|
What is Universal Design for Learning?
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), it is argued, addresses the need identified above within the current higher education landscape. There are many different definitions of UDL and it is important here to offer a clear and concise interpretation that reassures instructors rather than create resistance and confusion. In its simplest form, UDL is a framework for inclusion which translates the social model of disability into classroom practice. The social model sees disability not as an inherent characteristic or feature of individuals, but as a lack of fit/ friction between individual embodiments and the design of spaces, products or experiences (Berghs at al., 2019) [in this sense one could substitute to the social model, ecological theory (Hellblom-Thibblin & Sandberg, 2020) – if this makes faculty more comfortable – and achieve the same perspective, as both see exceptionality as a lack of fit between classroom and student]. This grounding in the social model is crucial to understand the intentions of UDL. Essentially it suggests just one crucial shift - a shift whereby instructors no longer see the diverse learner as the ‘problem’ that requires ‘fixing’, but instead become aware of and embrace their capacity to design the learning experience in ways that support and include learners, or disable them (CAST, 2020; Martin et al., 2019). The important thing is that once instructors move away from a deficit perspective on the learner towards a design mindset, they automatically begin examining and analyzing inclusion in terms of barriers in the learning environments, barriers which can be identified and removed. In this sense the social model which represents the foundation of UDL is relevant in respect to the inclusion of all learners, as all diverse learners are currently seen through a deficit model lens. Once an instructor begins deconstructing the classroom to identify and examine barriers, this ‘barriers analysis’ is a process that is pertinent in respect of all diverse learners (Regmi & Jones, 2020). They tend to all experience very similar barriers because thus far the approach of higher education is to situate the problem in their exceptionality, not in the flavour or design of the pedagogy. Shifts the Instructor Away from the Deficit Model towards Design Thinking Supporting faculty as they move away from a deficit model approach can be challenging. The deficit model is indeed a default setting for many institutions and instructors. Structures, funding, and service provision perpetuate it. UDL is radically innovative in the sense that it prioritizes a design perspective and encourages instructors to hypothesize as to barriers that might possibly be present in the classroom. These barriers are identified at the blue print level, before instruction begins or assessment is developed. Barriers are addressed before an instructor even meets students; diversity in the student population is seen as a given, not an anomaly, and planned for proactively (Bedrossian, 2018). This reflection then becomes a systematic process, carried out and refined throughout one’s career. There are three UDL principles: (i) multiple means of representation, (ii) multiple means of action and expression, and (iii) multiple means of engagement. These are three simple, hands-on lenses on teaching that break down the design process into palatable, manageable processes. They reflect three key dimensions of teaching and learning: how we present information to learners; how learners are invited to participate, or produce and present content; how learners connect emotionally with the content – this is often called the affective dimension of learning. The three principles of UDL encourage instructors to inject optimal flexibility within each of these dimensions (Meyer et al., 2014. They can be used in any order and do not need to all be considered simultaneously. They are simply formulated as distinct principles for ease of use, but in practice the three principles often overlap considerably. Allows a Whole Class Approach to Inclusion UDL is particularly useful in higher education as it allows for a whole class approach. There is no longer a need for disclosure, or use of external support services. Stigmatization is avoided; opportunities for the development of social capital remain abundant. The pressure on support services is eased as a result. Instructors also usually report feeling re-empowered when they become aware that they have the ability within the classroom to remove most of the barriers which diverse learners might experience; they do so as educators and no longer require the interventions of external access specialists. This is often seen as ending the ‘referral culture’ which has over the last two decades created a discourse which compels instructors to look elsewhere outside the classroom for expertise, when they experience teaching and learning challenges, instead of seeking pedagogical whole class solutions. Is Useful in any Context where Barriers to Access to Learning are Identifiable Although UDL has initially been developed and promoted with regards to the inclusion of students with disabilities (McKenzie & Dalton, 2020), it quickly becomes clear that the ‘barriers analysis’ carried out by instructors, using the framework, is applicable and pertinent to all diverse learners. While the deficit model lens fragments diversity into an innumerable set of categories of learners with distinct characteristics, UDL focuses on the friction that exists between learner diversity and the design of the learning experience. That friction, or lack of fit, manifests itself in a series of barriers that are experienced by most diverse learners. There is therefore huge potential for UDL to be successfully used to create inclusive provisions for International students (Fovet, 2019), Indigenous students (James, 2018), LGBTQ2S+ students, first generation students, culturally diverse learners (Kieran & Anderson, 2019), and all students categorized as ‘non-traditional’ by the academy. Offers a Common Discourse on Inclusion to all Stakeholders UDL is particularly appealing in higher education because it offers a common discourse within institutions that are large, complex, and multilayered. Stakeholders in the post-secondary sector come from extremely diverse professional backgrounds, have differing training and qualifications, and adopt varying theoretical stances. It is, as a result, very difficult to find a common language to discuss issues in a multidisciplinary way; this impasse is most noticeable when it comes to inclusion. Often, stakeholders at present talk at cross-purposes when they attempt to discuss inclusion. There is a multitude of reasons that justify a push towards inclusion and some of these justifications have very little in common (Haug, 2017); tools and practices that support inclusion are also grounded in widely diverging theoretical approaches that range from personalized interventions outside the classroom, all the way to whole class strategies (Krischler et al., 2019). The funding that supports these initiatives in the post-secondary sector also varies greatly in format (Chiwandire & Vincent, 2019). Authentic cross-campus dialogue on inclusion is, as a result, almost impossible. UDL breaks this deadlock and offers a common discourse to all campus stakeholders which is theoretically clear and user-friendly. This clarity is not useful just on the scale of a campus; UDL can also serve as a convenient common discourse for collaboration between campuses on a national scale, and even in initiatives on an international scale. It avoids the need to define terms and theoretical stances, and to clarify tools before a constructive conversation can take place. This speeds up collaborative processes considerably. This ICUF fellowship is a striking example of this potential for accelerated international dialogue on inclusion as a result of the use of UDL terminology. Is not Prescriptive and Allows for Flexibility in Implementation Top-down pedagogical initiatives are very difficult to implement in a higher education context, because academic freedom is a key feature of this environment. Instructors will also often argue that universal pedagogical directives or mandates are inappropriate in higher education because class space, format, objective and content vary so significantly. UDL is very effective in this context because it is not a prescriptive checklist. All it offers is a lens through which educators can examine their own practice in its specificity. A UDL reflection may lead to different outcomes, depending on the instructor who leads the process, and that is a perfectly satisfactory outcome. The design solution adopted will depend on content, discipline, class size, but also teaching experience of the instructor, existing expertise with regards to inclusion, and institutional culture. There is no desire to standardize outcomes within a UDL approach, and this inherent flexibility triggers considerable appeal within the post-secondary sector. In this respect, it is useful when introducing UDL to faculty to stress that it is not necessarily a new concept for them, and to reassure them quickly that all faculty are in fact already using UDL strategies to some degree. The aim here is to situate oneself on the spectrum that UDL represents, and to keep evolving in the right direction by integrating more reflection on inclusive design progressively and systematically through one’s career. UDL is a Hands-on, User-friendly Framework to Introduce Instructors to Design Thinking Differentiation, it has been shown, can be daunting to higher education instructors. Any framework for inclusion promoted in the post-secondary sector will need to be user-friendly, hands-on, and time efficient. UDL meets these expectations and translates complex theoretical objectives into simple, straight-forward steps. This is the most significant appeal of UDL; it makes complex and over-abundant literature on inclusion and inclusive design immediately palatable and accessible to faculty in layperson terms. UDL also focuses on transformation of classroom practices and presents itself as a tool for pedagogical change rather than an overly elaborate conceptual framework. Experience shows that it can be explained to instructors within a relatively a relatively narrow window of professional development (Xie & Rice, 2020). It is also easily to introduce to service providers across and institution (Fovet et al., 2015), and to students as stakeholders. Integrates with Ease a Varied Scholarship on Inclusion, Student-centered Learning, and Technology Rich Instruction The last few decades have seen the emergence in higher education of multiple new trends: active learning, experiential learning, and student-centered learning being but a few of the teaching and learning concepts floated in recent years. Instructors can feel confused and put off by the constant flow of new initiatives they are bombarded with, often with little follow-up training or detailed theoretical support. This can – and often does – create a significant degree of resistance to pedagogical change on the part of instructors (Gratz & Looney, 2020). It becomes difficult for them to distinguish what is crucial from what is ancillary, or what is there to stay from trends that come and go within this landscape. As a result many instructors will decide to simply ignore teaching and learning innovaion, hoping many of these initiatives will simply die their own death. It is fairly easy to erode possible resistance to UDL by ensuring that it is not perceived as something ‘out of the box’ or new. UDL in fact integrates much of the literature that has existed for decades on accessibility and inclusion, as well as on constructivism, social constructivism, and critical pedagogy (Fovet, 2020). The way UDL positions itself in a continuum of evidence-based literature and established pedagogical philosophies is extremely reassuring to faculty. UDL can therefore be presented to educators as the convenient repackaging of long-existing best practices and theoretical stances, all supporting transformative, accessible and inclusive student-centered values in the classroom. While faculty, as content specialists, may not have the time or opportunity to immerse themselves in this broad literature, they will on the other hand be able to grasp essential concepts with ease through the use of the three UDL principles. The three principles also offer a hands-on, simple reminder of these key design values that can be applied with ease in the context of everyday classroom decisions. Video segment that accompanies this page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdyRXEypGgc• |