Instructional Design for Special Education

This article presents an overview of Instructional Design (ID) for Special Education (SPED) in United States K-12 public schools. It describes how the field has evolved from an emphasis on non-technological solutions for students with low-incidence disabilities (e.g., hard of hearing, blind, mobility-impaired) to more technology-oriented approaches for students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, ADHD, mild mental retardation). The term Instructional Systems Design (ISD) refers to technology-based solutions such as Assistive Technologies (AT) and Universal Design (UD) that have the potential to provide better access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. A brief summary of federal legislation that has influenced the field is also included.

Keywords Assistive Technologies; Differentiated Instruction; Disabilities; Instructional Design; Instructional Systems Design; Special Education; Universal Design; Universal Design for Learning

Special Education > Instructional Design for SpecialEducation

Overview

Instructional Design (ID) is an interdisciplinary field combining psychology, business, education, and in recent years, computer technology. The term Instructional Systems Design (ISD) refers to technology-oriented approaches to curriculum development, though the two terms are sometimes used synonymously. The goal of each is to systematically develop learning objectives based on analyzing learners' needs, and to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of a given instructional approach governed by a particular learning theory such as behaviorism or constructivism. Behavioral approaches underscore the role of the instructor and tend to emphasis rote learning with extrinsic rewards for success. In contrast, constructivist approaches capitalize on the intrinsic motivation of learners, allowing them more freedom to choose personally meaningful learning tasks.

In the context of Special Education (SPED) in K-12 public schools in the United States, ID has historically attempted to meet the needs of specific groups of learners who require curriculum modifications, particularly students with low-incidence physical and sensory disabilities (e.g., hard of hearing, blind, mobility-impaired). The development of Assistive Technologies (AT) has been a primary focus of ISD, ranging from low-tech AT (e.g., canes, wheelchairs, eyeglasses) to high-tech AT (e.g., electronic mobility switches, alternative keyboards, signing avatars).

Traditional special education was designed to provide specialized services to achieve a set of goals that differed from those of general education. Although there will always be a small minority of students whose disabilities are so severe that they require a different set of learning objectives, the emphasis on segregation is changing for the majority of students with milder disabilities. As a result of federal laws passed over the past few decades, schools have shifted focus from providing education to learners with special needs in the least restrictive environment to finding ways to help them access the general curriculum. According to Wehmeyer (2006), the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) introduced the concept of “ensuring access to the general curriculum for students receiving special education services and required that the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) of all students receiving special education services include a statement regarding: (a) how the student’s disability affects involvement and progress in the general curriculum; (b) the program modifications or supports for school personnel that are provided for the child to be involved and progress in the general curriculum; and (c) the special education and supplementary aids and services provided to ensure a student’s involvement in and progress in the general curriculum” (p. 225).

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA continued these 1997 requirements and “extended them, mandating that schools ensure that the IEP team includes someone knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and that it meet at least annually to address any lack of expected progress in the general education curriculum” (Wehmeyer, 2006, p. 225-6). IDEA 2004 prohibits a disabled student from being excluded from the general education setting based solely on the need for modifications to the general education curriculum. These mandates aim to “align practice in special education with school reform efforts in general education, efforts that have been codified in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)” (Wehmeyer, 2006, p. 225).

In order to better accommodate students with IEPs in the general education classroom, IDEA 2004 also calls for a National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) that requires textbook publishers to use a consistent file format when developing alternate versions of texts (e.g., CD-ROM or web-based) for students with print disabilities. This is an improvement over the earlier Chafee Amendment (1996), which gives permission for special educators to convert copyrighted print materials (e.g., to create Braille, audio, or digital versions), but places the burden of responsibility on educators rather than on publishers. However, neither law makes provisions for students with high-incidence cognitive and psychological disabilities (e.g., learning disabled, ADHD, mild mental retardation, emotional disorders). More than 95% of the estimated 6 million children participating in special education fall into the high-incidence category (Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabala, 2005).

Because students with IEPs are increasingly participating in regular education classes for a majority of their school day (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006), the field of ID is now highly focused on devising solutions to provide access to the general curriculum to the millions of children with high-incidence disabilities. In addition to non-technology based approaches, AT solutions are rapidly appearing, ranging from spellcheckers and calculators to more advanced technologies such as electronic storybooks and universally-designed (UD) materials. As more and more K-12 public schools use the Internet as an instructional resource, educational websites are also under pressure to make their websites accessible to the largest number of learners possible. Existing accessibility guidelines as set forth in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1998 are being transformed and updated by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a working group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

Applications

Five instructional design approaches for special education are described in detail: Curriculum Modification; Differentiated Instruction; Assistive Technologies; Universal Design; and Universal Design for Learning.

Curriculum Modification

A curriculum modification is a change in what a student is expected to learn and/or demonstrate. In this scenario, a student with special needs typically works on modified course content while the subject area remains the same as for the rest of the class. This is in contrast to a curriculum accommodation, in which the instructional level, content, or performance criteria are not changed (Fisher & Frey, 2001). Five common curriculum modifications are as follows:

1. Reduction -- The assignment remains the same except that the number of items is reduced. For example, a spelling list for typically-achieving students may have 20 words while a student with special needs may be asked to learn 5 or 10 words per week.

2. Streamlining -- The assignment is reduced in size, breadth, or focus to emphasize the key points. For example, if an entire class is supposed to write an essay about a novel, the assignment can be streamlined for a specific student so that s/he is asked to create a plot diagram or character web rather than write an essay.

3. Infused Objectives -- The assignment remains the same, but IEP objectives or skills are incorporated. For example, a specific student might have an IEP objective to answer yes/no questions by using his/her eyes to locate the words on a lap tray. During an assignment or test, the teacher can phrase questions in a yes/no format so that the student can practice this IEP objective.

4. Curriculum Augmentation - The assignment remains the same, but the teacher expands the lesson or unit to include generalizable learning strategies such as chunking (separating a large task into component parts), creating graphic organizers, or developing personally-meaningful mnemonic devices for recalling important information.

5. Curriculum Overlapping -- The assignment for one class may be completed in another class. This is helpful for students who have difficulty making connections between different subjects or who work slowly and need additional time to complete assignments. For example, in a computer class, a student can type an assignment for English class and submit the same piece for a grade in each class.

Differentiated Instruction

Tomlinson defines differentiated instruction as “a teaching theory based on the premise that instructional approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in classrooms” (cited in Hall, Strangman & Meyer, 2003, par. 1). Interestingly, the design and development of differentiated instruction as a model began in the general education classroom in order to better meet the needs of students considered gifted. The special education community quickly recognized the value of differentiated instruction as an alternative to the factory-style instructional model upon which the American educational system is built; i.e., one size fits all.

Tomlinson (2001) identifies three elements of the curriculum that can be differentiated: Content, Process, and Products:

• Content

• Several elements and materials are used to support instructional content.

• Align tasks and objectives to learning goals.

• Instruction is concept-focused and principle-driven.

• Process

• Flexible grouping is consistently used.

• Classroom management benefits students and teachers.

• Products

• Initial and on-going assessment of student readiness and growth.

• Students are active and responsible explorers.

• Vary expectations and requirements for student responses.

Assistive Technologies (AT)

When people think of instructional design for special education, Assistive Technologies (AT) often come to mind first. AT for low-incidence populations with sensory disabilities has typically focused on providing an alternate format or alternate medium of the original material. A good example of this approach is a book, magazine, or newspaper that has been made available in Braille or recorded on tape for students who are blind or who have low vision (Boone & Higgins, 2007). Other examples of AT for blind and low vision learners include text-to-speech software, screen magnifiers, and refreshable Braille display devices. Captioning and signing avatars are good examples of AT for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Students with mobility and/or linguistic disabilities have benefited from accessibility switches, adaptive keyboards, voice recognition software, and synthesized speech boards, such as that used by the world-famous scientist Stephen Hawking.

Although the field of AT for learners with low-incidence disabilities is fairly well-established and accepted, AT for students with high-incidence disabilities is relatively new and somewhat controversial. A fundamental challenge is that there are few benchmarks to guide decision making about using AT when the nature of a disability is cognitive rather than physical. Practically speaking, it is harder to "see" inside the head of a student with ADHD than it is to observe a child who is blind and needs a cane for navigation. It is much easier to grasp and accept the notion that a person who is blind needs a Braille version of a text than it is to consider that a person with ADHD may need a "talking" digital version of a text with synchronized highlighting in order to keep her/his attention on the task. An underlying issue is that academic performance that is achieved “without the aid of external devices and resources tends to be valued over performance that is dependent on tools or resources. AT researchers have termed this form of bias "naked independence," as it exalts the performance of able-bodied and able-minded individuals and devalues the performance of others that must rely on external devices or tools” (Edyburn, 2007, p. 150).

The controversy over providing AT for low-incidence disabilities is particularly evident in this era of high-stakes assessment. As a result of NCLB legislation (2001), students with disabilities and students who do not speak English as a first language must be included in statewide testing programs unless it is determined that the child requires an alternative assessment. Because teachers, schools, and school districts are penalized if their test scores are low, this places heavy pressure on educators to determine what is fair and reasonable for each student. It is easy to imagine a parent of a child with severe physical and cognitive disabilities to feel that her/his child should be exempted from standardized testing; however, it is equally easy to imagine another parent being upset that his/her child has to take the test despite a severe learning disability that causes him/her to read several grade levels below his/her peers. One solution to this dilemma is to design flexible assessments from the outset to accommodate a wide range of students, as discussed below in the section on Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Universal Design (UD)

The UDL movement in education has roots in the field of architecture. Over 40 years ago, architect Ronald Mace introduced the novel idea that physical environments could be designed from the start to meet the diverse needs of all the individuals who access such spaces. At the time, disability was not considered in design practice and aesthetics. A wheelchair user himself, Mace suggested that “designers examine the needs of diverse consumers (e.g., young people, elderly people, and those with temporary and permanent disabilities) and use this enhanced awareness to inform product design that is more functional to a broader range of people” (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006, p. 167). The term “Universal Design” (UD) reflected this approach of “proactively incorporating inclusive design features while minimizing the need for individual, retrofitted accommodations” (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006, p. 167).

Universally designed products and environments provide a more functional environment or product for everyone, not just the disabled. Universally designed products and settings are increasingly common in all our lives. For example, TV captioning, which is necessary for individuals with hearing impairments, is also helpful to people in noisy settings such as airports or restaurants, and curb cuts which are required for wheelchair users are handy for kids on bicycles, parents with strollers and travelers pulling wheeled luggage (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). According to Welch (1995),

“The concept of UD goes beyond the mere provision of special features for various segments of the population; instead it emphasizes a creative approach that is more inclusive, one that asks at the outset of the design process how a product, building or public space can be made both aesthetically pleasing and functional for the greatest number of users” (as cited in McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006, p. 168). In considering UD as new paradigm for addressing the instructional needs of students with disabilities and those at risk for learning challenges, “disability” is viewed as a normal phenomenon of human diversity rather than as an aberration.

From the viewpoint of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), The design of universally accessible computer interfaces can have a positive social effect on individuals with disabilities. For instance, people with sensory disabilities can use computers in order to achieve face-to-face remote communication. Computers can assist those with “severe motor impairments to manipulate their environment and to enhance their mobility” through technologies such as smart wheelchairs, helping them to become more socially active and productive (Abascal & Nicolle, 2005).

According to Hitchcock and Stahl (2003), attempts have been made to apply these seven UD principles to learning and assessment, but they aren’t a perfect fit. Like curricula and tests that are designed “without consideration for the needs of individuals with disabilities in mind, the foundational UD principles appropriate for architecture and for computer hardware, software, media, and communication devices do not always work well when applied to learning because they were not specifically developed with learning in mind” (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003, p. 45). A review of the current literature that pertains to UD in educational settings reveals a jumble of acronyms, such as UDI (Universal Design for Instruction), UID (Universal Instructional Design), UDE (Universal Design in Education) and UDL (Universal Design for Learning). This paper focuses on UDL since it is most germane to K-12 populations.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Concurrent with the increasing focus on instructional design solutions for students with high-incidence disabilities is a growing awareness that simply providing access to the general curriculum is insufficient to ensure optimal learning (Boone & Higgins, 2007). There is an important distinction between access to information and access to learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Therefore, researchers and designers are now emphasizing the need to provide access to learning itself. Just because a student can access a piece of content doesn't automatically mean s/he can understand or make sense of it. Mere access to the content is inadequate unless that access is mediated with instructional design supports appropriate for the specific disability of the user. Since instructional design elements that are suitable for one disability population might not be appropriate for someone with a different disability, the key is to build in maximum flexibility from the start. For example, it is generally understood that students with learning disabilities should not be exposed to overwhelming or distracting graphics in a computer program; conversely, some students with emotional disabilities prefer strong auditory and visual effects (Boone & Higgins, 2007).

An exclusive emphasis on AT places the burden of adaptation on the individual learner rather than on the curriculum itself. In essence, AT accepts an inflexible curriculum-say, a printed textbook-as a given, and then finds ways to make it accessible to particular learners. In contrast, a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach posits that the curriculum, just like the buildings and public spaces discussed above, should be designed from the outset to be accessible to a wide range of learners rather than retrofitted after the fact.

UDL theory has evolved from the field of cognitive neuroscience, which tries to understand how the human brain actually learns by using brain scanning technology. MRI scans have revealed learner differences according to three brain networks: recognition, strategic, and affective. The recognition network is the "what" of learning. It involves recognizing patterns, gathering facts, categorizing what we see, hear, and read, and identifying items such as letters, words, or an author's style. In order to activate diverse learners' recognition networks, a UDL curriculum offers multiple means of representation (e.g., supplementing an oral lecture with visuals) to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge. The strategic network is the "how" of learning. It helps us plan and perform multi-step tasks, governs how we organize and express our ideas, and provides a plan for tasks such as writing an essay or solving a math problem. In order to meet diverse learner's strategic networks, a UDL approach offers multiple means of expression (e.g., having students design a website instead of writing a traditional report) to provide students with alternatives for demonstrating what they know. The affective network is the "why" of learning. It determines whether students are engaged and motivated, depending on the level of challenge, excitement, and interest. A UDL curriculum provides multiple means of engagement (e.g., small group projects instead of individual or whole class activities) to tap into diverse learners' interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn (Rose & Meyer, 2002).

UDL theory has a prime focus on using computers in the curriculum because, unlike traditional learning materials such as books and lectures, computers are uniquely flexible. Through technology, learning materials can instantly be transformed into formats that are better matched with individual learners. Ideally, a UDL curriculum will meet the needs of the full range of students who actively attend our schools; students with a wide range of abilities and disabilities and not just those students in the narrow middle of the bell curve. Hitchcock and Stahl suggest that “UDL goals, methods, assessments and materials offer ways to think about planning, methods for developing appropriate goals that do not confound the ends with the means, ways to enhance learning with strategy instruction, ways to develop and obtain accessible learning materials that are usable by most, if not all students, and methods for providing assessments that are accessible and appropriate for all learners” (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003, p.).

Viewpoints

Instructional designers should be cautioned not to overstate the promise of UD and UDL in educational settings. While the concept of UD is intuitively appealing, it has not yet been systematically and rigorously researched across multiple instructional environments and with multiple populations (Boone & Higgins, 2007; McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006; McKenna & Walpole, 2007). As noted by McGuire, Scott, & Shaw (2006):

In the field's excitement about the possibilities of UD, extreme statements are often made, including such comments as "UD will address the needs of all students" or "UD will eliminate the need for special education services." However, looking back at the roots of UD in the physical realm is instructive. Architects and designers implementing UD do not make claims of creating totally inclusive products and environments (p. 171).

Further, there are limits on what modern technologies can accomplish to date. Most notably, speech recognition software has failed to live up to its potential in educational environments because many children have difficulty "training" the software and there is often ambient classroom noise that interferes with the process. Sadly, although many software publishers know that they should consult educational experts during the design process and are required by law to take into consideration how their software will interface with AT devices, many do not (Boone & Higgins, 2007). There are also limits on what teachers and special educators can provide for SPED students in terms of time, training, and funding (McKenna & Walpole, 2007).

Therefore, a more realistic perspective is to recognize that no single solution will provide all the accessibility and learning supports necessary for every learner. A thoughtful combination of UD and UDL along with curriculum modifications, differentiated instruction, and AT will continue to play an important part in the education of learners with disabilities. Clearly, children with physical or language disabilities will still need properly designed wheelchairs, adaptive switches to control devices, and speech synthesizers. UD and UDL curricula will not eliminate the need for these types of ATs (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003). Similarly, students with severe disabilities will still need some individualized special education services outside the general education classroom (dressing themselves, eating with utensils, using public transportation, etc.). Ronald Mace (1998) noted that the use of the term "universal" is somewhat unfortunate because "nothing can be truly universal; there will always be people who cannot use an item no matter how thoughtfully it is designed. However, we can almost always improve on the things we design to make them more universally usable" (as cited in McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, p. 172).

Terms & Concepts

Assistive Technologies (AT): Any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a person with a disability.

Behaviorism: A learning theory popularized in the 1950s and 1960s that uses positive and negative reinforcement to influence observable student behaviors.

Constructivism: A learning theory popularized in the 1990s that values developmentally appropriate learning that is initiated and directed by students' internal interests.

Curriculum Modification: A change in what a student is expected to learn and/or demonstrate. A student may be working on modified course content, but the subject area remains the same as for the rest of the class. If the decision is made to modify the curriculum, it is done in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons, with a variety of outcomes (Fisher & Frey, 2001).

Differentiated Instruction: A teaching theory based on the premise that instructional approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in classrooms (Hall, Strangman & Meyer, 2003).

High-incidence Disabilities: Disabilities that occur somewhat frequently in the K-12 population, such as learning disabilities, ADHD, and mild mental retardation. Antonym: Low-incidence Disabilities.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): A law passed in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004 that is designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities and mandates how, what, and where students with identified disabilities should be taught.

Individualized Education Plan (IEP): A set of specific instructional objectives created by a team of educators based on a thorough evaluation of an individual student's needs who qualifies for SPED services. IEPs are typically updated every 1-3 years.

Instructional Design: An interdisciplinary field devoted to systematically developing learning objectives based on analyzing learners' needs, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of a given instructional approach.

Instructional Systems Design: A technology-oriented approach to instructional design that includes systematic guidelines for creating curricula.

Low-incidence Disabilities: Disabilities that occur very rarely in the K-12 population, such as blind, low vision, deaf, hard of hearing, or mobility-impaired. Antonym: High-incidence Disabilities.

Special Education (SPED): Specialized instruction for students with a wide variety of special needs, including sensory, motor, emotional, and linguistic disabilities. The vast majority of students who qualify for special services are considered learning disabled based on a discrepancy between their potential (as measured by IQ tests) and their performance (as measured by standardized achievement tests).

Universal Design (UD): An approach to the initial design of products, services, and environments to make them usable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability, or circumstance.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL): An approach to curriculum design that emphasizes flexible goals, methods, assessments, and materials so as to decrease the barriers that typically limit student access to learning.

Bibliography

Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers, 17 , 484-505. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18231114&site=ehost-live

Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 8-15. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85691769&site=ehost-live

Benton-Borghi, B. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners' model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48, 245-265. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87545096&site=ehost-live

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). New directions in research: The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 , 135-140.

Center for Universal Design (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm

Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act. P.L. 104-197, 17. (1996).

Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical Issues in Advancing the Special Education Technology Evidence Base. Exceptional Children, 80, 7-24. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89856175&site=ehost-live

Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 146-152. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24895346&site=ehost-live

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 148-157. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4503417&site=ehost-live

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from CAST http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html

Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, Universal Design for Learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18 , 45-52. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12735026&site=ehost-live

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1415 et seq. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial & Special Education, 27 , 166-175. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20725192&site=ehost-live

McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 , 140-145.

Mercado, D. (2013). Instructional design strategies used to provide an equal learning opportunity for deaf and hard of hearing learners. Journal of the American Deafness & Rehabilitation Association (JADARA), 47, 147-163. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92080629&site=ehost-live

National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (2003). NIMAS Report Executive Summary: National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard Report - Version 1.0. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://nimas.cast.org/about/report

New Freedom Initiative. (2001, February). Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

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

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. P.L. 105-220, 29. (1998).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

Wehmeyer, M.L. (2006). Universal design for learning, access to the general education curriculum, and students with mild mental retardation. Exceptionality, 14, 225-235. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22914525&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 , 153-160.

Dick, W., & Carey, L, (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd Ed.). Glenview, IL: HarperCollins.

Follette-Story, M., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: NC State University.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Mace, R. (1998). Universal design in housing. Assistive Technology, 10 , 21-28.