The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a relatively new concept in designing courses. It is a spin off the design for accessibility and supports similar theme: equal opportunities for learning for everyone. UDL is used primarily in K-12 special ed classes, but I think its sound principles are just as applicable to Higher Ed course design regardless of method of delivery.
The Universal Design for Learning Principles in a hybrid Course: Perception and Practice is a qualitative study that explores experiences of participating in a blended course. This course was not only designed using UDL principles but the content of the course also dealt with how to use UDL. The test group was tiny, just five graduate-level students who were future K-6 special ed teachers. The study was primarily based on observation and participant perceptions self-reported through interviews. At the end of the class as a project, students were supposed to construct a lesson plan according to the UDL, but I am not sure that the outcomes were a part of the data researchers gathered.
The study started with an overview of UDL framework stating that “UDL provides a blueprint for creating flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments that accommodate learner differences” (Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013). Even though it sounds like a constructivist approach to teaching and learning experience, the IDL is largely based on Cognitivist theory and information brain processing. The study claims that identifying the brain networks plays an essential role in teaching and learning (Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013). However, they do not go in depth about which networks are important. In fact, they do not identify the non-essential ones either. Let down there.
After a short overview, the researchers explained the reason behind the study, which is to provide training and facilitate the development of an understanding of UDL principles for future special ed teachers. Based on reading some other research about principles of UDL on my own, I was really interested in this future-instructor-centered research approach. It seems to me there is never enough training and development courses that instructors can take for professional development or better their teaching. I also thought that having the course delivery using the subject matter was an interesting construct (as in practice what you preach kind of way). What better way to put the subject matter in context!
Even though the test group was minimal — just 5 participants — according to the researchers it gathered enough data to observe three common emerging themes as far as future instructors’ perception goes. It happened as Hinshaw and Gumus (2013) put forth, because of vast differences between the participants. All had different undergraduate backgrounds, skills, teaching knowledge and experiences (Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013). Even though I am sure that these differences did contribute to variation in the data, the test group was still too small for the unbiased, full rounded conclusions. This, I thought, was one of the main downsides of the study.
The research then goes into describing the different backgrounds of the participants in great detail which I thought was unnecessary. A short explanation would have been enough. However, it did give me a better perspective on the backgrounds of special ed teachers. Three out of five did work as K-6 special ed teachers already, and I am sure due to their profession were familiar (at least on a subconscious level) with the integration of at least some UDL principle in their work with K-6 students. The only differentiating factor was the type and the size of the school. Participants were somewhat prepared and had prior knowledge (at least on a fundamental level), were self-motivated, and were looking for specific answers to create a better learning experience. I wonder what results would be if the participants did not have prior professional experience which I think contributed to favorable responses through semistructured interviews.
After concluding the semistructured audiotaped interviews and four observations, the content was then presented to the participants for any corrections. The bit about data collection and analysis was the least interesting part of the article as it went in depth how exactly the data got collected and analysis performed. I thought they went too in depth because they knew that were test group was so small. Additionally, as with many experiential studies, the observation interpretations could include a personal bias of the researchers, so I am not sure how trustworthy the data is in this cases regardless if triangulation.
The last part of the study was interpreted results with no major surprises there. The researchers identify three main themes:
1. Making the Connection — which happened through reflection exercises and student to students and instructor to student communication channels. Most interactions were facilitated through post and comment. Additionally, students were supposed to keep a personal journal of their experiences throughout the course. The examples of Journal entries cited were all favorable towards the UDL. For example, one of the students wrote about the changes in course design, “The first is providing multiple examples to students to provide them a variety of ways to hear the same concept that we are covering. The second one I use is providing multiple media and formats for the students to learn the concept” (Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013). I liked reading the student responses because it was the only time I gathered some insight into the framework and principles of the UDL as the researchers did not outline them in their paper.
2. Teaching and Efficacy — this theme dealt with how to collaborate with other teachers while integrating the UDL framework. It was interesting because I did not know that special ed required two teachers: one with general ed expertise and one with special ed expertise. So, it was a natural conclusion that collaboration is essential in integration. Also, it became apparent that graduate students with professional experience in special ed all deal with rather “silo” approach in co-teaching such classes. They viewed the importance of collaboration as well as educating their co-teachers in principles of UDL as one of the most important aspects of teaching special ed classes.
3. Tools to Teach — this theme dealt with the use of technology. Most of the responses from students were acknowledging the benefits of using technology. It was no revelation as UDL heavily relies on technology for one of the principles, namely delivering content in multiple means for representation. In fact, it is technology that made frameworks like UDL and Design for Accessibility possible. Students also pointed out that it was important to them not only integrate technology in their own classrooms but also guide other teachers how to use technology school-wide. One of the students notes that “My collaborative teacher is excited about integrating the technology into the unit and also in her classroom. We have not taught the unit yet, but I think she is excited to try technology” (Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013). I thought this was an interesting statement as it pointed out how little technology is used in K-6 education. There is research out there that points to the rise in utilizing technology in grades 6-12 (some statistics here: https://www.eschoolnews.com/2013/02/25/ten-facts-about-k-12-students-technology-use/ and here: https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning) but nothing for grades 1 through 6 and I suspect it is for a reason.
When the study reaches conclusion section Hinshaw and Gumus (2013) state that graduate students demonstrated improvement in understanding of UDL framework. They also suggest that others can use their study as a reference to support instructor training and professional development through a hybrid course. I thought it was a “big” statement for the results of their study relied on such a small test group. But maybe changing minds requires very little?
Overall, I found their study useful in spite of the small test group. It had a good research design and I did like the division of the findings into three main themes. I thought they really reflected and brought to light important elements that need focus when it comes to teacher’s training in UDL. But I did have a sense that the results might have been somewhat different with a larger test group or with the different method of delivery.
Additionally, according to National Center for Universal Design for Learning, there are nine parts of UDL that are structured through three main themes or principles:
- Provide multiple means of representation,
- Provide multiple means of action and expression,
- Provide multiple means of engagement
(http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles) which is not to be confused with the three themes that researchers outlined in their paper. I would have liked for the authors to expand their research to differentiate between these specific principles and maybe poll the students about which ones are found more applicable and fruitful in the classroom situation.
References:
Elder Hinshaw, R., & Sakalli Gumus, S. (2013). Universal Design for Learning Principles in a Hybrid Course. SAGE Open, 3(1), 2158244013480789. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013480789