



































Gronseth (2018) Proof 2.pdf


Educational Renaissance Vol. 7  (2018)

Inclusive Design for  Online and Blended Courses: 
Connect ing Web Cont ent  Accessibil i t y Guidelines and 
Universal Design for  Learning  

Susie Gronset h, PhD. University of Houston, College of Education

     email: slgronseth@uh.edu

Feature Article

 Designing for  All Learners 

Variability in learners is the norm, rather than the 
exception. Some students have disabilit ies in 
visual, auditory, physical, social/emotional, and 
focus/organizational dimensions, and all learners 
differ in areas of language, motivation, interests, 
learning preferences, study skills, and schedules. It 
turns out that the conception of an average learner 
rarely characterizes the complex make-up of 
varying combinations of characteristics in any 
learners (Rose, 2015). These differences can 
become barriers to learning when the scope of 
course design is limited to just an average learner. 
Designing for the average, therefore, is likely to 
produce mismatches between the designed 
instructional strategy and most learner needs. 

Further, accessibility of digital educational 
materials continues to be of great concern for 

higher education (Brown, 2018). In a 2010 ?Dear 
Colleague? letter issued jointly by the U.S. 
Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of 
Education, accessibility is framed as a civil rights 
issue (Perez & Ali, 2010). Referencing the 
Americans with Disabilit ies Act of 1990 and 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the 
letter advocates for college students with 
disabilit ies to receive all of the educational 
benefits of the instructional technologies that are 
incorporated into their learning experiences. It 
also argues that if incorporated technologies are 
found to be inaccessible, accommodations and 
modifications should be equivalently effective and 
integrated. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973 was amended in 1998 to specify that 
accessibility involves comparable access, that is 
?access to and use of information and data that is 
comparable? to that provided to individuals 

Abst ract  

Course accessibility is a priority in higher education, particularly in the design and delivery of digital 
learning experiences. Proactively addressing accessibility as part of online and blended course design 
meets the needs of all learners, including those in the margins. Inclusive design for online and 
blended courses connects the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Universal Design for 
Learning (UDL) framework in order to address learner variability as an intentional part of course 
design. Inclusive design fosters expanded options in the ways that learners access learning materials, 
engage in learning experiences, and demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have learned. This 
paper describes practical applications of WCAG and UDL for the design and facilitation of inclusive 
online and blended courses in the post-secondary setting. 



GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

without disabilit ies (29 U.S.C. §794 (d)). Information 
and data should be accessible either directly or 
through the use of assistive technologies, like 
screen readers. Comparable access relates to both 
the content of information as well as the 
timeliness in which access is provided. 

Web Cont ent  Accessibil i t y Guidelines (WCAG) 

Within 508, section E205 specifies that electronic 
content should conform to the Web Content 
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). At the time of this 
writing, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines are currently in 
effect, and proposed revisions are in the process 
of being reviewed and approved (Kirkpatrick, 
O?Connor, & Cooper, 2018). The guidelines 
characterize accessible design of electronic 
content in terms of it being perceivable, operable, 
navigable, understandable, predictable, 
compatible, distinguishable, and adaptable (see 
Figure 1). What is key for higher educators to know 
is that the guidelines address making web content 
more accessible for individuals with visual, 
auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, 
learning, and neurological disabilit ies, as well as 
greater usability by older individuals with changing 
abilit ies due to aging. Workable design for such 
groups promotes greater access across a greater 
range of users, and this inclusive design approach 
serves to reduce barriers for learners on digital 
platforms (Kumar & Wideman, 2014). 

                     

Figure 1. Accessible instructional design areas 
addressed through WCAG. 

Inclusive design of online and blended course 
activities and materials involves accessibility for 
learners with specific disabilit ies, as well as 
benefits for all learners (Dalton, 2017). For faculty 
and course designers, accessibility should 
therefore be viewed not as an add-on, but rather 
as an integral facet of instructional design. 
Elevating accessibility in course design supports 
customization in areas such as participation and 
content presentation that enable learners to select 
options aligned with their learning preferences 
(Rogers-Saw, Carr-Chellman, & Choi, 2018). For 
example, captioning video and audio components 
is of particular concern to designers of online 
courses as it is necessary to support accessibility 
for students with hearing impairments (Cifuentes, 
Janney, Guerra, & Weir, 2016). Quality captions can 
also be beneficial to students who may be 
watching the videos in noisy places and language 
learners (Vanderplank, 2010). The captioning 
serves as an additional available option for how 
the content is represented, promoting accessibility 
and enabling learners to select format options that 
best meet their needs (Tobin, 2014).  

Universal Design for  Learning (UDL) 

Designing for all learners from the outset is at the 
core of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 
framework, a set of curricular principles and 
guidelines that identify how to incorporate 
flexibility in the design and delivery of instruction. 
The framework was developed by Rose and Meyer 
(2002) and was built upon the premise of three 
brain networks ? affective, recognition, and 
strategic. Affective networks pertain to caring and 
prioritizing and are the why of learning. 
Recognition networks involve how content is 
represented and are the what of learning. Strategic 
networks relate to learner activity and are the how 
of learning. The philosophy of UDL is more than 
just ensuring access to the content; it addresses 
how learners are supported and challenged during 
learning experiences.  

Tied to each of the three brain networks are the 
UDL principles of (a) provide multiple means of 
engagement, (b) provide multiple means of 

15



GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

representation, and (c) provide multiple means of 
action and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 
2014). The UDL framework thus has a horizontal 
orientation in which each principle supports 
different aspects of student learning. The recent 
release of version 2.2 of the UDL guidelines also 
makes evident a vertical orientation, in which each 
principle has three levels ? Access, Build, and 
Internalize (Center for Applied Special Technology 
(CAST, 2018). Similar to the foundation of a 
building (as illustrated in Figure 2), access is 
foundational in the UDL framework, as it supports 
learners to be able to build and internalize. The 
ultimate goal of the framework is equipping 
learners to become purposeful and motivated, 
resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and 
goal-directed (CAST, 2018).  

   

Figure 2. Access as the foundation of UDL 

The UDL framework can be applied to the learning 
goals, materials, methods, and assessments of a 
course, as it involves thinking about how options 
can be incorporated into each course aspect. First, 
the ways in which course information is presented 
can vary, such as through text, image, animation, 
audio, video, and demonstration. Second, students 
can show their learning in different ways, such as 
through speaking, writing, drawing, acting, 
building, or even singing/rapping. Finally, different 

strategies can be used to focus student attention, 
sustain their interest and motivation, and 
ultimately empower them to self-regulate to 
persist throughout a course. 

Connect ing WCAG and UDL 

In online and blended courses, applying WCAG and 
UDL guidelines can positively impact the learner 
experience, especially for those in the margins 
(Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin, 2015). There are also 
legal implications regarding accessibility of digital 
learning experiences when users with disabilit ies 
experience inequitable access (U.S. Department of 
Justice, 2015, 2016). Accessibility is a worthy goal 
to pursue, as inclusive design strategies that follow 
WCAG and are grounded in the UDL framework 
can address the varying needs of all learners 
(National Center on Accessible Educational 
Materials, 2018). The WCAG areas can be 
simplified into the mnemonic POUR, which stands 
for perceivable, operable, understandable, and 
robust, and strategies and corresponding UDL 
connections to the guidelines are described next. 

 Perceivable. Course materials and the interfaces 
of course websites and tools should be presented 
to learners in ways that they can perceive. Users 
with sensory challenges, for instance, may 
experience barriers to accessing information when 
it is presented in certain formats. Providing 
equivalent format alternatives connects to the UDL 
principle of providing multiple means of 
representation and enables users to choose the 
formats that best meet their needs. Text 
alternatives for auditory and visually represented 
information supports greater flexibility in how 
learners can read or hear the content. The 
information can be accessed in multiple ways, 
such as through text-to-speech, large print, braille, 
symbols, and language translation or 
simplification. 

The perceivable aspect is enhanced when displays 
offer options for user adaption and customization. 
This corresponds to the UDL representation 
guideline of providing options for perception 
through personalization and alternatives of how 

16



GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

information is displayed. Individuals with sensory 
challenges may have difficulties distinguishing 
characteristics such as shape, color, size, visual 
location, orientation, or sound. When content 
involves these characteristics, descriptions can be 
provided so that the information is presented in 
varying formats. For example, color in graph 
elements could be presented in hue, by color code, 
or through varying patterns.  

Perception is also supported when content 
features are distinguishable. The important 
aspects of content can be made more 
distinguishable through enhancing contrast and 
learner capability in separating the main content 
from any background imagery or sounds. 
Educators and course designers can address this 
area by incorporating greater contrast, allowing 
user control over turning sound on/off, supporting 
resizing of text, and avoiding presenting text as 
images only. Enabling user control in this area 
minimizes distractions (under the engagement 
principle) and optimizes perception (part of the 
representation principle). 

 Operable. Students access course materials and 
activities in different ways, and some students may 
use assistive technology like screen readers and 
switch controls to operate course tools and 
website interfaces. In addition, there are also 
navigation differences that now exist among the 
great variety of device types that learners may use 
to access course content, from laptops and smart 
TVs to mobile technologies such as tablets and 
smartphones. Addressing the operable area 
connects to the UDL principle of providing multiple 
means of action and expression and optimizes 
access for those using assistive technologies. 
Operability is enhanced through keyboard 
navigation functionality, a gateway to access 
through multiple devices. Adjustable timings can 
also be applied, as they provide users with 
sufficient time to read and use content. Flashing 
page elements should be limited, as they can be 
not only distracting and bothersome to users, but 
more than three consecutive flashes in a second 
can induce seizures in individuals with 

photosensitive epilepsy (Harding & Harding, 2010). 

Another component of operability is navigation. 
Consistent and clear organization of course sites 
and materials can enable students to navigate the 
provided information and locate assignments, 
activities, and course content. When users know 
where they are in a course and how to find 
materials, they are better able to self-manage the 
information and their progress, thus supporting 
their empowerment and self-regulation. 
Navigation practices that enhance usability include 
titling web pages to describe their topic or 
purpose, using section headings to organize 
content, and creating meaningful links that 
effectively communicate the content of the link 
through the link text (for example, WCAG 2.1). 

 Underst andable. Clearly written course materials 
and intuitive tool interfaces aid in understanding. 
From the stance of recognition networks and the 
UDL principle of providing multiple means of 
representation, course materials that are written 
in understandable ways to users support 
comprehension and enable users to better plan 
how they might accomplish what is expected of 
them. To do this, educators and instructional 
designers should consider learner reading levels 
and background knowledge to comprehend 
abbreviations and jargon in written instructions 
and handouts. Defining vocabulary and providing 
related resources for students to reference can 
support in this area. 

Digital course materials and activities are likely to 
be more understandable when they appear and 
operate in ways that students expect. This helps 
students not only locate course items but also 
reduces extraneous cognitive load, enabling users 
to direct more of their focus, time, and attention 
towards engaging in course activities (Çakiro?lu & 
Aksoy, 2017). Predictability in course design 
connects to the UDL action and expression 
guideline of providing options for executive 
functions through contributing to how students 
manage course information and resources. To 
support this, consistent navigation should be used, 
including consistent headings, labels, and ordering 

17

http://www.w3.org/TR2018/CR-WCAG21-20180130/
http://www.w3.org/TR2018/CR-WCAG21-20180130/


GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

of items and activities on handouts and course site 
pages. 

Robust . The use of the word robust in this 
discussion refers to the capacity of the designed 
materials and technologies to perform for a 
diverse user base. Robust course materials, 
websites, and tools are compatible with the 
technologies that learners use to access them, 
including assistive technologies. Compatibility with 
assistive technologies facilitates options for 
perception and access, which addresses the UDL 
action and expression guideline of providing 
options for physical action. A practical way that 
instructors and course designers can check 
compatibility is listening to course materials using 
a screen reader function. This may illuminate 
areas that could be better formatted for improved 
access and clarity.  

Built-in accessibility checkers are available within 
Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat, and Grackle 
(https://www.grackledocs.com/) is a Chrome 
extension that can be used to check accessibility in 
Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides. The Web 
Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE) 
(http://wave.webaim.org/) can be used to check 
webpage accessibility. Instructors and course 
designers can also view course materials and try 
out tools on tablets and smartphones, as display 
and operability on mobile technologies may differ 
when touch is used for navigation as compared to 
access through a desktop computer with a 
keyboard and mouse. 

Pract ical Applicat ions for  Inclusive Design  

 Inclusive design for online and blended courses 
can thus involve WCAG and the UDL framework in 
order to support varying learner abilit ies, 
preferences, and needs. Specifically, practical 
applications of these guidelines include strategies 
relating to the UDL framework areas of 
engagement, representation of content, and 
learner action and expression. Proactively 
addressing learner variability through strategic 
design decisions can reduce barriers to access and 
participation in learning activities, facilitate 

personalization in course experiences, and 
promote student interest and engagement (Smith, 
2012). 

 Engagem ent . Regarding engagement, the overall 
goal is for learners to become more purposeful 
and self-regulated. Providing learners with 
supportive structures as part of the course design 
can equip students with study skills resources they 
may need to be able to more purposefully direct 
their time and attention to the course activities. 
For example, rubrics offer students specific 
guidance as to the expectations for open-ended 
demonstrations of their learning. The criterion 
areas can specify the components of a project that 
relate to the learning objectives and describe 
qualities of performance in those areas. 

 Student engagement can also be enhanced 
through multiple options for recruiting interest 
(Coy, 2016). Connecting course activities with 
authentic contexts and real-world problems can 
naturally produce a range of viable directions for 
students to select and experientially learn. Course 
conversations can be expanded beyond the walls 
of the classroom through online forums and social 
media. For instance, students can engage in larger 
book study and Twitter chat conversations offered 
by relevant professional organizations and 
Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). Students 
can use a variety of tools to follow and post to the 
conversations, and contributions can be posted in 
real-time or pre-scheduled for greater timing 
flexibility. 

Represent at ion of  cont ent . Enhancing how 
content is represented involves considering 
information formatting and incorporating media 
flexibility. Content can be communicated in 
multiple ways, including text, visuals, videos, and 
audio. For example, course announcements can 
be distributed as text emails, audio recordings, or 
even videos. Web-based tools and mobile apps, 
like Blabberize (https://blabberize.com/), can be 
used to create talking images, with text-to-speech 
or recorded voice-over (Marcovitz, 2012). See 
Figure 3 for an example of a Blabberized course 
announcement. It should be noted, though, that 

18

https://www.grackledocs.com/
http://wave.webaim.org/
https://blabberize.com/


GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

such tools vary in accessibility, and instructors are 
advised to check for accessibility statements from 
the developers. Providing multiple options for 
tools and formats can enable students to select 
ones that best meet their needs and preferences. 

     

Figure 3. Example Blabberize video announcement 
featuring a talking cougar. 

Video content should be closed-captioned. Video 
storage and sharing sites, such as YouTube, 
provide auto-captioning features that can make 
captioning faster and easier. Captions can be 
loaded from video transcripts and adjusted or 
created through transcription within the video 
storage and sharing platform. Similar to content in 
a video format, graphical content should also be 
accompanied with descriptive text alternatives, so 
that the visuals and text alternatives provide 
equivalent information.  

Learner  act ion and expression. Applying 
headings and using descriptive text for hyperlinks 
throughout syllabi and handouts ensures clarity 
for those accessing content with screen readers. 
Headings provide the capability to create tables of 
contents so that all users (instructors included) can 
more easily navigate to any section of a document. 
Heading links can facilitate navigation from a to-do 
list table to detailed instructions in another part of 
the document or in another handout.  

Incorporating options into how students express 
what they know promotes student ownership of 

what they create within the scaffolds of 
instructor-provided expectations (Mino, 2004). An 
array of learning demonstration options may make 
evaluation of student learning more interesting 
and enjoyable for instructors, who are able to view 
a variety of products and formats that reflect 
varying learner skills, preferences, and interests. A 
Course Integrative Challenge, for example, is a way 
for students to demonstrate how three topics 
relate to each other and their areas of interest (see 
Figure 4). 

       

Figure 4. Example of expanded options for 
demonstrating learning through a Course 
Integrative Challenge. 

Emerging technologies for online discussion and 
course communications can be used to support 
idea generation, sharing of drafts, and reflection 
(Gronseth & Zhang, 2018). Digital whiteboards and 
bulletin boards, such as Realtimeboard 
(https://realtimeboard.com/) and Padlet 
(https://padlet.com/), are collaborative spaces for 
groups of learners to collectively brainstorm and 
link to related resources (Byrne, 2014). Ideas can 
be posted as bubbles or sticky notes on the digital 
board space, and the tools offer options for 
arranging postings, controlling sharing and 
security settings, and customizing the theme and 
color scheme of the board. In addition to text, 
audio and video discussion postings are also 
possible through tools such as Voicethread 
(https://voicethread.com/) and Flipgrid 
(https:// flipgrid.com/). Instructors provide a 
prompt in text, audio, video, and/or images to start 
a discussion (see Figure 5), and the audio/video 
recording, threaded reply, and emoji reaction 
features help to organize conversations and 
expand the ways that students can engage in 
academic conversations (Mahmoudi & Gronseth, 
2018). 

19

https://realtimeboard.com/
https://padlet.com/
https://voicethread.com/
https://flipgrid.com/


GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

   

Figure 5. Prompt for video-based discussion in 
Flipgrid. 

Recom m endat ions 

 Instructors and course designers can promote 
accessibility in online and blended course 
materials and activities by applying inclusive 
design practices. A recommended place to start is 
in the area of navigation by considering the clarity 
and consistency of how materials are organized on 
a course website. This first step is likely to make a 
noticeable difference in supporting all learners to 
be better able to access course content so that 
they can make strides toward becoming more 
self-regulated.  

The next priority area to address relates to how 
learners perceive course materials and activities. 
Instructors and course designers should reflect on 
possibilit ies for how course content can be 
communicated through multiple format options. 
For instance, content delivered through readings 
could be similarly communicated via multimedia 
resources, such as infographics, podcast episodes, 
and video clips. Care should be taken to ensure 
that accompanying text descriptions, captions, and 
transcripts are available and provide equivalent 
information. Students can be involved in 
advancing an inclusive curriculum by converting 
historic learning documents and creating new 
materials (Everett & Oswald, 2018). 

A third action step towards more inclusive design 

in online and blended courses involves 
incorporating multiple means for how learners 
demonstrate what they have learned. 
Project-based learning allows learners to 
individualize based on their own unique makeup 
of prior experiences, personalities, and talents. 
Structured project options can provide 
opportunities for learners to integrate newly 
acquired knowledge. Project-based learning can 
also foster collaborative learning partnerships and 
authentic applications of course content (Koh, 
Herring, & Hew, 2010). 

As a baseline, making sure that learners with 
disabilit ies have comparable access to online and 
blended course materials and activities is 
essential. Inclusive design, though, recognizes that 
variability is characteristic of all learners, and 
incorporating multiple pathways to access, 
engagement, and expression enables learners to 
select options that best meet their needs. The 
benefits of practices grounded in WCAG and UDL 
are far-reaching and applying them can produce 
online and blended course experiences that are 
intentionally designed for all learners. 
  

 

References 

Americans with Disabilit ies Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-336, 104 Stat. 328, codified as amended at 42 
U.S.C. §12101. 

Black, R.D., Weinberg, L.A., & Brodwin, M.G. (2015). 
Universal Design for Learning and instruction: 
Perspectives of students with disabilit ies in higher 
education. Exceptionality Education International, 
25(2), 1-26. 

Brown, M. (2018, January 25). Presenting the ELI 
key issues for 2018. Educause Review. Retrieved 
from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/1/pres
enting-the-eli-key-issues-for-2018  

Byrne, R. (2014). Communication tools, updated. 
School Library Journal, 60(9), 17. 

Çakiro?lu, U., & Aksoy, D.A. (2017). Exploring 
extraneous cognitive load in an instructional 

20

https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/1/presenting-the-eli-key-issues-for-2018
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/1/presenting-the-eli-key-issues-for-2018
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/1/presenting-the-eli-key-issues-for-2018


GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

process via the web conferencing system. 
Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(7), 713-725. 

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). 
(2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines 
version 2.2. Retrieved from 
http://udlguidelines.cast.org 

Cifuentes, L., Janney, A., Guerra, L., & Weir, J. 
(2016). A working model for complying with 
accessibility guidelines for online learning. 
TechTrends, 60(6), 557-564. 

Coy, K. (2016). Post-secondary educators can 
increase educational reach with Universal Design 
for Learning. Educational Renaissance, 5(1), 27-36. 

Dalton, E. (2017). Beyond Universal Design for 
Learning: Guiding principles to reduce barriers to 
digital & media literacy competence. Journal of 
Media Literacy Education, 9(2), 17-29. 

Everett, S., & Oswald, G. (2018). Engaging and 
training students in the development of inclusive 
learning materials for their peers. Teaching in 
Higher Education, 1-16. 

Gronseth, S., & Zhang, H. (2018). Advancing social 
presence, community, and cognition through 
online discussions. In M. Marmon (Ed.), Enhancing 
social presence in online learning environments (pp. 
117-140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 

Harding, G.F.A., & Harding, P.F. (2010). 
Photosensitive epilepsy and image safety. Applied 
Ergonomics, 41(4), 504-508. 

Kirkpatrick, A., O?Connor, J., & Cooper, M. (2018, 
April 24). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
(WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved from 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-WCAG21-20
180424/.  

Koh, J.H., Herring, S.C., & Hew, K.F. (2010). 
Project-based learning and student knowledge 
construction during asynchronous online 
discussion. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 
284-291. 

Kumar, K.L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by 
design: Applying UDL principles in a first year 
undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher 

Education, 44(1), 125-147. 

Mahmoudi, L., & Gronseth, S. (2018). Video-based 
discussion: Promoting presence through 
interactions in online higher education courses. In 
E. Ossiannilsson (Ed.), Ubiquitous inclusive learning 
in a digital era (pp. 128-153). Hershey, PA: IGI 
Global.  

Marcovitz, D. (2012). Digital connections in the 
classroom. Eugene, OR: International Society for 
Technology in Education. 

Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). 
Universal Design for Learning: Theory & practice. 
Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. 

Mino, J.J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using 
Universal Instructional Design to create a 
learner-centered community college classroom. 
Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 154-160. 

National Center on Accessible Educational 
Materials. (2018). Designing for accessibility with 
POUR. Retrieved from 
http://aem.cast.org/creating/designing-for-a
ccessibility-pour.html. 

Perez, T.E., & Ali, R. (2010, June 29). Joint ?dear 
colleague? letter: Electronic book readers. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 
Rights Division and U.S. Department of Education, 
Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from 
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ l
etters/colleague-20100629.html. 

Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellmann, D.J., & Choi, J. 
(2018). Universal Design for Learning: Guidelines 
for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 
29(1), 20-31. 

Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every 
student in the digital age: Universal Design for 
Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 

Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed 
in a world that values sameness. New York, NY: 
HarperCollins Publishers.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. 
L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355, codified as amended at 29 
U.S.C. §794 (d). 

21

http://udlguidelines.cast.org
http://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-WCAG21-20180424/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-WCAG21-20180424/
http://aem.cast.org/creating/designing-for-accessibility-pour.html
http://aem.cast.org/creating/designing-for-accessibility-pour.html
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html


GRONSETH |  INCLUSIVE DESIGN FOR ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES

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. 

Tobin, T.J. (2014). Increase online student retention 
with Universal Design for Learning. Quarterly 
Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13-24. 

U.S. Department of Justice. (2015, August 6). Justice 
department settles with Louisiana Tech University 
over inaccessible course materials. Retrieved from 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ justice-depa
rtment-settles-louisiana-tech-university-ove
r-inaccessible-course-materials. 

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016, October 17). 
Miami University agrees to overhaul critical 
technologies to settle disability discrimination 
lawsuit. Retrieved from 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/miami-unive
rsity-agrees-overhaul-critical-technologies-s
ettle-disability-discrimination. 

Vanderplank, R. (2010). Déjà vu? A decade of 
research on language laboratories, television and 
video in language learning. Language Teaching, 
43(1), 1-37.  

22

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-louisiana-tech-university-over-inaccessible-course-materials
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-louisiana-tech-university-over-inaccessible-course-materials
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-louisiana-tech-university-over-inaccessible-course-materials
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/miami-university-agrees-overhaul-critical-technologies-settle-disability-discrimination
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/miami-university-agrees-overhaul-critical-technologies-settle-disability-discrimination
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/miami-university-agrees-overhaul-critical-technologies-settle-disability-discrimination

