Universal Design for Learning Literature Review

Reflection and References

Reflection

Retreived on 07-Aug-2008 from
http://cathywebster.com/antarctica/penguin%20reflection%202.jpg.

My conclusion for my UDL literature review is given here:

Both CEC (2005) and Kleiman (2004) advocate implementation of UDL as did all authors in this literature review.  Even though opponents to UDL were sought, none were found.  The answer to the third question, "Are there any opponents to UDL?  If so, are their concerns legitimate or might they be motivated to maintain the status quo?" is no.  UDL makes sense because it proactively uses current Information Age knowledge and technology, rather than reactively using Industrial Age assumptions and practices. 

The second question, "Is there any current evidence to suggest that instructional designers who deliberately or intuitively use UDL for their online course development meet diverse learning needs?" provided primarily anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of UDL.  Although there are many educational issues requiring research, it would be wise to focus on UDL because it has the potential to eliminate some issues as it asks how might Robin and Brook succeed rather than why did they fail. 

As for the first research question, "What has UDL learned from brain research and how does this apply to designing curricula to meet diverse learning needs?" a helpful approach would be to compare the current school system and UDL to Western and Chinese medicine.  Western medicine, like the current school system, reactively waits for the symptoms to show up and then implements potentially harmful interventions.  The emotional costs of this practice are incredibly high for the learning community.  Everyone, learners, family, educators, and administrators, experience the pain of failure.  The financial costs are also incredibly high as the funding invested in special education of individuals could easily be redirected to meeting the needs of all.

UDL is like Chinese medicine.  It sees all learners as able-minded and recognizes that each mind has unique learning needs.  When these needs are met, the learner's affective, recognition, and strategic networks interact as they apply understanding and practice skills.  Everyone, learners, family, educators, and administrators, experience the rewards of success.  UDL facilitates learning by meeting diverse learning needs through technology. Once digitized, content can be transformed rapidly into a variety of formats and understanding can be expressed in a variety of formats.  By allowing learners multiple formats, the content becomes more engaging.  Online educators, by considering the needs of the disabled, have an inherent ability to use technology to apply UDL principles to minimize retrofitting for individuals and maximize learning for everyone.

Again, I ask, where do you want to put your time and energy? In proactively preparing accessible curricula for everyone, or reactively developing education plans for individuals?

Thank you for your consideration.

References

• Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education: Teaching nontraditional students. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-4R67GQ2mugC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Universal+Design+for+ Learning%22+online&ots=_BLxvKsu1t&sig=cZ6zVr8AK4q0q HswkBvvTF9Uhrc.
• Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance Learning: Universal Design, Universal Access. AACE Journal. 10 (1), pp. 32-61.  Retrieved May 31, 2008 from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText &paper_id=17776.
• Center for Applied Special Technology, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2008 from http://www.cast.org/.
• Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2005). Universal Design for Learning: A guide for teachers and educational professionals. United States: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Crow, K. (2008). Four Types of Disabilities: Their Impact on Online Learning. TechTrends, 52(1), 51-55.  Retrieved May 28, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1431037901).
  Doidge, N. (date). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science.  Viking: New York, New York.
• Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). "Universal Design for Learning: Implications for large-scale assessment." IDA Perspectives 27(4): 22-25. Retrieved May 31, 2008 from ProQuest Education Journals database.
  
• Dusti H. (2001). Elements of effective e-learning: Three design methods to minimize side effects of online courses. College Teaching, 49(3), 87.  Retrieved May 31, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 82834518).
• Eagleton, M.,  Guinee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices From the Middle, 10(3), 28-35.  Retrieved May 28, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 322060321).
• Gordan, D. T. ( 2002). Curriculum access in the digital age. Harvard Educational Letter Research Online. January/February 2002.  Retrieved on May 31, 2008 from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2002-jf/digitalage.shtml.
• Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children's minds—for better and worse. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  Hitchcock , C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 45-52.  Retrieved May 31, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 569989481).
• Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J.  (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community.  Retrieved on July 16, 2008 from http://sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v11n2/pdf/v11n2_ice.pdf.
• Jaremenko, B. (2004). Anchors and Sails: A Reading Program for Beginners. North York, ON: Captus Press Inc.
• Kingsley, K. K. (2007). Empower diverse learners with educational technology and digital media. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 52-56.  Retrieved May 28, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1326666011).
• Kleiman, G. (2004). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools: Five years later. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 4 (2), pp. 248-253. AACE.
• Mighton, J. (2003). The myth of ability:  Nuturing mathematical talent in every child. Toronto: Anansi.
• Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of Universal Design for Learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197.  Retrieved May 31, 2008, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source database. (Document ID: 76670996).
• Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (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. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from OVID database.
• Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Weir, Lori. (2005). Raising the awareness of online accessibility. T.H.E. Journal, 32(10), 30-33.  Retrieved May 28, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 840271571).
• Welcome to Google Docs. (n.d.).  Retrieved July 26, 2008 from http://docs.google.com/.
• Wolfe, Pat. (2006). The role of meaning and emotion in learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006(110), 35-41. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from OVID database.

Overview | Research | Effectiveness | Proponents | Reflection