UDL Reflection:
After all of our discussion about the various advantages of educational technology, I have to admit I was feeling a growing sense of guilt. Don't get me wrong: I use technology in my classroom. But, as the CAST website suggests, I frequently re-use the same tools repeatedly. Either because I feel that they are the best aids available (perhaps because they are the most effective for me personally?) or because of the ease and efficiency gained from my familiarity, I definitely rely on a few bits of technology (SmartNotebook, Mathematica, Sketchpad, some JAVA applets, TI graphing calculators, Google Sketch-up, Wolfram Math, Mathworld.com...), and I rarely search for additional options unless I find the class (as a whole) struggling. But I don't think any of us deny the potential benefits of incorporating more varied software or given the students more options. The versatility and ability to transform highlighted in the CAST article (even more than the "mark"-ability and "network"-ability) would be particularly beneficial to students who frequently grow frustrated when they "just can't see it," in Calculus or Advanced Algebra.
But I've grown frustrated because those steps seem implausible...or at least very difficult. Identifying additional options for disgraphic students after hours--even days--of planning a unit on integration is not only daunting; it's nearly terrifying. The UDL framework encourages specific approaches for achieving recognition learning (more varied and flexible means of presentation), strategic learning (more flexible apprenticeship), and affective learning (more flexible engagement). And--especially when specific classroom examples were offered--it's difficult to deny the value of these endeavors. I just didn't see how I could realistically adjust my curricula to achieve those lofty goals.
That's why I appreciated CAST's discussion of proper implementation more than any other portion o this very dense and informative introduction to UDL. Aside from offering broad guidelines for rethinking our practices (clearly stated goals, implementing individualized technology, and frequently assessing our progress), the author makes a crucial and compelling distinction between assistive technology and true UDL. Assitive technologies are add-ons, band-aids. Like the make-shift ramp tacked onto a side entrance to allow for wheel chair access, these tools are ungainly, often costly, and inefficient. And they ONLY serve the disabled learner--often in a way that singles them out or awkwardly differentiates them from the larger group. True, elegant UDL must begin in the planning stages. Like the futuristic, sleek elevator at the Louvre, UDL must be a basic, central component of the syllabus--not an after-thought.
So why did this allay my guilt? This level of preparation and careful planning demands even MORE work, right? Well, sure. But it also makes it clear that correct UDL-implementation can't possibly be achieved overnight. Or even over the course of a few weeks. And it really shouldn't be undertaken alone. Just as Dexter noted for us earlier, technology implementation should be approached not just as a solo teacher, but as a grade level, a department, a division, or a full faculty. Of course I'm intimidated by trying to change my integration unit to incorporate other types of learners. That change needs to be debated with my peers and framed in the context of a school-wide technology philosophy--which hopefully incorporates these UDL principles.
I still feel the need to change some practices and allow for more flexibility. I don't feel as though I've been dismissed from any obligation to work in more options and more flexibility. But I can make a start of it, and pursue a faculty-wide initiative to make the BIG changes. That rather intuitive observation helps make this whole idea seem more attainable...even if it still sounds like a lot of work! But like Lisa Lingo suggests in her article, we can start small, aiming to incorporate just one of the broad goals of UDL, and build from there.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post and appreciated your reflection on how to make UDL work for you. Your perspective as a current teacher makes your comments all the more informative. You are all substance, little theory.
Like you, I easily see the attraction of UDL and, like you, I see the difficulty in achieving it. I agree with you that, rather than throw up my hands and give up, I hold onto the ideal and try to consciously consider UDL when putting together new lesson plans.