Universal Design for Learning: A New Clinical Practice Assessment Tool Toward Creating Access and Equity for ALL Students

Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School

Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount

University and Loyola Law School

Summer 7-2017

Universal Design for Learning: A New Clinical

Practice Assessment Tool Toward Creating Access

and Equity for ALL Students

Diana Fogarty

Loyola Marymount University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/etd

Part of theEducational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and theTeacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation

Fogarty, Diana, "Universal Design for Learning: A New Clinical Practice Assessment Tool Toward Creating Access and Equity for ALL Students" (2017).LMU/LLS Theses and Dissertations. 475.

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY

Universal Design for Learning:

A New Clinical Practice Assessment Tool Toward Creating Access and Equity for ALL Students

by

Diane Fogarty

A dissertation presentedtothe Faculty ofthe School of Education, Loyola Marymount University,

in partial satisfaction ofthe requirements forthe degree Doctor of Education

Universal Design for Learning:

A New Clinical Practice Assessment Tool Toward Access and Equity for ALL students

Copyright © 2017 by

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Fair doesn’t mean giving every childthe samething,it means giving every child whatthey need. –Rick Lavoie Thank youto my Chair, Dr. Karen Huchting, and my committee members, Dr. Jill Bickett and Dr. Candace Poindexter. You have all been amazingly supportivethrough my doctoral process. You have been mythought partners, my critical friends, and myloving

supporters. Your support was especially meaningful because I knowthat youtrulyloveteaching and believe with all your heartsthat we must create ajust pathwaytolearning for all children.

DEDICATION

For Molly and Colleen,who fill my days withjoy. You are my greatestteachers. Thank you for yourlove, support, and patience duringthethree years of my doctoral program. Itis my greatest hopethat you will beinspired by myjourney—not onlyin seeking knowledge but,more importantly,in seeking knowledge sothat we may create a morejust andloving world.

For Mary, Regina, Jennifer, Dawn, and Kay—my soul sisters. Your support has been steadfast,and your kindness hastruly wrapped around me and kept me whole duringtheselast three years.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...iii DEDICATION ...iv LIST OF TABLES ...viii LIST OF FIGURES ...ix ABSTRACT ...x

CHAPTER 1: Introduction ...1

The Current Study ...9

Statement of Problem ...13

Theoretical Framework ...15

Universal Design for Learning Framework ...15

CPED Practical Measurement Framework ...18

Purpose of Study ...19

Research Questions ...20

Overview of Methods ...21

Context ...21

Design and Procedures ...23

Lesson Video Review Process ...25

Focus Groups ...25

Background and Role ofthe Researcher ...26

Limitations and Delimitations ...26

Significance ofthe Study ...28

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...30

Universal Design ...34

Universal Design for Learning Framework ...35

Universal Design for Learning and Student-Centered Theories ....37

Sociocultural Theory and Universal Design for Learning .38 Zone of Proximal Development and Universal Design for Living ...40

Universal Design asit Appliesto Curriculum ...41

Universal Design as Applied to Instructional Practice...42

Flexibility ...43

Simple and Intuitive ...43

Perceptible Information ...43

Tolerance for Error ...44

Low Physical Effort ...44

Universal Design for Learning asit Appliesto Lesson Planning ...45

Universal Design for Learning and Student Engagement ...46

Danielson Framework ...48

Danielson Framework and UDL ...49

Synthesis of UDL Literature ...50

The Role of Teachers ...51

Teacher Preparation Programs ...52

Teacher Preparation Programs and Accountability ...55

Teacher Preparationin California ...57

Changestothe Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness ...59

California’s Future ...59

Universal Design for Learning and Teacher Preparation ...64

Chapter 3: Methodology ...68

Research Questions ...68

Context ...69

Design ...71

Sources of Data ...72

Video Lessons ...72

Program Outcomes, Course Descriptions, and Course Syllabuses73 Focus Group Experts ...74

Procedures ...75 Phase 1 ...77 Phase 2 ...78 Phase 3 ...80 Phase 4 ...81 Phase 5 ...84

Analytical Plan ...84

Validity ...85

Chapter 4: Findings ...87

Study Background ...87

Overview of Key Findings ...89

Research Question 1 ...90

Program Outcomes, Course Descriptions, and Course ...90

Syllabuses Review Video Lesson Review ...92

Multiple Means of Representation ...96

Multiple Means of Action and Expression ...101

Multiple Means of Engagement ...104

Conclusion for Research Question1 ...107

Research Question 2 ...109

Expert Feedback ...110

Updating Standards ...113

Content Areas ...114

Universal Design for Learning ...120

Conclusion for Research Question 2 ...122

New Clinical Observation Tool ...124

Universal Design for Learninginthe New Clinical ...125

Observation Tool Summary and Conclusion ...129

Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications ...134

Discussion of Findings ...136

Limitations ...142

Future Research ...143

Implications ...144

Theoretical Implications ...144

Implications for Practice ...145

Practical Measurement Implications ...146

Policy Implications ...148

Recommendations ...149

Conclusion ...151

APPENDICES A: Definition of Terms ...154

B: Universal Design for Learning ...155

C: Observation Record ...156

D: Clinical Practice Observation Tool ...160

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Teacher Effectiveness Constructs ...62 Table 2: Frequency of Multiple Means of Representationin ...98

Videotaped Lessons

Table 3: Frequency of Multiple Means of Action and Expression Present ...102 in Videotaped Lessons

Table 4: Frequency of Multiple Means of Engagement Presentin ...105 Videotaped Lessons

Table 5: New Clinical Observation Tool ...126 Table 6: New Clinical Observation Tool Instruction Section 2 ...127 Table 7: New Clinical Observation Tool and Preparation Section ...129

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 2015 NAEP scores ...4

Figure 2. Universal Design for Learning guidelines...18

Figure 3. Methodological iterativeprocess ...23

Figure 4. Fourth-grade NAEP mathtrend scores ...31

Figure 5. Fourth-grade NAEP readingtrend scores ...32

Figure 6. Methodological Iterative Process ...76

Figure 7. Current Clinical Observation Tool Recommendations for ...128 Change Section

Universal Design for Learning:

A New Clinical Practice Assessment Tool Toward Access and Equity for ALL Students

by

Diane Fogarty

To examineto what extent current general education preserviceteachers within ateacher preparation program at a private institution of higher education know and understandthe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), expert focus groups were conducted. General education program syllabuses were examined for UDL content and foundto belacking in suchcontent. General education preserviceteachers videotapedlessons were reviewed for UDL content and were also foundto beinadequatein demonstrating knowledge and

understanding Universal Design for Learning principles. Focus groups comprised of university fieldworkinstructors andteacher education experts were askedto review and give feedback on a current clinical observationtool being utilized. Feedbackindicatedthatthe currenttool was insufficient for measuring preserviceteachers’ knowledge and understanding of UDL. Further,

the currenttool was not anchoredtothe UDL framework or any otherteaching framework. In serviceto contributingtothe field ofteacher preparation, a new clinical practicetool groundedin Universal Design for Learning was created.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Imagine a building you have heard about since you were atoddler. You havelistenedto family and friends share stories about beinginthis building. Withinthe walls ofthis structure liesthe opportunitytolearn about anything you desire.After years oflisteningtothe stories and watching children enterthis buildingitis finally yourturn. You attemptto openthe doorsto knowledge andlearning but you cannot. You cannot make sense ofthe signs outsidethe building meantto guide your way. Youtry entering with other children for whom accesstothe building seems easy, but you watchthem enter while you areleft outside. You attemptto enterthe structure with ateacher you see, buttheteacher does not see you. Thisisthe experiencethat many children withinthe United States have every day asthey attemptto access notjustthe school building butthe contentthatis beingtaught withinits walls.

As an elementary schoolteacher for 25 years, I believeinthe power of education. I believethat accessto a quality education changesthelives ofthe children who enter and forms the pathway of accessto higher education and eventually careers andlife-longlearning. Yet, during my years of experienceinthe classroom, I watched students struggletolearn. Itaughtin classrooms withlow-income students, students with disabilities, Englishlearners,and midd le-class students. Itaughtin animpoverished area of Southern California,low-income areas ofNew York and New Jersey, and a middle-class neighborhoodin Los Angeles. At notime during my 25 yearsinthe classroom did I come across a group of students in whichall students were successful.While I taught my students withthebestintentions, I could not always makethe

curriculum accessible forthem. Itliterally hurt my heartto see children struggletolearn and,in time,losetheir confidence and eventually,in some cases,their way entirely.

There weretimesin myteaching career when I would overhear anotherteacher comment that a new child she receivedinto her classroom“didn’t know anything.” Such comments

contributetotheideathat somehow whenlearning does not occur,the childis deficient. I believe, however, thatitis morelikelythatthe curriculumisdeficient. Most often curriculumis designed for an “average”learner and predicated on an assumptionthat such alearner exists. Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) stated:

the factthatthe curriculum was designed forthe mythical averagelearner, adept at navigatingthe print environment, created significant barriers for studentsinthe margins, for whomthe print-based environment simply did not work asthe single meansto access and express knowledge.(p. 4)

The concept ofteachingtothe “averagelearner” was certainly presentin my teaching

experience. As an elementaryteacher,I wastrainedtoteachtothe middle ofthe class—thatisto say,tothe “average” student. In retrospect,this of course can account forthelack of accessto learningthatmy students may have experienced. Withoutintentionality, I keptthe door of learninglockedfor some of my students. Morethanthis, did I changethetrajectory oflife-long learning for some of my students? Meyeret al. (2014) have suggested:

The unnecessary barrierintraditional education extended beyondthosethatimpeded students from accessing content and expressing knowledge. Even moreimportantin motivating our work werethe affective barriers. Students comingto school with curiosity

and a strong desiretolearn foundthat fire quenched whenthey were stigmatized-not because of anythingthat wasintheir control but because ofinaccessiblelearning environments.(p. 4)

Like some of my students, many students acrosstheUnited States are, for allintents and purposes, locked outsideof their classrooms.Evidence ofthislack of access among alllearners can be seeninthe results of standardized assessment such as National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2015). This assessment, referredto as “the nation’s report card,” is

administered intermittentlyto a national sample of American students. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NAEP website) stated:

NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states and selected urban districts. The assessment stays essentiallythe same from yearto year, with only carefully documented changes. This permits NAEPto provide a clear picture of student academic progress over time.

NAEP resultsindicatethat all students are struggling,andthese statistics are especiallytrue for students with disabilities and students of color. For example,throughthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) andthe Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), many students with disabilities were ableto gain entrancetotheir schools. These students may have had physicalimpairments or specificlearning disabilities. They were not, however, ableto gain entrancetotheir classrooms, or rather, accesstothe curriculumtaughtin their classrooms.In 2015, NAEP’s fourth-grade scoresin reading show a 41-point deficit for students with disabilities withthe average scale score for students with disabilities at 187,comparedto an

average score of 228 for students without disabilities (NAEP, 2015). Fourth-grade NAEP math scoresindicate an average scale score of 218 versus a score of 244 for nondisabled students, resultingin a 26-point deficit (NAEP, 2015). Eighth-grade resultsin reading and math NAEP scores show a 40-point chasm betweenthose students with disabilities andthose without, with average scale score comparisons of 230to 270 and 247to 287 for reading and math respectively (NAEP, 2015). Theselow achievement scoresin reading and math confirmthelack of accessto the curriculum for students with disabilities.

Further examination ofthe 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstratesthatthe doors of access are closed for morethanjust students with disabilities. Students of color havelower scoresthantheir White peers andthey have remainedinthelowest achievement percentile despite national reform efforts (NAEP, 2015).

� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� ����������������������������������� ��������������� ��������������

����

����

����

�

�����������

��

�

�������

����

�

���������

The figure above representsthe percentage of nondisabled students at or above proficient in reading and math atthe fourth- and eighth-gradelevels and disaggregates scores by ethnicity. The data clearly show that eventhe highest achieving group of students—White students—are well below full proficiencyin math and reading. Whilethe caseis clear for diverse students and students with disabilities,these data also indicatethat ALLlearners struggleto accessthe curriculum.

Such evidence appearsto suggestthat adjustmentstothe curriculum via standards-based changes have not ensured accesstothe curriculum for all students. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) required statesto report student achievement scoresinthe aggregate as well asthe disaggregate for specific diverse groups,including students with special needs. NCLB also heldthe promise of highly qualifiedteachers whose progressin helping students achieve would be monitored. These measures did not successfully closethe achievement gap but ratherleft closedthe door of accesstothe curriculum. It remainsto be seenifthelatest legislation—the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), passedin 2015—will continuetolock students out ofthe curriculum. Whatis certainisthatthis act will continue with additional assessments of student performance, with states requiredtotest studentsin grades threethrough eightandin high school (ESSA, 2015).

In additionto national statistics,inthe Stateof California,where I have spentthe majority of mytime as an educator, students with disabilities havethelowest achievement outcomes comparedto all other states (Blume, 2014). While students with disabilities are notthe only students suffering from alack of accessto curriculum, under national legislation,their

performanceis measured on standardizedtests,andtheir scores provideinsight aboutthe failure of schoolsto reach all students. In 2012, only 27% ofthird-graders with disabilities scored proficient or advanced onthe California Modified Assessment; 60% of students with disabilities graduated high school (comparedto 78% of students without Individualized Education

Programs);the dropout rate for students with disabilities was closeto 15% (11% for all students); and, approximately 32.8% of students with disabilities were enrolledin higher

education programs (the goal was 50%; California Task Force on Special Education, 2015). The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Performance (NAEP) results for California show only 30% of students without disabilities at or above proficientin reading atthe fourth-gradelevel with 31% at or above proficientin fourth-grade math (NAEP, 2015). These statisticsindicate a clear need forimproving educational outcomes for all learners.

Actionis neededto ensurethat all learners cangain full admission tothe curriculum withinthe classroom. Ratherthan approach education with a one-size-fits-all mentality, and at best, adjustthat curriculumto meetthe needs of "non-average" learners, whatisneededis a framework that encouragesthemindset inteachers tocreate, fromthe beginning,lessonsthat provide access for all learners. This frameworkis Universal Design for Learning (UDL),

developed bythe Center for Applied Technology (CAST, 2016). The principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) have roots inthe architectural concept of Universal Design (UD). Architect Ron Mace at School of Design at North Carolina State University created UD. Mace (1991) stated, “Universal design means simply designing all products, buildings and exterior spacesto be usable by all peopletothe greatest extent possible”

(p.2). The goal of Universal Design wasthereforeto create a barrier-free physical environment sothat all users could experiencethe environmenttothe fullest. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) applies thearchitectural concept of Universal Design (UD)to education by advocating for educatorstoincrease accessto the curriculumfor alllearners when constructing lessons, ratherthan retrofittingthelessonslater.

Universal Design for Learning became a requirement forteacher preparation programs withthe passage ofthe Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008. The HEOAcalled forteacher preparation programstoinclude Universal Design for Learning inthecurriculum usedtotrain preservice teachers.It states newteachers must:

Understand empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research relatedto teaching andlearning andthe applicability of such practice and research,including throughthe effective use oftechnology,instructionaltechniques, and strategies consistent withthe principles of universal design forlearning.(HEOA, p. 59)

Sincethe passage ofthe Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) in 2008, UDL principles are often found includedin special educationteacher preparation programs. Itis unclear,however, if general education preserviceteachers receive exposureto Universal Design for Learning. Thoughthe HEOA expiredin 2014, Universal Design for Learning continuesto be anintegral part of manyteacher preparation programs asthey awaitthe HEOA’s reauthorization.

Inthe meantime,the notion of reaching all studentsthrough UDL has been affirmedin the passage ofthe Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)in December of 2015. ESSAreplaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and representsthe seventh authorization ofthe

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Theintent ofthe original education bill ESEAin 1965 wastoimprovelearning outcomes forstudents. Thomas and Brady (2005) noted:

Enactedto offer equitable educational opportunitiestothe nation’s disadvantaged,this legislation provides financial resourcesto schoolsto enhancethelearning experiences of underprivileged children. Sinceitsinception, ESEA has consistently remainedthe single largest fiscal source of federal support for educationally vulnerable schoolchildren.(p. 51)

While ESEA wasthe first majorlegislationto focus on student achievement and provide funding to schoolsto supportthose efforts,itlackedtiesto accountability for schools (Thomas & Brady, 2005). Neweriterations ofthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), such astheNo Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),added accountability measures butlacked specificityin calling out a research-based educational framework forthis work. The passage ofthe Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) and,subsequently,the Every Student Succeeds Act(ESSA),brought tothe forefrontthescientific framework of Universal Design for Learning, solidifying the definition of UDL and calling outthe principles of UDL,in effect, championing Universal Design for Learning asthe framework forteachers.

The passage ofthe reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Actinthe form of theEvery StudentSucceeds Act (ESSA) addedthe much-needed specificity and clarityinthe use of Universal Design for Learning framework. ESSA requirestheincorporation of UDLin

to collaborate withlocal education agenciesin orderto utilize “a set of high-quality academic assessmentsin mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.” The assessments must be constructed, “tothe extent practicable, usingtheprinciples of Universal Design for Learning” (ESSA, 2015,pp. 25–27).The Every Student Succeeds Act further encourages state educational agenciesto create new, groundbreaking systems of assessment. These assessments must “be accessibleto all students, such as byincorporatingthe principles of Universal Design for Learning” (ESSA, 2015 p. 117).The UDL requirements of HEOA and ESSA,includingthe newest assessment connection to Universal Design for Learning,have significantimplications forteacher preparation programsin howtheyteach UDL and howto assess itsimplementation by preservice teachers.

The Current Study

Knowingthat students are stilllocked out ofthe curriculum,thatteacher preparation programs mustinclude UDLtraining, andthatthereis a needinthe field for a wayto assessthe extentto whichteachers understand UDL, this study focused on measuring preservice general educationteachers’ knowledgeand understanding ofthe principles ofUniversal Design for Learning (UDL). The majority of research on Universal Design for Learning (UDL)has focused on howlesson planning changed after exposureto UDL professional development.For example, Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2012) researchedthe impactof Universal Design for

Learning teachertraining andmeasured theimprovementinlesson plans followingthattraining. Teachersincorporated UDL principlesintotheirlesson plans after having been exposedtothe UDLtraining. Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) also researchedthe

effects oftrainingin Universal Design for Learning onthe development oflesson plans among teachers. Results showedthat general and special educationteachersinthe experimental group improvedtheirlesson plan development aftertheintervention.While evidence suggests that UDLtraining assiststeachers withtheirlesson planning, the research lacksinformation about howto measurethe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) intheimplementation of alesson plan. Incorporating UDLinto alesson planis certainly animprovement; however,to truly assist studentsin accessingthe curriculum,teachers must be abletoimplement UDLin classrooms. As such,this study focused on creating a validatedtool for measuring Universal Design for Learninginthe classroom.

To provide a framework forthisinquiry, I utilized theDissertationin Practice design fromthe Carnegie Project based onthe Education Doctorate (CPED). “The Dissertationin Practiceis a scholarly endeavorthatimpacts a complex problem of practice” (CPED, 2016, p. 2). The use ofthisinnovative research design pairs well withthe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Ratherthanlimit this workto specific findings withinthe constraints of a static design,the Dissertationin Practice model createsthe opportunity for dynamic data collection and analysis, whichin and initselfmirrors the concepts ofUniversal Design for Learning and may even leadto Universal Design for Doctoral Research.

After serving as a classroomteacher for over 25 years, Itransitionedto aninstitution of higher education (IHE),where I directthe clinical practice (or studentteaching components) of our teacher preparation program. As such, I am uniquely situatedto engagethistopic within a Dissertation of Practice model because my professional work directlyinvolves assessingteacher

candidates’ knowledge and abilitytoteach. As Director of Clinical Partnerships and Practice, I striveto assist preserviceteachers asthey work toimprovetheirinstructional practice whilein their clinical practice placements(i.e., studentteaching).These preserviceteachers are enrolled in ourteacher preparation program and areconsidered candidates becausethey are seeking a teaching credential fromtheStateof California. Tothat end,these preserviceteacherstake graduate courses and engagein clinical practice experiences, or experiencesin actual classroom settings, wherethey practice beingtheteacher.

Preserviceteachers are teacher candidates whoare not yet fully credentialed and

therefore do notyet havetheir own classroomin whichtointegrate thetheory and pedagogythey arelearningintheir coursework.Tothis end, preserviceteachers must be provided with

opportunitiestolinktheory and practice within an authentic classroom setting. These classroom -based experiences developed for preserviceteachers are referred to asclinical practice and are now mandatedto be atthe core ofteacher preparation programs both bythe California

Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) andthe national accreditation body Council forthe Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). The CTC’s Preliminary Multiple Subject and Single Subject Credential Program Standard 3 states:

The program’s Clinical Practice experiences are designedto providethe candidate with a developmental and sequential set of activitiesthat areintegrated withthe program’s coursework and extendthe candidate’slearningthrough application oftheoryto practice with TK-12 studentsin California public school classrooms.(p. 1)

Following suit, CAEP Standard 2 states, “Clinical experiences,includingtechnology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structuredto have multiple performance-based assessments at key points withinthe programto demonstrate candidates’ development ofthe knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions” (p. 6). Darling-Hammond concluded, “Strengthening clinical practice inteacher preparationis clearly one ofthe mostimportant strategies forimprovingthe

competence of newteachers andthe capacity of theteaching force as a whole” (p. 557). These experts have emphasized theimportance of clinical practiceinteacher preparation programs. Therefore,thisstudy examined the clinical practice experiences of preserviceteachers enrolled inthis privateinstitution.

One specific area of training for preserviceteachersinvolvesassessingtheir abilityto meet the needs of alllearners.In my daily work, I observethatthe special educationteacher candidates at my IHE understandthe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and are abletoimplementthose principlesintheir writtenlesson plans andintheimplementation oftheir lessons,while general educationteacher preparation candidates are not ableto dothis.Therefore, the focus ofthis study was to measuregeneral educationteachers’ knowledge and

implementationof UDL.Tothis end, I reviewed the curriculum and current assessment practices for general education preserviceteachersto ultimately create a toolforteacher preparation programsto useintheir assessment of teacher candidates’abilitytoimplement UDL knowledge intheirteaching.

Statement of the Problem

Studentsinthe United States are notgranted adequate accesstothe curriculum,as evidenced by stagnant results for manylearners onthe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2015).If our nation believesthat all students shouldleave school college- and career-ready, we must bringinto specific focus a research-based frameworkthat will help teachers create viable roadmaps of access for all children.

One reason for thelack of accesstothe curriculum for alllearnersmay bethatthe “banking” concept of education (Freire, 1970)is still prevalentinthe classrooms of most students. Thelack of accesstothe curriculum has along history. As Kahl (2013) stated:

Neoliberalideology epitomizes Freire’s (1970) description ofthe banking concept of education,in which students are seen as passive vesselsthatcan be filled with knowledge that can be objectively known and regurgitated on objective exams. Neoliberal models of assessment do not encourage criticalthought orthe examination ofideas, butinstead only prepare students for careersin corporations.(p. 2625)

This prevailing “banking” concept of education renders students passive recipients of information.Ratherthaninteracting with newinformation presented andinterpretingthat informationthroughthelens oftheir world, students are recipients of deposits of didactic, one-size-fits-alllessons meantto cover grade-level standards.If students have diverse needs as learners,this one-size-fits-alllesson planning will not allowthemto accessthe content.The age of educational accountability has not guaranteed equal accessto education. Orfield, Frankenberg, Ee, and Kuscera (2014) stated, “Theimpact ofthe standards and accountability era has been felt

more acutelyin minority-segregated schools where a focus on rote skills and memorization,in manyinstances,takesthe place of creative, engagingteaching” (p. 38).

As educators, we must find waysto open pathways of access for diverselearners sothat they are nolonger depositories of knowledge but participatory examiners of knowledge. We must striveto seethe curriculum—ratherthanthe child—as deficit. Freire (1998) stated, “To think correctly andto knowthattoteachis not merelytotransfer knowledgeis a demanding and difficult discipline, attimes a burdenthat we haveto carry with others, for others and for

ourselves” (pp. 50–51).

We mustthen call our attention toteacher preparation programsininstitutions of higher learning whereteachers are firstintroducedto educationaltheory and practice. While Universal Design for Learning could have been usedto supportthe mandatesinthe No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), UDL is called out specificallyinthe recently authorized Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). This act authorized by Congress succeedsthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965) andits reauthorization,the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001). Teacher candidates must beintroducedtothe framework and principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) withintheirteacher education programs. Thereis a specific focus on utilizing UDLto create assessmentsthat provide better ways for studentsto demonstrate mastery oflearned content.

Tothis end, we must research waystoimproveteacher preparation programstoinclude the framework and principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)in ordertoimprove lesson planningto create access for all students. We must further research howto measurethe

implementation of Universal Design for Learninginthe classroom. Whilethere are some

measures of UDL available (i.e., UDL Checklist [CAST, 2015];UDL-IOI (Basham, Gardner, & Smith, 2013),thisresearch study focused on creating a validatedtoolto measure preservice teachers’actual implementation of UDLintheclassroom intandem with other domains of teaching: planning and preparation, classroom environment,instruction, and professional responsibilities (Danielson, 2013).

Theoretical Framework

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was the primary framework guidingthis study. This framework, developed bythe Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST),is based on brain research, which considerslearner variability asits maintenet. The principles of Universal Design for Learning scaffold curriculum for studentsin waysthatleadto personal pathways of access. Additionally, practical measurement is a new measurement framework based on improvementresearch, which attemptsto assist classroomteachersin researchingtheir practice toward effectiveness and reliability(Yeager, Bryk, Muhich, Hausman, & Morales, 2013).Rather than engageintheoretical scale development—without regard for the feasibility of such

measuresin practice—a practical measurement framework advocates for practitionersto develop and refine measures duringtheir actual practice. This framework fortool creation aligns well withthe Dissertationin Practice mindset (CPED, 2016).

Universal Design for Learning Framework

Teachers have atendencytoteachtothe “average”learnerinthe classroom. Meyer et al. (2014), stated the following:

We knewthat most curricula are designed and developed asif students were

homogeneous, andthe most common approach to curriculum designisto addressthe needs ofthe so-called “average student.” Of coursethis average studentis a myth, a statistical artifact not correspondingto any actualindividual. But because so much ofthe curriculum andteaching methods employedin most schools are based onthe needs of this mythicalaverage student,they are alsoladen withinadvertent and unnecessary barrierstolearning.(p. 4)

Itis,therefore,incumbent uponthose entrusted withthetask oftrainingteachersto ensurethat all preserviceteachers are groundedinthe framework of Universal Design for Learning,which ensuresthatlearner variabilityis addressed.

Relying on research about threebrain networks, UDL focuses onthree systems of learning: recognition, strategy, and affect. The recognition network representsthe “what” of learning. The strategic network denotesthe “how” oflearning andthe affective networkindicates the “why” oflearning. Rose and Meyer (2002)indicated:

The activities ofthese networks parallelthethree prerequisites forlearning described by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1962): recognition oftheinformationto be learned; application of strategiesto processthatinformationto belearned; application of strategiesto processthatinformation; and engagement withthelearningtaskitself.(p. 12)

Barriers can exist for students in each ofthese brain network areas.Rose and Meyer further stated:

Traditionally, whenteachersteachthese kinds of patterns,theytendtopresentthemin one way forthe entire class. Butthe overt and subtle differencesin how students best recognize patterns suggestthat more varied means of presentation can reach more students.(p. 19)

Based onthis brain research,the three main principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) were created. They are multiple means of representation (recognition network), multiple means of action and expression (strategic network), and multiple means of engagement (affective network).

Thesethree principles serve asthe core ofthe Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and are designedto provide all students with varied options forlearning. The implementation ofthese UDL principles can be foundinthe UDL guidelines (see Appendix B; CAST, 2014). These guidelines informteachers regardingthe variabilitythat can be presented by learners andtherefore serve as a scaffold forlearners. Further supportintheimplementation of Universal Design for Learninginthe classroom can be foundinthe UDL checkpoints,which indicate specific waysthatteachers canincreasethelevel of flexibility withintheirlessons (Meyer et al., 2014). This flexibility canthen provide individualstudents withthe accessthey needtothe curriculum.

Figure 2. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. CPED Practical Measurement Framework

Practical measurement as an alternative measurement framework has, atits core,that whichthe Universal Design for Learning framework seeksto accomplish: an authentic, studen t-centered, adaptive approachto planning,implementing, and assessing studentlearning outcomes. Creating a new clinical practicetool for measuringtheimplementation of Universal Design for Learningis supported bythis unique framework. Research by Yeager et al. (2016) statedthat practical measurement can serve as a way of “Acceleratingthe field’s capacitytolearnin and through practiceis one keytotransforming promisingideasin educationintotools,

interventions, and professional developmentinitiativesthat achieve effectiveness reliably at scale” (p. 2). Ratherthantraditional methods of scale development, practical measurement relies

onthe expertise ofthose actually usingthe measureto make changes and provide a sense ofthe tool's validity.This framework was appliedtothe studytoinformthe creation ofthe

measurementtool. Specifically,this frameworkinformedthe process of speaking with experts who usethetool regularlyin orderto develop an authentic and practical measurement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose ofthis study was two-fold. One purpose was to understandtheextent to which current preserviceteachers within ateacher preparation program at a privateinstitution of higher education know and understandthe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, 2008) explicitly calls forteacher preparation programs withininstitutions of higher educationto utilize andteach all candidates,including general educationteacher candidates, aboutthe framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). It states:

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practicethat — (A) provides flexibilityinthe waysinformationis presented, inthe ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, andinthe ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriersininstruction, provides appropriate

accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students,including students with disabilities and students who arelimited English proficient (§103(a)(24)).  

The second purpose ofthis study,in service ofthe first purpose,was to create a validated tool for measuring Universal Design for Learninginthe classroom.Thisis a key component of

researchthatis currently missing fromthe field. Most ofthe research on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has examined the effects of UDL onlesson plans;very little researchexamines waysto measure UDLinthe classroom. Additionally, most ofthe research has been conducted within-serviceteachers who are credentialed and alreadyintheir own classrooms.

Research Questions

The purpose of thisstudy was toexamine understanding of UDL among general education preserviceteachers and todevelop a toolto measuretheir abilitytoimplement Universal Design for Learningintheirclinical practice. The following questions guided my inquiry:

1.  To what extent do general education preserviceteachers know and understandthe principles of Universal Design for Learning?

2.  How can teacher preparation programsmeasure preserviceteachers’implementation of Universal Design for Learninginthe classroom?

Itisimportantto analyze whether general education preserviceteachers have been exposedtothe principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) withintheir preserviceteacher preparation program as a starting point forthisline ofinquiry.If preserviceteachers have strong knowledge of UDL,thentheteacher preparation program will needto be ableto documentthat knowledge. If preserviceteachers do not have strong knowledge of UDL,thenthe teacher preparation program wherethe studyis occurring will benefit fromimproving exposureto UDL within coursework. In addition,the current study assesses knowledge of preserviceteachers by reviewing their abilitytoimplementthe UDL principlesduringtheir clinical practice, ratherthan

via a self-reporttest.Developing atoolto measure actualimplementation of UDL may benefit otherinstitutes of higher education attemptingto embed UDL principles.

Overview of Methods Context

Thisstudy occurred atthe university where I am, atthetime ofthis study,thedirectorof Clinical Partnerships and Practice. This particularinstitution has a rich history that spans over 100 years. Theprivate, religious university was establishedin Los Angeles, California in 1911, and originally served only male students. Female students became a part ofthe campusin 1973. Currently,the campus serves over 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The mission ofthe Universityis based onthreetenets:the encouragement oflearning,the education ofthe whole person, andthe service of faith and promotion ofjustice. The School of Educationis one of six schools and colleges withinthis urban University.

The conceptual framework ofthis School of Educationis based onthe Jesuit and Marymounttraditions ofthe University. Thetheoretical framework of critical pedagogy

developed by Paulo Freire alsoinfluencesthe School of Education’s framework. Our framework (2009) states, “We adopt as our ownthe Freirean notionthat,though education should be

available for all people and empowerthem, educators must be especially concerned about individuals and groupsthat have been historically disempowered by unjust social structures” (p. 2). Tothis end,a sociallyjust educationisthelensthrough which ourteacher candidates are educated. We summarizethis frameworkinthe following four categoriesthat align with our clinical practice evaluations:

•  Respect and Value all Individuals

•  Educate by Integrating Theory and Practice •  Advocate for Accessto a Socially Just Education •  Leadin Orderto Facilitate Transformation

Socialjustice,therefore, plays a critical rolein how ourteacher candidates are prepared, how they are assessed,and howtheyinteract withtheir students. Ourteacher preparationthen includes state and national standards as well as a focus on advocating for a sociallyjust education. Thisintentional emphasis on socialjusticeinthis private university’s teacher preparation programis directlylinkedto our effortstotrainteachers who will helpto closethe achievement gap by creating access and equity. Cochran-Smith et al. (2009) suggested:

This recognition of disparitiesis coupled withthe positionthatteachers can and should be both educators and advocates who are committedtothe democraticideal andto diminishing existinginequitiesin school and society by helpingto redistribute educational opportunities.(p. 350)

Preserviceteachers atthis university are preparedthroughthelens of socialjusticein orderto advocate for ajust education for all students. The framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which can helpteachers create access and equity for all students,istherefore, a critical framework for meetingthis socialjustice goal.As such, UDL constitutedthe frameworkthrough whichthis study was conducted.

Design and Procedures

To addressthe research questions and develop a wayto measure UDLinthe classroom, this study adoptedtheDissertationin Practice model and engagedin aniterative process of refinement. This processincluded reviewing syllabuses, watching videos of preserviceteachers givinglessonsin a classroom, analyzingthoselessonsthroughthelens of UDL, reflecting onthe data, and editing current assessmenttools. Next,this processincluded seeking feedback from university personnel (i.e., fieldworkinstructors, who assess preserviceteachersinthe program), onthetool and based onthe feedback generating newlanguageto beincluded onthe assessment tool.

Currently,the Stateof California requiresteacher candidatesto complete four Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA) as part ofthe requirements forissuance of a preliminary

teaching credential. The fourth TPA(TPA4) is entitledtheCulminating Teaching Experience.In this fourthtask,the candidate creates andimplements alesson,whichisthen videotaped. The candidate,who mustindicatethe strengths and challenges representedintheir video,then analyzesthe capturedlesson. The candidate uploadsthe video,thelessonplan, andtheir analysis ofthelesson, intothe School of Education’selectronic platform for submitting TPAs. All

preserviceteachers completethe four Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA) as part oftheir teacher preparation program atthis University.

This study examined thecurriculum, lesson plans,and videos of TPA4 for general education preserviceteachers fromthe Spring 2016 semester. First,I reviewed course

descriptions and syllabuses.I thenevaluated thelesson plans and watched the accompanying videos in ordertoanalyzethe knowledge of preservice general educationteachers relatedtotheir implementation of UDLinthe classroom.Finally, I conducted focus groups with expertsinthe field ofteacher preparation assessment toinformthe revision of an assessmenttoolto

incorporatethe required state standards andthe principles of Universal Design for Learning. These experts were servinginthe role of assessing preservice general educationteachers and therefore were ableto offer authentic and meaningful feedbackto contributeto a practical measurement of UDLimplementation.

Lesson Video Review Process

I started with a sample of 20 general education preserviceteacher candidate videos to engagethis work. I reviewedthese videosintwo phases. The first phaseincluded watching all 20 of the videosintheir entiretyto gather an overall sense ofthe videos andlessons.Duringthe second phase, I began watching all of the videos for a secondtime;however, findings clearly indicated verylimited use of Universal Design for Learning principles withinthelesson. Dueto thelittleto no evidence ofthe UDL guidelines displayedin videotapedlesson plansbyteacher candidates,it was determined bythe researcher that saturation had been reachedinterms ofthe sample of videos reviewed and accordingly, thisphase oftheiterative video review process was terminated afterthe10th video examination. These 10 videos were observed,andthe frequency of UDL guidelines, principles, and checkpoints were tallied.

Focus Groups

After watchingthe videos of preserviceteachers, I broughtthe current preserviceteacher candidate observationtoolto university experts for feedback. These university personnel were expertsinthe field ofteacher candidate evaluation. Two focus group sessions were conductedto solicit feedback on waysto embed UDLintothe assessmenttool. First, fieldworkinstructors, whosejob entails observing preserviceteacher candidatesinthe field duringtheir clinical practice, were consulted. Next, a committee of professors, administrators, and education experts working on revisingtheteacher preparation program were consulted. Feedback was analyzedto generate newlanguage forthe observationtoolto capture an assessment of UDL.

Background and Role of the Researcher

I have been working inthe field of education forthe past 35 years. I started as a bilingual elementary schoolteacherin a small,urban school districtin Los Angeles. Itaught grades K–5in both English and Spanish for 26 years. I completed my Educational Specialist credential and thentaughtin a bilingual special education special day class. I served as a resourceteacherinthe same small urban district. I have also served as a bilingualteacherinthe states of New Jersey and New York. Upon returningtothe Los Angeles area, Ijoinedthe secondlargest school districtinthe state. There,Itaughtin a monolingual elementary classroom and completed my administrative credential. I served asthe administrator ofthe K–8 detention center for one year.

Ileftthe classroomin 2009tojointhe staff atthe universitywhere I conducted this study. I began my careerin higher education as a fieldwork coordinator,andthen moved onto a role leadingthe School of Education’s fieldworkteam as aprogram administrator. I now serve dual roles asthe directorof Clinical Partnerships and Practice andthe directorofthe Traditional Special Education Program. My workinthe clinical practice area ofthe School of Education has, in part, driventhe focus of my dissertation. In an efforttoimprovethelearning outcomes for our teacher candidates andtheirstudents, I created an assessmenttoolthatis framed by Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Limitations and Delimitations

This study islimited by my position as both a researcher anda professional working withintheteacher preparation program at theuniversity wherethe study was conducted. However, giventhe framework of a Dissertation of Practice, I was uniquely positionedto

conductthis study, which I seeas a problem of professional practice. Given the legal

requirement of UDL,teacher education programs,likethis one, arelikely facing similar concerns with assessingteachers’ knowledge of UDL. The creation of a new assessment assists with

improvedpracticeinthe field and beginsto fill a gapintheliterature by extending assessment of UDL beyondlesson planstoinclude actuallessons. Still,my dual role as a professional atthe university andthe researcher may have presented conflictsin how Iinterpretedthe data and cameto conclusions. Including expert feedbackcontributed tothecontent validity of the assessment tooland minimized thislimitation.

Anotherlimitationtothis studyincludesthe small number ofteacher candidatelesson videosintheinitial data review. The quality of the videotapedlessons limitedthetotal number of videos available,inthat 20 out of 39 videos were available for review. These videoswere taken and submitted bytheteacher candidates. Howthe videos were filmed and with whattype of equipment were outside of my control. Nevertheless,Iincluded all ofthe accessible lesson videosinthe study,which represented a samplingof preserviceteacher candidates fromthis private School of Education,who were setto completetheir credential program.Future studies shouldinclude alarger number of preserviceteacher videos,which should be reviewed over the two-year programtrajectory. This more extensive review could strengthen theelementary general education preserviceteacher data,furtherindicating alimited knowledge and comprehension ofthe principles of Universal Design for Learning. Secondary preservice teachers were notincludedinthis study,which limited this researcher’s abilityto generalize findingsto a broader sector of preserviceteachers.Furthermore,the examination of UDL was

conducted within a small, private university,which also limitsthe generalizability of resultsto largerteacher preparation programs. This stated,the purpose ofthisinitialstudy was not to focus yet on whetherthe findings were ableto be generalizedto alargerinstitution. My goal, as

directorof Clinical Partnerships and Practice withinthis private School of Education, wasto enhancethe praxis ofthose experts supporting preserviceteacher candidates, specificallyinthe use ofthe framework of Universal Design for Learning. While my dual role as professional withinthis School of Education and researcher forthis study presents alimitation,this perceived limitationwas negated when considering thatthe purpose wastosolve a problem of practice withinthisinstitution. The findings ofthis studyinform not only my practice as a director of clinical practice working with preserviceteachers withinthe program but also have the potential to provide clarity on changes neededto makethis program more effective. The potential for improvementinthisteacher preparation program could have a significantimpact onthe creation of access and equityto curriculum forthe students of Los Angeles.

Significance of the Study

The significance ofthis studyistwo-fold. This study began tofill a voidintheliterature on Universal Design for Learning. The studiesto date on UDL had focused primarily on special educationteacher candidates. As mentioned previously,the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) andthe Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) mandatethe use ofthe principles of

Universal Design for Learninginteacher preparation programs andin classrooms. This mandate does not applyjustto student with special needs but ratheris meantto serve all diverselearners.

A further area of significanceliesinthe creation of a general education preserviceteacher candidate assessment tool for clinical practicethatincorporatesthetenets of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) by building on existing measures usedto assessteacher candidates, (i.e., observationtemplates and candidate formative and summative evaluations;UDL checklist [CAST, 2015];UDL Instructional Observation Instrument [UDL-IRN, 2013]).Atthetimeifthis study,there was no extant assessment toolto measurepreserviceteachers’ actualimplementation of UDLinthe classroom.

In conclusion, I regarded the creation of an assessment toolto evaluate and measure how general education preserviceteachersincorporated andimplemented the principles of Universal Design for Learning was being of paramountimportance. This university could benefit fromthe creation of such an assessment toolin assessingitsteacher candidate performance and readiness forthe classroom. Of even greaterimportancehas been theimpactthat such an assessmenttool could have onthe studentsthat would be served by ourteacher candidates. Thelack of accessto the curriculum withinthe classroomthatleadsto an abysmal achievement and opportunity gap can only be attainedthroughimprovementinteacher preparation practices attheinstitutions of higher educationinthis nation.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), many childreninthe United States are still not receiving an equitable education. As Scott and Quinn (2014)indicated, “The

changing demographiclandscape, focus on high-stakestesting and market reforms, and growing socialinequality present significant challengesto revitalizing Brown’s promise” (p. 757).

Whilethe Brown case (1954) desegregated schools,the realityisthat students wholivein poverty, students of color, and students with diverselearning needs are still not doing wellin school. Children continueto sufferthe oppression associated with alack of accesstothe curriculum (Meyer et al., 2014). Whilethisinjustice can be attributedin parttothelack of equitable distribution of resources,itis notjust physical buildings andtextbooks from which students are prohibited access. Perhaps more significantly,these students are not afforded access tothe very curriculumthatis presentedtothem withintheir classrooms. The classroom

environment does not provide an engaging place where students canlearn. Stedman (2011) stated,“The dominant discourses of schooling must betransformed,too. Instead ofthinking and talking about educationintermsof standards andtesting, we should be discussing howto create quality,invitinglearning environments for students and teachers” (p. 10).

Evidence ofthislack of accessto the curriculum can be seen belowinthetrend data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2015) results for reading and

mathematics. NAEP state assessments utilize a probability sample design sothat students selected representthe diversity of studentsthroughoutthe nation. The chart below confirmsthat

while all percentile groups for fourth-gradersinthe United States made some progressin mathematic scoreincreases from 1990 until 2003, significant growthtapered off from 2003to 2015.

Figure 4.Fourth-grade NAEP mathtrend scores.

An even moreimportant findingisthatthe fourth-graders withinthe highest percentilein mathematics scores remainedinthe highest percentile whilethose withinthelowest performing percentile also remained withinthelowest performing percentile.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) readingtrend growth for four th-graders showsthat no one group made morethan a seven-point gain from 1992–2015.

Additionally,the percentile rankings for readingindicate abysmal results—the highest performing fourth-graders remainedthe highest-performing percentiles whilethelowest

performing fourth-graders stayed atthe bottom ofthe percentile rankings. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results below showthat fourth-graders acrossthe nation have

made minimal gainsin both mathematics and reading overthelast 25 years. Of great concernis howlittle movementthere has been for studentsinthelowest percentiles.

Figure 5. Fourth-grade NAEP readingtrend scores.

One reason forthe poor achievement results may bethatthe “banking” concept of

education (Freire, 1970)is still prevalentinthe classrooms of most students. Kahl (2013) stated: Neoliberalideology epitomizes Freire’s (1970) description ofthe banking concept of education,in which students are seen as passive vessels who can be filled with knowledgethat can be objectively known and regurgitated on objective exams.

Neoliberal models of assessment do not encourage criticalthought orthe examination of ideas, butinstead only prepare students for careersin corporations. (p. 2625)

Ratherthaninteracting with newinformation presented andinterpretingthatinformation throughthelens oftheir world, students are recipients of deposits of didactic, one-size-fits-all

lessons meantto cover grade-level standards. The age of educational accountability has not guaranteed equal accessto education. Orfield et al. (2014) stated, “Theimpact ofthe standards and accountability era has been felt more acutelyin minority-segregated schools where a focus on rote skills and memorization,in manyinstances,takesthe place of creative, engaging teaching” (p. 38).

As educators, we must find waysto open pathways of access for diverselearners sothat they are nolongerdepositories of knowledge but participatory examiners of knowledge. We must striveto seethe curriculum as deficit, ratherthanthe child. Freire (1998) stated, “Tothink correctly andto knowthattoteachis not merelytotransfer knowledgeis a demanding and difficult discipline, attimes a burdenthat we haveto carry with others, for others and for ourselves” (pp. 50–51).

Utilizingthe educational framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can helpto overhaulthe “banking” concept of education(Freire, 1998) and convertitto whatit oughtto be: sharing knowledge and exchangingideas betweenteacher and students.This study adds to our understanding of Universal Design for Learning as an educational frameworkto combatthe “banking” model.

The purpose ofthisliterature reviewisto help answerthe question: How can Universal Designfor Learning create pathways of access and agencyfor students’intheir own education? Specifically,theliterature reviewed examines the Universal Design for Learning framework asit has been usedto make curriculum more accessible. This review begins with a historical

Universal Design for Learning isdescribed, followed byliteraturethat has applied UDLin classroom settings. While much ofthe research on UDL (CAST, 1998) has focused onthe use of UDL for students with exceptional needs and suggested thatthis framework has been successful in opening curricular pathwaysfor students with disabilities, forthe purposes ofthisliterature review, a broader definition of students as diverselearners will be used. In fact,the purpose of this dissertationwas to examinethe extentto which general educationteachers understand and are abletoimplement UDLto reachthe needs of all studentsintheir classrooms. Issues related toteacher preparationare also highlighted.

Universal Design

Universal Design (UD)is known as an architectural movementthat created access for all. UD was framed by Architect Ron Mace atthe School of Design at North Carolina State

University. Mace, Hardie& Place (1991) stated, “Universal design means simply designing all products, buildings and exterior spacesto be usable by all peopletothe greatest extent possible” (p.2). The goal of Universal Design wasthereforeto create a barrier-free physical environment sothat all users could experiencethe environmenttothe fullest.

Priorto Universal Design, buildings or products were often retrofitted to meetthe needs of all users. Whilethis approach may have seemed sufficientto some, retrofitting can often be a clumsy attemptto provide access, whichledtolimited access at best. Itisthisidea of greater accessthatled the designers atthe Center for Applied Special Technologyto applythe concept of Universal Designto curriculum, known as Universal Design for Learning.

Universal Design for Learning Framework

The concept of Universal Design appliedto curriculum became known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 1999). Rose and Meyer explained (2002), “It seemedironic to usthatlegislators and architects were working very hardto ensurethat educationbuildings were universally accessible, but no such movement pursued universal accessibility forthe methods and materials usedtoteachinsidethe buildings-the curriculum” (p. 72). In orderto pursue universal accessibility, CAST beganto develop various multimediatoolsto help alltypes of students connect withthe curriculum. While many ofthetools developed by CAST assisted students with disabilities,they were created with alarger group oflearnersin mind. Inthe way that Universal Design removes barriersto physical access, UDL helpsto remove barriers from learning sothatthe child who dreamt ofthe dayhe or she was ableto enter school can actually accessthelearningthatistaking placethere. Muchinthe same waythat UD calls for universal access—likethe ramp andthe stairsinthe earlier description of a UD building—UDL calls for universal accessto curriculum. Extendingthat example,then, a student should be afforded a chanceto demonstrate his knowledgethroughtraditional mechanisms as well as alternative ways.

Universal Design for Learning relies on brain research, specificallythethree brain networks: recognition, strategic, and affective systems. The recognition network representsthe “what” oflearning. The strategic network denotesthe “how” oflearning;andthe affective networkindicatesthe “why” oflearning.Each ofthese areas can present barriers for students. If, for example, a studentis not engagedinthelearning process (the affective network)then an

obstacleto accessingthe curriculum exists. Fromthesethree areas,CAST developedthe Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (Appendix B;CAST, 2014).

The figure below outlinesthe principles and guidelines of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Thethree columns are headed by one of each ofthese UDLprinciples and followed by accompanying guidelines. Theseguidelines are dividedintothree main areasthat are connected tothethree brain networks. The first UDLprinciple of multiple means of representationis seen inthe recognition network. Multiple means of actionand expression are found withinthe strategic network. Thethird UDL principle of multiple means of engagementis aligned withthe affective network ofthe brain.

The guidelines of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can be found below each ofthe UDL principles. These UDLguidelines bring more specificitytothethree principles,

demonstrating forteachers what explicit areas oflearning are being addressedin each principle. Havingin-depth knowledge and understanding ofthe UDL guidelines,or zones oflearning,can helpteachers remove barriersthat preventtheir students from accessingthe curriculum.

Finally, UDL checkpoints referto even more specifiedinformation about waysthat teachers can provide accesstolearning for all students.These checkpoints undergird each UDL guideline to providethe necessary scaffolding for students. Teachers can usethesecheckpoints to honein on options for studentlearningin very strategic ways. Whenteachers are abletoidentify student barriersto learning and provide alternative waystolearn, students are ableto unlockthe doortolearningin meaningful ways.

Whenteachers are designing curriculum or planninglessons, UDL suggeststhattheytake into accounttheseUDL principles, guidelines,and checkpoints.Doing so creates curriculum and lessonsthatlimitlearning barriers.In orderto discover what barriers exist for students,teachers must getto knowtheir students’learning styles andinterests andthen usethe UDL guidelinesto createlessonsthat remove barriers and create access. In a similar message, Freire (1998) taught us:

The exercise ofthe art and practice ofteaching (a specifically human art),is ofitself profoundly formational and, forthat reason, ethical. True,those who exercisethis art and practice do not haveto be saints or angels. Butthey oughtto haveintegrity and a clear sense of whatis right andjust.(p. 63)

In seekingto remove barrierstolearning for students,teachers are fulfilling part oftheir social responsibility as well as modeling whatlearning should and canlooklike. They are empowering studentsto be agentsintheir own education by providing multiple means of engagement. Finally, teachers are focusing on equitable distributions of resources whenthey seekto provide multiple means of action and expression withintheir classrooms.

As previously mentioned, researchinthe area of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has often focused on students with exceptional needs;yetintheory, UDL should be universal and worktoimprove accesstothe curriculum for alllearners. Inthat way, UDL overlaps with

Universal Design for Learning and Student-Centered Theories

While UDL serves asthe primary theoreticallens forthisinquiry,thereisgreat overlap withtheories of educationthatinsist on student-centered environments, particularly critical pedagogy,as first described by Paulo Freire. In his work,Freire (2000) demonstratesthe need for studentsto findtheir voice. Students must seethe connections between school andtheir world, both on a political and economiclevel,in orderto discover howthey are being oppressed and howthey can resistthis oppression. Students mustthentake action orlivein “praxis” (Freire, 2000). Educators are keytothis process of educationalliberation. By using Universal Design for Learning Guidelinesto create pathwaysto accessinginformation andlearninginthe classroom, teachers are helping studentsto be agents oftheir own education.

Sociocultural Theory and Universal Design for Learning. Socioculturaltheoryis a conceptual frameworkthatis also connectedto Universal Design forlearning. It was first described by Lev Vygotsky as a wayto understandthatthe student does notlearnin isolation from his or her world. The contextin whichthe studentlivesisin factinextricablylinkedtothe waysin which connectionsto and understanding ofinformationtake place. According to

socioculturaltheory,language and culture mediatelearning as childreninteract with one another. Vygotsky (1978) posited thatthe strongest motivating powerinlearningis whenthereis

meaningfulinteraction among children.

Thetwo maintenets of socioculturaltheory are mediation and meaning. Eun and Lim (2009) explained that Vygotsky’sterm of mediation,“referstothe process by which socially meaningful activitiestransformimpulsive, unmediated, and natural behaviorinto higher mental

processesthrough the use ofinstruments ortools” (p. 15).Eun and Lim (2009) further elaborated:

For example,inthe process of development, children’s direct (unmediated) memory developsinto mediated memory (i.e., remembering by means of language or other signs). In one of his experimental studies, Vygotsky (1987) was ableto demonstratethat children whoinitially quite poorly remembered alist of words were ableto perform well when they were ableto use picture cardsto mediatetheir remembering process.(p. 15) This example of mediation facilitated bythe use of picturesis a concrete example of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)in action. The use of a pictorial representation of a conceptin

conjunction withtext mediatedlearning forthe childreninthe aforementioned experimentisthe personification ofthe UDL principle of “multiple means of representation.”

The second principlein socioculturaltheoryis meaning. Children do not construct

meaninginisolation. They do soin withintheirinteractions with others. Vygotsky (1978) stated: “Signs and words serve children first and foremost as means of social contact with other people” (p. 27).Vygotskythen linked mediation and meaning as explained by Eun and Lim (2009),

“Vygotsky’s developmentaltheory emphasizes mediation and meaning becausethe mechanism underlying development,includinglinguistic development, occursthrough socialinteraction” (p. 17).Again, a strong overlap with the framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can be seeninthe linkage ofthe mediation and meaningtenets ofthe socioculturaltheory conceptual framework. Iftheinteraction of mediation and meaning scaffold underlying development through socialinteraction, as posited by Eu and Lim’s (2009)interpretation of Vygotsky’s work,

thenthe UDL principle of multiple means of engagement supportsthisinteraction. By providing multiple ways of engaging withthelearning content and with each other,learning development via socialinteraction can be fully reinforced.

Zone of proximal development and Universal Design for Learning.This social interactionis most fully demonstratedin Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development.” Each child must be abletolearn within his or her “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPDisthe space between what alearneris ableto do on her own versus what he or she can do with a more knowledgeable other. The emphasis ofthistheoryis on a studen t-centered environment, ratherthan onthe more knowledgeable other. Thistheoryis connectedto UDLin as much asthe educator adjuststhe curriculumto fitthe student’s context and needs, thus assistingthe studentto work withinhis or her ZPD.

An example of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) workingintandem with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development would be ateacher who provides scaffolding for athird-grade student whois reading at a first-gradelevel. When navigating a third-grade social studies

textbook,thescaffolding forthe student could include pictorial cues as well as a recording ofthe specifictext. These UDL strategies of multiple means of representation assistthe studentto work within his or her zone of proximal development.

A teacher working withinthe framework of Universal Design for Learning would first assess a student’s strengths and challenges,andthen create alesson in whichthe challenges were addressed by providing strategiesto remove barriers. When students are ableto work fromtheir zone of proximal development,they are most ableto accessthe content.Socioculturaltheory