See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290012414

Six practical principles for inclusive curriculum design

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4205-8.ch006

CITATIONS READS
12 2,551

2 authors:

Sharon Kerr Michaela Christie Baker

The University of Sydney Macquarie University
9 PUBLICATIONS   430 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of accessible eBooks on learning outcomes of Indigenous students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharon Kerr on 28 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Outlooks and
Opportunities in Blended
and Distance Learning

B. Tynan
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

J. Willems
Monash University, Australia

R. James
University of New England, Australia

A volume in the Advances in Mobile and

Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series
Managing Director: Lindsay Johnston
Editorial Director: Joel Gamon
Production Manager: Jennifer Yoder
Publishing Systems Analyst: Adrienne Freeland
Development Editor: Austin DeMarco
Assistant Acquisitions Editor: Kayla Wolfe
Typesetter: Henry Ulrich
Cover Design: Jason Mull

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2013 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Outlooks and opportunities in blended and distance learning / B. Tynan, J. Willems and R. James, editors.
pp ; cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book investigates the impact of the digital age on various methods of distance education, such as E-learn-
ing, virtual learning, online learning, and m-learning”-- Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-4205-8 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-4206-5 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-4207-2 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Blended learning--Cross-cultural studies. 2. Distance education--Cross-cultural studies. 3. Educational
technology--Cross-cultural studies. 4. Comparative education. I. Willems, B. (Belinda)
LB1028.5.O89 2013
371.3--dc23
2013009029

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning (AMDL) Book Series
(ISSN: 2327-1892; eISSN: 2327-1906)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
74

Chapter 6
Six Practical Principles for
Inclusive Curriculum Design
Sharon Kerr
Macquarie University, Australia

Michaela Baker
Macquarie University, Australia

ABSTRACT
Within the context of the Australian higher education sector, this chapter aims to draw together the prin-
ciples of inclusive curriculum design and Universal Instructional Design (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn,
1998) to provide lecturers and curriculum designers with concrete advice on how to design curricula
that are both inclusive and accessible. Through a review of the literature and the introduction of six
practical principles, the chapter sheds light on the importance of inclusive curriculum design for all
students, and, more particularly, students studying in online, distance, or blended modes.

INTRODUCTION As lecturers and support staff, we have been

Moving [inclusion] agendas ‘from the margins to
the mainstream’ (Thomas et al., 2005) remains a
significant challenge. It necessitates a shift away
from supporting specific student groups through a
discrete set of policies … towards equity consid-
erations being embedded within all functions of
the institution and treated as an ongoing process
of quality enhancement (May & Bridger, 2010, p.
2, emphasis added).
conscious of the limitations placed on students
with disabilities and aware that this is an area
with which we need to engage. Have we fully
understood, however, that the way in which we
design our courses determines who can access
information and knowledge and who cannot? Have
we unwittingly become the gatekeepers of learn-
ing and the wealth of opportunity that learning
provides? Do we realise what we need to do to
ensure that our curricula are inclusive and that the

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4205-8.ch006

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
impact on both students and our central university
support units is enormous when we do not adopt
inclusive curriculum principles?
This chapter aims to address some of these
questions by suggesting that there are six construc-
tive principles that underpin inclusive curriculum
design in general and, more specifically, for online,
distance and blended learning. In short, this paper
aims to provide concrete guidance about designing
inclusive curricula for lecturers and curriculum
designers--the gatekeepers of learning.
SOCIAL INCLUSION AND
THE AUSTRALIAN HIGHER
EDUCATION CONTEXT
In recent years, there has been a push within the
Australian higher education sector for greater
social inclusion. The Review of Australian Higher
education Final Report (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent,
& Scales, 2008) has the following amongst its
recommendations:
That the Australian Government increase the
funding for the access and participation of under-
represented groups of students to a level equivalent
to 4 per cent of the total grants for teaching. This
would be allocated through a new program for
outreach activities and a loading paid to institu-
tions enrolling students from low socio-economic
backgrounds. Funding for the Disability Support
Program would be increased to $20 million per
year. (p. xxiii)
This recommendation serves both as an af-
firmation of the need for greater participation by
formerly previously under-represented groups in
higher education plus an acknowledgement that
such participation requires in turn increased fund-
ing support and institutional incentives.
There is increasing evidence that this push for
inclusivity and its encouragement of a diverse
student body has not only a sound ethical basis,
but also a sound pedagogical basis, too (Antonio,
2001; Antonio, Chang, Hakuta, Kenny, Levin, &
Milem, 2004; Barron, Pieper, Lee, Nantharath,
Higbee, & Schultz, 2007; Blimling, 2001; Chang,
Denson, Sáenz, & Misa, 2006; Denson & Chang,
2008; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002;
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,
1998; Maruyama, Nirebim, Gudeman, & Marin,
2000; Milem & Hakuta, 2000; Nelson Laird, 2005;
Pascarella, Palmer, Moye, & Pierson, 2001; Smith
& Schonfeld, 2000; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck,
Bjorklund, & Parent, 2001; Zúñiga, 2003; Zúñiga,
Williams, & Berger, 2005). This growing body
of literature suggests that “being part of a diverse
educational community can enhance growth and
development in important skills like leadership,
critical thinking, and cross-cultural communica-
tion” (Higbee, Katz, & Schultz, 2010, p. 1).
On the whole, research in this area has, how-
ever, tended to focus on mostly on racial and
ethnic diversity. Even within discussions of social
inclusion in higher education, disability frequently
remains marginalized (McCune, 2001; Higbee et
al., 2010). It is thus part of our aim in this paper
to emphasize the importance of inclusion agendas
being cognisant of students with disabilities, and
to make concrete suggestions, using principles of
inclusive curriculum and Universal instructional
design (UID) (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998)
of ways in which this may be achieved sustainably.
INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM
AND UNIVERSAL
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Along with the push for greater social inclusion
in the higher education sector, there is a con-
comitant development of a body of research about
inclusive curriculum design (Chapman, 2008;
El-Ayoubi, 2008; Hockings, 2010a; Hockings,
2010b; Hockings, 2005; Hockings, Cooke & Bowl,
2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; May & Bridger,
2010; Otten, 2003). Hockings defines inclusive
75
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
curriculum design as “involv[ing] the design,
planning and evaluation of programmes, courses
and modules not only in terms of their learning
outcomes, content, pedagogy and assessment but
also in ways in which they engage and include the
needs, interests and aspirations of all students”
(Hockings, 2010a, p. 15, emphasis added).
This definition of inclusive curriculum design
emphasizes that, when we design curricula, we
ought to aim to include all students (including
those from recognized equity groups) and leaves
open other areas of interest within the broader
area of inclusive curriculum design. One of these
areas of interest has as its focus the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the higher education
sector. Again, there is a growing body of literature
that examines and advocates for the inclusion of
students with disabilities (Aune, 1996; Borland
& James, 1999; Fuller, Bradley & Healey, 2004;
Grace & Gravestock, 2009; Hall & Healey, 2004;
Healey, Roberts, Fuller, Georgeson, Hurst, Kelly,
Riddell, & Weedon, 2008; May & Felsinger, 2010).
As Grace and Gravestock point out, “inclusive
curriculum ... refers to the process of developing,
designing and refining programmes of study to
minimize the barriers that students may face in
accessing the curriculum” (2009, p. 1, emphases
added). If the aim of inclusive curriculum design
is to minimize barriers to access, then we would
do well to identify the barriers in question. One
of the major barriers faced by students with dis-
abilities is the inaccessibility of learning materials,
including lectures, lecture notes, readings, online/
multi-media resources, learning management
systems, class activities, group presentations,
practical sessions, examinations and other as-
sessment tasks.
When we speak about accessibility in the
context of curriculum, what we mean is that
all learning materials are accessible to assistive
technologies. Assistive technologies may be
defined as “includ[ing] devices, tools, hardware
and software that enable people with disability to
perform functions that might otherwise be difficult
76
or impossible” (Creating Accessible Teaching and
Support, 2010, para. 1). In an educational context,
the primary role of assistive technologies is to
render learning materials accessible to students
with a disability. Students with disabilities may
make use of text-to-speech software, speech-to-
text software as well as alternative formats such
as Braille and large print. Therefore, accessibility
is one aspect of inclusive curriculum.
One way of approaching the design of acces-
sible and inclusive curricula is via the principles of
universal design. Universal design was originally
developed to make the built environment acces-
sible to people with disabilities (Zeff, 2007). As
Zeff (2007) points out, however, an unintended
consequence of this was that features that were
initially developed to provide access to people
with disabilities in fact came to be beneficial
to all users of the environment in question. For
example, “curb cuts quickly became favorites of
parents pushing baby strollers, children on skate-
boards and bicycles and people pulling luggage
on wheels” (Zeff, 2007, p. 27). The principles of
universal design have been adopted and adapted
in an educational context to give rise to what may
be termed universal instructional design (UID)
(McGuire, Scott & Shaw, 2003; Ouellet, 2004;
Zeff, 2007; Higbee, Katz, & Schultz, 2010). UID
aims to “shift perspective from a basic effort to
match minimum standards (conforming to the
“letter of the law”) to real inclusion and acces-
sibility” (Ouellett, 2004, p. 135).
In practice, UID “offers a model for anticipat-
ing and addressing common obstacles to effective
teaching and learning” at the curriculum develop-
ment stage “thus saving instructors and students
from needless conflicts” (Ouellett, 2004, p. 136).
If measures are taken at the time of curriculum
development, the process of developing acces-
sible curricula creates minimal further expense
for an institution beyond the initial professional
development of staff in the area of inclusive
curriculum design. On the other hand, it can be
hugely expensive if just-in-time solutions need
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
to be developed as students discover that there
are access issues with the course in which they
are enrolled.
Tony Payne, Director of Equity & Diversity at
Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, once
described students with disabilities as the “canaries
in the coal mine” when it comes to curriculum de-
sign (T. Payne, personal communication, 3 March
2008). A well-constructed curriculum is one that
“include[s] alternatives to make it accessible and
appropriate for individuals with different back-
grounds, learning styles, abilities and disabilities
in widely varied learning contexts” (CAST, 2004,
para. 3). If the curriculum is poorly constructed
and fails to take these issues into account, then it
will be students with disabilities who will feel this
impact first and feel it most profoundly. Similarly,
the ability of students with disabilities to engage
fully demonstrates that the curriculum is well-
constructed and thus accessible and inclusive.
Like universal design in the context of the built
environment, this can benefit all students.
The principles of UID are compatible with
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987, p. 3) “7 Prin-
ciples” for good practice in undergraduate edu-
cation. These principles are that good practice in
undergraduate education:
1. Encourages contact between students and
faculty
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among
students
3. Encourages active learning
4. Gives prompt feedback
5. Emphasizes time on task
6. Communicates high expectations
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.
Whilst the guidelines given by Chickering
and Gamson represent a well-respected school of
thought about what constitutes quality teaching,
it is worth making two qualifications. Firstly,
Arbaugh, and Hornik’s (2006) extensive survey of
the applicability of the guidelines to online educa-
tion suggested that the evidence in favour of the
guidelines in an online learning context “was not
convincing enough to merit designation [thereof]
as a silver bullet for comprehensive design and con-
duct of web-based courses” (Arbaugh & Hornik,
2006, p. 14). That this is the case should perhaps
not be surprising, given that the guidelines were
formulated well before online learning had begun.
Secondly, even if one fulfils all of the guidelines,
this may not be sufficient to ensure inclusivity
and accessibility. Of all the guidelines, number
seven comes closest to emphasizing inclusivity.
However, without concrete guidance on how to
design curricula in an accessible and inclusive way,
the risk exists that well-meaning teaching staff
may believe themselves to be adhering to number
seven, whilst nonetheless providing materials in
inaccessible formats, and fail to make their cur-
ricula accessible. In the light of the insufficiency
of Chickering and Gamson’s guidelines to the
task of ensuring inclusivity and accessibility, and
the discussion of UID above, the remainder of
this paper is dedicated to the development of six
practical principles for inclusiveness.
SIX PRACTICAL PRINCIPLES
FOR INCLUSIVENESS
Equity of access to knowledge for all students is
contingent on how the curriculum is developed,
delivered and assessed. Within these three main
areas, the six principles for inclusiveness as pro-
posed in this paper aim to address each of these
aspects of curriculum design. (There is, of course,
a degree of overlap between these three areas.) In
the first area of curriculum development, course
requirements need to be clearly articulated and
available to students prior to enrolment, and edu-
cators need to regularly evaluate the accessibility
and inclusiveness of their courses and modify ac-
cordingly. In the area of curriculum delivery, all
77
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
learning materials and learning technologies used
in the course enrolment, delivery and assessment
should be accessible by students using assistive
technologies, all learning materials should be
clearly presented in plain English to facilitate
optimum communication, and it is recommended
that teaching staff adopt a flexible and inclusive
attitude with regard to making alternative ar-
rangements as required due to disability. Finally,
in the area of student assessment, flexible time
lines, assessment tasks and course requirements
require consideration. Each principle will be
discussed in detail.
Curriculum Development Principles
Principle 1: All Inherent Requirements
for the Course Need to be Clearly
Articulated and Available to
Students Prior to Enrolment
University study for any student is a major life
decision. In 2010, maximum student contributions
in Australia ranged from $16,000 to $26,000 for
a three year degree (Good Universities Guide,
2010). This means that students incur large costs
in pursuing education to improve their employ-
ability. Students with a disability are no different
to other students in wanting to pursue studies
that will increase their future life opportunities.
However, the ability of students with a disability
to participate fully in a class may be hampered if
they are unaware of inherent requirements that may
prove problematic. For this reason it is absolutely
vital that we include in all documentation about
the courses we are offering information regarding
essential inherent requirements.
The term “inherent requirements” is not defined
in the Disability Discrimination Act, but derives
from the United Nations Convention Concerning
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and
Occupation (Acting Against Disability Discrimi-
nation manual, 1994) (cited in Watts, Stickels,
78
Fraser, Carroll, Stewart, & Radloff, 2000, p. 12).
In an employment context, the term refers to “the
essential activities of the job: the core duties that
must be carried out in order to fulfill the purpose
of a position” (Western Sydney National Disability
Coordination Program (2008, p. 1). Importantly,
this means that supplementary or optional aspects
of a position are not inherent requirements and
that a person cannot be refused appointment on
the basis of an inability to fulfill them. In a higher
education context, this translates to the following:
the inherent requirements of a course “are the areas
of the course or curriculum in which all students
are expected to develop skills or competencies
and to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency”
(Pliner, 2001, cited in Ouellett, 2004, p. 138). In
other words, the inherent requirements of a course
are those aspects of the curriculum that must be
fulfilled in order for the course to be completed.
The identification of the inherent requirements
of a particular course may be up to an individual
lecturer or department, but may also be defined
externally by professional bodies via their require-
ments for certification or registration.
Inherent requirements need to be fair and core
to the program of study. It may not be fair or law-
ful, for example, to have as a requirement that all
students enrolling in an education unit need to
be able to stand and lift a weight of twenty kilo-
grams. However for a chiropractic unit this may
be both fair and essential. When we state inherent
requirements, it is important that we also provide
the reason that they are inherent requirements, so
that all students gain a broader understanding of
what they are enrolling for. When inherent require-
ments are clearly thought out and communicated,
all students can evaluate when choosing a course
whether they will be able to participate fully, or
if some elements may need to be negotiated with
the course convenor prior to enrolment.
Making inherent requirements explicit is
clearly beneficial to all students. However, for
students studying online, especially those study-
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
ing in distance mode, this is even more important
for two main reasons. Firstly, students studying in
distance mode have less immediate contact with
support services, and are thus less likely to access
them in the same way the on-campus students
do. Secondly, for students studying in distance
mode, knowledge of the inherent requirements of
a course may make a huge difference in course
selection, especially in the absence of easy access
to academic advisers. Both of these are even more
pertinent for students with disabilities studying in
online or distance mode.
Upfront declaration of inherent requirements
also provides the opportunity for students to dis-
close to the institution that they have a disability
and work through solutions for potential barriers
to inclusion and successful participation. An ex-
ample of this may be a student who suffers from
anxiety and is enrolled in a course in which there
is an inherent requirement to demonstrate the
acquisition of particular skills that are normally
tested through a written examination. The option
for this student to negotiate an alternative assess-
ment prior to enrolment without the additional
stress, humiliation and uncertainty of trying to
seek assistance and advocacy from student support
units at the height of semester may be a crucial
solution in overcoming barriers. This also removes
the problem of trying to make just in time accom-
modations at exam time, when support services
and academic staff are already overstretched.
Importantly, as Ouellett (2004, p. 139) points
out, “the principles of Universal instructional
design never ask the faculty member to water
down the rigor, to lower standards or to narrow the
range of the curriculum.” In fact, having inherent
requirements explicit in advance both allows the
maintenance of academic standards, as the fulfill-
ment of such requirements is non-negotiable. It
is also in line with the Australian Qualifications
Framework guidelines (2007), which state that
“objectives and academic requirements of courses
are set by higher education institutions having
regard for requirements set by peer review and
the requirements of relevant professional bodies
and employer groups” (AQF, 2007, p. 7).
Principle 2: Regularly Evaluate the
Accessibility and Inclusiveness of
Courses and Modify Accordingly
Borland and James (1999) make an interesting
observation in their case study of the learning
experience of students with disabilities in higher
education in the United Kingdom about the di-
versity of quality assurance processes that exist,
even within the same institution, from depart-
ment to department. This range of measures is
suggestive of an acknowledgement of the need
for better curriculum design. On the other hand,
it also suggests that there is not yet a cohesive
approach to ensuring that inclusive curriculum
design occurs. The principles of UID, as elabo-
rated in the six principles in this paper, provide a
means of ensuring that quality curriculum design
is achievable and sustainable.
If it is recognized in a generalized sense that
students with disabilities are a disempowered
group, then there is an onus on curriculum de-
velopers and lecturers to ensure we effectively
seek feedback and amend the course accordingly
without compromising quality. This is particularly
important with online and distance learning, given
that the courses offered in these modes can be
slower to change than courses delivered in an on-
campus mode, due to lack of feedback or lack of
resources for course revision. It is also important
that this feedback is sought early in the life-cycle
of the course. We need to empower students by
asking them if they:
• Are able to access all of the learning mate-
rials and technologies;
• Understand the course requirements; and
• Know who to contact if they need
assistance.
79
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
It may be that the responses to this enquiry
provide us with an indication that a greater level
of support needs to be provided or access solu-
tions sought. This can mean that a failure or an
underachievement outcome is mitigated.
Curriculum Delivery Principles
Principle 3: All Learning Materials
and Learning Technologies Used
in the Course Enrolment, Delivery,
and Assessment to be Accessible by
Students Using Assistive Technologies
This principle is actually a requirement in law ar-
ticulated in the Disability Standards for Education
(2005) (supporting the Disability Discrimination
Act, 1992), which states in Section 6.2 that:
The education provider must take reasonable steps
to ensure that the course or program is designed
in such a way that the student is, or any student
with a disability is, able to participate in the
learning experiences (including the assessment
and certification requirements) of the course or
program, and any relevant supplementary course
or program, on the same basis as a student without
a disability, and without experiencing discrimina-
tion. (Disability Standards for Education, 2005,
Section 6.2)
Of note is that Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code
(except Part 2.5) applies to all offences under
this Act (Disability Discrimination Act, 1992,
Section 12A).
Taking such “reasonable steps” is not as
difficult as it may sound. Basically, if learning
materials are presented in a text format such as
Word or HTML or in an accessible PDF, the
majority of assistive technologies will be able to
access the materials. The problem arises when
materials are locked up either inside image files
or inside systems such as inaccessible learning
management systems. It is recommended that,
80
prior to institutional investment in any technology
associated with the enrolment, teaching or assess-
ment of students, an accessibility statement be
secured from the developer and that the relevant
system be checked by end-users (that is, people
with disabilities) to highlight potential problems.
In terms of the provision of course materials
to students studying in online, distance or blended
modes this means that the learning management
system itself and all materials placed in the learn-
ing management system should be accessible to
assistive technologies. Thus, making lecture notes
and readings available in Word or accessible PDF
formats and making sure that there are transcrip-
tions available of audio materials goes a long way
towards ensuring equity of access for all students
with a disability, including those who may be
using assistive technologies without having self-
declared with a disability. Once again, given the
factor of distance involved, students may be less
likely to self-declare and lecturers may not have
the requisite level of contact with the student to
know that he/she has a disability.
Figures provided by Open Universities Austra-
lia (OUA) indicate that, in 2009, 4 per cent of the
students enrolled in OUA courses self-declared
with a disability (A. Burrell, Centre for Open
Education, Macquarie University, personal com-
munication, 7 October 2010). Using this figure as
a snap-shot of students studying through distance,
online and blended learning, it can be seen that
it is not an insignificant number of students who
are potentially impacted by materials not being
provided in an accessible format or delivered
through inaccessible technology. In addition,
when we consider that an example of the cost of
reverse engineering an inaccessible unit of work
was $10,000 (S Kerr, personal correspondence,
25 January 2011) inclusive curriculum design
from the start is good not only from an equity
perspective but also makes good business sense.
As assistive technologies increasingly become
mainstream in devices like the Apple iPad, the
sector is currently watching to see if there will
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
be an increase in demand for accessible materi-
als from the general student body. It may be that
students who are time poor or come from a non-
English speaking background choose to listen to
their readings on these devices rather than reading
them in a traditional manner. If so, then there
may well be further momentum behind the call
for inclusive curriculum practices outlined in this
paper to become the cornerstone of all curricula.
Principle 4: All Learning Materials to
be Clearly Presented in Plain English
to Facilitate Optimum Communication
The provision of learning materials in plain
English is particularly important for materials
that are presented in large classes or remotely
online where students do not have the opportunity
to seek immediate clarification or gain greater
understanding through contextual clues. Some-
times terms and expressions we use every day
with our colleagues can be quite foreign to the
students we are teaching. Overuse of acronyms
and colloquialisms can be problematic for a wide
range of students, including those with learning
disabilities and from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds. Even if acronyms and other
terms are initially explained in lecture notes or
readings, for a student who is studying with the
use of assistive technologies, it is not always a
simple thing to go back in a document to revise
what the acronym represents, given the ways in
which the document may be set up to be read in a
linear fashion by the assistive technology. Where
a large number of acronyms are used it is recom-
mended that a glossary of terms be developed.
Again this is a strategy that will assist not only
student with disabilities, but indeed all enrolled in
the course. It is encouraging to see that universities
like the University of Technology Sydney have
developed an organization-wide policy relating
to the need for the use of plain English in cur-
ricula development, citing the positive impact
on the multi-lingual student base (University of
Technology, Sydney, 1991).
Principle 5: Teaching Staff to
Adopt a Flexible and Inclusive
Attitude with Regard to Making
Alternative Arrangements as
Required Due to Disability
Unless the inherent requirements for a course have
been clearly stated prior to enrolment, it may be
very difficult under the law for academic staff to
refuse an alternative arrangement or accommoda-
tion for a student due to disability. This in turn
can be very difficult for teaching staff, especially
if they have limited understanding of a particular
disability and what is broadly accepted as a fair
and reasonable accommodation. Furthermore
with a distance or blended learning mode, it may
be support staff who struggle with their legal
responsibility to facilitate accommodations and
alternative arrangements. This principle, therefore,
should be a core focus for professional develop-
ment for all teaching and support staff involved in
the writing, delivery and assessment of curricula.
Whilst UID represents a great advance over
just in time adjustments on a student-by-student
basis, in terms of timelines, cost and equity of
access, we would do well to acknowledge that “no
single curricular mode can achieve universality
and serve all students equally … classes must
be built to work towards contingent universality
of serving the students that are actually there”
(Bruch, 2003 cited in Hockings, 2010a, p. 19).
At first glance, this may seem to run contrary
to the argument presented in favour of UID and
inclusive curriculum design. However, this is not
the case. UID and inclusive curriculum design
can, to a very great extent, ameliorate the need
for individual adjustments.
We also need to be aware of the additional
obstacles that students with disabilities face when
studying through distance and online mode. With-
out the immediacy of being able to communicate
directly with their teachers and together build
rapport, the path to seeking accommodations may
involve dealing with a number of administrative
and support centre staff. It is vital that all course
81
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
materials clearly spell out to students who they
need to speak to, when they need to speak to
them, what documentation they need to provide,
and so on, in order to be able to secure alternative
arrangements. It is not sufficient to refer them
to a support unit for example, without providing
them with the name or job title of the person
they need to speak to, their contact numbers and
availability. The University of South Australia
is a good example of a university that does this
well where it explains to students the full timeline
and process for securing alternative assessment
arrangements (University of South Australia,
2011). Students are walked through the structure
of the support services, so that they can see how
the system works and the timeline for requests. In
the online education field, The Open University in
the United Kingdom provides extensive details of
support services available to students with a range
of disabilities on its website (The Open University,
2011a). Additionally, The Open University also
has many of its course materials already available
in accessible formats, and provides students with
the opportunity to check the availability of such
materials before enrolment (The Open University,
2011b). This also has the advantage of streamlin-
ing the adjustment process.
Assessment Principles
Principle 6: Flexible Time
Lines, Assessment Tasks, and
Course Requirements
It is no secret that students choosing to study
by distance, online or blended mode often do
so for the perceived flexibility that this type of
offering affords. Indeed, The Open University in
the United Kingdom (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=YG-IiIDQ0HA&NR=1) focuses their
advertising around the idea of opening doors,
and providing access “without caring where
you come from.” We can see similar examples
in Australia with current advertising for Uni-
82
versity of New England (http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=-ahUDFsYf88), University of
Southern Queensland (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=U6h35FoUqZ0) and Open Universities
Australia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt-
V02cvw-E) distance education offerings. These
all play up the idea of being student-centered,
flexible and aware of other priorities or commit-
ments that the student may have. As discussed
above, 4 per cent of the students enrolled in OUA
courses self-declared with a disability. Of the seven
partner providers, Macquarie University had the
highest percentage of disabled students at 5.4
per cent (A. Burrell, Centre for Open Education,
Macquarie University, personal communication,
7 October 2010). These figures indicate clearly
the importance of designing curricula to include
flexible time lines, assessment tasks and course
requirements.
Flexibility in areas such as time lines, assess-
ment tasks and course requirements is even more
important in distance, online and blended modes
than it is in traditional internal course work, as
students are studying in physical isolation, not
only from their lecturer and classmates, but also
from the support services afforded to internal
students. This is another area in which The Open
University in the United Kingdom has made
very positive steps, via the provision of an easily
reachable central support service to its distance
students. Without an army of support staff to step
in as advocates for the student and to request an
alternative assessment, a reasonable adjustment
or additional time to complete a task, embedded
flexibility can mean the difference between stu-
dents being able to engage with learning, or not.
For this reason, flexibility needs to be built into
the unit from the start. This flexibility needs to be
reflected in compulsory components of the course
by providing as much as possible a wide range
of choice for students so that they can choose the
most appropriate way for them to engage with the
learning experience.
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
In the case of assessment, it may make a huge
difference to a student suffering from anxiety, if
they can choose to submit an additional essay
rather than sit for an invigilated examination. A
student with severe dyslexia may appreciate the
opportunity to complete a viva voce by phone
rather than submit a written essay. A student with
severe physical disability may choose to complete
an online activity rather than participate in a
compulsory field trip, as long as this is deemed
to be an appropriate way of fulfilling assessment
requirement of that course. Hall et al. (2002) and
Healey et al. (2008) provide excellent practical
guidance in this regard. This is not to say that
inherent requirements may be waived, but rather
to say that, if the inherent requirement can be
fulfilled in an alternative way, this opportunity
should be provided. Whilst this will not always
be possible, in the vast majority of cases, there is
good reason to believe that it will.
CONCLUSION
As educators, we need to accept that developing
accessible curricula is a fundamental equal op-
portunity and human rights issue, and it is our
challenge to address this. We cannot continue
with the current practice of limiting our concept
of equity by allowing students with access needs
into our institutions and then only providing them
with a few support staff to help them cope within
an inaccessible learning and teaching environment.
If we embrace inclusive practices and acces-
sibility as a cornerstone of our curriculum design
and delivery, we may find that we have come to
grips with one of the most important issues in our
teaching careers. The way we design our curricula
dictates who we allow to participate and succeed
and who we do not. We are the gatekeepers to
learning and in turn the gatekeepers to the wealth
of life opportunities that flow from this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the helpful comments
of Dr Julie Willems, Dr Stefan Horarik, and the
two anonymous reviewers for the DEHub/ODLAA
Summit 2011–2021.
REFERENCES
Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial
interaction in the development of leadership
skills and cultural knowledge and understand-
ing. Research in Higher Education, 42, 593–617.
doi:10.1023/A:1011054427581.
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny,
D. A., Levin, S., & Millem, J. F. (2004). Ef-
fects of racial diversity on complex thinking
in college students. Psychological Science, 15,
507–511. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x
PMID:15270993.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hornik, S. (2006). Do Chicker-
ing and Gamson’s seven principles also apply to
online MBAs? The Journal of Educators Online,
3, 1–18.
Aune, E. (1996). Successful strategies for accom-
modating students with disabilities. Disability
Compliance for Higher Education, 1(3), 12–14.
Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Ad-
visory Board. (2007). Australian qualifications
framework: Implementation handbook (4th ed.).
Canberra, Australia: AQF.
Barron, R., Pieper, J., Lee, T., Nantharath, P.,
Higbee, J. L., & Schultz, J. (2007). Diversity and
the postsecondary experience: Students give voice
to their perspectives. In J. Higbee, D. Lundell, & I.
Duranczyk (Eds.), Diversity and the postsecond-
ary experience (pp. 37–47). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, Center for Research
on Developmental Education and Urban Lit-
eracy. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/
CRDEUL/docs/monograph/Diversity.pdf
83
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
Blimling, G. S. (2001). Uniting scholarship and
communities of practice in student affairs. Journal
of College Student Development, 42, 381–396.
Borland, J., & James, S. (1999). The learning
experience of students with disabilities in higher
education: A case study of a United Kingdom
university. Disability & Society, 14, 85–101.
doi:10.1080/09687599926398.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B.
(2008). Review of Australian higher education:
Final report. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.
gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/
PDF/Higher%20Education%20Review_one%20
document_02.pdf
Bruch, P. (2003). Interpreting and implementing
universal instructional design in basic writing.
In Higbee, J. (Ed.), Curriculum transformation
and disability: Implementing universal design in
higher education (pp. 67–82). Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Research on Developmental Education
and Urban Literacy, University of Minnesota.
Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K.
(2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
cross-racial interaction among undergraduates.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 430–455.
doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0018.
Chapman, V. (2008). Developing inclusive cur-
ricula. Learning and Teaching in Higher Educa-
tion, 3.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven
principles for good practice in undergraduate edu-
cation. American Association of Higher Education
Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Creating Accessible Teaching and Support.
(2010). Retrieved from http://www.adcet.edu.au/
Cats/Technology_and_Facilities/Assistive_Tech-
nology.chpx
84
Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2008). Racial di-
versity matters: The impact of diversity-related
student engagement and institutional context.
American Educational Research Journal, 46,
322–353. doi:10.3102/0002831208323278.
Disability Discrimination Act. (2005). Act no.
135 of 1992 as amended disability standards for
education (2005). Canberra, Australia: Common-
wealth of Australia.
El-Ayoubi, M. (2008). Inclusive pedagogies: The
development and delivery of Australian indigenous
curricula in higher education. Learning and Teach-
ing in Higher Education, 3.
Fuller, M., Bradley, A., & Healey, M. (2004).
Incorporating disabled students within an inclu-
sive higher education environment. Disability &
Society, 19, 455–468. doi:10.1080/0968759042
000235307.
Good Universities Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.gooduniguide.com.au/School-Leav-
ers/Paying-Your-Way/Degree-costs-and-loans
Grace, S., & Gravestock, P. (2009). Inclusion and
diversity: Meeting the needs of all students. New
York: Routledge.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G.
(2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on student outcomes. Harvard Edu-
cational Review, 72, 330–366.
Hall, T., & Healey, M. (2004). The experience
of learning at university by disabled students in
geography, earth and environmental sciences and
related disciplines: A report on the geography
discipline network (GDN) inclusive curriculum
project (ICP) student survey. Cheltenham, UK:
University of Gloucestershire. Retrieved from
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/icp/student%20
survey.pdf
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
Hall, T., Healey, M., & Harrison, M. (2002). Dis-
abled students and fieldwork: From exclusion to
inclusion. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 27, 213–231. doi:10.1111/1475-
5661.00050.
Healey, M., Roberts, H., Fuller, M., Georgeson,
J., Hurst, A., & Kelly, K. … Weedon, E. (2008).
Reasonable adjustments and disabled students’
experiences of learning, teaching and assessment’.
TLA Interchange, 2. Retrieved from www.tla.
ed.ac.uk/interchange
Higbee, J. L., Katz, R. E., & Schultz, J. L. (2010).
Disability in higher education: Redefining main-
streaming. In Proceedings of 2010 IABR & ITLC
Conference. Orlando, FL: IABR.
Hockings, C. (2005). Removing the barriers? A
study of the conditions affecting teaching innova-
tion. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 313–326.
doi:10.1080/13562510500122149.
Hockings, C. (2010a). Inclusive learning and
teaching in higher education: a synthesis of
research. York, UK: The Higher Education
Academy.
Hockings, C. (2010b). Reaching the students that
student-centred learning cannot reach. British
Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 83–98.
doi:10.1080/01411920802041640.
Hockings, C., Cooke, S., & Bowl, M. (2007).
Academic engagement within a widen-
ing participation context - A 3D analysis.
Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 721–734.
doi:10.1080/13562510701596323.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A.
R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational
policy and practice. Review of Higher Education,
21, 279–302. doi:10.1353/rhe.1998.0003.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just
good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159–165.
doi:10.1080/00405849509543675.
Maruyama, G., Nirebim, J. F., Gudeman, R. H.,
& Marin, P. (2000). Does diversity make a dif-
ference? Three research studies on diversity in
college classrooms. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education & American Association
of University Professors.
May, H., & Bridger, K. (2010). Developing and
embedding inclusive policy and practice within
higher education. York, UK: The Higher Educa-
tion Academy.
May, H., & Felsinger, A. (2010). Strategic ap-
proaches to disabled student engagement. York,
UK: Equality Challenge Unit and The Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/teachingandlearning/
inclusion/alldisplay?type=resources&newid=o
urwork/inclusion/Disability/StrategicApproache
sFinalReport&site=york
McCune, P. (2001). What do disabilities have to
do with diversity? About Campus, 6(2), 5–12.
McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S. (2006). Universal
design and its application in educational envi-
ronments. Remedial and Special Education, 27,
166–175. doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501.
Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits
of racial and ethnic diversity in higher education.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’
experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency and
disposition toward critical thinking. Research in
Higher Education, 46, 365–387. doi:10.1007/
s11162-005-2966-1.
85
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design

Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and
diversity in higher education. Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 7(1), 12–26.
doi:10.1177/1028315302250177.
Ouellett, M. (2004). Faculty development
and universal instructional design. Equity
& Excellence in Education, 37, 135–144.
doi:10.1080/10665680490453977.
Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson,
C. (2001). Do diversity experiences influence the
development of critical thinking? Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 42, 257–271.
Pliner, S. M. (2001). Universal instructional
design: Teaching a diverse student body. Paper
presented at Holyoke Community College. Holy-
oke, MA.
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C.
(1998). Universal instructional design in higher
education: An approach for inclusion. Eq-
uity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47–51.
doi:10.1080/1066568980310206.
Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The
benefits of diversity: What the research tells us.
About Campus, 5(5), 16–23.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L.,
Bjorklund, S. A., & Parent, J. M. (2001). Racial
and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it
promote student learning? The Journal of Higher
Education, 72, 509–531. doi:10.2307/2672879.
The Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). (2004). Universal design for learning.
Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved
from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.cfm?i=7
The Open University. (2011a). Services for stu-
dents with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.
open.ac.uk/disability/
The Open University. (2011b). Accessible course
materials. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/
disability/accessible-course-materials.php
Thomas, L., May, H., Harrop, H., Houston, M.,
Knox, H., & Lee, M. F. … Trotman, C. (2005).
From the margins to the mainstream: Embedding
widening participation in higher education. Lon-
don: Universities UK and Standing Conference
of Principles.
University of South Australia. (2011). Student
services: Alternative exam arrangements. Re-
trieved from http://www.unisa.edu.au/student/
exams/exam_alternative.asp
University of Technology. Sydney. (1991). Plain
English policy. Retrieved from http://www.gsu.
uts.edu.au/policies/plainenglish.html
Watts, O., Stickels, C., Fraser, C., Carroll, R.,
Stewart, N., & Radloff, A. (2000). Guidelines
and procedures to assist universities to examine
the inherent requirements of their courses (when
accommodating students with disabilities and /
or medical conditions). Volume 1: Report. ISBN
1 86342 912 3.
Western Sydney National Disability Coordination
Program. (2008). What are inherent requirements
at work? Retrieved from www.diversityatwork.
com.au
Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the cur-
riculum. New Directions for Higher Education,
137, 27–44. doi:10.1002/he.244.
Zuñiga, X. (2003). Bridging differences through
dialogue. About Campus, 7(6), 8–16.
Zúñiga, X., Williams, E. A., & Berger, J. B.
(2005). Action-oriented democratic outcomes:
The impact of student involvement with campus
diversity. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 46, 660–678. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0069.

86
Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
ADDITIONAL READING
Bolt, D. (2005). From blindness to visual impair-
ment: terminological typology and the social
model of disability. Disability & Society, 20,
539–552. doi:10.1080/09687590500156246.
Bryson, J. (2003). Universal instructional design
in postsecondary settings: An implementation
guide. Ontario, CA: Learning Opportunities Task
Force, Ministry of Training.
Budge, K. (2010). The diversification of Australian
higher education: Is the academy prepared for the
challenge? Research and Development in Higher
Education: Reshaping Higher Education, 33, 6–9.
Burgstahler, S., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008).
Universal design in higher education: From
principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
De Bats, R. (2003). Aboriginal students with
disabilities. Adelaide, Australia: Ministerial Ad-
visory Committee.
Elton, L. (2000). Matching teaching methods to
learning processes: Dangers of doing the wrong
thing righter. Paper presented atthe 2nd Annual
Conference of the Learning in Law Initiative
‘Learning from experience and the experience of
learning’. Warwick, UK. Retrieved from http://
www.ukcle.ac.uk/interact/lili/2000/elton.html
Equality Change Unit and HE Academy. (2010).
Disability legislation practical guidance for
academic staff. Retrieved from http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/our-
work/inclusion/disability/DisabilityLegislation-
ForAcademics_revised_2010.pdf
Friedman, V., Razer, M., & Sykes, I. (2004).
Towards a theory of inclusive practice: An action
science approach. Action Research, 2, 167–189.
doi:10.1177/1476750304043729.
Gale, T., Tranter, D., Bills, D., Hattam, R., &
Comber, B. (2010). Interventions early in school
as a means to improve higher education outcomes
for disadvantaged (particularly low SES) students.
Canberra, Australia: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.
Goode, J. (2007). “Managing” disability:
Early experiences of university students with
disabilities. Disability & Society, 22, 35–48.
doi:10.1080/09687590601056204.
Healey, M. (2003, September 26). Trojan horse
is good bet for all. The Times Higher Education,
(Supplement), 19.
Healey, M., Fuller, M., Bradley, A., & Hall, T.
(2006). Listening to students: the experiences
of disabled students of learning at university. In
Adams, M., & Brown, S. (Eds.), Towards Inclu-
sive Learning in Higher Education: Developing
Curricula for Disabled Students. London: Rout-
ledgeFalmer.
Higbee, J. L. (Ed.). (2003). Curriculum transfor-
mation and disability: Implementing universal
design in higher education. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Hockings, C. (2004). Practising what we preach?
Contradictions between pedagogy and practice in
the move to problem-based learning. In Savin-
Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (Eds.), Challenging
Research into Problem-Based Learning. Buck-
ingham, UK: SHRE & Open University Press.
Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher
education from the perspective of disabled
students. Disability & Society, 16, 597–615.
doi:10.1080/09687590120059568.
Hughes, B. (2007). Being disabled: To-
wards a critical social ontology for disabil-
ity studies. Disability & Society, 22, 673–684.
doi:10.1080/09687590701659527.
87
 Six Practical Principles for Inclusive Curriculum Design
Jones, R. (2008). Widening participation/student
retention and success. York, UK: The Higher
Education Academy.
Mills, P., & Hockings, C. (2001). Building con-
fidence interest, understanding and independent
learning through experience: A student-centred
approach. In Hockings & Moore (Eds.) Inno-
vations in Teaching Business & Management.
Birmingham, UK: SEDA.
Riddell, S., Wilson, A., & Tinklin, T. (2002). Dis-
ability and the wider access agenda: Supporting
disabled students in different institutional contexts.
Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning,
4(3), 12–26.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social
model of disability: an outdated ideology? Re-
search in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28.
doi:10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X.
Waterfield, J., West, R., & Parker, M. (2006).
Supporting inclusive practice: Developing an
Assessment Toolkit. In Adams, M., & Brown,
S. (Eds.), Towards Inclusive Learning in Higher
Education: Developing Curricula for Disabled
Students. London: Routledge.
Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM). (2012a).
Introduction to web accessibility. Retrieved from
www.webaim.org/intro
88
View publication stats
Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM). (2012b).
PowerPoint accessibility. Retrieved from http://
webaim.org/techniques/powerpoint/
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Accessibility: Compatibility with assistive
technologies.
Assistive Technology: Technologies (physical
or electronic) which enable people with disabili-
ties to perform tasks that they would otherwise
not be able to.
Inclusive Curriculum Design: Curriculum
design that has meeting the learning needs of all
students as a primary focus.
Inherent Requirements: Those aspects of the
curriculum that must be fulfilled in order for the
course to be completed.
Reasonable Adjustments: Alternative means
of completing tasks that still fulfill inherent re-
quirements.
Universal Instructional Design: Instructional
design which anticipates the needs of all students
and aims to minimise barriers to access, whilst
maintaining academic standards.