Universal Design for Learning and the Teaching of Social Studies

After conducting research into the idea of Universal Design for Learning, I created a rubric based on the principles of UDL. To test the rubric, a study was conducted in which participants were asked to evaluate a Stanford History Education Group lesson plan using my rubric. Before the study, the rubric was tested for ambiguities by four other respondents. The rubric was then modified based on their feedback, and then the rubric was used by 95 participants to evaluate the selected lesson plan. UDL AND SOCIAL STUDIES 3 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has been gaining attention in recent years as educators strive to make the educational curriculum accessible to all. Often, educators have to accommodate students with special needs; UDL reduces the need for these accommodations by building them into everyday instruction. The use of UDL is a means of designing a curriculum that is more flexible, adapting to the needs of the students rather than forcing the students to adapt (Rose & Strangman, 2007). The use of UDL is often associated with technology, although it is possible to implement UDL without much technology (Rose, Gravel, & Domings, 2010). While UDL has been gaining attention to improve inclusion, history educators have been paying attention to history curricula that teaches students how to think like historians (Ohio Council for the Social Studies). If social studies teachers implement these recommended curricula, but also need to include students with disabilities in their classrooms, UDL might be an important framework for their instruction. The question, though, is whether these curricula are actually designed with UDL principles or if that would require an adaptation to the published lessons by teachers. Recommended History Curricula The Stanford History Education Group (SHEG) has developed a curriculum that uses primary source documents to teach history (Stanford History Education Group). Rather than giving the students the answers to historical questions, the SHEG curriculum has the students seek out the answers through the interpretation of primary sources, teaching them how to think like a historian. Ohio’s New Learning Standards for the Social Studies and the ELA Common Core State Standards both “include expectations for students to analyze documents and compose historical narratives” (Ohio Council for the Social Studies). The curriculum developed by SHEG has students engage in these activities. However, there will still be students who need UDL AND SOCIAL STUDIES 4 differentiated instruction, which leaves teachers with a need to determine how to accommodate the needs of diverse students while accomplishing the goals of social studies teaching. Principles of UDL All students are different (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2011), which is why teachers need to differentiate instruction so that it meets the needs of all students. UDL provides a means for teachers to accomplish this goal. Meo (2008) discusses that students are often divided into two categories, regular and special, which oversimplifies things. The traditional curriculum presents barriers to some students, leading to a need for a curriculum that is designed to overcome these barriers. Lee and Picanco (2013) hold that there are different phases of learning and that each student learns at their own rate. As such, some students are left behind in the traditional instructional setting. Differentiating instruction is a way to ensure that all students acquire the necessary skills, and UDL is one method for achieving this goal. According to Edyburn (2010), UDL stemmed from a concern to make it possible for students with disabilities to access the general curriculum. UDL is not accommodation, meaning that it is built into the instruction rather than added later based on the needs of each student. For a teaching practice to be UDL, it has to have these accommodations built into it. UDL is a set of principles for the development of a curriculum that is equally accessible to all students. Universally designed instruction includes multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement (Bouck, 2009). There is wide disagreement as to whether technology is required to meet these goals. Rose, Gravel, and Domings (2010) examined an elementary science lesson plan that does not use technology, concluding that it meets most of the goals of UDL and that UDL can thus be implemented in a low-tech manner as long as the lesson itself is well-planned. Brand, Favazza, and Dalton (2012) agree, holding that teachers should have ranges of acceptable UDL AND SOCIAL STUDIES 5 work that vary based on a student’s ability. Brand, Favazza, and Dalton (2012) also discuss the idea that modifications should be given to the students who require them, such as extended time on tests or an option to take the test orally. On the other hand, Edyburn (2010) disagrees with the idea that UDL can be implemented without technology, holding that technology is an essential part of UDL. He holds that UDL is only possible today because of the introduction of modern technology that provides more flexibility (p. 38). While it is true that technology makes it easier to adapt the curriculum, there are other ways to incorporate UDL principles, as shown by the ideas presented by Brand, Favazza, and Dalton above. Rose (2000) holds that it is possible to implement UDL without technology, but would not be practical. Digital materials can have benefits for students, but not all digital media adheres to UDL principles as there are still barriers in some digital media. Studies Examining UDL The digital backpack, discussed by Basham, Meyer, and Perry, provides students with a variety of technologies to use in their education. The authors did a study involving the digital backpack, using their own design, thus making this a study in high-tech UDL. Their backpacks contained laptops with word processors and movie-editing software, technologies that could be switched for different learning experiences, and instructional support materials. The study found that using the digital backpack encouraged students to take charge of their learning. The Virtual History Museum is a resource specifically designed for use with the social studies curriculum (Bouck, 2009). The teacher sets up “exhibits,” which include artifacts, text written by the teacher, and activities. The activities are available in both regular and supported formats, with such supports as speech-to-text and a “historian’s notebook” for note-taking. This resource gets the students engaged and interested in the material, as well as enabling the UDL AND SOCIAL STUDIES 6 implementation of UDL principles. The use of the Virtual History Museum is an example of lowtech UDL, as the Virtual History Museum could be the only electronic resource used. Scruggs (2012) discussed a case in which peer-tutoring was used as a means to differentiate instruction. In this instance, students all used the same materials and methods, but they were able to spend more time on areas with which they had difficulty. The materials were also available to the students online so that they could access them at home. Those who did not have Internet at home were given hard copies of the material for home. The students who were engaged in peer tutoring acquired a better knowledge of both target material (what they were expected to learn) and nontarget material (additional information). This was a rather low-tech means of differentiating instruction, which benefitted all students. In each of these studies, the use of UDL improved student engagement. The students took charge of their learning and seemed to learn more than students in classes that did not use UDL. While UDL is often associated with modern technology, it is possible, as seen from these studies, to implement UDL without the use of much technology at all. Purpose of this Study While UDL is something that is widely held to be a good idea, everyone seems to have different views on what really constitutes UDL. Using the literature review above, the goal of this project was to create a rubric for evaluating the degree to which published lessons, such as the Reading Like a Historian lessons published by the Stanford History Education Group, adhere to UDL principles and enable for differentiated instruction. This study will answer the following research questions: (1) Can students in an undergraduate course on inclusive education use a rubric to evaluate whether a published lesson adheres to principles of UDL? (2) Will students from different majors (e.g., Early Childhood, Intervention Specialist) evaluate a published lesson UDL AND SOCIAL STUDIES 7 differently? (3) How will students suggest changes to a published lesson plan and will these changes adhere to principles of UDL? And, (4) What benefits and obstacles do students see in implementing UDL?