UDL: Frequently Asked Questions

As you may see with the continuum under “Start with Macros”, the application of UDL is an on-going process, aiming to meet the needs of all learners.  Learners’ seeking for accommodation is a great reminder that the design of the curriculum could be more inclusive and flexible. Therefore, a key question to keep in mind may be, “How may I continue the improvement of this current assignment/task/activity to a point where the request of accommodation is no longer necessary?”

For example, let’s say have chosen to reinforce learning at the end of each lesson/class/unit by using a timed practice quiz and have increased the time allowance by 50%. Continuing the path to design the quiz more inclusively and flexibly, consider the following:

• Is there a reason why learners should complete the practice quiz within a specified time period?
  • If yes, can you further increase the time allowance?
  • If no, can you remove the time restrictions altogether?
• Can you add other ways for learners to achieve the same goal—reinforce what they have learned during the lesson/class/unit? For example, can they provide answers to open-ended questions as part of a learning journal, which has no time limit?

Due to the iterative and ever-evolving nature of UDL, there is not a definitive line between “a course is UDL” and “a course is not UDL”. Looking at the continuum, we know that the decisions we make for the curriculum are based on learners’ needs and preferences, which are variable each semester, so those decisions may look different in future semesters.

Therefore, the questions to ask have become:

• How is my course UDL?
  • What learner characteristic, needs, and preferences have I taken into consideration when designing this curriculum?
  • What flexible ways have I used to engage my learners?
  • What flexible ways have I used to present the learning content?
  • What flexible ways have I provided for learners to demonstrate their acquisition?
  • How much have I involved the learners in the process of teaching and learning?
  • Whom have I included in the teaching and learning of the course? Whom have I excluded?
• How UDL is my course?
  • What barriers still exist in my course (either according to my observation or learners’ requests to be accommodated)?
  • To whom can I speak to continue removing barriers and increasing access?

Each assignment should only have one rubric, which needs to accurately reflect the CLR(s) it intends to achieve. In other words, the CLR(s) remain(s) fixed despite the multiple means offered to learners for acquisition demonstration. Moreover, it is    imperative that such means are not included in the rubric, since they are not a part of the CLR(s).

Please see below as an example.

CLR: Describe growth phases of an insect.

Example items that may be included in the rubric:

• Growth phases
  • Phases presented in correct order
  • Characteristics of each phase included
• Insect
  • Species of insect specified

Example items that should NOT be included in the rubric:

• Grammar, spelling, sentence structure, or paragraph organization if acquisition is demonstrated through essay writing.
• Presentation skills, coherence and eloquence of speaking if acquisition is demonstrated through oral/video presentation.
• Font choices or color scheme if acquisition is demonstrated through infographic design.

Not only does UDL not compromise the rigor of course, it “is intended to enable and encourage greater rigor than what is afforded by traditional instruction” (Moore, as cited in Bracken & Novak, 2019, p.240).

One may have questions regarding how to balance the upkeep of academic rigor and the observation that many learners do not possess academic abilities strong enough to complete the course successfully. When faced with questions as such, it is crucial that we further the conversation by first discussing the definition of academic rigor.

According to Schwegler (2019, p. 16),

Defining academic rigor as intentionally crafted and sequenced learning activities and interactions that are supported by research and provide students the opportunity to create and demonstrate their own understanding and interpretations of information and support it with evidence allows for the consideration of multiple factors that can facilitate or undermine rigor.

Moore (as cited in Bracken & Novak, 2019, p. 239) provided a differentiation between “Rigor of form (methods & materials)” and “Rigor of content (outcomes)”:

• Rigor of form (methods & materials), which could include but is not limited to
  • Using limited means (e.g., a challenging textbook or an oral-only lecture) to present course content, and
  • Deciding the best (and at times the only) way for learners to demonstrate their learning (e.g., writing essays).
• Rigor of content (outcomes), which attaches the utmost importance to the CLRs—often times making connections between the CLRs and the real-world applications.

It is worth noting that neither Schwegler nor Moore agrees to controlling the ways learners acquire or demonstrate information, in order to be academically rigorous.  In other words, the methods and materials mentioned above should be tools, whose purpose is to support learners to reach the CLRs in the most effective ways possible—when serving this purpose, they should be kept; otherwise they should be adapted or even disregarded if necessary.

Lastly, upholding rigorous outcomes is essential if we intend to apply UDL in our course—for they provide guidance and keep us focused on what’s essential and central, and what’s optional and complementary.