Setting the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Context

UDL in my Environment

I am not an educator and have never been in a classroom. I currently work two days a week as a companion to a gentleman with disabilities, bringing him to work and keeping an eye on him while he goes about his duties at a local fire station.

Copyright http://www.themunicipal.com

One day is spent washing fire trucks and other vehicles; the other day is spent cleaning the interior of the fire house. He needs very little, if any, oversight while performing his job tasks. In addition to work, we explore the community together and I accompany him to speech therapy, therapeutic horseback riding, boxing lessons, and adaptive sailing lessons. Thus, my current job does not lend itself to applying UDL principles. However, when I think about Universal Design (UD) with respect to the fire house where we work, there is a handicap parking spot directly in front of the entrance and no curb so that visitors can easily walk onto the sidewalk. There is an additional ramp to the front door. Unfortunately, the front door is heavy, swings outward, and is not automatic. Offices and restrooms have appropriate signage but lack Braille and pictures. In addition, while handicap accessible, the restroom doors are heavy and there are no automatic faucets or paper towel dispensers. The firehouse is an older building in need of renovation.

UD and UDL are two different concepts but have complimentary pieces (Smith, 2017). UD removes physical barriers in the environment to help architects meet accessibility requirements under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and guides the development of products, services, and environments to ensure access to people with disabilities but which are also useful to all people (Ralabate, 2016). UDL is a framework for designing learning experiences to ensure everyone is both a successful and expert learner (Smith, 2017). Both offer physical accessibility in educational environments but UDL goes beyond accessibility by activating thinking, scaffolding deep understanding, and engaging learners (Ralabate, 2016).

Persistent Problems in the Practice of Education

Several persistent problems exist which prevent the adoption of UDL, technology, and ultimately, educational reform at a faster pace. Today, teachers are challenged to meet all students’ educational needs but not all students are succeeding. Ralabate (2016) states that many lessons are built on incorrect or old concepts about how students learn and are constrained by stagnant formats. Ralabate (2016) notes that good teaching is more process than product but in today’s high stakes world of education, there is strong emphasis on meeting local and state standards and I feel that often times, teachers are focused on “teaching to the test.” Furthermore, many traditional approaches to educational reform are rooted in misconceptions — different “kinds” of learners have been labeled as belonging to distinct groups; individualization of instruction has been offered according to those groups; and individual learners have been treated as separate from their contexts and environments (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).

The goal of education today goes beyond mastery of knowledge and skills to the mastery of learning itself — becoming expert learners (Ralabate, 2016). UDL is the framework to make that happen and address persistent problems in the education today.  As classrooms become more diverse and inclusive, technology offers more flexibility than ever before, and teachers need to ensure that all learners meet state standards, UDL guides the development of barrier-free, instructionally rich learning environments and lessons that address learner variability and offer options for how students can engage in learning, receive information and instruction, and demonstrate their knowledge and skills (Ralabate, 2016). Education needs the transformative innovation that UDL can provide — emphasizing flexibility and individuality to revolutionize the way teaching and learning occurs (Meyer et al., 2014). We need to shift our mindset and move away from a traditional model of education that focuses on the mythical “average learner” to embrace a dynamic model that celebrates human diversity and learner variability (Meyer et al., 2014).

The UDL Lesson Planning Process in my Environment

As I mentioned above, my current job as a companion for a gentleman with disabilities does not lend itself to applying UDL principles. However, two other endeavors allow me to reflect on whether the UDL framework and principles have been and can be applied in those situations.

For several years now, I have been the Chair of the Sandwich Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC), a parent-run volunteer organization that advocates for students with disabilities in the Sandwich school district. As an educational advocate who was trained by the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN) in Boston, I give presentations on the Federation’s behalf to SEPACs and other local groups.

For the SEPAC, I have created my own PowerPoint presentations and printed handouts for attendees. The FCSN does the same. I stand at the front of the room presenting material from the PowerPoint slides as workshop attendees follow along with their handouts. In both presentations, questions can be asked during and/or after the presentation. UDL is a framework that gives all individuals equal opportunities to learn…not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014, para. 1). My SEPAC presentations and those of the FCSN clearly are one-size-fits-all, regardless of the variability in workshop attendees and do not utilize the three principles of UDL — multiple means of engagement of the learner, representation of information, and action and expression (Ralabate, 2016). Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) noted that the “traditional approach to learning was dictated by the predominant learning medium of the time – printed text” (p. 3). Built on old concepts about how people learn and constrained by stagnant formats (Ralabate, 2016), the presentations rely heavily on printed media — handouts and information filled PowerPoint slides. I have given many workshops for the FCSN and have watched people walk out because the presentations are too long and boring, and not interactive and engaging.

Ralabate (2016) notes the importance of learners knowing lesson goals and expected outcomes. The FCSN outlines the presentation goals on one of the first slides in the PowerPoint and I do the same with my presentations. However, defining clear goals is the only step of the UDL lesson planning process involved in preparing the SEPAC and FCSN presentations. While determining appropriate assessments is not exactly applicable to the audience of these presentations (e.g. parents, community members, administrators, and teachers), the remaining steps of the UDL lesson planning process are not utilized: consideration of learner variability; selecting methods, materials, and media; and refining educator learning through self-reflection. The FCSN asks attendees to fill out an evaluation about the presentation and the workshop presenter. Since they realize the tediousness of the presentation and that I am at the mercy of how the FCSN has created these presentations, attendees quickly check off top marks for me as a presenter and blithely state that the presentation was very good. This in no way provides accurate feedback to me to allow me to improve my presentation skills or to the FCSN to allow them to improve the presentations.

Other ways in which my planning process and that of the FCSN differ from the UDL lesson planning process include the following:

A core tenet of UDL is that what is “essential for some” is almost always “good for all” (Ralabate, 2016). Both the SEPAC and the FCSN presentations need to be redesigned using the three principles of UDL and incorporating a variety of digital technology, thus making learning an interactive process and addressing the diversity of workshop attendees.

---

References

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014, July 31). What is UDL? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Ralabate, P. K. (2016). Your UDL Lesson Planner: The Step-by-Step Guide for Teaching All Learners. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Smith, F. (2017). Setting the UDL Context: SPED6210 . Retrieved from https://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_297066_1&content_id=_8377044_1