By Amanda Roth, Gayatri Singh (posthumous), and Dominique Turnbow

In Brief

Information literacy instruction is increasingly being delivered online, particularly through the use of learning objects. The development practice for creating learning objects often uses the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to meet needs for inclusivity. However, missing from this framework is the lens of diversity. This article calls out the need to include practices in learning object development that goes beyond UDL so that learning objects are inclusive from the lens of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Looking at transferable techniques used in in-person instruction, we suggest guidelines to fill the inclusivity gap in learning object creation.

---

Introduction

In response to the disruption of the in-person learning environment, many teaching librarians are moving information literacy instruction to the asynchronous learning environment. In place of the traditional classroom, learners frequently engage with information literacy concepts through online learning objects. Online learning objects are defined as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.”¹ In this mode of instruction, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is employed to address inclusivity via equitable access. While UDL aims to enhance inclusivity in terms of access by providing multiple modes of interacting with relevant content and it is technically accessible, it stops there. Inclusive design is “design that considers the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference.”² The question as to how we create learning objects that support all aspects of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) has yet to be explored.

The Gap in Our Practice

One can find best practices for creating learning objects that focus on learning outcomes, user engagement, usability and design, and evaluation in the literature.³ When examining diversity in online learning, there remains a heavy focus on diverse learner populations and methods to incorporate different learning styles as a means to support learning for a wide range of individuals.⁴ In recognizing that it benefits all learners to have content presented in multiple formats, UDL’s framework relies heavily on providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action or expression, to create a universal learning experience. This focus is evident in the UDL guideline principle of representation. For example, the UDL Representation guideline checklist  by the West Virginia Department of Education (n.d.) considers the following:

• Perception: Content should not be dependent on a single sense like sight, hearing, movement, or touch.
• Language and Symbols: Create a shared language by clarifying vocabulary or symbols and provide non-text based ways of communicating like illustrations or graphics.
• Comprehension: Provide background knowledge or bridge new concepts by organizing content effectively, highlight key elements, or provide prompts for cognitive processing. 

In this case, representation is not linked to the representation of different ethnicities, genders, ages, social or economic classes, ability, etc., but rather how content is represented. As an offshoot of Universal Design (UD), originally an architectural movement to address needs relating to ability, UDL in practice has followed UD’s example to address a need to interact with instructional materials from an ability perspective. UDL has normalized the learning experience in learning environments by supporting the idea that designing lesson materials that offer access through multiple modalities and expression creates an inclusive experience for all.⁵ The UDL checklist of multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement is particularly apt at normalizing learning into considerations of content delivery. It overlooks marginalized experiences and disenfranchised voices – including giving a voice to disability, an aspect of EDI.⁶ The UDL principle of engagement does include guidelines that support providing culturally relevant content as a means to increase student-centered relevancy and value for an individual learner. It is included in the context of optimizing leaner interest. However, inclusivity and diversity within this guideline is at best a passive byproduct instead of  the primary goal. Learning object design guidelines that encompass inclusionary design principles and nurture diversity in a culturally responsive way⁷ have yet to be explored for the learning object format.

Additionally, an examination of the Library Instruction for Diverse Populations Bibliography by the Instruction Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries (n.d.) includes literature on various populations in classroom settings, but very little if none discuss learning objects. When fostering EDI in online spaces, accessibility is the framework by which learning object developers work. Clossen and Proces’ examination of library tutorials focuses on captions, screen audio coordination, link context, length, headings, and alternative text.⁸ The body of knowledge for learning object development focuses on the importance of and technical aspects of building accessible learning objects when speaking about inclusion. These efforts meet the needs of equitable access. Still, they do not touch upon inclusivity by creating an online environment where learners from minority or marginalized backgrounds can see themselves reflected in the learning experience. 

The importance of creating inclusive instructional environments for learners is indicative of the vast amount of literature devoted to the topic. Inclusivity shapes the value of self, promotes participation and access, and influences the desire to contribute.⁹ Pendell and Schroeder discuss bringing culturally responsive teaching into the classroom. This method “incorporates a multiplicity of students’ cultures and lived experiences into their education, improving their classroom engagement, content relevancy, and fostering diverse perspectives.”¹⁰ Theories and practices in instructional design theories follow suit. Instructional design processes like ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) and SAM (Successive Approximation Model) incorporate learner assessment into the early stages of the design process by identifying learner characteristics and taking account of the learners’ previous knowledge and experience.¹¹ Both Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation¹² and Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction¹³ speak to the necessity of gaining your learner’s attention to ensure reception and engagement with the material. Design Thinking ¹⁴ offers methods that designers can use to empathize with learners. Despite recognized practices of considering learner populations’ characteristics, prior knowledge, and experiences, many learning objects ignore EDI in their design and development. Given the importance of EDI in teaching and learning and the shift to the online environment, the conversation needs to pivot to include asynchronous online learning environments and learning objects. We must acknowledge this overlooked area in our instruction practices.

Our Guidelines

There are resources in the literature that provide practical techniques to aid teaching librarians in creating inclusive in-person instruction. Some of these techniques are transferable to the design and development of learning objects. These include:

• Provide culturally relevant examples (images, topics, authors, etc.) to all learners – not just the majority.¹⁵
• Create a space where diverse experiences and knowledge is valued.¹⁶
• Provide a choice as to how learners will interact with content.¹⁷

With these in mind, we drew on our collective experience as teaching librarians, designers, and technologists to create guidelines for inclusive learning object development.

Relevant Topics and Examples

As with in-person instruction, the examples used in online instruction can create an inclusive learning environment. Even if an object’s learning outcome is not something one might classify as “diversity” content, the example or topic choices within the learning object can subtly express the value of different viewpoints. For example, if the learning object goal is to teach learners how to create a citation in a specific style, the citation examples used in the object can be selected based on authors of color. In practice, you could accomplish this by providing an example of a general citation format followed by an example centering the voice of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) as seen in the table below.

APA Book Chapter Format

General Guidelines	Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In E. E. Editor & F. F. Editor (Eds.), Title of work: Capital letter also for subtitle (pp. pages of chapter). Publisher. DOI (if available)
Example Citation	Amorao, A.S. (2018). Writing against patriarchal Philippine nationalism: Angela Manalang Gloria’s “Revolt from Hymen”. In: Chin G., Mohd Daud K. (Eds) The southeast Asian woman writes back. Asia in Transition, vol 6. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7065-5_2

Represent Diverse Experiences with Scenario-based Learning

Scenario-based learning uses realistic case-studies to create learner-centered learning.¹⁸ It is a widespread technique in e-learning and object development. Scenarios may be used to aid storytelling and decision making or be used in checking a learner’s knowledge of learned material. If incorporated into a learning object, scenarios should include relatable learner experiences. Special attention to how scenarios incorporate a minority experience is essential. For example, using a scenario as a self-knowledge check that features a first-year student experience might look like the following:

Ramona is writing a research paper about Mexican-American health disparities and is unsure where to start when looking at the library’s website. As a first-generation college student who lives at home and commutes to campus, there is no one to ask at home. Her assignment requires her to locate peer-reviewed journal articles. Based on the information provided earlier in the tutorial about the difference between a catalog and a database, select the resource from the multiple-choice options that would best help Ramona with her research.

Universal Design

Use the principles of universal design to provide multiple ways of engaging with learning object content to help sustain motivation and to provide choices for how learners interact with relevant content. Include audio, visual, and kinesthetic modes of representation, where applicable, as a means for interaction and active learning. Most learning objects, by default, have text elements. In applying Universal Design for learning, look for ways in which other modes of communication might be effective. In practice, we’ve created a video to tell the “Story of Research” for a chemistry lab class. The story explains how a chemical experiment in a lab becomes an everyday product used by millions. The video used storytelling as a mode of communication to place learners within the shared community of chemistry researchers. It also provided a break from the otherwise text-based content. 

Teacher/Student Representation 

When using characters to represent teachers or learners, provide multiple representations. Include details related to diverse races and ethnicity and consider characteristics related to ability, body size, gender, and authority positions. Pay attention to the order that characters of color are presented. Be careful to avoid tokenism. Character makeup should have diverse representation. If adding names and audio tracks for different characters, consider name choice, the sound of the voice, and character vocabulary. For example, we will often use a TA as a narrator instead of faculty to shrink the power gap between the traditional teacher and student role.

Language

The language used in the object scripts and text displayed is a subtle but effective means of creating an environment of inclusivity. Multimedia principles suggest that a conversational style of speaking and use of first- and second-person pronouns generate a feeling of personalization.¹⁹ Person-centered language  and inclusive pronouns should be used. This includes using words such as “I,” “we,” “you,” and “yours.” For example, a script using first- and second-person language might include, “In this tutorial, you will explore the definition of plagiarism and recognize plagiarism when you see it.” Person-centered language and inclusive pronouns in a script could look like “Review the scenario in which Renita, a medical student at the top of her class, tries to save time on a paper by copying and pasting information from an article. Once you review the details of the scenario, decide whether or not you think they plagiarized by answering yes or no.”

Feedback

Provide authentic feedback that acknowledges and supports diverse learners. This means rethinking the default feedback template provided by software that offers correct/incorrect feedback based on if-then logic. This dualistic mode of communication reinforces pro-western views that emphasize individualized mastery and achievement.²⁰ Feedback should strive to acknowledge the way learners create meaning within their existing cultural schemas. Feedback messaging could recognize alternative ways of thinking and use existing schemas to create new understanding. Feedback that meets this guideline for an “incorrect” answer within a plagiarism tutorial could be:

Answer: The use of paraphrase and citation is a strategy to prevent plagiarism.

In some cultures repeating the ideas of scholars in a paper is a sign of respect and it is a universally acceptable practice not to cite the ideas of scholars because the value of their words is culturally accepted. In the United States and at UC San Diego, the practice is to use paraphrases or quotations and a cited reference to distinguish the ideas of scholars from your own. This practice will help you prevent violations of the UCSD Policy of Integrity of Scholarship and identify for your reader the words of the scholars you may be referencing and your own valued ideas. 

Accessibility

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) aim to create a “shared standard for web content” that removes barriers for individuals who may be ability challenged.²¹ Learning objects should be built to meet WCAG 2.0 guidelines at an AA level. Inclusivity relating to accessibility goes beyond technical requirements. This means addressing the user experience of those who use assistive technology. For example, relying on visual markers to indicate a multiple choice question ignores the experience of the visually impaired. As a screen reader reads through text on a screen the learner might not realize that the content reflects an activity in the multiple-choice format. Providing an introduction statement that states that you will be asked to answer three multiple-choice questions in the following section, introduces all learners to the activity.  

By incorporating these guidelines into learning object design and development, we hope to change our learning object design and development practices to reflect our profession’s EDI principles.

In Practice: a Tutorial Example

To test our guidelines with learners, we designed and evaluated a tutorial that incorporated the guidelines we crafted.

Institutional Background

The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Library serves a large and ethnically diverse student body. According to the UC San Diego Office of Institutional Research (2020), the student characteristics of our 39,576 students are:

• African American 3.0%
• American Indian 0.4%
• Asian/Asian American 37.1%
• Chicano/Latino 20.8%
• International Citizen 17%
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2%
• White 19%
• Undeclared/Missing 2.5%

Due to large student enrollment at the University and limited librarian resources, it is necessary to provide some information literacy instruction through online learning objects.

Preventing Plagiarism Tutorial

The plagiarism tutorial is built using Storyline 360 and consists of three modules (Define, Prevent, Cite) in which learners can test out of the material before proceeding. It uses a teaching assistant, Maya as a narrator, who walks learners through the test-out procedures and welcomes them to the tutorial content if they cannot test out. Maya, depicted in Image 1, is not representative of the librarian who created the object. Using Vyond, an animation tool, Maya’s physical characteristics include being of average build and having brown skin, brown eyes, and dark brown hair. Maya’s features look traditionally female, and her name was a call out to Latin or Asian cultures. She uses first- and second-person pronouns to address the learner throughout the object. She is the first character introduced to the learner. She describes herself as a teaching assistant to be less of an authority figure.

(Image 1: Maya)

Other aspects of the learning object that include characters include scenario-based learning exercises. Student characters describe a writing scenario, and the learner determines if the student in the scenario plagiarized. Of the characters depicted in Image 2, one is a thin Asian male wearing a preppy dress style that is masculine. One character is white with an androgynous dress but leans toward a female presentation, and the other character is a white female who is larger in size. Character attributes were limited to what was available within the third-party software. 

(Image 2: Scenario Student Characters)

Each student character has a unique voice, narrated by library staff volunteers. For example, in this tutorial an Asian staff member voiced the Asian character in the tutorial. If possible, ask BIPOC colleagues to voice BIPOC representations. The inclusion of BIPOC voices in the development of a learning object enhances the quality of personalization in the learning experience. Characters were referred to as the student instead of using binary pronouns. In hindsight, we should have specifically used a mixture of pronouns to acknowledge various gender identities. 

The examples used to explain plagiarism concepts were carefully considered. For example, the tutorial includes a common knowledge activity that asks the learner to identify whether a statement is common knowledge. The initial example stated, in your paper, you reference the attack on Pearl Harbor as being the trigger for the United States to join World War II officially. 

In reviewing the tutorial, there was concern that this common knowledge example is United States-centric, especially to the number of international students enrolled at the university. Although the evaluative data showed that most learners knew the United States-centric answer to this question, the statement was changed to, in your paper, you write that penicillin is commonly used to fight infections. This change in example creates a more inclusive learning experience by removing a historical reference point that does not consider the emotional impact held by other world views. 

The accessibility design of the learning object used a two-step process. First, the object was developed to meet WCAG 2.0 guidelines from a technical perspective. Once those guidelines were in place, a student worker from the campus’ Office of Students with Disabilities was consulted to work through the tutorial from a user perspective. This second step that included elements of participatory design in the object development resulted in the understanding that although a learning object is technically accessible, it could still result in a poor learning experience for those using assistive devices. Adjustments to content presentation and script after this meeting resulted in universal improvements for all. For example, a text introduction replaced a video introduction of the narrator. 

Evaluation

To determine how well the guidelines attended to our learners’ inclusive experience, we created an anonymous survey that captured 6,918 responses over eighteen months (January 2019-June 2020). Learners were asked to answer the following questions at the end of the tutorial. Learners did not get credit for completing the plagiarism tutorial until they answered these questions. Their responses were not linked to identifiable data.

1. I noticed the diversity of characters in this tutorial (Y/N)
2. In this module, you were introduced to the following characters. Which character’s appearance did you most identify with? (multiple choice)
3. What features in character appearance would you like to see? (fill-in)
4. Do you like having characters with diverse appearances? (Y/N)
5. The module included a question about common knowledge. Was the example, “With the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US officially joined WWII” a common knowledge fact that you already knew? (Y/N)

Learners noticed the diversity of characters.

We weren’t surprised to learn that most of the learners (87%) noticed the diversity of characters in the tutorial. This means that they would also notice the lack of diversity of characters. It confirms the idea that the way the characters look does matter to learners. 

Many learners did not identify with any of the characters.

Perhaps the reason the learners noticed the diversity of characters is because nearly half of learners  (nearly 42%) did not identify with them. While this was disappointing, it is useful feedback as we think about making learning objects more diverse and inclusive. Of those that identified with the characters, 17% percent of learners identified with the narrator, 9% identified with the white androgynously dressed female, 25% identified with the male Asian character, and 6% with the white female character.

Some learners wanted to see many characteristics represented.

Respondents were given a text box to type in any characteristics they wanted to see represented in the Library’s learning objects. We asked “what features in the character’s appearance would you like to see?” 19% of the 3,062 respondents stated no preference or that they didn’t care about character features. Another 10% indicated no or none. The word cloud noted in Image 3 below illustrates the most popular terms provided by learners to describe the characteristics they would like to see. 

(Image 3: Word Cloud Response)

Some standout terminology includes skin, hair, black, dark, curly, diversity, Africa, gender, and Hispanic. We observed that the terms didn’t represent the statistical breakdown of the demographics on the campus in some cases. For example, the terms “black” and “africa” were used more than terms like “hispanic” and “latino.” UCSD has more Chicano/Latino students (20.8%) than African American students (3.0%). This suggests an opportunity for more research into understanding if learners simply want to see themselves represented or multiple groups/ethnicities/cultures represented. An alternative interpretation may be that when learners think about diversity, they think specifically of Black/African representations rather than a more holistic viewpoint. Additionally, the large number of “don’t care” or “______” could indicate that while learners like seeing diverse characters, they don’t necessarily care how they are represented. It could also suggest that they are not invested in providing feedback and didn’t want to answer the question. 

Most learners liked seeing a diversity of characters represented.

Learners overwhelmingly (94%) like to see a diversity of characters represented in the tutorials. 

Most learners knew the U.S. History common knowledge reference.

UCSD has a growing international student population. We were curious to know if typical common knowledge references (e.g., event that marked the United States entering WWII) would resonate with learners that may not have studied in the U.S. before college. The majority of learners reported knowing this fact (86%). A limitation is that responses relied on self-reporting for this question because there isn’t a way to confirm if learners really knew the answer or were wary of admitting they didn’t know it in the anonymous survey. The survey also did not ask learners how they identified themselves, so we do not know how many of the respondents represented the university’s international student population. 

The results clearly illustrate that learners value diverse characters in learning objects. They notice which groups are represented. However, we need to learn more about how learners identify and include that representation in learning objects to make them more inclusive.

Our Next Steps

In our practice, we plan to continue to gather feedback from learners to improve the EDI of the library’s learning objects. We will add a question that captures the demographics of the respondents so that we can compare specific learner demographics with what they want to see more of (e.g. more characters that look like themselves or those that look different). We will undertake a systematic review of the library’s learning objects to identify ways to incorporate more diverse examples and apply our best practices, especially in the areas associated with topic and example choice. Staying up to date with the university’s growing student population will also become a priority as student growth may include a change in student demographics. In addition, we will continue to refine the EDI requirements to the evaluation checklist of instructional software and image packages representing student characterizations so that we are financially supporting companies that invest in EDI. We will also use software feature requests to add our voice to a growing call to include more diverse student characterizations in elearning authoring tools.

The Preventing Plagiarism Tutorial provided us with an opportunity to use our guidelines and learn more about the mechanics of developing more inclusive learning objects. In the process, we learned that small changes have a significant impact. We also learned that there is much more work to be done. While inclusive design is our immediate goal, there is also work relating to design justice for consideration. We plan to actively include marginalized stakeholder voices (e.g. students, librarians, faculty) in the planning process. We will adopt a small moves/big moves framework²² where we attend to immediate changes that promote inclusive design and keep an eye toward big moves that strive to incorporate design justice into our workflows. 

Moving Beyond Universal Design in Learning

Putting EDI principles into practice begins in the design phase of the learning object. Collier compels the practice of  inclusive design and design justice in higher education.²³ “Inclusive design emphasizes the contribution that understanding user diversity makes to informing these decisions, and thus to including as many people as possible.”²⁴ While UDL focuses on equal opportunity and technical accessibility, inclusive design “celebrates difference and focuses on designs that allow for diversity to thrive.”²⁵ Within higher education (and certainly when designing and developing information literacy learning objects) this can be accomplished in the design phase by including diverse stakeholders as part of the team that makes decisions as they relate to the content, instructional examples, and feedback provided to learners. In addition to being inclusive, our design decisions must be just. Design justice centers people with marginalized experiences in the design process to address design choices that affect them.²⁶ It urges educators to consider who is exploited and marginalized in the design decisions and questions who even gets to make the design decisions in the first place and why. 

At UC San Diego, we have practiced inclusive design in the following ways: 

• Incorporating Design Thinking²⁷ into our design practices. The methods offered by this framework facilitate our understanding of our learners’ experience with using the library’s services and collections. This is where we see the biggest opportunities to incorporate the goals of Design Justice. 
• Including diversity questions in our learning object evaluation forms to help us understand what resonates with our learners and how we could improve connecting with them through our design decisions about character appearance, examples used, etc. 
• Proactively purchasing instructional software or image packages that include teachers’ and learners’ representations. We have added a diversity and inclusion checklist as part of the software review before purchasing. 

While we have made some progress incorporating inclusive design in our practices there is more work to do. We recognize the constraints of the learning object format. While best practices in creating culturally responsive online learning offer ways in which to best utilize the online classroom environment to create inclusive learning communities, those techniques aren’t as readily available within the learning object mode of delivery (e.g. discussion boards or collaborative group work).²⁸ Thus, we plan to explore incorporating more learner-led participatory design into the workflow. In doing so we hope our learners can help us build upon our existing inclusive learning practices with an eye toward incorporating the goals of design justice. 

Conclusion

Our goal is to start a conversation about how diversity and inclusion practices can extend to creating learning objects. In doing so, we hope to begin to fill the gap in the literature so that designers of learning objects can have a reference point for their work in the future. As teaching librarians move information literacy instruction into the online learning environment via learning objects, the importance of extending EDI principles can not be overstated. The messages that we send through our design choices impact our learners in a variety of different ways and become even more important when the teacher and learner are unseen participants in the learning process. Each design choice is an opportunity to send a message of inclusion to learners. 

• Choosing culturally relevant topics that speak to a diverse student body sends a message that student experience and interests are important.
• Representing BIPOC voices in learning object examples conveys to learners that diverse voices are welcomed and heard.
• Going beyond multiple modes of delivery to ensure that tutorials consider ability beyond technical requirements as part of the EDI experience creates inclusivity for an often forgotten group.
• Using inclusive pronouns and language that is person-centred lets learners know they are respected and seen for the holistic person they are.
• Providing culturally responsive feedback acknowledges and respects existing knowledge.

By adding an EDI lens to the Universal Design for Learning framework for learning object creation, we begin to take steps that create inclusive online learning. This reflection ultimately improves learner motivation and investment in the learning process. 

---

Acknowledgments

We would like to posthumously recognize Gayatri Singh for participating in our work to create more diverse and inclusive learning objects. Her work in equity, diversity, and inclusion is a guiding light that influences us as we strive to create inclusive learning environments. We would also like to thank our colleagues in the Library, Academic Integrity Office, and Office of Students with Disabilities at UC San Diego for their input and feedback throughout the design and development processes of the plagiarism tutorial. Finally, we also wish to thank the publishing editor of the submitted article, Ian Beilin, and peer reviewers, Nicole Cooke, and Sylvia Page for their thoughtful feedback. 

---

References

ACRL IS Instruction for Diverse Populations Committee. (n.d). Library instruction for diverse populations bibliography. https://acrl.ala.org/IS/library-instruction-for-diverse-populations-bibliography/

Allen, M.W. & Sites, R.A. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model or developing the best learning experiences. American Society for Training Development.

Blummer, B., & Kritskaya, O. (2009). Best practices for creating an online tutorial: A literature review. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(3), 199-216. doi:10.1080/19322900903050799

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer

Chávez, A. F., Longerbeam, S. D., & White, J. L. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus Publishing LLC. 

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Pfeiffer.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). Scenario-based e-learning: Evidence-based guidelines for online workforce learning. John Riley & Sons.

Clossen, A., & Proces, P. (2017). Rating the accessibility of library tutorials from leading research universities. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(4), 803-825. doi: 10.1353/pla.2017.0047

Collier, A. (2020, October 26). Inclusive Design and Design Justice: Strategies to Shape Our Classes and Communities. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/10/inclusive-design-and-design-justice-strategies-to-shape-our-classes-and-communities#fn9

Dam, R. & Siang, T. (2019). What is design thinking and why is it so popular?. Interaction design foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular 

Design Justice Network. (n.d.). https://designjustice.org/ 

Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

Gagne, R., M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. (4th Ed.). Rinehart & Winston.

Grassian, E. & Kaplowtiz, J. (2009). Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal Design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.

Henry, S. L. (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) overview. W3C. www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design. The MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4137/MismatchHow-Inclusion-Shapes-Design

Inclusive Design Research Center (n.d.).What Is Inclusive Design? https://legacy.idrc.ocadu.ca/resources/idrc-online/49-articles-and-papers/443-whatisinclusivedesign

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance. The ARCS model approach. Springer.

Mestre, L. 2009. “Culturally Responsive Instruction for Teacher-Librarians.” Teacher Librarian 36 (3): 8-12.

Pendell, K., & Schroeder, R. (2017). Librarians as campus partners: Supporting culturally responsive and inclusive curriculum. College & Research Libraries News, 78(8), 414-414. doi:10.5860/crln.78.8.414

Richards, H. Brown, A. F. & Forde, T. B. Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 64. https://bcpskenwoodhs.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/59216594/addressingdiversity.pdf 

Smith, D. R. & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning:

Implications for the globalized community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(5-6), 401-415. doi:10.1080/10668920500442125

University of California, San Diego Institutional Research. (2020). UC San Diego Undergraduate Enrollment by Diversity. Retrieved from https://ir.ucsd.edu/undergrad/publications/4-5studprof.pdf . 

Webb, K., & Hoover, J. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library: A methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 537-553. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.4.537

West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). UDL guidelines checklist. https://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/UDL/7.%20UDL%20Guidelines%20Checklist.pdf

“What Is Inclusive Design,” Inclusive Design Research Centre (website), n.d., accessed April 10, 2020. http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/whatis/whatis.html 

Wiley, D. A., (2000) “Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy,” in The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version, ed. Retrieved from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Woodley, X., Hernandez, C. M., Parra, J. L. & Negash, V. (2017). Celebrating difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching online. Tech Trends 61(2), doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0207-z

Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (2017). Learning styles as a myth. Retrieved from https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/LearningStylesMyth.

---

Appendices

Image Text Descriptions

Image 1: Maya Text Description

Maya is a female cartoon caricature of average height and weight. She has brown skin, brown shoulder length hair and brown eyes. Maya is wearing a purple sleeveless top, orange skirt, black flats.

Image 2: Senario Student Characters

Three cartoon caricatures of students. The first could be considered female of average height and weight. The character has black chin length hair with purple streaks, wide set blue eyes, and light skin. They are wearing a white sleeveless top under a black vest with red pants and black shoes. 

The second caricature could be considered male of average build with brown hair, smaller set black eyes, and light skin. They are wearing a white long sleeve shirt, rolled at the sleeves under a light grey vest, bowtie, brown pants and black shoes.

The third caricature could be considered female of larger build with redish hair, brown eyes, and light skin. They are wearing red glasses, a pendant necklace, green top, jeans, and white shoes.

Image 3: Word Cloud Response Text

Asian, hair, color, dark, Black, skin, female, eyes, disability, brown, hijab, variety, white, Latin, glasses, clothes, guy, blonde, Hispanic, people of color, girl.

1. Wiley, 2000, p. 7 [↩]
2. Inclusive Design Research Center, n.d., para. 1 [↩]
3. Blummer & Kritskaya, 2009 [↩]
4. Webb & Hoover, 2015 [↩]
5. Dolmage, 2017 [↩]
6. Dolmage, 2017; Hamraie, 2017 [↩]
7. Richards, Brown, Forde, 2007 [↩]
8. Clossen & Proces, 2017 [↩]
9. Homes, 2018 [↩]
10. Pendell & Schroeder, 2017, p. 414 [↩]
11. Branch, 2009; Allen & Sites,  2012 [↩]
12. Keller, 2019 [↩]
13. Gagné, 1985 [↩]
14. Dam & Siang, 2019 [↩]
15. Mestre, 2009 [↩]
16. Chavez, Longerbeam, White, 2016 [↩]
17. Grassian & Kaplowitz, 2009 [↩]
18. Clark & Mayer, 2013 [↩]
19. Clark and Mayer, 2011 [↩]
20. Smith & Ayers, 2006 [↩]
21. Henry, 2018 [↩]
22. Collier, 2020 [↩]
23. Collier, 2020 [↩]
24. “What is inclusive design,” n.d. [↩]
25. Collier, 2020 [↩]
26. Design Justice Network (n.d) [↩]
27. Dam & Siang, 2019 [↩]
28. Woodley, Hernandez, Parra & Negash, 2017 [↩]