WHAT IS UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (UDL)?
UDL is a framework for the management of disability and access issues, which is increasingly gaining momentum as professionals and individuals come to realise the significant limitations of a medical model approach.
A FAST CHANGING LANDSCAPE
The access and disability landscape is changing rapidly. This is the case in the K-12, college, higher education and employment contexts. There are 5 easily identifiable factors which are currently transforming views and practices on access and inclusion:
1. Exploding demographics. Individuals with Disabilities can no longer be said to represent a minority, easily catered for through retrofitting and accommodations. The volume of Disability service users in today’s society has grown monumentally, to a point where it can be said that access issues represent a degree of concern for a significant proportion of the population, if not the majority.
2. Limitations of diagnostic categorization. The last 20 years have seen a disproportionate focus on diagnosis occur in all fields. A culture of referral has developed as a result, within which professionals such as teachers, university instructors and employers now feel disempowered when it comes to designing for access. The presumption that a person needs to be aware and fully cognisant of diagnosis to be able to provide or widen access is fictions and has derailed approaches to inclusion. The time is ripe to re-affirm how the widening access, in daily gestures and practices, in fact requires no diagnostic knowledge.
3. Sustainability. Retrofitting, accommodations and other non-inclusive models rooted in a medical approach to disability are conceived as after-thoughts, imposed after the facts to secure and protect individual rights and social justice. Fixing access issues in pedagogy, service provision or the design of environments is extremely costly and time consuming. There is nothing sustainable in such an approach. The time has come for access to now be considered immediately when conceiving content, delivery, evaluation and services so that as little retrofitting as possible ends up being required. This is not only socially just. It is the only sustainable option. Sustainable teaching practices in particular are a concept that requires pressing attention.
4. Social model. The social model of Disability has been theorized about and discussed for now three decades. Its merits no longer need to be established. Disability is a social construct and it is interventions on the environment itself, not a focus on the individual, that can reduce and eliminate disabling experiences. The challenge at this stage is how to best translate a conceptual adherence to the social model into daily practices. This is a process of change that many institutions are still battling with. As any process of change management, it must be planned, supported and monitored.
5. Expectations of inclusion. Whether it is the high school student reticent to be in a special ed class, the university student unwilling to contact a Disability service unit or the employee wishing to remain inconspicuous amongst colleagues, the number of individuals loudly and eloquently voicing their desire for inclusion is growing and these expectations cannot be silenced. This is creating a culture clash in many environments that are unprepared for this phenomenon of self-advocacy. its tangible outcome is the realization that the clock cannot be turned back. Individuals of all ages wish to have full and equal access within a mainstream environment – without having to identify themselves, be labelled, make requests or face additional administrative burdens.
2. Limitations of diagnostic categorization. The last 20 years have seen a disproportionate focus on diagnosis occur in all fields. A culture of referral has developed as a result, within which professionals such as teachers, university instructors and employers now feel disempowered when it comes to designing for access. The presumption that a person needs to be aware and fully cognisant of diagnosis to be able to provide or widen access is fictions and has derailed approaches to inclusion. The time is ripe to re-affirm how the widening access, in daily gestures and practices, in fact requires no diagnostic knowledge.
3. Sustainability. Retrofitting, accommodations and other non-inclusive models rooted in a medical approach to disability are conceived as after-thoughts, imposed after the facts to secure and protect individual rights and social justice. Fixing access issues in pedagogy, service provision or the design of environments is extremely costly and time consuming. There is nothing sustainable in such an approach. The time has come for access to now be considered immediately when conceiving content, delivery, evaluation and services so that as little retrofitting as possible ends up being required. This is not only socially just. It is the only sustainable option. Sustainable teaching practices in particular are a concept that requires pressing attention.
4. Social model. The social model of Disability has been theorized about and discussed for now three decades. Its merits no longer need to be established. Disability is a social construct and it is interventions on the environment itself, not a focus on the individual, that can reduce and eliminate disabling experiences. The challenge at this stage is how to best translate a conceptual adherence to the social model into daily practices. This is a process of change that many institutions are still battling with. As any process of change management, it must be planned, supported and monitored.
5. Expectations of inclusion. Whether it is the high school student reticent to be in a special ed class, the university student unwilling to contact a Disability service unit or the employee wishing to remain inconspicuous amongst colleagues, the number of individuals loudly and eloquently voicing their desire for inclusion is growing and these expectations cannot be silenced. This is creating a culture clash in many environments that are unprepared for this phenomenon of self-advocacy. its tangible outcome is the realization that the clock cannot be turned back. Individuals of all ages wish to have full and equal access within a mainstream environment – without having to identify themselves, be labelled, make requests or face additional administrative burdens.
THE UDL PRINCIPLES
It is within this fast changing landscape that the usefulness and pertinence of UDL is immediately apparent, if not striking. UDL is based on neurological research which analyses the different pathways in cognitive functioning. This research highlights the diversity with which we address all key interactive processes in our cognitive functioning. Designing for this inherent diversity in environments, such as the classroom, and interactive exchanges, such as teaching, increases access and takes the focus away from individual differences and characteristics. By offering students, or service users, multiple means of representation, action & expression, and engagement we can widen access within any environment and reduce the need for retrofitting. UDL focuses solely on the environment. it encourages us as professionals to hypothesize about the various barriers that may exist around us, and offers us guidance on how to eliminate these barriers.
