Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

2006, Vol. 31, No. 4, 293308

copyright 2006 by
TASH

Using a Participatory Action Research

Approach to Create a Universally Designed
Inclusive High School Science Course:
A Case Study
Stacy K. Dymond, Adelle Renzaglia, Amy Rosenstein, Eul Jung Chun,
Ronald A. Banks, Vicki Niswander, and Christie L. Gilson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
classroom. All respondents felt that access should be
provided by special educators and most (84%) agreed
that general educators were also qualified.
Many consider access to be particularly difficult to
achieve in inclusive high school general education
classrooms. Traditional instruction tends to emphasize
whole group lecture and seatwork, often limiting the
opportunities for students who do not learn well through
these methods. In the past, approaches for helping
students with SCD gain access in inclusive settings have
focused on adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of
the student (Ryndak, 1996; Snell & Brown, 2000). A
relatively new trend is the concept of universal design
for learning (UDL), which posits that the curriculum
should be designed from the very beginning to incorporate the diverse needs of all students (Hitchcock, Meyer,
Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Renzaglia, Karvonen, Drasgow,
& Stoxen, 2003; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
A universally designed curriculum provides flexible
means of representation, expression, and engagement in
order to make the curriculum accessible to the broadest
array of learners (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL should
reduce barriers to accessing the curriculum while simultaneously ensuring that the curriculum is appropriately
challenging for each student. Examples of UDL are
widely available in the literature. For example, textbooks can be universally designed by converting them to
digital format. Once digitized, a teacher can alter the
visual characteristics (e.g., font size, color background),
augment the text with images and video, or vary the
amount and type of material available for each student
via the text (Hitchcock, 2001; Rose & Meyer, 2002). In
addition, cognitive strategies such as big ideas, conspicuous strategies, and mediated scaffolding can provide an
avenue for applying the principles of UDL to curriculum
(Simmons & Kameenui, 1996).
Strategies for universal design have not adequately
addressed the needs of students with SCD. Many of the
examples in the literature focus on the use of computer
technology with limited attention to other methods for
enhancing the learning of students with SCD. There is a

Case study methodology was used in combination with

a participatory action research (PAR) approach to examine the process of redesigning one high school science
course to incorporate the principles of Universal Design
for Learning (UDL) and to promote access to the general curriculum. The participants included one general
education teacher and two special education teachers.
Two sections of the course were targeted for redesign.
Each section included students with disabilities (mild, severe) and without disabilities. The redesign process involved changes to the course in the areas of curriculum,
instructional delivery/organization of learning environments, student participation, materials, and assessment.
Data were collected across one school year through documents, interviews, and focus groups and were analyzed
qualitatively using a constant comparative method.
DESCRIPTORS: participatory action research, universal design for learning, general education curriculum
Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (1997, 2004) require schools to provide
services that enable all students with disabilities to
participate and progress in the general curriculum. The
law does not define where access should be provided or
who is qualified to provide access (Dymond & Orelove,
2001). One potential option is for students to obtain
access in the high school general education classroom.
Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson, and Slagor (in press) found
that 96% of the general and special educators at one
high school believed students with significant cognitive
disabilities (SCD) should access the general curriculum in general education classrooms whereas only 56%
believed access should occur in a special education

Support for the preparation of this article was provided by a

grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (H324D020010, Stacy Dymond).
Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Stacy
Dymond, University of Illinois, 288 Education Building, 1310
South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820-6990. E-mail: sdymond@
uiuc.edu
293

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

294

Dymond et al.

need to determine the extent to which universal design

can be used to sufficiently help students with SCD access and achieve in the general education curriculum
in inclusive high school classrooms. To date, there have
been no systematic, data-based investigations of UDL
as a method for creating whole class change.
Approaches to investigating the use of UDL in inclusive classrooms have the potential to benefit from
a participatory action research (PAR) approach. The
majority of educators began teaching prior to 1997,
when university programs did not incorporate methods
for accessing the general curriculum. Further, inservice training for school personnel frequently emphasizes
one-shot workshops rather than ongoing efforts to develop skills (Wolfe & Edelman, 1994). PAR offers one
method for helping school stakeholders engage in continuous learning that addresses real school problems
and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions with students with SCD. Through PAR,
research is designed based on the needs of the stakeholders and conducted in a collaborative manner.
Involving school stakeholders (school personnel, parents, community members, students) in the research
process adds social validity (Wolf, 1978) to the study
findings and emphasizes the development of useful outcomes (Bruyere, 1993; Meyer, Park, Grenot-Scheyer,
Schwartz, & Harry, 1998). During the last decade, PAR
has been used within the field of severe disabilities to
engage school stakeholders in investigating problems
and determining solutions using both quantitative and
qualitative methods (see Dymond, 2001; Meyer et al.,
1998; Salisbury, Wilson, & Palombaro, 1998; Salisbury,
Wilson, Swartz, Palombaro, & Wassel, 1997).
The purpose of this case study was to describe the
experiences of school personnel involved with redesigning one inclusive high school science course. This research is the outcome of a 1-year PAR investigation that
involved the development, implementation, and evaluation of a process for redesigning existing high school
science curriculum using the principles of UDL.

Method
School Setting and Course Description
One high school located in a small city in the Midwest
was chosen for investigation. This school served approximately 1,500 students in grades 9 through 12. Student
ethnicity was primarily White (67.8%) but also included
24.2% Black, 5.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.2% Hispanic, and .2% Native American. Across the population
of students, 16% came from families considered to be
of low income. Twenty percent of the student body was
identified as having a disability. Disability classifications
of the students included learning disabilities, behavior
disorders, mental retardation (mild, moderate, severe),
hearing impairment, vision impairment, autism, other
health impaired, and physical disabilities.

This study occurred in one general education science course entitled Unified Science. The first half of
the course focused on forensic science (e.g., scientific
method, DNA, blood typing, crime statistics, eye prints,
hair and other fibers). During second semester, course
topics included communicable and noncommunicable
diseases, forces (e.g., weight, inertia, mass, acceleration,
gravity, Newtons laws), simple machines, the physics
of flight, and space. The course was taught in a traditional manner. Most instruction consisted of either
whole group lecture or seatwork. A typical day involved
journal writing during the first 5 min of class, followed
by working individually to complete a note sheet using
the textbook, whole class discussion of the notes using
overhead transparencies, and then working individually or with a partner to complete a worksheet using
the textbook. The course included several labs that generally involved following directions from a worksheet,
performing the tasks, and then filling in answers on the
worksheet.
Students generally enrolled in the course during ninth
grade although it was open to students at any grade
level. The course was considered to be the lowest level
science course offered at the school that counted toward
graduation credit. Students were only required to take
one science course for graduation. As an introductory
course, it was designed to encourage students to enroll
in more science courses.
During the course of this study, the majority of the
students who were observed as members of the course
were those who were at risk for failure. They were not
the high achievers in their respective high school cohorts. It was reported that the reason most of the students without disabilities took this course was because
the curriculum was the least challenging of the science
courses offered in the high school. The researchers observed students talking to each other using profanity
without concern that teachers or classroom observers
would object. Additionally, because it was a co-taught
course, there was a larger number of students with mild
disabilities (including learning disabilities and social and
emotional disorders) in the course than would be expected with natural proportions.
The general education teacher appeared to be devoted to the students in the course. At the time of this
study, she was engaged in graduate study in special
education because she wanted to be more effective in
teaching students who struggled. She made statements
to the research team that Unified Science was her favorite course with her favorite groups of students, yet
her expectations for these students were not high. She
rarely gave homework assignments because she believed the students would not complete them. Moreover,
the teaching format and expectations for learning were
established for those learners who she expected to do
the least well. This was evidenced in her class presentations where she gave students worksheets with blanks

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

to fill in based on the transparency on the overhead

projector. Students were required to copy down highlighted words from the transparency onto their worksheets. This course provided a context for our research
that was different than many science courses.
Unified Science was selected for redesign because of
the general education teachers interest in improving her
ability to meet the needs of students with disabilities
enrolled in the course. Two of the four sections taught by
the general education teacher were targeted for intervention. Both sections were co-taught with the same
special education teacher. Each section included students with mild disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, behavior disorders, autism, mild mental retardation, other
health impaired), students with SCD (i.e., moderate or
severe mental retardation), and students without disabilities. The number of students in each section varied
across the year because students were allowed to change
sections after the first semester (see Table 1).
Students with mild disabilities at this school were
typically served in a variety of settings including general
education classrooms (with or without a co-teacher),
resource rooms, self-contained classrooms, the community, and job sites. The schools guidance counselor randomly assigned students with mild disabilities to Unified
Science so that students identified as requiring additional support (by special education case managers)
were assigned to one of the two co-taught sections.
Students with SCD were purposefully assigned to each
section of the course by the research team (i.e., university
researchers, school personnel). Each section included (a)
one student with SCD without physical disabilities and
(b) one student with SCD with severe physical disabilities
(i.e., nonambulatory, used wheelchair). Prior to this investigation, these students received all of their education
in a self-contained classroom, nonacademic integrated
settings (e.g., lunch, physical education), the community,
and job sites. Their parents and special education teacher
supported participation in Unified Science to explore
how these students could access the general curriculum
alongside peers without disabilities.
Participants
Participants in this study included the Unified Science
general education teacher, the Unified Science special

Table 1
Number of Students Enrolled in Unified Science by Class
Section and Semester
Section/semester
Section 1, Semester 1
Section 1, Semester 2
Section 2, Semester 1
Section 2, Semester 2

Total students

SWOD

MD

SCD

26
31
25
19

18
23
15
12

6
6
8
5

2
2
2
2

Note. SWOD = students without disabilities, MD = mild

disabilities, SCD = significant cognitive disabilities. One
student dropped the course after first semester.

295

education co-teacher (here after referred to as the Bcoteacher[), and the special education case manager of
students with severe disabilities (here after referred to
as the Bspecial education teacher[). The general education teacher had 6 years of teaching experience. In addition to Unified Science, she also taught Biology. Her
teaching certificate was in secondary education science
and she was in the process of working on a masters
degree in special education. Students with mild disabilities were included in almost all of her courses but she
had no previous experience with students with SCD.
The co-teacher possessed certification to teach
students with mild disabilities and was working on a
masters degree in school administration. He had 2 years
of experience teaching students with learning disabilities
and behavior disorders. Most of his day was spent coteaching in science or social studies classes, although
he also taught one self-contained social studies class
and one period in a resource room. He had co-taught
Unified Science with the general education teacher for
1 year prior to the study. He did not have any previous
experience working with students with SCD.
The special education teacher taught in a self-contained
program for students with SCD. She was certified to teach
students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities
and students with multiple disabilities. She had 10 years
of teaching experience as a classroom teacher and job
coach and had worked with students with moderate and
severe disabilities, physical disabilities, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders.
Intervention
PAR Approach
The study was conducted using a PAR approach
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Core members of the research team included three university researchers, the
general education teacher, the co-teacher, and the special education teacher. This approach was chosen because the overarching purpose of the full study (of which
this case study was a part) was to develop a process for
universally designing high school science courses and
evaluate the effectiveness of that process in assisting
students with and without SCD to gain access to the
general curriculum. Input from school personnel responsible for implementing the redesigned course was
critical in order to evaluate and adjust the process during
intervention.
Members of the research team assumed different,
yet complementary roles. The university researchers assumed lead responsibility for developing the research
design, providing strategies for applying the principles
of UDL, and collecting and analyzing data. School
personnel were responsible for implementing the redesigned course and worked collaboratively with the university researchers to refine the project design, address
logistical issues, secure parent permission for student
participation, and redesign daily lesson plans.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

296

Dymond et al.

Preparation
Prior to the beginning of the school year, the research
team convened across 3 days to discuss the Unified
Science curriculum, select course sections to target for
redesign, determine procedures for securing parental
permission, and refine the research design. In addition,
the group discussed the literature on UDL, explored
strategies for promoting UDL, and engaged in hands-on
activities to apply the concepts of UDL. On the last day,
the team engaged in a MAPS process (Vandercook,
York, & Forest, 1989) to create a vision and action plan
for designing a UDL science course.
Redesign Process
As the school year began, weekly research team meetings were held for two hours after school to plan for the

redesign, share information about student needs, reflect

on the redesign process, and problem solve around a
variety of issues. A series of questions were developed
to guide the discussion of strategies for redesigning the
course (see Table 2). These questions cluster around five
core areas identified in the UDL literature: (a) curriculum, (b) instructional delivery/organization of learning
environments, (c) student participation, (d) materials,
and (e) assessment. During the first 4 weeks of redesign,
the entire research team met to redesign each lesson
plan. Seven questions were selected by the university
researchers to guide the initial redesign process (see
Table 2, items with asterisk). These questions focused on
identifying the state learning standards and big ideas
addressed in the lesson, broadening the instructional
strategies employed, providing students with choices

Table 2
Questions Asked When Redesigning Traditional Lesson Plans
Curriculum
1. What are the general standards you are addressing in this unit/lesson?*
2. What is my plan for linking the lesson/unit to the Bbig ideas[ of the course?*
3. How will I vary the curriculum (add and delete) to accommodate the learning needs of diverse students?
4. How will I sequence skills so that each concept/skill builds on previous learning and contributes to understanding of the main idea?
5. How does the lesson/unit relate to outcomes for students outside of school (now and in the future)?
6. How will I address other curricular areas in this lesson/unit (e.g., reading, writing, math)
Instructional delivery/organization of learning environments
1. Presentation of Key Information/Skills
a. How will I provide instruction in a variety of ways? How will I provide opportunities for hands-on learning and activities that
promote active student engagement?*
b. How am I providing students with choice in how they learn in this unit/lesson?*
c. How will I provide repeated practice on the key concepts/skills (i.e., across time, across contexts)?
d. What learning strategies will I teach students to use in this unit/lesson (e.g., concept mapping, mnemonics, advanced organizers,
learning strategies)?
e. How will I teach the students to be reflective learners/problem solvers?
2. Grouping and instructional environments
a. How will I incorporate a variety of heterogeneous grouping arrangements to facilitate active learning/engagement?*
b. What are the various school and community environments where instruction of this topic can be provided?
3. Staff roles and student support
a. What are the roles and responsibilities of the adults in the classroom?*
b. How will I provide an appropriate level of instructional support to the range of students that may be in the class?
Student participation
1. How will I provide students with choices related to materials, grouping, and teacher and self-directed learning activities?*
2. How will I increase the amount of active engagement and problem solving required of students within the lesson/unit?
3. How will the lesson be structured so that all students can be involved in peer teaching, collaboration and teamwork activities in this
lesson/unit?
Materials
1. What type of instructional technology will I use?
2. What types of assistive technology support will I provide to maximize student performance?
3. How will I incorporate diverse materials, manipulatives and equipment that mirror the tasks/materials needed in out-of-school
settings?
4. Is there a way to make material presentation more concrete through organization of material (e.g., color coding lab equipment,
clearly labeling equipment/tools/materials, using circles/lines/bolding/check boxes/diagrams/etc. on handouts)?
Assessment
1. How will I assess student learning using multiple methods that promote ongoing authentic assessment?
2. How will I provide choice to students so that they have a variety of ways to express that they have learned the material (e.g., verbally,
visually, demonstrations, etc.)?
3. How will I use ongoing assessment data to refine my instruction for the rest of the lesson/unit?
4. How will I assess the application of skills learned through this lesson/unit in out-of-class settings?
Note. * = Initial questions addressed during the first 4 weeks of redesign.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

about how they learn and participate in class, strategically

grouping students heterogeneously for instruction, and
adjusting adult roles to support students in more effective ways. These questions were selected because they
were believed to be easy to implement and most likely to
create the greatest amount of change in the classroom.
The research team reviewed the traditional lesson plan
typically used by the general education teacher to address
the topic and then used the seven questions to redesign
the lesson in ways hypothesized to increase student engagement and participation in the curriculum.
As the research team became more effective at addressing the seven questions within each lesson plan,
the process was refined (in Week 5) to allow more efficient planning and increased attention to other UDL
questions. During research team meetings on Wednesdays, the general education teacher shared the traditional lesson plan with the research team. The following
day the general education teacher and co-teacher met
separately to identify ideas for redesigning the lesson.
The university researchers also gathered to identify redesign ideas. On Fridays, the general education teacher
and one of the university researchers convened to redesign the lessons based on ideas generated from both
groups. This draft lesson plan was given to the special
education teacher so that she could identify any additional strategies needed to include students from
her caseload in a meaningful manner. The following
Wednesday, during the research team meeting, the lesson plan was modified to address the needs of specific
students (if needed) and finalized for implementation
the following week. In summary, the process involved
redesigning the whole class content first and then thinking about student specific needs that were still present
despite the redesign.
Implementation of the Redesign
The intervention began during the second month of the
school year in order to allow time to collect baseline data
for a separate, concurrent study. The intervention was
staggered across the two sections of the course. During
the first half of the year, the intervention occurred in
Section 1 whereas Section 2 was taught in the same manner it had been taught in previous years. Beginning in
semester two, both sections of the course received the
intervention. Staggering the intervention allowed the research team time to develop, pilot, and refine the redesign process prior to applying it to both course sections.
Data Collection
Access Interviews
Each of the three teachers was interviewed pre- and
postintervention to determine how they defined access
to the general curriculum for students with SCD. The
interview protocol consisted of 12 open-ended questions
drawn from the literature. These questions were piloted
with three teachers from another school district to test

297

the clarity of the questions. Interviews lasted 30Y45 min.

Data were collected using a small digital voice recorder
and transcribed verbatim.
General Education Teachers Journal
During the second semester, the general education
teacher kept an electronic journal of her perceptions of
the redesign process and its impact on her classroom.
Twelve journal entries were obtained.
Process Interviews
At the beginning of weekly research team meetings
during the second semester, teachers were asked to reflect on the redesign process and how students with SCD
participated in the course. The following questions were
posed: (a) what were the highlights of the week, (b) what
were the challenges for the week, (c) what, if anything,
did you learn this week, and (d) do you have any concerns about how things are going? Data were recorded
using a digital voice recorder and transcribed verbatim.
A total of 12 process interviews were collected.
Meeting Minutes
Minutes from weekly research team meetings were
recorded by one university researcher and disseminated
by e-mail to all team members. These minutes described
the issues discussed, decisions made, action steps, and
the individual(s) responsible for completing each action
step. A total of 31 meeting minutes were collected.
Lesson Plans
Two types of lesson plans were collected each week.
The first was a traditional lesson plan (created by the
general education teacher) that detailed how the course
was typically taught. The second was a redesigned lesson
plan (created by the research team) that modified the
traditional lesson plan by applying the principles of
UDL. The same information was collected for both
types of lesson plans. For each activity, information was
provided about the length of the activity, materials and
equipment, student grouping and adult roles, procedures, and evaluation method. Once the intervention
was implemented in both classes, only redesign lesson
plans were collected. A total of 9 traditional and 19 redesign lesson plans were collected.
End of Year Focus Group
At the conclusion of the school year, the teachers
participated in a focus group to determine their perceptions of the redesign process. Questions included (a)
what parts of the process were the most helpful/useful,
(b) what parts of the process would you change, (c) are
there things we (university researchers) could have done
differently to make things work more effectively, (d)
what recommendations do you have for how we (university researchers) work with teams next year, (e) what
have you learned about students with SCD this year, (f)
what have you learned about curriculum and instruction
as a result of our work together, (g) have you learned

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

298

Dymond et al.

anything about yourself this year (if so, what), (h) were
there any positive outcomes for students (if so, what),
and (i) were there any negative outcomes for students (if
so, what)? Two researchers facilitated the focus group
and recorded questions on a flip chart. Data were also
recorded on a small digital voice recorder and transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
A content analysis procedure (Merriam, 1998) was
used to initially analyze and organize the data. Each
data set (e.g., process interviews, lesson plans) was analyzed separately using the same process. This process
consisted of having a team of two to three researchers
read and re-read the data to identify units of meaning
related to the development, implementation, and evaluation of the redesign process. Each unit of meaning was
assigned a code. Once the codes were finalized, one researcher coded the data. A second researcher reviewed
25% of the coded data to confirm consistency in the
application of the codes. Both researchers met to discuss differences of opinion and clarify interpretations of
the codes.
A constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967) was used to develop categories within data sets
as well as themes that cut across the multiple sources
of data within the case. The development of categories
was an emergent process. Categories were hypothesized
as the codes were developed, and then refined and confirmed by all researchers once the data were coded.
These categories were then compared across data sets to
determine areas of convergence and divergence within
the data. These comparisons led to the grouping of
categories into themes related to the experiences of
school personnel with the redesign process. Triangulation (Denzin, 1978) of the data was sought by using
multiple sources of data (i.e., interviews, focus groups,
documents) and multiple researchers in the analysis process (including a mixture of researchers directly and not
directly involved with data collection).

Findings
Roles and Responsibilities
Baseline
Three teachers were involved with classroom planning and instruction. During baseline, the general education teacher assumed sole responsibility for planning
each class session. She identified the content, activities,
and standards that would be addressed and delivered
whole group instruction. The co-teacher adapted the
curriculum for students with disabilities once he arrived
in the classroom each day. His primary role was to
monitor the class and assist students with disabilities. He
also added to class lectures in an impromptu fashion
with examples and explanations that complemented
the material presented by the general education teacher.
Unlike the other two teachers, the special education

teacher did not provide instruction in Unified Science

during the baseline phase. Instead, she chose to assign
one paraprofessional to each section of the class. The
paraprofessional sat in the back of the room positioned
between the two students with SCD. Neither paraprofessional received instruction from the general or special
education teacher regarding how to include students
with SCD in the course.
Intervention
All three teachers were actively engaged in planning
for the course redesign. During intervention, the general education teacher maintained responsibility for determining the content and standards that would be
addressed during each lesson, but the instruction, materials, and method for obtaining student participation
were determined by the entire research team (using the
principles of UDL). In addition, the content was modified for students with SCD by the research team to
incorporate Individual Education Program (IEP) objectives and big ideas from the science curriculum. The
special education teacher assumed a lead role in identifying how each students IEP objectives could be addressed within science.
The roles of the teachers and the teachers perceptions
of their roles in implementing the redesigned lessons
gradually changed over the course of the intervention.
For example, the general education teacher had historically included students with disabilities in her course,
yet following the intervention she expressed greater
ownership for helping all students in the classroom learn.
Rather than believing that the co-teacher or paraprofessional was responsible for students with disabilities, she
identified instruction of these students to be her responsibility as well, as evidenced by the following statement
she made.
The general education teacher needs to be speaking with all the students and trying to teach them.
I dont think we should segregate students to teachers. In my opinion, all the students on our class lists
are mine and all of them are [name of co-teacher].
Were both still responsible for all of them.
One area where the research team suggested the general education teacher assume more responsibility was in
directing paraprofessionals in the classroom. During the
baseline phase, the paraprofessionals received plans from
the special education teacher but often did not implement
the plans. The general education teacher commented that
sometimes the paraprofessionals did the work for the
student or seemed more interested in learning the science content than teaching the students with SCD. Increasing the general education teachers responsibility
for directing paraprofessionals while they were in the
classroom enhanced the probability that the plans for
those students would be consistently implemented.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

The role of the co-teacher in the classroom shifted

during the intervention from adapting curriculum during
class sessions to co-planning lessons, co-delivering classroom instruction with the general education teacher,
and working with small groups of students with and
without disabilities (including students with SCD).
When asked to reflect on his role at the end of the
school year, the co-teacher felt that planning lessons in
advance using the principles of UDL changed his role in
the classroom to be less specialized.
I think maybe my role switches less from being a
special education teacher adapting things. In theory,
a universally designed curriculum doesnt need to
be adapted. Its already adapted to meet the needs
of any learner, so therefore your role is more that of
a regular ed teacher where youre not looking to
change the activities or anything. Youre just helping each student with their individual questionsI
He saw his role broadening to include more planning
with the general education teacher before actual instruction occurred, as opposed to adapting materials during
class. He also acknowledged that his role included educating students with SCD. According to the co-teacher,
BJust because a students abilities change doesnt change
the role of the teacher.[
Perhaps the greatest changes occurred in the roles
of the special education teacher and paraprofessionals.
Once the classroom redesign began, the paraprofessionals role expanded from providing one-on-one assistance to supporting a small group of students that
included one student with SCD. The seat assignment
for the students with SCD and paraprofessional was also
changed. Each student with SCD sat next to peers
without disabilities in the middle or front of the room
while the paraprofessionals seat remained in the back
of the room. The paraprofessional was only allowed to
sit next to the student with SCD during direct instruction. In addition, the presence of the paraprofessional
was faded so that she was only present when the general
education teacher, co-teacher, or peers were unable to
provide sufficient support.
Both paraprofessionals, as reported by school staff,
questioned the appropriateness of including students
with SCD in the course. They expressed concern about
their new responsibilities and the legalities of changing
the role of a students one-on-one assistant to include
helping other students. One paraprofessional felt uncomfortable working on science content with students
without disabilities because she did not understand the
content. She felt she was only in the classroom to work
with the students with SCD and that it was the teachers
responsibility to lead the group. In this school, paraprofessionals responsibilities were negotiated with a
union and the assistant principal was responsible for
supervision. This supervisory relationship hindered the

299

ability of the special education teacher to alter the roles

of the paraprofessionals in the classroom.
Midway through the intervention, the special education teacher agreed to reassign the paraprofessional
who was most opposed to the intervention to the selfcontained classroom and take over responsibility for instruction in one section of Unified Science. Once the
special education teacher committed to this change, her
level of involvement and sense of ownership for the
success of the intervention increased dramatically. The
general education teacher was particularly observant in
noting the impact the special education teacher had on
the student in the class with the most severe, multiple
disabilities.
She [special education teacher] didnt sit there and
do his work for him, which was what happened
at the beginning I and he wasnt any part of the
work being turned in. He wasnt even having it read
to him. But having [the special education teacher]
in the room, who communicates better with [the
student].I I think it really benefited [the student].
I still dont know that [the student] understood
anything that was said to him, but at least he was
brought more into the class. She was also trying
to get more students to at least be a part of a group
with him. Maybe they didnt talk to him, but at
least they were willing to be a group with him. As
long as she was there, the kids were willing to work
with him.
Once the special education teacher started teaching
in Unified Science, she also began to take more responsibility for training paraprofessionals, planning instruction for students with SCD, teaching the general
education teacher and co-teacher specialized techniques
for working with students with SCD (e.g., eye gaze
communication system, prompting strategies), and helping the team embed priority IEP objectives within each
lesson plan. By the end of the school year she came to
recognize the importance of her role and the need to
assume greater responsibility for students served in inclusive settings.
I learned that I needed to develop more time to
adapt and modify for my students when theyre
included in any kind of other situation than my selfcontained situationI. Not only that, but it takes
a strong leader to be able to have people that are
going to follow through with things, and so, the
more leadership I could show to my teaching assistants, could have helped a little bit more maybe.
Following the intervention, all educators strongly emphasized the importance of receiving help from one
another to develop the redesign and make the inclusion of students with SCD successful. When thinking

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

300

Dymond et al.

about recommendations they would give to others about

roles and responsibilities, they suggested that teams
(a) clearly define the roles of the instructors in the
classroom so that everyone understands their responsibilities, (b) provide regular training, guidance, and
supervision to paraprofessionals, and (c) involve paraprofessionals in the redesign planning process from the
very beginning.
UDL Strategies
Changes to Lesson Plans
Five classroom components were targeted for change
through the redesign process (i.e., intervention). These
included changes to materials, student participation, instructional delivery, assessment, and curriculum (see
Table 2). Initially, the greatest changes to the lesson
plans occurred in the materials used for class. During
baseline, common materials such as pencils, paper, notebooks, textbooks, and worksheets were used. Technology included an overhead projector for presenting
information, and TV and VCR for showing movies.
After intervention, students used traditional materials
with modifications (e.g., large print, highlighted information) but also used nontraditional materials to
conduct experiments and display results (e.g., games,
construction materials). New technologies (e.g., laptop
computers with Internet access, LCD projectors) were
introduced to facilitate instruction and assist students to
locate information, develop projects, and display their
learning to instructors and peers.
As time progressed, more attention was placed on
enhancing student participation. The greatest change
that occurred between baseline and intervention was
the increase in options available for students to participate. During baseline, receptive and expressive forms
of participation, such as listening and note taking, occurred most often with little variation within a given
class. Choice of how to participate was not offered.
The redesigned lesson plans included more active, interactive, and leadership-related types of participation
(hands-on activities, working on team projects, students
teaching other students). A greater variety of options
were made available and choices were offered to students regarding their type of participation (working individually or with others, choice of role in team projects).
Instructional delivery during baseline and intervention was always teacher directed in some respect. The
general education teacher made the decisions about instructional activities. Students were rarely in control
of how they received information. They were given
choices but were not consulted about what would
be included in the choices presented to them. During
baseline, instruction occurred most often in the form
of teacher-directed lectures. After intervention, the
instructional delivery methods (e.g., teacher-directed,
student-directed, technology-driven, interactive, and
student choice of these options) present in a single

daily lesson plan increased substantially. Students were

also given a choice of how to receive information (e.g.,
listen, read, explore interactive software, work with
partner).
The least amount of change was seen in the areas of
assessment and curriculum. Students were provided
with assessment accommodations such as having tests
read to them but there were few changes with regards
to the format in which students expressed their knowledge and skills. Changes were mainly due to the introduction of rubrics, checklists, and other tools for
assessing the accuracy of answers and information given
during presentation and poster sessions as well as the
quality of hands-on work.
Effectiveness of UDL Strategies
Discussions about the effectiveness of the UDL strategies focused on materials, student grouping, choices,
and structure. Most of the comments teachers made
about the UDL strategies related to their effectiveness
for enabling all students to participate in the class. Few
comments were exclusively about students with SCD.
Teachers reported that students enjoyed the variety
of interesting materials available for the Bhands-on[
activities. Visual organizers (e.g., InspirationA concept
mapping computer software, activity directions with
spaces to check off steps completed, planning sheets
for completing group activities, word banks) were helpful for many students who required modifications to
the core content or additional support to complete tasks.
Providing demonstrations of how to complete a lab as
well as visual models of activity products at various
stages of completion helped many students work more
independently and follow directions. Without these supports, some students would Bjump in[ without attending
to the directions and have to re-do their work to correct
for errors, thus lengthening the amount of time spent on
the activity.
Several changes to student grouping were found effective. One of the first changes the team made was to
rearrange the seating chart so that students with SCD
were seated next to their peers (as opposed to next to
each other in the back of the room), and students
without SCD who did not work well together were
separated. The teachers noted that the changes resulted
in students completing more work and increased interactions between students with SCD and their peers.
Changes were also made to student grouping during
class activities. During traditional instruction, students
worked individually most of the time. Labs were generally completed with a partner of the students choice.
With the redesign process, students were strategically
grouped to increase active engagement and provide sufficient support for learning. Teachers learned to pay
attention to students working relationships and determine which students worked well together. They found
that spending time up front to predetermine group

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

membership decreased the amount of non-task-related

talking, increased student participation in activities,
and eliminated having some students not chosen for a
partner. Students were excited about working in groups,
although some did not initially like being grouped with
certain classmates.
One strategy that held students accountable for their
participation in group activities was to assign roles (e.g.,
time keeper, facilitator). This strategy worked for most
groups but was problematic when students were absent
during multiday projects. Poor attendance mediated the
benefits of teamwork according to the co-teacher.
There were some groups who it seemed like everyday it was like the partners, one partner was there,
then the other day the other partner was gone I it
was just back and forth. There was just no teamwork on the project, which kind of killed it.
In addition, teachers found that when they assigned
roles to partners (i.e., groups of two), students with SCD
needed to be partnered with two students without disabilities. When paired with only one student, the student
with SCD ended up working individually and did not
benefit from peer support. As time progressed, teachers
became more effective at providing prompts to peers
regarding how to assist students with SCD to actively
participate.
Prior to the redesign, there was little differentiation
in the way students participated in class. All students
completed the same activities at the same time and in the
same manner. With the redesign, students were provided with choices about how they received information (e.g., reading a text, listening to a CD, working with
an instructor, searching the Internet), the roles they
assumed to complete group tasks, the materials used,
and the products produced. Initially students were
offered multiple choices within each class period.
Some students Bcrumbled[ with the number of choices
and became Boverwhelmed.[ Teachers discovered that
choice making does not come naturally to all students
and that it may need to be added to the curriculum
and taught directly to students. The general education
teacher summarized this point succinctly.
The idea of having choice is a great one, but they
didnt deal with it well. They havent learned the
skills to make their choices. They want you to tell
them what to do. Maybe if we had started it from
the beginning, pushing the idea of choices, it would
have worked better.I I think their study skills and
their organization are just not strong enough to do
it [make choices]. They probably could have done
it in one of the higher level classes.
When the number of choices was decreased to two
and the choice activities were given more structure, the

301

teachers found the activities to be more manageable.

There were fewer materials to prepare and the students
functioned better in their chosen activity. The benefits
of providing limited choices were that students could use
their strengths to learn and express their knowledge,
on-task behavior increased, and students seemed to
enjoy the choices offered. The special education teacher
felt that providing students with choices was Bthe best
thing we did.[ It provided students with SCD more
opportunities for involvement with their peers.
Despite strong support for many of the UDL strategies employed, the teachers struggled to reconcile
whether the benefits of UDL outweighed the benefits
of more traditional instruction. The general education
teacher and co-teacher felt that more traditional forms
of instruction (e.g., completing notes using the textbook,
completing worksheets) were more effective at controlling the students behavior and resulted in all students participating in the activity. The general education
teacher observed the following near the end of the
school year on a day where the lesson plan incorporated
few elements of UDL.
One day we [general education teacher and coteacher] both were gone so they just got a video
and we finished it and reviewed for the test and
brainstormed about [the physics of] flight all that
day. And then we did the notes the next day. Im
amazed at how much better behaved the students
are when we give notes. When we hand out a sheet
of notes for them to write down and copy off the
board they are so much better behaved. I dont
know why it is, but they pay attention and they do it.
When asked why she felt the notes worked better,
the general education teacher indicated, BI think part
of it, its so structured theyre used to that and thats
what works for them because theyve done it for so
long.[ The co-teacher noted a similar benefit to using
worksheets. He thought students performed better with
familiar tasks.
Then I look at the vocabulary [worksheets] where
they were some of the quietest days when everybody would shut up. They knew they had to get
through this and they got it done because they
know, okay, once I get to here Im done. There was
a clear objective with a clear end of the road and a
familiar task. I think a lot of it is the end of the road.
Its easily accomplished in one day. With things over
more than one day, I think they take their time a lot
more. They dont stay as focused because we can
have another day to work on it.
The co-teacher also voiced concerns about the ability
of the redesigned lessons to provide repeated practice
on concepts related to the course. Toward the end of the

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

302

Dymond et al.

semester he felt there were too many projects during

class and not enough Bbook work.[ He struggled to
determine whether students could learn equal amounts
of information from projects as they could from worksheets and note sheets.
Its great to do lots of activities, lots of choices, but
you cant do so many I that you sacrifice the content. Youve got to cover the content. Just because
you build a rocket doesnt mean you understand it.
One day of notes isnt enough.

Student Outcomes
Relationships and Interactions
The most predominant outcome discussed was the
impact of UDL on relationships and interactions among
students with SCD and other students in the class.
Three of the four students with SCD developed social
skills and learned appropriate means for interacting
with others. The general education teacher noted that
one student with SCD Bwants to communicate a lot
more[ whereas the co-teacher commented that another
student with SCD was Bgetting more comfortable just
being around people I shes not so nervous I its
not a big deal for her to just get up and walk around
the room any more.[ A third student with SCD became more skilled at reading the social cues of others.
The special education teacher found that this student
learned, BOkay, they dont want to talk to me, theyre
totally not interested, I just need to leave them alone
right now.[
The teachers believed that students without disabilities learned to display more caring behaviors toward
their peers with SCD. The special education teacher
was awed by the types of caring and kindness she
observed from high school boys who interacted with the
male student with the most severe, multiple disabilities.
By the end of the school year, [peer] was wiping
[student with SCDs] mouth and its just like, wow,
you know, this is so coolI. It brought out some
really caring characteristics from some students
that might not demonstrate those so easily.I You
know, this is starting to happen and I wish it could
have happened three months ago.
Students with and without disabilities learned to work
effectively together on science projects. The co-teacher
felt this was the most positive outcome of the redesigned
course. In fact, all of the teachers seemed surprised
that high school students with and without disabilities
enjoyed working together. Friendships were noted to
emerge in each class only after the redesign was implemented. They attributed the development of these
friendships to the structured opportunities students had
to work with each other during class.

Class Participation and Achievement

As a result of participation in the redesigned course,
students with SCD were excited about attending class.
One student consistently came to class early to hang out
before school. A second student often demonstrated her
enthusiasm for the class by requesting to go to the other
section of science even after she had already attended
science the same day.
As the redesign process progressed, the goals for
students with SCD changed from socialization and participation to making progress on IEP goals and addressing the main concepts of the science curriculum.
Despite this change, teachers felt that students with SCD
demonstrated the greatest achievement in social skills
and the development of interpersonal relationships. Almost no mention was made regarding student learning of science content, although the special education
teacher was pleased that some students were able to
tell her what they learned each day and that one student
was able to explain his science projects to his parents.
Several positive outcomes were noted for students
without SCD, including improvements in class participation, personal responsibility, completion of work,
grades, and end of year test scores. The general education teacher and co-teacher were excited that students
were Bactually working.[ As the teachers refined their
skills in applying the concepts of UDL over the school
year, they found ways to help all students participate.
The general education teacher became increasingly convinced that the redesigned lessons were improving student participation.
On this last project that we did on the weather, even
a couple of kids that sat there and did nothing on
some of the other projects, they actually started a
project. One of them didnt complete it, but at least
he started it, at least he had something that he was
working on. We had a couple on a regular basis who
[previously] turned in absolutely nothing. And even
when working with a team, they didnt participate,
they didnt offer anything, so I think it [the redesigned lessons] helped.
The teachers believed that working with students with
SCD encouraged other students to become more engaged in class. In one instance, inviting a shy student to
assume responsibility for helping a student with SCD
(who used a wheelchair) to get from her self-contained
classroom to science each morning resulted in benefits
for both students. The general education teacher recognized the importance of strategically grouping students
with and without SCD.
I think picking students that you knew would
do well together made a big difference. It helped
[student with SCD] become a part of the class but it
helped [peer] to kind of find a place in the class.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

Shes come in with a smile every day because shes

got a job to do. And I think it makes her feel important that shes doing it. And her grades have
done better. Shes turned in every assignment since
she started with [student with SCD].
Some of the changes made through the redesign
process to specifically benefit students with SCD also
enhanced the learning of students without SCD. For
example, one student had an IEP objective to stamp her
name. In order to increase the number of opportunities
the student had to use a stamp, she was given a task of
stamping the date on each students journal once it had
been completed. This also presented a natural opportunity for her to interact with peers during the first 5 min
of class when journaling was completed. The general
education teacher and co-teacher found that this activity
also benefited the other students in class.
It forced the kids to get the journal done on time
and come over and talk to [student with SCD] to get
their stamps so they get their points. Where before,
the kids just kind of did the journal.I They were
more likely to actually get their journal done to go
get it stamped than if we hadnt had that in placeI.
Comparing the binder grades, the binders were a
whole lot better as far as journals go for first hour
[when the student with SCD stamped them] than
they were for third hour [when journals did not
receive a stamp]I. It kind of put responsibility on
them. Most of them were willing to go to [student
with SCD] and ask for their stamp. There were only
a couple that you had to kind of go, go get your
stamp, youre not going to get your points.
Factors Affecting Outcomes
Poor attendance and medication changes negatively
impacted student participation in the redesigned classes.
Students who missed a lot of classes were less engaged in
class. Groups that included students with frequent absences took longer to complete class activities. Medication changes were also found to affect the sleep cycle
and attendance of one student with SCD. When these
changes were occurring, she was less responsive in class.
Redesign Process
Most Helpful Aspects
At the end of the year, school personnel were asked
to reflect on what they believed to be the most helpful aspects of the redesign process. One of the most
prominently discussed responses centered on the lesson
plans. At the beginning of the redesign process, school
personnel were somewhat reluctant to write formal, detailed lesson plans indicating that it was reminiscent of
student teaching and that in depth plans were unnecessary and too time consuming. By the end of the year,
all of the teachers were adamant about the benefits of

303

lesson planning. They felt having a formal lesson plan

helped to facilitate the redesign thought process, organize instruction, and improve communication between
team members. They liked the lesson plan format (i.e.,
time, activity, materials and equipment, student grouping and adult roles, procedures, evaluation method) and
thought reviewing the questions across the five areas
of redesign (see Table 2) helped them to Bthink more
about the lesson[ and Bplan better.[ They also were
pleased that they had a collection of lesson plans for
future use.
Team planning was also viewed as an essential component of the redesign process. In the past, the general
education teacher had assumed sole responsibility for
all lesson planning. The redesign process, in contrast,
involved all six members of the research team in reviewing the traditional lesson plan and identifying methods for applying the principles of UDL. Teachers felt
the benefits of collaborating with the university researchers included the Bsupport,[ Bperspectives,[ and
Bencouragement.[ The university researchers provided
assistance with developing new activities and obtaining
needed materials and equipment to support the changes
to the lesson plan. This additional support was perceived to be essential to implementing the changes, particularly by the general education teacher.
I cant imagine trying to do this [the redesign] without a team of people helping me do it. Ron [university researcher] did help with a lot of creating
of materials and stuff that if the co-teacher and I
are on our own, I dont know that we would have
gotten it done.
Participants stated that having time for team planning
in the summer (prior to implementing the intervention)
as well as regularly during the school year was a useful
and helpful aspect of the redesign process. The teachers
agreed that participation in meetings was important to
facilitate collaboration and that team planning improved
the general education teacher and co-teachers effectiveness in delivering instruction. The general education
teacher voiced the benefits of team planning.
I definitely think having the time to co-plan I has
been a big help because the year before we [general
education teacher and co-teacher] had no time to sit
and talk about our lessons I our schedules were
completely opposite. We make a pretty good team
feeding off each other when doing lessons for the
class, especially now that weve had time to plan
and talk about what were doing. And we could do
that last year, but not as easy as we do it now.
Addressing the IEP goals of students with SCD (in
addition to the science curriculum) was viewed as
an important component of the redesign process. The

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

304

Dymond et al.

special education teacher noted that she began to Bfeel

more a part of it[ once the team started to address the
IEP goals as part of the redesign. The IEP goals were
what was most familiar to her, not the science curriculum, thus focusing on creating activities within science
where the IEP objectives could be embedded helped
her to see how Bher students[ could address their individual goals while simultaneously learning science.
Working on IEP goals increased her investment in the
redesign process and helped her see the value of science
for students with SCD.
Concerns
The greatest concern that school personnel had about
the redesign process was the length of time it took to
create the changes. This concern did not appear until the
end of the first semester when the teachers began to
notice differences in the participation, engagement, and
learning of students in the redesigned class and the class
that was still in baseline. These differences were particularly apparent for the students with SCD. Teachers
repeatedly expressed concern that students with SCD
in the baseline class were not receiving meaningful experiences, not Bgetting enough attention,[ had less to
do than students in the redesigned class, were not receiving instruction Bbeneficial to their education,[ and
that parents might be concerned that the teachers were
Bnot doing anything[ for the students in that class.
Teachers recommended that future teams implement
the changes across all course sections concurrently or
that the baseline condition for the second class be
shorter. Unfortunately, in this study, the amount of time
needed to create and refine the redesign process hampered the speed at which changes were implemented
in the first section of the class, and thus the ability to
replicate the intervention in the second class.
In order to universally design classes, school personnel wanted more time for collaboration. Each of the
participants felt that engaging in more planning over the
summer (getting to know the students, collecting and
reviewing student assessment data, redesigning lesson
plans) would have allowed them to move forward more
quickly during the school year. They also felt the school
should provide teachers with time to collaborate during
the first week of school as well as schedule general education teachers and co-teachers for joint planning time
during the school day.
Self-realizations
As a result of engaging in the yearlong redesign process, the teachers learned that they needed to be more
organized in order to collaboratively create a universally
designed classroom (e.g., write things down, keep a
calendar for meeting dates, stay current with e-mail
messages). They also learned that they needed to plan
better for instruction. This meant planning ahead, creating detailed lesson plans, communicating the plan with

everyone, and spending more time creating adaptations

prior to class time.
School personnel also came to realize the effectiveness of UDL in creating an inclusive context where
students with and without disabilities can be successful.
The special education teacher, who most frequently
questioned the appropriateness of students with SCD
participating in Unified Science with their peers, best
summarized this realization.
I liked the whole idea of universal design with the
curriculum, having many different methods and
ways for kids to learn and then express information,
and I think that if more general ed classes were
universally designed, Id be more apt to want my
kids with significant disabilities to be included into
those classesI. I think I learned that with UDL
strategies in place, inclusion might be more apt to
make sense.
Despite this realization, the teachers also acknowledged the continuing tension they felt to provide students
with SCD access to inclusive settings while maintaining
responsibility for the academic performance of all students. As the co-teacher explained, BWith the high stakes
as test scores and student performance is, I think you
need to be very careful in that you dont jeopardize the
learning of regular ed students.[

Discussion
Working collaboratively with school staff was a challenging and rewarding process. Using a PAR approach
to classroom redesign presented issues that may not
have arisen otherwise. The experiences in this study indicated that collaborative research is possible and can
yield meaningful results. At the same time, this approach
requires ongoing monitoring so that those not familiar
with research understand why research methods are
used and why a specific sequence of activities is followed. In this study, school personnel had difficulty
understanding the different roles of the university researchers. Some researchers were directly engaged in
data collection and thus were present in the classroom
almost every day. Other researchers were more involved
with creating the redesign process and developing data
collection instrumentation and thus were rarely present
in the classroom. Roles were differentiated to facilitate the completion of the research project. School
personnel believed each university researcher should
regularly observe the students so that they Bknow what
suggestions to make and what works with the kids.[
Although all university researchers had expertise in
severe disabilities and inclusive education, those who
did not observe regularly in the classroom were not
perceived in the same way as those who were physically
present each week.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

Universal Design

Additionally, the teachers acknowledged that engaging in the research process was time consuming. These
teachers were enthusiastic participants in this research
project from the beginning. They expressed strong interest and support for conducting research to identify
effective strategies for UDL and inclusive education.
Their roles as members of the research team included
participating in the administrative tasks associated
with the research such as obtaining informed consent
from the participants, scheduling rooms, communicating
with the technology staff, as well as participating in the
development of the redesign process. They voiced some
concern and frustration about the time required to develop the process and see results; however, if this were
not designated as a research project and redesign was
the only agreed upon goal with which the university
researchers assisted school personnel, these issues may
not have arisen. The time spent in data collection prior
to intervention would not have been necessary, and the
potential benefits may have been realized sooner.
This case study provided a wealth of information
about the process involved with redesigning a high
school science course. As researchers, our expectations
were that we would introduce the concept of UDL and
a process for thinking about the delivery of course content, and subsequently work with the teachers in
redesigning the course using these principles. We anticipated the initiation of a redesign process that would
result in the implementation of a universally designed
instructional environment that created the flexibility to
address all students learning needs. Our approach to
creating a universally designed course was to redesign
the whole class first and in subsequent phases of redesign to address the curriculum for individual students
who needed alternative approaches not met by the redesign. We found that before specific science content
could be addressed, we had to create a more collaborative and inclusive instructional environment. The
teachers involved with this research had no experience
creating an inclusive learning environment for the range
of students involved in this study. Therefore, the focus
of the initial steps toward change was on whole class
structure. Students with SCD were separated from each
other and seated next to peers without disabilities, and
the paraprofessionals no longer occupied seats next to
the students with SCD. Teachers roles in planning and
instructional delivery were changed to create a more
collaborative and inclusive environment.
A great deal of change occurred across the year, particularly in relationship to teachers roles, expectations
for student learning, and skills in interacting with students with SCD. Prior to this experience, the general
education teacher and co-teacher had co-taught together for 1 year. Their co-teaching relationship was based
on the Bone teach-one assist[ model (Friend & Bursuck,
2002). The general education teacher did all of the
planning and teaching of the science content, and the co-

305

teacher assisted by helping individual students who had

mild disabilities, monitoring behavior, and adapting instruction or materials as needed. Through the process
of redesign, these teachers developed a more collaborative relationship. They began co-planning and sharing
instructional responsibilities. In fact, both teachers reflected on this as a positive change that resulted from
the research. The two teachers actually learned to work
together in planning, instructional delivery, differentiation, and making accommodations for individual students. Similarly, the special education teacher who was
responsible for the students with SCD, extended her
role to work collaboratively with the general education
teacher in planning and later in instructional delivery.
Prior to this study, neither the general education
teacher nor the co-teacher had had any experiences with
students with SCD. They were not comfortable discussing educational goals or instructional strategies that they
felt would be effective; they had no basis for determining educational expectations. The collaborative redesign process gave the general education teacher and
co-teacher experiences with the students with SCD and
increased their comfort level in interacting with these
students. Their perceived roles in teaching students
with SCD evolved from no responsibility to believing
that they were responsible for teaching all students including those with SCD. These were dramatic changes
in how they perceived their roles and responsibilities.
Consequently, teacher interactions with the students
with SCD increased and the inclusion of these students
went from being an after thought to being a part of the
planning process.
Reflections on the change process suggest that the
evolution of change went from creating opportunities
for physical presence for students with SCD, to a focus
on socialization, to attention to IEP goals, and then to
a focus on science content. Individualized instructional
programs were not initiated for the students with SCD
until changes in the overall approach to instruction in
the course were made, thus effective instruction for students with SCD was not evidenced early on in the
change process. In fact, teacher expectations for students with SCD did not change until they saw these
students engage in meaningful ways with their peers
around the content of the course. Once this occurred,
the teachers expressed concern that students in the section of the course that was not receiving the redesign
were not meaningfully engaged. Teachers had difficulty
accepting the discrepancy between the two course sections when they had observed what could happen as a
result of redesign. These changes in expectations for
students with SCD were exciting to observe.
Our approach to redesign may have had an impact on
the type of change we saw. Because we focused on redesigning the whole course first and the individual needs
of students second, limited attention was given to the
science content for students with SCD. If initial focus

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

306

Dymond et al.

had been placed on the individual learning needs of

students with SCD in science, perhaps we would have
had more data indicating content acquisition. In order
to create an inclusive environment where all students
were a part of the class and the students with SCD did
not sit in the back of the room, separated from their
peers, receiving individualized instruction, the team felt
that whole class redesign was necessary. We did not
believe that we could provide students with SCD access
to the general curriculum in meaningful ways without
redesigning the whole class first. If the general curriculum is conceptualized as having explicit content (i.e.,
science learning standards) and implicit content (e.g.,
skills necessary for engagement in learning about science content such as collaboration, language, social, and
citizenship skills), the initial changes in the Unified Science course resulted in increased access and skills for
students with SCD in both the implicit general curriculum as well as the explicit science curriculum.
At the conclusion of this study, questions about curriculum and assessment of the explicit science content
were just beginning to be given focused attention. A
second year of collaborative intervention with this team
of teachers would have provided opportunity to address
science content more thoroughly and increase fidelity of
implementation of the UDL strategies. The redesigned
lesson plans included a wealth of learning opportunities
that embraced the concepts of UDL; however, fidelity
of implementation was not always high. Teachers were
quick to eliminate planned activities from the lessons if
obstacles (such as time constraints, student issues, lack
of teacher preparation) occurred. Their comfort level
with new and different teaching strategies was emerging
and had not yet become automatic. This also was evidenced in their feedback about instructional delivery.
The UDL strategies naturally created more classroom
activity, noise, and engagement between students. The
general education teacher and co-teacher on occasion
expressed concern about the perceived Bchaos[ in the
class. When they reverted to having students complete
worksheets that required copying information out of
the text, they reflected on the Bgood behavior[ of the
students. Good behavior seemed to be defined as being
quiet and in seat. Active behavior, moving around, and
talking in groups seemed to be associated with less
learning, although assessment data did not support this
conclusion. We believe a second year of implementation
of UDL would have provided the teachers with the experience and comfort level as well as student achievement data that may have increased their investment in
this approach.
Limitations
Case study methodology has been found useful
in studying educational innovations and developing
tentative hypotheses that can guide future research
(Merriam, 1998). A limitation of qualitative analysis is

that it involves subjectivity in interpretation of the data,

which results in the potential for researcher bias. In this
study, we sought to limit researcher bias by (a) involving
at least two researchers in analyzing each data set, (b)
using a constant comparative method to develop categories and themes, (c) triangulating data across multiple
data sources (interviews, focus groups, documents), and
(d) presenting positive and negative examples in the
case study narrative. Although the current study endeavored to create a rich description of the change process,
the case study narrative is limited to the most salient
findings. Important nuances of the change process may
have been unintentionally omitted. Readers must also
consider that the study occurred in only one school and
one science course, thus limiting the degree to which the
findings can be generalized to other high schools and
courses. In addition, the experiences of school personnel
in this case may be quite different from a school that is
accustomed to including students with SCD in general
education content area classes or in higher level general education classes that include fewer students at-risk
for failure.
Implications for Practice
The process of redesigning a traditional high school
classroom to embed the principles of UDL and address
the needs of students with and without SCD may seem
somewhat daunting. We offer the following insights based
on our year of engagement with school personnel.
Create a Realistic Time Frame for Change
Change takes time. Start with small changes that are
easy to make and likely to result in the greatest impact.
Provide time for all involved to adjust to the changes
before attempting to redesign other aspects of the course.
The more practice one has with using the principles of
UDL, the easier redesigning the curriculum will become.
Factors such as teachers experience with inclusive education and students with SCD may increase or decrease
the time needed to implement changes in the classroom.
Involve All Stakeholders in the Redesign Process
Teamwork is essential to creating and implementing
UDL lessons. It cannot be done by the general education teacher in isolation. All individuals involved with
implementing the redesign need to be involved in the
planning process, including general educators, special
educators, and paraprofessionals. Roles and responsibilities need to be discussed and defined to support the
changes made to instruction.
Use Lesson Plans to Develop and Communicate
the UDL Changes
Writing structured lesson plans was found to be extremely helpful in creating the redesigned lessons. Although many teachers may not be accustomed to writing
formal plans, particularly if they have been teaching for
awhile, these plans serve to clarify and communicate

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

307

Universal Design

exactly what will occur in the redesigned lessons. They

ensure that the needs of all students have been accounted for during each portion of the lesson and they
keep classroom instruction organized.
Ensure Appropriate Supports are Available
to Create the Changes
Some of the supports teachers may need to incorporate the principles of UDL in their classroom include time
for collaborative planning, help with creating new materials, funds to purchase supplies, access to instructional
technology (e.g., computers, LCD projectors, software),
and additional incentives (e.g., continuing professional
development credit, money, release time from other
responsibilities).
Provide Structure to Support Students
in Redesigned Activities
As elements of UDL are phased into the classroom,
teachers may need to provide additional structure to
support student participation. For example, students
may need to be taught how to work in groups, they may
need to learn how to involve students with SCD or
culturally diverse students in group projects, and they
may need a visual organizer to structure their time
across a multiday project.
Evaluate the Impact of the Redesign
Evaluation can help teachers understand whether the
UDL principles they employ are truly meeting the needs
of all students. Ongoing data collection should determine
the impact of the changes on each individual student and
be used to refine the process for universally designing
lessons. Collaboration with university researchers using
a PAR approach is one method for gaining additional
resources to measure the impact of the redesign.
Implications for Future Research
The experiences of school personnel involved with
this case study suggest that universally designing a high
school science course using a PAR approach has positive
benefits for students with and without SCD, as well
as teachers who engage in the change process. The
redesign process used in this study should be refined and
replicated in other science courses (e.g., biology) and
courses from other content areas (e.g., social studies)
to determine whether the benefits identified by school
personnel remain constant. Additional data should
be gathered to determine the impact of the redesign
process on student participation and outcomes through
more quantifiable methods, such as observations of
student engagement and peer interactions, performance
on state and local tests, and achievement of IEP goals.
These data should consider the impact on both students
with and without disabilities.
In the present study, the areas of curriculum and assessment were determined to be the most difficult areas to redesign. Effective methods must be developed for creating

faster and more substantive changes within these areas.

There is also a need to examine additional forms of instructional delivery that extend outside the walls of the
classroom (e.g., service learning) and provide greater generalization of skills learned in the classroom to Breal life.[
Finally, the amount of time needed to create change in
Unified Science far surpassed our projections. Evaluating the effectiveness of the redesign process, as perceived
by school personnel who have been engaged in redesigning curriculum across multiple years (as opposed to
only one), would enhance understanding of the change
process. Information is needed about the supports
schools require (e.g., resources, time, incentives) to shift
from traditional forms of curriculum delivery to methods
that embrace the conceptual underpinnings of UDL.

References
Bruyere, S. M. (1993). Participatory action research: Overview
and implications for family members of persons with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 62Y68.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dymond, S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach
to evaluating inclusive school programs. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 54Y63.
Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109Y122.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T.
(in press). Defining access to the general curriculum for
high school students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2002). Including students with
special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action
research: Social research for social change. London: Sage.
Hitchcock, C. G. (2001). Balanced instructional support and
challenge in universally designed learning environments.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 23Y30.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Access,
participation, and progress in the general curriculum. Peabody,
MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-17, 37 Stat. 111 (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA) Amendments of 2004. P.L. 108-446, 118 Stat 2647
(2004).
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, L. H., Park, H., Grenot-Scheyer, M., Schwartz, I., &
Harry, B. (1998). Participatory research: New approaches to
the research to practice dilemma. Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 165Y177.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C. (2003).
Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 18, 140Y149.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the
digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ryndak, D. L. (1996). Adapting environments, materials, and
instruction to facilitate inclusion. In D. L. Ryndak & S. Alper

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015

308

Dymond et al.

(Eds.), Curriculum content for students with moderate and

severe disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 97Y124). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Salisbury, C. L., Wilson, L. L., & Palombaro, M. M. (1998).
Promoting inclusive schooling practices through practitioner
directed inquiry. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 23, 223Y237.
Salisbury, C. L., Wilson, L. L., Swartz, T. J., Palombaro, M. M.,
& Wassel, J. (1997). Using action research to solve instructional challenges in inclusive elementary school settings.
Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 21Y39.
Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1996). A focus on curricula
design: When children fail. Focus on Exceptional Children,
28, 1Y16.
Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (Eds.) (2001). Instruction of students with
severe disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill

action planning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the
vision. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 14, 205Y215.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective
measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its
heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203Y214.
Wolfe, B., & Edelman, L. (1994, October). In-service best practices: Learning activities that make a difference. Preconference
workshop at the Tenth Annual Early Childhood Conference
on Children with Special Needs, St. Louis, MO.
Received: December 8, 2006
Final Acceptance: December 27, 2006
Editor in Charge: Fred Spooner
Craig Kennedy

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com by guest on October 5, 2015