Confused about the differences between Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL)? A previous post explains the two concepts in basic terms, and from two perspectives – one from Katie Novak and the other from New ZealandMinistry of Education. But what about the literature on this topic?
A recent systematic review provides an insight into the views of the two approaches to inclusion. And yes, there is a bit of “fuzziness” between the two.
The systematic review confirmed that confusion exists when examining the two frameworks. They explored twenty-seven peer-reviewed articles and found three interpretations of the two approaches. One was to diminish one approach in favour of the other, another was to include DI within UDL, and incompatibility was the third approach.
The authors conclude the approaches are complementary theories; DI is embedded within UDL and that DI is a model independent of UDL. However, descriptions of the interrelationships in the literature tended to rely on perception rather than evidence.
The authors reference studies that show they are both are inclusive pedagogical models. They have the potential to transform education systems by counteracting the existing one-size-fits-all approach.
The article provides a salient overview of the importance of pedagogical approaches that aim to reach all students, as a foundation to truly inclusive education.
The title of the article is, ” Exploring the interrelationship between Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI): A systematic review”. It’s open source from ScienceDirect.
How likely are university students to disclose their disability? The answer is related to whether the disability is visible. The concern of being stigmatised is real and is a form of exclusion. Of course, if the disability is visible then stigma is already part of the student’s life. A recent study found students with invisible disability will be less likely to make use of the institution’s accommodations for disability. However, if the teaching staff were helpful and accommodating anyway, the need for seeking institutional support was reduced. An interesting and relatively easy read for a thesis.
“Students with invisible disabilities in the current study were less likely to use accommodations and self-disclose their disability status to the institution, and students with visible disabilities had used accommodations more often than their peers with invisible disabilities. Research has indicated that students with invisible disabilities perceive revealing one’s disability status as an important decision because it moves the person from a non-stigmatized identity to a stigmatized one.
“This study also found that when professor knowledge and understanding were well-received, students were less likely to self-disclose. This is consistent with research that has indicated students who did not disclose said they felt they didn’t need accommodations because their professors were helpful and accepting of their disability without needing institutional documentation (Cole & Cawthon, 2015). When students do not feel supported by professors, they are more likely to advocate for their rights and self-disclose to the institution, which occurs more regularly for students with invisible disabilities (Marshak et al., 2010).
The topics in this issue of Access Insight focus on educational facilities and students. “Equitable Design in Educational Architecture” covers some of the basics in designing schools. Avoiding ramps by integrating grades into landscape features, creating visual cues for students and teachers with low vision, and wayfinding enhancements are discussed. “Primary school hearing of primary importance” discusses some of the issues with open plan spaces and student group work when it comes to hearing and speech intelligibility. Is it possible that such designs work against the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act? “Tertiary Education Facilities and Access Challenges” looks at all the work going on with the extensions to university campuses and how they can better meet the requirements of students and teachers with disability.
Going out of your way to find a solution for one group of people doesn’t always work. That’s what they found when they tried to find the best solutions for helping people with dyslexia. It turned out that the best solutions were those that made reading easier for everyone – the universal design approach. The special reading and writing solutions set them apart and made people “feel stupid”. The conclusion of this study therefore advises that it is better to work within the universal design paradigm than try to develop separate materials for people with dyslexia. The title of the paper is, “I’m not Stupid” – Attitudes Towards Adaptation Among People with Dyslexia. It is available from SpringerLink but you will need institutional access for a free read. It is also a book chapter in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Abstract: A significant portion of the population have dyslexia, which is commonly associated with reading and writing difficulties. In the context of developing materials well-suited for users with reading disorders, one solution has been to develop materials especially targeted at dyslexic users. However, how are the attitudes among users with dyslexia towards adaptation? In this paper, we report the findings from qualitative interviews with 20 adults with dyslexia. The main finding was that they were sceptical towards adapted products, among others because it made them “feel stupid” and because the adapted format affected the reading experience negatively. In this paper we argue to instead work within the universal design paradigm, trying to develop products and services usable by all people, thus reducing the need for particular user groups to utilise “special solutions”.
The attitudes of architecture students to universal design is the focus of a Deakin University study. It builds on previous work (Design 4 Diversity) in 2010 on inter-professional learning for architecture and occupational therapy students. The findings of this latest studyshow that while architecture students viewed access to public environments favourably, there was a mixed response in relation to private homes.
Reasons not to include universal design features in homes included cost, client desires and restrictions on creativity. For example, “Over-designing for the sake of making the residence accessible in the future, just in case, is an unnecessary cost”; “Private homes should be designed to the individual”; and “Legislation restricts design, resulting in negative impacts the ‘requirements’ did not intend”. (Ed Note: These phrases have been used many times by practicing architects and designers as followers of UD are aware.)
The study used a quantitative approach and applied statistical techniques to the data. The first part of the document covers the history of universal design (as all such studies do) and there is an extended section on methods and statistics. For followers of UD, the Discussion section might be of most interest.