Unpacking Universal Design for Learning as a pre-service teacher

In my 400 level Pragmatics of Teaching class we talked a lot about UDL or universal design for learning. A term borrowed from architecture where universal design aims to anticipate specific user needs and plan for them from the onset rather than requiring retrofitting after the fact. The much touted example being including wheelchair ramps in the original design rather than needing to add them (often at greater cost and decreased aesthetic effect) afterwards. The extra bonus, turns out many people can benefit from the ramps, not just the intended wheelchair users, but people with strollers, pushing carts, sore knees etc.

The way our discussions about UDL tended to run , and the resources we tended to be pointed at left me feeling somewhat frustrated. Often full of buzzwords, weak examples, and what often felt to me as promising Unicorns (they sound great but don't exist in reality). Ultimately I was left tripped up on the 'Universal' (how in the world can a teacher be expected to plan in advance for every for seeable need, no wonder people burn out) and on the suspicious feeling that we are sometimes missing the point of it all.

Don't mistake this as a position against inclusion, students have real and diverse strengths and needs. My role as an educator is to create a learning environment that welcomes and supports all of my students in a way that allows them to be meaningful members of the community of learners in my classroom.

But is the goal of an educator to see all of our students get A's? (I mean maybe that's a Unicorn worth believing in). Is my role to do backflips providing endless accommodations, alternative levels of difficulty, alternative forms of assessment, options for how the student should actually complete the assignment, a variety of learning environment in which to work, endless deadline extensions, numerous examples and past exams on demand, and contortionist level flexibility while juggling these options for each of my 30 plus students? All in the pursuit of each student feeling perfectly comfortable and at ease and coddled even during their school years.

Our discussions and assigned readings sure do sometimes leave me feeling like that is the goal of a good educator. Regardless of if at the end of their school days our students have a stack of A grades and an imminent reality check when facing the real world.

Where am I going? When I read my assigned readings, I love to chase rabbits (just not Unicorns I guess) down their holes. It's the PhD in me, off to find that citation and actually read it, in full. This one in particular, from Shelley Moore's One Without the Other: Stories of Unity Through Diversity and Inclusion (2016), sent me chasing that rabbit.

"It’s also important to remember these traditional pull-out services and alternate settings

often benefit all kids (Rose and Meyer 2000)." (Moore, 2016, p 24).

What a statement, and with a citation (very little that I had read in this book so far actually included them, not a dig just a fact). I'd love to see the study that shows this benefit, but aha, it was not a study but recurring column in the Journal of Special Education Technology. I did not in fact recognize the significance of the Rose being cited.

This Rose is David Rose, the co-founder of CAST (which once stood for the Center for Applied Special Technology, but you have to hunt around on their website to find that) and of UDL itself. And the column cited, was the first in a series at this journal that would provide an "opportunity to solidify the foundations of Universal Design for Learning, to publish research and examples that will stimulate its growth, and to air criticisms to sharpen and correct its directions" (Rose & Meyers, 2000, p. 67).

It was within this 25+ year old column that I began to understand the original idea behind UDL, to find answers to my questions and to feel that in some ways we may have wandered astray. I would highly recommend this brief column be included on any required reading list on the topic of UDL. I fully intend to explore subsequent issues of Rose's column in this journal. He appears to have penned 9 between December 1999 and March 2002, and would provide insight to how UDL evolved early on.

For now I'll leave you with a selected passage (which struck such a chord with me I had to rush over to read it to my husband who was running on the treadmill). It's a bit long but I promise it's worth it.

"Non-educators often make the mistake of equating "access to information" with "access to learning". In so doing, they assume the goal of universal design in education is achieve by creating materials in which information is more accessible. But increasing access can actually decrease or eliminate a learning opportunity. For example, having electronic text where the computer can read all of the word aloud is a powerful way of making the text more accessible. But if the goal is to teach a dyslexic child how to decode unfamiliar words, such accessibility may be counter productive. On the other hand, if the goal is to learn science concepts, having the computer read the text aloud could enhance the learning opportunity for a student with dyslexia.

The difference is in the goals. The professional mover aims to move heavy objects with the least investment of effort and the greatest efficiency. Hence, he uses a dolly or an electronic lift. The athlete in training aims to build muscle. Hence she supports the muscles not being trained and lifts heavy weights with the target muscles. The learner more resembles the athlete than the professional mover. Education is an exercise in constructing knowledge and skills. It requires a careful balance of support and resistance. Thus Universal Design for access provides the greatest amount of support possible at all times, while Universal Design for Learning requires careful attention to the goals of any given learning experience so that a balance of challenge and support can maximize the learning opportunity." (Rose & Meyer, 2000, p. 68)

Somewhere along the line I wonder if UDL got a little mixed up with universal design for access, and started focusing more and more on the support and forgetting the importance of the challenge along the way. Or perhaps, as the passage begins, that is just a mistake non-educators are want to make, and so myself, here at the onset of my time as an educator, have done just that?

References

Moore, S. (2016). One without the other: Stories of unity through diversity and inclusion. Portage & Main Press.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340001500108