5364+Universal+Design

||

**THE UNIVERSAL FOOD ** **When my sister comes to visit, we go for Chinese. When it’s my choice, we go for Mexican. But when my brother’s tribe comes to visit, we go for a buffet. I kid that my brother and his family’s favorite food //is// buffet. They have always requested to go where everybody got just what they wanted, and as much as they wanted. Now that we’ve gotten to the end of this course, I see that what our students want (need?) is a buffet. That is the essence of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). **

** For years I have heard references to three modes of learning: kinesthetic, auditory, and visual. What that came to mean was that one of these senses was the preferred mode the learner processed incoming information. Until this course, though, I had spent little time and energy trying to figure out how this affects me as the instructor. Having varying learning styles was, in my naiveté, the student’s cross to bear, something which the successful student needed to overcome. After all, isn’t school also responsible to teach my children to exist and behave in a group setting? In my despotic approach: Teaching does not accommodate learning, learning accommodates teaching. As the sarcastic slang loves to say “How’s that working for ya?” Not so much. ** **Student outcomes and achievement statistics have deteriorated. It’s not working. In this course, we explored the concept of Universal Design for Learning or UDL (cast.org/udl/). In this paradigm shift, teaching and learning activities are varied and as such, appeal to a variety of learning styles. The shift is that students are not relegated to reading and regurgitating learning activities. Rather, they are exposed to multi-sensory, multimedia learning activities. These tools take learning to a new level, higher levels of thinking. ** **The universal design of this 21st Century classroom unit on cultural diversity we created draws from theories of multiple intelligences, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Rose’s (2002) three brain networks; Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski’s (2007) synthesis of strategies and methods; Solomon & Schrum (2007) Web 2.0 tools; and Big Thinkers video interviews and other resources explored during this course. These theories and practices have all converged into a framework for how to create a universally accommodating, multi-sensory learning experience, depicted through flexible methods to represent, present, express and engage; what Rose (2002) called //customized learning// (Rose, n.p.). We were challenged by the notion that “The learning brain is not one global learning capacity, but many multifaceted learning capacities, and that a disability or challenge in one area may be countered by extraordinary ability in another” (Rose, 2002; Chapter 1). ** **One of the first errors of thinking I had to amend was thinking that sensory impairments are grouped together. WRONG! In some ways they are polar opposites. This caused me to reflect on just exactly what is meant by universal design. he goal is that learning activities must be flexible. Allow students to learn in ways that are most responsive to them. There is an algorithm here. Though sketchy, it goes like this. When creating a lesson with universal design: ** **Finally, one area that has piqued my interest that I would like to delve deeper into is in the area of reinforcing. In the 1970’s we all talked positive/negative reinforcement theory, Pavlov and the like. I remember discussion of variable and invariable intervals when reinforcement might occur. I worry that with the digital media that young people access on a daily basis, we must study what methods in today’s highly charged world of electronics what stimulates behavior and change? ** **REFERENCES **
 * **Identify educational standards **
 * **Create objectives that meet the standards **
 * **Write goals broadly enough so that they may be attained by various means **
 * **Create learning activities that are designed to give students options as to how they want to express their successes with the learning objectives. **
 * **Use rubrics which help to break tasks down to elementary parts to help students construct their learning experience **

**CAST: Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Retrieved on April 1, 2012 from [|www.cast.org]. ** **Google Images: Image retrieved from [|www.google.com] ; buffet, wikiality.wikia.com. Retrieved April 1, 2012 ** **Pitler,H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., and Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ** **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved at the Center for Applied Special Tecvhnology Web site. Chapter. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from [| http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes] ** **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools. New school. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, Chapter 4, 77-98. ** **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Sprague, D. & Dede, C. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this way, am I doing my job? //Leading and Learning//, 27(1). Retrieved on February 28, 2012 from [| http://imet.csus.edu/imet9/280/docs/dede_constructivisim.pdf] ** _________________________________________________________-___________________________________________________________________

= = = = =What I learned in Week 4 by K. Buddy Bauer: IT WORKS IF YOU WORK IT=

===Both Pitler’s (2007) article for McRel Technology Initiative and Solomon & Schrum (2007) discussed professional development for teachers who are being called upon to infuse technology into their curriculum. (Though not meant facetiously, I couldn’t help but smile that Pitler (2007) described the professional development as an //<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">intervention //.) Nonetheless, McRel Technology Initiative is a systematic and research-based method for training teachers. Many helpful guidelines and resources were offered throughout both texts to provide a framework for training. I plan to pass these resources on to administrators. “I f teachers are not adequately and appropriately trained in the use of technology, its impact on student performance is minimal” (p. 4) ===

=== Though I’ve been a proponent of the teaching method “constructivism” for 12 years, I was enriched by reading Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Makenoski’s (2007) //<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that // Works to learn about the many ways students can construct knowledge in the Web 2.0 world. In the past, when I aimed to teach in a constructivism fashion, I was--if the topic was at all esoteric--I was compelled to plant ideas and even “teach” the group when I wanted them to “construct.” Now, with access to the World Wide Web, students can collect and gather the foundational information, and then my input is less of a teacher, but rather more of an editor. ===

=== Also, now five courses into the program, I //get// the power of the blog. I did something a little different this class and took time to respond back to those who posted to my quote. With 4 other classmates we had an //<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">exchange. // I see now the potential for building relationships with blogging. In fact, the same kind of exchange led to the current group I’m working with. This group experience has been tremendous and we hooked up by commenting on each others' discussion board posts. Like the Alcoholics Anonymous groups like to say at the end of their meetings: It works if you work it. That’s the key to successful blogging. ===

=== Pitler, H. (2005). //<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report //. (Contract Number: ED-01-CO-0006). Retrieved March 20, 2012 from Lamar University’s Learning Management System. ===

===<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new school//. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education. ===.

= = = = = = = = = = = CASTing Pearls = === To enumerate the points I have learned during Week 3 of EDLD 5364 “Teaching with Technology” would end up being a cut-and-pasted, bullet-ed list. This was the single most powerful week of the Education Technology Leadership program thus far. Theories of multiple intelligences and Bloom’s Taxonomy, Rose’s (2002) three brain networks, Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski's (2007) planning questions and instructional strategies; and Solomon & Schrum's (2007) specific Web 2.0 tools applied have all converged into a framework for how to create a universally accommodating, multi-sensory, universally designed lesson building foundation; essentially, //customized learning// (Rose, Chapter 2, n.p.). With the week three assignment case scenario as the backdrop, creating a universally designed lesson became the focal point. As a college faculty I have never had to write a lesson plan intersecting principles of differentiated learning within the context of state standards. It was a daunting task; and, honestly, I am still not confident that I have met the mark. Since it is a first for me, I look forward to the feedback that will come from the assignment. Nonetheless, in the 25 years I have been a teacher, I have never felt so inspired or energized to //create//. I feel like I have been given a host of tools and theories to work with. What I need now, most of all, is more practice with applying these principles to my own field of study: ASL/English interpreter education. I am a bit flummoxed with trying to create lessons in areas and grade levels I have no experience or expertise. === === There have been many outstanding tools introduced throughout the program, but currently I am most enamored with the CAST website. Not only does it provide lesson builders and “book builders,” I am blown away with how much other teachers are willing to share their expertise and work. It inspires me to want to create worthy lessons and books not only to honor the diverse learners in my corner of the world, but to share with others, and have a collegiate exchange. === .  Pitler,H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., and Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning//. Alexanderia, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved at the Center for Applied Special Tecvhnology Web site. Chapter. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from []

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools. New school. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, Chapter 4, 77-98.