Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Increasing Accessibility Through Inclusive Instruction and Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disability as Diversity

Abstract

Some instructional methods have unintended consequences for students with disabilities. Inclusive curricula and classroom instruction are necessary to provide full access to all students in health science programs. Utilizing the framework and basic principles of universal design in education, we explore strengths and barriers associated with the most commonly utilized instructional methods and offer guidance for improving instruction for all students. Instructional methods discussed include active learning in lectures, the flipped classroom model, problem-based learning, and peer-assisted learning. In addition, we propose that instruction in the science of learning should be included in health science program curricula. Practical strategies are presented to help recruit faculty allies, assist stakeholders in advocating for more inclusive health science program instruction, and remove barriers to full inclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zepke N, Leach L. Improving student engagement: ten proposals for action. Act Learn High Educ. 2010;11(3):167–77.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP. Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res High Educ. 2006;47(1):1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, Reschly AL. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J Sch Psychol. 2006;44(5):427–45.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kuh GD. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change Mag High Learn. 2003;35(2):24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Norman K, Caseau D, Stefanich GP. Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: survey results. Sci Educ. 1998;82(2):127–46.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Silver P, Bourke A, Strehorn KC. Universal instructional design in higher education: an approach for inclusion. Equity Excell Educ. 1998;31(2):47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Leyser Y, Greenberger L. College students with disabilities in teacher education: faculty attitudes and practices. Eur J Spec Needs Educ. 2008;23(3):237–51.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar K. A journey towards creating an inclusive classroom: how universal design for learning has transformed my teaching. Transform Dialogues Teach Learn J. 2010;4(2):1–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Scott SS, Mcguire JM, Shaw SF. Universal design for instruction: a new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial Spec Educ. 2003;24(6):369–79.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pliner SM, Johnson JR. Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design in higher education. Equity Excell Educ. 2004;37(2):105–13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mace RL, Hardie GJ, Place JP. Accessible environments: toward universal design. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University: The Center for Universal Design; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Scott SS, McGuire JM, Foley TE. Universal design for instruction: a framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity Excell Educ. 2010;36(1):40–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sullivan L, Meeks LM. Big solutions for small groups in health science programs. Disabil Compliance High Educ. 2018;23(8):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Adams SJ. Leveling the floor: classroom accommodations for law student with disabilities. J Leg Educ. 1998;48(2):273–96.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Milman NB. The flipped classroom strategy: what is it and how can it best be used? Dist Learn. 2012;9(3):85–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sullivan L. Flip, don’t flop: ensuring accessibility of the flipped classroom. Disabil Compliance High Educ. 2018;23(9):6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rose DH, Hasselbring TS, Stahl S, Zabala J. Assistive technology and universal design for learning: two sides of the same coin. In: Edyburn D, Higgins K, Boone R, Langone J, editors. Handbook of special education technology, research and practice. Whitefish Bay: Knowledge by Design; 2005. p. 507–18.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abell MM, Bauder DK, Simmons TJ. Access to the general curriculum: a curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Interv Sch Clin. 2005;41(2):82–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Basham JD, Israel M, Graden J, Poth R, Winston M. A comprehensive approach to RtI: embedding universal design for learning and technology. Learn Disabil Q. 2010;33(4):243–55.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hmelo-Silver C, Duncan R, Chinn C. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Psychol. 2007;42(2):99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  21. CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology): About Universal Design for Learning, “UDL at a Glance” video [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html.

  22. Meeks LM, Jain NR. Accessibility, inclusion, and action in medical education: lived experiences of learners and physicians with disabilities. [Internet]. Washington, D.C: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2018. Available from: https://store.aamc.org/accessibility-inclusion-and-action-in-medical-education-lived-experiences-of-learners-and-physicians-with-disabilities.html.

  23. Neal-Boylan L, Smith D. Nursing students with physical disabilities: dispelling myths and correcting misconceptions. Nurse Educ. 2016;41(1):13–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Neal-Boylan L, Miller M. Treat me like everyone else: the experience of nurses who had disabilities while in school. Nurse Educ. 2017;42(4):176–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mckendree J, Snowling MJ. Examination results of medical students with dyslexia. Med Educ. 2011;45(2):176–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schelly CL, Davies PL, Spooner CL. Student perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for learning. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2011;24(1):17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Black RD, Weinberg LA, Brodwin MG. Universal design for instruction and learning: a pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Except Educ Int. 2014;24(1):48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Perform Improv Q. 2013;26(2):43–71.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instr Sci. 1996;24(1):1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci. 1988;12(2):257–85.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miller GA. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):81–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Halford GS, Baker R, McCredden JE, Bain JD. How many variables can humans process? Psychol Sci. 2005;16(1):70–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Paivio A. Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990. 336 p.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Paivio A, Desrochers A. A dual-coding approach to bilingual memory. Can J Psychol. 1980;34(4):388–99.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009. 320 p.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Curry L. Individual differences in cognitive style, learning style and instructional preference in medical education. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newbie DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Brown PC, Roediger HL III, McDaniel MA. Make it stick: the science of successful learning. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bandura A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J Soc Clin Psychol. 1986;4(3):359–73.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bandura A, Schunk DH. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1981;41(3):586–98.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zimmerman BJ. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J Educ Psychol. 1989;81(3):329–39.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Multon KD, Brown SD, Lent RW. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. J Couns Psychol. 1991;38(1):30–8.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stegers-Jager KM, Cohen-Schotanus J, Themmen APN. Motivation, learning strategies, participation and medical school performance. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):678–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Felder R. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ. 1988;78(7):674–81.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fleming ND, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Improve Acad. 1992;11(1):137–55.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mayer RE. Does styles research have useful implications for educational practice? Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(3):319–20.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2009;9(3):105–19.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fleming S, Mckee G, Huntley-Moore S. Undergraduate nursing students’ learning styles: a longitudinal study. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(5):444–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gurpinar E, Bati H, Tetik C. Learning styles of medical students change in relation to time. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(3):307–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Center for Universal Design NCSU - About the Center - Ronald L. Mace [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm.

  51. Mace RL. Universal design: barrier-free environments for everyone. Des West. 1985;33(1):147–52.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Orkwis R, McLane K. A curriculum every student can use: design principles for student access. [Internet]. Reston: Council for Exceptional Children; 1998 [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423654

  53. Rose DH, Meyer A. Teaching every student in the digital age: universal design for learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McGuire JM, Scott SS, Shaw SF. Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial Spec Educ. 2006;27(3):166–75.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rose DH, Harbour WS, Johnston CS, Daley SG, Abarbanell L. Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: reflections on principles and their application. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2006;19(2):135–51.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hall TE, Meyer A, Rose DH, editors. Universal design for learning in the classroom: practical applications. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rao K, Ok MW, Bryant BR. A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial Spec Educ. 2014;35(3):153–66.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Brinckerhoff LC, McGuire JM, Shaw SF. Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. 2nd ed. Austin: PRO-ED; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  59. UDL Guidelines [Internet]. National Center on Universal Design for Learning (NCUDL). 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 12]. Available from: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines.

  60. Rose DH, Gravel JW. Universal design for learning. In: Peterson P, Baker E, McGaw B, editors. International encyclopedia of education. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2010. p. 119–24.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ketterlin-Geller LR, Johnstone C. Accommodations and universal design: supporting access to assessments in higher education. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2006;19(2):163–72.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Dolan R, Hall TE, Banerjee M, Chun E, Strangman N. Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: the effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. J Technol Learn Assess. 2005;3(7):4–32.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fuller M, Healey M, Bradley A, Hall T. Barriers to learning: a systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university. Stud High Educ. 2004;29(3):303–18.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Comp G, Comp C. A guide to providing alternate formats. West Columbia: Center for Rehabilitation Technology Services; 1995. Report No.: ERIC document no ED 405689.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Johnstone CJ. Improving validity of large-scale tests: universal design and student performance. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rao K, Tanners A. Curb cuts in cyberspace: universal instructional design for online courses. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2011;24(3):211–29.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Smith FG. Analyzing a college course that adheres to the universal design for learning (UDL) framework. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2012;12(3):31–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Kumar KL, Wideman M. Accessible by design: applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. Can J High Educ. 2014;44(1):125–47.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Miller DK, Lang PL. Using the universal design for learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress. J Chem Educ. 2016;93(11):1823–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Spooner F, Baker JN, Harris AA, Ahlgrim-Delzell LA, Browder DM. Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial Spec Educ - REM SPEC EDUC. 2007;28(2):108–16.

    Google Scholar 

  71. McGhie-Richmond D, Sung AN. Applying universal design for learning to instructional lesson planning. Int J Whole Sch. 2013;9(1):43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Parker DR, Robinson LE, Hannafin RD. “Blending” technology and effective pedagogy in a core course for preservice teachers. J Comput Teach Educ. 2008;24(2):49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Watt S, Vajoczki S, Voros G, Vine MM, Fenton N, Tarkowski J. Lecture capture: an effective tool for universal instructional design? Can J High Educ. 2014;44(2):1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Reglinski J. Unlocking knowledge we know the students know. J Chem Educ. 2007;84(2):271.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Hall TE, Meyer A, Rose DH. Universal design for learning in the classroom: practical applications, What Works for Special-Needs Learners Series. Guilford Press; 2012. p. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Meloy F, Gambescia SF. Guidelines for response to student requests for academic considerations: support versus enabling. Nurse Educ. 2014;39(3):138–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Heelan A, Halligan P, Quirke M. Universal design for learning and its application to clinical placements in health science courses (practice brief). J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2015;28(4):469–79.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mino J. Planning for inclusion: using universal instructional design to create a learner-centered community college classroom. Equity Excell Educ. 2004;37(2):154–60.

    Google Scholar 

  79. University of Connecticut Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2019 Oct 12]. Available from: https://cped.uconn.edu/.

  80. Riviou K, Kouroupetroglou G, Oikonomidis N. A network of peers and practices for addressing Learner Variability: UDLnet. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:32–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Rye PD, Wallace J, Bidgood P. Instructions in learning skills: an integrated approach. Med Educ. 1993;27(6):470–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Mayer RE. What neurosurgeons should discover about the science of learning. Clin Neurosurg. 2009;56:57–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44(6):543–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Vogan CL, McKimm J, Da Silva AL, Grant A. Twelve tips for providing effective student support in undergraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):480–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wong BYL. The relevance of metacognition to learning disabilities. In: Learning about learning disabilities. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. p. 231–58.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Shaw SF, Dukes LL. Program standards for disability services in higher education. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2001;14(2):81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Marshall University Medical H.E.L.P. Program [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 30]. Available from: https://www.marshall.edu/medhelp/.

  88. Year 1 & 2 Course Information | UTMB School of Medicine | UTMB [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: https://som.utmb.edu/som-educational-affairs/instructional-management-office/year-1-2-course-information.

  89. Phase I (Years 1 and 2) [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: https://medicine.vtc.vt.edu/content/medicine_vtc_vt_edu/en/academics/phase1.html.

  90. Chemers MM, Hu L, Garcia BF. Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. J Educ Psychol. 2001;93(1):55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41(2):64–70.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Aaberg VA. A path to greater inclusivity through understanding implicit attitudes toward disability. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(9):505–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Frank B. Facilitating learning for students with disabilities. In: Billings DM, Halstead JA, editors. Teaching in nursing: a guide to faculty [Internet]. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016 [cited 2019 Oct 1]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/books/teaching-in-nursing/billings/978-0-323-29054-8.

  94. Wood D, Marshall ES. Nurses with disabilities working in hospital settings: attitudes, concerns, and experiences of nurse leaders. J Prof Nurs. 2010;26(3):182–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Dupler AE, Allen C, Maheady DC, Fleming SE, Allen M. Leveling the playing field for nursing students with disabilities: implications of the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(3):140–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Neal-Boylan L, Miller M, Bell J. Building academic communities to support nursing students with disabilities: an integrative review. Build Healthy Acad Communities J. 2018;2(1):60–73.

    Google Scholar 

  97. LeBlanc VR. The effects of acute stress on performance: implications for health professions education. Acad Med. 2009;84(10 Suppl):S25–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. LeBlanc VR, McConnell MM, Monteiro SD. Predictable chaos: a review of the effects of emotions on attention, memory and decision making. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(1):265–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Evans W, Kelly B. Pre-registration diploma student nurse stress and coping measures. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(6):473–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Gibbons C, Dempster M, Moutray M. Stress and eustress in nursing students. J Adv Nurs. 2008;61(3):282–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Konopasek L, Slavin S. Addressing resident and fellow mental health and well-being: what can you do in your department? J Pediatr. 2015;167(6):1183–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Goldman ML, Bernstein CA, Konopasek L, Arbuckle M, Mayer LES. An intervention framework for institutions to meet new ACGME common program requirements for physician well-being. Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(4):542–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Harrisson EG. Working with faculty toward universally designed instruction: the process of dynamic course design. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2006;19(2):152–62.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Tee S, Cowen M. Supporting students with disabilities--promoting understanding amongst mentors in practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012;12(1):6–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Harris J, Ho T, Markle L, Wessel R. Ball State University’s faculty mentorship program: enhancing the first-year experience for students with disabilities. Campus. 2011;16(2):27–9.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Kotter JP. Leading change, with a new preface by the author. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2012. 208 p.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Montgomery T, Meeks LM, Laird-Metke E. Debunking myths and addressing legitimate concerns. In: Meeks LM, Jain NR, editors. The guide to assisting students with disabilities: equal access in health science and professional education. 1st ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2016. p. 213–21.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Munyi CW. Past and present perceptions towards disability: a historical perspective. Disabil Stud Q [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2019 Oct 12];32(2). Available from: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3197.

  109. Dalal AK. Social interventions to moderate discriminatory attitudes: the case of the physically challenged in India. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11(3):374–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Etieyibo E, Omiegbe O. Religion, culture, and discrimination against persons with disabilities in Nigeria. Afr J Disabil. 2016;5(1):192.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. O’Hara J. Learning disabilities and ethnicity: achieving cultural competence. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2003;9(3):166–74.

    Google Scholar 

  112. McGough JD, Murray JF. Know your campus resources. In: Meeks LM, Jain NR, editors. The guide to assisting students with disabilities: equal access in health science and professional education. 1st ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2016. p. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Kenney MJ, Jain NR, Meeks LM, Laird-Metke E, Hori J, McGough JD. Learning in the digital age: assistive technology and electronic access. In: Meeks LM, Jain NR, editors. The guide to assisting students with disabilities: equal access in health science and professional education. 1st ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2016. p. 119–40.

    Google Scholar 

  114. DeLee B. Academic support services for college students with disabilities. J Appl Learn Technol. 2015;5(3):39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Tee SR, Owens K, Plowright S, Ramnath P, Rourke S, James C, et al. Being reasonable: supporting disabled nursing students in practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2010;10(4):216–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Davies PL, Schelly CL, Spooner CL. Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2013;26(3):195–220.

    Google Scholar 

  117. McKeachie WJ. Improving lectures by understanding students’ information processing. New Dir Teach Learn. 1980;1980(2):25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Verner C, Dickinson G. The lecture, an analysis and review of research. Adult Educ. 1967;17(2):85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Hartley J, Cameron A. Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educ Rev. 1967;20(1):30–7.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Thomas EJ. The variation of memory with time for information appearing during a lecture. Stud Adult Educ. 1972;4(1):57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Stuart J, Rutherford RJ. Medical student concentration during lectures. Lancet. 1978;2(8088):514–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Am Assoc High Educ Bull. 1987;3:7.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(3):223–31.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Rowe MB. Getting chemistry off the killer course list. J Chem Educ. 1983;60(11):954–6.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Ruhl KL, Hughes CA, Schloss PJ. Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teach Educ Spec Educ. 1987;10(1):14–8.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Di Vesta FJ, Smith DA. The pausing principle: increasing the efficiency of memory for ongoing events. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1979;4(3):288–96.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Maydosz A, Raver SA. Note taking and university students with learning difficulties: what supports are needed? J Divers High Educ. 2010;3(3):177–86.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Suritsky SK. Note-taking approaches and specific areas of difficulty reported by university students with learning disabilities. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 1992;10:3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Boyle JR, Forchelli GA, Cariss K. Note-taking interventions to assist students with disabilities in content area classes. Prev Sch Fail. 2015;59(3):186–95.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Piolat A, Olive T, Kellogg RT. Cognitive effort during note taking. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19(3):291–312.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ruhl KL, Hughes CA, Gajar AH. Efficacy of the pause procedure for enhancing learning disabled and nondisabled college students’ long- and short-term recall of facts presented through lecture. Learn Disabil Q. 1990;13(1):55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Ruhl KL, Suritsky S. The pause procedure and/or an outline: effect on immediate free recall and lecture notes taken by college students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q. 1995;18(1):2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Littlewood KE, Shilling AM, Stemland CJ, Wright EB, Kirk MA. High-fidelity simulation is superior to case-based discussion in teaching the management of shock. Med Teach. 2013;35(3):e1003–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML. Novel educational approach for medical students: improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(4):449–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports [Internet]. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University; 1991 [cited 2019 Aug 12]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049.

  136. Kimonen E, Nevalainen R. Active learning in the process of educational change. Teach Teach Educ. 2005;21:623–35.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Lindsey L, Berger N. Experiential approach to instruction. In: Reigeluth CM, Carr-Chellman AA, editors. Instructional design theories and models, volume III: building a common knowledge base. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 117–42.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Knowles MS. The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Cambridge: Englewood Cliffs; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Young MF. Instructional design for situated learning. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1993;41(1):43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Gersten R, Baker S. Real world use of scientific concepts: integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Except Child. 1998;65(1):23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, et al. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. 1st ed. New York: Pearson; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Keyser MW. Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Res Strateg. 2000;17(1):35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Niemi H. Active learning: a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teach Teach Educ. 2002;18:763–80.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Active learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Kiaer L, Mutchler D, Froyd J. Laptop computers in an integrated first-year curriculum. Commun ACM. 1998;41(1):45–9.

    Google Scholar 

  146. MacKinnon GR, Vibert C. Judging the constructive impacts of communication technologies: a business education study. Educ Inf Technol. 2002;7(2):127–35.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Siegle D, Foster T. Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software: their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology. J Res Comput Educ. 2001;34(1):29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Barak M, Lipson A, Lerman S. Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. J Res Technol Educ. 2006;38(3):245–63.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Yamamoto K. Banning laptops in the classroom: is it worth the hassles? J Leg Educ. 2007;57(4):477–520.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Cismaru R, Cismaru M. Laptop use during class: a review of Canadian universities. J Coll Teach Learn TLC. 2011;8(11):21–8.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Sana F, Weston T, Cepeda NJ. Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Comput Educ. 2013;62(1):24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  152. DeGroff EA. The dynamics of the contemporary law school classroom: looking at laptops through a learning style lens. Univ Dayt Law Rev. 2014;39(2):201–28.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Eisenstat S. A game changer: assessing the impact of the Princeton/UCLA Laptop study on the debate to ban law student use of laptops during class. Univ Detroit Mercy Law Rev. 2015;92(2):83–114.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Colker R. Universal design: stop banning laptops! Cardozo Law Rev. 2017;39(2):483–93.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Murray KE. Let them use laptops: debunking the assumptions underlying the debate over laptops in the classroom. Okla City Univ Law Rev. 2011;36:185–229.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Pryal KRG. Trust disabled students and their technology. Women High Educ. 2018;27(7):8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Mueller PA, Oppenheimer DM. The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(6):1159–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Luo L, Kiewra KA, Flanigan AE, Peteranetz MS. Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instr Sci Int J Learn Sci. 2018;46(6):947–71.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Ehrlick SP. Managing digital distraction: a pedagogical approach for dealing with wireless devices in the classroom. J Teach Educ. 2014;3(3):207–16.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Wright R, Perry PJ, Yoshizuka K. In Reply to “Why We Banned Use of Laptops and ‘Scribe Notes’ in Our Classroom”. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(2):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Paulson DR. Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry lecture class. J Chem Educ. 1999;76(8):1136–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. Wolff M, Wagner MJ, Poznanski S, Schiller J, Santen S. Not another boring lecture: engaging learners with active learning techniques. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(1):85–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Sokoloff DR, Thornton RK. Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. Phys Teach. 1997;35(6):340–7.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Harwood WS. The one-minute paper: a communication tool for large lecture classes. J Chem Educ. 1996;73(3):229–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. Wilson RC. Improving faculty teaching: effective use of student evaluations and consultants. J High Educ. 1986;57(2):196–211.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Estes TH, Mintz SL, Gunter MA. Instruction: A models approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Brown G, Manogue M. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 22: refreshing lecturing: a guide for lecturers. Med Teach. 2001;23(3):231–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Chamberlain NR, Stuart MK, Singh VK, Sargentini NJ. Utilization of case presentations in medical microbiology to enhance relevance of basic science for medical students. Med Educ Online. 2012;17.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Cutrer WB, Castro D, Roy KM, Turner TL. Use of an expert concept map as an advance organizer to improve understanding of respiratory failure. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):1018–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Kumar S, Dee F, Kumar R, Velan G. Benefits of testable concept maps for learning about pathogenesis of disease. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23(2):137–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Resnick M, Wilensky U. Diving into complexity: developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. J Learn Sci. 1998;7(2):153–72.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Duncombe S, Heikkinen MH. Role-playing for different viewpoints. Coll Teach. 1988;36(1):3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Gauci SA, Dantas AM, Williams DA, Kemm RE. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33(1):60–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Nelson C, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e386–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Angelo TA, Cross KP. Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Berkson L. Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met? Acad Med. 1993;68(10 Suppl):S79–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996;1996(68):3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Barrows HS. The essentials of problem-based learning. J Dent Educ. 1998;62(9):630–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Rideout E, Carpio B. The problem-based learning model of nursing education. In: Rideout E, editor. Transforming nursing education through problem-based learning. Mississauga: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2001. p. 21–49.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Barrows HS. How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Co.; 1985. 148 p.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Barrows HS. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med Educ. 1986;20(6):481–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2003;326(7384):328–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Rose DH, Meyer A. A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Neville AJ. Problem-based learning and medical education forty years on. A review of its effects on knowledge and clinical performance. Med Princ Pract Int J Kuwait Univ Health Sci Cent. 2009;18(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Dolmans DHJM, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IHAP, van der Vleuten CPM. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005;39(7):732–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Hartling L, Spooner C, Tjosvold L, Oswald A. Problem-based learning in pre-clinical medical education: 22 years of outcome research. Med Teach. 2010;32(1):28–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med. 1993;68(7):550–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Kasim RM. What can studies of problem-based learning tell us? Synthesizing and modeling PBL effects on National Board of Medical Examination performance: hierarchical linear modeling meta-analytic approach. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1999;4(3):209–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake JR, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81(7):617–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Koh GC-H, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;178(1):34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Schmidt HG, Vermeulen L, van der Molen HT. Longterm effects of problem-based learning: a comparison of competencies acquired by graduates of a problem-based and a conventional medical school. Med Educ. 2006;40(6):562–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Kong L-N, Qin B, Zhou Y, Mou S, Gao H-M. The effectiveness of problem-based learning on development of nursing students’ critical thinking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(3):458–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Cooke M, Moyle K. Students’ evaluation of problem-based learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2002;22(4):330–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Morales-Mann ET, Kaitell CA. Problem-based learning in a new Canadian curriculum. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33(1):13–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Gandhi S, Dass DP. A study to evaluate the effectiveness of problem based learning (PBL) module on knowledge and attitude among nursing students. Int J Nurs Educ. 2019;11(3):101–6.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Giddens JF, Brady DP. Rescuing nursing education from content saturation: the case for a concept-based curriculum. J Nurs Educ. 2007;46(2):65–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Baron KA. Changing to concept-based curricula: the process for nurse educators. Open Nurs J. 2017;11:277–87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Maxwell JA, Wilkerson L. A study of non-volunteer faculty in a problem-based curriculum. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S13–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Bernstein P, Tipping J, Bercovitz K, Skinner HA. Shifting students and faculty to a PBL curriculum: attitudes changed and lessons learned. Acad Med. 1995;70(3):245–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Hmelo-Silver C, Barrows H. Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdiscip J Probl-Based Learn. 2006;1(1):21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Bell P. Using argument representations to making thinking visible for individuals and groups. In: Koschmann T, Hall RP, Miyake N, editors. CSCL 2: carrying forward the conversation. 1st ed. Mahwah: Routledge; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Duncan RG. The role of domain-specific knowledge in promoting generative reasoning in genetics. In: Garab SA, Ha KE, Hickey DT, editors. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences: making a difference. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 147–54.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Schwartz DL, Bransford JD. A time for telling. Cogn Instr. 1998;16(4):475–522.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Houck CK, Asselin SB, Troutman GC, Arrington JM. Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: a study of faculty and student perceptions. J Learn Disabil. 1992;25(10):678–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Stergiopoulos E, Fernando O, Martimianakis MA. “Being on both sides”: Canadian medical students’ experiences with disability, the hidden curriculum, and professional identity construction. Acad Med. 2018;93(10):1550–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Fischer K, Sullivan AM, Krupat E, Schwartzstein RM. Assessing the effectiveness of using mechanistic concept maps in case-based collaborative learning. Acad Med. 2019;94(2):208–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Dymond SK, Renzaglia A, Rosenstein A, Chun EJ, Banks RA, Niswander V, et al. Using a participatory action research approach to create a universally designed inclusive high school science course: a case study. Res Pract Pers Sev Disabil RPSD. 2006;31(4):293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Kennedy MJ, Thomas CN, Meyer JP, Alves KD, Lloyd JW. Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: a UDL approach. Learn Disabil Q. 2014;37(2):71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Mazur E. Education. Farewell, lecture? Science. 2009;323(5910):50–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Ferreri SP, O’Connor SK. Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1407–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. Bergmann J, Sams A. How the flipped classroom is radically transforming learning [Internet]. The Daily Riff. 2012 [cited 2019 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/how-the-flipped-classroom-is-radically-transforming-learning-536.php.

  213. Lage MJ, Platt GJ, Treglia M. Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J Econ Educ. 2000;31(1):30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Pierce R, Fox J. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(10):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures — a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1657–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. Kavanagh L, Reidsema C, McCredden J, Smith N. Design considerations. In: Reidsema C, Kavanagh L, Hadgraft R, Smith N, editors. The flipped classroom: practice and practices in higher education. Puchong: Springer Singapore; 2017. p. 15–35.

    Google Scholar 

  217. McLaughlin JE, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Davidson CA, Glatt DM, Roth MT, et al. Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(9):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Critz CM, Knight D. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educ. 2013;38(5):210–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  219. Young TP, Bailey CJ, Guptill M, Thorp AW, Thomas TL. The flipped classroom: a modality for mixed asynchronous and synchronous learning in a residency program. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(7):938–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  220. Ramnanan CJ, Pound LD. Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:63–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  221. Missildine K, Fountain R, Summers L, Gosselin K. Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. J Nurs Educ. 2013;52(10):597–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Geist MJ, Larimore D, Rawiszer H, Sager AWA. Flipped versus traditional instruction and achievement in a baccalaureate nursing pharmacology course. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(2):114–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  224. McCoy L, Pettit RK, Kellar C, Morgan C. Tracking active learning in the medical school curriculum: a learning-centered approach. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018;5:2382120518765135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  225. Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach. 2007;29(1):38–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Della Ratta CB. Flipping the classroom with team-based learning in undergraduate nursing education. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(2):71–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Greer D, Rowland AL, Smith SJ. Critical considerations for teaching students with disabilities in online environments. Teach Except Child. 2014;46(5):79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  229. Phillips CR, Trainor JE. Milennial students and the flipped classroom. Proc ASBBS Annu Conf. 2014;21(1):519–30.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Olaussen A, Reddy P, Irvine S, Williams B. Peer-assisted learning: time for nomenclature clarification. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30974.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):546–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  232. Provencio AB, Garcia CM, Roesch J. Peer-to-peer tutoring: reducing failure rates in medical school. Med Educ. 2018;52(11):1183.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. Jayakumar N, Albasha D, Annan D. One-to-one peer tutoring for failing medical students: a novel intervention. Med Teach. 2015;37(5):498.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Durán CEP, Bahena EN, de Rodríguez M, LÁG, Baca GJ, Uresti AS, Elizondo-Omaña RE, et al. Near-peer teaching in an anatomy course with a low faculty-to-student ratio. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(3):171–6.

    Google Scholar 

  235. Field M, Burke JM, McAllister D, Lloyd DM. Peer-assisted learning: a novel approach to clinical skills learning for medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(4):411–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. Henning J, Weidner TG, Snyder M. Peer assisted learning in clinical education: literature review. Athl Train Educ J. 2008;3:84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Evans DJR, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  238. Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:115.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  239. Clarke B, Feltham W. Facilitating peer group teaching within nurse education. Nurse Educ Today. 1990;10(1):54–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  240. Williams B, Reddy P. Does peer-assisted learning improve academic performance? A scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;42:23–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  241. Secomb J. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(6):703–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  242. Sobral DT. Peer tutoring and student outcomes in a problem-based course. Med Educ. 1994;28(4):284–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  243. Agius A, Stabile I. Undergraduate peer assisted learning tutors’ performance in summative anatomy examinations: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:93–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  244. Nestel D, Kidd J. Peer assisted learning in patient-centred interviewing: the impact on student tutors. Med Teach. 2005;27(5):439–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  245. Silbert BI, Lake FR. Peer-assisted learning in teaching clinical examination to junior medical students. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):392–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Gottlieb Z, Epstein S, Richards J. Near-peer teaching programme for medical students. Clin Teach. 2017;14(3):164–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  247. Shankar PR, Singh B, Singh AK, Karki BS, Thapa TP. Student perception about peer-assisted learning sessions in a medical school in Nepal. WebmedCentral Med Educ. 2011;2(11):WMC002459.

    Google Scholar 

  248. Erie AJ, Starkman SJ, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Developing medical students as teachers: an anatomy-based student-as-teacher program with emphasis on core teaching competencies. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(6):385–92.

    Google Scholar 

  249. Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13(3):361–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  250. Sobral DT. Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for student tutors. Med Educ. 2002;36(11):1064–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  251. Wong JG, Waldrep TD, Smith TG. Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: the MUSC supplemental instructor program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):216–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  252. Knobe M, Münker R, Sellei RM, Holschen M, Mooij SC, Schmidt-Rohlfing B, et al. Peer teaching: a randomised controlled trial using student-teachers to teach musculoskeletal ultrasound. Med Educ. 2010;44(2):148–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  253. Alcamo AM, Davids AR, Way DP, Lynn DJ, Vandre DD. The impact of a peer-designed and -led USMLE Step 1 review course: improvement in preparation and scores. Acad Med. 2010;85(10 Suppl):S45–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  254. Turk SA, Mousavizadeh A, Roozbehi A. The effect of peer assisted learning on medical students’ learning in a limbs anatomy course. Res Dev Med Educ. 2015;4(2):115–22.

    Google Scholar 

  255. Swindle N, Wimsatt L. Development of peer tutoring services to support osteopathic medical students’ academic success. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(11):e14–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  256. Sawyer SJ, Sylvestre PB, Girard RA, Snow MH. Effects of supplemental instruction on mean test scores and failure rates in medical school courses. Acad Med. 1996;71(12):1357–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  257. Reyes-Hernández CG, Carmona Pulido JM, De la Garza Chapa RI, Serna Vázquez RP, Alcalá Briones RD, Plasencia Banda PM, et al. Near-peer teaching strategy in a large human anatomy course: perceptions of near-peer instructors. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(2):189–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  258. Horneffer A, Fassnacht U, Oechsner W, Huber-Lang M, Boeckers TM, Boeckers A. Effect of didactically qualified student tutors on their tutees’ academic performance and tutor evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Anat. 2016;208:170–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  259. Parker DR, Getty M. PLTL and universal design for instruction: Investigating wider access for students with disabilities. Progress Newsl. 2009;10(1).

    Google Scholar 

  260. Parker DR, White CE, Collins L, Banerjee M, McGuire JM. Learning technologies management system (LiTMS): a multidimensional service delivery model for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2009;22(2):130–6.

    Google Scholar 

  261. Street CD, Koff R, Fields H, Kuehne L, Handlin L, Getty M, et al. Expanding access to STEM for at-risk learners: a new application of universal design for instruction. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2012;25(4):363–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express appreciation to Erika Maikish, Grace C. Clifford, Adele Shenoy, and Kellen K. Petersen for their support at various stages of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Director, Academic Support Programs, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Kristina H. Petersen

Authors
  1. Kristina H. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina H. Petersen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, The University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Lisa M. Meeks

  2. Solomont School of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

    Leslie Neal-Boylan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Petersen, K.H. (2020). Increasing Accessibility Through Inclusive Instruction and Design. In: Meeks, L., Neal-Boylan, L. (eds) Disability as Diversity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46187-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46187-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46186-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46187-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation