Position Statement
I am a student—a PhD candidate in music theory and history—who has pursued graduate certificate programs in college instruction, disability studies in public health, and postsecondary disability services at the University of Connecticut (UConn). Since 2020, I have taught undergraduate music theory and history courses through my graduate assistantship with UConn’s Department of Music. In addition to my teaching role, I have worked on the Accommodations Team at the UConn Center for Students with Disabilities since 2021. I am also a registered student with this center and receive academic accommodations for my own accessibility needs. This multifaceted positionality has granted me a unique and layered perspective on how Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can, and should, be leveraged to improve accessibility for all students in higher education.
Compliance
Historically, methods of accessibility in US higher education have centered on compliance—meeting the minimum standards required by federal disability laws and regulations.1 These laws include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and its amendment in 2008, as well as Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, all of which prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities across various settings.
At the university level, students typically engage with a disability-services office to request accommodations, which instructors are then legally obligated to carry out. Yet these protections and resources are often limited to students who choose or are in a position to disclose their disabilities. The process of seeking accommodations is rarely straightforward. It often demands expensive and time-consuming medical evaluations to receive the necessary documentation, followed by intake meetings with disability-service professionals. Although requirements vary by institution, students are generally asked to supply formal documentation to verify their disability in order to be considered or approved for accommodations.2
Having navigated this system myself, I am acutely aware of the hindrances it presents. Lack of financial resources, time, or adequate insurance coverage can prevent students from obtaining medical documentation. Others may avoid seeking accommodations and disclosing a disability altogether due to stigma, fear of microaggressions, or feelings of isolation.3 In my work at UConn’s Center for Students with Disabilities, I have often seen students discontinue the accommodation process because of its daunting nature. While compliance-based structures and disability-services offices are critical for upholding and protecting students’ legal rights, they establish a reactive framework. That is, they wait for students to seek accommodations and then instructors respond to the accommodations that are approved. Although such responses fulfill legal obligations, this framework often fails to address the broader systemic barriers that may have hindered learning long before a student requested support.
Beyond Compliance
Through my work in postsecondary disability services and teaching in undergraduate music classrooms, it has become evident that shifting this reactive model of mere compliance toward a proactive path that aims to benefit all students from the start is essential. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers an anticipatory framework that can help reduce students’ total reliance on disability-services offices by addressing many accessibility needs from the outset. UDL’s core principles—providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression—can fundamentally reshape how we approach accessibility, equipping instructors with a framework to design courses that anticipate and embrace learner diversity.
The concept of UDL originates from the Universal Design movement in the field of architecture, which focuses on creating environments that eliminate physical obstacles and on making environments accessible to a broad range of occupants.4 Its application to higher education started in the early 2000s, when the US Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education began providing grants to colleges and universities to reinforce UDL initiatives after witnessing the positive effects of inclusive design in K–12 settings.5 As Kirsten Behling and Thomas Tobin write, “Higher education is beginning to adopt UDL as a way to reach out to address learner variability. The impact on students is amazing. By simply recognizing that no two students learn in the same way and taking that recognition into account when designing, teaching, and assessing interactions, faculty members and designers give students a greater likelihood of coming away from courses having actually learned something.”6 Unlike a fixed checklist, UDL operates as a flexible framework that can be adapted to fit the needs of different disciplines, class sizes, and teaching contexts.
In music classrooms, students engage with an array of skills and materials: reading notation, listening critically, performing, analyzing, and more. This diversity inherently lends itself to UDL’s model of offering multiple modalities for engagement, representation, and expression. Two primary areas in which UDL can transform learning in the music classroom are assessment and participation. Given its high-stakes nature and potential to create barriers toward success, assessment is an essential area for enforcing UDL. Likewise, participation shapes classroom dynamics and student confidence, making it another important area for inclusive design.
It is also worth clarifying a common misconception: Disability services do not serve only students. They can be valuable resources for instructors, offering campus-specific strategies to strengthen inclusive teaching practices.
Assessment
Assessments function not only as tools to evaluate student knowledge throughout a course but also as opportunities to better understand students’ individual learning preferences and foster meaningful engagement with course material. One effective practice at the beginning of a semester is to survey students with open-ended prompts such as: “What is at least one way I can help you succeed in this course?” Illustrating UDL’s inclusive philosophy, such a question opens the door for students to articulate their accessibility needs, learning preferences, or strategies that can boost their success.
Offering multiple modes of assessment bolsters UDL principles by allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge in ways that align with their individual strengths. Listening journals, for example, give students an opportunity to reflect on assigned analyses or listening examples in a more introspective format than traditional listening-based assessments. Such an activity promotes new modalities of engagement with course material and offers varied routes for students to articulate what they have learned. Unlike traditional exams that often prioritize breadth of knowledge or information recall, listening journals present a way for students to demonstrate their depth of understanding. At the same time, this kind of alternative assessment can continue to provide instructors with insight into students’ comprehension and highlight areas that may benefit from further clarification or reinforcement in class.
Multimedia projects offer another inclusive assessment option. Students can demonstrate their understanding through modalities such as live performance, prerecorded audio, slide shows, videos, or other forms of media. This approach not only supports different learning and communication styles but also strengthens skills in music technology—an essential competency for twenty-first-century musicians. Multimedia projects can serve as standalone projects or as alternatives to traditional in-person presentations, giving students greater agency in how they demonstrate their learning. It is important to note, however, that the increased use of technology can both promote and complicate accessibility. When thoughtfully implemented with special attention to digital usability, these tools can enhance accessibility and create more inclusive learning environments. Conversely, without careful consideration of factors such as screen-reader compatibility and video captioning, these tools can inadvertently create obstacles for students.
My experiences at UConn suggest that extended-time and reduced-distraction testing environments are among the most frequently requested and utilized accommodations in postsecondary disability services. Proactive instructional design can address these needs by making several small adjustments to the administration of in-class assessments. Ensuring that a clock is visible in the room or displaying one on a projector screen will eliminate the need for verbally announced time warnings that may be distracting to students. When possible, setting up desks with ample space between each student can also minimize distraction. However, not every instructor has this flexibility due to predetermined classroom layouts. Given that many classrooms may be located near rehearsal spaces, instructors may consider advocating for quieter assessment spaces when needed. Although these strategies are designed with students with disabilities in mind, they also offer significant benefits to students without formal testing accommodations, mirroring UDL’s commitment to inclusive practices that assist all learners.
Additionally, instructors can design all assessments to take less time to complete than is allotted in the class period. This gives students with extended-time accommodations the option to complete assessments alongside their peers. This method simultaneously benefits students without formal accommodations who may also benefit from extra time. For online assessments, instructors may opt to allow students a window of several days to complete their work. In my personal experience, this method does not lead to inflated scores; rather, students still invest varying levels of effort based on their individual motivations. However, this strategy does ensure that all students can demonstrate their understanding at a pace that best aids in their success.
Participation
Redefining participation in the classroom can likewise help to accommodate diverse learning styles. Traditionally, participation is viewed as students sitting still, raising hands, and engaging verbally with the instructor and classmates. But by this standard, many instructors lament that their students do not participate enough in class. Instead of placing the responsibility of improving participation solely on students, it can be helpful for instructors to reconsider what constitutes participation to begin with, to reflect the variety of learning styles in the classroom.
Structured opportunities for both verbal and nonverbal participation provide one avenue for inclusive classroom practices. Encouraging collective engagement, group verbal responses can be prompted by a simple question that invites a one-word answer accompanied by a visual cue. While the instructor may not be able to track individual responses with this method, one may nonetheless observe significantly higher participation by introducing it.
Incorporating nonverbal responses, such as asking students to hold up fingers for answers or use thumbs-up/-down gestures, can allow for less exposed forms of participation. Small-group discussions give students a space to collaborate and exchange ideas with peers in a lower-pressure setting, which can better support their comfort and learning. Time for individual work can also allow an instructor to engage one-on-one with students while at the same time aiding those who feel more comfortable working independently. During this time, one can observe students taking notes, completing worksheets, or conversing, each of which indicates that students are, in fact, participating.
In order to ensure students understand these varied modes of participation, instructors can clearly communicate their redefinition of participation with their class. In addition to sharing this philosophy in the course syllabus and during the initial class session, it can be beneficial to invite students to share their thoughts or concerns regarding participation. This strategy ensures transparent expectations, upholds high standards, and fosters an open dialogue that aligns with UDL’s emphasis on learner variability.
Other traditional practices, such as administering the dreaded pop quiz, can likewise be reimagined in line with UDL principles. The intention behind the pop quiz is to hold students accountable and ensure they stay engaged with the course material. However, the concept can also be reinterpreted. Instead of calling them pop quizzes, refer to them as “in-class activities,” offering a low-stakes method for participation. Providing full credit for these in-class activities reduces stress while reinforcing learning. Additionally, if students are to notify the instructor in advance of their absence, missing class will not negatively impact their grade. Such strategies preserve the goals of participation and accountability while minimizing unnecessary barriers to student success.
Conclusions
Instructors may feel that applying UDL strategies requires too much time, especially in large classes or without additional institutional support. While systemic change does take effort, small adjustments, like offering low-stakes assessments and flexible participation options, can significantly improve accessibility in the classroom.
It is important to note that these UDL approaches are not just about serving students with disabilities; they are about fostering learning environments that embrace a broad spectrum of student learning styles, experiences, and identities. This shift is essential because when we prioritize accessibility through the lens of UDL, we are also investing in a culture of equity, inclusion, and respect.
Additionally, the principles of UDL encourage an essential dialogue between students and instructors, where feedback can inform pedagogical choices. I find that when students see themselves reflected in classroom practices, they are more motivated and invested in their success.
Moving beyond compliance means shifting from a mindset of obligation to one of opportunity. The strategies shared here are by no means exhaustive, but they offer a starting point for expanding inclusive practices. As educators, we have both the responsibility and opportunity to advance accessibility in higher education for ourselves and our students.
- Patrick R. Lowenthal et al., “Creating Accessible and Inclusive Online Learning: Moving Beyond Compliance and Broadening the Discussion,” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 21, no. 2 (2020): 1–21, https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Quarterly-Review-of-Distance-Education-21-2.↗
- Catherine H. Fowler et al., “Facilitating College Supports to Ensure Student Success,” Support and Transitions for Adults with Special Needs 2018, no. 160 (2018): 101–12, https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20303.↗
- Lynsie Harris, “Exploring the Effect of Disability Microaggressions on Sense of Belonging and Participation in College Classrooms” (EdS thesis, Utah State University, 2017), 4, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6712.↗
- Alice-Ann Darrow, “Music Education for All: Employing the Principles of Universal Design to Education Practice,” General Music Today 24, no. 1 (2010): 43–45, https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371310376901.↗
- Kirsten T. Behling and Thomas J. Tobin, Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone (West Virginia University Press, 2018), 27↗
- Behling and Tobin, 42.↗