Reflections on Six Articles
1. Universal Design for Learning Principles in a Hybrid Course: Perceptions and Practice
Rebecca Elder Hinshaw and Saud Sakalli Gumas, 2013.
Case Study
This article is focused on the experiences of five educators who took part in the authors hybrid course that incorporated UDL principles.
Very well written and concise, this article begins with a short description of UDL principles. Obviously in draws reference to No Child Left Behind and states that UDL is aligned with it. I felt that was important to mention because NCLB is an accepted mandate in the US that Canadians often see as obtrusive but I not so sure that American educators and educational writers would see it that way.
The hybrid course designed by the researchers is a graduate level special education course - probably for teachers - that used UDL and addressed earlier research findings that suggested special educators benefited from training in adapting curriculum, co-teaching, and working collaboratively with general educators. The course had two face to face group meetings but the majority of the classes were in an online platform. This is what is meant by the authors as "hybrid". Given that this article was published just last year this is not a unusual circumstance or structure for graduate level course. The objective for the course was to provide insight for the participants on how they perceived and practiced UDL.
The data for the case study was collected by audio recording of semi-structured interviews and observations of the participants at various points throughout the course. Essentially qualitative data collection and analysis. This study claims reliability though triangulation, peer debriefing, and member checks.
The results of the study revealed that reflection was the most effective way for teachers generate meaning and application of UDL principles. It also revealed that collaboration with others was an effective way to incorporate UDL into one's teaching.
Although well written the article says very little. Judging from the technology the authors are describing I believe the case study is from the previous decade and was not published until recently. It is fact dated and does not have a lot to offer in our current environment of converging technologies and mobile devices.
2. The Fast Paced iPAD Revolution: Can Educators Stay Up to Date and Relevant About These Ubiquitous Devices?, 2012
Deanna C.C.Peluso
Discussion paper
This short article offers a very direct argument as to the "how" of technology integration in education. What is meant by this is that there is no denying the obvious educational benefits of the iPad revolution and that it is necessary to be bringing our education system into the 21st century (as many writers and pedagogs - my own word here - to describe a professional education writer/speaker who claims to know what is wrong with education and how to fix it - support), but how we are to get there is up for debate. We are also having a slight bit of confusion around what technologies are useful or even appropriate. This article draws attention to iPads and other mobile devices and the unease of some teachers as to just what are they supposed to do with them. Are they going to use them because the pedagogs are saying it is synonomous with good teaching or are they going to search for an opportunity to enhance what they are already, or will it be from an AT perspective?These are valid issues for all and I really like the way that this article sort of says - "OK....it's all good and I agree with you, but can we just slow down a little bit and look at this critically?"
This other issue raised for me by this article is that mobile devices and social media are being discussed like they are the same thing and they are definitely not. I have been nothing short of terrifically impressed by the accessibility features of the iPad and the great number of fantastic and inexpensive apps to enhance the delivery of curriculum. However, I am less impressed by the argument for the use of social media in education. I have studied this at length in another course and have been exposed to a lot of apparently good uses of social media in the classroom and I still have to say it is contrived. Just because the world uses social media does not mean it has relevance for education. Spirituality is also very widespread throughout the world and our education system does nothing to nurture this. I fail to see the need for such connectiveness with the world just inside the classroom. Like other technologies they are there to enhance to delivery of curriculum but when they become the curriculum it is no longer good teaching. As much as some pedagogs and those who have drank the technology koolaid may disagree with me, good teaching is still and always will remain being mastery and expertise of content and the ability to deliver content in as many ways possible to meet the needs of the students sitting in front of you. Teaching is an art form and will always remain the art form of sharing knowledge and cultivating personal growth.
3. Using iPads With Students With Disabilities:
Lessons Learned from Students, Teachers, and Parents., 2013
Cathi Draper Rodriguez, Irva Strnadova, and Therese Cumming.
This is an
excellent article. Extremely well written and informative, the article
addresses the selection and use of mobile devices for the classroom as well as
provides suggestions for overcoming common challenges.
The writers
got me in right away with the statement that the primary way mobile devices become
functional for educational use is through apps. This is directly linked to our
course and in keeping with the use of mobile devices being utilized as
Assistive Technology.
According
to the authors mobile devices meet students with diverse needs in four ways;
A) The technology is open ended and can
be individualized for each user.
B) Due to their preponderance the
devices will garner a minimum of
negative attention.
C) Many parents, students , and parents
already own mobile devices thus minimizing the learning curve.
D) The devices are easy to maintain
across different environments.
This
article does spend a good amount of time examining how the mobile devices are
being used for students with learning challenges. Here are some of the
findings;
·
Students
use the device to help learn English – using iPads as portable dictionaries,
using vioice memo apps to record themselves reading aloud in English. This is
greatr for students who were too shy to speak in class.
·
-
interenet use at home and school
·
-
audio textbooks, movies,and video.
·
Video
modelling via the ipad is an effective tool for students with autism
·
Generating
written ouyput using voice to text apps generates more output than traditional
pen and paper writing.
\the
authors point out that integrating AT into the inclusive classroom promotes
access, participation, and progress for students withg disabilities, as long as
potential barriers are considered nd the integration of the technology is
carefully planned. They recommend anticipating potential barriers ahead of time
and removing them as part of the planning process. They suggest addressing
A) parent and teacher technology
training
B) provide professional development for
teachers around the use of the device.
C) Purchase and maintainence of the
devices.
D) School-home collaboration
E) Transition across environments.
What I really liked
about this article is taken verbatim below;
Planning for mobile technology in
the classroom.
This is perhaps the best section
of the piece.
When an educator decides
to implement mobile technologies the classroom, logistical preplanning must
occur to ensure that the instructional time is used effectively. Educators must
consider what period of the day the students will use the devices, as well as
how many students will be able to use the devices at one time. Teachers must
also incorporate technology use into their classroom management plans by
determining what the rules for use will be and how they will be taught to the
students and enforced. When considering how to integrate mobile technology into
teaching and learning, teachers must be thoughtful about how, when, and where
to do this. The technology should fit the instruction, not the other way
around. A question to ask might be, “What can this technology allow teachers
and students to do that they would not otherwise be able to do.?”
I could not say this better myself – and I
tried.
4. Logistical Issues in Developing Inclusive
Classrooms: In Inclusive Schools in Action: Making Differences Ordinary.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2000.
This article is well written and has some good
information to offer. Written in the year 2000 I think there is much
information that can still be used by schools of 15 years later. Much work
around inclusiveness and differentiation has been done and much has been
achieved since the writing of this article. When I think back to 2000 we were
just beginning to talk outcomes – we were still using terms like curricular
objectives. Just like any re-culturalling process, the move to more inclusive
classrooms has been fairly steady, and I
would have to say that teachers in general are much more sensitive to the
individual needs of their students than teachers of a decade and a half ago. In
2000 the decision on class composition was usually decided around issues of
classroom dynamic - not individual needs. I believe technology and better
resources has allowed this to evolve. And, this has been done with most of the
work being done by classroom teachers who have collaborated in PLCs – not from
administration at the school, board, or department level.
The writers describe four crucial issues to
creating inclusive classrooms;
1. Student differences are accommodated
as an ordinary part of the school day.
2. Provide supports for students that
are a natural and unobtrusive part of the classroom routine.
3. Provide as much opportunity for the
school day of students with disabilities to be as typical as possible.
4. Ensure that students with
disabilities are active participants in the academic and social communities of
the classroom.
As mentioned earlier I would dare say that we
have made great strides towards these conditions (or at least regularly
addressing them) and are continuing to do so. Much of this article is spent
trying to exemplify how this is NOT being done, and, given the year that this
article was written I can certainly forgive the authors for doing so. I think
that once this is understood by the reader, you can basically “read through”
those parts and get to the” relevant to today” sections of the piece. The
writers toss around the idea of teacher intolerance so much that you would
think they had an issue of their own that was being resolved or worked through
with this piece of writing. If a new teacher was reading they would think that
teachers of the year 2000 were intolerant of differences and this could not be
further from the truth. Being a teacher from that time I will admit that there
was a systemic attitude that students with disabilities were best served in
their “own” environment. I am not condoning it – merely explaining it. Just
like today there was a lot of good work going on – I know because I was
there.
One of the most relevant points
expressed by McLeskey and Waldon in the article is that to increase the range
of tolerance in the classroom resources should be added. Some of these are
quite common today;
1. Adding a special education teacher
to the classroom as a co-teacher.
2. Reducing class size
3. Adapting expectations based on
“where the students are”.
I
would add that the introduction of Assistive Technology has gone a long way to
make this happen as well and it looks like it will only get better with the use
of mobile devices – all kids will be using them – no apparent differences. I
love the line the authors took from Ferguson (1995) – “In trying to change
everything, inclusion all too often seems to be leaving everything the same.
But in a new place”. I also really the point taken from Pugach (1995) “....the
answer to the challenge of inclusion lies only in what special education
already knows how to do relative to the status quo in general education”. As
stated before, I believe that general education is making great strides towards
inclusiveness. All in all the article is still a good read to remind us of the
pitfalls we face in maintaining inclusive classrooms.
5.Assistive Technology and Universal Design for
Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin
David Rose, Ted Hasselbring, Skip Stahl, and
Joy Zabala, 2005.
This article was not on the list
of articles for review, but it certainly fits the criteria and it interested
me. As well it is relatively recent
(2005) enough to still have relevance in our current educational climate. The
premise of this piece is that many in education see AT and UDL as identical or
mutually incompatible (not sure how – this seems to be an unsupported premise
by the authors – I think identical makes more sense). The authors feel that
neither is accurate and that AT and UDL are completely complementary with
advances in one prompts advances in the other.
They point out that AT which has been well established in education
(from low tech – to now high tech with mobile devices)while UDL as a concept is relatively new (as of 2005).
They point out that the two terms and concepts are often used interchangeably
because both approached depend significantly on modern technology.
According to Rose et al. UDL has goals similar
to those of AT but the approaches differ in important ways. UDL seeks from the
outset to create products and/or environments that are designed to accommodate
individuals with a wide range of abilities and disabilities. UDL is not
necessarily about retrofitting existing buildings – the design is inherently
about accessibility from the conception. UDL seeks to educate teachers,
curriculum designers, and administrators on how to design an educational
program that makes learning accessible to the greatest number of students
possible from the beginning. In short , the focus of UDL is the learning
environment rather than the individual student. UDlL seeks to identify
potential obstacles in learning in curriculum design or classroom setup and
environment through frontloading of initial design with built in flexibility to
enable the curriculum itself to adjust to individual learners. In AT, modern
technology is utilized to improve education for students with disabilities and
to help overcome barriers in the curriculum and learning environment. As such
UDL and AT are really to be thought of as two approaches on an existing
continuum. They often work in concert to achieve optimal results.
To exemplify, the authors use a classroom and
curriculum design that is very well known to educators. An overreliance on
printed text in a classroom raises barriers to student engagement and mastery
of content for those with certain disabilities. Taking an AT perspective, the
issue is considered a student problem. The individual’s disability with printed
text interferes with their ability to master the content. The AT perspective then
views solutions that address the individual’s weaknesses. Solutions arrived at
under this paradigm may include remedial reading classes , special tutoring,
common assistive technology such as spellcheckers or audio books. From a UDL
perspective the problem is viewed as environmental. This view will focus on
limitations in the curriculum rather than the individual. They suggest a
multimedia curriculum design that provides digital, universally designed media
that can offer diverse options for viewing and manipulating the content and
demonstrating acquisition of knowledge.
In reality, both kinds of solutions are
required. Universally designed curriculum needs to be aware of the current
assistive technology and accommodate their features in the design process. In
summation the authors state that as education continues to evolve we will see
that facilitating learning for all students will require solutions that address
the optimal interaction between what is universal and what is individual.
This was a thoroughly informative and
interesting article that I would recommend for reading and study by teachers of
any discipline.
6.Harnessing the Potential of Technology to
Support the Academic Success of Diverse Students.
Dave
Edyburn, 2011
Dave Edyburn’s article is for
administrators to be introduced to the principles of UDL and how they can be
implemented using technology to specifically address the special needs of
learners with disabilities while at the same time offer benefit to all
students. His article gives readers practical strategies and tools that will
support teachers and students in achieving academic success.
Edyburn states that we will
begin from a different perspective if we start with the premise thst every
classroom is composed of diverse learners. This view is essentially the desired
one in my opinion since it is so obvious. Every students comes with different
strengths and challenges – some which require interventions – and some which
require differentiation in instruction and curriculum design. We need to think
about how we can support diverse learners before they have a chance to fail – a
more proactive stance. As with Rose et. Al.’ S article this approach that
incorporates both UDL and AT establishes the need for technology that offers
flexibility not normally found in the traditional classroom of chalkboards,
text books, paper, and pencil. Again I would like to say that much of what I
now see in 2014 is just that – we have classrooms that are utilizing technology
in place of the traditional tools – or at least operating concurrently. The
much written about “one size fits all” curriculum is in my opinion an artifact
in education. The author states
throughout the article that use digital media is a key ingredient in
implementing a universal design for learning philosophy because of its
interactive nature. Digital media offers opportunities for choice,
personalization, and what he refers to as “just-time-support”.
Although predominately directed towards
post-secondary education, Edyburn’s article is entirely applicable to public
system. He stresses that top-down strategies are necessary in defining the
mission and core values of an education system and that some attention should
also be devoted to supporting technology that is available outside the
classroom. This is in line with the generally held view that a school is a
community of learners. The home as well as the city library can be include in
UDL design – a novel concept that deserves considerable attention in my
opinion.
Edyburn’s article works very
well as a companion to “Assistive
Technology and Universal Design for Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin”
and I would recommend reading both together for a more complete view of UDL implementation.
He recommends that administrators utilize top-down strategies, bottom-up
strategies, and policy change as a means for making diverse the norm.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
