Applying Universal Design Principals to Large-Scale ...
Applying Universal Design Principals to Large-Scale Assessments:
Improving Accessibility and Validity
A literature Review
Submitted by:
Kristine Neuber
EDUC 802-002 Dr. Scott Bauer
December 3, 2005
Introduction
The concept of universal design is not new. It has been widely recognized that people have preferred learning styles. Much research has been done in the area of universally designed instructional methods to complement different learning styles. Little research is available in the area of universally designed assessments. A universally designed assessment is designed (kind of redundant) to provide appropriate assessment conditions for all students, giving each student the best opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge regardless of their learning style preference or disability.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, there is a new standard of accountability of student learning in public education. All students, including those with disabilities, are required to participate in high stakes standardized assessments. However, the majority of standardized tests are administered through the traditional paper and pencil method. The paper and pencil method is not only inflexible; it is also inaccessible to a large number of students with physical and sensory disabilities. Accommodations must be provided in order for these students to participate. Some have argued that accommodations can present an unfair advantage to some students (Thompson & Thurlow, 2004).
Simply administering assessments via computer can eliminate many accessibility issues through the use of assistive technology. In addition, research has shown that students with and without disabilities who are accustom to using computers to write, perform markedly better on essay questions using a computer, than they do using the traditional paper and pencil administration (Russell, 2000). Considering the consequences of failing high stakes assessments, it is important that educators provide appropriate assessment tools that allow students the best opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge.
Research Question
This literature review was conducted to determine what aspects of universal design should be incorporated into large-scale assessments to make them more accessible to all students and provide a more valid and accurate evaluation of student knowledge, especially for students with disabilities.
Summary of Literature
Research in the realm of universally designed assessments has focused on three main areas:, (1) changes to the design of test questions (i.e., using plain language and simplified directions);, (2) providing multiple modes of access (i.e,. paper and pencil, electronic, and text and text-to-speech administration);, and (3) providing alternate ways to demonstrate knowledge (i.e.,: computer aided responses, lack of time limits, alternate ways to record answers).
Changes to the design of test questions
Designing test questions to ensure that all participants have an equal opportunity to answer the questions correctly is one component necessary to ensure the validity of test items. If a test item is not designed properly it could easily be considered a more difficult question for one group than for another (Johnstone, Thompson, Moen, Bolt, & Kato, 2005). Use of simple and plain language when designing test questions is one of the seven universal design principles identified by Johnstone (2003). , Tthe others include: equitable use, flexibility in use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort and appropriate size and space for approach and use (2003).
In a study conducted by Brown (1999), fifth and eighth grade students were given grade appropriate assessments in science and math. Students took the same assessment twice, once in the original format and then again with the test items designed using plain language. The study found no difference in student performance on the original test and that which was designed using plain simple language (1999). This finding is partially disputed in another study conducted by Johnstone (2003) in which seven principles of universal design were applied to a standardized math assessment. Of the 231 students tested, 155 scored higher on the universally designed test. It is not possible based on the design of this study, to determine statistically which elements of universal design affected this increase in scores. However, in the same study, when students were asked about their impression of the universally designed test, they credited plain language as one of the reason why they performed better (2003).
It appears that using plain language by itself does not improve test scores. However, the two populations that arguably may benefit most from the use of plain language, students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and students in special education, were not included in sufficient numbers in the Brown (1999) study (1999). In addition, based on student comment in the Johnstone (2003) study, plain language does appear to increase student comfort with the questions (2003).
Providing multiple modes of access
One of the primary elements of universal design is providing for multiple modes of presentation. Some students prefer to read text while others gain information more easily through images, still others prefer to use their auditory senses. This principle, if applied properly, has the potential to eliminate or minimize the need for accommodations for students who have a disability. For example, a student with a visual impairment could choose to use the auditory option available, without making any changes to the test. Computer-based assessments allow for the most flexibility in providing multiple modes of access. Research has shown that administering multiple-choice tests via the computer has little effect on student performance (Poggio, Glasnap, Yang & Poggio, 2005). Likewise providing text-to-speech capabilities for multiple choice tests on the computer also showed little effect on the performance of students with learning disabilities, with the exception of an increase in performance on items that had reading passages of 100 words or more (Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun & Strangman 2005). Although these studies did not show an overall increase in performance, they do lend proof support to the notion that providing alternate modes of access does not provide an advantage to any group of students. Therefore, providing multiple modes of access would not alter the validity of the assessment.
Assessments that are not universally designed often require that accommodations be made for students with physical, learning and sensory impairments. Many believe these accommodations provide an unfair advantage to the students with disabilities. Studies suggest that accommodations, while benefiting students with disabilities to a greater extent, also benefit students without disabilities. One study was designed to determine not only the most common accommodations used by students with disabilities, but also whether those accommodations were beneficial to both students with and without disabilities. One hundred fourth grade students with and without disabilities, were given an assessment including complex tasks in science and mathematics. The assessment was administered with accommodations and again without. The most common accommodations included extended time, assistance with directions, and reading support. The study concluded that the use of accommodations positively affected the scores of students with and without disabilities. This study raises concern over the fairness of accommodations (Elliott, Kratochwill & McKevitt, 2001). However, there was great variation in the cognitive abilities of the students included in this study, making it more difficult to determine if the appropriate level of accommodations were used.
A similar study with 86 fourth graders tested in both the accommodated condition and the non-accommodated condition, on a mathematics assessment, found that students with disabilities profited more on multiple-choice questions when given accommodations than those without disabilities under the same conditions. The researchers hypothesized that accommodations would significantly improve the scores of students with disabilities but not significantly affect the scores of students without disabilities. What is surprising in this study is that approximately one third of the students with and without disabilities actually earned lower scores under the accommodated condition. (Gilbertson, Schulte, Elliott & Kratochwill, 2001). In this study, accommodations were made based on individual needs as prescribed by the student’s IEP team. The variability in the accommodations used made it difficult to compare student performances across groups.
The two studies that explore the use of accommodations appear to cast doubt on the validity fairness of their use. If accommodations are proven to provide an unfair advantage to those who use them, then perhaps providing universal options to all test-takers as proposed in universal design principles would it not be more valid way to assess the student’s knowledge.
Providing multiple modes of expression
Another essential principle of universal design for assessments is to provide multiple modes of expression. Universally designed assessments provide students with alternative ways to demonstrate their knowledge. We are all familiar with the bubble sheets provided with large scale standardized tests. They provide an easy way to quickly score assessments. They also require an additional step for students. Recording an answer on a separate piece of paper can increase the possibility of making an error. Bubble sheets are also inaccessible to many students with physical and visual disabilities. In the study conducted by Johnstone, (year), students were given an assessment designed with seven principles of universal design the design which allowed students to circle answers directly on the test sheet, rather than using a separate bubble sheet. It also allowed them to take the test without time limits, two simple adaptations that can be easily made to any assessment.
The vast majority of students performed better on universally designed assessment than the original assessment. Students reported that they did better because they did not have to worry about marking the wrong bubble; they also were not constantly looking up at the clock. Teachers reported that the students did not take substantially longer to take the tests (2003). This study was very well executed, but did not provide a construct to determine which elements of universal design were the most beneficial in increasing performance. However, it appears that many of the design principles aid in reducing test anxiety and ultimately improve performance.
In addition to bubble sheets as a norm in standardized tests, so is the paper and pencil mode of expression. Students are using computers more and more to complete writing assignments, yet we continue to test them using pencil and paper. In a high-tech school located in Worcester, Massachusetts, students continually used computers to write, This practice increased their writing output significantly, yet their scores on writing assessments declined. One possible explanation for this is that the writing assessment was done with the traditional paper and pencil method while the students were accustom to writing using the computer. (Russell & Plati 2000).
We have already learned that performance on multiple choice questions administered on the computer do not differ greatly from those administered using paper and pencil. However, student performance on essay and short-answer items administered via computer differed significantly from those administered using the traditional paper and pencil mode. A study found that students who were accustomed to using the computer to write performed markedly better on the computer-based test. The results were impressive:, 30 percent of students who were comfortable on the computer, passed the paper and pencil test; 67 percent of the same group of students passed the test using the identical test on the computer (Russell & Haney, 1997). This effect was 1.5 times greater for students in special education (Russell & Plati, 2000). A second study conducted by Russell and Haney (2000) found that as keyboarding speed decreased so did the performance on computer-based test (2000). These convincing results appear to bolster the argument to offer multiple modes of expression to students based on their preferences.
Evaluation of Claims
There is limited research available in the area of universally designed assessments, although it is growing rapidly with the advent of increased accountability for all students. This literature review begins to shed some light on the promise of applying the principles of universal design to assessments. The research appears to suggest three main themes: (1) simply providing the option of completing assessments through the use of a computer, can increase the validity of the assessment, (2) individual accommodations provided to students with disabilities, may be an inappropriate way to provide access to assessments, and (3) simple adaptations to assessments such as, changing the way test items are worded, avoiding bubble answer sheets, and disposing of time limits, appear to decrease anxiety and increase performance. These three themes revolve around the idea that a more universally designed assessment will provide a more accurate representation of student knowledge.
The first theme is well supported by the research presented. The series of studies completed by Russell and Haney and Russell & Plati from 1997 to 2000 and complimented by the Poggio (2005) study (2005), provides a solid base for the belief that providing students with the option of using computers to complete assessments will present a more accurate account of their knowledge, particularly with essay and short answer items. The 1997 study showed an additional benefit for students with disabilities. The fact that some students performed better on the paper form of the assessment adds credence to the idea that students needs tests to be flexible. Options should be available to allow them the best way to demonstrate their knowledge. This flexibility is precisely what universal design is about.
The second theme focuses on accommodations for students with disabilities. Individual accommodations are currently used to provide access to assessments that present barriers to those with disabilities. The two studies which explored this theme supported the belief, of critics that accommodations provide an unfair advantage. However, there are problems associated with the literature. Due to the vast differences in cognitive abilities of the students with disabilities, included in the Elliot (2001) study (2001), and the vast differences in the types of accommodations used in the Schulte (2001) study (2001), it is difficult to draw any specific conclusions in regard to the appropriateness and of the accommodations evaluated. If accommodations are proven to be unfair, then it would be appropriate to assume that universally designed assessments, that theoretically eliminate or reduce barriers caused by disabilities, would be more valid than providing individual accommodations.
Finally, the third theme is supported in part by the literature presented. While not offering explicit evidence that assessments including principles of universal design will increase student performance, it appears to be evident anecdotally. The study by Johnstone (2003) clearly showed an increase in scores on a universally design assessment. It also demonstrated clear preferences noted by the participants for test items that are, un-timed, use plain language and allow students to answer directly on the test rather than using a “bubble” answer sheet (2003). This study was the most directly related to the research question posed, however it was not designed to identify which specific components of universal design provided the most benefit. In the Brown (1999) study which did single out one component of universal design, plain language, the results showed no significant difference in performance. However, it failed to adequately look at the LEP population and students with disabilities (1999). It is believed that these two groups would be the most likely to benefit from the use of plain language. If more attention was focused on these two populations the results may have provided better information regarding the research question.
Conclusion
While this literature review sparks more questions than it answers, it clarified a few points as it relates to the question posed: ”What aspects of universal design should be incorporated into large-scale assessments to make them more accessible to all students and provide a more valid and accurate evaluation of student knowledge, especially for students with disabilities.”
The research shows that incorporating some principles of universal design into assessments can have a positive effect on the performance of students with and without disabilities. This was most evident in the studies regarding computer-aided testing procedures. It is obvious that using a computer will enable students with disabilities more access through the use of assistive technology. What is sharply missing from the research is an in- depth look at which specific components of universal design would provide the most benefit to students with and without disabilities. However, there was some evidence that students have a preference for some universally designed components.
In regard to students with disabilities, the literature brings into question the validity of providing individual accommodations, but does not provide a complete overview of the literature available in this area. There seems to be very little or no research that looks at performance differences between students with disabilities who take a universally designed assessment and those who are afforded accommodations on the same assessment without universally designed items. This type of research would address the question more directly. The research question presented in this review is critical considering the new accountability measures infused in public education. The pressure for schools to demonstrate that students are learning, through the use of standardized tests, makes it increasingly important that students be provided with tools that allow them the best opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge. This is even more important for students with disabilities who have additional obstacles to overcome.
References
Brown, P.J., (1999). Findings of the 1999 plain language field test. University of Delaware, Newark, DE: Delaware Research and Development Center. Retrieved October 2, 2005 from
Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principals of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved October 2, 2005 from
Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. K. & McKevitt B. C., (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39(1) 3-24.
Johnstone, C. J. (2003) Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (No. Technical Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from
Johnstone, C. J., Thompson, S. J., Moen, R. E., Bolt, S., & Kato K. (2005). Analyzing results of large-scale assessments to ensure universal design (Technical Report 41). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from
Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D. R., Yang, X., & Poggio, A. J. (2005). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper and pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). Retrieved October 2, 2005, from
Russell, M. & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). Retrieved November 17 from
Russell, M. & Haney, W. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19). Retrieved November 17 from
Russell, M. & Plati, T. (2000). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades four, eight and ten. A report prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Education.
Russell, M. (1999). Testing writing on Computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retreived November 17 from
Schulte, A. E., Elliott, S. N., & Kratochwill, T. K. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4) 527-547.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2004). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. ATP Journal May. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from
| | | |
|Introduction: The literature |Great! |2 pts |
|review should include an | | |
|introduction that draws the | | |
|reader into the topic of the | | |
|paper. Begin with a brief, broad | | |
|summary of the topic, a | | |
|“narrative hook,” and narrow down| | |
|to a research question or | | |
|statement of the topic. | | |
|(2 points) | | |
|Summary of literature: The |Your synthesis is very well constructed – you provided me with a roadmap, |8 pts |
|presentation of your synthesis |and then found it. Wonderful. | |
|should add value to the | | |
|understanding of the research | | |
|topic or question by carefully | | |
|organizing the presentation of | | |
|the main ideas presented in | | |
|published work. | | |
|(8 points) | | |
|Evaluation of claims: After |This, too, is very good – you do a great job rehashing the salient points |5 pts |
|summarizing themes associated |for the reader and organizing the main issues parsimoniously. | |
|with research findings, provide | | |
|an evaluation of the primary | | |
|claims made in the literature | | |
|(5 pts) | | |
|It is important to draw the |Great. |3 pts |
|discussion to a close by | | |
|providing the reader with a brief| | |
|summary of what he/she just | | |
|learned and why it is important. | | |
|(3 points) | | |
|Grammar and mechanics –use APA |I wish you would put the year with the author’s name (this is distracting), |2 pts |
|style and standard English (2 |but I can’t take points off for that in the face of all the other superb | |
|points) |stuff here! | |
| |This is a great paper – there’s really not much for me to say! The question |20 pts |
| |is well posed, you access some great literature, organize it well, analyze | |
| |it – a great review! | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- benefits of inclusive teaching artcenter college of design
- more tips for universal design usability and accessibility
- universal design in education
- office of the united nations high commissioner for human
- universal design for learning in postsecondary settings
- universal design designing for people with disabilities
- applying universal design principals to large scale
Related searches
- why are you applying to this university
- applying for promotion to manager
- applying payment to principal
- grams to ounces scale chart
- universal time converter to cst
- large scale model car kits
- vintage large scale model kits
- act to sat scale score
- universal orlando places to stay
- large scale plastic model kits
- steps to applying to college
- universal design articles