Universal Design for Learning A framework for Accessible Curricular Materials Matthew T. Marino, Ph.D.

Overview The problem(s) with our current educational model Origins of UDL UDL defined (or not) The neurobiological basis for UDL UDL and Differentiated Instruction Integrating UDL with your teaching practice An example from video games This slide provides an overview of the presentation and pictures of the covers of three books that can be used to learn more about UDL..

Can People with Disabilities Make Valuable Contributions? Left to right top to bottom Temple Grandin – Transformative figure responsible for dramatic changes in how livestock are kept and processed, Labeled with brain damage as a child Stephen Hawking – Theoretical physicist, has a motor neuron disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Diagnosed at age 21, he went on to become one of the most prominent figures in astrophysics. Matthew Schneps, Founder and director Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Diagnosed with dyslexia. Is at the forefront of understanding the unique visual processing abilities of individuals with dyslexia. Albert Einstein – Albert Einstein didn’t learn to walk until he was four, could not tie his own shoes or remember the months of the year and was several years behind his classmates learning to read. He failed the entrance examination to college. His teachers described him as mentally slow, unsociable, and a dreamer. Leonardo Da Vinci – Famous artist, sculptor, engineer, architect, scientist, and naturalist. The majority of his journal notes were written backwards. Alexander Grahm Bell – Widely known as having dyslexia, was a founding member of the national geographic society and highly accomplished inventor who used technology to help advance life for his Deaf parents.

Students with Disabilities in Text-based Environments Have difficulty: Activating prior knowledge Making inferences during reasoning processes Implementing instructor feedback Transferring knowledge Are reluctant to pose questions or hypotheses Are less likely to have a systematic plan to approach problems Are less likely to be aware of their metacognitive processes The ability to decipher and comprehend printed text involves a complex series of neurological events that are based on spoken language. Proficient readers fluently recognize print on a page, convert it to linguistic code (i.e., phonetic code), and accurately interpret its meaning. Three regions of the brain are involved in the reading process; the inferior frontal gyrus (commonly referred to as Broca’s area) which is responsible for word analysis and articulation, the parieto-temporal region which assists in sounding out words, and the occipito-temporal region which processes visual symbols on the page and transforms them into words (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004). Each of these areas, as well as their connecting pathways, must function symbiotically for fluent reading to occur.

Learning to Read & Reading to Learn Students without disabilities This slide shows how the performance gap widens as students enter middle school where the narrative text they are used to is replaced by expository texts. Students with disabilities and poor readers are represented in the bottom line while students who are proficient readers are represented in the top line. Students with disabilities

Science Performance of Students Without Disabilities Science performance disaggregated by discrete National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reading ability scores. More information is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ 8th Grade: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2010)

Science Performance of Students With Disabilities Science performance disaggregated by discrete National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reading ability scores. More information is available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ Outcome - Only 5% of SWD enter the STEM workforce (Leddy, 2010) 8th Grade: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2010)

Leveraging Students’ Strengths to Enhance Instruction Thinking in pictures (not words) Intense, sustained, obsessive, fixation on a problem Not bound by social, behavioral, or political considerations Desperately seeking success and acceptance Benefit more from technology than their peers without disabilities In order to provide effective instruction for students with disabilities we must identify their personal characteristics. This slide summarizes research related to strengths we can capitalize on in the classroom.

Origins of Universal Design (UD) Developed from architecture in the early 1970’s at North Carolina State University Based on the idea that all products should be usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life. Examples of Universal Design include curb cuts, TV captioning, & pictorial representation on restroom doors. Ronald Mace, architect and wheel chair user, coined the term "universal design" to describe the concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life. He was also a devoted advocate for the rights of people with disabilities which is reflected in his work. He graduated from the School of Design at North Carolina State University in 1966 with a Bachelor's degree in architecture. After four years of practicing conventional architecture, he became involved in the effort to produce the first building code for accessibility in the nation. This code became mandatory in North Carolina in 1973 and served as a model for other states. Ron's pioneering work in accessible design was instrumental in the passage of national legislation prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

THE CENTER FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN is a national research, information, and technical assistance center that evaluates, develops, and promotes accessible and universal design in housing, buildings, outdoor and urban environments and related products. The Center's work manifests the belief that all new environments and products, to the greatest extent possible, should be usable by everyone regardless of their age, ability, or circumstance. Part of the College of Design at North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, NC, the Center promotes the concept of universal design in all design, construction, and manufacturing disciplines through research, design assistance, and training.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) An educational application of the original architecture-based UD construct Developed at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) for K-12 students UDL is designed to improve access, participation, and progress in the general education curriculum UDL challenges teachers to anticipate, reduce, and/or eliminate barriers by creating flexible curricula About CAST: Founded in 1984 as the Center for Applied Special Technology, CAST has earned international recognition for its development of innovative, technology-based educational resources and strategies based on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). CAST staff includes specialists in education research and policy, neuropsychology, clinical/school psychology, technology, engineering, curriculum development, K-12 professional development, and more. By defining UDL and exploring its practical applications, CAST is pushing the boundaries of education research, practice, and policymaking

Premise for UDL in Education Barriers occur as diverse learners interact with curriculum (e.g., nonreaders working with text) The curriculum, instruction, and assessment are the problem, NOT the students Accessibility is a broad construct that includes physical, cognitive, social, and cultural influences Curricula should consider student differences at the outset… as opposed to retrofitting existing instructional plans (Meyer & Rose, 2005) This slide identifies the premise on which UDL is based

Access Considerations Cognitive Physical Learning is restricted if curricular materials are not accessible at each of the 4 domains Student Cultural As teachers think about potential barriers to student learning they must consider the potential barriers above Social

Deconstructing Barriers Conceptual Understanding (Big Ideas) Symbolic Representation Cognitive Each of the barrier domains (physical, cognitive, social, cultural) can be further deconstructed as shown here. Procedural Knowledge & Skills Domain Specific Vocabulary

The level of student learning across Blooms Taxonomy can also influence the barriers students encounter.

Traditional Model In traditional education models students with disabilities were provided with advocacy and then accommodations in order to make the curricular materials accessible. This slide illustrates how the traditional model worked.

Meeting the needs of ALL Students There is a debate among experts in the field about what constitutes UDL. Traditional lessons were designed to reach students at the middle (i.e., +/- one standard deviation) of the bell curve. Some experts in the field contend that a lesson can only be considered UDL if it is accessible to 100% of the population 100% of the time. Others note that the costs associated with making a lesson accessible to students with low incidence disabilities, such as those who are deaf and blind, make UDL alignment unrealistic especially if there are no students who are deaf and blind in the course. Those experts contend that curricular materials that reach 90 – 95% of the population 90 – 95% of the time should be considered UDL. When do we call it UDL?

UDL is Rooted in Neurobiology Global measures of intelligence (e.g., IQ) do not account for individual learning differences at the neural level within the brain (Dolan & Hall, 2001; Wallis & Bulthoff, 1999) Positron emission tomography (PET) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Quantitative electroencephalography (Qeeg) Brain imaging technologies allow us to see the brain as it learns. Learning appears to be modular. For example, individuals interpret shape, color, orientation, and motion in different modules of the brain, each of which must interact in parallel for the individual to interpret and learn from the stimuli. The pattern of activity across the different modules varies by task. For example, an individual will process the word “dog” in different modules of the brain depending on whether it is presented in text vs. speech. To say the word “dog” the individual uses yet another modular system.The distribution of activity across the neural modules is fluid and varies by individual. Consider an example of two individuals, each with an IQ of 120. When they are presented with identical stimuli, it is likely that each will utilize different neural modules to recognize, interpret, and respond to the stimuli depending on their previous experience in similar situations.

Individual Learning Experiences Shape Neural Pathways Brain activity varies by individual based on previous experiences with the learning tasks (Hund-Georgiadis & von Cramon, 1999; Shaywitz, 2003) Modules within the brain expand and contract based on personal experiences (van Mier, Fiez, & Raichle, 1998) Repetition and practice produce changes at the behavioral level and at the neural level within the brain (Meyer & Rose, 2002) Current research provides clear evidence that individuals learn and think differently depending on their experiences.

How UDL Enhances Instruction Support primary neural networks within the brain Recognition networks receive and analyze information What is this? Strategic networks allow individuals to plan and carry out activities How am I going to do that? Affective networks involve motivation and establishing priorities Why should I do this? (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005) There are clear differences in the ways people who are proficient readers process information when compared to students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia. This slide shows images of critical processing areas in the brain and the networks addressed in the UDL framework.

The UDL guideline are structured as three principles that are interpreted vertically from top to bottom with principle (least detail) followed by guideline and checkpoint (most detail).

UDL Teaching Methods Support Recognition “What is this?” Multiple examples Highlight critical features Provide multiple media and formats Support background context Support Strategic Networks “How am I going to do that?” Flexible models of performance Provide opportunities to practice with supports Provide ongoing relevant feedback Flexible opportunities to demonstrate skills This slide provides examples of strategies teachers can use to increase the accessibility of curricular materials across specific networks.

UDL Teaching Methods To Support Affective Networks “Why should I do this?” Offer choices of content specificity whenever possible Provide multiple tools to access the curriculum Adjust levels of challenge within assignments Offer choices of rewards Provide choices of learning context This slide provides examples of strategies teachers can use to increase the accessibility of curricular materials across affective networks.

The UDL Teaching Process Set Goals Identify standards-based learning goals Establish context Identify Status Identify methods, materials, and assessments Identify barriers Apply UDL Identify UDL materials and methods Write UDL Plan Collect and organize materials Teach UDL Lesson Teach lesson Evaluate effectiveness Unforeseen barriers? Revise

Is There a Difference Between UDL and Differentiated Instruction? UDL is a theoretical framework for instructional design Differentiated Instruction is a practice that can be implemented within the Universal Design framework Differentiated Instruction and UDL both encourage curricula that is flexible and designed to decrease learning barriers

Three Elements of Differentiation Content Several materials are used to present the content Tasks are aligned with instructional goals Instruction is concept focused and principle driven Process Flexible grouping Multiple strategies for classroom management Products Continual assessment of student progress Students as active participants Vary expectations and requirements

Additional Components of Differentiated Instruction Clarify key concepts Use assessment as a tool to inform instruction Emphasize critical and creative thinking Provide a balance between teacher-assigned and student-selected tasks

Recognition Learning “What” Teaching methods Recognition Learning “What” UDL Principle 1 Differentiating Instruction Provide multiple examples Use several elements to support instructional content Highlight critical features Instruction is content focused and principle driven Provide multiple media and formats Use several materials to support instruction Support background context Assess students’ knowledge base There is overlap between UDL and differentiated instruction, as illustrated in this slide.

Strategic Learning “How” Teaching methods Strategic Learning “How” UDL Principle 2 Differentiating Instruction Provide flexible models of skilled performance Demonstrate information and skills multiple times Provide opportunities to practice with supports Active and responsible learners Provide ongoing relevant feedback Vary requirements and expectations for the learning experience Offer flexible opportunities for demonstrating skill There is overlap between UDL and differentiated instruction, as illustrated in this slide.

Affective Learning “Why” Teaching methods Affective Learning “Why” UDL Principle 3 Differentiating Instruction Offer choice of content and tools Effective organization Provide adjustable levels of challenge Student engagement is vital Offer choices of rewards Effective classroom management Offer a choices of learning context Diversify instruction There is overlap between UDL and differentiated instruction, as illustrated in this slide.

Eliminating Recognition & Strategic Barriers Differentiated Instruction Graphic organizers (e.g., thematic maps, network tree, problem and solution map) Advanced outlines Digital media Assistive Technology Opportunities for dialogue

Eliminating Affective Barriers Provide choices in context Pique student interests Co-teach with students Authentic assignments Real world applications Technology simulations Tools that support out-of-reach activities

Strategies for Building Prior Knowledge in a UDL Framework Direct Instruction (DI) (Adams & Engelmann, 1996) Reflection and recording (Carr & Thompson, 1996) Interactive discussions (Jackson, Harper, & Jackson, 2005) Answering questions (King, 1994) The K-W-L strategy (Ogle, 1986; Fisher, Frey, & Williams, 2002) Computer assisted activation (Biemans, Deel, & Simons, 2001) Course Structure Grading The Final Exam Student Manual Study Guide Take a Quiz Coordinator Student Experiences Final Exam Online Self-Test Writing Help Psychology Centre Psychology Resources Gradebook AU Library AU Home Page References Adams, G. L. and Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond Distar. Seattle: Educational Achievement Systems.