Would You Recognize Universal Design for Learning if You Saw it? Ten Propositions for New Directions for the Second Decade of UDL

Abstract

As I read the latest issue of the Learning Disability Quarterly, I was appreciative of the essay by King-Sears (2009) highlighting the value of universal design for learning (UDL) to the learning disability community. The allure of UDL has captured the imagination of many educators and policy makers. The recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–315, Section 202, I, A), for example, requires colleges of education that receive federal funding for teacher quality partnership grants to report on the outcomes of UDL training within their preservice preparation programs. King-Sears' efforts to encourage the learning disability community to dialogue about UDL are noteworthy and timely.

Given that the King-Sears piece was featured as a “Commentary” article designed to spark conversation about contemporary topics, I would like to take this opportunity to extend the conversation and highlight nuances associated with translating UDL theory into practice. As someone who has been involved in helping individual teachers as well as schools, states, provinces, and policy makers translate UDL theory into practice, I am concerned about the ability of the profession to implement a construct that it cannot define.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amazon.com. (2009, December 7). Blind and vision-impaired readers to benefit from new Kindle features in 2010 (press release). Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1362556highlight=.

Burke

M. D.

Hagan

S. L.

Grossen

(1998). What curricular designs and strategies accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 34–38.

Castellani

Mason

Orkwis

(2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (1994). WiggleWorks (software). New York: Scholastic.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004). Thinking Reader (software). Watertown, MA: Tom Snyder Productions.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2008). UDL Editions by CAST. Available at http://udleditions.cast.org/.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009a). CAST UDL Book Builder. Available at http://bookbuilder.cast.org/.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009b). CAST Science Writer. Available at http://sciencewriter.cast.org/.

Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm/.

10.

Coyne

M. D.

Kameenui

E. J.

Simmons

D. C.

(2004). Improving beginning reading instruction and intervention for students with LD: Reconciling “all” with “each.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37 (3), 231–239.

11.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

12.

Dewey

(1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright.

13.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal of Special Education Technology, 21 (4), 62–65.

14.

Edyburn

D. L.

(in press). Understanding the quality of the science supporting the special education technology evidence base. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(1).

15.

Edyburn

Gardner

J. E.

(2009). Readings in special education technology: Universal design for learning. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

16.

Gage

N. L.

(1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: John Wiley.

17.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110–315). Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html/.

18.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (1997). Pub. L. No. 105–17.

19.

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

(2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universal design for assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3). Electronic Journal. Retrieved on December 21, 2005, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v4n2.shtml/.

20.

King-Sears

(2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199–201.

21.

McLeskey

Waldon

(2007) Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 (3), 162–168.

22.

Meyer

Rose

D.H.

(2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58 (3), 39–43.

23.

Molenbroek

J. F.

de Bruin

(2006). Anthropometry of a friendly rest room. Assistive Technology, 18 (2), 196–204.

24.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107–110.

25.

Orkwis

McLane

(1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. OSEP Topical Brief. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

26.

Rose

D. H.

Hasselbring

T. S.

Stahl

Zabala

(2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In Edyburn

Higgins

Boone

(Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 507–518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

27.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

(2000). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Technology. Washington, DC: USDOE.

28.

Rose

Meyer

(2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

29.

Russell

Hoffman

Higgins

(2009). NimbleTools: A universally designed test delivery system. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42 (2), 6–12.

30.

Schlechty

(2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Schwanke

T. D.

Smith

R. O.

Edyburn

D. L.

(2001). A3 model diagram developed as accessibility and universal design instructional tool. RESNA 2001 Annual Conference Proceedings, 21, RESNA Press.

32.

Skinner

B. F.

(1954). The science of learning and the ait of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24 (2), 86–97.

33.

The Technology-Related Assistance Act for Individuals With Disabilities. (1988). Pub. L. No. 100–407.

34.

Thompson

S. J.

Johnstone

C. J.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2002). Universal design applied to large-scale assessments (NCEO Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

35.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

36.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2004). The Mobius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37 (6), 516–524.

37.

Welch

A. B.

(2000). Responding to student concerns about fairness. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (2), 36–40.