The research I selected to review is outlined below. In various ways, the articles discuss the significance of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and
Assistive Technology (AT) and manner in which they facilitate learning for all students. Highlights include the following:
1. The distinction between but the
complementary nature of UDL and AT.
2. The role of
changing technology in UDL and AT.
3. The need for
professional development for educators in order to apply UDL in the planning of their curriculum.
4. The need for professional development for educators in order to
match appropriate AT to the user.
5. The
complexity of the reading process, and the ability for difficulties in this area to lead to student failure.
6. The need for
teacher education programs to address these issues rigorously.
7. The ability of
iPads to change the landscape of education.
8. The need to
adapt and change (these articles are from over a 10-year period) with technology.
9. Working in
teams to support our students, including general education and special education teachers working together.
10. Planning curriculum that addresses the needs and maximizes learning for all students, and
continuously questioning what is working, what is not, and how best to move forward.
Courey, S., Tappe, P., Siker, J.,
& LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with universal design for
learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 36(7), 7-27.
doi:10.1177/0888406412446178
“Our teacher
education programs need to be more attentive to the changes in reform policy
and to address the changing landscape of our classrooms” (p. 18).
Courey,
Tappe, Siker and LePage conducted a study involving graduate students working
towards a special education certification.
The question guiding the research was as follows:
“After participating in a 3-hour
instructional module on UDL, will candidates increase the use of UDL principles
in designing lesson plans that incorporate statewide content standards and make
instruction more accessible to the diversity of students in the general
education classroom? (p. 11).
Participants
were asked to create 3 lesson plans; one prior to the UDL training, a second
plan immediately following the training, and a final one at the end of the
semester. The lesson plans were
evaluated using a 3-point rubric that assessed the use of UDL principles in the
design of the lesson. The results
suggested that the lesson plans created after the UDL training module had significantly
more UDL principles (they considered representation, expression, and
engagement) included.
The authors
further explain that although the use of UDL principles increased, there were
still limitations or gaps within the plans.
In several cases, participants would list modifications for representation,
expression, or engagement, but they would not actually use the modification
within the written plan. This was especially
true for the area of expression – multiple means of expressing their
learning. The authors determined that as
they further develop their UDL training, they will focus more in the area of
expression and action, particularly in the design of novel forms of assessments
to check for student learning. They
suggest that the likelihood that the participants own educational experiences
with a focus on paper-pencil assessments would limit their ability to be more
creative in this area.
“Learning
styles and preferences are present in all learners, not just in those with
special needs; the multiplicity of methods and the variety of materials offered
through UDL can provide universal access to all” (p. 18-19).
Cumming, T. M., Strnadova, I.,
& Singh, S. (2014). iPads as instructional tools to enhance learning
opportunities for students with developmental disabilities: An action research
project. Action Research, 12(2), 151-176. doi:10.1177/1476750314525480
“Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) promotes access and inclusion through the development
of flexible learning environments composed of multiple means of representation,
engagement, and expression. Mobile
technology lies well within this theory, as it has the capability to provide
all of those with one device” (p. 152).
Cumming,
Strndova and Singh discuss the action research project conducted, with their
assistance, at a private Jewish college in Sydney, Australia. The teachers involved were all special
education teachers who wanted to explore the use of iPads in an educational
setting by learning to use and implement them and their corresponding apps to
improve the participation and learning of students with disabilities. The core questions they were addressing
through their action research were:
1.
How can mobile devices such as iPads assist and enhance the
learning opportunities for students?
2.
What are the perceptions of students with developmental disabilities
and their teachers in regard to using the iPad as an instructional tool?
The study
involved 4 students with disabilities that ranged from autism to intellectual disabilities. The study was conducted throughout the school
year, and the implementation is outlined in the following table:
The findings
of this study were positive in nature.
All teachers found that the iPad assisted in differentiating instruction
for each student, and they expressed that the iPad provides more access to the
general education curriculum. Teachers
also noticed improvement in student work, and engagement. As one teacher noted, students demonstrated “…positive
engagement for longer periods of time, the students are excited and happy to
use the iPads during class time” (p. 165).
The iPads enabled students to be more independent learners, enhancing
literacy, numeracy, and creativity.
There was also an increase in communication between student and teacher,
as well as with their fellow students.
While the
response was overwhelmingly positive, there were limitations or challenges
included in the discussion:
a.
Location of apps for specific tasks
b.
Location of apps that were high-interest, low level and age
appropriate
c.
Lack of teacher iPads
d.
Frustration about general education teachers’ reluctance to
incorporate them – although these teachers expressed concerns about their lack
of knowledge and availability of technology for all students in their classes
The authors
suggest the following:
a.
Teachers need opportunity to “play” and “explore” prior to
introducing technology to students.
b.
Provide opportunities for professional collaboration – discussion of
apps, share success stories, problem solve challenges.
c.
Professional development is required to increase teachers’
competence with the technology itself, and to assist with the
integration/usefulness in the classroom.
d.
Teachers must continuously be on the lookout for new apps as ‘keeping
up with technology’ is a continuous process based on the fact that technology
is ‘constantly evolving’.
“Conducting
action research was valuable to the teachers because it allowed them to
collaborate with each other beyond their daily context on a project designed to
better meet the learning needs of their students” (p. 171).
Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Learning
from Text. Special Education Technology Practice, March/April, 16-27.
“For most
literate individuals, the challenges of struggling readers are
incomprehensible. As fluent readers,
typically little cognitive energy is required to recognize and understand the
meaning of a given text. It is difficult
to imagine the frustration, embarrassment, and difficulty associated with every
encounter with text” (p. 16).
Edyburn
writes about the challenges faced by those students who have difficulty reading
and gaining access to the curriculum in the general education classroom. He states that, “because of the difficulty,
time, expense, and lack of tools for modifying text-based information, the
one-size-fits-all curriculum has been impenetrable for students with reading
difficulties” (p. 17).
He
differentiates between remediation – extra help/instruction/support to improve
skills – and compensation – alternate access to the material, and states that
the educators need to recognize when remediation isn’t enough for a particular
student. He speaks to the importance of
a balance between the two strategies, noting that one does not have to occur to
the exclusion of the other.
Edyburn goes
on to write about strategies for making text accessible to students, including
assistive technology. He explains that
creating a system for making text accessible to all students takes vision,
commitment, and a collaborative team approach.
He offers suggestions for the following compensatory strategies:
a.
Bypass reading – text read aloud to student, audio books,
text-to-speech technology
b.
Decrease reading – reduce amount or level of text to be read
c.
Support reading – pictures, multimedia dictionaries
d.
Organize reading with graphic organizers – Inspiration,
Kidspiration
e.
Guide reading – teaching pre-reading, skimming, re-reading, and
self-questioning
Edyburn
provides the reader with an opportunity to reflect on the complexity of the
reading process, on compensation versus remediation strategies, and on the
significance of providing teachers with professional development on making
print-based curriculum accessible to all
learners.
“The paradox
of assistive technology consideration is that while members of an IEP team are
mandated to consider assistive technology possibilities, limited knowledge
about assistive technology often deprives the team of opportunities to actually
consider the full array of technology possibilities for enhancing performance”
(p. 26).
Messinger-Willman, J., &
Marino, M. T. (2010). Universal design for learning and assistive technology:
leadership considerations for promoting inclusive education in today’s
secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 5-16. doi:10.1177/0192636510371977
“Teachers
must facilitate a learning environment that motivates students to reach high
levels of academic achievement while ensuring that complex curricular materials
are accessible to a broad range of students with diverse interests, prior
experiences, and ability levels” (p. 5-6).
Messinger-Willman
and Marino discuss the implications of universal design for learning (UDL) and
assistive technology (AT) in supporting students with learning disabilities in
secondary schools. They discuss the
challenges faced by secondary students with LD, and explain how UDL and AT can
enhance their learning. They explain
the barriers secondary teachers face in incorporating AT and UDL in their
classrooms, and suggest solutions for increasing their use.
The authors
share 5 essential skills required for students to become proficient readers:
1.
The ability to use the alphabetic principle
2.
Phonemic awareness
3.
Decoding skills
4.
Fluency
5.
Comprehension strategies
If even one
of these skill sets is missing, an individual experiences significant
difficulties with reading. This is a
primary concern for secondary students with LD and their teachers, as they are
expected to read and learn from complex textbooks used in secondary
courses. Another difficulty facing
students with LD is task persistence; their challenges can lead to frustration,
lower motivation and an expectation for failure when barriers to learning are
not removed.
The authors
suggest that UDL and AT work together to provide access points for these
students to the curriculum. They explain
that by providing multiple, flexible methods of presentation, expression and
representation – UDL principles – students will have more success in the
general education classroom. They use
digital text as an example of an innovative technology that accommodates learner
differences. They explain that, “This
allows students to focus their metacognitive processes on higher order
thinking, as opposed to decoding or other low levels of knowledge acquisition…the
UDL framework helps educators move beyond a ‘one size fits all’ model of
instruction, which can maximize the educational benefits inherent in a diverse
classroom community” (p. 8).
The barriers
discussed include:
a.
Inadequate knowledge of AT capabilities or potential
b.
Lack of professional development opportunities
c.
Lack of funding
d.
Lack of resources
e.
Lack of collaboration during selection process of AT
f.
Lack of specialists
g.
Teacher reluctance
h.
Etc.
In order to
reduce the barriers, and to maximize the potential of AT for secondary
students, greater training opportunities in assessment, team decision-making
strategies, and device-specific training should be provided.
“Secondary
educators can use ADL and AT to enhance the academic, social, and behavioral
outcomes for students with disabilities if implementation barriers can be
overcome. This can only be accomplished
when teachers have the knowledge and skills to successfully integrate AT into
their existing educational practices” (p. 12).
Rose, D., Hasselbring, T., Stahl,
S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for
learning: two sides of the same coin. In Handbook of Special Education
Technology Research and Practice, (pp. 507-518). Knowledge By Design Inc.
“New
technologies are also transforming education, and in no domain more
dramatically or successfully than in the education of students with
disabilities… Through a better understanding and melding of AT and UDL, we
believe that the lives of individuals with disabilities will ultimately be
improved” (p. 507).
Rose,
Hasselbring, Stahl and Zabala contend that by better understanding the
complementary nature of assistive technology (AT) and universal design for
learning (UDL), educators will have more success in improving the learning of
individuals with disabilities. The
authors discuss the similarities and differences between AT and UDL, and
suggest that they are two concepts on a continuum, where one enhances the
other. AT, whether low-tech or high, is
described as technologies that help people with disabilities overcome barriers
to access and/or participation in a particular setting. AT is highly individualized, while UDL is a
universal approach. UDL aims to create
accommodating and flexible learning environments and curricula that are
designed to reduce barriers for all learners in a pro-active manner. The two principles taken together would
require a universally designed curricula that considers common assistive
technologies, accommodating their features in the design process.
The authors
discuss policy and legislation that promotes the connection between AT and UDL. In particular, they discuss the National
Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS), which was included as
part of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization. The discussion centered on the accessibility
of text, and the copyright laws that greatly hinder accessibility options. While laws were amended to increase alternate
formats for a specific group of students, it still did not include a broad
enough group. True UDL principles would
dictate that text should be made accessible in alternate formats – print,
digital, Braille, audio, etc. – for all students.
“In a world
where we are very aware that understanding human behavior requires knowledge of
the complex interaction between both cultural and individual development, we
should not be surprised to find that fostering human learning will require
access solutions that are optimal interactions between what is universal and
what is individual” (p. 517).
Watson, A. H., Ito, M., Smith, R.
O., & Anderson, L. T. (2010). Effect of assistive technology in a public
school setting. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 64(1), 18-29.
“Many
discussions address the problems of measuring AT outcomes, including that
clients who use AT are typically a heterogeneous group using a wide variety of
AT with endless customizations. High
participant heterogeneity creates difficulty in measuring outcomes because a
single instrument’s items may not be applicable to some or many of the
participants” (p. 18).
The
Individuals With Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires that
assistive technology (AT) be considered at each student’s individualized
education program (IEP) meeting each year.
A lack of peer-reviewed literature supporting the effectiveness of AT in
public schools has lead to some IEP teams choosing not to implement AT, even
though it may have a positive affect on helping students to achieve their
educational goals. In response to this
lack of research-based evidence, Watson, Ito, Smith and Anderson conducted a
study to determine how students in special education are affected by the
inclusion of AT as an intervention strategy.
13 students
ranging from pre-school to eighth grade were included in the study. They were a heterogeneous group representing
a variety of disabilities, including students with autism, learning
disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and developmental delay. Students received a variety of AT to support
oral and written communication, including hardware and software. Some of the devices are listed below:
AlphaSmart
Co:Writer & Write:Outloud
Cheaptalk
Twin Talk
Kurzweil
The authors
demonstrated that AT provided by a multidisciplinary team may be helpful in
promoting improved performance for students working towards IEP goals over
other interventions. They directed
administrators or practitioners to consider carefully the importance of the
service delivery model as a critical component of success for students using
AT. A team approach may best assist
practitioners in selecting appropriate AT for the user.
