Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Share your success story with UDL with us. We are looking for more examples of how UMaine and UMM instructors are lowering barriers to learning in their courses by adopting UDL practices and we want to hear from you!

Definition of Universal Design for Learning

The nonprofit education research and development organization CAST defines Universal Design for Learning as “a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn.” Learn more about CAST and the UDL framework on their website at CAST.org

The Universal Design for Learning framework encourages us to create more flexible courses and classroom environments by anticipating the diverse needs of our students. It is meant to reduce barriers and increase flexibility for a more inclusive teaching and learning experience, however, it does not erase individual needs for accommodations.

There are three domains where UDL is considered:

• multiple means of engagement, also referred to as the “why” of learning
• multiple means of representation, also referred to as the “what” of learning
• multiple means of Action and Expression, also referred to as the “how” of learning

CAST.org provides a very detailed breakdown about these three domains: Multiple Means of Engagement on CAST.org, Multiple Means of Representation on CAST.org, and Multiple Means of Action and Expression on CAST.org.

Ok, but concretely, what would UDL look like in my course?

If you don’t know how to get started, check out our checklist of practical strategies for implementing UDL in your course (opens in Google Docs). We recommend starting small and building more capacity over time.

You can also learn more about how your colleagues at UMaine have put UDL in action in their courses below.

Multiple Means of Engagement in Action at UMaine

Three course modalities in ANT101 – Humans Origins and Prehistory

Dr. Daniel Sandweiss offers three ways for students to engage with his large enrollment course: fully online, fully in-person, in-person with the option to access the online version of the course when students are missing class or want to review the lecture material after class. Watch Dr. Sandweiss talk about the advantages of offering multiple means of engagement in his course. This video was recorded in October 2022.

Multiple Means of Representations in Action

We are looking for examples of what you are doing at UMaine! Please share. In the meantime, here is one example of using multiple means of representations:

Example of a talk presented using multiple means of representations for accessibility purposes

To illustrate the need for multiple means of representation and make it more relatable, we would like to share with you Dr. Mahadeo Sukhai’s talk titled “Inclusion: a tale of 3 coffee shops.” In this talk, Dr. Mahadeo Sukhai discusses three models of Universal Design: universal design for the environment, universal design for information, and universal design for people. He does so while describing his experience ordering as a blind person at three different shops. This talk exists as written text, audio and video recordings, which enables users to choose to consume this content in a way that is accessible to them. The audio and video versions of the talk are 9:56 minutes long.

You can find the text and audio version of Dr. Sukhai’s talk on the Canadian website “The Walrus”, and the video version of Dr. Sukhai’s talk on YouTube.

Multiple Means of Action and Expression at UMaine

Beyond the traditional essay for the final exam

Kendra Rand in CMJ offers graphic novels or infographics as an option for her final exam.

So, do we still need accommodations?

Universal Design for Learning lowers barriers to learning but it does not completely eliminate the need for accommodations, and providing a reasonable accommodation is not a choice, it is the law.

In a 2021 article titled “Strive for ‘beyond compliance’ through collaborative Universal Design”, Justin E. Freedman and Alicia M. Drelick point out that not all students with disabilities choose to disclose their disability status, and that when they do, many students may still choose to downplay their need for accommodations or even offer not to use their accommodation for fear of stigma and consequences of disclosing their disability.

According to Freedman and Drelick, minimal legal compliance is at the origin of many barriers to accessing accommodations.

Using the example of a laptop ban in the classroom, the authors explain that for a student who needs a laptop or a similar technology for their classroom experience to be accessible, the ban effectively causes the student to be singled out for their disability or perceived by their peers as being in violation of a course-wide policy. In their article, Freedman and Drelick encourage us to be proactive in our “use of flexible and inclusive practices for all students that may reduce the need for many accommodations,” all the while pointing out the need to distinguish between these practices and reasonable accommodations to which students with disabilities are legally entitled.

Let’s unpack this last point using examples from their article to illustrate the difference between flexible and inclusive practices and the need for reasonable accommodations.

Examples of flexible and inclusive practices that may reduce the need for accommodations

• Extended deadlines for assignments for all students: students are responsible for contacting the instructor prior to the due date to arrange for an extension when needed.
• Use of laptop computer and other forms of technology for note-taking with the understanding that the use of technology in the classroom is meant to support learning: students who need the assistance of technology for note taking are not singled out

Example a of well intentioned practice that would be discriminatory:

Offer to provide “accommodations” to all students: students with disabilities are legally entitled to reasonable accommodations and these accommodations are meant to afford them equity in the classroom. If all students can request an accommodation, then providing students who are not identified as having a disability with an accommodation could be discriminatory. So if you have one student whose accommodation is time and a half to complete timed assignments, giving everyone in the class an hour and thirty minutes to complete an assignment that would typically take an hour to complete is discriminatory because students who do not need time and an half now had the option to work for an extra 30 minutes on their assignments while the student who needs time an a half received no extra time.

How would you maintain equity in this case?