Educ500gs Odrowskilitrevfinal

Running head: IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN
EDUC 5002G - Assignment #3

Literature Review
Implementation of Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education
Sandy Odrowski (100157733)
For: Dr. Lorayne Roberston
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
November 17, 2013
IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Implementation of Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education

This literature review provides a brief examination of some existing research pertaining to
faculty development strategies focusing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL). It begins by
providing a definition of UDL and then summarizes some professional development activities
used to support faculty in accessible design and delivery of curriculum. Finally, it explores
findings from the literature that focus specifically on strategies for the initiation and facilitation
of more successful implementation of a UDL framework into post-secondary institutions. A
review of five articles revealed three themes which are the focus of this literature review: a
definition of UDL, professional development opportunities for faculty, and institutional support.
Definition
The Centre for Applied Special Technologies (CAST) is an educational research and
development organization based just outside of Boston, Massachusetts that works to expand
learning opportunities for all individuals in all levels of education through UDL. CAST
developed Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and defines it as:
A set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal
opportunities to learn. UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals,
methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone--not a single, one-size-fitsall solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for
individual needs (Center for Applied Special Technologies [CAST], 2013).
UDL is a pedagogical framework based on brain science research recognizing that people
learn in distinct ways and that the more options provided to the learner, the more likely
understanding will occur (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo, et al., 2008). UDL is grounded on three
guiding principles: multiple means of representation (multi-modal teaching), multiple means of
engagement (maximizing student learning through relevancy), and multiple means of expression
(allowing students to demonstrate learning in multiple ways) (Izzo et al., 2008; Pace & Blue,
2010; Ward & Sylvester, 2011). The use of technology drives the three principles to maximize
accessibility for the learner (Izzo et al., 2008; Pace & Blue, 2010; Ward & Sylvester, 2011).
UDL is a proactive design rather than a reactive retrofit and takes on the burden of adaptation so
that the student doesnt have to, minimizing barriers and maximizing access to both information
and learning (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo et al., 2008; Pace & Blue, 2010). It is important to
note that all five studies stress that UDL is not watering down the curriculum or reducing the
academic rigour of a course, but rather designing a curriculum that is accessible to a wide variety
of users (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo et al., 2008; Ouellett, 2004; Pace & Blue, 2010; Ward &
Sylvester, 2011) .
Professional Development
In order for faculty to design and deliver a UDL-based curriculum providing professional
development opportunities may guide them in developing the necessary knowledge, skills and
abilities for successful implementation (Bernacchio & Ross, 2007; Izzo et al., 2008; Ouellett,
2004; Ward & Sylvester, 2011). Izzo et al. (2008) conducted two research studies at a large
Midwestern University using a mixed methods approach which demonstrated that UDL training
was a priority for faculty and indicated positive results of such training. The first study
highlighted that out of four different topics available for training (three focusing on various
aspects of accommodations for students with disabilities); faculty chose UDL as their top
priority. The second study assesses the effectiveness of multi-modal UDL training in an online
environment. The findings showed that 92 % of faculty found that the online module not only
increased their comfort level in using UDL principles, but that they would recommend the
module to other colleagues (Izzo et al., 2008).
Whereas Izzo et als (2008) research studied professional development training in an
online environment, Bernacchio et al. (2007) and Ward & Sylvester (2011) discussed the use of
faculty learning communities (FLCs) and reflective practice as a learning platform for faculty
regarding UDL. In both instances, a case study approach was used with a range of four to seven
participants at mid-sized universities in the United States. Course materials including syllabi,
assessments, class activities, use of a Learning Management System (LMS) and other
technologies were discussed and examined to determine whether UDL principles were being
used. The results of the studies indicated that FLCs provided a forum for professors to share
their challenges and triumphs in a collegially- safe environment where learning from one and
other was inevitable and rewarding (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Ward & Sylvester, 2011). One
professor stated I now have a community of peers to trouble shoot with (Ward & Sylvester,
2011, p. 118).
Institutional Support
Regardless of the vehicle used to develop UDL skills with faculty, it is recommended that
strategies are established to adopt a UDL framework at an institutional level (Bernacchio et al.,
2007; Izzo et al., 2008; Ouellett, 2004; Pace & Blue, 2010; Ward & Sylvester, 2011).
Administrational support and training opportunities are critical to move an inclusive agenda
forward at an institutional level (Ouellett, 2004). The need for administration to prioritize UDL
professional development activities, as well as to recognize faculty who make the effort to
cultivate their skills, were cited as an important component for inclusion to occur in their
institutions (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo et al., 2008; Ward & Sylvester, 2011). Pace and Blue
(2010) noted that providing faculty with time and resources to design curriculum based on a
UDL supported them to use a UDL framework in the classroom. Furthermore, Ouellette (2004)
stated that professional development for staff in teaching and learning centres (TLCs) would help
provide post-secondary institutions with the expertise needed to adopt a UDL framework at an
institutional level.
Conclusion
This brief review of the literature provides an examination of the existing research
pertaining to UDL framework, professional development initiatives, and institutional support. It
is worth noting that there are other adult learning theories mentioned in the literature related to
inclusion in higher education. For example, McIntoshs Interactive Phase Theory (IPT) was used
by Bernacchio et al. to provide a more inclusive approach (as cited in Bernacchio et al., 2007).
Bernacchio et al. (2008) used a combination of UDL and IPT to examine their curriculum
beyond abilities to include a wide range of marginalized groups; therefore, focusing on inclusion
for a diverse range of students.
In summary, the research indicates that professional development opportunities, as well
as supported strategies for implementation of a UDL framework can build skills in faculty that
may transcend into creating a more inclusive learning environment (Bernacchio et al., 2007; Izzo
et al., 2008; Ward & Sylvester 2011). Online UDL training modules as well as FLCs help faculty
gain confidence in the UDL framework ((Izzo et al., 2008; Pace & Blue, 2010; Ward &
Sylvester, 2011). As well, the research offers insight into types of training models which may
guide faculty developers as they plan, initiate, and facilitate a UDL framework at teaching and
learning centres. Further research that studies the effect on student learning are necessary to
validate the true effectiveness of professional development activities such as those presented in
this literature review. Furthermore, further research into providing faculty with choice as to the
type of UDL training offered (online training modules, FLCs and face to face workshops) may
uncover that faculty learn best when offered training based on UDL principles; therefore,
supporting a UDL framework for all learners.
References
Bernacchio, C., Ross, F., Washburn, K. R., Whitney, J., & Wood, D. R. (2007). Faculty
collaboration to improve equity, access, and inclusion in higher education. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(1), 56-66.
Centre for Applied Special Technologies (2013). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The Faculty Perspective on Universal Design for
Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60-72.
Ouellett, M. L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity &
excellence in education, 37(2), 135-144.
Pace, D., & Blue, E.V. (2010). Cutting Edge Educators: Preservice Teachers use of Technology
within universal Design for learning Framework. Insights on Learning Disabilities 7(2),
19-29.
Ward, H. C., & Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: improving teaching in
higher education. Educational Studies, 38(1), 111-121.

Educ500gs Odrowskilitrevfinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educ500gs Odrowskilitrevfinal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educ500gs Odrowskilitrevfinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

EDUC 5002G - Assignment #3

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

Implementation of Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.