Apr 22 2007
What is UDL? (Part II)
Despite being involved with Universal Design for learning for several years, I still sometimes have trouble telling people, particularly prospective clients, exactly what it is. I had a strong and clear picture of it from the first time I got involved. What I lacked was a framework from which to explain it. Since August I have been spending a significant amount of time thinking about Jim Collins’ Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking is not the Answer. This monograph is offered in addition to the book about why some businesses make the leap to great while most remain good.
In the monograph, Collins makes a distinction between inputs and outputs. In a business sense, inputs are those things that are invested. Inbputs can be monetary resources, time, raw materials, etc. Outputs are the finished products. Put another way, Collins states:
“The confusion between inputs and outputs stems from one of the primary differences between business and the social sectors. In business, money is both an input (a resource for achieving greatness) and an output (a measure of greatness). In the social sectors, money is only an input, and not a measure of greatness.” (p. 5)
What does any of this have to do with Universal Design for Learning? A final word from Jim Collins might shed some light: “…separate inputs from outputs, and hold yourself accountable for progress in outputs, even if those outputs defy measurements.” (p. 5) UDL is about outputs. The outputs UDL concerns itself with include student engagement, accessibility of lessons, student achievement, and student products.
Here is the rub: instruction is an input. Instruction is the mechanism through which we achieve our results. Many times, teachers, schools, districts, and even the Center treat instruction as if it were the output. Improved instruction is not our goal, improved student achievement is our goal.
Grace Meo, in A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning, defines UDL by explaining what it is not: “UDL is an approach to classroom planning and practice, not a shrink-wrapped package. It is a way of thinking about students, teaching, and curriculum-a way of recognizing the diversity of learners, reducing barriers to learning, and addressing students’ different needs right from the start.” (p. 34) Later in the same chapter, Meo addresses a question that we at the Center are asked frequently: It sounds like UDL is just good teaching. Is there more? She responds in this way: “Good teachers do many of these things routinely, so UDL in practice looks like good teaching at its best. But UDL provides a framework that makes explicit what good teaching is. It helps teachers recognize the diversity of their classrooms-because even those that might appear to be homogeneous are not.” (p. 35)
UDL is about the outputs of education–the results. Many achievement results are clearly defined; the acquisition of standards, performance on statewide tests, and clearly outlined teacher assigned projects. Some of the outputs “defy measurement;” engagement, interest, curiosity, and evidence of “lifelong learning.” UDL enables teams to begin to talk about these outputs.
Hopefully this blog can serve as a discussion starter–”In your view, what are the outputs of education?”
I am so glad UDL uses “output” instead of “product” and separates behviors and outputs from the actual people. That is different from what is going on in public ed. right now. The nuance is very important.
I am not familiar with it at all though many of our teachers have spent many days training with it. If it makes you feel better, the ones I have asked about it when they return cannot tell me what it is either.
The output of education, when I went into the field I thought was an educated populace. However, since I have been in the output is something else entirely I’ve learned. The standards, they are not problem, the punative measures are and as a result of those from admin to student we have a society growing in its capacity for cruelty and lack of compassion.
Unfortunately, public education has followed a plan of good intentions that has in effect desensitized our youth and made numbers of them instead of people. I hope UDL addresses that. Ther is evidence a plenty to support my statement too. We do things now as a society (and far more those who have been put through the system since punative testing has been in place)that are indicative of the beginnings of dehumanization. A consciouness of cruelty is forming and we promote it unknowingly.
One simple example is this: rating people. We do it in schools if they don’t meet a measurable output. Teachers get talked to, prinicpals get fired and students dopn’t graduate and get massive amounts of pressure. So it is easy for kids to go to something like MySpace (the eleventh largest country in the world by population or so I’m told.) and rate people there. They do it to friends. We do it to children we love.
Rating and ranking humans is wrong. It’s that simple. But that is one output of public education now. A tolerance for the little inhumanities is building and we are setting those foundations.
That is the out put I see as having the greatest effect on society, and by “great” I refer to the term as it pertains to size and scope not value obviously. it is very troublesome and I hope UDL can do something to alter this unfortunate course public education has taken.
It would be a very good thing to be able to see outputs that don’t hurt people and society. They exist, but they are smaller and have less impact on society in the everyday becaus ethe are formed with intrisic motivation. Something that is ignored when teaching to the test. And if we are all very honest that is what is being done.
You don’t map time for engagement. You map it for indicators and only those that are measured. Nobody is checking to see that that is not the case and nobody is accountable for it not being the case. The only thing anyone is accountable for output wise is test scores. And it shows.
I have worked with UDL for over five years and have witnessed the positive impact on students and teachers. UDL supports really good teaching. It raises teachers’ awareness of learner differences. UDL builds connections for the learners and empowers them to become independent and successful. By offering multiple means of accessing content, demonstrating understanding and linking all learning to prior knowledge pertinent issues now and in students’ futures, the brain is able to grasp higher level concepts, and become immersed in the learning experience. UDL sees the potential in each student and the framework and brain research to support it guides teachers to plan for all students’ success rather than redundant approaches and re-teaching until the students can recite and respond as directed and then forget it and move on to the next standard.
With UDL, teachers think first of “how” students will learn, “why” they need to learn, and then “what” they need to learn. The focus is on learning not teaching.
Mr. Wendt. I am not sure you are a teacher, but your post was painful to read. How demoralizing for you as a professional to have to feel so despondent. I think there is hope and support. Kate Bunsey a teachers from Lakewood raised this point in a previous set of posts. Kate suggested a book which I have found fantastic. “Cultivating Leadership in Schools: Connection People and Practice,” by Gordon A. Donaldson is one of the best I have read in a long time. I hope Kate will use it for a soon to be announced book club for teachers who share the despair you express.
Meanwhile. check out this video clip which is a powerful comment on teaching and learning in American public schools.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/66
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!
John,
I just took 19 minutes to watch the Ken Robinson video you suggested on the link and I am total agreement with his remarks. The best part about UDL is that it helps teachers foster creativity and individualization and open the doors to multiple means of engagement and assessment. It was especially interesting that Sir Robinson recognizes that the focus of education is holding students back worldwide and is ultimately tied to an obsolete expection by universities, and for very soon non-existent careers. With our current model of statewide assessment and national standards, schools must focus so much attention on their report card scores that these new unfunded mandates are truly leaving children’s creativity behind. The newest requirments adopted for Ohio high schools require even more math and science and thereore, even more secondary students must choose not to participate in art or music classes due to scheduling restrictions. Even more high school students are jumping into early college experiences that do not require any humanities courses.
The positive approach of UDL has helped teachers see that students can learn the required standards in creative, exciting ways that engage them including art, music, drama and dance. Our best UDL classrooms include the arts and humanities in every subject area and build on student interests and creativity. Thank you for this wonderful resource to keep encouraging our teams to embrace the total learner!
This winter I posted an entry entitled Oppositional Thinking. Basically I identified several instances in which prevailing views polarize issues. Examples include the phonics or whole language debate and the depth or coverage debate.
I watched the video (which I recommend to everyone) and noticed some oppositional thinking in that as well. Is public education destroying creativity? I do not think so. I don’t think it either fosters or values creativity, but I don’t think it destroys it.
I don’t think it is wise to ever prescribe the outcome AND the means that must be used to attain that outcome. I UDL, we refer to that as a curriculum barrier. I think that we have a lot to learn about creativity, I am sure that I don’t understand it.
I think that teachers who adopt a universal design “stance” become more attuned to noticing brilliance. That might be as close as we come to fostering creativity.
I don’t think it’s difficult to explain to people what UDL is and what it can bring to our classroom environment. As a UDL teacher I think it is harder to explain to people why we as classroom teachers need it. It is harder to explain to other teachers that it is an enhancement to some of the wonderful things you already do in the classroom. It is not a reinvention of education. It is simply putting a name and a face to the good practices that occur in the classroom. It is even so much richer than that.
What I have found even harder to understand is some of the attitudes about UDL. UDL is not a teaching philosophy of “them” versus “us.” Although in the past I have experienced that feeling from some of my fellow colleagues. I don’t take that personally. Isolationism in education occurs often and to the detriment of students. I think one positive aspect of UDL is the removal of isolationism and the injection of creativity and sharing. UDL fosters a community of collaboration and teaming among educators. It defines the “we” in education. We are all in this together. We all share the same goals, objectives, desires, frustrations, successes…markers, tape, copier paper, and lack of time. I digress.
In the beginning I saw UDL defined within the reference frame of understanding the uniqueness of the students I work with. Later I began to understand how UDL principles impacted every aspect of curriculum planning, lesson design, assessment options, and technology integration. Now I believe it has woven itself into my own style of teaching. I don’t believe it is a separate practice or enhancement. It is enlightenment…an eye-opener…a philosophical belief in the art and practice of educating the diverse learners we are privileged to teach on a daily basis.
Here are some comments from teachers who were recently schooled in UDL:
“As a special education educator I believe UDL gives all teachers ‘permission’ to allow for differences and diversity in learning.”
“From the special education standpoint, those who have experienced inclusion over the years have come to realize the techniques that were previously just for special education, can be beneficial to all.” -Comments from an Intervention Specialist.
“I have noticed that the teachers are very excited about what they are doing.” -Comment from an instructional aid
“During lesson planning, we are always thinking, ‘Is this UDL?’ or ‘How can we introduce this idea or concept in many different ways?’”
“We are using technology more than we used to … the students enjoy it.”
“Using the digital projector for even just modeling writing has been an engaging teaching tool because the kids love it and are glued to it. It also makes our job easier to be effective.” -Comments from Language Arts teachers.
“The LCD projector was loaned out once, maybe twice a year by a few teachers, perhaps to show a video or for a PowerPoint at a staff meeting. No one really knew what to do with the projector. After just a few months of UDL, I can’t get the teachers to return the projectors. We had to purchase several more.” -Comment from the Library/Media Assistant
The “Ah Ha!” lights are on and the teachers are thinking about things differently from the start of their instructional plans.
I notice teachers helping teachers. Just the other day I walked by a classroom and one teacher was helping another to hook up a projector and get started using an interactive web lesson. It was great! They didn’t even need my help. I am saying this from my foundation in librarianship – my job is to help people become independent users of information and knowledge. UDL gave the teachers a reason to want independence. It was a proud moment.
UDL allows teachers to allow students to sort of “do their own thing” as long as the students are meeting the goals and objectives of the instruction. I saw this last week when a teacher who isn’t very comfortable with the computer allowed a few groups of students to create slide show presentations as their final products, along with the standard written report. I like that the students are beginning to have more choice in their demonstrations of learning.
Now that the “Ah Ha” lights are on, I want to see teachers going to the next step: allowing for more student choice in the activities and final products - the use of rubrics will be helpful for this. I also would like to see more collaboration amongst classroom teachers and specialist teachers right from the start of the lesson design – this will help to take a way that tendency to “retrofit” instruction and will also help teachers to utilize resources, both human and material that they perhaps were not aware existed. I hope to see students using more interactive technology, i.e. interacting with technology tools and software for the creation of new knowledge and products as opposed to simply viewing with passive engagement. And finally, I would like to see more collaboration in the collection and assessment of student work. The collaborative assessment piece is very important. This is something we did through our portfolio evaluations in CMSD and it was beneficial.
There is a great movie from United Streaming about teacher and technology specialist collaboration in the middle school Language Arts classroom - please contact me if you’d like to view it. I use a few segments for teaching my students about television production. The other portions are excellent for professional development. The video is 58 minutes in length. The title is, “Teacher to Teacher with Parent Connections: Professional Development for Today’s Classroom: Vol III.” - Comments from Kate Bunsey, Library Media Specialist
“We have always tried to differentiate our instruction, but the addition of UDL to our planning has added a new variety to our differentiation.” -Comments from middle school teachers.