Inclusive Practices in Instructional Design

Inclusive Practices in Instructional Design

Patricia Dyjur
Graduate Student
Educational Communications and Technology
University of Saskatchewan
April, 2004

Select a different paper
Download a copy of the entire paper

In this paper, I will explore the area of inclusive practices in instructional design. I will discuss why inclusive design in important for marginalized groups, and how it benefits all learners. Finally, I will note some strategies that instructional designers and other educators can use to make the learning environment more inclusive.

What is Inclusive Design?

Inclusive design is “a process that results in inclusive products or environments which can be used by everyone regardless of age, gender, or disability” (Centre for Education in the Built Environment, 2003). The concept of inclusive design has been evolving. In much of the literature it also addresses race, socioeconomic status, education, culture, and language. Inclusive design is an approach to designing products that address the needs of as much of the audience as possible. Other terms that are used in a context similar to inclusive design are ‘design for all’, designing for diversity, and ‘respect for people’ (Centre for Education in the Built Environment, 2003).

Inclusive design is based on the premise that certain groups of people are discriminated against or disadvantaged at certain times (Centre for Education in the Built Environment, 2003). With regard to educational environments, this can happen in a multitude of ways, from the physical limitations of the classroom, to more implicit factors such as cultural bias. Thus, inclusive design involves careful planning to engage all learners, and a critical examination of the learning environment to determine if anyone is excluded.

Working towards the goal of inclusive design requires that education be equitable, not necessarily equal. Academic standards are not lowered, but certain adaptations may be made. Learners do not receive identical instruction; they may start at different points, use different materials, and be assessed in different ways. Equity means that the instruction meets the learners’ needs (McAllister, 2002).

Although the terms ‘universal design’ and ‘inclusive design’ are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, many people assign them separate meanings. Universal design can be defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or special design” (Connell et. al., 1997 ). It is often used more narrowly than inclusive design, to denote accessibility issues for people with physical, cognitive, or perceptual disabilities. Inclusive design, on the other hand, takes a user-centred approach, encompassing factors such as age, gender, experience and ethnicity (Personal communication, Katy Campbell, Feb. 2, 2004). Since differing ability is a learner characteristic, I will include universal design issues as one part of inclusive design. Universal access is an aspect of universal design, with an emphasis on information and communication technology (Coleman, 2003).

My understanding of inclusive design is one that includes universal design principles. It also advocates inclusion of social factors, such as language and culture, and other learner characteristics, such as age. In my paper, I will address some of the major issues regarding inclusive practices in education, and strategies that instructional designers can use to make the learning environment more inclusive.

Why is Inclusive Design Important?

All education is grounded in a social framework, based on certain assumptions. When certain educational decisions are made, the door is closed to other options. As content is selected, other content is excluded; instructional designers and educators are constantly making decisions about what will be learned and how, methods of learner assessment, and many other factors that affect the learning environment. Currently, many educational decisions reflect the dominant culture perspective. The curriculum and teaching environment tend to reflect a middle class, Eurocentric approach to education: no surprise, as teachers tend to be middle class, and curriculum construction is a design task performed by humans with particular social and cultural traits.

Basing their comments on Ralph Tyler (1949), Cervero and Wilson (1994) assert that

Objectives are a matter of choice, and they must therefore be considered value judgments of those responsible for the school…After all the information is collected about what might be taught in an educational program, the values of those who are responsible for the program determine what is actually taught. (p. 163).

When designing instruction for the mainstream, certain groups tend to be discriminated against or disadvantaged. Often the instructional bias is not obvious, but hidden under a blanket of inertia (“We’ve always done it this way”) and even good intentions (“This is the best education possible”). Some educators take the hegemonic view that their way is naturally best for the learners, regardless of who those learners are.

Some practices are hidden under a veneer of neutrality, not even recognized as privileging some learners while discriminating against others. It is not only through the curriculum that learners can be disadvantaged. Classroom policies and practices can work against some students. Learning activities and student assessment techniques are often seen as value-neutral; yet, the learner’s gender, age, ability, culture, language, religion, and social class can all have a significant impact on how he or she learns (Barajas & Higbee, 2002).

Inclusive practices in instructional design are important because they ask us to question whose needs are being served in the education process. Inclusive design is user-centred, placing the needs of the learners at the heart of this question. Gender, age, culture, socioeconomic status, and many other factors affect a person’s learning experience. Therefore, instruction that is inclusive will accommodate a wide range of learner needs, not just those that match the instructional designer’s or educator’s.

Instructional designers can make a difference in the world through their efforts, and the ways they shape the educational environment for the learners (Personal communication, Katy Campbell, Dec. 13, 2003). Cervero and Wilson (1994) state that

As social beings with interests and values, planners do care about and are committed to bringing about a certain kind of world through their efforts. Planners are always affecting the world in a particular direction and closing off other directions (p. 163).

They note that this is where a planner’s ethical values are so crucial. They can choose to plan for the needs of diverse cultural groups, or not. They can consider the interests of the learners, or not. Instructional designers can not only affect the design and development of instruction, they can play an influential role with other educators, by encouraging them to use inclusive practices.

As I was reading over the information for this paper, I tried to keep this quote in mind:

The literature has paid so much attention to the technical information and skills that planners need that many people believe, even in the face of daily experience that teaches them otherwise, that their primary role is that of a technical consultant, artfully managing the planning process with a repertoire of strategies and techniques. Although this is clearly is one role that planners play, it sells the complexity of their practice far short. For, as planners negotiate interests, they also play the role of social activist (as they deal with ethical questions) and political organizer (as they deal with questions of power) (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p. 170).

Inclusive practices involve more than having a well-stocked toolbox of strategies and ideas. By using inclusive practices, instructional designers and educators are advocating for a fair learning environment for all students.

Universal Design

For the purposes of this paper, I will consider ‘universal design’ to refer to accessibility issues for people with disabilities. Universal design for learning is based on the premise that instruction should include alternatives to make it accessible to a diversity of needs. Instruction that is delivered one way to all learners will not address every learner’s needs. Additionally, any method of presenting information that aids learning for some people will be problematic for others (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). For example, any visual materials I used with my class hopefully benefited most of my students; however, I knew they would add nothing to the instruction for my blind student. The Center for Applied Special Technology has identified three principles of universal design for learning: providing flexible means of representation, expression, and engagement. I’ll elaborate on each one in turn.

Providing flexible means of representation involves finding alternative ways of delivering the instruction to suit the needs of the learner. Printed text can be a barrier for students with learning disabilities or low vision, but print in digital form can be altered in size, shape, or color to suit the learner. With the right technology, it can be delivered orally to blind users. Audial presentation is preferred by some people, but meaningless for deaf people. Oral information with captions meets the needs of most learners. Similarly, graphics and text are stronger than just one mode of presentation. Some learners may have a slight impairment that isn’t readily apparent, but affects their learning nonetheless. Flexible means of representation can help these learners to access the content (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). For example, my older son has a low-level hearing loss that goes unnoticed for the most part. He sometimes doesn’t catch what is said in a noisy classroom or gymnasium. Multimodal presentation helps him (and others) to understand the instruction.

The second principle of universal design for learning is to provide flexible means of expression. Writing with pencil and paper can be a painful exercise for students who have poor fine motor skills, or have difficulty spelling words. Using the computer to write can overcome many barriers: enlarged keyboards and spell checkers can be most helpful. Oral presentations can overcome motor barriers for some, but are problematic for others. Because we want learners to develop in all areas, not just where they are strong, creating multimedia presentations can be an excellent tool (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001).

The third principle of universal design for learning, providing flexible means of engagement, recognizes that learners have individual differences in developmental experience, abilities, and motivation (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). Instruction should provide an appropriate balance between support and challenge, based on learner needs. Some learners will require more scaffolding than others to engage the material. Finding a balance between novelty and familiarity can also keep the learner engaged. The optimum amount of repetition, familiarity, randomness, and surprise in the instruction is an individual preference. Again, presenting the instruction in more than one way, such as graphic, text, and orally, can lead to deeper engagement. Having a flexible curriculum with some learner choice and control is another strategy to promote engagement. Students with differing abilities make decisions about their own learning (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). In Saskatchewan, the adaptive dimension could help fulfill this goal.

How Universal Design has Affected Education

In education, universal design has meant a shift in how we think about teaching and learning in some basic ways. First of all, people are not ‘disabled’ so much as having a variation in ability. Their skills fall along a continuum of abilities with regard to physical, psychological, and mental abilities, and this variation can change over time and according to context (Fletcher, 2002). A second aspect to universal design for learning is that it aims to modify the instruction for all learners, not just those with varying abilities. As a result, the instruction is strengthened for all learners (Fletcher, 2002). Thirdly, universal design guidelines expand on the choice of curriculum materials to include digital and online resources as well as texts. Additionally, universal design for learning takes a different approach to ‘disability’, viewing it not as something to be fixed, but as differently abled. As a result, it is the curriculum that must be fixed to become flexible enough to accommodate all learners (Rose, Sethuraman, & Meo, 2000).

Cognitive Accessibility in Universal Design

Universal design aims to create products and environments that are accessible to people with cognitive challenges as well as physical ones. Cognitive accessibility is “the super layer of strategies and methods that help any learner or user understand or cognitively integrate the interface and content” (Roberts, n.d.). In that regard, designing for cognitive accessibility helps all the learners to access the content.

Design strategies for cognitive accessibility include things that organize the content in a way that makes sense for the learners. Using advanced organizers, sequencing of content, and chunking information for better retention increase cognitive accessibility (Roberts, n.d.). Other strategies include building prerequisite skills before introducing new ones, and progressing from concrete to abstract ideas (McAllister, 2002). When evaluating web sites for cognitive accessibility, consistency in layout is critical. Menus should be located in the same spot on each page. If they move around, the user has to re-discover how to navigate different pages of a site.

Universal Access

Griffith University (2004) offers some basic guidelines for people who want to make their web site more accessible to people with perceptual challenges. First of all, provide information about the accessibility of the site, to alert learners as to how the materials are presented, icons and signposts that have been used, and the technology needed to access the site. This information should be readily available. Accessibility is also increased through textual descriptions of non-print items, such as audio or video components. Web builders will want to be careful with using color. Ensure there is enough contrast between colors by printing out a page in black and white, and don’t rely on color as the only way to distinguish something. Language usage is particularly important: state the information in the clearest way possible. Spell out all abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used, even common ones such as days of the week. Last of all, make sure that downloadable documents are fully accessible or available in alternate formats. For example, audio and video content in a PowerPoint presentation can be problematic. (Griffith University, 2004).

Learner Characteristics and Inclusivity

Gender

As instructional design is a human activity performed by people who are gendered, and hold certain social values, the education they design is not a value-free, scientific fact, but a human construct. Some gender issues may be fairly obvious, such as the use of exclusionary language (I just loved the quote from Cunningham (1986), who is advocating for a constructivist and semiotic approach to educational research: “There are no good guys and bad guys, only guys”.) (In Hlynka, 1991). Other issues, such as differences in learning styles, are harder to recognize. Designers must actively examine their gender assumptions so they can create instruction that is more gender-inclusive.

Gender bias in language usage involves more than exclusionary terms. Certain types of jargon and cliches are favored more by males than females. The sports metaphors and violent terms that are so pervasive in our culture speak more to males than to females (Powell, 1997). The ways in which men and women tend to discuss their ideas can differ, too. Men tend to ‘state the facts’. Women tend to look for an interconnectedness of ideas, which can be perceived as weak by men (Campbell, 1999).

It is not always girls who are disadvantaged in regard to language and literacy issues. Females typically favor narrative forms of discourse, while males tend to favor nonfiction, action and adventure. Narrative stories, however, tend to be given more importance academically than forms of discourse favored by males. Such preferences tend to put boys at a disadvantage in the early school years (Newkirk, 2002). Instructional designers and other educators can address this issue by providing flexibility in reading and writing assignments.

Learning theory literature states that learning styles may be influenced by gender, especially for adults. Men tend to be autonomous or independent learners. The majority of women, on the other hand, tend to learn in a relational, connected, or interdependent way. Inclusive design practices acknowledge and accommodate these different approaches to learning. (Campbell, 1999).

Since women have different learning preferences from men, we need to consider how inclusive or gender-neutral learning environments can be designed. Also, if a learning environment is structured to support relational and collaborative learning, the question is whether or not that will put autonomous learners at a disadvantage. According to standpoint theory, learning environments that support the needs of previously marginalized groups provide better learning opportunities for all people (Campbell, 2000).

An inclusive learning environment that supports gender preferences is one that offers different ways to learn, and more than one form of representation; it offers activities that are connected, relational, and holistic; it values feelings, intuitions, and experiences as well as knowledge; and it offers learner control. Instructional designers can play an important role in the creation of gender-balanced instructional materials (Campbell, 2000).

Gender and technology. The internet and web-based courses have the potential to offer diverse learning opportunities to students. According to Campbell (2000), these new technologies can accommodate many learning styles, preferences, and experiences; verbal, visual, and aural presentation of content create environments that are more inclusive. With regard to instructional technology, “constructivist approaches to learning design encourages the inter-relatedness of perspectives, and supports relational ways of knowing and being in the world, ways that may be preferred by women” (Campbell, 2000). Technology holds the potential to be inclusive for a wider audience than ever before.

In reality, though, technology is not yet gender-inclusive. Campbell (2000) describes technology as androcentric in design, “reproducing and reinforcing sexist gender stereotypes.” Procedural, linear thinking, competition, and autonomous situations often typify computer environments, which differs from many females’ preferred learning style. Factors that may exclude females from technology are personal attitudes, anxiety, and motivation, access, socialization and culture, learning context, learning design, the nature of the content, and learning and cognitive style differences (Campbell, 2000).

Even the way in which many computer work spaces is designed tends to favor males’ preferences over females’ preferred style of working (Campbell, 2003). Many workspaces are organized in strict military rows, sometimes with dividers between computers to eliminate distractions and interaction. Girls, who tend to favor social learning, could be put off by such as arrangement. A computer environment that is more responsive to their preferences could have computers grouped together to facilitate interaction. Computer workspaces tend to have harsh lighting and a clinical look, not very appealing to most girls.

Instructional designers and educators can help to correct the imbalance, though. Campbell (1999) offers some suggestions for making technology more accessible to females, including:

Required computer classes at all age levels
Group projects
Use of computers in humanities and social science content areas
Learning with computers as opposed to about them
Same sex groupings and classes
Female role models

Suggestions for software include:

No competitive arcade-style games
Evaluate for bias in language, graphics, and design
Emphasis on social values and ethics
Constructivist design, multiplicity of perspectives
Collaborative exercises
Open-ended assignments (Campbell, 1999).

The reasons for gender bias in technology may be complicated and interconnected, but improvements can be made through a concerted effort.

Gender-inclusive design. According to Knupfer (1997), it can be difficult to recognize, analyze, and explain when instruction is gender-biased. Obvious gender biases, such as language that is exclusionary, are fairly easy to identify. Hidden gender bias can involve how the learning is structured, what is neglected, and how the design reflects the needs of females and males. Knupfer (1997) asserts that

the field of instructional design has been shaped by male influences for many years, and it will take many years to correct some of the inequitable practices that have resulted from individual and collective practice within a social system that perpetuates gender bias (p. 32).

Inclusive design practices can help to point the way.

Culture

Culture has a huge impact on learning. McLoughlin (2001) states that it pervades learning, with respect to factors such as language and semantics, learning style differences, and educational values. When planning the learning environment, instructional designers should assess whether the needs of culturally diverse learners are being addressed. Considering the multicultural nature of Canadian society, this is an important issue in most learning environments.

Before discussing culture and inclusive design, I will discuss three terms that frequently appear in the literature: culture, diversity, and pluralism. Culture can be defined as “the sum total of ways of living, including values, beliefs, aesthetic standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behavioral norms, and styles of communication” (Powell, 1997, p. 15). Culture is not the same as ethnicity, which implies a person’s historical heritage determined by birth, such as Belgian, Japanese, or Italian (Powell, 1997). A person can have a certain ethnic background that he or she does not identify with culturally: social practices, not biology, are the basis for culture. For example, while my father looks like a visible minority to many people, culturally he is Polish. He identifies with Polish culture, and spoke Polish as his first language.

Diversity means variety, or difference. This term is often used with a descriptive modifier, to identify the kind of difference, such as culture. As a stand-alone term, diversity often refers to variety in a number of aspects, such as culture, race, gender, religion, language, and socioeconomic status (Powell, 1997). However, diversity can include less obvious differences, such as age, sexual orientation, education, personality, learning style, and physical attributes (Kincaid & Horner, 1997). Educators and instructional designers may also be interested in diversity of special educational needs, such as visually impaired, or different lifestyles, such as rural or urban (Powell, 1997).

A term that is similar to diversity, pluralism refers to variety. Powell (1997) notes that “Pluralism is the condition in which cultural groups are able to maintain their collective associations while retaining membership in a macro society” (p. 15). Cultural pluralism implies that different groups of people retain their cultural, racial, language and religious connections, as opposed to being assimilated into mainstream society. According to Branch (1997), educational technologists can use plurality of the learners’ preferences, backgrounds, and experiences to make instruction more meaningful and contextualized.

It is vital for instructional designers to consider culture when planning; otherwise, they will plan the learning from an ethnocentric standpoint. Hegemony is the preconceived notion that one’s own way of doing things is the best way; people sometimes think this way without realizing it. It can be difficult to plan for cultural groups other than one’s own, but instructional designers need to plan for more than the dominant culture perspective. Educators tend to emphasize mainstream knowledge and values, which can be quite different from the values, experiences, language, and learning style of many of the learners. An example of this is how critical thinking and discussion are allowed and encouraged in our society. In many other cultures, though, students show respect to the teacher by agreeing with him or her. Even expressing an opinion is discouraged (Bates, 2001). Students who are accustomed to such a learning environment may struggle with collaborative learning.

According to Powell (1997), our education system “reflects a cultural dictate rather than a universal mandate” (p.8). We must recognize the cultural differences that learners bring to the learning task as valuable assets, not problems to overcome. He claims that “a culturally sensitive educator would create learning experiences and environments with the realization that each learner has a distinctive communication style, learning style, orientation, value system, expectation, and norm which is culturally based and influenced” (Powell, 1997, p.6). Cultural plurality can add richness to the learning environment. It is not enough to just accept the cultural diversity of learners, however. Instructional designers and educators must also incorporate the students’ culture into instructional practices and relate the curriculum to student experiences (Powell, 1997).

Designing for a certain cultural group is not inclusive; rather, it targets a certain audience that may have been marginalized in the past. The learner analysis can inform decisions about instructional strategies and preferred learning styles, strengthening the instruction. Care must be taken not to overgeneralize about a cultural group, as this can lead to stereotyping. To avoid making biased assumptions, an instructional designer can learn about cultural preferences by asking people from the target audience about their educational values and preferred learning environment (Sheffield, 1997).

Cultural factors and the learning environment. A culturally sensitive designer will examine many factors that could affect the learning environment:

How does the classroom and instructor reflect cultural assumptions? As a beginning teacher, I realized how arbitrary and culturally bound it is to put students in rows of desks and assume they will learn best this way.
What are the learners’ views of time: It can be puzzling for teachers with a Western notion of time, that is, valuing punctuality, to encounter students who do not like to be slaves to the clock.
What are the learners’ traditional means of communication? This can vary between cultures; for example, Aboriginal and Inuit cultures have a strong oral tradition. I have taught students whose families placed little importance on reading and writing, in direct contrast to my own emphasis on the value of literacy.
How do the learners view competition? Values placed on competition and collaboration are culturally bound.
What is the learners’ locus of control? Different cultures have different perspectives on the amount of control individuals have over happenings.
What are the learners’ preferred learning styles? A number of factors could influence people’s preferences, including culture, gender, age, and prior experience.
What are the learners’ cognitive styles? Some studies indicate that learners from different cultural groups may develop different cognitive styles. Western education tends to favor abstract, conceptual thought (Powell, 1997).

Educators and instructional designers might need to consider several other factors when structuring a culturally inclusive learning environment, depending on the context of the situation.

Learners who are from a different culture than the dominant Western perspective may experience a variety of difficulties in learning situations. They may be self-conscious of language differences, and therefore reluctant to participate in oral discussions. Cultural differences in student and teacher roles may inhibit them from speaking freely, disagreeing with the instructor, or asking questions. Students may be uncertain about the expectations placed on them, and may lack the cultural capital needed to participate in the learning (Schallert & Reed, 2003/2004). Biggs (1999, in McLoughlin, 2001) classifies international students’ learning problems into three categories: socio-cultural adjustment, language issues, and teaching and learning issues relating to different expectations and perspectives on learning.

Designing culturally sensitive material is not easily done, though; an instructional designer or educator could unintentionally use something culturally inappropriate for some of the learners. Reeves (1997) advocates collaborating with members of the intended audience to prevent cultural insensitivities in instruction. For example, heads and hands are commonly used icons in multimedia, but some African cultures regard them as taboo images (Reeves, 1997). Children’s software sometimes personifies animals, which is culturally insensitive to Muslims (Reeves, 1997). Colors have different meanings in different cultures. The Eurocentric notion of the study of science, something to be dissected, segmented, measured, analyzed, deduced, and recorded, is different from an Aboriginal view of nature: holistic, and to be understood through experience (King, 1991).

Of course, groups of learners are rarely homogeneous. Instructional designers and educators are usually challenged by a pluralistic learning group in which the core pedagogical values of some students are inappropriate for others. According to Reeves (1997), their job is not to design culturally neutral instruction, but to use pluralism to build rich learning environments.

Instructional strategies for a multicultural audience. Given that no single strategy will work for all learners, instructional designers and educators will need to offer a choice of learning activities. Sheffield (1997) asserts that these strategies can work well in a multicultural learning environment: mastery learning, learning centres, peer tutoring, independent study, cooperative learning, experiential learning, laboratory exercises, discussions, hands-on materials, instructional games, field trips, and guest speakers. Because learners from different cultural backgrounds may have different learning styles, they will want to go about learning in a different way. For example, the social constructivist learning theory is currently popular in the field of education. Campbell (Personal communication, Katy Campbell, Dec. 13, 2003) asserts that a collaborative learning environment is not ideal for everyone; people from cultures that value competition and independence may not be comfortable in a constructivist setting. In such cases it makes sense to give the option of working independently.

Socioeconomic Status

While there is an abundance of literature on the effects of culture on learning, I could find very little devoted specifically to the inclusion of a range of socioeconomic status groups. Yet I know from experience that a learner’s socioeconomic status impacts on how he or she regards education. Educators tend to reflect their own middle-class values, which many lower socioeconomic status learners cannot relate to. As a result, they are distanced from the learning.

Students from a lower socioeconomic status may be alienated from the instruction in many different ways. The classroom environment and practices, things under the teacher’s control, may be based on values that learners do not share. Learners may not relate to the curriculum. The activities and examples that the teacher chooses may not relate to the life experiences of students from a lower socioeconomic status.

Language usage is another way in which lower socioeconomic status learners may not relate to the instruction. Teachers tend to expect the use of standard English in their classrooms. Some students from a lower socioeconomic status background are accustomed to speaking English in a non-standard way: they have different language patterns, use slang, and assign different meanings to words. Powell (1997) notes that:

For some children there is a discontinuity between home and school in linguistic system, in orientation toward the use of language, and in the form of social relations in which the language system is rooted. Many teachers fail to understand and value these children’s linguistic system (its content or potency); they are unaware of the demands they make when they expect their pupils to operate in standard English (p.10).

Instructional designers and educators can make the learning environment more inclusive by acknowledging the learners’ language usage as valuable. They can also make the curriculum more relevant to lower socioeconomic status students (the adaptive dimension may help in this regard), and include activities and examples that relate to the students’ lives.

Inclusive Practices in Education: Principles, Guidelines, and Examples
of Educational Implications

The Center for Universal Design has created a set of guidelines for designers to use in order to maximize accessibility (Connell et. al., 1997). These principles and guidelines can be adapted and stretched to promote the larger domain of inclusive design issues, such as gender and culture. I will briefly summarize each principle, and offer some suggestions as to how it can inform educators and instructional designers about inclusive practices in face-to-face and online settings. No design can achieve complete inclusivity for all users (and this naturally applies to any learning environment); designers can however create a better product for as many people as possible (Connell et. al., 1997).

Principle One: Equitable Use

The principle of equitable use states that the design is useful to people with diverse abilities. Instructional designers can strive for this through strategies such as avoiding segregating or stigmatizing learners, and making the design appealing to all learners (Connell et. al., 1997).