Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 112–123 | Cite as

Increasing Accessibility in Couple and Family Therapy Training: Incorporating Universal Design for Instruction

Original Paper


In the last three decades the number of US graduate students with disabilities has increased exponentially. Institutions of higher education have responded by developing and implementing multiple programs and initiatives to meet the needs of this population. One initiative, Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), is believed to have considerable promise. There is a lack of marriage and family therapy (MFT) literature on how to develop and implement pedagogical strategies for students with disabilities and diverse learning styles. Thus, UDI has the potential to enable MFT educators to increasingly foster inclusivity and provide accessible educational experiences for all students, including those with disabilities. When correctly incorporated UDI should diminish the need for individualized accommodations and increase the accessibility of courses and clinical training. We provide a synopsis of the history and philosophy of UDI and describe strategies for applying its nine principles to MFT education.


Family therapy education Educational accessibility Learning disabilities Physical disabilities 


  1. American Association of Marriage, Family Therapy. (2001). AAMFT code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy.Google Scholar
  2. Aponte, H. J., Powell, F. D., Brooks, S., Watson, M. F., Litzke, C., Lawless, J., et al. (2009). Training the person of the therapist in an academic setting. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(4), 381–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association on Higher Education and Disability. (2009). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from,
  4. Chang, B. V., Tremblay, K. R., & Dunbar, B. H. (2000). An experiential approach to teaching universal design. Education, 121(1), 153–158.Google Scholar
  5. Chodock, T., & Dolinger, E. (2009). Applying universal design to information literacy: Teaching students who learn differently at Landmark College. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(1), 24–32.Google Scholar
  6. Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education. (2005). Accreditation standards: Version 11.0. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from 11 Standards of Accreditation Index Page.asp.
  7. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). About UD: Universal design principles. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from
  8. Curry, C., Cohen, L., & Lightbody, N. (2006). Universal design in science learning. The Science Teacher, 73(3), 32–37. (Academic OneFile). Google Scholar
  9. Flores, M. M. (2008). Universal design in elementary and middle school: Designing classrooms and instructional practices to ensure access to learning for all students. Childhood Education, 84, 224–229.Google Scholar
  10. Hennessey, M. L., & Koch, L. (2007). Universal design for instruction in rehabilitation counselor education. Rehabilitation Education, 21(3), 187–194.Google Scholar
  11. Howard, K. L. (2004). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(5), 26–29.Google Scholar
  12. Keiley, M. K., Dolbin, M., Hill, J., Karuppaswamy, N., Liu, T., Natrajan, R., et al. (2002). The cultural genogram: Experiences from within a marriage and family training program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(2), 165–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 32, 199–201.Google Scholar
  14. Lightfoot, E., & Gibson, P. (2005). Universal instructional design: A new framework for accommodating students in social work courses. Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 269–277.Google Scholar
  15. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58, 39–43.Google Scholar
  18. Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  19. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Center for Universal Design. (1997). About UD: Universal design history. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
  23. The Center for Universal Design. (2008). About UD: Universal design principles. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design. Retrieved January 12, 2010 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marriage and Family TherapyFairfield UniversityFairfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department Psychological and Educational ConsultationFairfield UniversityFairfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations