I’ve been aware of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for a long time – my colleague Greg Alchin has taught me a lot about it over the course of our acquaintance, and I’ve been to a few sessions on it over time, but up until the last couple of years, I haven’t really had the chance to dive into it in any meaningful way. However, since I started doing more higher education focused learning design work, I’ve really taken the opportunity to explore it more thoroughly, including reading Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice (2014). It’s been well worth my time, and it is pleasing to see that many of my own ideas regarding pedagogy, technology and teaching align neatly with the ideas of UDL – which is perhaps testament to the excellent training that I’ve received in the course of developing my own practice, and the opportunities I’ve been afforded.
I also think (and I am conscious that I am being a little optimistic here) that UDL is an idea whose time has come. I say this because central to the idea of UDL is the effective use of technology. When CAST started work on UDL in the 1980s, there was much excitement about the potential of new technologies to improve learning (much as there was in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and so on- that’s a long history littered with expensive projects that often failed to live up to their potential). However, the rise of personal computing, personal devices, BYOD and mobile learning has, I think, reached the point where UDL’s ideas are viable for many students and teachers. Of course, I am mindful that, as I say this, access will not be equitable – and that risks extending the digital divide, rather than narrowing it. This is, perhaps, one of my first concerns with UDL.
UDL is often linked to special needs or inclusive education. It has its roots there, certainly, but it’s more widely applicable than that. It begins with the idea of where the problem in education exists: traditional models have suggested that students with dyslexia or autism or developmental delays or other such conditions are the problem, and they need personalised learning plans developed to support them. UDL on the other hand, suggests that the problem lies not with these students, but rather with the curriculum; that is, these students often fail to succeed because the school system does not provide them with the support and opportunities needed to succeed. The solution is not to change the students (in the sense of providing them with personal learning plans), but is instead to change the system to give all
Of course, that sounds like a ridiculous amount of work; it’s along the lines of having 30 different learning plans for every single student in the classroom. However, UDL suggests that such differentiation is unnecessary – the level of atypicality is predictable, and within normal boundaries so that it can be planned for. In order to plan for it, Meyer, Rose and Gordon (2014) argue that we need:
- multiple means of engagement
- multiple means of representation
- multiple means of action and expression