This is one of the most common misconceptions that UDL is only for people with disabilities. Research and anecdotal evidence on the usefulness of UDL to both students with or without disabilities finds that students have benefited from a class that has incorporated UDL methods. The inclusive design is found to benefit many students that have invisible disabilities such as those who struggle in reading comprehension, computing, or paying attention. UDL is designed to help education be more accessible to all students (Burgstahler, 2011; Shah, 2012). UDL considers the diversity of students in order to reach the largest amount of students to remove or decrease learning barriers (Lopes-Murphy, 2012).
UDL is Technology Based Only
One of the greatest myths is that UDL has to be technology based. (Shah, 2012) “Technology is not the only way to implement UDL in the classroom. High tech and low tech methods can be incorporated into instruction. When keeping the overall goal in mind of helping everyone to be a better learner, whether high tech or low tech the ways to accomplish learning should be flexible” (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2013). For example, a low tech component includes giving students handouts with key points and room for notes or a high tech component could be the use an online course tracker for grades, calendars, and syllabus.
UDL Will Replace
Assistive Technologies
According to recent research, one misconception is that UDL will eliminate or replace the need for assistive technologies for students. Assistive technology such as electric wheelchairs, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and cochlear implants are “essential for basic physical and sensory access to learning environments . . . their assistive technology neither precludes nor replaces the need for UDL overall” (NCUDL, 2013).
UDL Replaces the Need for Special Education Services
When UDL is incorporated into a classroom curriculum it does not replace the need for some individualize special education services. There is no single solution to provide all the learning supports. A more realistic view is to use a combination of what is needed for each student including UDL, assistive technology AT, and all accommodation that a student needs to perpetuate learning (Eagleton, 2008). It is important to use accommodations for students whose needs are not met by UDL (Burgatahler, 2011).
Teacher writing on a chalkboard.
Concerns
Time Constraints
A study was conducted in 2008-2009 at the College of St. Scholastica, to see if using an online course management system using the UDL enhancements to support face-to-face instruction would benefit a large class of undergraduate students. Their finding implicated that as much as 15 additional hours per week were spent on this project. However this does not represent an on-going time requirement. Some of that time was also spent on the collaboration for the study (Bongey, Cizadlo, & Kalnbach, 2010). On the other hand, instructors have found that the time used to implement UDL in course curriculum and delivery reduces the amount of individual instruction. It was also noted that after the initial development, time was saved by having a more efficient learning system with students engaged in their own education, achieving at higher levels, and more motivated to learn (Relabate, 2011).
Overstated Promises of UDL in the Classroom
Nothing can truly be universal with the varying needs of students, but it is possible to improve on any design to make it more universal (Eagalton, 2008). Students that responded to a study at the College of St. Scholastica stated that they wished that more classes would incorporate UDL principles as the methods made the class more enjoyable and less difficult to learn the concepts (Bongey et al., 2010). Research has found that in using UDL methods in course design and delivery shows a positive relationship to student interest and engagement (Smith 2012).
Endorsement vs. Implementation
Another concern is about the training that is needed to implement methods into class curriculum. One study found that educators need more support and information on how to put the ideas into practice. Teachers also need help on where and how to start in using the methods of UDL. (Shah, 2012). In a study of 233 faculty at Pacific Northwest a four-year public research institution, results suggested that disability-related training may positively affect faculty attitudes toward disability and inclusive instruction (Lombardi, Murray, & Gerdes, 2011). Overall indications, point to the need of more training for faculty on how to implement design and delivery into course curriculum. University lecturers often talk about and promote UDL, but they do not appear to apply relevant principles to their own teaching. Implementation needs to involve training of teachers and will be most effective when the training extends to include entire schools (Ashman, 2010).
Related Articles and References Ashman, A. (2009). Modeling inclusive practice in postgraduate tertiary education courses. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 667-680. Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological pedagogical contest knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 245-265. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2g Bogney, S. B., Cizadlo, G., & Kalnbach, L. (2010). Blended solutions: Using a supplemental online course site to deliver universal design for learning (UDL). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 27(1), 4-16. doi:10.1108/1065074101101246 Burgatahler, S. (2011). Universal design: Implications for computing education. ACMTransactions on Computing Education, 11(3). doi:10.1145/2037276.2037283 Eagleton, M. (2008). Special education: Universal design for learning. Research Starters, 1-6. Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41. Hitt, A. (2012). Access for all: The roles of dis/ability in multiliteracy centers. A Writing Center Journal, 9(2). Lombardi, A.R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to universal design. Journal of Diversity In Higher Education, 4(4), 250-261. doi:10.1037/a0024961 Lope-Murphy, S. (2012). Universal design for learning: Preparing secondary education teachers in training to increase academic accessibility of high school English learners. The Clearing House, 85(6), 226-230. doi:10.1080/00098655.2012.693549 National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2013). General format. UDL and technology. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udltechnology Ralabate, P. K. (2011, August 30). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the Needs of All Students . The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110830/Universal-Design-for-Learning--Meeting-the-Needs-of-All-Students/ Shah, N. (2012). Study finds districts buying into universal design. Education Week, 31(32), 7-17. Smith, F. G. (2012) Analyzing a college course that adheres to the universal design for learning (UDL) framework. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 21-61. Retrieved from http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/2151/2058