The first level of a Universal Design\nfor Learning framework is the access level and that makes sense; learning can\u2019t\nhappen if you can\u2019t see, hear, pay attention to, read, or speak. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The roots of UDL trace, in large part,\nback to neuroscience research (Reid Lyon, 1985; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014)\non students with learning disabilities for whom profound barriers to reading\nprint meant that the dominant means of conveying information (i.e., books) in\nschool left approximately 10% of students without access to the curriculum. As\nthe research advanced, it roughly followed two veins of inquiry: there was\ninterest in knowing more about the children<\/em>\nwhose brains learned differently (e.g., Shaywitz, 2003; Wolf, 2007) and\ninterest in intervention<\/em> which in\nturn produced advocacy for change in educational practices, curriculum design\nand materials. Universal Design for Learning is part of the second vein.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the UDL framework is, at its\nfoundation, a model that was designed to include children who had traditionally\nbeen excluded from instruction. UDL founders David Rose and Anne Meyer (Meyer,\nRose, & Gordon, 2014) emphasize the role of neuroscience research in showing\nthat learning is not one thing but instead a composite that varies by task and\nin turn, support the idea that learning differs with experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So if the learning process is nuanced<\/em> and variable<\/em>, shouldn\u2019t our teaching match it? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Could our teaching not provide a\nvariety of routes<\/em> to learning\noutcomes? <\/p>\n\n\n\n It could. And access is the starting\npoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As I said, access is the point at\nwhich students engage with the material. Engagement<\/em>\nis a term bandied about in educational circles a lot and its interpretation for\ninstructors can range from having a quiet classroom, to listening skills, from\nclass participation to feeling like a clown at a birthday party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019d like to get rid of it, and talk\ninstead about access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For our purpose, access can be thought of as the point where a student can begin to participate in any class activity, from walking into the class, reading materials, being a contributing member in group work, participating in class discussions, holding pipettes, or sustaining attention through a three-hour lecture. I\u2019d like to suggest that you start thinking about access as an everybody thing, beyond students with disabilities, to start thinking about anyone who:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are five concrete steps that you\ncan take to both check on and support access through the design of your course\nactivities, lectures, exams, and assignments. Please note that each of these\nsteps is a concept, exercise, and practice in its own right. This overview is\nprecisely that and each step in turn will be elaborated in subsequent blog\nposts, workshops, presentations, and meeting sessions through TLC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Step One \u2013 Autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Autonomy is connected to a student\u2019s\nsense of perceived self-efficacy<\/em>. Perceived\nself-efficacy is (in this blogger\u2019s experience) an extremely helpful construct\nbecause it focuses not vaguely upon our general and volatile sense of\nself-esteem, but on how we feel when we are about to embark upon a task. Perceived\nself-efficacy is defined as a person\u2019s belief about their capabilities to\nproduce designated levels of performance and it determines how we feel, think,\nand motivate ourselves (Bandura, 1994). So when we are talking about access, we\nwant to know \u2013 does the student have the\nbelief equipment to think that they could be successful in this course<\/em>? <\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nterms of course design we want to check:<\/p>\n\n\n\n By\naddressing these components, the student should get a strong feel for the\ncourse, where their strengths and weaknesses lie in terms of the course\ncontent, and be able to make a decision about whether they are likely to be\nvery successful, moderately successful, or in over their heads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Step Two \u2013 Relevance & Value<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The importance of relevance and value\nties back to the problem of learning being inert and not generalizable outside\nthe immediate educational context. To address this problem, scholars of\nsituated learning paradigms attempt to ground learning in authentic,\nproblem-based contexts so that students can see a clear path from knowledge\nacquisition to problem-solving activities. By integrating learning contexts,\nand engaging in problems-solving, students see learning as meaningful and\npurpose-driven. As an expert in your area, this is where you get to be excited\nabout your field!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is what to check in your design:<\/p>\n\n\n\n