On Universal Design for Learning

Learning Styles 2.0 and other reasons to be cautious

What’s not to love about a system that is Universal, Designed, and for Learning?

There are plenty of reasons to associate Universal Design for Learning with the debunked but still incredibly persistent Learning Styles. For a pretty detailed explanation of the connections, Greg Ashman did a post about this a while back, which I won’t rehash. The only discernible difference that I can see between the two frameworks is their intent - one was founded on the idea that students learn differently and the other was that when students can choose their mode of engagement they have increased access to learning. Can you guess which one is which? Me neither.

My concerns here are both political and pedagogical. James Stewart pointed out to me the breadth and depth of the lobbying undertaken by UDL devotees. This would not be a worry in itself but it seems that adoption of these sciency practices has also been tied to funding. The science of learning (not a proper noun yet) has made no such inroads. The lobby has made its impact in Australia too. I’ve worked at schools where Universal Design for Learning had been adopted, prompted by the Association of Independent Schools, who have a huge influence. I’m a naturally cynical person so the mere existence of a lobby set my ears wiggling, but I’m more concerned that ideology is overriding best practice.

James Stewart @JStew_CA

@msrebeccabirch UDL has an extremely effective advocacy/lobbying organization that has gotten it written into federal legislation in the USA and tied to school funding. Look at this. We need to copy this for science of learning.

cast.orgUDL in Public Policy - CASTUDL is found in many public policies in the U.S. around K-12 education, higher education, educational technology, and workforce development.

Pedagogically, the problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly, there is no evidence that it improves learning outcomes. It’s based on neuromyths and seems to have a distinct tech agenda. If the goal is to make teachers and students feel good about inclusion, then state that as its aim - that’s noble enough. But making unsubstantiated claims about learning means that energy that was previously invested in appropriate and specific adjustments (for example audio books without the need for UDL™) is now wasted. The second thing is that the assessment practices are very susceptible to an open slather approach. Jessica wants to create a guitar piece to show her understanding of the fall of Rome? Fine. Give us your recording (that took eight lessons of class time) and we’ll mark it alongside Kyle’s 4,000 word thesis.

A hidden cost of UDL, especially when it comes to assessment, usually shows up when it’s time for students to sit for the HSC Minimum Standards. After four years of being able to sidestep reading and writing, with the blessing of their teachers and therefore without a pressing imperative for intervention, students are finding themselves unable to pass the test that qualifies them to write a job application or read a safety label. The cross curricular literacy responsibility quickly falls apart. Meanwhile, our reluctant gifted learner has ‘chosen’ to represent quadratic equations through finger knitting¹.

You may be asking, what’s the harm in a system that is Universal? And it’s Designed! For Learning! Of course, I have been labelled ableist. I do realise that inclusion often doesn’t happen - the NCCD feels performative a lot of the time - and adjustments are frequently not made, so I can see where enshrining this kind of framework might be useful. I guess if I had to provide a single reason why UDL bothers me so much, it would be that I think it’s obviously well-intentioned but actually doing learners an injustice - universally.

1. I have a weird fixation with imagining outrageous UDL tasks. And I’m not saying I have seen these UDL tasks in schools but the ones I’ve seen have been a hair’s breadth away.