDL in the higher education classroom. They base some of this work on the work of Middendorf and Pace (2004) where the process Decoding the Disciplines is used to assist faculty to identify where their own disciplinary expertise may create confusion for their learners. Recommendations The UDL framework empowers faculty to make the choices in their learning environments and not a checklist to follow (Nelson, 2013). By understanding the UDL framework, faculty members can reflect on how they structure their teaching environments and make adjustments as necessary to support learner variability. The UDL framework MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 84 emerged from the recognition that students encounter barriers in the learning environment and these same students often demonstrate achievements when these barriers are removed. Faculty Opportunities. Shifting instruction to develop student-centered learning environments will take unlearning historical teaching and learning approaches as Posey and Novak (2020) noted in their appropriately titled book Unlearning. These historical approaches include only one mode of delivery or limited opportunity for demonstrating learner understanding. Continual reflection on the learning environment becomes part of the implementation process as faculty members become versed in UDL. Fostering the environment to support such ongoing reflection is key for faculty to make such changes long lasting. Jackson and Lapinski [cited in Bracken and Novak (2019)] listed their assumptions on the need for changing the learning environment. Their assumption number two addresses key points that faculty might raise regarding new high expectations and professional standards. A significant point raised is the identification of the historical role of the lecturer to transfer expert knowledge. Bracken and Novak isolate the steps of instruction often followed in higher education learning as “the approach of lecture, discuss, read, write, and repeat” (2019, p. 301). These authors demonstrated how ongoing reflection helps to ensure flexibility and design thinking can create inclusivity. These ideas model for faculty the ways UDL can be brought into the higher education learning space in any course. Professional Development. Faculty members can become engaging instructors through professional development and creating opportunities to model the UDL framework in the design and delivery of their courses. Support for faculty needs to be sustained through an extended period, not just MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 85 through a brief workshop introducing the concepts. Much of the professional development opportunities for faculty are organized through Centres for Teaching and Learning (CTL) at the institutions. These units are set up to support faculty with instructional design and are often the resource centres for institutional learning management systems. Planning for these learning opportunities, the institutional CTL should plan to embed UDL in their design of all professional development material. This modelling of best instructional practice helps model instructional design for faculty, puts faculty in the learner’s role to experience and deepen the understanding of what UDL can bring to their classroom. Enabling communities of practice so that peer to peer conversations can support and explore innovation is another way to help foster this transition to inclusion and UDL framework. Diffusion of Innovation is an approach that can provide a deeper structured approach to this transition (Rogers, 2003). Fostering opportunities for advocates to share and inspire others to promote the process, enabling this diffusion to happen, can accelerate the adoption. Course planning should include the recognition that faculty in learning situations need similar types of supports, scaffolding and building on material as do students. Approaching the design from the perspective of a new learner helps to ensure the necessary supports and scaffolding are planned for. This perspective can empower the faculty learners to advance beyond being novices in their own learning. Faculty members can progress to expert learners about learning which reduces the cognitive load as they make their instructional plans and increase their focus on the needs of their students. This shift in approach enables meaningful application of materials after professional development sessions. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 86 Institutional Opportunities. Institutions that strategically identify inclusion as paramount to their programing need to invest in a UDL framework with resources and a commitment to embed the framework throughout the institution. This process starts with policy, organizational culture, and can include modelling adoption of the framework in administration, student services, as well as in expectations for the classroom. The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach to gathering information to progress institutional change is advantageous as it focuses on a positive approach and enables a forward visioning (Cockell, & McArthur-Blair, 2012; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Starvos, 2008; Fifolt, & Lander, 2013; McArthur-Blair, & Cockell, 2012). Such investment needs to be sustained and become embedded in every action and plan the institution develops moving forward, for this change to become part of the institutional ethos. Structuring sessions to talk about the UDL framework using the AI structure could engage the institutional community to envision how the UDL framework can become embedded throughout the institution. Organizational documents such as organizational goals, strategic planning, operational processes, and even collective agreements for institutional employee groups should provide clear evidence of the UDL framework as part of the organization’s aspirations. Specifically, Faculty Association Collective agreements are legal contracts between faculty and institution governing authority. These agreements could be places to including sections outlining steps for the tenure process to include incentives and possible measures for UDL implementation that provides clear value and commitment to this framework. Novak and Rodriguez (2016) pointed out various opportunities where institutional leadership can use the UDL framework to create engagement for developing MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 87 evidence-based criteria – aspects appealing to research intensive universities. The target audience for Novak and Rodriguez is the K-12 school system, yet many of the points and ideas are applicable for higher education including where professional development models UDL in its design and operation. A long-term commitment from higher education institutions is required to foster a student-centered approach to shift from traditional teaching styles to embrace inclusion and learner variability for success for all. This research study illustrates that learning happens in a lifelong manner and that utilizing the UDL framework enables a learner’s maximum opportunity. The context of teaching and learning is an ever-changing influence. As the world continues to encounter ever more dire challenges, the readiness to embrace lifelong learning is one of the tools promising change for the better. Faculty are well placed to demonstrate leadership for the modern world as they embrace UDL themselves and in their classrooms. Faculty can model the Universal Design for Learning goal to develop expert learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal directed individuals (CAST, 2018b). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 88 References Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39-56. Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00705.x. Auerbach, A., & Andrews, T. C. (2018). Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: A large-scale qualitative investigation of instructor thinking. International Journal of STEM education, 5(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0112-9 Aurini, J. D., Heath, M., & Howells, S. (2016). The how to of qualitative research. London, England: SAGE Publications. Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research fourteenth edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Balta, J. Y., Supple, B., & O'Keeffe, G. W. (2021). The universal design for learning framework in anatomical sciences education. Anatomical sciences education, 14(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1992 Bedrossian, L. (2018). Understand and promote use of universal design for learning in higher education. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 23(10), 7. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowlski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory process, learning and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(2) 296-316 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 89 Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Berquist, E. (2017). Udl: Moving from exploration to integration. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Betts, K. (2009). Online human touch (OHT) training & support: A conceptual framework to increase faculty engagement, connectivity, and retention in online education, part 2. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1) 29-48. Black, J., & Moore, E. J. (2019). Udl navigators in higher education: A field guide. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Black, W. R., Burrello, L. C., & Mann, J. L. (2017). A new framework for leadership preparation: Appreciative organizing in education. NASSP Bulletin, 101(1), 50-71. Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., He, Y., & Konkle, E. (2013). Appreciative Education. New Directions for Student Services, 2013(143), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20055. Bracken, S., & Novak, K. (2019). Transforming higher education through universal design for learning: an international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. British Columbia. Ministry of Education. (2017). Provincial Aboriginal Report. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pdfs/ab_hawd/Public.pdf. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2001). The world café: Living knowledge through conversations that matter. The Systems Thinker: Building Shared Understanding, 12(5), June/July, 1-5. Buckland Parker, H. (2012). Learning starts with design: Using universal design for learning (UDL) in higher education course redesign. In F. S. Miller (Ed.) Transforming Learning Environments: Strategies to Shape the Next Generation (Advances in MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 90 Educational Administration, Vol. 16). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 109-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2012)0000016009 Burgstahler, S. E. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice second edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bush, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational: A metacase analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181. Calabrese, R. L., Zepeda, S. J., Peters, A. L., Hummel, C., Kruskamp, W. H., San Martin, T., & Wynne, S. C. (2007). An appreciative inquiry into educational administration doctoral programs: Stories from doctoral students at three universities. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 2(3). Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2007). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Education Tech Research Dev (2009) 57:645-663. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11. Canadian University Survey Consortium - Consortium canadien de recherche sur les étudiants universitaires. (2018). 2018 graduating student survey master report: June 2018. Retrieved from https://cusc-ccreu.ca/?page_id=32&lang=en Canadian University Survey Consortium. (1997). 1997 Graduating student survey at nine Canadian universities: A summary of major findings. Winnipeg, MB: Walker Associates. Retrieved from https://cusc-ccreu.ca/?page_id=32&lang=en Carr-Stewart, S., & Walker, K. (2003). Learning leadership through appreciative inquiry. Management in Education, 17(2), 9-14. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 91 CAST. (2017). Top 5 udl tips for fostering expert learners. Wakefield, MA: Author. CAST. (2018a). Udl & the learning brain. Wakefield, MA: Author. CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4) 342-360. Chardin, M. & Novak, K. (2021). Equity by design: Delivering on the power and promise of udl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Charlevoix, D. (2008). Improving teaching and learning through classroom research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1659-1664. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26220918 Christ, T. W. (2009). Designing, teaching, and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods, 3(4), 292-325 Cockell, M. J., & McArthur-Blair, J. (2017). Tapping the soul of higher education. AI Practitioner, 19(2), 59-66. Cockell, J. & McArthur-Blair, J. (2012). Appreciative inquiry in higher education: A transformative force. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change (2nd Edition). Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc. Cournoyer, R. Y. (2018, April 13). Growing as an instructor in a udl classroom. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/faculty-article-growing-inudl-classroom/ MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 92 Couros, G., & Novak, K. (2019). Innovate inside the box: Empowering learners through udl and the innovator’s mindset. IMPress. Cozolino, L., & Sprokay, S. (2006). Neuroscience and adult learning. In S. Johnson, & K. Taylor, (Series Ed.), The Neuroscience of adult learning: New directions for adult and continuing education, Number 110 (pp. 11-19). Dallas, B. K., & Sprong, M. E. (2015). Assessing faculty attitudes toward universal design instructional techniques. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 46(4), 18-28. Dallas, B. K., Sprong, M. E., & Upton, T. D. (2014). Post-secondary faculty attitudes toward inclusive teaching strategies. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(2), 12-20. Dalton, Elizabeth M., Lyner-Cleophas, Marcia, Ferguson, Britt T., & McKenzie, Judith. (2019). Inclusion, universal design and universal design for learning in higher education: South Africa and the United States. African Journal of Disability (Online), 8, 1-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.519 Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1) (pp. 5-16). Degner, J. (2019, February 1). Just ask. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://medium.com/udl-center/just-ask-9a396d63222c Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(3), 270-283. Derbiszewska, K. M., & Tucker-Smith, T. N. (2020). Supercharge your professional learning: 40 concrete strategies that improve adult learning. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Dunlap, J. C. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions. TechTrends, 50(6), 20-26. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 93 Edyburn, D. (2011). Harnessing the potential of technology to support the academic success of diverse students. New Directions for Higher Education, 154, Summer 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.432 Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of udl. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103 Elkins, B., & Hanke, E. (2018). Code-switching to navigate social class in higher education and student affairs. New Directions for Student Services Volume 2018 (162) pp 35-47. Fields, E. (2020, May 28). Authentic student participation: Information literacies in open pedagogy [Video file]. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/event/open-educationresearch-webinar-series-authentic-student-participation-information-literacies-inopen-pedagogy/ Fifolt, M., & Lander, L. (2013). Cultivating change using appreciative inquiry. In New Directions for Student Services, 143 (Fall 2013), 19-30. doi:10.1002/ss.20056. Fovet, F., Jarrett, T., Mole, H., & Syncox, D. (2014). Like fire to water: Building bridging collaborations between disability service providers and course instructors to create user friendly and resource efficient udl implementation material. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 68-75. Fovet, F. (2020). Universal design for learning as a tool for inclusion in the higher education classroom: Tips for the next decade of implementation. Education Journal. Special Issue: Effective Teaching Practices for Addressing Diverse Students’ Needs for MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 94 Academic Success in Universities. 9(6), 2020, 163-172. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20200906.13 Fritzgerald, A. (2020). Antiracism and universal design for learning: Building pathways to success. Wakefield, MA; CAST Professional Publishing. Gannon, K. (2018, February 27). The case for inclusive teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-case-for-inclusiveteaching/ Gardner, H. (2009, November 7). Howard Gardner explains multiple intelligences theory on edutopia.org [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/l2QtSbP4FRg. Glass, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2013). Universal design for learning and the arts. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), Spring 2013, 98-119. Good, K. S. (2017, October 27). Universal design for learning blog series: Part 4: The professor’s new groove. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/universal-design-for-learning-mathematics/ Goodkowsky, K. (2017, October 19). Universal design for learning blog series: Part 3: Multiple means of representation enhance learning. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/udl-multiple-means-of-representation/ Gradel, K., & Edson, A.J. (2009). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. J. Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111-121. doi:10.2190/ET.38.2.d Gronseth, S. L., & Dalton, E. M. (2020). Universal access through inclusive instructional design: International perspectives on udl. New York, NY: Routledge. Gurin, P., & Maxwell, K. (2017). Overview: Faculty development for inclusive educational environments. AAC&U Liberal Education, 103(3/4). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 95 Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Harrison, L. M., & Hasan, S. (2013). Appreciative inquiry in teaching and learning. In New Directions for Students Services, 143, Fall 2013. 65-75. doi:10.1002/ss.20061. Hartsoe, J. K., & Barclay, S. R. (2017). Universal design and disability: Assessing faculty beliefs, knowledge, and confidence in universal design for instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3), 223-236. Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, May/June 2010, 18-25. Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference – inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open education resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 237-252. Hromalik, C.D., Myhill, W.N. & Carr, N.R. (2020). “All faculty should take this”: a universal design for learning training for community college faculty. TechTrends, 64, 91–104. https://doi-org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1007/s11528-019-00439-6 Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2016). Emotion, sociality, and the brain’s default mode network: Insights for educational practice and policy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 211-219. Immordinao-Yang, M. H., & Faeth, M. (2010). The role of emotion and skilled intuition in learning. In D. A. Sousa (Ed.). Mind, brain, & education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom. (pp. 69-84). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 96 Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 1(1), 3-10. Kang, Z., Dragoo, M. R., Yeagle, L., Shehab, R. L., & Yuan, H. (2017). Adaptive learning pedagogy of universal design for learning (udl) for multimodal training. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 27(1), 23-48. Katz, J., & Sokal, L. (2016). Universal design for learning as a bridge to inclusion: A qualitative report of student voices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 12(2), 36-63. Katz, J. (2013). The three-block model of universal design for learning (udl): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194. Kim, J. (2018, June 6). A traditional ph.d. does not an instructional designer make: Speaking for myself. [Web log post] Inside Higher Education, June 6, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-andlearning/traditional-phd-does-not-instructional-designer-make Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 945-957. doi:10.1111/bjet.12361 La, H., Dyjur, P., & Bair, H. (2018). Universal design for learning in higher education. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. Calgary: University of Calgary. Laist, R. (2017, October 13). Universal design for learning blog series: Part 1, writing from the inside out. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/universal-design-for-learning-for-writing/ MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 97 LaRocco, D. J., & Wilken, D. S. (2013). Universal design for learning: University faculty stages of concerns and levels of use. Current Issues in Education, 16(1). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1132 Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qui, M., Nomikoudis, M., Roelofs, F., & van Dam, L. (2017). Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.3 Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2013). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Seattle, WA: Liberating Structures Press. Lombardi, A. R., & Murray, C. (2011). Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability: Willingness to accommodate and adopt universal design principles. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(2011) 43–56 DOI:10.3233/JVR-2010-0533 Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 250-261. Lombardi, A., Vukovic, B., & Sala-Bars, I. (2015). International comparisons of inclusive instruction among college faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(6), 447-460. Mace, R. (1991). Definitions: Accessible, adaptable, and universal design (fact sheet). Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/phousing.htm. Raleigh, NC: Centre for Universal Design, NCSU. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 98 Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27. Maxwell, K., & Gurin, P. (2017). Using dialogue to create inclusive classrooms: A case study from a faculty institute. AAC&U Liberal Education, 103(3-4). McArthur-Blair, J., & Cockell, J. (2012). Inclusive spaces: Using appreciative processes to transform social structures. AI Practitioner, 14(3), 4-8. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Middendorf, J., & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(98). 1-12. Miller, D. K., & Lang, P. L. (2016). Using the universal design for learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 1823-1828. Mootoo, A. N. (2017). Structural racism: Racists without racism in liberal institutions within colorblind states. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8106&context=etd Morgan, H., & Houghton, A. M. (2011). Inclusive curriculum design in higher education: Considerations for effective practice across and within subject areas. Higher MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 99 Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/inclusive-curriculum-design-higher-education. Mulà, I., Tilbury, D., Ryan, A., Mader, M., Dlouhá, J., Mader, C., Benayas, J., Dlouhý, J., & Alba, D. (2017). Catalysing change in higher education for sustainable development: A review of professional development initiatives for university educators. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 798-820. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2017-0043. Naffi, N., Davidson, A., Clark, R. E., Snyder, D. M., Kaufman, R., Beatty, B., Wallace, G., Patino, A., Gbetoglo, E., Duponsel, N. Savoie, C., Ruby, I., Paquelin, D., & Fournel, I. (2020, September 8). 5 recommendations from teaching centres to teaching centres to help faculty shift online. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/5-recommendations-fromteaching-centres-to-teaching-centres-to-help-faculty-shift-online/. National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2010, November 22). Udl guidelines structure. [Video File] Youtube. https://youtu.be/wVTm8vQRvNc. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2018). Understanding motivation: Building the brain architecture that supports learning, health, and community participation: Working paper no. 14. Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 100 Nave, L. (Host). (2019, August 7). Training faculty jedis with Danielle Wilken. (No. 22). ThinkUDL. Retrieved from https://thinkudl.org/episodes/training-faculty-jedis-withdanielle-wilken Nelson, L. L. (2013). Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using universal design for learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Newman Thomas, C., Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Ju Lee, E. (2015). Applying a universal design for learning framework to mediate the language demands of mathematics. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 207-234, doi:10.1080/10573569.2015.1030988. Novak, K. (2018, April 26) Udl and diffusion of innovation. [Video]. 2018 UDL-IRN International Summit, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/XkWGJN9Hgjg Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally designed leadership: Applying udl to systems and schools. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Novak, K., & Thibodeau, T. (2016). Udl in the cloud!: How to design and delivery online education using universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Ohlemacher, J. (2015). Fostering meaningful dialogue can improve success in learning. Assessment Update, 27(2). O'Shea, S., Lysaght, P., Roberts, J., & Harwood, V. (2016). Shifting the blame in higher education – social inclusion and deficit discourses. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 322-336, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1087388 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 101 Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 3-36, DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2017.1398650. Pichette, J., Brumwell, S., & Rizk, J. (2020, October 8). Accessible learning is more important than ever: Heqco’s advice to institutions [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://forum.academica.ca/forum/considering-accessible-learning-during-the-covid19-pandemic. Poore-Pariseau, C. L. (2011). Principles of universal design for learning: what is the value of udl training on accessible pedagogy? (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/35970082/PRINCIPLES_OF_UNIVERSAL_DE SIGN_FOR_LEARNING_WHAT_IS_THE_VALUE_OF_UDL_TRAINING_ON_A CCESSIBLE_PEDAGOGY.pdf Posey, A. & Novak, K. (2020). Unlearning: Changing your beliefs and your classroom with udl. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Posey, A. (2019a). Engage the brain: How to design for learning that taps into the power of emotion. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Posey, A. (2019b). The brain and learning quick reference guide. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Quaglia, B.W. (2015). Planning for student variability: Universal design for learning in the music theory classroom and curriculum. Journal for the Society of Music Theory, 21(1). MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 102 Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., Nutter-Upham, K. E. (2011). Academic procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344-357. Ralabate, P. K., & Nelson, L. L. (2017). Culturally responsive design for English learners: The udl approach. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Rao, K., Edelen-Smith, P., & Wailehua, C. (2015). Universal design for online courses: Applying principles to pedagogy. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(1), 35-52, doi: 10.1080/02680513.2014.991300 Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standard-based lessons. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688 Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153-166. doi: 10.1177/0741932513518980 Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Reid, G. M., Grills, A. E., Mian, N. D., Reid, A. A., Merson, R. A., & Langer, D. A. (2017). Using research-informed pedagogical practices to maximize learning in youth cognitive behavioral therapy. Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/23794925.2017.1290511 Reinschmiedt, H. J., Buono, F. D., Sprong, M. E., Upton, T. D., & Dallas, B. (2013). Postsecondary students with disabilities receiving accommodations: A survey of satisfaction & subjective well-being. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79(3), 3-10. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 103 Roberts, B., Mohler, C. E., Levy-Pinto, D., Nieder, C., Duffett, E. M., & Sukhai, M. A. (n.d.). Defining a new culture: Creative examination of essential requirements in academic disciplines and graduate programs. Retrieved from http://ca.cags.ca/documents/publications/3rdparty/Discussion%20paper%20Essential %20Requirements%20FINAL%202014-09-22.pdf Rogers, E. M., (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rosagaron, R., & Novak, K. (2020). Planning professional development using a udl lens. Novak Educational Consulting. Retrieved from https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/7288705/Resources/Planning%20Profession al%20Development%20Using%20a%20UDL%20Lens%20.pdf Rose, D. H., et al. (2018). Accurate and informative for all: Universal design for learning (udl) and the future of assessment. In: Elliott S., Kettler R., Beddow P., Kurz A. (eds) Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices. Springer, Cham. https://doiorg.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_11 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), 135151. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2011). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 104 Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2007(5), 381-391. Rusk, N., Tamir, M., & Rothbaum, F. (2011). Performance and learning goals for emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031011-9229-6 Ryan, A. M., Arnott, A., Chisholm, R., deGelleke, L., Gibson, L., Grantham, D., Kienast, S., Mullally, M., Ross, T., Schmidt, A., Stevens, L., & Welsh, E. (2017). Conversations in a coffee shop: Voices from within a community of teaching practice of university science faculty. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 9(3), 1–18. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317-331. Scott, S., & McGuire, J. (2017). Using diffusion of innovation theory to promote universally designed college instruction. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 119-128. Seatter, C. S., & Ceulemans, K. (2017). Teaching sustainability in higher education: Pedagogical styles that make a difference. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2) 47-70. Seifert, T. A., Goodman, K., King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2010). Using mixed methods to study first-year college impact on liberal arts learning outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(3), 248-267. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 105 Slapcoff, M., & Harris, d. (2014). The inquiry network: A model for promoting the teachingresearch nexus in higher education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(2), 68-84. Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a college course that adheres to the universal design for learning (udl) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 31-61. Soto, R. (2018, May 9). Universal design for learning series: Boring classes? Not here. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/universal-design-learningseries-boring-classes-not-here/ Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), March/April, 108-116. Stafford-Brizard, K. B., Cantor, P., & Rose, L. T. (2017). Building the bridge between science and practice: Essential characteristics of a translational framework. Mind, Brain, and Education, 11(4), (pp. 155- 165). Statistics Canada. (2019). Postsecondary enrolments, by registration status, institution type, status of student in Canada and gender [Table]. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710001801Stieha, V., Shadle, S. E., & Paterson, S. (2016). Stirring the pot: Supporting and challenging general education science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty to change teaching and assessment practice. The Journal of General Education, 65(2), 85-109. Takacs, S., Zhang, J (2020). Universal design for learning: A practical guide. Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Innovation. Justice Institute of British Columbia MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 106 Taylor, K. (2006). Brain function and adult learning: Implications for practice. In S. Johnson, & K. Taylor, (Series Ed.), The neuroscience of adult learning: New directions for adult and continuing education, Number 110 (pp. 71-85). Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with universal design for learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13-24. Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone. West Virginia Press. Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111-123. Torres, C., & Rao, K. (2019). Udl for language learners. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Treviranus, J. (2019, July 16). Preparing the next generation that understands the value of human diversity and can navigate complexity [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@jutta.trevira/preparing-a-next-generation-that-understands-thevalue-of-human-diversity-and-can-navigate-2aacf66381eb Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Final report of the truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Summary: Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Turner, H., & Lucas, P. L. (2018). Curating technology for learning: A faculty view. Library Technology Reports, 54(4), 10. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 107 Universal Design for Learning Implementation & Research Network (UDL-IRN). (2011). Critical elements of udl in instruction (Version 1.2). Lawrence, KS: Author. The original MITS Critical Elements are located at http://mits.cenmi.org UDLL – Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education – License to Learn. (2016). A Universal design for learning – License to learn – A best practice guideline. UDLL Partnership: HOWEST (SIHO), AHEAD, and NTNU (Universell), Ghent, Belguim. Retrieved from https://udlleurope.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/bpg-web-version.pdf United States Department of Education. (2008). Higher education opportunity act. Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf. University of Northern British Columbia. (2020). Facts and statistics about UNBC. Retrieved from https://www.unbc.ca/about-unbc/facts. Vander Kloet, M., Frake-Mistak, M., McGinn, M. K., Caldecott, M., Aspenlieder, E. D., Beres, J. L., Fukuzawa, S., Cassidy, A., & Gill, A. (2017). Conditions for contingent instructors engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.9 Varga, K. (2011, February 28). Gaining teaching experience in graduate school. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/gainingteaching-experience-in-graduate-school Venkatesh, K. (2015). Universal design for learning as a framework for social justice: A multi-case analysis of pre-service teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 108 University) Retrieved from Boston College University Libraries at https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:104147. Vukovic, B. (2016). Fostering accessible learning environments: University faculty attitudes and practices in inclusive instruction, and relationship with faculty development. (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada). Retrieved from http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/-?func=dbin-jumpfull&current_base=GEN01&object_id=145282 Watkins, C., Treviranus, J., & Roberts, V. (2020). Inclusive design for learning: Creating flexible and adaptable content with learners. OCAD University. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3690 Wilken, D. (2019, August). Creating faculty rock stars through job-embedded udl professional development. Presented at the 5th Annual CAST UDL Symposium: Becoming Expert Learners, Boston, MA. Wisniewski, L. (2017, October 18). Universal design for learning blog series: Part 2: Uncovering purpose and increasing student involvement. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/universal-design-for-learning-principles/ Wisniewski, L., & Kania, J. S. (2020, January 15). The journey of udl: A world of possibilities opens up to two educational “missionaries”. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/faculty-article-the-journey-of-udl/ Wolter, M. (2018, April 17). Thinking differently to gauge student comprehension. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/faculty-article-udl-thinkingdifferently-to-gauge-student-comprehension/ MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Wolyniak M. J. (2003). Balancing teaching and research experiences in doctoral training programs: lessons for the future educator. Cell Biology Education, 2(4), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-03-0016 Woolcott, G. (2011). A broad view of education and teaching based in educational neuroscience. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Special Issue 1(1). Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177. 109 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Appendix A – Research Ethics Board Approval Forms 110 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 111 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 112 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 113 Appendix B - Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) Consent Form Survey Consent This survey is completely anonymous and will be used at various stages of the project Modelling UDL to Faculty as Learners. These stages include a pre workshop contribution, post workshop contribution and during an institutional wide contribution. This survey is used to assess instructor beliefs, knowledge and confidence in the principles of Universal Design for Learning. This survey’s data is housed on a UNBC server to which only the researcher has access and has no identifying data associated with the answers collected. This survey contributes data for the Modelling UDL to Faculty as Learners project at UNBC in 2020. By proceeding with this survey you are consenting to contribute your answers to this study. If you end before submitting your answers, responses are not submitted. With the anonymous nature of this survey, it is impossible to remove your responses after the survey is completed as it is not possible to identify which answers you provided. If you have any questions regarding this research, please contact the researcher Carolee Clyne at clyne@unbc.ca, the Faculty Supervisor at annie.booth@unbc.ca or if you have any concerns, complaints about yours rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study at reb@unbc.ca or to the UNBC Office of Research. The Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI), created by Alison Lombardi and is used with her permission, to assesses instructor beliefs, knowledge, and confidence in the principles of Universal Design for Learning. Quiz Instructions Please complete this anonymous self-assessment. This is just a survey, there are no correct answers. For each item, choose if you strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, or strongly agree with the statement. Table 3. ITSI Survey Questions Sequence Question Question A I am confident in my responsibilities as an instructor to provide or facilitate disability related accommodations Question B I am confident in my knowledge to make adequate accommodations for students with disabilities in my course(s) Question C I am confident in my understanding of Universal Design Question D I am confident in my understanding of the legal definition of disability Question E I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to use technology (e.g. laptop, calculator, spell checker) to complete MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Sequence 114 Question tests even when such technologies are not permitted for use by students without disabilities Question F I believe it's important to reduce the overall course reading load for a student with a documented disability even when I would not allow a reduced reading load for another student Question G I believe it's important to reduce the course reading load for ANY student who expresses a need Question H I believe it's important to allow ANY student to complete extra credit assignments in my course(s) Question I I believe it's important to use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats (e.g., podcast of lecture available for download, course readings available as mp3 files) Question J I believe it's important to use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation (e.g., Discussion Board) Question K I believe it's important to present course information in multiple formats (e.g., lecture, text, graphics, audio, video, hands-on exercises) Question L I believe it's important to create multiple opportunities for engagement Question M I believe it's important to survey my classroom in advance to anticipate any physical barriers include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me Question N I believe it's important to make a verbal statement in class inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me Question O I believe it's important to use a variety of instructional formats in addition to lecture, such as small groups, peer assisted learning, and hands on activities Question P I believe it's important to provide copies of my lecture notes or outlines to students with documented disabilities Question R I believe it's important to supplement class sessions and reading assignments with visual aids (e.g., photographs, videos, diagrams, interactive simulations) Question S I believe it's important to allow students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills in ways other than traditional tests and exams (e.g., written essays, portfolios, journals) Question T I believe it's important to allow students to express comprehension in multiple ways be flexible with assignment deadlines in my course(s) for ANY student who expresses a need MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 115 Sequence Question Question U I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g., change from written to oral) for ANY student who expresses a need Question V I believe it's important to provide copies of my overhead and/or PowerPoint presentations to students with documented disabilities Question W I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g. change from written to oral) for students with documented disabilities Question X I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to digitally record (audio or visual) class sessions Question Y I believe it's important to make individual accommodations for students who have disclosed their disability to me Question Z I believe it's important to arrange extended time on exams for students who have documented disabilities Question AA I believe it's important to extend the due dates of assignments to accommodate the needs of students with documented disabilities Question AB I believe it's important to allow a student with a documented disability to complete extra credit assignments Questions extracted from Vukovic, B. (2016). Fostering accessible learning environments: University faculty attitudes and practices in inclusive instruction, and relationship with faculty development. (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 116 Appendix C – Workshop Permission Form February 10, 2020 Modelling Universal Design for Learning to Faculty as Learners Who is conducting the study? Carolee S Clyne Natural Resources and Environmental Studies University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 PhD Candidate Clyne@unbc.ca 250 960 9848 Supervisor: Dr. Annie Booth, Professor Ecosystem Science and Management 250 960-6649 Annie.booth@unbc.ca This research work is part of the PhD dissertation data collection process. The data collected during the workshop will be used to identify themes in faculty learning. The researcher, those present in the workshop and the supervisor will have access to any information you choose to share during the workshop. Purpose of Project This study is looking at how Universal Design for Learning principles apply to faculty as learners in a professional development context. As an instructor in the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies at the University of Northern British Columbia, you are invited to participate in this study to learn more about Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and use this opportunity to apply this knowledge to your own syllabi. UDL often utilizes technology to provide approaches with a broader accessibility goal. Participants are asked to come to the Face-to-Face or online workshop with one of their course syllabi to MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 117 provide materials relevant to their work to build upon developing greater inclusion for diverse learners. At any point, participants are free to withdraw from the workshop and study. Given the nature of the workshop to discuss and construct data, it is not possible to participate in the workshop and not participate in the research. If a participant withdraws from the workshop, it is not possible to identify and remove their input to the data collected through the workshop activities beyond the specific points noted by userid. Any userid identified contributions will be removed if a participants withdraw. What will happen during the project? An Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory Survey invite will be sent upon registration. This survey is completely anonymous and assesses instructor beliefs, knowledge, and confidence in the principles of Universal Design for Learning. These collective responses will be compared with responses collected after the workshop to identify if introducing and modelling Universal Design for Learning to faculty as learners shifts inclusive teaching beliefs, knowledge and confidence. You will be asked to complete this survey pre and post to the workshop event. Completion of this survey either pre and/or post to the workshop is voluntary and is not required to attend the workshop. The survey information is used to enable a quantitative measure of collective shift in inclusive teaching. The workshop will involve introducing Universal Design for Learning principles and reflection through discussion of learner supplied syllabus for ways to create inclusive delivery, activities and enhance engagement in the syllabus. Throughout the workshop, activities will explain and model the principles and foster collaboration amongst peers regarding what these could look like. The workshop is structured to happen for two part days MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 118 on a Tuesday and Thursday to minimize the disruption to participants’ work and other time commitments. The online version of the workshop will be modeled on the initial plan but will be delivered through UNBC Blackboard Learn and will provide faculty an opportunity to partake as a learner in this setting. The Online workshop will involve approximately 10 hours of work over a two week period. Risks or benefits to participating in the project All participants will be encouraged not to discuss the content of personal views expressed in the workshop to people beyond the workshop participants; however it is not possible to control what participants do with the information discussed when they talk to each other. Given discussion happens in the workshop, privacy can not be protected. Confidentiality can be ensured as data collected will only be in the form of collective group responses on flip chart paper in the Face-to-Face workshop. No audio or video recording during the workshop is part of the data. In the online workshop, discussion forums and other tools will be utilized for exchanging and co-construction of deeper ideas and applications such as a World Café style co-construction of ideas. If, at any point in the workshop, you feel uncomfortable or upset and wish to end your participation, please notify the researcher immediately and your wishes will be respected. Due to the collective and collaborative nature of World Café data, it would be impossible to identify individual ideas and contributions and remove them as the source is anonymous. Any place that your user id is associated with points, this will be removed. You may be helped in this study through supported exploration of new educational approaches with expanded knowledge and time to further development of your syllabus to meet inclusion requirements. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 119 The broader benefit of this study is the data collected regarding why, what and how the needs of faculty as learners which can inform institutions and professional development in the realm of academic settings. Confidentiality, Anonymity and Data Storage The recorded workshop data on the flip chart paper from the World Café will only be viewed by the researcher and faculty supervisor after the workshop event. Due to the exchange and discussion of ideas amongst participants, privacy can not be guaranteed. Only confidentiality can be ensured. Participants will be encouraged to not discuss the specific views of participants outside the workshop. However, we can not control what participants do with the information discussed. During analysis the flip chart records will be stored in the researcher’s home office in a locked filing cabinet when not being reviewed. The flip chart records will be destroyed six months after the successful defense of the dissertation. In the online workshop, no associated user identifier will be used for any research data. Any comments, statements or works created within the Blackboard Learn will not be associated with any user information and will be completely anonymous when extracted for research. Any data extracted will be stored on a security encrypted disk to be stored in a locked filing cabinet when not being reviewed. This data will be destroyed after six months. Survey data is anonymous and stored on UNBC installation of Survey Monkey. This data will be downloaded to an encrypted data device that will be destroyed six months after the successful defense of the dissertation. Compensation The workshop will provide lunch and coffee beverages during the two sessions comprising the workshop. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 120 Study Results The results of this study will be reported in a doctorate dissertation and may also be published in journal articles and books. Presentations may be done based on these findings at conferences. Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project If you have any questions about what we are asking of you, please contact the key researcher, Carolee Clyne or the faculty supervisor Dr. Annie Booth whose contact information is listed at the top of this consent form. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or by email at reb@unbc.ca. Participant Consent and Withdrawal Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study any time without giving a reason and without any negative impact. Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study. CONSENT MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 121 • I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the project: YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO • I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive additional details I requested. • I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind. • I have been given a copy of this form. • I agree to be recorded as part of the co-construction of ideas. • I agree that my name can be used. Signature (or note of verbal consent): Name of Participant (Printed): Date: MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 122 Appendix D – Reflective Journal Permission Form Reflective Journal Information Letter / Consent Form February 10, 2020 Applying Universal Design for Learning to Faculty as Learners Who is conducting the study? Carolee S Clyne Natural Resources and Environmental Studies University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9 Clyne@unbc.ca 250 960 9848 PhD Candidate Supervisor: Dr. Annie Booth, Professor Ecosystem Science and Management Program 250 960-6649 Annie.booth@unbc.ca This research is part of the PhD dissertation data collection process. The data collected during the workshop will be used to identify themes in faculty learning. The researcher appreciates any information you choose to share regarding your thoughts on your learning and the application of learning to your own role as an educator. Purpose of Project This study is looking at how Universal Design for Learning principles apply to faculty as learners in a professional development context. Participants are asked to come to the workshop with one of their course syllabi to provide materials relevant to their work to build upon developing greater inclusion for diverse learners. This letter is granting MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 123 permission to use personal reflection journals you provide to be used to provide reflections and deeper insight as faculty as learners while you attend the workshop event. At any point, participants are free to withdraw from the workshop and this study. What will happen during the project? At the conclusion of the first day of the workshop, volunteers will be asked if they wish to participate in a reflective journal exercise. They will be invited to record their reflections as they look at their own courses and explore how to apply Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to their teaching activities and actions to enhance and embrace the principles of UDL. These reflective journaling thoughts can be provided in whatever format you are most comfortable providing. For some this may be a written note, others may use a voice memo to record their spoken thoughts. Some may even use a picture. Risks or benefits to participating in the project If, at any point in recording your own thoughts in the reflective journal, you feel uncomfortable or upset and wish to end your participation, please notify the researcher immediately and your wishes will be respected. Your reflective journal in whatever format you provided will be removed from the data and destroyed along with any digital forms created (such as a scanned drawing to become a digital image or a paper written journal scanned as digital images). You may be helped in this study through supported exploration of new educational approaches with expanded knowledge and time to further development of your syllabus to meet inclusion requirements. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 124 The broader benefit of this study is data collected regarding why, what and how the needs of faculty as learners can inform institutions and professional development in the realm of academic settings. Confidentiality, Anonymity and Data Storage Your submitted reflective journal will only be viewed by the researcher and possibly the faculty supervisor with your name removed. The journals will be stored on an encrypted data storage device by the researcher and will be destroyed 6 months after the successful defense of the dissertation. Selections may be used (without attribution) in subsequent publications or conference presentations. In keeping with the principles of UDL of providing multiple ways, data can be provided in whatever format you wish; written notes, voice memo, video recording, word documents. All formats will be converted to a digital format such as a scanned image of written journals and stored on an encrypted data storage device and destroyed 6 months after the successful defense of the dissertation. All materials provided in a non digital format will be destroyed once a digitized image is obtained. Compensation You will be offered a gift certificate of $100 either for a local restaurant or local service for the submission of the journal in appreciation for completing the journal and contributing to the study once the reflective journal has been submitted. Study Results The results of this study will be reported in a doctorate dissertation and may also be published in journal articles and books. Presentations may be done based on these findings at conferences. Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 125 If you have any questions about what we are asking of you, please contact the key researcher, Carolee Clyne or the faculty supervisor Dr. Annie Booth whose contact information is listed at the top of this consent form. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or by email at reb@unbc.ca. Participant Consent and Withdrawal Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative impact. Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study. CONSENT • I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the project: YES NO YES NO YES NO • I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive additional details I requested. • I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 126 • I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the project: • I have been given a copy of this form. Signature (or note of verbal consent): Name of Participant (Printed): Date: YES NO YES NO MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 127 Appendix E – Workshop Invitation Subject: Creating an Inclusive Syllabus Workshop Online - Get ahead with your Syllabus for next year. DO YOU IMAGINE A CLASS WHERE ALL YOUR STUDENTS ARE ENGAGED? Bring your syllabi to an online workshop about inclusion and learning based on Universal Design for Learning. Your learning can be applied to your own courses. As part of the workshop you will experience different options in online format as you prepare to move your courses to online. This opportunity enables you to explore innovation in course delivery while enabling you to work on your own syllabi. This workshop is being offered in place of a two day face to face workshop. It is expected workload of this workshop will be approximately 10 to 12 hours over a two week period. There will be one real time session lasting one hour on Monday, April 27 at 11 AM, otherwise you will be able to work in workshop on your time and schedule. Your participation in this workshop also contributes to a graduate student research project while you explore ideas to enhance your syllabi to foster inclusion and engagement. I hope you will participate in this workshop and use this opportunity to revisit your syllabus for the coming semesters to become inclusive and online. To register please visit the following link: Modelling UDL for Faculty Workshop Registration Following your registration, you will be provided: • with a consent form outlining the research study (to be completed prior to workshop participation) • an link to an anonymous online survey that is anonymous for a pre-workshop survey to assess instructor beliefs, knowledge and confidence in the principles of Universal Design for Learning I hope you will attend this workshop and use this opportunity to revisit your syllabus in an online space for the coming semesters. Sincerely, Carolee Clyne Student Researcher MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 128 Appendix F – Planned Face to Face Workshop Agenda Day 1 – 5.5 hours including lunch (9:30-3) (allowing for faculty to address email and work issues before and after workshop to ease the load of taking on a workshop during a weekday). • Introduction of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018b; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). • Lunch • World Café to enable faculty to explore questions about the three principles (Brown, & Isaacs, 2001; Limmanowicz, & McCandless, 2013) • Critical Analysis of Syllabus from the lens of UDL (CAST, 2018b; Posey, 2019a; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). (Value and relevancy for the faculty as learners) Day 2 – 5.5 hours including lunch (9:30-3) • Review of UDL principles • Provide various examples of different syllabus options • Work on syllabus • Troika Consulting format to explore new solutions to barriers using a triad to brainstorm solutions (Lipmanowicz, & McCandless, 2013). (fostering collaboration and community among the participants) • Lunch • Presentation of new syllabus ideas and solutions identified in the Troika Consulting triads • Resource links to be provided to promote success after workshop MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 129 Appendix G – Results from World Café Figure 22. Engagement Responses Faculty as Learners Figure 22. This is the slide provided for annotation where the various participants were invited to add statements as the discussion about the slide asking for how their learning in terms of the UDL Principle of Engagement. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 130 Figure 23. Engagement Question Faculty Reflection on Own Courses Figure 23. This is the annotated slide with the various participants adding statements as the discussion about the slide asking for how their course includes the UDL Principle of Engagement. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Figure 24. Representation Question Faculty as Learners Figure 24. This is the annotated slide with the various participants adding statements as the discussion about the slide asking for ways their own learning is captured in the UDL Principle of Representation. 131 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 132 Figure 25. Representation Question Faculty Reflection on Courses Figure 25. This is the annotated slide with the various participants adding statements as the discussion about the slide asking for how their course includes the UDL Principle of Representation. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Figure 26. Action and Expression Question Faculty as Learners Figure 26. This is the annotated slide with the various participants adding statements as the discussion about the slide asking for ways their own learning is captured in the UDL Principle of Action & Expression. 133 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Figure 27. Action and Expression Question Faculty Reflection on Courses Figure 27. This is the annotated slide with the various participants adding statements as the discussion about the slide asking for how their course includes the UDL Principle of Action and Expression. 134 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Figure 28. Closing Reflection Slide Figure 28. This slide was the closing slide was an opportunity to provide a recap on the workshop and any other reflections given the gap in time from workshop to data collection session. 135 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Question Response Total Mean Question Response Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Standard Deviation Area Mean Area Standard Deviation Q30_1_1 Response Q32_1_1 Response Q30_1_3 Response Q33_1_3 Response Q32_1_2 Response 2.013218279 Q30_1_5 Response F1 Q30_1_2 Response I believe it's important to extend the due dates of assignments to accommodate the needs of students with documented disabilities Lombardi, & Murray, 2011 Comparative F7 F7 F1 I believe it's important to arrange extended time on exams for students who have documented disabilities I believe it's important to make individual accommodations for students who have disclosed their disability to me I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to digitally record (audio or visual) class sessions I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g. change from written to oral) for students with documented disabilities F7 I believe it's important to provide copies of my overhead and/or PowerPoint presentations to students with documented disabilities F1 I believe it's important to provide copies of my lecture notes or outlines to students with documented disabilities I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to use technology (e.g. laptop, calculator, spell checker) to complete tests even when such technologies are not permitted for use by students without disabilities MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 136 Appendix H – ITSI Results Accommodations Table 4. ITSI Results for Accommodation Questions F1 Q30_1_4 Response 0 2 0 4 1 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 14 15 8 18 6 8 18 8 6 18 9 5 19 9 2 21 13 3 17 16 9 14 9 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 4.16667 0.00 9.39 3.72222 0.00 11.86 3.86111 3.46 3.46 3.91666 0.00 11.02 3.91666 3.67 7.35 4.30556 0.00 0.00 4.36111 0.00 0.00 3.75 3.06 9.19 23.47 65.72 23.73 53.39 27.71 62.35 22.04 66.13 18.37 69.80 10.63 111.63 16.72 94.77 27.56 42.88 70.42 17.80 27.71 33.06 33.06 69.10 89.20 27.56 2.16667 1.72222 1.86111 1.91667 1.91667 4.0000 2.30556 2.36111 1.75 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 137 Figure 29. ITSI Response Distribution Chart ACCOMMODATIONS Q30 _1 _4 1 3 9 14 Q30_1 _2 0 3 17 Q 3 0 _ 1 _ 5 02 21 Q30_1_4 9 Q30_1_2 16 Q30_1_5 13 12 5 19 9 Q32_1_2 Q33 _1 _3 0 3 6 18 9 Q33_1_3 11 8 18 8 Q30_1_3 Q32 _1 _2 Q30 _1 _3 Q32 _1 _1 0 4 Q 3 0 _ 1 _ 1 02 8 5 18 14 6 Q32_1_1 15 Q30_1_1 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree I believe it's important to extend the due dates of assignments to accommodate the needs of students with documented disabilities I believe it's important to arrange extended time on exams for students who have documented disabilities I believe it's important to make individual accommodations for students who have disclosed their disability to me I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to digitally record (audio or visual) class sessions I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g. change from written to oral) for students with documented disabilities I believe it's important to provide copies of my overhead and/or PowerPoint presentations to students with documented disabilities I believe it's important to provide copies of my lecture notes or outlines to students with documented disabilities I believe it's important to allow students with documented disabilities to use technology (e.g. laptop, calculator, spell checker) to complete tests even when such technologies are not permitted for use by students without disabilities ITSI Accommodation Question Legend MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 138 Disability Laws and Concepts Table 5. ITSI Disability and Accommodation Question Responses Q26_4 Response Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither agree nor disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly agree 5 Question Response Total Mean Question Response Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Standard Deviation Area Mean Area Standard Deviation Q26_5 Response I am confident in my understanding of the legal definition of disability I am confident in my understanding of Universal Design I am confident in my knowledge to make adequate accommodations for students with disabilities in my course(s) Likert Value I am confident in my responsibilities as an instructor to provide or facilitate disability related accommodations Lombardi & Murray, 2011 - F2 Q26_6 Response Q26_1 Response 0 4 0 5 3 9 1 9 5 20 6 20 13 9 12 12 7 5 2 2 36 36 36 36 3.833333 3.694444 2.944444 3.138889 1 2 0.00 13.44 0.00 14.36 2.68 8.03 1.30 11.67 3 4 16.81 67.22 17.23 57.42 11.60 8.03 15.56 15.56 5 23.53 1.8333 33 14.36 1.6944 44 1.78 0.9444 44 2.59 1.1388 89 3.402777778 1.45097 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 139 DISABILITY LAWS AND CONCEPTS Q26 _1 1 Q26_6 Q26_5 0 9 12 3 9 5 Q26_4 0 4 12 13 6 5 9 20 Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly Agree 2 20 Strongly Disagree Agree 2 Q26_1 I am confident in my understanding of the legal definition of disability Q26_6 I am confident in my understanding of Universal Design Q26_5 I am confident in my knowledge to make adequate accommodations for students with disabilities in my course(s) Q26_4 I am confident in my responsibilities as an instructor to provide or facilitate disability related accommodations 5 7 L i k e r t V a l u e I believe it's important to use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats (e.g., podcast of lecture available for download, course readings available as mp3 files) I believe it's important to use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation (e.g., Discussion Board) I believe it's important to present course information in multiple formats (e.g., lecture, text, graphics, audio, video, hands-on exercises) I believe it's important to create multiple opportunities for engagement I believe it's important to survey my classroom in advance to anticipate any physical barriers include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me I believe it's important to make a verbal statement in class inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me I believe it's important to use a variety of instructional formats in addition to lecture, such as small groups, peer assisted learning, and hands on activities I believe it's important to supplement class sessions and reading assignments with visual aids (e.g., photographs, videos, diagrams, interactive simulations) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS Vukovic 2016 Standard Deviation Area Mean Area Standard Deviation Q36_1_4 Q35_1_6 Q36_1_5 140 Inclusive Classroom Table 6. ITSI Inclusive Classroom Responses Q36_1_1 Q36_1_2 Q34_1_5 4.0313 2.0497 Q34_1_4 Q35_1_1 Q35_1_7 Strongly Disagree 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 2 4 3 1 0 1 3 0 2 3 9 11 2 0 6 11 5 4 Agree 4 17 19 18 20 17 11 20 19 Strongly agree Question Response Total Mean Question Response 5 6 3 15 16 12 11 11 11 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 3.6944 3.6111 4.3056 4.4444 4.1111 3.8333 4.1667 4.0833 Strongly Disagree 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Disagree Neither agree nor disagree 2 11.48 7.79 5.32 0.00 4.46 10.08 0.00 8.68 3 25.84 28.55 10.63 0.00 26.74 36.97 23.47 17.36 Agree 4 48.81 49.32 95.68 119.51 75.77 36.97 93.89 82.47 Strongly agree 5 17.23 7.79 79.73 95.60 53.48 36.97 51.64 47.74 1.6944 1.6111 2.3056 2.4444 2.1111 1.8333 2.1667 2.0833 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 141 Figure 30. ITSI Inclusive Classroom Response Chart INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM Q35_1_7 Q 3 5 _ 1 _ 7 02 Q35 _1 _1 0 4 5 Q34 _1 _4 0 3 Q36 _1 _2 Q 3 4 _ 1 _ 5 01 19 11 20 11 11 11 6 17 Q36 _1 _1 0 20 Q35_1_1 11 Q34_1_4 12 Q36_1_2 Q34_1_5 16 Q36_1_1 Q 3 6 _ 1 _ 5 01 2 18 Q35 _1 _6 0 3 11 Q36 _1 _4 0 4 9 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 15 Q36_1_5 19 17 3 6 Q35_1_6 Q36_1_4 I believe it's important to supplement class sessions and reading assignments with visual aids (e.g., photographs, videos, diagrams, interactive simulations) I believe it's important to use a variety of instructional formats in addition to lecture, such as small groups, peer assisted learning, and hands on activities I believe it's important to make a verbal statement in class inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me I believe it's important to survey my classroom in advance to anticipate any physical barriers include a statement in my syllabus inviting students with disabilities to discuss their needs with me I believe it's important to create multiple opportunities for engagement I believe it's important to present course information in multiple formats (e.g., lecture, text, graphics, audio, video, hands-on exercises) I believe it's important to use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation (e.g., Discussion Board) I believe it's important to use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats (e.g., podcast of lecture available for download, course readings available as mp3 files) MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 142 Inclusive Assessment Q34_1_3 Likert Value Q33_1_5 I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g., change from written to oral) for ANY student who expresses a need Q33_1_4 I believe it's important to allow students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills in ways other than traditional tests and exams (e.g., written essays, portfolios, journals) Q34_1_1 I believe it's important to allow students to express comprehension in multiple ways be flexible with assignment deadlines in my course(s) for ANY student who expresses a need Vukovic 2016 Inclusive Assessment Strongly Disagree 1 1 3 3 Disagree 2 3 8 9 Neither agree nor disagree 3 5 9 11 Agree 4 21 12 9 Strongly agree 5 6 4 4 36 36 36 3.7778 3.1667 3.0556 3.16 4.08 3.34 Question Response Total Mean Question Response Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 9.48 10.89 10.03 Neither agree nor disagree 3 15.80 12.25 12.26 Agree 4 66.37 16.33 10.03 Strongly agree Standard Deviation 5 18.96 5.44 4.46 1.7778 1.1667 1.0556 Area Mean Area Standard Deviation 3.3333 1.3706 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT Q33 _1 _5 3 9 Q34 _1 _3 Q33 _1 _4 3 8 Q34 _1 _1 1 3 5 11 9 9 4 12 4 21 Q33_1_5 Q34_1_3 Q33_1_4 6 Q34_1_1 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree I believe it's important to allow flexible response options on exams (e.g., change from written to oral) for ANY student who expresses a need I believe it's important to allow students to express comprehension in multiple ways be flexible with assignment deadlines in my course(s) for ANY student who expresses a need I believe it's important to allow students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills in ways other than traditional tests and exams (e.g., written essays, portfolios, journals) 143 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 144 Course Modifications Likert Value Q33_1_2 Q33_1_1 I believe it's important to allow ANY student to complete extra credit assignments in my course(s) Q32_1_4 I believe it's important to allow a student with a documented disability to complete extra credit assignments Q32_1_3 I believe it's important to reduce the overall course reading load for a student with a documented disability even when I would not allow a reduced reading load for another student Vukovic 2016 I believe it's important to reduce the course reading load for ANY student who expresses a need Table 7. ITSI Course Modification Related Responses Course Modifications Strongly Disagree 1 2 2 8 9 Disagree 2 13 15 18 13 Neither agree nor disagree 3 12 13 5 9 Agree 4 7 3 4 3 Strongly agree 5 2 3 1 2 Question Response Total 36 36 36 36 Mean Question Response Strongly Disagree 2.8333 2.7222 2.2222 2.3333 1 1.39 1.04 0.40 1.00 Disagree 2 9.03 7.82 0.89 1.44 Neither agree nor disagree 3 8.33 6.78 0.25 1.00 Agree 4 4.86 1.56 0.20 0.33 Strongly agree Standard Deviation 5 1.39 1.56 0.05 0.22 0.8333 0.7222 0.2222 0.3333 Area Mean 2.5278 Area Standard Deviation 0.5866 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 145 Figure 31. ITSI Course Modification Responses Chart COURSE MODIFICATIONS Q33_1_1 9 Q33 _1 _1 13 9 3 2 Q33_1_2 8 Q33 _1 _2 18 5 4 1 Q32_1_4 Q32 _1 _4 2 15 Q32 _1 _3 2 13 13 12 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 3 7 3 2 Q32_1_3 I believe it's important to allow ANY student to complete extra credit assignments in my course(s) I believe it's important to reduce the course reading load for ANY student who expresses a need I believe it's important to reduce the overall course reading load for a student with a documented disability even when I would not allow a reduced reading load for another student I believe it's important to allow a student with a documented disability to complete extra credit assignments Question Legend MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 146 Comparison Table 8. ITSI Comparison to U.S., Spain, Canada and This Project This Project U.S. Spain Canada ITSI Subscale M SD M SD M SD M SD Accommodations Disability Law and Concepts Accessible Course Materials 4.00 2.01 3.02 0.46 2.08 0.43 3.47 0.49 3.40 1.45 2.75 0.76 1.62 0.57 2.97 0.59 na na 3.49 0.54 2.58 0.47 3.37 0.57 Inclusive Classroom Inclusive Lecture Strategies 4.03 2.05 3.47 0.51 2.52 0.41 3.36 0.49 na na 3.79 0.42 2.78 0.38 3.64 0.46 Inclusive Assessment 3.33 1.37 3.01 0.71 2.37 0.45 2.66 0.62 Course Modifications 2.53 0.59 3.60 0.69 2.29 0.64 1.86 0.70 Table 8. Adapted from Lombardi, A., Vukovic, B., & Sala-Bars, I. (2015). International comparisons of inclusive instruction among college faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(6), 447-460. (p. 455). Used with permission from Dr. Lombardi. MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 147 Appendix I – Codebook for Thematic Coding Figure 32. Research Project Self Developed Code System 1 Support 1 2 Barriers-Time 1 3 Barriers-Complexity 10 4 UDL-Access 0 4.1 Access-Physical Action 13 4.2 Access-Perception 15 4.3 Access-Recruiting Interest 18 5 UDL-Build 0 5.1 Build-Expression & Communication 21 5.2 Build-Language & Symbols 3 5.3 Build-Sustaining Effort & Persistence 23 6 UDL-Internalize 0 6.1 Internalize-Executive Functions 5 6.2 Internalize-Comprehension 11 6.3 Internalize-Self Regulation 5 Figure 32. This is an overview of the coding used. Background colouring matches the colours used within the MaxQDA program and appears in the figures used to capture the data. The UDL guideline colouring helps identify the vertical position while grouping along the horizontal levels. Definitions for Codes 1 Support Identified sources of support 2 Barriers-Time Barrier identified as time 3 Barriers-Complexity Barriers identified as complexity, multiple elements MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 4 UDL-Access • • • Recruiting Interest Perception Physical Action 4.1 UDL-Access >> Access-Physical Action Vary the methods for response and navigation (4.1) Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies (4.2) 4.2 UDL-Access >> Access-Perception Offer ways of customizing the display of information (1.1) Offer alternatives for auditory information (1.2) Offer alternatives for visual information (1.3) 4.3 UDL-Access >> Access-Recruiting Interest Optimize individual choice and autonomy (7.1) Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity (7.2) Minimize threats and distractions (7.3) 5 UDL-Build • • • Sustaining Effort & Persistence Language & Symbols Expression & Communication 5.1 UDL-Build >> Build-Expression & Communication Use multiple media for communication (5.1) Use multiple tools for construction and composition (5.2) Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance (5.3) 5.2 UDL-Build >> Build-Language & Symbols Clarify vocabulary and symbols (2.1) Clarify syntax and structure (2.2) Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols (2.3) Promote understanding across languages (2.4) Illustrate through multiple media (2.5) 5.3 UDL-Build >> Build-Sustaining Effort & Persistence Heighten salience of goals and objectives (8.1) Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge (8.2) Foster collaboration and community (8.3) Increase mastery-oriented feedback (8.4) 148 MODELLING UDL TO FACULTY AS LEARNERS 6 UDL-Internalize • • • Self Regulation Comprehension Executive Functions 6.1 UDL-Internalize >> Internalize-Executive Functions Guide appropriate goal-setting (6.1) Support planning and strategy development (6.2) Facilitate managing information and resources (6.3) Enhance capacity for monitoring progress (6.4) 6.2 UDL-Internalize >> Internalize-Comprehension Activate or supply background knowledge (3.1) Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships (3.2) Guide information processing and visualization (3.3) Maximize transfer and generalization (3.4) 6.3 UDL-Internalize >> Internalize-Self Regulation Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation (9.1) Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies (9.2) Develop self-assessment and reflection (9.3) CAST (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA. 149