providing access to engagement in learning: the potential of universal design for learning in museum...
TRANSCRIPT
ARTICLE
Providing Access to Engagement in Learning: The Potential ofUniversal Design for Learning in Museum DesignGABRIELLE RAPPOLT-SCHLICHTMANN AND SAMANTHA G. DALEY
Abstract Following passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), many museums
improved the accessibility of their facilities. Even so, individuals with disabilities still lag behind in
participation and engagement in museum experiences. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides an
alternate model for the design of museum programs and exhibit spaces, one that is more aligned to
progressive concepts of disability, providing not only physical access but also access to engagement in
learning. In this article we argue that UDL has the potential to substantially improve the design of informal
learning environments. Through two illustrative examples, we describe how the UDL design guidelines can
be used to improve the probability that engagement will occur as individuals interact with exhibits,
programs, and people inmuseums.
The development of long-term, deep inter-
est in topics of personal relevance is critically
important to the success of people with disabili-
ties in learning and in life, andmuseums have an
important role to play in sparking and cultivat-
ing such interests. Following passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), many museums moved to improve the
accessibility of their facilities with the goal of
significantly expanding the reach of their pro-
gramming and exhibit spaces to people with dis-
abilities. The addition of wheelchair ramps,
lowered counters, captioned videos, and alter-
native descriptions for images, as well as audio
descriptions of exhibit offerings like the hand-
held audio guide system developed and imple-
mented by the New York Hall of Science in
2000 (Friedman 2000), are illustrative examples
of the kinds of accommodations that are now
provided.While the addition of such accommo-
dations has had a substantial and positive
impact on the ability of individuals with disabil-
ities to access museums, participation in learn-
ing and engagement still lag behind.
Accessibility solutions provide for the
improved physical presence of people with dis-
abilities in museum spaces (for example, a text
label, when converted to audio or braille for the
blind, allows access for people with low vision).
But accessibility does not, on its own, allow for
the engagement of people with disabilities in the
museum experience per se (for example, engag-
ing with and learning from audio or text labels).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides
an alternate model for the design of museum
programs and exhibit spaces that is more aligned
to progressive concepts of disability (Meyer,
Rose, and Gordon, in press). Under UDL, dis-
ability is understood as an artifact of limitations
of the designed environment. Disability is not
situated within the person, but rather in the
interaction between the person and the environ-
ment. Difficulty is experienced as a result of
design that did not anticipate the full range of
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann ([email protected]), Harvard Graduate School of Education and CAST, Inc.
Samantha G. Daley ([email protected]), CAST, Inc.; 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3, Wakefield, Massachusetts
01880-3233.
307
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
variability in the population. The UDL guide-
lines provide a translational framework between
the learning sciences and education design.
When thoughtfully applied, these guidelines
improve accessibility, and access to engagement
in learning is muchmore likely to be achieved.
In this article, we posit that accessibility is a
necessary but not sufficient solution to the inclu-
sion of people with disabilities in museum expe-
riences. We explain how UDL, as a framework
for design, reflects more progressive and con-
temporary views of disability, and we describe
how the UDL guidelines can be used in design
to substantially improve the probability that
engagement will occur for individuals as they
interact with exhibits, programs, and people in
museum spaces. We argue that UDL has the
potential to substantially improve the design of
informal learning environments, and that, in this
regard, museums have a special role to play in
supporting people with disabilities to reach their
potential and flourish throughout their lives.
A PROGRESSIVE, INCLUSIVE CONCEPT
OF DISABILITY
With the best of intentions, theorists,
researchers, and developers working in disabil-
ity-focused fields have tended to focus on tech-
nical solutions to the disability “problem”
(Swadener and Lubek 1995; Dudley-Marling
2004; Albrecht, Seelman, and Bury 2001).
What is the best method by which to present
information to a person who is blind, deaf or
cognitively impaired? What are the causes of
learning disability?What is the best approach to
identifying people with disabilities so as to pro-
vide them with appropriate accommodations?
The focus on the person as “problem” has led to
solutions that emphasize fixes and the selection
of best methods to remediate or accommodate
the problem in the designed environment. This
technical, deficit orientation to the “problem” of
disability rests on the assumption that disability
is a kind of pathology that lies within the per-
son, and as such there is nothing wrong with the
environment per se.
In response to the deficit model, scholars
and disability advocates have advanced an alter-
nate paradigm called the social constructivist
model of disability. This approach focuses on
the “dynamic interplay of the person and envi-
ronment rather than the individual or environ-
ment alone” (Thaper et al. 2004, 280; Albrecht,
Seelman, and Bury 2001). The appropriate
question is no longer What’s wrong with Billy?
or even What’s wrong with this designed envi-
ronment? but, rather, What’s going on between
Billy and the designed environment that is cre-
ating the problem? This shift represents a pro-
found change in thinking; it proposes that the
disability “problem” is a function of social barri-
ers played out through the interactions between
individuals and environments (Oliver 1990).
Importantly, the social constructivist model of
disability has been advanced in public policy,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), the Olmstead Act (1999), and
the World Health Organization’s International
Classification of Disability (World Health
Organization 2001).
DESIGNED ENVIRONMENTS AND THE
CONCEPT OF DISABILITY
All institutions, including museums, are
human creations. They are designed to fulfill
specific social needs and tend to reflect the
values of the culture where they are situated
(Berger and Luckman 1966). Importantly,
models of museum visitor experiences place a
heavy emphasis on the dynamic interplay
between the visitor (or group of visitors) and the
designed museum space, recognizing that it is
308 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
the interaction between the two that shapes the
museum experience (Falk and Dierking 2013;
Pekarik, Doering, and Karns 1999). However,
this emphasis on variability of experiences, with
visitors creating a diverse set of narratives based
on their individual contexts, is rarelymaintained
when shifting to the consideration of visitors
with disabilities.
In large part, contemporary attempts to
include individuals with disabilities in museum
experiences have continued to focus on accom-
modation, or “fixes” to the physical design,
which are intended to address limitations in
individual visitors’ abilities rather than reformu-
lating design practices, because the deficit
model of disability persists within American
culture (French and Swain 2001; Goodley
2001). The view of the disabled person as “prob-
lem” is perpetuated in the media and popular
culture, creating misconceptions of the experi-
ence of disability and conditions for the stigma-
tization of people with disabilities (Donoghue
2003). Likewise, an accommodation view of
design reinforces the idea that there is a “nor-
mal” way of experiencing themuseum.
Interestingly, in the United States over the
last decade, we have witnessed a conceptual shift
within formal public education away from
accommodation, toward greater interest in pro-
viding “personalized” curricular materials. This
shift in cultural values within the education sys-
tem may reflect a rapidly changing social need:
There is a greater diversity of learners and
teachers within the education system than ever
before. In this context, Universal Design for
Learning is gaining traction within public edu-
cation because it offers a means to provide
opportunities for deep learning through the
design of highly flexible methods, materials,
and assessments (Meyer, Rose, and Gordon in
press; Rose and Meyer 2002; Rose, Meyer, and
Hitchcock 2005). This sort of design solution
is part of the new call for “personalized”
materials.
Models for museum design already call for
a dynamic view of the person in context
(Falk and Dierking 2013), but this focus on
interaction and variability needs to be general-
ized to account for the presence of people with
disability in museum spaces. Focusing exclu-
sively on physical access does not reflect the full
spirit of a dynamic view of museum experiences.
Through Universal Design for Learning, the
focus of museum design can be recast from
“accommodation” to design that provides access
to engagement in learning, where emphasis is
placed on the provision of flexibility in the envi-
ronment from the beginning.
Importantly, reaching fully accessible solu-
tions to museum design is more than a disability
issue. The research literature clearly indicates
that when exhibits and programs provide for
access and learning for individuals with disabili-
ties, the benefits for all museum visitors are
palpable (Meyer, Rose, and Gordon in press).
As noted in the Smithsonian Guidelines for
Accessible Exhibition Design: “Discovering
exciting, attractive ways to make exhibitions
accessible will most directly serve people with
disabilities and older adults. But to name an
audience who will not benefit by these designs is
impossible. Accessibility begins as a mandate to
serve people who have been discriminated
against for centuries; it prevails as a tool that
serves diverse audiences for a lifetime” (http://
www.si.edu/Accessibility/SGAED).
WHAT IS UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR
LEARNING?
First conceived in the early 1990s, UDL is
in many ways a direct response to the “child as
problem” approach to disability in theAmerican
public school system. UDL is inspired by the
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 309
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
universal design concept in architecture, devel-
oped by Ron Mace of North Carolina State
University. The focus of UDL is on the design,
creation, and study of learning environments
that are usable by and effective for as many peo-
ple as possible. The classic example of universal
design borrowed from architecture is the curb
cut. The design of the curb cut was rendered as
flexibly as possible from the beginning, so as to
be usable by the widest range of people without
requiring changes or accommodations for spe-
cific “types” of people after the fact. There is no
need for people in wheelchairs to accommodate
to the environment. The design of the curb cut
is flexible enough to accept whoever—skate-
boarders, people with strollers, and so on—any-
one who wants to move from the street to the
sidewalk (see photo 1). Museums have increas-
ingly adopted a universal design approach to
physical features, by building ramps and wid-
ened entries to exhibit spaces (Tokar 2004;
NISE Network 2010). UDL enlists the ideas of
the universal design movement within architec-
ture and expands them to deal explicitly with
access to engagement in learning.
The creation of the UDL framework was
the result of a careful synthesis of relevant
research from across the learning sciences: a
concrete representation of our best and current
understanding of the variables most salient in
the process of learning (Rose and Gravel 2012).
Three principles underlie the framework of
UDL: design should provide for 1) multiple
means of representation, 2) multiple means of
expression and action, and 3) multiple means of
engagement (Rose andMeyer 2002).1
These principles reflect a recurring theme
within the learning sciences, which describe
three broad divisions in the processes associ-
ated with learning (see Vygotsky 1978;
Bloom 1984). Even the modern neuroscienc-
es reflect this tripartite view of the learning
brain with pattern recognition in posterior
regions of the cortex, executive function in
frontal cortex, and affective processing cen-
tered in the medial regions of the nervous
system (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, and
Rose 2012; Luria 1973).
The concept of disability under UDL is a
further example of how the framework explicitly
derives from the learning sciences. The most
consistent finding to emerge from the modern
science of learning is that variability in learning
is the rule, not the exception. No matter what
aspect of learning is studied, no matter how pre-
cise the instruments or measures, and no matter
what level of analysis, the reality is that variabil-
ity permeates throughout (see Fischer and Bidell
2006; Plomin and Kovas 2005; Thelen and
Smith 1994; van Geert 1998). Disability repre-
sents a type of variability within the population
that is not typically attended to within designed
learning environments. When learning environ-
Photo 1. The universal benefits of curb cuts. Photo by
CAST, Inc., courtesy of the Museum of Science, Boston.
310 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
ments are designed only to meet the needs of an
average person or the middle 50th percentile of
people, they do not address the reality of vari-
ability within the population, and equal oppor-
tunities for engagement are not provided. The
UDL framework advances the design of learning
environments by providing flexibility in goals,
methods, and materials. Variability is assumed
so that learning environments are designed from
the outset to meet the needs of as many learners
as possible, making costly, time-consuming, and
after-the-fact changes unnecessary.
LEARNING FROM THE MARGINS
Under UDL, customizable options are
essential to addressing the variability of learners
so that individuals are able to experience the
environment and its opportunities for learning
from where they are and not where we imagine
them to be. But how can we anticipate the
necessary flexibility and design for it? Resources
are limited and design is not limitless. From a
UDL perspective, people with disabilities have
a unique role to play in design because they are
particularly vulnerable to inflexible, “one-size-
fits-all” solutions; they represent the edge of
variability within the population. When people
with disabilities have difficulty in a designed
environment, it is often a sign that others with-
out disabilities are also having difficulty, though
it may not be readily apparent. By attending to
the challenges faced by individuals in the design
process, learning environments can be made
more accessible and engaging to a wider array of
museum visitors.When design focuses on creat-
ing accommodations to the “problem” of dis-
ability after the fact, difficulties experienced by
other individuals without disabilities may
remain invisible.
Consider an analogy from medicine that
may make this idea more tractable. Let’s say
there are two approaches to the treatment of
coal miner’s disease. One approach identifies
the source of the disease as a medical health
problem—a disease of the lungs—that requires
immediate medical treatment for the individ-
ual. The second approach identifies the source
of the disease as an environmental health
problem—a disease caused by traumatizing
carcinogens in the mines, invisible and odor-
less gases—that requires systemic changes in
the environment. Both approaches are essen-
tial, but what we highlight here is that under
UDL people with disabilities are like “canaries
in the mine.”
Canaries were used as an early warning sys-
tem for coal miners; they were sensitive to issues
in the environment when those issues were
imperceptible to human beings. Because people
with disabilities represent the edge of variability
in the population along many dimensions in
learning, the difficulties they experience are an
early warning that the design of the environment
has been left wanting. In fact, we would say that
the need for accommodation to provide accessi-
bility after the fact indicates that the design of
the environment is lacking in some systematic
way that may be affecting many more people’s
experiences than just those with disabilities.
Let’s take an example from exhibit design
to make these ideas more concrete. By defini-
tion, dyslexia is a language-based processing
disability that affects learning. People with dys-
lexia have difficulty with reading, writing, spell-
ing, and even the processing and understanding
of spoken language. From a UDL perspective,
people with dyslexia need only be “disabled” if
placed in an environment where their brand of
variability in learning is not accounted for in
design. Exhibit labels are meant to provide
effective communication between museums and
visitors, but they are “disabling” to people with
dyslexic-like characteristics. If text is the only
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 311
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
way “in,” then no matter what a designer does
with the space, layout, lighting, materials, ideas,
and messages associated with the label, people
who are dyslexic aren’t going to get anything
“out.” Worse, people with learning disabilities
like dyslexia are hard to spot; they are invisible
and not likely to identify themselves or demand
accommodations.
Interestingly, and to our point, it turns out
that lots of people have difficulty with labels—
the elderly, children who are not reading profi-
cient, and even visitors who are expert readers,
but who hold goals that are not aligned to read-
ing the text labels associated with exhibits. That
few visitors spend time reading labels is a com-
mon concern of museum designers (Falk 1982),
but, in fact, in some ways it seems an adaptive
choice not to read the labels. Falk and Dierking
(2013) suggest that reading all of the labels in
even a medium-sized museum would take at
least several days (citing Wolf and Tymitz
1978). That’s not to say that text based labels are
“bad” design. They are efficient and useful to
many people, but without other flexible options
built into the design of the exhibit, which allow
for a more customizable experience, many visi-
tors will miss out on the essential information
contained in the label, and, worse, they will miss
out on being in conversation with the museum
as they experience the exhibit. Considering the
needs of visitors with dyslexia—those who are
at the margins of variability in one aspect of
learning, gaining meaning from text, and who
would otherwise be invisible to designers—
broadens the consideration of learner needs to
enable more effective design for all.
UDL AS A FRAMEWORK FOR MUSEUM
DESIGN
There is a substantial and growing body of
work that identifies effective practices to accom-
modate disability in museum design (Smithso-
nian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition
Design; Universal Design Guidelines for Public
Programs in Science Museums from the NISE
Network). We believe this work provides an
effective foundation on which UDL can begin
to be leveraged in the museum context. Impor-
tantly, most museum design is already aligned
to the spirit of UDL. Museum visitors’ back-
grounds, expectations, and approaches to learn-
ing are considered in design processes. There is
less starting adherence to fixed, and largely inac-
cessible, technologies like text or lecture than
there are in other institutions (like schools);
these starting conditions make alignment to
UDLnot only desirable, but particularly feasible.
To facilitate the active design of UDL envi-
ronments and their implementation, CAST
(Center for Applied Special Technology, www.
cast.org) created guidelines grounded in the
three principles. These guidelines articulate the
UDL framework and provide a starting set of
considerations for design (CAST 2008, 2011).
Principle I deals with the “what” of learning:
representation. There are systematic differences
in the ways that individuals perceive and com-
prehend information from the world around
them. For example, people with sensory diffi-
culties, dyslexia, or cultural differences will
require different ways of perceiving the environ-
ment and it’s essential to provide multiple
means of representation, or options in the ways
in which information is presented.
Principle II deals with the “how” of learn-
ing: expression. There are systematic differences
in the ways that individuals navigate the
environment and express what they know. For
example, people with movement impairment,
those with strategic and organizational
difficulty, or language barriers, will require dif-
ferent ways of acting in the environment and
expressing what they know. Multiple means of
312 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
expression and action, or options in the ways
people are supported to be strategic within the
environment, are essential. Finally, Principal III
deals with the “why” of learning: engagement.
There are systematic differences in the ways in
which people orient to the environment emo-
tionally, are motivated, and engaged in learning
processes. Variation in background knowledge,
personal relevance, and culture all contribute
to the ways in which individuals affectively
appraise and act in the environment. There is no
single way to engage all people through design;
providing options for engagement is crucial.
A dive into the details of the UDL guide-
lines is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is
important to note that there are nine guidelines
and associated checkpoints that instantiate the
three principles described above (CAST 2008,
2011; for full articulation see www.udlcenter.
org/aboutudl/udlguidelines). To provide more
clarity around how UDL might be used to
enhance the design of museum programs and
exhibits, we explore designing for engagement
and two promising case examples below.
DESIGNING FOR ENGAGEMENT IN
MUSEUM SETTINGS: A UDL
PERSPECTIVE AND CASE EXAMPLE
While design in museum settings has long
paid rich attention to engaging visitors in learn-
ing experiences (Falk and Dierking 2013;
Kirchberg and Trondle 2012;McLean and Pol-
lock 2011), considering “engagement” in light
of the deeply co-regulated nature of emotion
and cognition represents a next phase of engag-
ing all visitors. Few would question that emo-
tion and thought are deeply, critically
intertwined, and that the relationship between
them affects learning. Reasoning, decision-
making, and even fundamental skills like read-
ing and mathematics, do not function as purely
rational, cognitive systems. The accuracy and
efficiency of thinking processes, perceptions,
and effort are influenced by affective states;
motivation and emotion substantially predict
learning behavior and outcomes (Ellis, Thomas,
and Rodriguez 1984; Ellis, Thomas, and Rodri-
guez 1984; Elliot and Dweck 2005; Pajares and
Miller 1994).
Under the UDL framework, within educa-
tion—in formal or informal settings—
“engagement” is the critical construct that
describes the essential relationship between
emotion and cognition in the context of learn-
ing. When considered from the affective and
cognitive neurosciences, engagement—a men-
tal state needed for successful learning—can be
achieved through the application of appropriate
challenges that are precisely calibrated to indi-
vidual learners’ specific strengths and weak-
nesses (Blascovich et al. 2003; Csiksentmihalyi
1991; Daley and Rappolt-Schlichtmann 2009;
Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Current research
points not to a continual ratcheting up of acti-
vation or even positive emotion to promote
learning, but instead to a focus on tuning arou-
sal and emotion to the specific conditions of the
learning task and the learner. Without support
for sustained effort, persistence, and emotion
regulation, participant arousal—even when
overwhelmingly positive—can lead to disen-
gagement and cursory attentiveness rather than
deep experiences of learning (Blascovich, Men-
des, Tomaka, Salomon, and Seery 2003;
Csiksentmihalyi 1991; Daley and Rappolt-Sch-
lichtmann 2009; Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
This is especially challenging in the science
museum environment when considering the
diversity of learners’ background knowledge,
learning strengths and weaknesses, and goals.
Several theories describing the relationship
between emotion and cognition converge on
the importance of the balance between the level
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 313
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
of challenge in the environment and one’s
perceived skills and resources as the driving
force in shaping affective responses and
cognitive engagement (Blascovich et al. 2003;
Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Lazarus and Folkman
1984; Daley and Rappolt-Schlichtmann 2009).
The research literature suggests that the deepest
engagement and, consequently, the most posi-
tive conditions for learning, occur when: 1) both
the challenge of the task and one’s own
resources (or skill level) are high and are closely
matched, 2) the task and/or content appear rele-
vant to the learner, and 3) the learning environ-
ment is under the learner’s control. Learning
environments often fail to tap into the potential
for deep engagement in learning by leaving
emotion largely unchecked. In many museum
settings, this triggers the “pinball” effect, with
visitors bouncing from one exhibit to another,
as highly attractive activities vie for attention
(Falk and Dierking 2013, 108). As designers
move to address this concern, calibrating
demands and resources using the UDL frame-
work in design provides a useful lens. UDL
frames what dimensions of learner variability
should be attended to and leveraged in design so
that visitors have a sort of customized experi-
ence, emerging from options built into the
design of the exhibit or program. The result is
that the visitor has a “just-right for me,” “just in
time” experience as they are able to easily adjust
how they relate to the exhibit or program. The
visitor perceives demands and resources to be in
balance as they experience themuseum.
As an example, we return to our consider-
ation of visitors with dyslexic type characteris-
tics.2 In taking a UDL approach to labels in
exhibit design, designers would work to consider
such visitors’ perceptions of the demands and
resources of an exhibit in terms of representation,
action or expression, and engagement. The goal
is to provide integrated options through design
that allow visitors to manipulate the environ-
ment so that the exhibit or program is experi-
enced as effective and personalized. No
“particular” way of experiencing the exhibit is
emphasized or obviously preferred in the design.
For the sake of parsimony, in this example
we will focus here on consideration of the repre-
sentation principle. For visitors who have
difficulty learning from text, we would expect
that the demands of information being
presented primarily in the form of text-based
labels would be substantial. If UDL were the
design approach, resources would need to be
provided to counterbalance such demands. Such
resources might include easy access to audio ver-
sions of the text labels, or supporting images
and graphics that provide an alternative repre-
sentation. Less obvious, informational “tags” in
text and alternate forms would be provided that
expressly relate the content of the label to the
content of the exhibit. Ideally these “tags” would
be proximal to the most relevant aspects of the
content of the exhibit. Remember that people
with dyslexia have difficulty with text because
they have difficulty processing information.
Relating information in the label to what is
going on in the exhibit is a significant demand
within the design.
Though not comprehensive, the resource
options described in this example would allow
visitors with dyslexic characteristics to have con-
trol over their experience of the exhibit. Impor-
tantly, a UDL approach would render the
various ways of accessing an exhibit or program
salient, equally valued, and equally effective.
People who are blind or have difficulty with text
would not feel that audio is expressly provided
for them because of their disability, but rather
that audio is an essential and integrated part of
the exhibit design. Under UDL scaffolding,
understanding of the various ways to gain
information (through representation) will sup-
314 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
port visitors to choose appropriately from the
options; they can perform their own calibration
because they have the necessary tools in the
design. This alleviates the designer’s need to
determine an approach that works for all; the
designer is not controlling the visitor’s experi-
ence, but is creating conditions ripe for engage-
ment in learning.
PROMISING PROJECTS: THE BEGINNING
OF UDL IN MUSEUM DESIGN
In looking to the museum design field,
some promising projects demonstrate the con-
cepts that ground UDL. These design projects
generally provided for a more adaptive learning
environment within museums and are rich with
resources (Chu, Hwang, Tsai, and Chen 2009;
Huang, Huang, and Chen 2007; Tsai 2009;
Wang 2009). In the following sections we
describe two existing, illustrative examples that
we feel provide an excellent foundation to
anchor burgeoning research and development at
the intersection of UDL andmuseum design.
Electronic Guidebook Project, the
Exploratorium
Though not explicitly “doing” UDL, the
Electronic Guidebook Project, developed at the
Exploratorium in San Francisco, went beyond
accommodation of disability toward a UDL
approach by providing nomadic resources to visi-
tors using a wireless handheld mobile device
(Hsi 2003). Using the Electronic Guidebook
(http://www.exploratorium.edu/guidebook) vis-
itors could explore ideas and plan their visits
before arriving at the Exploratorium and then
interact with exhibits by experiencing phenom-
ena and testing ideas in a personalized way. The
goal was to create a more seamless experience of
the museum. Visitors are supported to have
a more sustained experience than the typical
30-second interaction with exhibit content
(Cone and Kendall 1978; Beer 1987). The
Electronic Guidebook was developed as a suite
of resources to enhance all visitors’ experience of
existing Exploratorium exhibits and was not
intended for any particular type of visitor. The
content of the Guidebook provided substantial
resources and options to facilitate personalized
interaction with exhibits, including: background
information on the history and evolution of the
exhibit; “Try This” activities; visitor-contributed
responses, including observations and theories;
digital videos with models of how one might
interact with the exhibit; text and audio
explanations; and links showing other related
exhibits.
Interestingly, visitors relayed many positive
experiences of the guidebook, but some also
reported feeling isolated and experienced diffi-
culty moving between the real and virtual
worlds. From aUDLperspective, these accounts
are likely due to the fact that the Guidebook,
though intended for all visitors, still acted as an
accommodation to or layer on top of existing
exhibits. Visitors were, in a sense, having the dis-
ability experience. They were provided with a
tool meant to create better access to and enhance
their experience of the museum, but the tool was
not integrated into the design of the exhibit
itself. It is not surprising that one of the results
was a sense of separateness and difficulty con-
necting to the “actual,” most highly valued object
in the environment, the exhibit itself. When
UDL guides design the “supports,” resources are
a principal and highly valued part of the content
and pedagogy in the design of the learning envi-
ronment. Mobile devices may be a part of the
technical solution because they allow for con-
text-aware personalization (Chen and Huang
2012; Hwang et al. 2009; Ogata and Yano
2004), but theywould optimally be an integrated
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 315
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
part of the design of the content and pedagogy
withinmuseum exhibits and programs. It cannot
be the case that all of the personalization,
resources, and support are located outside of and
separate from the designed exhibit.
Fish Farming, the Museum of Science,
Boston
Over the last 25 years, the Museum of Sci-
ence (MOS) in Boston has been generating and
disseminating knowledge about the creation of
educational experiences designed to engage all
museum visitors (Reich 2000). Themuseum is a
leader in defining what it means to design an
inclusive museum experience, and has recently
leveraged UDL in the design of exhibits embed-
ded with digital interactives. (See Reich 2005
for a full description of this work, including
multiple examples and associated research).
One example is called Fish Farming, an exhibit
situated within the Making Models exhibition,
where visitors can work with and create several
different kinds of models.
Fish Farming is designed as a stand-alone
kiosk where visitors use a computer simulation
to solve a fish farming dilemma, namely:
“What’s the best way to stop a disease from
spreading in your tank?” (Reich 2005). Visitors
can adjust the number of fish in the tank and the
percent of fish vaccinated, and then run simula-
tions in a life-like scenario.
The design of “Fish Farming” expressly
reflects many of the UDL guidelines. First and
foremost, the interactive is rendered so as to be
accessible to visitors with a range of physical and
sensory needs. There is embedded audio, which
visitors can control (UDL guideline, check-
points 1.2 and 1.3). The labels are as simple as
possible, while still conveying the goal of the
experience and essential directions (see
photo 2). The title label reads “Fish Farming:
Can You Stop theDisease?” and “Fish Farming:
Using Models to Find Solutions… Press the
Round Enter Button to Begin” (UDL guide-
line, checkpoint 6.1). As the experience begins,
visitors are presented with a brief 40-word over-
view of the activity. The text, while helpful, is
not essential for visitors to access or have success
with the interactive, since understanding is pro-
moted through the use of multiple media (UDL
guideline, checkpoint 2.5).
Though not a comprehensive treatment,
this design is explicitly built on accessibility to
provide access to learning through application
of the UDL design guidelines. For example, vis-
itors are presented with two challenges they
might try, but they can also freely explore the
interactive. In this way, visitors have a meaning-
ful but limited set of choices that is meant to
support feelings of autonomy, interest, and the
generation of intrinsically motivated behavior
(UDL guideline, checkpoint 7.1). On the simu-
lation screen, visitors can see (or listen to audio
describing) a virtual tank containing up to one
thousand fish. Guiding instructions and feed-
back are provided in text and audio, since the
simulation visually changes depending on the
actions of the visitor. Feedback is also presented
in a small chart, where results of the visitor’s
most recent five simulations are tracked, and the
number of fish in the tank is indicated in real
time. Feedback is intended to highlight patterns
and critical features, so as to guide visitors’ pro-
cessing of the most important information
(UDL guideline, checkpoint 3.2)
In addition, the interactive provides
options for sustaining effort and persistence by
heightening the salience of goals and objectives
(UDL guideline, checkpoint 8.1), and provides
options for executive functions by enhancing
visitors’ capacity to monitor their progress
toward those goals (UDL guideline, checkpoint
6.4). Feedback is salient to the targeted goal,
316 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
simple to understand, and provided through at
least three simultaneous representations.
Importantly, accessibility related features inter-
act with and support the UDL related features,
so that those with disabilities not only have
access to the content of the exhibit, but also
interactive supports essential to the learning
design. For example, visitors can aurally track
changes to the number of fish in the tank, via a
tone that decreases or increases in pitch as the
number of fish in the tank changes in response
to visitor actions. This approach should support
not only those who are blind, but also children
who do not yet possess a strong number sense in
relating numbers to quantity.
There are many ways in which the design of
this exhibit could be further enhanced through
continued consideration of the UDL frame-
work. For example, an evaluation of the exhibit
notes that only 11 of the 55 groups of visitors
observed using the interactive successfully com-
pleted both challenges (Robertson 2003). Fur-
ther research would be required to understand
why visitors were unable or chose not to com-
plete the challenges, but the application of just-
in-time supports rendered through the design
of the digital interactive could better guide
visitors and encourage reflection and metacog-
nition (UDL guideline, checkpoint 8.2). Like-
wise, because visitors are so varied in their
background knowledge, computer facility, and
information processing, it’s advisable to create a
larger set of graduated challenges that vary in
the level of difficulty and systematically build
toward the targeted interactive experience
(UDL guideline, checkpoint 5.3; UDL guide-
line, checkpoint 3.1). Ideally all of these options
for challenge and support are customizable, so
Photo 2. The Fish Farming interactive. Photo by CAST, Inc., courtesy of the Museum of Science, Boston.
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 317
that visitors can quickly make choices about
how they want or need to experience the exhibit,
and thus have an opportunity for engagement
and learning from where they are and not where
we imagine them to be.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent progress in making museums acces-
sible learning environments for all visitors has
opened many doors. But to achieve universal
design for learning rather than simply universal
design for access requires even more from the
field. Significant research and development
work is needed to realize this shift, because the
development of UDL has been so firmly situ-
ated within formal learning contexts and, as
such, the guidelines strongly reflect the
demands of designing for formal learning sce-
narios. We propose a two-pronged agenda to
facilitate the active translation of UDL for use
in the design of informal learning contexts.
First, “on the ground” innovation through
successive iteration and trial-and-error in the
design of exhibits must occur. Successful “on
the ground” innovation and application of the
UDL framework will rely on clear articulation
of the learning goal toward which design deci-
sions are made.While others (Reich 2005) have
emphasized the importance of making explicit
the purpose or intended end-state of a given
activity, this is not typically equivalent to the
learning goal. Is the goal to demonstrate under-
standing of a particular science concept? Is it to
have a positive, interactive experience with fam-
ily members? Is it to connect with others in the
community in a new way? Is it to spark an inter-
est that might later develop into a passionate
hobby, academic pursuit, or career path?
Whereas in more formal learning settings, the
instructor has the prerogative to set learning
goals, articulate them in a way that is clear to
learners, and design for them, the informal
learning context presents a very different land-
scape in this regard.
Assuming a common goal for all visitors
would be inappropriate, but identifying a range
of goals that can be explicitly reflected in the
design of exhibits is essential if UDL is to be
successfully adapted and applied. It may be that
a more innovative approach to the development
of learning goals is needed. Perhaps, for exam-
ple, designers can support visitors to consider
their own goals; design will enable purposeful,
flexible means of pursuing activities in a way
that matches those goals. If a visitor group’s pri-
mary goal for the day is to have a positive family
experience, they might be provided with certain
strategies for interacting with exhibits that are
universally designed for that goal. But, if the
goal is to deeply understand the concept behind
a given exhibit, that might require a different
mode of interacting, perhaps with a way to
gauge background knowledge and provide sup-
port that is adjustable based on that knowledge,
and maybe including suggestions for reinforce-
ment activities that can be pursued at home.
This would be one approach to handling the
diversity of learning goals. Whatever approach
is taken, knowing what learning goals to design
for, and supporting visitors to understand the
intended learning goals, will be critical to think-
ing about how to create appropriate options and
supports towards those goals.
Second, innovative approaches should be
combined with design-based research to more
fully articulate the application of UDL in the
informal learning environment. The long-term
potential of UDL to transform designed learn-
ing environments—and what differentiates it
from other efforts to reform design—lies in the
unique opportunity for effectively facilitating
the connection between research in the learning
sciences and the practice of design. In particular,
318 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
within UDL, development takes place through
continuous cycles of design, implementation,
research, analysis, and redesign (Cobb 2001;
Collins 1992; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley,
and Rose 2012). The focus is on linking design
processes to outcomes for individuals in authen-
tic, dynamic contexts. This structure offers fer-
tile ground whereby potential mechanisms of
engagement in learning can be hypothesized and
then tested—not by emphasizing average effects
andmean outcomes, but by focusing on the crea-
tion of conditions in which individuals can carve
out a learning experience that works for them.
In this way UDL is a continuously improv-
ing and evolving framework. We expect it to
change as knowledge of learning improves.
Undoubtedly, as UDL is applied to exhibit and
program design in museums, new knowledge
will be created about variability in learning in
authentic and informal contexts. The UDL
framework will evolve and be strengthened by
this work. But in the meantime, UDL may
prove to be a watershed in the ecology of
museum learning for visitors with disabilities, so
that museums increasingly become rich, engag-
ing, and unencumbered learning environments
for everyone. END
NOTES
1. The foundations of UDL from the neurosciences
and pedagogy are discussed at greater length in
books such asTeaching Every Student in the Digi-
tal Age (Rose andMeyer 2002);The Universally
Designed Classroom (Rose,Meyer, andHitchcock,
eds. 2005);A Practical Reader in Universal Design
for Learning (Rose andMeyer, eds. 2006); andA
Research Reader in Universal Design for Learning
(Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, and Rose 2012).
2. We note that this example, while helpful in illus-
trating the consideration of so-called “invisible”
disabilities and approaches to considering the
barriers associated with text reading, which is a
challenge for many segments of the population, is
not incidental in terms of impact. Learners with
specific difficulties in reading represent the largest
population of students receiving special education
services in schools, by an overwhelmingmargin
(http://www.ideadata.org).
REFERENCES
Albrecht, G. L., K. D. Seelman, andM. Bury. 2001.
Handbook of Disabilities Studies. Thorofare, NJ:
Sage.
Americans withDisabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L.
101–336, 42U.S.C. § 12101.Beer, V. 1987.Great expectations: Domuseums
knowwhat visitors are doing?Curator: The
Museum Journal 30(3): 206–215.
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The
Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
The Sociology of Knowledge. New York:
Penguin.
Blascovich, J.,W.B.Mendes, J. Tomaka, K. Salomon,
andM.D. Seery. 2003. The robust nature of the
biopsychosocialmodel of challenge and threat: A
reply toWright andKirby.Personality and Social
Psychology Review 7: 234–243.
Bloom, B. S. 1984.Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, Boston,MA:Allyn and Bacon.
CAST 2008.Universal Design for Learning
Guidelines Version 1.0.Wakefield,MA.Accessed
at http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/
udlguidelines/downloads_ver1.
CAST 2011.Universal Design for Learning
Guidelines Version 2.0.Wakefield,MA.Accessed
at http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/
udlguidelines
Chen, C. C., and T. C.Huang. 2012. Learning in a
u-Museum:Developing a Context Aware
Ubiquitous Environment.Computers and
Education 59: 873–883.
Chu,H. C., G. J. Hwang, C. C. Tsai, andN. S.
Chen. 2009. An innovative approach for
promoting information exchanges and sharing in
aWeb 2.0-based learning environment.
Interactive Learning Environments 17(4):
311–323.
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 319
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013
Cobb, P. 2001. Supporting the improvement of
learning and teaching in social and institutional
context. InCognition and Instruction: Twenty-
Five Years of Progress, S. Carver andD. Klahr,
eds., 455–478. Cambridge,MA: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
Collins, A. 1992. Toward a design science of
education. InNewDirections in Educational
Technology, E. Scanlon andT.O’Shea, eds.,
15–22. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.
Cone, C.A., andK. Kendall. 1978. Space, time, and
family interactions: Visitor behavior at the
ScienceMuseum ofMinnesota.Curator: The
Museum Journal 21(3): 245–258.
Csikszentmihalyi,M. 1991.Flow: The Psychology of
Optimal Experience. NewYork:Harper andRow.
Daley, S. G., andG. Rappolt-Schlichtmann. 2009.
The Educational Relevance of Stress Physiology.
Poster presented at the InternationalMind,
Brain, and Education Society national
conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Donoghue, C. 2003. Challenging the authority of
themedical definition of disability: Analysis of
the resistance to the social constructionist
paradigm.Disability and Society 18(2): 199–208.
Dudley-Marling, C. 2004. The social construction of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. Special Issue: The Discursive Practice
of LearningDisability 37(6): 482–489.
Elliot, A., andC.S.Dweck, eds. 2005.TheHandbook
of Competence andMotivation. NewYork:
Guilford.
Ellis, H., R. Thomas, and I. Rodriguez. 1984.
Emotional mood states andmemory:
Elaborative encoding, semantics processing, and
cognitive effort. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition
10(3): 470–482.
Falk, J. 1982. Time and behavior as predictors of
learning. Science Education 67: 267–276.
Falk, J. H., and L. D.Dierking, eds. 2013.The
MuseumExperience Revisited.Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
Fenichel,M., andH.A. Schweingruber. 2010.
Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in
Informal Environments.Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Fischer, K.W., and T. R. Bidell. 2006. Dynamic
development of action and thought. InHandbook
of Child Psychology, TheoreticalModels of Human
Development, Volume 1, Sixth Edition,
W.Damon andR.M. Lerner, eds., 313–399.
NewYork:Wiley.
French, S., and J. Swain. 2001. The relationship
between disabled people and health and welfare
professionals. InHandbook of Disabilities, G. L.
Albrecht, K. D. Seelman andM. Bury, eds.,
734–753. Thorofare, NJ: Sage.
Friedman, A. J. 2000. Expanding audiences: The
audio tour access project at theNewYorkHall of
Science.ASTCDimensions: 7–8.
Goodley, D. 2001. ‘‘Learning difficulties,’’ the social
model of disability and impairment: Challenging
epistemologies.Disability and Society 16(2):
207–231.
Hsi, S. 2003. A study of user experiences mediated by
nomadicWeb content in amuseum. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 19: 308–319.
Huang,M. J., H. S.Huang, andM. Y. Chen. 2007.
Constructing a personalized e-learning system
based on genetic algorithm and case-based
reasoning approach.Expert Systems with
Applications 33(3): 551–564.
Hwang, G. J., T. C. Yang, C. C. Tsai, and S. J. H.
Yang. 2009. A context-aware ubiquitous
learning environment for conducting complex
experimental procedures.Computers and
Education 53(2): 402–413.
Kirchberg, V., andM. Tr€ondle. 2012. Experiencing
exhibitions: A review of studies on visitor
experiences inmuseums.Curator: TheMuseum
Journal 55(4): 435–452.
Lazarus, R. S., and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress,
Appraisal, and Coping. NewYork: Springer.
Luria, A. R. 1973.TheWorking Brain. NewYork:
Basic Books.
McLean, K., andW. Pollock. 2011.The Convivial
Museum. USA: ASTCPublications.
Meyer, A., D.H. Rose, andD.Gordon. In press.
Universal Design For Learning: Theory and
Practice.Wakefield,MA:National Center on
Universal Design for Learning.
NISENetwork. 2010.Universal Design Guidelines for
Public Programs in ScienceMuseums. Accessed at
320 Article: UDL and Museum Design
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
http://www.nisenet.org/category/catalog/
tools_guides.
Ogata, H., and Y. Yano. 2004. CLUE: Computer
supported ubiquitous learning environment for
language learning.Transactions of the Information
Processing Society of Japan 45(10): 2354–2363.
Oliver,M. 1990.The Politics of Disablement.
BasingstokeHampshire, England:Macmillan.
Olmstead Act. 1999. 527U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176.
Pajares, F., andM.Miller. 1994. Role of self-efficacy
and self-concept beliefs inmathematical
problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology 86: 193–203.
Pekarik, A. J., Z. D.Doering, andD.A. Karns. 1999.
Exploring satisfying experiences inmuseums.
Curator: TheMuseum Journal 42: 152–173.
Plomin, R., and Y. Kovas. 2005.Generalist genes and
learning disabilities. Psychological Bulletin 131(4):
592–617.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., S. Daley, and T.
Roseeds. 2012.AResearch Reader in Universal
Design For Learning. Cambridge,MA:Harvard
University Press.
Reich, C. A. 2000. The power of universal design:
Building an accessible exhibition.Dimensions
5–6.
———2005.Universal Design of Interactives for
MuseumExhibition: Research Report. Boston,
MA:Museum of Science, Boston. Accessed
April 10, 2013 at http://informalscience.org/
reports/0000/0337/2005_Universal_Design_
Interactives_Report.pdf.
Robertson, E. 2003.Fish Farming Prototyping
Summary. Boston,MA:Museum of Science,
Boston.
Rose, D.H., and J.W.Gravel. 2012. Curricular
opportunities in the digital age.Boston: Jobs for
the Future. Accessed at http://www.
studentsatthecenter.org/papers/curricular-
opportunities-digital-age.
Rose, D.H., andA.Meyer. 2002.Teaching Every
Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design For
Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision andCurriculumDevelopment.
Rose, D.H., andA.Meyer eds. 2006.A Practical
Reader in Universal Design for Learning.
Cambridge,MA:Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D., A.Meyer, andC.Hitchcock. 2005.The
Universally Designed Classroom: Accessible
Curriculum andDigital Technologies. Cambridge,
MA:Harvard Education Press.
Swadener, B. B., and S. Lubekeds. 1995.Children
and Families “At Promise”: Deconstructing the
Discourse of Risk. Albany, NY: State University of
NewYork Press.
Thelen, E., and L. B. Smith. 1994.ADynamic
Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition
and Action. Cambridge,MA:M.I.T. Press.
Thaper, N., G.Warner,M.Drainout, S. R.
Williams, H.Ditchfield, and J.Wierbicky. 2004.
A pilot study of functional access to public
buildings and facilities for persons with
impairments.Disability and Rehabilitation 25(5):
280–289.
Tokar, S.M. 2004. Universal design inNorth
Americanmuseums with hands-on science
exhibits: A survey.Visitor Studies Today 7(3):
6–10.
Tsai, C. C. 2009. Conceptions of learning versus
conceptions ofWeb-based learning: The
differences revealed by college students.
Computers and Education 53: 1092–1103.
VanGeert, P. 1998.We almost had a great future
behind us: The contribution of non-linear
dynamics to developmental science in the
making.Developmental Science 1(1): 143–159.
Vygotsky, L. 1978.Mind in Society: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wang,Q. 2009. Designing aWeb-based
constructivist learning environment. Interactive
Learning Environments 17(1): 1–13.
Wolf, R., and B. Tymitz. 1978.APreliminary Guide
for Conducting Naturalistic Evaluation in
StudyingMuseumEnvironments.Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution, Office ofMuseum
Programs.
WorldHealthOrganization. 2001. International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health. Geneva, Switzerland.
Zambo, D., and S. Brem. 2004. Emotion and
cognition in students who struggle to read: New
insights and ideas.Reading Psychology 25(3):
189–204.
Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Samantha G. Daley 321
Volume 56 Number 3 July 2013