Aljawharah Aljunaydil

Dr. P.J. Moore

EAP 506
November 19TH, 2018

Journal Article Analysis

A journal article was analyzed “College Faculty and Inclusive Instruction: Self-Reported

Attitudes and Actions Pertaining to Universal Design” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011).

A great deal of research in my field follows the (IMRD) structure of research paper

which is an introduction, a method, results, and discussions. In addition, this article utilizes the

same structure also it includes an abstract, literature review which in the introduction section,

limitations, and implications for practice (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). In the beginning,

the authors state the population of students who have disabilities in public postsecondary

schools, and they mention the popular accommodation students receive such as extended time on

exams (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Then, they explain the growth of students with

disabilities number in college, which makes examining faculty knowledge, and action toward

Universal Design (UD) is important (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Next, they start

presenting a literature review which includes many previous studies in the same area (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). After that, they mention the major of Universal Design (UD)

frameworks which are Universal Design for Assessment (UDA), Universal Design for

Instruction (UDI), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes,

2011). Also, they show to the readers that the prior studies have focused on one part of UD while

this study will focus on all parts (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011).

Moreover, the method section divides to three part. First, participants that are college

faculty (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Second, measure, which is the Inclusive Teaching

Strategies Inventory (ITSI) survey, and the authors make some change in this survey (Lombardi,
Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). The major change was adding a new response option (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Third, procedures, which include the process to get the responses from

the faculty member (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). The results include three parts, which

are descriptive statistics and reliability, comparison of attitudes and actions, and predictors of

attitudes and actions (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). In the beginning, the authors use the

software PASW 18.0. to analyze the data (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Also, in this

section, they analyze the response by using tables and explaining these tables. (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). For example, the first table is descriptive statistics and reliability, and

the second table is illustrative the frequencies of attitudes and actions (Lombardi, Murray, &

Gerdes, 2011). In the part of the discussion, the authors highlight the significate results of this

study, which is a clear discrepancy between faculty position and action toward inclusive

instruction practices. (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). They discuss several results and

compare them with previous studies (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011).

It is important to review the rhetorical analysis for the article because it assists the reader

to realize how the researchers write. Also, it helps the reader to know the crucial part in the

journal article. The object of study is the perceptions and actions of college faculty and inclusive

instruction in Universal Design pretraining (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). In addition, the

major purposes of the study are to examine university faculty perceptions of students who have

disabilities and inclusive instruction depending on Universal Design and to compare them with

faculty’s action (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Also, there are three sub-targets in this

study. The first target is to improve extra comprehension about faculty understanding of

inclusive instruction depending on Universal Design (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). The

second target is to investigate the range to that faculty report implementing inclusive practices
relying on UD in their own instruction (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). The third target is

to examine the relationship between the university faculty who have training experiences and

their attitude and their practice depending on UD (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). As

authors mention that this study is useful research in the field because previous studies focus on

UDI which is one part from Universal Design (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). In contrast,

this study emphasizes three frameworks of Universal Design (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes,

2011). In addition, growing number of students with disabilities in university that cause

challenges for faculty members, and to manage these challenges we need to evaluate faculty

knowledge and application of inclusive instruction depending on UD (Lombardi, Murray, &

Gerdes, 2011).

This study considers as important research for some reasons. First, measuring university

faculty is the first step to make sure various learners have the chance to receive quality and

equitable higher education experience (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Second, it uses the

ITSI which is the first assessments that evaluate teaching practice relying on numerous UD

frameworks (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Third, ITSI offers the chance to examine the

realized and performances associated with inclusive instruction (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes,

2011). In addition, ITSI is useful for others own institutions who interested in assessing

university faculty perceptions and implementing toward inclusive instruction (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Also, ITSI might notify student affairs personnel, college

administrators, and diversity officers of areas who aim faculty professional development

(Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Finally, ITSI could assist campus administrators to define

and investigate the discrepancy among the faculty’s response (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes,

2011).
 According to Swales and Feak (2012), there are three moves in research paper

introduction. At the beginning of this study’s introduction, the authors point out the number of

students with disabilities to attract the reader for this topic, and that appear in “Students with

disabilities now represent approximately 11% of the college student population” to “..in the

United States enroll students with disabilities” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 250).

Hence, this sentence is on move 1A and move 1B (Swales & Feak, 2012). In addition, the second

sentence “Rates of enrolling….” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 250) is on move 1A

because the authors show the general information about the population of the students in public

and private institutions (Swales & Feak, 2012). The third sentence which is “These findings

suggest that…” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 250) on move 1A and 1B because the

authors depend on the previous study to prove the majority kind of students in schools (Swales &

Feak, 2012). The last sentence on the first paragraph is on move 1A which is a general

information about these disabilities (Swales & Feak, 2012).

In the first sentence in the second paragraph the authors are more specifically to show the

topic, so it is on move 1A and 1B (Swales & Feak, 2012). After that, “Generally, students

themselves are responsible…” to “based on the tenets of Universal Design (UD)” (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 250), these sentences consider as exigence which is on move 2, and

they are on move 1B which include several studies to show the need for this study (Swales &

Feak, 2012). Furthermore, “In this study, we examine the self-perceived…” to the end of this

sentence (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 251), the authors describe the purpose of the

study which is on move 3A (Swales & Feak, 2012). Also, “Originally a framework derived..” in

this sentence, the authors start exactly to discuss the previous studies around the same topic

which is Universal Design (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 251). Hence, it is on move
1A and 1B (Swales & Feak, 2012). Additionally, “A widely cited example..” (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 251) this sentence is on move 1A (Swales & Feak, 2012). “Several

recent efforts have extended UD..” to “..and evaluation stages of instruction.” (Lombardi,

Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 251), these sentences are on move 1A and 1B (Swales & Feak,

2012). Moreover, “In a literature synthesis…” to “..and make connections to prior knowledge”

(Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 251) they consider as move 1B which offer prior studies

(Swales & Feak, 2012).

From “Given the changing nature of today’s college student body..” to “..exam time and

note-taking services” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, pp. 251-252), the authors highlight

the value of the current study which means these sentences are on move 3D (Swales & Feak,

2012). Further, “Despite the promise of UD…” to “..and the implementation of UD principles.”

the authors provide plenty of studies that explain their finding of UD (Lombardi, Murray, &

Gerdes, 2011, p. 252), so these sentences are on move 1B (Swales & Feak, 2012). In addition,

the author state that “Therefore, one purpose of the current…” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes,

2011, p. 252). This sentence shows the reader the purpose of the study which is on move 3A

(Swales & Feak, 2012). Also, from “Prior efforts to understand..” to “were important to consider,

they were not widely implemented.” (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, p. 252), the authors

review previous research in the same area which means these are on move 1B (Swales & Feak,

2012).

According to Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes (2011), “Finally, it is important to note that

both studies..” to “major UD frameworks are needed” these sentences consider as move 2 and

move 1B (Swales & Feak, 2012). Finally, they point out again the purpose of the study, but with

more detail “The current study was designed to develop…” to the end of introduction section
(Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011, pp. 252-253) . Therefore, these sentences are on move 3A

(Swales & Feak, 2012). As we see, the moves are essential to make the introduction of article

stronger. In addition, as we are graduate students, we need to emphasize the different moves

when we construct the introduction.

This journal article has classified as a research study. To illustrate, it has the contents of

the research study which are the introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and

conclusion. Furthermore, a great deal of social sciences relies on paper research, and they require

high academic writing skills from students. For these reasons, graduate students should have the

ability to comprehend and analyze journal article which increases their knowledge. In addition,

my discipline, which is Special Education, depends on APA style as the citation, so graduate

students should be aware of APA to be ready to write research.

There are some features that makes the flow of this article clear in the way that help the

readers to follow the information, and clearly move from one idea to others. Moreover, they

utilize tables to show the results, which makes the reader able to identify the most impact factor

in perceptions and action of the faculty.

References:

Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction:

Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to Universal Design. ournal of Diversity in

Higher Education, 4(4), 250-261.

Swales, J., & Feak , C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press.