Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Universal design for learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Universal design for learning

625
views

Published on

UDL presentation for Walden University Major Assessment 4

UDL presentation for Walden University Major Assessment 4

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
625
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The Center for Applied Special technology is credited for the term Universal Design for Learning. Particularly Davis Rose and Ann Meyer who published a comprehensive study about UDL. Many of the principles of UDL came from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( Edyburn, 2010). The issues being addressed by IDEA surrounded a need to allow all learners “access” to the general curriculum. (Edyburn. 2010). Rose and Myer and their associates in CAST spearheaded this need for a better approach to design a curriculum that understood both the diversity of the learner as well as meeting state standards.. David Rose and Ann Meyer were inspired by the idea that if a physical environment such as a building or structure could be designed with multiple, diverse users in mind why not an educational curriculum (CAST 2011).Consider an example of a student who is visually impaired so reading is a challenge. By integrating audio options such as book readers, podcasts, or reading software into the instruction the need is met already without having to go back ad redesign the instruction.
  • UDL considers three neural networks. First are Recognition networks which interpret patterns to “…identify and understand information, ideas and concepts”(Rose, &Meyer. 2002.p.) Consider multiple example when teaching. Showing various ways to solve an algebraic equation or communicate an idea in literature or social studies. Strategic networks that provide the ability to plan, and enact skills and actions (Rose, & Meyer.2002). Here is where ongoing feedback to the student would be useful to ensure the learners plans and skills are being used to their advantage. Last are the Affective networks which provides an emotional value to the patterns presented to us. A instructional consideration here would be to provide varied levels of difficulty. Challenge those that get easily bored while ensuring others that struggle with more basic tasks can reach the minimum learning objective. These three networks inspired Rose and Meyer to identify teaching methods that consider recognition, strategic, and affective networks. In your handouts there is a figure that outlines these teaching methods in each network category. Stop here and team up with your neighbor to discuss these methods and each of you come up with one example per category that you can share with the group.
  • Technology’s central role in the implementation of UDL is the ability to meet the diversity need in the classroom. New technologies have created new tools and venues for learners to gain and apply knowledge and skills. Blogging is a way student can communicate beyond there classroom and receive feedback form their peers and just about anyone else. A podcast could be ideal for a student who is a low reader or cannot find the time or space to read. Perhaps a class accessed online can help a student who cannot physically attend school. Technology expands the horizon of learning opportunities and experiences for our students who have been long denied access to the curriculum of learning.
  • UDL has been considered the “Intersection of Initiatives”(Rose, & Meyer. 2002) where differentiation, technology, multiple modalities, and performance based assessment will converge. There is also a focus on goals and considering the individualized approaches needed to reach these objectives and outcomes Rose, & Meyer.2002). Through UDL students learning abilities and modalities are taken into consideration to provide a more comprehensive curriculum. This means if Suzy is not able to give a book report in front of the class she might have the option to create a podcast or slideshow that will still meet the necessary criteria. Maybe Joe does better with visual presentations then history texts. The instructor could assign a web search to various videos about the historical context being covered in class. The bottom line is that there are multiple ways to get the desired outcomes and UDL recognizes this.
  • Transcript

    • 1. UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNINGApplicability in diversity and StandardsBy Michael KirschWalden University
    • 2. A HISTORY AND INSPIRATION Center for Applied  Design to meet the Special Technology needs of most users (Cast) Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 2002 David Rose & Ann Meyer IDEA (1997) Access Curriculum Diversity and Standards
    • 3. NEUROLOGY AND UDL - Figure 6.1 -Network-Appropriate Teaching MethodsTo support diverse recognition networks: •Provide multiple examples •Highlight critical features •Provide multiple media and formats •Support background context. To support diverse strategic networks:•Provide flexible models of skilled performance •Provide opportunities to practice with supports •Provide ongoing, relevant feedback •Offer flexible opportunities for demonstrating skill. To support diverse affective networks: •Offer choices of content and tools •Offer adjustable levels of challenge •Offer choices of rewards •Offer choices of learning context.
    • 4. TECHNOLOGY’S CENTRAL ROLE
    • 5. UDL’S IMPACT ON LEARNING
    • 6. BRAIN RESEARCH & UDL
    • 7. IMPLICATIONS OF UDL Paradigm Shift “One Size” does not fit all Alternative forms of assessment “Standardized” is no longer the standard Differences in brain processes Universal design for Learning Modalities and tools No limits or restraints Individuality is recognized
    • 8. CAST TOOLSUDL Self CheckUDL GuidelinesUDL Lesson Builder
    • 9. REFERENCES CAST. (n.d.). UDL toolkits: UDL training guide. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/toolkits/tk_intr oduction.cfm?tk_id=61 Driscoll, M. (2005) Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of udl. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes.

    ×