Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a well established concept, but implementation remains at the edges of teaching. A large body of literature researching how to do it is useful but many education systems still treat it as “special” learning especially in schools. But there is some movement on UDL at The University of Sydney.
UDL follows the same concept of universal design found in other disciplines. It is about creating inclusive learning environments, tools, and activities. And in the same way that universal design benefits everyone, UDL does the same.
There seems to be a little more progress for UDL in higher education where students are adults rather than children. The right to an education becomes more evident at this level and UDL is a good way to create inclusive leaning for everyone. But it does require a change in mindset.
Presenter, Sarah Humphreys, introduces the significance of UDL and how she established a pilot project in 2021 at the University of Sydney. The pilot, “Designing for Diversity” focused on one academic and one unit of study. Part of the process was developing relationships with stakeholders to find a common language to support a shift in mindset.
Sarah Humphries provides examples of the evaluation processes to illustrate how the iterative process worked and generated resources. The UDL is still in its early phase because the focus is not to prescribe or standardise how UDL is used. It is more about a cultural change over time.
The title of the ADCET webinar is, Implementing Universal Design for Learning at the University of Sydney – Lessons Learned and Scaling Strategies. It is available on the ADCET website or on YouTube below.
A survey of people with disability in England found that getting out and about in their neighbourhood difficult if not impossible. Two not-for-profit organisations ran a six month inquiry which revealed waking and wheeling is not equitable for all. Similar experiences have been identified in Australia. Footpaths and time to cross the road feature strongly.
“We believe everyone should have the right to walk or wheel around our neighbourhoods with ease, independence and confidence.”
Transport accessibility gap
Physical barriers to wheeling and walking are only part of the issue. Participants said they are afraid of negative comments from other people when walking or wheeling. Not having the right mobility aid was also an barrier to traveling safely and independently.
Disabled people take 38% fewer trips across all modes of transport than non-disabled people. This pattern is similar for walking and wheeling. In England, for example, disabled people take 30% fewer walking trips than non-disabled people. ”
What to do about it?
The Executive Summary of the report lists 9 solutions with recommendations. First on the list is to involve people with disability in walking and wheeling policy and practice. Dedicated and well maintained footpaths are another key feature for improvements.
“It’s very frustrating seeing beautiful smooth roads for cars whilst walking on pavement surfaces that are falling apart.” Workshop participant
Footpath clutter, bollards, outdoor dining, and electric vehicle chargers need to be managed better. Some people don’t leave their homes on garbage collection days. Then comes the issue of interacting with cycle paths and cyclists. More formal crossings, kerb ramps and tactile paving would encourage them to walk or wheel more.
We need more time to cross the road
Transport engineers use a standard walking speed to time traffic signals at I.2m per second. UK transport guidance updated this to 1.0m per second but this is still to quick for slow walkers and people wheeling. This makes people feel unsafe and limits their ability to get out and about. Research cited by Australian researchersfound that people using a cane or crutch walked 0.8m per second and people using a walker 0.63m per second.
Although this is report is based on English conditions, the findings support other research in Australia and elsewhere. The section on Transportation on this website has more.
We know public libraries have books and magazines, but they are often a major focal point in a community as well. But not everyone can take advantage of the many and varied library resources, and it’s not just about being able to read. Getting to and around a library and being made welcome will encourage more people to take advantage of their local library. So what actions can library staff take to make inclusive and accessible libraries?
Malmo City libraries in Sweden developed a guide to accessibility for their staff. It’s titled, ALibrary Without Obstacles: A Guide to Accessibility. The guide is easy to read and follow and is useful for any information service, not just libraries. It’s translated to English and consequently, some terms are specifically Swedish.
Libraries in Sweden must be accessible to all and provide an equal opportunity to enjoy literature and knowledge. Their basic premise is whatever is necessary for some is good for everyone. This premise holds for all information services. Image is the front cover of the guide.
What do libraries offer besides books?
Libraries across the globe arrange events throughout the year including school holidays. Many offer community information services, and librarians have skills in finding information when looking for something in particular. Events must be as accessible as possible and visitors like to know the level of access they can expect. The guide lists some minimum requirements. The way information is presented is also important.
“We write so everyone can understand. Plain language means using words that are easy to understand in a clear and simple structure. Use everyday language, write short sentences, and begin with the most important information.” Image is from the guide.
Reading without obstacles
Most libraries offer adapted media such as talking books, large print and easy to read books. Getting to the library and finding your way around is key for people with physical disabilities. The aim of an inclusive and accessible library is that everyone should be able to reach their next book.
While this guide is for public library staff, the content is applicable to other institutions and services that provide public information. An excellent resource with many of the actions easy to achieve.
Is it enough for the occupational therapy profession to just focus on clients and their occupation goals? Barriers faced by people with disability, are complex and multi-faceted and go beyond specific individual solutions. So, at what point should occupational therapists engage in issues of social justice? And can universal design thinking help?
Disability studies emphasise the dignity, worth and equal rights of all people and draws attention to the discrimination faced by people with disability.
Two researchers, one from social science and one from occupational therapy, offer an interesting discussion on this topic. They argue that occupational therapy practice and research should incorporate social justice and universal design perspectives. They add that they should join with the disability community to call for a more just society. One way to do this is to also promote the principles of universal design.
Incorporating social justice and universal design perspectives more effectively requires a change of mindset and ways of working. Expanding Person-Centred and Person-Environment theories to understand social and structural barriers is one solution. The occupational therapy profession has the potential to pave the way for more equitable services and policies.
Socio-political influences have gained increased attention within the occupational therapy profession. Critical disability studies question prevailing assumptions about disability and how disabling ideologies and practices are perpetuated in society. A universal design approach aims to address issues of inclusion and justice.
This paper discusses how the tenets of critical disability studies and universal design can contribute to occupational therapy practice and research.
We provide ideas on how practice can be guided by the tenets of disability studies and universal design to promote social equity.
Incorporating both perspectives in occupational therapy practice and research requires a change in mindset and ways of working. Occupational therapy knowledge needs to be expanded to scrutinise disabling hindrances hidden within social and structural spaces, and implemented in services.
We recommend working with disability communities to raise awareness and combat disabling barriers at various level of society.
“Mind the Gap” on public transport has an additional meaning for people with disability and other marginalised groups. It’s not just the barriers and inconveniences, it’s also the indignity that people experience. Gaps result from barriers in infrastructure, communication systems and attitudes. Consequently, not everyone is able to maintain their dignity on buses and trains.
More than 30% of people with disability in Australia experience difficulties using public transport. Consequently, this impacts on their ability to participate in the economy and society.
Perceptions of dignity are about not feeling discrimination, shame or humiliation. Positive experiences of acceptance and inclusion help maintain dignity even when things might not work well. A research study in Queensland explored these issues with people with disability.
The researchers found that dignified mobility experiences were not isolated or momentary. Rather, entire travel journeys that were accessible, inclusive, equitable, promoted independence and enhanced self-worth contributed to dignified mobility experiences. And it wasn’t all about infrastructure.
Interpersonal interactions experienced in physical, digital and communication spaces across travel journeys were just as important as physical barriers. A sense of dignity came from feeling respected, appropriately helped and being treated like anyone else. Both tangible and intangible aspects of the whole journey need consideration. The researchers point to a universal design approach.
Universal design, access to accessible and inclusive information, and empathic attitudes help create dignified mobility experiences for people with disability when using buses and trains.
The research paper provides key information for a universal design approach to dignified journeys. They include detail on accessible and inclusive information and the need for empathic systems and staff.
When transport systems are accessible and inclusive, people with disability experience dignity. When personal mobility is constrained by physical, social and/or communication, barriers, people with disability experience exclusion and risk to their dignity.
This study explored the role of trains and buses in an Australian city in supporting access, inclusion and dignified mobility experiences for people with disability. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants with diverse visible and invisible disabilities.
The findings highlight the complexities involved with navigating public transport systems while maintaining dignity. Accessible and inclusive information, infrastructure, and interactions with staff ensured dignified mobility experiences.
Dignified mobility experiences represent a complex and dynamic interaction between personal experiences and preferences, impairment-specific requirements, transport infrastructure, interpersonal experiences, and information inclusivity.
Designing bus transit with universal design
Norway has a long-held commitment to universal design across all sectors. However, with the best will in the world the concept is still poorly understood in transport infrastructure. When Trondheim initiated its new rapid bus transit system, universal design underpinned the design parameters. But designing bus transit infrastructure requires some joined up thinking and joined up standards.
The Trondheim infrastructure experience
The case study of Trondheim in Norway shows how the best laid plans can go awry if there isn’t joined up thinking at the planning stage. Once this was realised the next step was finding ways to remedy the situation. That’s because Trondheim replaced their whole fleet with the new metro buses.
At a late stage in the planning process, with construction of the stations and delivery of the buses well underway, it was discovered that the stations and the buses had been built to different accessibility standards.
Photo of the Trondheim bus transit
In a conference paperJacob Deichmann outlines the issues and the different ideas and lists them in a handy table. All the stations were built to Norwegian State guidelines for accessible design. The “kneeling” buses were designed and built in Belgium. But there was a big gap between bus and kerb edge. The size of the gap also depended on the skill of the driver in getting as close as possible to the kerb.
Once this discrepancy was discovered advocacy groups complained to the media and to politicians. The response was that they met the access standards, but manual flip ramps would be added. However, this does not provide equitable access as someone has to deploy the ramp taking up valuable travel time. And efficient travel times was a key element of the system.
The paper has a chart giving an overview of the different remedies suggested based on product research. It lists the various ramp systems, gap-fillers and bus pads at kerbside. The chosen solutions were training of drivers in the short term. In the medium term there was to be a trial of motorised ramps, the bus pad and a guiding system. Longer term solutions were the gap-filler method and raised platforms.
When standards and guidelines aren’t enough
Both the platform designer and the bus manufacturer followed valid guidelines and best practice. The lack of consistency in the guidelines makes it difficult for non experts in universal design to make the best choices. In the worst case scenario, following standards can prevent a universal design approach.
More training on universal design is required at the planning and procurement stage. The underlying concept of providing an equitable and accessible means of transport needs to be fully understood.
Talking about inclusive built environments is easy, but how do you do it well? With different stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of a project, how do you get them to join up their thinking to approach projects with the same inclusive mindset? An inclusive building design guide focused on the processes is the way to do it.
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) created an Inclusion Charter in 2020. One of their commitments was to embed inclusive design in all projects. But architects cannot work in isolation – all stakeholders need to take on an inclusive mindset. As an extension to their Charter, they created the Inclusive Design Overlayto the RIBA Plan of Work. It seeks to bring all stakeholders on board for every part of the project.
“The role our built environment has on each and every person’s life cannot be overestimated. This Inclusive Design Overlay provides a consensus across built environment professions for how we accelerate inclusion and value diversity.” Robbie Turner, Director of Inclusion and Diversity, RIBA.
Twenty-five different built environment professions provided insights and best practice content for the overlay. The inclusive design tasks apply to the client, project management team, design team, construction team and asset management team.
There are three core parts: the Client Team, the Design Team and the Construction Team. In addition, they recommend having an inclusive design consultant, or champion, with specialist inclusive design expertise. As Australian access consultants know, the earlier they are consulted the better. So it is good to see RIBA encouraging involvement from the outset of the project. The overlay also encourages the project team to look beyond building regulations.
Good design must be fundamentally inclusive just as it should be sustainable and resilient. Inclusive design should be elevated to the same level as sustainability.
The overlay details the roles of each team and stages of work. It begins with setting the project brief and budget through concept design, construction and handover to asset managers. There are separate sections for each of the key teams and what they should do and understand at each stage.
Enablers
The document includes a section on inclusive design enablers. These are actions that support the development of an inclusive design strategy, and implementation of inclusive design across the delivery of a project. Each sub-section has clear information on the diversity of the population and different levels of capability, and how to approach them in design and construction processes.
There are several good guides on planning and designing cities and suburbs. But how many are unwittingly based on ableist and ageist polices and plans? If they are based on a narrow body type of “young, adult, fit white male” then they are likely ableist. This narrow view makes other bodies and minds invisible and therefore excluded. Lisa Stafford challenges the planning community to be change-makers in creating inclusive suburbs for mind and body.
“Realising this vision will require a drastic shift in the way we think, in our planning and design systems, and in our ways of working.”
Stafford’s article in Cities People Love, explains how ableism plays out in policies and planning systems. When change doesn’t come from those in power, the advocacy has to come from citizen action. Citizen advocacy for disability inclusion has been running for 30 years, and the fight continues. If planners take a universal design mindset, so much more could change for a significant proportion of the population.
5 Elements of inclusive planning
Here is a brief overview of Stafford’s key elements for inclusive planning.
Human diversity is valued and embedded in all aspects of planning. To be inclusive, planning must that humans are diverse in both mind and body across the lifespan.
All people centred public planning processes and decision (urban governance). Collaborative processes encompass a diversity of minds, bodies, ages and languages for all people to be actively involved.
Inclusively designed spaces and infrastructure are assets of a community with equity at the core. This means moving beyond compliance with minimum standards to a performance-based planning approach informed by universal design.
Planning for connectedness between nature, people and place. Infrastructure such as footpaths, seating, public spaces, community green spaces, and treed streets, supports encounters and gatherings that help build and strengthen a sense of place and belonging.
Vibrant places and experiences. Vibrant places give a sense of fun, friendliness, creativity, and participation. A diverse cross-section of people are attracted to vibrant and accessible places where they feel comfortable to stay longer.
The lived knowledge and experience of affected citizens should guide design processes. Everyone learns from co-design processes.
Stafford invites planners to reflect on the five elements and become leaders and change-makers. “Planning for equity and inclusion in our suburbs is the only way we can create fairness of access, and uphold everyone’s rights to live in the suburbs and participate fully in everyday life.”
Business and academic research on inclusive workplace cultures typically focus on race and/or gender. Disability and neurodiversity are often overlooked or excluded from this research and resulting policies and practices. A universal design approach is the way to take a holistic look at the issues and solutions for neurodiversity in the workplace. Indeed, these are good workplace practices for everyone. That’s what universal design is about.
Workplace employee groups can help marginalised groups feel heard, but they can also place an additional burden on individuals to seek workplace improvements.
A short paper by Preziosa and Hill uses the 7 principles of universal design as a framework for implementing inclusive practices. The authors present the 7 principles in a matrix, and used four principles, briefly outlined below, as an example:
Equitable Use: Avoid the need for people with disability to have separate service or experiences. Eliminate label-based inclusion, such as targeted hiring programs for autistic people. This segregates employees into specific fields and requires them to self-identify any “special” condition they have.
Flexibility in Use: Build in preferences outside the norm such as playback speed options for training videos. Offer to be flexible and acknowledge that individual differences are expected and welcome.
Simple and Intuitive to Use: Avoid unnecessary complexity and repetition of processes, tools, and webpages.
Tolerance for Error: Allow room for mistakes and edits. Ensure digital form, tools and software allow for review and correction.
The authors claim that neurodiverse employees who receive support services show higher retention rates, and most required less than 4 support hours a month. In addition, many benefitted from support with problem solving and organising their work.
Universal design and employment scenarios
The author’s matrix consists of 7 universal design principles and 6 workplace elements. They are: Designing, Hiring, Contracting, Training, Performance Review and Wellbeing. The information is also good for managing groups and teams outside the workplace environment.
People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, anxiety or depression can feel stressed and uncomfortable. Consequently they are less productive. Employers could be missing out by not considering neurodiversity in the workplace.
As many as one in eight people are neurodiverse according to an article in The Fifth Estate. COVID led to sterile environments. Offices removed their fabric coverings and other soft elements to make cleaning easier. But it makes spaces noisy, clinical and uninviting.
Even working from home isn’t the answer for everyone. Just because you can work from home doesn’t mean you should. Long hours in a hard chair at the kitchen table isn’t optimum.
The article discusses colour, signage, the size and shape of spaces, textiles and plants. Even games such as Foosball tables have a place.
The solutions are in design of the office, the office culture and inclusive policies. When it comes to neurodiversity we have to ask, what is neurotypical anyway? Workplace designs that consider diversity are good for everyone.
Intersectional stigma for autistic people at work found that white autistic people in western countries are more likely to have jobs. But they were more likely to be designed for autistic people. They also found that feeling that someone cares was more important than any adjustments for support. There are other resources availableas well.
From Margins to Mainstream: Embracing Neurodiverse Needs for an Inclusive Workplace. The authors review and critique existing literature on communication styles, sensory environments, social expectations, and discrimination. They focus on autism spectrum condition, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. They apply the neurodiversity framework to challenge traditional notions of workplace ”professionalism” and productivity.
“This groundbreaking book combines the lived experience with academic rigor, innovative thought leadership, and lively, accessible writing. To support different types of readers, academic, applied, and lived experience content is clearly identified, helping readers choose their own adventure.”
Many parents would like their children to travel to school independently, but they think it’s unsafe to do so. Taking a universal design approach, if we improve pedestrian infrastructure for children, we also make it better for everyone. Safe children means safe adults.
Children are more likely to live closer to school than their parents will live to their workplaces. But do they feel safe to walk? However, walking or riding to school is at the same time workers are driving off to their workplaces – often in a hurry.
Prue Oswin’s survey of parents on the Sunshine Coast revealed their perceived and real barriers to safe walking for their children. Crossing roads without designated crossings was of the most concern. Crossing at roundabouts and roads without a pedestrian refuge island was also concerning. Zebra crossings were the most favoured by parents especially if they were raised. These are the same issues for people with disability and older people.
Pedestrian hot spots tell one story, pedestrian absence tells another. This is where statistical data do not measure journeys not made. Consequently, relying on such data is misleading in the quest to get more people walking and wheeling in their neighbourhoods.
The Safe System approach is about preventing traffic crashes resulting in serious injury. The basic premise is that if a driver or pedestrian makes a mistake, a serious accident is less likely. Oswin’s study shows that there are gaps in this approach that traffic engineers need to address.
Spin offs
The most obvious spin-off from more walking are the health benefits which lead to better concentration and wellbeing. Also if children get walk to and from school independently, parents, usually women, are able to increase their workforce participation. Other beneficiaries are people with mobility impairments, and people who are blind or have low vision. Parents themselves might also be encouraged to walk more.
Designing for people at either end of the age bell curve means that everyone else is included. Consequently, the often forgotten group, children, are key piece of the inclusion jigsaw.
The proportion of children walking or riding to school is dwindling in Australia, while pedestrian injuries are among children’s leading causes of death. A mixed-methods survey was conducted on children and parents of two schools in Australia to understand travel behaviours and attitudes towards active transport to school (ATS).
Results showed that road safety perceptions predicted ATS, unlike distance to school and stranger danger. The design of the routes to school was found to be crucial in facilitating ATS, to address the fear of road danger. Practical implications include the need for more controlled pedestrian crossings and protected bike paths.
Architectural competitions can bring design quality to cities. But the design competition process misses the opportunity to engage deeply with the public. And that means social value could be missing too. The process of community driven design competitions addresses unequal access to design decisions and cultivates social ties.
“Design has a role in building social capital. During a design competition, there are opportunities for placemaking and designing in social connectors.” Georgia Vitale
Image: 11th Street Bridge Park. Courtesy OMA + OLIN
Community consultation takes many forms, some of which are perfunctory while others are more meaningful. That is, meaningful for the public – the users of places and spaces. The judges of architectural design competitions are other architects. So how does community consultation and engagement fit into this process?
Vitale’s article explores the drawbacks of limited or no meaningful public participation or interaction with users of the building or place or other stakeholders in design competitions. This is at a time for an increased need for social capital to be included in the planning and design process for more socially sustainable communities.
Social infrastructure, shared spaces and streets, and public transport are the outputs of design. However, community engagement with diverse community members helps create new connections. it also encourages people to become involved in the lives of their neighbours. That’s the social benefit of community driven design competitions.
Case Study
Vitale uses 11th Street Bridge Park DC as a case study. The goal is to knit together the two communities on either side of the river. And that’s without displacing people in the marginalised neighbourhoods on the eastern bank.
