Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

UDL Approaches to an Inclusive Education

Debra K Bauder, Associate Professor
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY USA
debra.bauder@louisville.edu
Thomas J. Simmons, Associate Professor
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
tsimmons@louisville.edu

The gap between students with and without disabilities continues to widen. Students in special education have lower school completion rates than their non-disabled peers (Benz, Lindstrom & Yovanoff, 2000; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Flexer, Simmons, Luft & Baer, 2001). As adults, individuals with cognitive disabilities are the largest unemployed group of Americans; and they are less likely to live independently in the community (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Therefore, the current practices in the education of children with disabilities, especially significant cognitive disabilities, must change in order to provide individuals with disabilities greater opportunities as adults to be productive members in their communities.

Therefore, it appears to be a daunting challenge for educators, administrators and parents to reconsider how children with significant cognitive disabilities are educated in order to ensure access to the general curriculum. Furthermore, the determination of what constitutes access and more specifically how to provide children with cognitive disabilities meaningful access to instruction that is aligned with high-level standards and supported by research based interventions (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002; Wehmeyer, Lattin & Agran, 2001). In addition, to ensure meaningful access, there is the challenge to provide the curriculum with supports, modifications and accommodations that can ensure that curriculum goals are achievable (Pugach & Warger, 2001). Furthermore, in the greater scheme of instruction, IDEA ’97 demands that educational supports and services provided to students with disabilities “lead to clear and measurable outcomes in adulthood” (Dymond & Orelove, 2001). IDEA 1997 stipulates that a child’s IEP include: a) a statement describing how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement with and progress in the general curriculum; b) a statement of measurable goals to enable the child to be involved with and progress in the general curriculum; and c) a statement of services, program modifications, and supports necessary for the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001; Pugach & Warger, 2001).

In light of the emphasis placed on access to the general curriculum, it is imperative for regular and special educators to work together to serve all students including those with disabilities in the regular education program.   A way this can be accomplished is by providing equal access to knowledge through adjusted or altered curriculum and instruction.   One approach to curriculum alternation is through Universal Design for Learning approaches. This approach to curriculum and instruction emphasizes the methods for teaching are compatible with how the brain works and the importance of flexible materials and curriculum to allow access for all students (Rose & Meyer, 2002).

It is, indeed, the flexibility found within Universal Design principles allows for such access when curriculum is developed in digital formats.   Orkwis and McLane (1998) indicate that cognitive supports for content and instructional activities are achieved by:

1.   Summarizing big ideas

2.   Providing scaffolding (supports that are diminished or removed as students gain competence) for learning and generalization

3.   Building fluency through practice

4.   Providing assessments for background knowledge

5.   Including explicit strategies to make clear the goals and methods of instruction

However, the UDL principles have mainly been developed for children with learning disabilities through the use of digitized text.   Attention to creating materials beyond digitized text to address needs of individuals with cognitive disabilities is critical. Orkwis (1999) recognized that UDL needs to address the design of curriculum that can be attainable by “individuals with wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize engage, and remember” ( http://ericec.org/digests/e586.html ).   By applying UDL principles all children would have access to the curriculum regardless of their ability level.

Emerging software tools allow educators to more easily alter the presentation of educational content.   The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) movement will be used as a framework for educators, students, parents, and school administrators to gain insight into ways educators can better serve students with severe disabilities through the general curriculum.

In light of the emphasis placed an access to the general curriculum, it is imperative on regular and special educators working together to serve all students including those with disabilities in the regular education program. Additionally, it appears to be a daunting challenge for educators, administrators and parents to reconsider how children with significant cognitive disabilities are educated in order to ensure access to the general curriculum. The determination of what constitutes access and more specifically how to provide children with cognitive disabilities meaningful access to instruction that is aligned with high-level standards and supported by research based interventions (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002; Wehmeyer, Lattin & Agran, 2001). In addition, to ensure meaningful access, there is the challenge to provide the curriculum with supports, modifications and accommodations that can guarantee that curriculum goals are achievable (Pugach & Warger, 2001).

Assistive technologies in conjunction with UDL principles and appropriate educational technologies focus on allowing students to engage more fully in the instructional process through accessing their unique internal r ecognition network through Multiple means of Representation of educational content.   This provides alternative formats for presenting information to students.   The student’s strategic networks will also be engaged through Multiple means for Expression of their ideas and thoughts.   Appropriate educational productivity tools provide students alternate means for action and expression. Lastly, student’s affective networks will be accessed as Multiple means for Engagement (Hitchcock, CAST, 2001).   This important component provides students, curriculum that is interesting and challenging, but with needed supports

Access to the general education curriculum is at the core of UDL.   Students of varying abilities and disabilities can benefit from the design of educational materials that allow for ease of access.   Those students who are not provided access to the general curriculum may lose important instructional content within the regular instructional day (OSEP, 1999).   The most practical and cost effective ways to implement the mandates set forth within Individuals with Disabilities Education Act re-authorization of 1997 would be to provide materials that are flexible thus benefiting different learners and various learning styles.   Learning is more than simply access to the curriculum; it takes into account such things as adjusting learning goals, teaching methods and materials.   It also encompasses assessment methods and individualized learning strategies (CEC, 2001)).

At present, student’s individual needs must be accommodated by teachers’ adaptation or alterations of traditional textbooks and tests (ERIC, 1999). Some of these accommodations have traditionally included Braille, recorded texts for those visually impaired, captioned materials and customized or alternative texts that address cognitive disabilities. The general curriculum also includes other student-centered components such as self-regulated strategies like goal setting; self-instruction, self-monitoring and others to assist students in learning how to compose, plan and revise their work.   Generalization techniques are, i.e. teaching to the whole class, are important in providing a framework from which self directed learning can occur.   Differentiated instruction also plays an important role in the UDL process.   This includes accommodation for learner differences, adaptation, parallel instruction, and overlapping instruction.   These have all shown potential to improve student learning and overall success (NCAC, 2001).

Convergence of intelligent software and instructional content  

Bart Pisha, at the Center for Applied Special Technology, has studied what is necessary to integrate universally designed technology into classrooms.   He notes these important issues.   First, teachers must have reasonably developed technology skills.   A flexible but clearly defined curriculum must be in place.   Technical support must be available in house to keep technology up and running. Software and instructional material must be compatible with the curriculum and the range of student abilities.   Staffing must be available to provide instructional support to those students using computers while teachers are provided adequate time to access and prepare new instructional materials (OSEP, 1999).   Most important is the need for all technologies used for learning to be easy to use by everyone.   The eventual goal is that the software does the work of customizing the content while educators focus on instruction (Hitchcock, 2001).

“Intelligent” software would provide teachers with the features they need to effectively teach students with cognitive disabilities while having the general curriculum content already available within the software itself.   All that is needed then is an understanding of the individual student needs and knowledge of how to operate the software and one has an instant active and dynamic learning environment.   With this in mind, it would lead us to examine the strategies that would bring together these important components.

One such way to deliver active and dynamic content across various content domains and grade levels is through a thematic unit structural framework built within an intelligent software application.   A thematic unit is a set of related learning activities and experienced that support teaching multiple content areas and skills organized around a central topic or idea.   Intelligent software is an application that can manage content in multiple displays and output formats and in ways that allow the user or instructor to manipulate content to create unique learning experience based on individual student needs. (Gardner & Wissick, 2002)

Benefits to Special Education Students

In the future, special education students will benefit from the improved access to the general curriculum developed through UDL principles.   This will allow teachers to focus on learning and identifying individualized learning opportunities to meet the unique needs of each student (Hitchcock, 2001).   Less time is spent on the modification or adaptation of existing content given that publishers will begin to offer more flexible instructional material in digital formats.   The primary goal always being that students with disabilities be given the opportunity to progress in the same general curriculum taught to all other students in the public school setting (OSEP, 1998).

The improved efforts to integrate special education students into the regular classroom setting benefits them in numerous ways such as seen through improved self-concept, growth in social awareness, and cognitive gains.   Chow, Blais, & Hemingway (1999) write that “combining general education and special education techniques can provide the best of both worlds, benefiting all learners.”   Specifically, instructional adaptations and accommodations to meet the special needs of select students in many cases were not found to be problematic by most students and were actually found beneficial and could facilitate their own learning (NCAC, 2001).

Cognitive Disabilities and UDL

Those students who experience cognitive disabilities or delays may also suffer from multiple conditions, which impact their ability to access the general curriculum.   Baker (1979) stated “the severely handicapped individual is on whose ability to provide for his or her own basic life sustaining and safety needs is so limited, relative to the proficiency expected on the basis of chronological age, that it could pose a serious threat to his or her survival.”   While for those with severe cognitive disabilities this is often the case but those who experience milder cognitive deficits often experience the same difficulty accessing and benefiting from the general curriculum do to their disability.  

The various behaviors associated with sever cognitive disabilities also pose a challenge to the instructional process and access to the general curriculum.   These behaviors include but are not limited to Self-mutilation, ritualistic behaviors, self-stimulation, failure to attend or relate to others, lack of self-care and verbal communication skills in addition to basic physical mobility.   These characteristics impact the instructional process in a number of ways.   Some of these include the degree and quality of interaction between non-disabled and severely disabled students.   There is a need for a curriculum grounded in preliminary sensory motor stimulation with emphasis in motor, self-help, communication, social/interpersonal, and cognitive areas.   The use of technological devices for information access plays a key role given that severely disabled individuals do not learn as easily by incidental learning as do less disabled and non-disabled persons.   Instruction must thus be carefully planned, delivered and assessed (ERIC, 1990).

Guidelines for cognitive access to the general curriculum are less abundant and play an important role in this research grant.   The National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (NCITE) has developed research-based modifications for students with significant cognitive disabilities.   These support cognitive access through such strategies as individualized aspects of instruction and scaffolds to meet individual cognitive variables.   Other cognitive supports include providing multiple representations of material, these can be developed through new authoring software used to design accessible curriculum aligned to state and national standards.   It is also important to offer multiple means of expression for each student.   NCITE has examined research-based modifications to support cognitive access.   Some of these include a) Focus on big ideas, b) Present conspicuous strategies, c) Provide mediated scaffolding, d) Support strategic integration e) Prime background knowledge, f) Initiate judicious review. (CEC, 2001).

Other research on instructional design for those with cognitive disabilities examines more closely the interface design of instructional content displayed in digital format.   Particular interest is noted in the benefits students with cognitive disabilities gain from designs that stress consistency, informative feedback, error prevention with friendly error handling, and reduced short-term memory load (Kolatch, 2000).

UDL and the Role of the Teacher

The role of the teacher in the UDL classroom emphasizes both instructional expertise with technological skill.   Teachers remain a fundamental component of the learning process.   Research conducted by Lev Vygotsky has been extended to social and electronic learning environments, showing just how much support is required by teachers for individual learners to succeed.   It has been shown that technology enables instructors to give more 1:1 attention to learners thus allowing them to function in their “zone of proximal development” (Hitchcock, 2001).

Those teachers who wish to implement UDL principles should first identify and integrate instructional materials that allow for the greatest flexible in presentation.   These materials can then be customized to accommodate a wide range of student abilities.   Teachers and students must know how to use this software and content to achieve its optimum learning potential (ERIC, 1999).

“Awareness of connections to personal experience, the past, other fields of study, and even the future help to make us smarter in our day-to-day endeavors.   Only recently have researchers and developers begun to seriously address how making these kinds of connections can help us learn and create in the classroom.   Technology can now help us discover links that were not apparent before through such things as reading scaffolds and supports that display keyword connections, provide compare and contrast summaries, generate concept maps that expose main ideas and show relationships between current and past events” (Hitchcock, 2001).

It is important to note that “the access provided by universal design for instructional materials does not mean that students are accommodated by lowering the standard, finding the least common denominator, or otherwise “dumbing down” the curriculum.   In fact, the curriculum must remain at a sufficient level of difficulty if students are to progress in it. (ERIC, 1999)”

Implementing UDL principles does not come without its challenges.   A number of barriers still limit access to the general curriculum.   These factors include variables that teachers feel in many cases are out of their control.   Factors such as lack of time, limited skills and training along with resources to implement inclusion are barriers that limit a child’s access to curricula.   Perceptions about curriculum adaptations are another issue.   Just how much can and should curriculum be modified for special needs students when others regular education students have grasped the concepts and view this extra attention as unfair.   The varying definitions of inclusion are also problematic.   Inclusion varies from regular and special education teachers’ team teaching to special education teachers working in the corner 1:1 with special education students.   Lastly, meeting every student’s needs, does full inclusion for all students really do this or simply provide a way to cut back expensive special education services (NCAC, 2001)

Even with these challenges, support for UDL in the classroom is steadily growing.   Many special educators currently work in collaborative or inclusive classrooms teaching students with and without disabilities.   Many of these same teachers collaborate with regular education teachers on curriculum and appropriate adaptations for special needs students they instruct.   These teachers have taken the first steps toward implementing universal design goals.   As learner needs continue to evolve, there will be more of a need for adapted materials and curriculum developers, especially those software specialists who realize the advantages of universal design.   With the federal government and states encouraging more advanced uses of technology based instructional tools in the classroom, understanding UDL principles will further move teachers toward implementation (ERIC, 1999).

 Leadership for Change

Doug Carnine, director of NCITE notes that few commercially available curricular software programs are designed to meet the varying needs of disabled students no less allowing them to reach their true learning potential.   He advocates for publishers to recognize and UDL principles before publication while also working to influence state policy-makers to include universal access requirements in their own state legislation (OSEP, 1999).

Rose & Meyer (2002) noted that although change is most effective from the bottom up it is vital to implement change in this case at the regional, state, and nation level if UDL is to be practical.   Educational policy needs to require UDL curriculum, designers need to produce this while publishers need to distribute these new digital learning resources.   Once this is done then teachers must implement the instructional delivery of these digital curricula and parents need to support this (Rose, 2002).

References

Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., & Yovonoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: predictive factors and student perspectives.  Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.

Blackorby, I., & Wagner, M. (1996).   Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: finding from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.   Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-414.

Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities?   Exceptionality, 9(3), 109–122.

Flexer, P., Simmons, T. J., Baer, B., & Luft, P. T. (Eds.) (2001). Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Orkwis, R. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design for learning.   Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC/OSEP Digest   Number E586).

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access.    ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. Reston VA: EERICE/OSEP Special Project.   (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423654).

Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L., (2001).   Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities.   Remedial and Special Education, 22(4) 194-196.

Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, (2002).   A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Author: Washington, DC, 2002.

U. S. Congress, Public Law 105-17: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.

Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact