|
Documenting Successes and
Building on a Collective Body of Work on Experimentation with Implementation While initiatives to implement UDL are increasingly common, there is a concerning tendency to recreate the initial stage of UDL exploration on each campus, rather than contribute to a collective body of evidence-based outcomes, share practices, and learn from documented experiences. In this sense the journey with UDL has very much been carried in solitude and this has resulted in considerable duplication of efforts. Each campus is currently ‘reinventing the wheel’, rather than learning from the experiences of other institutions. There is an urgent need for this phenomenon to change and for higher education institutions to contribute to and build a body of literature which assists other campuses when they begin their journey with UDL. Urgency in Exploring UDL in Specific Settings: language classroom, science lab, field placements, experiential settings. Innovative experimentations with UDL are urgently required, not just in a variety of disciplines and specific faculties, but also in an array of learning spaces. Thus far UDL has been used mostly in the undergraduate classroom and primarily in the lecture hall (Schreffler et al., 2019). The literature on UDL must now explore and document how design thinking can be implemented in a variety of settings that are less traditional; these include science labs, the language labs, the art studio, the trades workshop, and the outdoor classroom. Visual arts programs requiring studio critique, for example, have complex questions as to the ways UDL can be implemented in such an interactive weekly setting. Science labs and trades workshop also present similar challenges with regards to UDL implementation because the physical manipulation of sometimes dangerous equipment must be considered in the way the needs of all diverse learners are addressed (Sukhai et al., 2014). Similarly, outdoor classrooms are increasingly popular in higher education but present very specific barriers for a variety of diverse learners (Claiborne et al., 2020). Need for a Core Objectives Analysis as a Pre-condition to UDL Implementation Discussions around UDL implementation with faculty can be challenging when a degree of haziness exists as to what is being taught and what is being assessed. UDL indeed requires the injection of flexibility in all dimensions of the learning experience, but it is perfectly justifiable for an instructor to maintain the integrity of the core learning outcomes of the course and for them to require the demonstration of core assessed skills without the use of UDL. UDL, and the flexibility it implies, will normally be applied to all other dimensions of the learning experience, while core outcomes and skills may require some rigidity in order to guarantee the integrity of standards. This is a dialogue which can be seamless when carried out with instructors who have a good understanding of what the core outcomes of the course or program are. When, on the other hand, the analysis of core learning outcomes has not taken place, the discussion is difficult, and implementing UDL within a course can suddenly feel threatening to the instructor who may fear for the integrity of standards. The lack of clarity with regards to course outcomes generally hinders UDL implementation altogether. It is therefore essential that departments carry out a reflection around learning outcomes as a precondition for the exploration of UDL. Need for a Solid Scholarship around Management of Change and Strategic Implementation of UDL At first the scholarship on UDL focused mostly on its pedagogical benefits for diverse learners, but recent literature now also acknowledges that there is an urgent need for guidance around management of change, leadership, and strategic planning in this area (Ikebuchi, 2019). Findings are beginning to showcase the considerable strain placed on instructors and communities of practice that have begun the work of implementing UDL but have begun to run out of steam. The advocates and initiators of change are now lacking support and may not be able to continue this work in a sustainable way. A point of particular concern is the issue of ownership of the model within each campus (Fovet, 2018). Initially the UDL portfolio was placed in the hands of accessibility services since UDL was framed as serving the needs of students with disabilities (Dalton et al, 2019). Accessibility services, however, have always been inherently ambivalent about UDL implementation since they are so heavily grounded in the medical model (Beck et al., 2014), and this has never been a successful strategic model to build momentum. It is now time therefore for campuses to engage in a deep reflection as to which stakeholder or stakeholders will be responsible for the UDL drive. More broadly, scholars will need to focus on the leadership and management repercussions of this shift towards UDL. This will require an in-depth analysis of the management of change this involves, and of the way this process of change will be triggered and monitored. Top down or bottom up? One of the questions often brought up by campuses who are exploring UDL is whether initiatives should be run using a top down or a bottom up approach. This is not a question to which there is a simple, universal answer. This question requires the consideration of wider issues related to management of change. As has been discussed previously, much of the literature on UDL implementation has so far focused exclusively on showcasing the pedagogical benefits of UDL for a wide range of diverse learners. The change envisaged, however, is not solely about pedagogy. As stressed in the previous section, this process of change cannot take place without in-depth strategic planning. It is important, indeed, to acknowledge the complexity of the proposed change. This process of change is wide in scope and multi-layered in nature. The use of a specific theoretical lens which can fully acknowledge this scope, depth, and complexity is required from a leadership lens. Ecological theory might be particularly pertinent when it comes to mapping out this process (Fovet, in print). Ecological theory the practitioner to explore, identify, and assess the impact of multiple systems around an individual – or department/ unit - in organizational contexts (Kaufman et al., 2019). At the center of the schematic representation proposed by ecological theory appears the unit which seeks to take responsibility for the UDL drive, in this case. The relationship of this unit with other stakeholders, its ability to support change, and the impact of all levels of management policy on this unit, will determine its ability to effectively direct and monitor the development of UDL across a campus. Collaboration during the UDL drive, and ownership over the framework within a specific campus, must both therefore be examined through the ecological lens. It is also this ecological mapping, at blue print level, that will produce an answer as to whether efforts should be framed as top-down or bottom-up. Reflection around Ownership and Responsibility for Implementation As the centre of this reflection on leadership and management of change in a UDL context, it becomes abundantly clear that the key initial concern that requires immediate attention is an institutional questioning around ownership of the model within each campus. Accessibility services are far being from natural allies, and it is clear that other services and departments need to take the lead and take over the momentum for implementation. Depending on the nature and culture of the campus, future efforts may involve teaching services, equity services, senior administration, or a combination of any of these stakeholders. Ideally a model within which all stakeholders involved have a say and sit at the table will be the preferred mode. It is clear at this stage that, considering the wide spectrum of diverse learners who benefit from UDL, an equally wide array of administrative stakeholders must be actively involved in this process. Creating a Common Discourse on Campuses Because UDL originally focused on students with disabilities and was supported by accessibility services, the discourse it has generated is usually framed in relation to disability and impairment. As the relevance of UDL to a much wider range of diverse learners becomes a reality, it will become necessary for scholars, but also campuses and senior administrators, to reframe the vocabulary that has so far been used to promote the framework across post-secondary institutions. The reformulation is in most cases fairly easy – as this public lecture demonstrates – but this process must nevertheless be carried out systematically, lucidly, and explicitly. This will be essential, if UDL is to grow over the next decade, as other stakeholders – such as support services for Indigenous students, International students, students facing socio-economic challenges, etc. – will not be able to be able to manipulate UDL with ease, to understand its relevance, or to support it within their respective departments unless the language used positions it as a common discourse. This process has begun but it must be intensified and it will be important to use ethnographic processes with all potential stakeholders to ensure the accessibility and user-friendliness of the language used to promote UDL among non-specialists. Video segment that accompanies this page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXq7pIqqSA4• |