(This is copied and pasted into this blog, so some of the formatting may be lost.)
Introduction: Inclusion and The Need for a New Approach
As greater numbers of students with disabilities are being educated in general education classrooms (Brownell M.T., Sindelar, P.T., Kiely, M.T., & Danielson, L. C., 2010; National Research Council [NRC], 2010), there is a need not only for quality preparation for new special education and general education teachers, but also for a reexamination of continuing education and personnel development for veteran teachers. Educators who entered the field even as recently as ten years ago may find themselves faced with changing populations and changing expectations. The inclusion of many more children with disabilities, beginning with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, has been a key change for classrooms in the United States. Renamed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the law called for instruction to meet the unique needs of every child, and it dramatically changed the both the field of special education and the variability of learners taught in general education settings. IDEA introduced the standard of least-restrictive environment, calling for students to be educated in the most “normal” setting possible to meet their needs (IDEA, 2004). The intention of this provision was to “bring moderately and severely impaired children and children with multiple disabilities back into the orbit of the public school, requiring attention that was previously denied them” (Kirk & Gallagher, 1979, p. 275). This radical shift in educational practice brought special education out of the shadows and into the mainstream.
Between 1984 and 1997, there was substantial growth in high school graduation rates for children with disabilities (http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html [November 2009], cited in NRC, 2010), and in 1998-1999, of the 13 percent of students in special education, 47 percent spent at least 80 percent of their time in general education settings (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002b; cited in Banks, 2005). These percentages demonstrate a “sharp increase” (Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., . . . McDonald, M., 2005) from the previous decade, and inclusion rates have continued to rise in subsequent years (Kitmitto, 2011).
Many veteran teachers entered the field of education at a time when students with special needs were taught in separate classrooms or schools. Teacher education programs rarely included coursework in special education, and when they did, “teachers were prepared to serve students with specific disabilities” (Brownell et al., 2010, p. 359). This categorical approach is outdated in today’s diverse classrooms; in order for teachers to meet the needs of the diverse population of students, they need new skills. Many educators feel ill-equipped to keep up with the literature on inclusive practices and to effectively teach students with disabilities (Smith & Tyler, 2011). The question of how to introduce new methods to teachers, however, is only a small piece of the puzzle.
According to Rose and Vue’s (2010) project in “2020’s Learning Landscape,” there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way disability (or difference) is viewed in general, a shift from “remediating disabilities in children” to “also remediating disabilities in the curriculum” (p.34). In a study of educational practices in regular classrooms to determine adjustments necessary to facilitate inclusion of students with learning disabilities (Baker & Zigmond, 1990), data indicated the need for substantive changes in instruction strategy, interactive tasks, student grouping, and daily routines. For teachers entering the field, frameworks for accommodating students’ differences may be embedded in teacher preparation programs, but it seems like a daunting task to introduce a new way of thinking (and teaching) to those who have been doing things the “old way” for years.
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a research-based framework that holds potential for changing the structure and philosophies of modern classrooms, as well as the way that teachers are educated. By offering multiple means of instruction, opportunities for expression, and engagement, teachers in general education classrooms may create settings and experiences that foster diversity and reduce barriers. This is more than just re-structuring physical classroom space or re-designing instruction; it is a fundamental shift in the way we think about education in general. UDL is one part of a greater movement toward universal design, a term coined by architect Ron Mace, that focuses on creating spaces, buildings, and tools that are accessible to individuals regardless of physical ability (Mace, Hardie, & Place, 1991). Examples of universal design include television captioning, entrance ramps, and automatic doors. While these features may have obvious advantages for individuals with physical disabilities, they have proven to be marketable and useful to people with diverse abilities. UD seeks to identify and reduce barriers for everyone, rather than making customized adjustments for individuals (see http://humancentereddesign.org/).
Universal Design for Learning applies these principles to learning environments “to ensure that the means for learning, and their results, are accessible to all students” (Rose & Gravel, 2012, p.7). Starting with the awareness that individual variability is the norm rather than the exception, UDL helps address this variability through the utilization of accommodating goals, methods, materials, and assessments. Inflexible curricula and one-size-fits-all methods raise unintentional barriers to learning and students. The UDL framework eschews rigidity by encouraging “flexible designs from the start that have customizable options, which allow learners to progress in the curriculum” (see www.cast.org). Rather than retrofitting lesson plans that leave some learners behind, universally designed lessons strive to meet the needs of all learners by planning ahead for individuals’ needs (Casper & Leuichovius, 2005; Rose & Gravel, 2012). Grounded in cognitive neuroscience, UDL is based on three fundamental principles that address teaching and learning environments: Provide multiple means of representation; provide multiple means of action and expression; provide multiple means of engagement (Rose & Gravel, 2012). When these principles serve as the foundation for educational practice, classrooms can become positive centers for inclusion and opportunity.
UDL Training and Implementation
If UDL is to provide the framework for educational change, its value and practices must make it into the hands of systems, schools, and classroom teachers. Edyburn (2010) outlined the phases of this transformation: awareness training, technical development, and time. The reauthorization in 2008 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) defined UDL and included guidelines for teacher preparation programs related to UDL. According to HEOA, UDL is “a scientifically valid framework for guiding instructional practice that provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged” (20 U.S.C. 1003(24)). The HEOA highlights the importance of incorporating UDL principles in teacher preparation programs to ensure that new teachers have the skills necessary to implement them.
This represents a substantive change in the way that new teachers are trained, but teachers already in the field also need exposure to UDL and instruction in how best to implement its principles. Despite resources such as the IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, there are numerous challenges when it comes to educating teachers on the current literature and inspiring them to do things differently. While the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) offers strategies and materials, teachers must understand and employ them. Edyburn (2010) examined the process of implementation of UDL in its first 10 years, noting that “many disciples of UDL find themselves struggling to achieve the potential of UDL within the current limitations of instructional design and product development” (p. 36).
One critical issue at the heart of effective inclusion is the training of teachers on the principles and implementation of UDL. Studying the link between classroom practices and 8th grade student performance by applying multilevel modeling to the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics, Wenglinsky (2002) found that professional development for teachers, specifically learning how to teach different groups of students, had significant positive correlations with student performance. Furthermore, this study found that teacher practices were strongly influenced by professional development, resulting in fewer lower order activities and more higher order (thinking, understanding) instruction (Wenglinsky, 2002). The study also articulated a shortfall in existing professional development that may be noteworthy when considering how prepared for diversity and inclusion many teachers are under current systems:
The data on professional development indicate that while most teachers receive some professional development in some topics, that professional development tends not to be of long duration, and certain topics tend to be neglected…only one-third of eighth graders have teachers who received professional development in cultural diversity, one-quarter have teachers who received professional development in teaching students with special needs, and one-tenth have teachers who received professional development in teaching LEP [limited-English-proficiency] students. And regardless of the topic of professional development, only a minority of students have teachers who received more than 15 hours of professional development last year. (p.13)
Other studies have also linked teacher training in the cognitive and cultural differences of students to increases in academic achievement (Au, 1980; Gandara, 2002; Garcia, 1993; Lee, 1995; Philips, 1972). Au (1980) found increased reading achievement for Hawaiin second-grade children when teachers incorporated structures that were similar to “talk story” in Hawaiian culture, and Philips (1972) found that interaction patterns on the Warm Springs Indian reservation were structurally different from those used in schools. Lee’s study (1995) showed that teachers who incorporated African American tradition into literacy interpretation encouraged African American students to produce more substantive responses. Gandara (2002) and Garcia (1993) also found positive student outcomes when teachers incorporated cultural and linguistic inclusive practices.
UDL is a framework that is inclusive of student differences, and in order to remove barriers (such as those created by cultural or cognitive variation) teachers need to be trained to restructure their classes and lessons according to the UDL principles. In one experimental study with in-service and pre-service general and special education teachers in four university teacher-education courses, Spooner, Baker, Harris, Delzell, & Browder, (2007) examined the implementation of UDL in instructional plans. Researchers provided one group of participants with an hour of instruction in UDL principles and how they apply to planning instructional lessons. Using a pretest/posttest design, researchers rated the lessons designed by members of both groups on their accessibility for students described in case studies. Results indicated that with explicit instruction, pre-service and in-service educators were able to design more accessible lessons for all students including those with specific learning needs (Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007).
The ACCESS Project at Colorado State University has adopted the UDL framework as the guide for its primary mission: ensuring that students with disabilities have access to quality postsecondary education. In a study on student perceptions of faculty implementation of UDL, Schelly, Davies, & Spooner (2011) conducted a pretest/posttest study using questionnaires before and after Introduction to Psychology professors received UDL training. Training included topics related to the three UDL principles (multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement), as well as “information and practical tips on converting course material to a variety of electronic formats” (Schelly et al., 2011, p.20). Student responses indicated a significant increase in the implementation of 14 of the 24 UDL guidelines evaluated. One noteworthy component of this study was the use of pretest results from the beginning of the semester to focus training on aspects of UDL that students perceived as being implemented relatively less than others (Schelly et al., 2011). Rather than emphasizing UDL skills that instructors had already mastered, training was more practical and targeted.
Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage, (2012) demonstrated the benefits of UDL training in a study of special education teachers in a graduate level credential program. The purpose of this study was to determine whether candidates would increase the use of UDL principles in lesson planning after participating in a 3-hour web-based instructional module on UDL, Universal Design for Learning: Creating a Learning Environment That Challenges and Engages All Students (The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, 2009). Results showed a significant difference in scores (ratings of UDL implementation) across the three lesson plans (1 before and 2 after training). While teachers’ lesson plans improved with respect to incorporating UDL, there remained some question about how well this study would translate into actual classroom practice:
An interesting observation was that in the ‘Materials’ section of the lesson plan
template, where participants list all the materials that they will be using in each
area, many different modifications were listed. Later in the plan, however, when
participants were required to explain how the materials would be used in each
UDL area, some of the materials listed were not actually implemented or
described. (Courey et al.,2012, p.17)
This suggests that there might be a crucial gap between planning and implementing UDL lessons, which has implications for future teacher training and professional development.
If teachers are to implement UDL in their classrooms, teacher training and professional development must specifically elucidate its research, principles, and methods, while providing ongoing support and feedback to ensure that UDL practices make it beyond the planning stage. Edyburn (2010) argued against the notion that UDL is just ‘good teaching,’ asserting that it “must be recognized as a learned skill, one that is refined over time, to produce high levels of performance” (p.38). Not only does this type of skill acquisition take time, which may be challenging for practicing teachers to allocate, it requires teacher “buy-in” to a new way of thinking, one that begins with the belief that inclusion and diversity are valuable and attainable. MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013) assert that the attitudes of mainstream teachers may serve as “a barrier to successful inclusive practices” (p. 46), especially considering the inclusion of students with social, emotional, and behavioral disabilities (SEBD). This study of teacher beliefs and behaviors with respect to children with SEBD found that “teachers who held more positive beliefs and higher levels of perceived behavioral control (teaching self-efficacy) had a higher level of behavioral intention to engage in inclusive practices in working with children with SEBD” (MacFarlane and Woolfson, 2013, p. 46). In order to develop and maintain inclusive classrooms, teachers need both the skills to create UDL lessons and the motivation to implement and maintain them.
UDL: Strategies for Professional Development
UDL, in addition to being the content of teacher training and development, offers flexible strategies that could prove valuable for delivering and evaluating this training. Teachers, like the students in their classrooms, are a diverse population with different backgrounds, skills, and experiences. By utilizing multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, professional development programs can provide opportunities for teachers to expand their knowledge base and skills. The web-based training module used by Courey et al. (2012) presented content and also “modeled UDL principles in the delivery with embedded videos, closed captioning, and audio” (p.13). Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, and Abarbanell (2006) demonstrated the effectiveness of UDL in postsecondary education through its application in a university course called T-560: Meeting the Challenge of Individual Differences. The goal of this graduate class was to provide information on learning and the brain and individual learning differences, the types of research that are key components of the UDL framework. The instructors, however, recognized that it was not sufficient to teach the neuroscience of learning in a traditional way (textbooks, lecture); rather, the structure of the class should also reflect the principles of UDL. By incorporating multiple means of presentation, expression, and engagement, instructors modeled the ideals they were teaching. By using UDL as framework, instructors also bridged gaps between theory and practice:
The framework reminds us that it is not enough for students to acquire
information; they must also have some way to express what they have learned,
and some way to apply that information as knowledge. Only in its expression is
knowledge made useful. (Rose et al., 2006, p. 8)
Similarly, Smith (2012) demonstrated that the use of UDL in the design and delivery of an introductory graduate research methods course had positive outcomes, especially in terms of its affective aspects. Collecting both qualitative (conversations) and quantitative (survey questions) data in research conducted over four semesters, Smith noted increased alignment of goals and practices, as well as student engagement. The course instructor provided multiple media and formats (i.e. digital course materials, graphic organizers, “hands-on” activities) and ongoing, relevant feedback for students. Students also had opportunities to demonstrate learning in flexible ways (i.e. video, spell-checker for written work, web-based or digital products).
As Rose et al. (2006) and Smith (2012) illustrated though their analysis of UDL-structured postsecondary education classes, it is not enough to stand before a group of teachers and lecture about the benefits of UDL; teachers need to experience these benefits firsthand in their own learning experiences. Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) reiterated the significance of linking theory and practice through modeling, collaboration, learning in practice, reflection, and careful assessment and feedback; while their recommendations for the design of teacher education programs do not specifically identify these practices as UDL, the methods they advocate certainly align with its principles. One of the problems in learning to teach is the “apprenticeship of observation,” the idea that much of what teachers believe about teaching comes from their own experiences in the classroom (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). If teachers are to develop the skills they need for 21st century schools and classrooms, teacher-educators must themselves provide models that incorporate multiple means of instruction, opportunities for expression, and engagement.
Recognizing that enrollment in graduate classes is not feasible for all teachers, given financial and scheduling constraints, Smith & Tyler (2011) advocated the utilization of web-based resources for professional development, citing advantages such as convenience, universal access, instructor support, interactivity and multimedia experiences, and relative affordability. Technology is a key component of UDL, and web-based training for teachers holds great promise as a training tool to prepare educators for increasingly diverse classrooms.
The Universal Design for Learning Series’ online module, UDL Implementation: A Process of Change, emphasizes teacher and administrator buy-in and ownership in the UDL implementation process. When participants (teachers, students, etc.) are given a voice in the decision-making process, as well as choices for how they receive and present information, they are more engaged in learning, and this may make learning more meaningful and influential. The first task of UDL implementation is to identify a need for change (National Center on UDL, 2011), and in order for teachers to “buy in” to the process, they must play an integral role in determining where that need is and how the UDL framework might offer plausible solutions. Introducing new strategies without taking the time to involve all stakeholders (teachers, administrators, community) in the exploration phase is likely to meet with resistance. In the preface to his book The Global Achievement Gap, Tony Wagner writes,
One of my biggest concerns is that most high school educators do not feel a real sense of urgency for change- perhaps because their work isolates them from the larger world of rapid change and they’ve lived through too many failed education fads. The result is that course curricula and teaching practices have remained pretty much the same for fifty years or more. Except for increased pressures to get kids to pass the new state tests, ‘Why change?’ remains an unanswered question for most educators today (p. xii)
Wagner’s observation illustrates the need for teacher buy-in. In order to integrate and sustain UDL as a framework for teaching and learning, educators must work together to answer this central question of “Why change?”
Adaptive Expertise
Diverse, inclusive classrooms call for innovation and creativity, and the practices of fifty years ago, or even ten years ago, do not adequately address the needs of all learners. Nevertheless, the “lack of urgency” when it comes to change poses a challenge for proponents of UDL implementation. The answer to this fundamental dilemma may lie in the contrast between routine expertise and adaptive expertise. According to Hatano and Inagaki’s 1986 conceptualization, routine experts are “lifelong learners who increasingly become adept at performing a specific set of skills in response to familiar challenges” (DeArment, Reed, & Wetzel, p.5-6). Veteran teachers often fall into this category; they find lessons plans that work, perfect them, and then become extremely efficient in delivering curriculum to students. Faced with increasing demands for high student scores on standardized tests, it seems logical that many teachers could become routine experts at covering state-mandated material. This efficiency, however, depends on a stable environment (Bransford, 2004), and routine experts can be inflexible (Crawford & Brophy, 2006). Perhaps this is why many educators feel challenged by the demands of keeping up with current research and teaching students with disabilities (Smith & Tyler, 2011), and why many are resistant to change.
Adaptive expertise combines efficiency with flexibility and innovation (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986), and this approach is crucial for educators in today’s diverse classrooms. Bransford (2004) notes that the transformation from routine to adaptive expertise is not a quick or easy one, suggesting that it might be more difficult for those who have an efficient, developed routine expertise to become adaptive. Applied to the task of educating teachers to be inclusive, this may require different approaches for new and experienced educators.
Connecting Adaptive Expertise and Universal Design for Learning
Adaptive expertise and UDL fit well together because the principles and methods of UDL-multiple means of representation, multiple means of actions and expression, and multiple means of engagement (Rose & Gravel, 2012)- demand the characteristics of adaptive expertise on the part of educators who use them. The answer to the question of “Why change?” seems obvious when one considers the current literature on adaptive expertise and UDL. The classrooms of today are not like they were even ten years ago, so in order to meet the needs of students, teachers must let go of some previous held beliefs (Bransford et al., 2005) and adapt, even though it could take time before efficiency and innovation become balanced. Professional development programs need to address teachers’ fears about loss of efficiency (even if temporary) in addition to training on the execution of innovative methods. Not only does it take time to hone the skills necessary for effective UDL planning and implementation, which may be challenging for practicing teachers to allocate, it requires teacher ownership in a new way of thinking about teaching and learning.
Innovation: Logic model for using UDL for professional development
The ultimate goal for an educational system is to create expert learners, and beginning with that goal in mind, UDL provides an ideal framework for professional development. Developing a logic model to guide innovations toward this long-term goal is an important planning tool that outlines the assumptions, external factors, inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The specific objectives, or outcomes, of this plan for Professional development in UDL include:
1) Building awareness of learner variability
2) Identifying expertise in teaching and outcomes for learners, as well as obstacles and problems that need to be addressed in order to achieve this.
3) Understanding UDL concepts and methods
4) Designing lessons/assessments with UDL principles in mind (designing for learner variability). In the short term this may mean incorporating UDL methods into existing lesson plans/curriculum by adding one or more of the following:
- Multiple means of representation
- Multiple means of action/expression
- Multiple means of engagement
5) Developing UDL and technology mentoring partnerships and peer support groups and providing ongoing training for teachers in UDL and technology.
6) Creating incentives for professional development in UDL: planning time, graduate credit, recognition
7) Incorporating UDL as a key component of teacher evaluation
8) Creating expert learners
Several assumptions must be met in order for this innovation to be effective. The first assumption is that there is a need for transformation in the way teachers understand learner variability and design classrooms and curricula to meet the needs of diverse learners. Classrooms are becoming more diverse as inclusion is becoming more prevalent in general education settings, and Inflexible curricula and one-size-fits-all methods raise unintentional barriers to learning and students. Second, technology, an important component of UDL, offers opportunities to change the way that teachers and students interact and share information, and technology training and resources must be considered as part of the innovation. Third, teacher “buy in” is essential for change to be substantive and lasting. Teachers and administrators must play an integral role in determining where the need is and how the UDL framework might offer plausible solutions. Next, teachers, like the students in their classrooms, are a diverse population with different backgrounds, skills, and experiences. It is important to consider teacher variability when designing professional development. Not only do teachers learn in different ways, different approaches for new and experienced educators may be necessary because the way that pre-service teachers are taught has changed dramatically over the past decades. HEOA (2008) included UDL in guidelines for teacher education, so recent graduates may have a more comprehensive understanding of UDL principles and methods than some veteran teachers. The next assumption is that adaptive expertise combines efficiency with flexibility and innovation. Many experienced teachers are routine experts at covering curriculum, and some may be reluctant to adopt new methods. With this in mind, professional development programs need to address teachers’ fears about loss of efficiency in addition to training on the execution of innovative methods.
There are several external factors that also come into play when one examines the feasibility of professional development in UDL. Since teachers are often bound by state guidelines and requirements, the existing curriculum must be taken into account, and innovative methods should address curricular needs in order to be feasible. Teacher attitudes, knowledge, and experience, as well as administrative support, are other features that can influence program success. The resources of a school or district, both in terms of technology and professional development resources, are also essentials that warrant evaluation prior to innovation.
Once assumptions and external factors have been assessed, the first component of a logic model for professional development in UDL is inputs, the resources, which include “the human, financial, organizational, and community resources a program has available to direct toward doing the work” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2008, p.2). Successful professional development in UDL should involve both general education teachers and special education teachers in addition to administrators since UDL is a framework that is designed to reduce barriers is for all learners, not just those with disabilities. Professional development resources are another key input. Having UDL team leaders and training personnel to act as guides and mentors in the process may ease the transition and offer support for teachers who are taking on the challenge of a new approach. UDL guidelines and examples are readily available through online resources such as UDL Exchange at http://www.cast.org and http://www.udlcenter.org. These sites also provide access to an online community of innovative educators so that teachers can create and share lessons, keep up with advances in research and technology, and participate in online conversations and learning experiences. A school’s technology resources and infrastructure may limit the tools available, but there are also some “low tech” UDL approaches that can be utilized when necessary.
Program activities, or ouputs on the logic model, are the “processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are an intentional part of the program implementation. These interventions are used to bring about the intended program changes or results” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2008, p.2). The first activity of this innovation is designed to increase teacher participation and ownership in the process. Two questions will be posed to teachers and administrators through survey:
1) How do you define “expertise” in teaching?
2) What are the biggest challenges you face as an educator?
If teachers and administrators are going to be invested in UDL implementation, they must first recognize a need for change and, second, see UDL as a viable solution to meet their needs. The Universal Design for Learning Series’ online module, UDL Implementation: A Process of Change, stresses the importance of this: “Starting with a clearly identified need for change is critical for success UDL implementation at a systemic level” (National Center on UDL, 2011). The two survey questions are designed to identify the gap that teachers see between their “teaching ideal” (“expertise” in teaching) and their current level, which may be restricted or diminished due to external challenges. My own survey of teachers at the school where I work, an independent college preparatory school that serves students in grades 8-12, revealed that teachers identified expertise in terms of both content and teaching knowledge. Teachers often described “teaching expertise” in terms of student learning and motivation, using phrases like ”knowing how to teach all kinds of students,” “the ability to motivate the students to be actively engaged,” and “[the ability to] deliver the material in a way that compels students to want to learn more.” For the second question, time constraints, keeping up with and using technology, and meeting learners’ needs were the issues most frequently cited. One teacher’s response captured these concerns: “[The biggest challenges for teachers are] teaching to a variety of learning styles with limited time for designing curriculum and assessing students, classroom management, keeping up with changing technology and the relatedly changing minds and interests of students.” While the information gathered from this limited, informal study at one independent school is by no means generalizable, it illustrates the way that these two simple questions can serve as a starting point for innovation. Conducting focus groups/discussion to identify key themes raised in teacher responses is not only a way to compile useful data; it is also a way to increase teacher buy-in and is, in itself a component of UDL because it provides multiple means of engagement. When teachers are given the opportunity to reflect on their goals as educators and the factors that serve as challenges and obstacles to achieving those goals, they are more likely to see the need for change and be open to learning new methods and ideas.
Once a need for change has been identified, UDL principles and methods may be investigated to determine whether this framework will serve as a viable solution. The National Center on UDL (2011) describes this as the “Explore” phase of implementation, which focuses on “investigating UDL as a system-wide decision-making framework, building awareness with key players inside & outside of system, [and] determining willingness & interest to begin UDL implementation.” After teachers and administrators have been given the opportunity to explore UDL, the next phase of innovation is to provide Training on UDL principles, methods, examples, and resources. Recognizing the diverse learning styles of teachers, as well as the constraints of time and resources, this training may take place both on site and in the form of web-based training. One method of using online instruction that is flexible and adaptable is providing training through the IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. This website offers free online, interactive resources including training modules, case studies, tutorials, and instructor guides (http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/). By offering multiple means of representation in presenting information for professional development, UDL is not only the content being taught, but also the principle guiding the instruction.
The ability of teachers to incorporate UDL methods into existing lesson plans/curriculum by adding multiple means of representation, multiple means of action/expression, and multiple means of engagement is best assessed by identifying the use of these UDL components in lesson planning. Teachers can demonstrate the use of UDL by submitting sample lessons, and the use of electronic portfolios might be the most efficient way to store and share this information. UDL Exchange offers a format for developing and sharing lessons, and teachers can create and share lessons here. A reasonable short-term goal would be for each teacher to create and share at least one lesson per semester that demonstrates the use of UDL. When school leaders recognize the value of UDL, they should begin to look for ways to rethink teacher evaluation to include Incorporation of UDL. This is a long-range goal of professional development in UDL. However, while scores on standardized tests still determine what is seen as “effective teaching” and “student learning,” this may not always be an easy sell, so it is crucial that administrators, like teachers, be instrumental in the evaluation phase of UDL integration. Both teachers and administrators need to work together to set individual goals for UDL instruction and implementation.
Technology training is another key component of professional development in UDL. Since teachers vary in technology knowledge, it is important to assess teachers’ level of comfort and experience with technology and provide appropriate technology training based on teacher needs. Teachers’ level of comfort and experience with technology can be assessed using short surveys (perhaps one each semester) that list technology available in the school to see what teachers are using, what they still want/need to learn, and what they would like to see in terms of training and resources. This strategy aligns with the third principle of UDL, providing multiple means of engagement. Since “learners differ significantly in what attracts their attention and engages their interest” (http://www.udlcenter.org), technology training that meets individual teachers where they are and takes them where they want to go is more likely to be engaging and meaningful. Other components of technology training can also incorporate UDL principles. By providing workshops and/or web-based training for teachers to learn about incorporating technology in lesson planning, information and skills can be taught using multiple means of representation. Ongoing feedback and support for faculty through mentoring, collaboration, peer review, incentives, and technology support can serve to keep teachers engaged in the learning process. The development of UDL and technology mentoring partnerships and peer support groups is an important outcome, one that will provide this ongoing training for teachers in UDL and technology. Establishing a school-based “technology tips and resources” webpage and appointing school “technology leaders” are ways to make technology-related information accessible and to give teachers a place to go with questions and ideas.
The long-term goals of professional development are seeing learner variability as a strength rather than a challenge, using UDL as a framework for teaching and learning, and creating expert learners. These are goals that are not easily met after a brief training session. They are certainly not met if teachers and administrators are not invested in the process from the start. Innovative change requires that teachers have ownership in the process and are engaged in learning through individualized training options and continuous feedback and support. Resources, including personnel and technology, must be assessed and maximized. Finally, participants need to be able to build on what they already know and already do, rather than starting from scratch. Many teachers may be routine experts at covering content; they may have perfected certain lessons and developed a teaching style that works for them. These are valuable traits and can serve as a solid foundation from which to build and adapt to meet the changing needs of students and the growing diversity in today’s classrooms.
References
2012 institute for human centered design . (2013). Retrieved 2/06, 2013, from http://humancentereddesign.org/
Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 1(2), 91-115.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56(6), 515-526.
Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., lePage, P., . . . McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. (2004). Thoughts on adaptive expertise. Unpublished manuscript.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp.40-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377.
Casper, B. & Leuichovius, D. (2005). Universal design for learning and the transition to
a more challenging academic curriculum: Making it in middle school and beyond (NCSET Report). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED495873
Courey, S.J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., and LePage, P. (2012). Improved lesson planning with
universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36
(1), 7-27.
Crawford, V.M., & Brophy, S. (2006, September). Adaptive expertise: Theory, methods, findings, and emerging issues, In The Adaptive Expertise Symposium. Symposium conducted at the meeting of SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeArment, S.; Reed, E.; & Wetzel, A. Promoting adaptive expertise: A conceptual framework for special educator preparation. Unpublished Manuscript, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Gandara, P. (2002). A study of high school puente: What we have learned about preparing latino youths for postsecondary education. Education Policy Special Issue: The Puente Project- Issues and Perspectives on Preparing Latino Youths for Higher Education., 16(4), 474-495.
Garcia, E. (1993). Language, culture, and education. Review of Research in Education., 19, 51-98.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.
Jiménez, T. C., Graf, V. L., & & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education:
The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41-
54.
Kirk, S. & Gallagher, J. (1979) Educating Exceptional Children, third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kitmitto, S. (2011). Measuring status and change in NAEP inclusion rates of students with disabilities: Results 2007-2009. ( No. 457). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Lee, V. E., & & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.
Mace, R., Hardie, G., & Place, J. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In W.E. Preiser, J.C. Vischer, & E.T. White (Ed.), Design intervention: Toward a more humane architecture () Van Nostrand Reinhold.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the
inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream
schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 29, 46-52.
National Center on UDL. (2011). UDL Implementation: A process of change. In UDL
Series. Retrieved from http://udlseries.udlcenter.org/categories/implement.html
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Phillips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm springs children in community and classroom. In C.B. Cazden, V. John-Steiner, D.H. Hymes (Ed.), Functions of language in the classroom.(pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rose, D. & Vue, G. (2010). 2020’s learning landscape: A retrospective on dyslexia. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Winter, 33-37.
Rose, D., & Gravel, J. (2012). Curricular opportunities in the digital age.
(http://www.studentsatthecenter.org/papers/curricular-opportunities-digital-age ed.). Boston: Jobs for the Future.
Rose, D.; Harbour, W. S. ; Johnston, C.S. ; Daley, S. G. ; Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary Education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135-151.
Schelly, C., Davies, P., Spooner, C. (2011). Student perceptions of faculty implementation of Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 17-30.
Smith, D., & Tyler, N. (2011). Effective inclusive education: Equipping education professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects (00331538), 41(3), 323-339. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9207-5
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of
Training in Universal Design for Learning on Lesson Plan Development. Remedial &
Special Education, 28(2), 108-116.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need–and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 12.
SEDP706 