This article examines the history of learning disabilities (LDs) on college campuses, from the introduction of the concept in the early 1960s to its spread throughout American higher education during the 1990s. At first, colleges offered relatively little assistance and urged students to compensate for their LDs by working harder and adopting recommended study strategies. After legal and institutional pressures compelled faculty members to provide accommodations for greater numbers of students, many professors worried about the legitimacy of the diagnosis and the possible threat to academic standards. While casting a somewhat sympathetic light on these concerns, the article concludes that many elements of this early set of accommodations were eventually regarded as pillars of competent instruction. This history illuminates the complex tension between institutional support and student responsibilities and the murky distinction between individual accommodations and universally-effective teaching.

Students with emotional and behavioural disability who receive their education in special settings often do not have access to the curriculum through evidence-based pedagogies, such as direct instruction, and instead complete packets of worksheets or participate in distance education. The current study was a collaborative action research project involving a special school for students with emotional disability and a local university to examine the effects of replacing online distance education with in-person direct instruction underpinned by Universal Design for Learning. Researchers sought to discover teacher and student perceptions of Universal Design for Learning, enablers and barriers to its implementation, and its effect on attendance and behaviour. Results suggested satisfaction on the part of both students and teachers and a positive effect of Universal Design for Learning on both attendance and behaviour.

The shift in learning environments due to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a closer look at course design, faculty approaches to teaching, and student interaction, all of which may predict learner achievement and satisfaction. Transitioning to an online environment requires the reinvention, reimagining, and applying of “e-flavors” of general learning theory. With this shift to online learning comes the opportunity for misunderstandings and “myths” to occur, which may stand in the way of faculty embracing online learning and fully realizing its potential. This article seeks to address several myths and misconceptions that have arisen in higher education during the rapid shift to online teaching and learning. While not comprehensive, these myths represent a snapshot of common challenges. These are we can transfer our in-person course design to online; adult learners do not need an empathetic approach; and online teaching and learning is socially isolating. Through an appreciative inquiry framework, we present each myth in the context of relevant literature and invite faculty with varied online teaching experience to share their own case studies that illustrate how they have “busted” these myths with the goal to identify existing examples of locally effective practices for the express purpose of replication that leads to positive change.

Tourette syndrome (TS) is a challenging and poorly understood condition that can have a considerable negative effect on an individual’s ability to learn, despite there being little to no impact on their intelligence. In this paper, we detail the experiences of 2 higher education staff who supported a student with severe TS to undertake studies in a university bridging program. We make suggestions and recommendations for teachers who have students with TS. Over the course of 5 semesters, the teaching team researched TS in order to understand what the student was facing and adjusted their teaching strategies and the learning environment to overcome the complications that the condition presented. The design of the learning environment and the embedded accessible pedagogy that we found helpful are framed and discussed using the 3 primary principles of universal design for learning: engagement, representation, and action and expression. The authors utilise the minimal model of Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper (2001) to reflect upon and share their practice.

Inclusion of students with ‘disabilities’ in public systems of general education has been a global initiative since the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action by the Ministry of Education and Science, Madrid (Spain), and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris (France), in 1994. Despite global and national policy efforts the practice has been sporadic and elusive. Framing education as categorical, specialised service delivery to discrete populations makes inclusion an unsolvable problem. The advent of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) coupled with universal design for learning (UDL) practices delivered in whole-school rather than classroom-based formats poses a pathway out of the conundrum by framing public education as a system of equitable distribution of resources, such as services and supports, based on measured and monitored need on the part of all students. Potentially supportive research literature is reviewed.