Inclusive Teaching – An Introduction to Terminology

The engineering challenges of the 21st century call for innovative solutions and diversity of thought. Higher education faculty can directly enrich the engineering field by creating inclusive communities where all students feel that they belong and can practice technical and leadership skills (Spingola, 2020). Intentionally addressing diversity and inclusion in engineering education not only empowers faculty to confidently support talent development in an increasingly diverse student population, but also provides students the opportunity for academic and professional success (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Killpack & Melon, 2016; Spingola, 2018).    

Terminology 

In this series on inclusive teaching to build welcoming environments for all students, we begin by exploring terminology and comparing two sets of commonly confused terms – equality and equity, and accessibility and accommodation. 

From left to right, a visual representation of equality, equity and proactive accessible design. https://www.oecd.org/

Equality and equity are often thought of as being “fair” but differ in terms of meeting learners’ specific needs.

• Equality is treating everyone equally or the same, whereas equity is meeting individual needs to provide equal opportunities for participation or learning.
• In the image, equality is giving every spectator the same size box to stand on, regardless of their height. Equity is pictured as providing boxes tailored to each person’s needs, which enables all three to enjoy the game.
• In the learning environment, equality could be providing all learners with the same reading. Equity would be providing the same content in various formats and levels appropriate to learners’ ability and professional experience.

Accessibility, which comes from the field of urban planning and architecture, is removing barriers to provide full access for everyone.  In the image, it is planning ahead with a fence that does not require an accommodation to participate is a proactive approach towards meeting accessibility.

Accessibility and accommodation are often used interchangeably but differ in terms of who benefits and ease of use.

• Accessibility is proactive and benefits all learners, while accommodation is reactive and benefits only specific students.
• Accessible design supports all students without the burden of disclosing physical or cognitive diversity.
• Accommodation, on the other hand, requires students to disclose learning differences and seek modification of course materials to meet their specific needs.

Disclosure puts added emotional, time, and effort burdens on students. Research shows that many students are reluctant to disclose differences for a variety of reasons (Mamboleo et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021; Toutain, 2019). Disability laws and university policies mandate that course content is accessible to all students regardless of disability status (Guilbaud et al., 2021). Through inclusive design and teaching, faculty can support all learners while reducing the need for disclosure and accommodation (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Killpack & Melon, 2016; Spingola, 2018).

A common example of accessible design versus accommodation is closed captioning for lecture videos and live transcription during online meetings. While often thought of as an accommodation specifically for hearing impairment, many learners report using captions and transcripts when available (Linder, 2016). Working professionals appreciate closed captioning in a noisy environment or to lower the volume in consideration of others. Research has consistently demonstrated that multiple modes of content input leads to greater retention (Opfermann et al., 2017). An accurate PDF transcript of video content can also be used with a language translation program, read aloud by a text reader, or referred to during course assignments (Linder, 2016).

Universal Design for Learning

One framework for inclusive design and teaching is Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Cast, 2022).  UDL aligns with research on learning cognition and addresses equity through inclusive design and teaching to make courses accessible to a wider range of students (Langley-Turnbaugh et al., 2013).

UDL is organized around core principles of providing students with multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression and provides a proactive approach to providing students options in both how they engage with learning and how they demonstrate their knowledge in multiple ways (CAST, 2022; Guilbaud et al., 2021).

• Multiple means of Engagement – Addresses the ‘why’ of learning and provides options that recruit interest, sustain persistence, and develop self-regulation. An engineering example is the use of case studies and authentic projects to provide real-world context for course topics.
• Multiple Means of Representation – Addresses the ‘what’ of learning and provides options in mode of delivery, language and symbols, and comprehension. For example, presenting complex physics concepts through words, graphs, tables, and equations to build analysis skills and connections not otherwise available through one representation alone (Opfermann et al., 2017).
• Multiple Means of Action and Expression – Addresses the ‘how’ of learning including providing alternatives for demonstration of knowledge. Including the option of presentations, and/or audio or video responses as alternatives to text-based reports when applicable addresses this principle.

As we practice and model inclusive teaching, we develop mindsets and skills that encourage graduates to consider diverse populations in engineering solutions. Embracing diversity will serve our students well as innovative leaders, in both their personal and professional lives. The JHU Roadmap on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion reaffirms the university’s commitment to creating an environment that fosters diversity and builds a campus culture of inclusion for students, faculty, and staff (JHU, 2022). A firm commitment to inclusive design and teaching practices embraces the strengths and contributions of diverse students while supporting their success as learners.

Resources

• The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Graphic Organizer (Cast, 2018)
• JHU Roadmap on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (JHU, 2022)
• JHU Office of Institutional Equity

References

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_numbers-yes.pdf

Guilbaud, T. C., Martin, F., & Newton, X. (2021). Faculty perception of accessibility in online learning: Knowledge, practice and professional development. Online Learning, 25(2), 6-35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2233

Johns Hopkins University. (2022). Diversity at JHU: Roadmap goals, commitments, and resources. https://diversity.jhu.edu/second-jhu-roadmap-on-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/roadmap-goals-commitments-and-resources/

Killpack, T. L., & Melon, L. C. (2016). Toward inclusive STEM classrooms: What personal role do faculty play? CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0020

Langley-Turnbaugh, S. J., Blair, M., & Whitney, J. (2013). Increasing accessibility of college STEM courses through faculty development in Universal Design for Learning. In S. E. Burgstahler (Ed.), Universal Design in Higher Education, Promising Practices (pp. 17-22). https://www.washington.edu/doit/resources/books/universal-design-higher-education-promising-practices

Linder, K. (2016). Student uses and perceptions of closed captions and transcripts: Results from a national study. Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit. https://go.3playmedia.com/hubfs/WP%20PDFs/Student-Survey-Report-10-25-16-Final.pdf

Mamboleo, G., Dong, S., & Fais, C. (2020). Factors associated with disability self-disclosure to their professors among college students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 43(2), 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419893360

Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple representations in physics and science education: Why should we use them? In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.) Multiple representations in physics education: Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 10). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5 

Royal Academy of Engineering. (2018). Designing inclusion into engineering education: A fresh, practical look at how diversity impacts on engineering and strategies for change. https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/designing-inclusion-into-engineering-education

Smith, S. A., Woodhead, E., & Chin-Newman, C. (2021). Disclosing accommodation needs: Exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1358-1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087

Spingola, E. M. (2018, June 23). Literature review on disability participation in the engineering field. Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–30776

Spingola, E. M. (2020). Understanding the relationships between disability, engineering, and the design of engineering course websites through disabled engineering students’ perspectives [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/97630/Spingola_EM_D_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Toutain, C. (2019). Barriers to accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3), 297-310. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1236832