JSET ejournal
Universal
Design for Learning
Associate Editor Column
David Rose
With Anne Meyer, Ed.D.
We are delighted to introduce a special forum of JSET that will
be devoted to Universal Design for Learning (UDL). We applaud
the editors of JSET for their foresight in focusing attention
on this new approach within our field. We look forward to this
ongoing forum as an opportunity to solidify the foundations of
Universal Design for Learning, to publish research and examples
that will stimulate its growth, and to air criticisms to sharpen
and correct its direction.
Although the general approach called Universal Design, first
applied in architecture, is now over a decade old, application
of the concept to education is new. Therefore we provide a brief
introduction to the field of Universal Design, describe how the
same core concepts can be applied to information technologies,
and explain the Center for Applied Special Technology's (CAST)
concept of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) which differentiates
access to information from the process of learning. This column
lays the groundwork for further articles addressing core concepts
of UDL and the application of UDL in curriculum design and classroom
practice. A fuller presentation of these issues can be found
in our forthcoming book, tentatively entitled: Universal Design
for Learning: Mind Media and Instructional Design, and on the
CAST web site at www.cast.org.
The Concept of Universal Design
Universal Design in architecture emerged from the access needs
of people with disabilities. For example, stairs into and within
buildings provide access to many but form barriers for individuals
mobile in wheelchairs. The traditional solution was to add ramps
and elevators after the building had been completed in an inaccessible
fashion. Two factors contributed to the birth of Universal Design:
the usefulness of these alternatives for the population as a
whole, and the problems caused by retrofitting buildings.
Ramps, elevators, curb cuts and the like, initially installed
to accommodate people with disabilities, proved useful for the
population as a whole. People with strollers or shopping carts,
luggage, bicycles and skateboards all benefited from alternatives
to stairs and curbs.
Retrofitting buildings increased access for all, but also created
many new problems. The additions were frequently positioned ineffectively
or inconveniently, were aesthetically disastrous, and cost an
exorbitant amount of money.
In the field of architecture a movement grew around the idea
of designing buildings from the outset to be accessible to everyone.
That movement, named by Ron Mace, became known as "Universal
Design". Architects practicing Universal Design create structures
that from the outset accommodate the widest spectrum of users,
including those with disabilities. In universal-designed environments,
adaptability is subtle and integrated into the design. Designing
for the divergent needs of special populations increases usability
for everyone. Because universal-designed buildings were superior
to retrofitted buildings functionally, aesthetically, and economically,
schools of architecture began including courses on Universal
Design and the movement spread to commercial products, landscape
design, transportation, and many other fields. Universal Design
does not imply "one size fits all" but rather acknowledges
the need for alternatives to suit many different people's needs.
Universal Design Applied to Education
In the early 90's educators at CAST began to recognize that learning
materials such as books were analogous to stairs. For many learners,
printed books provide access to the knowledge of our culture,
but for students with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities,
among others, books present insurmountable barriers. Print presents
information one way for everyone, yet students' varied learning
needs and styles call for alternative formats. For example, a
bright student with dyslexia may be capable of understanding
history and science concepts but his inability to decode words
prevents him from learning these concepts from printed books.
A student with a visual impairment who cannot see standard sized
text is excluded from examining the concepts that are cognitively
accessible to her.
Assistive technologies existed that improved access to the content
of books, but, like retrofitted ramps in buildings, these technologies
were expensive, awkward to use, and they isolated learners from
their peers. For example, video enlargers enable learners to
enlarge the text in a printed book, but they are expensive and
cumbersome to carry around.
With the advent of digitizing tools and multimedia and hypermedia
software, it became possible to explore electronic alternatives
to printed books with "built in" means of access to
address varied learners' needs. In the late 1980's and early
1990's CAST developed electronic books and book templates with
built-in options that could be turned on and off, such as text-to-speech,
scanning of controls for use with a single switch, and speak-aloud
controls. These options increased access for students with learning,
physical, or sensory disabilities but did not get in the way
of learners who did not wish to use them. These designs were
published in 1992 as "Gateway Stories" and "Gateway
Authoring System" by Don Johnston Developmental Equipment,
providing accessible versions of children's books and a template
for teachers, parents, and students to create their own accessible
stories. Soon it became apparent that electronic books with options
for students with disabilities offered useful features for all
learners. Teachers in our research classrooms reported that students
with disabilities using the Gateway software were commonly surrounded
by other students who liked these electronic books and seemed
to learn from them.
These insights led CAST to design prototypes for electronic books
that could support all students in learning to read and write.
We sought to distribute these new kinds of books through mainstream
education channels so that they would become a part of regular
classrooms rather than being oriented to special learners. We
presented one of these prototypes to Scholastic, with whom we
then worked collaboratively for the next two years to design
"Wiggleworks™," an early literacy program in print
and on CD-ROM. "Wiggleworks™," designed and marketed
successfully as a mainstream literacy program, contains built-in
features that make it accessible to students with physical, sensory,
and learning disabilities.
In the midst of CAST's work on "WiggleWorks ™"
with Scholastic, an architect on our board listened to what we
were doing and brought us to a conference for architects in Boston.
There she introduced us to Ron Mace, the architect who coined
the term "Universal Design." We saw the parallels between
our work with curriculum materials and the concepts of Universal
Design in architecture: (a) building alternative access in from
the beginning of the design is more functional, integrated, and
economical than retrofitting; and (b) built-in alternatives prove
to be valuable to the population at large.
At this stage, we embraced the concept of Universal Design and
began applying it to the design of learning materials, methods,
and assessment. Because access to information and access to learning
are different in character and present different challenges,
we created the term "Universal Design for Learning"
to differentiate learning from access.
Universal Design for Learning
There is a very important difference between Universal Design
as it is applied in architecture and product design, and Universal
Design for Learning. Non-educators often make the mistake of
equating "access to information" with "access
to learning." In so doing, they assume that the goal of
universal design in education is achieved by creating materials
in which information is more accessible. But increasing access
can actually decrease or eliminate a learning opportunity. For
example, having electronic text where the computer can read all
of the words aloud is a powerful way of making the text more
accessible. But if the goal is to teach a dyslexic child how
to decode unfamiliar words, such accessibility may be counter-productive.
On the other hand, if the goal is to learn science concepts,
having the computer read the text aloud could enhance the learning
opportunity for a student with dyslexia.
The difference is in the goals. The professional mover aims to
move heavy objects with the least investment of effort and the
greatest efficiency. Hence, he uses a dolly or an electronic
lift. The athlete in training aims to build muscle. Hence she
supports the muscles not being trained and lifts heavy weights
with the target muscles. The learner more resembles the athlete
than the professional mover. Education is an exercise in constructing
knowledge and skills. It requires a careful balance of support
and resistance. Thus Universal Design for access provides the
greatest amount of support possible at all times, while Universal
Design for Learning requires careful attention to the goals of
any given learning experience so that a balance of challenge
and support can maximize the learning opportunity.
In fact, teachers practicing Universal Design for Learning find
themselves questioning the way in which they conceptualize and
articulate assignments. Is the goal to write a story, or to create
a narrative? Is the instruction to write your name on the paper
or to identify your work? As in other applications of Universal
Design, well-executed UDL engenders constructive re-evaluation
and reformulation that ultimately benefits all learners.
What we mean by learning, then, is not merely that children have
access to materials and information. What we mean is that children
have access to the learning itself, that they experience changes
in their knowledge and skills and that they grow in their capacity
to learn more. Such an emphasis causes us to focus on the goals
of the curriculum rather than its contents. What is it that we
are aiming to teach? Do we want students to know and recall the
causes of the U.S. Civil War, or do we want them to know how
to evaluate cause and effect through studying historical documents.
Either might be the goal, but articulating the goal carefully
is essential for successful implementation of UDL. Only with
a clear concept of the goal do we know what aspects of a learning
task can be varied to support learner differences, and which
aspects of the task must be held constant.
What do we mean by Universal?
The word "universal," used in the context of Universal
Design for Learning, is sometimes misunderstood. To many people
the term seems to imply that UDL is a quest for a single, one
size-fits-all, solution that will work for everyone. In fact,
the very opposite is true. The essence of UDL is flexibility
and the inclusion of alternatives to adapt to the myriad variations
in learner needs, styles, and preferences.
One basic premise of UDL is that a curriculum should include
alternatives that make the learning in it accessible and applicable
to students with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities,
and disabilities. The "universal" in Universal Design
for Learning does not imply a single solution for everyone, but
rather it underscores the need for inherently flexible, customizable
content, assignments, and activities. Flexibility is essential
for two reasons: (a) individual differences between learners
and (b) differences between instructional media.
Individual Differences. Research in the neural and cognitive
sciences has increasingly stressed the multiplicity of influences,
which make up our human capacity. Study of the brain, the organ
that we learn with, reveals it to be an organ that is a collection
of many specialized components. It is not one universal or general-purpose
learning device but rather a toolbox filled with many different
kinds of neural learning tools, each devoted to a specific purpose.
Individual differences among learners reflect that specialization.
That is, individuals differ from one another not just along some
universal continuum (like IQ) but they differ from one another
along many dimensions of specialization in the brain. Whereas
psychologists used to assess the differences between individuals
on the basis of a single dimension such as IQ, it is more common
now to understand individual differences in terms of composites
of specialized skills and abilities (e.g. Howard Gardner's work)
or "many kinds of minds" (Levine). When we focus on
categorical differences between learners such as "disabled/non-disabled"
or "gifted/not gifted," we miss the many differences
between learners within a category and the many similarities
between learners across categories. UDL assumes that every learner
is an individual with individual needs, interests, strengths,
and limitations.
UDL achieves the goal of meeting individual needs by providing
alternatives, not by seeking a single solution for all. Providing
both stairs and ramps is preferable to trying to invent a single
method of entry that works for all people at all times. Alternatives
offer increased access for those who need it and also offer opportunities
for everyone to choose according to circumstances. Sometimes
we prefer to use the stairs (e.g., to keep in shape, to avoid
waiting for the elevator) and sometimes we prefer to use the
elevator such as for very long vertical climbs or for carrying
a lot of luggage.
Media Differences. There is no universal medium of instruction.
Different media present different challenges, different demands
on the learner, and different strengths in conveying different
kinds of meaning. Consequently, the "universal" in
UDL refers to a selection of alternative media and also the capacity
to transform content from one medium to another. These options
accommodate several kinds of media, chosen as appropriate to
the task and to the learner rather than to any assumption about
the pre-eminence of one medium or another.
Only through a process of design that recognizes the differentiated
strengths and weaknesses of both students and media can we hope
to create learning contexts and materials that are flexible enough
to accommodate all learners. Alternatives, and the flexibility
for transforming the way material is presented and the way students
respond, are central to UDL. The "universal" in UDL
implies not one method or medium for all students but multiple
methods and media to achieve one goal success for
all students.
How UDL Addresses Learner Differences
Applying universal design to learning materials and activities
can increase access for learners with wide disparities in their
abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand
English, attend, organize, focus, engage, and remember. For example,
history texts provided in standard print formats are inaccessible
to students who are blind and present barriers to students who
are dyslexic or for whom English is a second language. The same
material in universal-designed electronic format can offer options
for different learners. It can be (a) read aloud by a computer
or screen reader, (b) printed on a Braille printer, (c) offered
in spoken or written translation, (d) presented with highlighted
main points and organizational supports, and (e) include hyperlinks
to definitions, elaborations, and related media for more in-depth
understanding. These options, in some cases critical for students
with disabilities, also offer new learning opportunities for
students with a range of learning needs, interests, and abilities.
The role of technology in Universal Design for
Learning
Although UDL would be theoretically possible using traditional
materials, it is not practically feasible. Offering the varied
content, tools, options for expression, and media to provide
the necessary alternatives would consume more space, cost more,
and require more logistical management than most schools could
afford. Consequently, UDL involves the use of digital multimedia
technologies. Two characteristics of digital multimedia make
it ideally supportive of UDL; its versatility and its flexibility.
Versatility. With appropriate software, a computer can emulate
a textbook, an audio CD player, a video game, a phone, a VCR,
a spreadsheet, a drafting table, an editing studio, or even a
battlefield. Through a computer we can control and combine many
of these separate tools to create hybrids of great power. Books
that talk, a database that dials the phone, or a video with an
audio and a text track are all possible.
Flexibility. Teachers know that students vary in the strengths
and limitations of their sensory, motor, motivational, and emotional
makeup, their amount of exposure to literacy, their languages
and cultural backgrounds, and their preferred learning styles.
Unlike print, where one size is supposed to fit all, digital
media are malleable and can be adjusted for different learners.
Digital multimedia are not, however, inherently UDL. Multimedia
can be just as inaccessible as printed textbooks. Computer learning
games, for example, are usually highly inaccessible to many students;
the images are inaccessible to blind students, the aural prompts
and feedback are inaccessible to deaf students, the text-based
explanations are inaccessible to students with dyslexia, and
so on. All of these barriers are easily avoidable with proper
design of the software. The inherent flexibility of multimedia
creates an opportunity for UDL, but only proper design can make
it a reality.
Universal Design and Assistive Technology
Because Universal Design for Learning utilizes the power of digital
technology, the term is sometimes confused with assistive technology.
How do they differ?
Assistive technology is designed to help individual students
access the mainstream curriculum. Under most circumstances, the
assistive technology is necessary because the mainstream curriculum
is inflexible and inaccessible to that student without it. In
the assistive technology model, the curriculum itself doesn't
change, but the student uses a tool to help him/her access the
curriculum.
A video enlarger is an example of an assistive technology that
can make a textbook more accessible to a student who has low
vision. By placing any traditional book or text in the enlarger,
the print can be magnified optically. Note that the enlarger
is not a part of the curriculum, it is a device used by an individual
student to overcome a barrier inherent in the curriculum's original
design. A UDL curriculum, on the other hand, would include a
digital version of the textbook from the publisher that could
be used by any student. The font and image size of that version
could easily be varied to meet individual preferences of any
student, or the text could be read aloud by the computer as an
additional scaffold. No additional tools are needed. With UDL,
the curriculum itself is flexible and customizable with scaffolds
already built in.
Other examples of assistive technologies are (a) alternative
keyboards, (b) motorized wheelchairs, (c) adaptive switches,
(d) Braille typewriters, (e) hearing aids, (f) pencil grips,
and (g) picture boards. The focus of these assistive technologies
is the individual student with a disability; the focus of UDL
is the classroom curriculum with all of its intended students.
Will UDL replace assistive technology? No. Assistive technologies
will always have a role in the education of some learners. Children
with physical disabilities need properly designed wheelchairs,
adaptive switches to control devices, or speech synthesizers.
UDL will not eliminate the need for such devices. But such devices
will be used for the same reasons we use eyeglasses; that is,
to enhance our abilities rather than to compensate for inadequately
designed learning materials.
Exclusive emphasis on assistive technologies places the burden
of adaptation on the learner, not the curriculum. The idea that
students must procure or "be prescribed" special individual
tools whenever they cannot use standard curriculum undermines
learning for everyone. Exclusively print-based tools and methods,
uncaptioned videos and software, undescribed images and posters,
all create a culture of failure for many of our children. As
Universal Design for Learning becomes viable and pervasive, assistive
technology will no longer be required to make up for inadequacies
in curriculum.
Conclusion
JSET provides an exciting context for exploring the relationships
between special education technologies and Universal Design for
Learning. In the boundaries and overlaps between these complementary
approaches to using technology, we will ultimately find the solutions
that our students, all of them, will need.
