Universal Design for Learning
David Rose, Ed. D., Center for Applied Special Technology
With Anne Meyer, Ed.D.
We are delighted to introduce a special forum of JSET that
will be devoted to Universal Design for Learning jUDL). We
applaud the editors of JSET for their foresight in focusing
attention on this new approach within our field. We look
forward to this ongoing forum as an opportunity to solidify the
foundations of Universal Design for Learning, to publish
research and examples that will stimulate its growth, and to
air criticisms to sharpen and correct its direction.
Although the general approach called Universal Design,
first applied in architecture, is now over a decade old,
application of the concept to education is new. Therefore we
provide a brief introduction to the field of Universal Design,
describe how the same core concepts can be applied to
information technologies, and explain the Center for Applied
Special Iechnology's ICASTI concept of Universal Design for
Learning (UDLI which differentiates access to information
from the process of learning. This column lays the
groundwork for further articles addressing core concepts of
VOL and the application of UDL in curriculum design and
classroom practice. A fuller presentation of these issues can be
found in our forthcoming book, tentatively entitled: Universal
Design for Learning: Mind Media and Instructional Design,
and on the CAST web site at wwwccst.org,
THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Universal Design in architecture emerged from the access
needs of people with disabilities. For example, stairs into and
within buildings provide access to many but form barriers for
individuals mobile in wheelchairs. The traditional solution
was to add ramps and elevators after the building had been
completed in an inaccessible fashion. lWo factors contributed
to the birth of Universal Design: the usefulness of these
alternatives for the population as a whole, and the problems
caused by retrofitting buildings.
Ramps, elevators, curb cuts and the like, initially installed
to accommodate people with disabilities, proved useful for the
population as a whole. People with strollers or shopping carts,
luggage, bicycles and skateboards all benefited from
alternatives to stairs and curbs.
Retrofitting buildings increased access for all, but also
created many new problems. The additions were frequently
positioned ineffectively or inconveniently, were aesthetically
disastrous, and cost an exorbitant amount of money.
In the field of architecture a movement grew around the
idea of designing buildings from the outset to be accessible to
everyone. That movement, named by Ron Mace, became
known as "Universal Design". Architects practicing Universal
Joumal of Special Education Technology. 15(1), Winter 2000
Associate Editor's Column
Design create structures that from the outset accommodate
the widest spectrum of users, including those with disabilities.
In universal-designed environments, adaptability is subtle and
integrated into the design. Designing for the divergent needs
of special populations increases usability for everyone.
Because universal-designed buildings were superior to
retrofitted buildings functionally, aesthetically, and
economically, schools of architecture began including courses
on Universal Design and the movement spread to commercial
products, landscape design, transportation, and many other
fields. Universal Design does not imply "one size fits all" but
rather acknowledges the need for alternatives to suit many
different people's needs.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN APPUED TO EDUCATION
In the early 90's educators at CAST began to recognize
that learning materials such as books were analogous to stairs.
For many learners, printed books provide access to the
knowledge of our culture, but for students with physical,
sensory, and cognitive disabilities, among others, books
present insurmountable barriers. Print presents information
one way for everyone, yet students' varied learning needs and
styles call for alternative formats. For example, a bright
student with dyslexia may be capable of understanding history
and science concepts but his inability to decode words
prevents him from learning these concepts from printed
books. A student with a visual impairment who cannot see
standard sized text is excluded from examining the concepts
that are cognitively accessible to her.
Assistive technologies existed that improved access to the
content of books, but, like retrofitted ramps in buildings, these
technologies were expensive, awkward to use, and they
isolated learners from their peers. For example, video enlargers
enable learners to enlarge the text in a printed book, but they
are expensive and cumbersome to carry around.
With the advent of digitizing tools and multimedia and
hypermedia software, it became possible to explore electronic
alternatives to printed books with "built in" means of access to
address varied learners' needs. In the late 1980's and early
1990's CAST developed electronic books and book templates
with built-in options that could be turned on and off, such as
text-to-speech, scanning of controls for use with a single
switch, and speak-aloud controls. These options increased
access for students with learning, physical, or sensory
disabilities but did not get in the way of learners who did not
wish to use them. These designs were published in 1992 as
"Gateway Stories" and "Gateway Authoring System" by Don
Johnston Developmental Equipment, providing accessible
61
~ Journal of 5pllclal Education Technology
versions of children's books and a template for teachers,
parents, and students to create their own accessible stories.
Soon it became apparent that electronic books with options
for students with disabilities offered useful features for all
learners. 'Ieachers in our research classrooms reponed that
students with disabilities using the Gateway software were
commonly surrounded by other students who liked these
electronic books and seemed to learn from them.
These insights led CAST to design prototypes for
electronic books that could support all students in learning to
read and write. We sought to distribute these new kinds of
books through mainstream education channels so that they
would become a pan of regular classrooms rather than being
oriented to special learners. We presented one of these
prototypes to Scholastic, with whom we then worked
collaboratively for the next two years to design
'Wtggleworks r" ," an early literacy program in print and on
CD-ROM. "Wiggleworks"'," designed and marketed
successfully as a mainstream literacy program, contains built-
in features that make it accessible to students with physical,
sensory, and learning disabilities.
In the midst of CAST's work on "l17gg]eWorks r ,, " with
Scholastic, an architect on our board listened to what we were
doing and brought us to a conference for architects in Boston.
There she introduced us to Ron Mace, the architect who
coined the term ''Universal Design." We saw the parallels
between our work with curriculum materials and the concepts
of Universal Design in architecture: [a] building alternative
access in from the beginning of the design is more functional,
integrated, and economical than retrofitting; and Ibl built-in
alternatives prove to be valuable to the population at large.
At this stage, we embraced the concept of Universal
Design and began applying it to the design of learning
materials, methods, and assessment. Because access to
information and access to learning are different in character
and present different challenges, we created the term
"Universal Design for Learning" to differentiate learning from
access.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
There is a very important difference between Universal
Design as it is applied in architecture and product design, and
Universal Design for Learning. Non-educators often make the
mistake of equating "access to information" with "access to
learning." In so doing, they assume that the goal of universal
design in education is achieved by creating materials in which
information is more accessible. But increasing access can
actually decrease or eliminate a learning opportunity For
example, having electronic text where the computer can read
all of the words aloud is a powerful way of making the text
more accessible. But if the goal is to teach a dyslexic child how
to decode unfamiliar words, such accessibility may be counter-
68
productive. On the other hand, if the goal is to learn science
concepts, having the computer read the text aloud could
enhance the learning opportunity for a student with dyslexia.
The difference is in the goals. The professional mover
aims to move heavy objects with the least investment of effort
and the greatest efficiency. Hence, he uses a dolly or an
electronic lift. The athlete in training aims to build muscle.
Hence she supports the muscles not being trained and lifts
heavy weights with the target muscles. The learner more
resembles the athlete than the professional mover. Education
is an exercise in constructing knowledge and skills. It requires
a careful balance of support and resistance. Thus Universal
Design for access provides the greatest amount of support
possible at all times, while Universal Design for Learning
requires careful attention to the goals of any given learning
experience so that a balance of challenge and support can
maximize the learning opportunity
In fact, teachers practicing Universal Design for Learning
find themselves questioning the way in which they
conceptualize and articulate assignments. Is the goal to write
a story, or to create a narrative? Is the instruction to write your
name on the paper or to identify your work? As in other
applications of Universal Design, well-executed UDL
engenders constructive re-evaluation and reformulation that
ultimately benefits all learners.
What we mean by learning, then, is not merely that
children have access to materials and Information. What we
mean is that children have access to the learning itself, that
they experience changes in their knowledge and skills and that
they grow in their capacity to learn more. Such an emphasis
causes us to focus on the goals of the curriculum rather than
its contents. What is it that we are aiming to teach? Do we
want students to know and recall the causes of the U.S. Civil
Wat; or do we want them to know how to evaluate cause and
effect through studying historical documents. Either might be
the goal, but articulating the goal carefully is essential for
successful implementation of OOL. Only with a clear concept
of the goal do we know what aspects of a learning task can be
varied to support learner differences, and which aspects of the
task must be held constant.
What do we mean by Universal?
The word "universal," used in the context of Universal
Design for Learning, is sometimes misunderstood. 10 many
people the tenn seems to imply that UDL is a quest for a
single, one size-fits-all, solution that will work for everyone. In
fact, the very opposite is true. The essence of OOL is flexibility
and the inclusion of alternatives to adapt to the myriad
variations in learner needs, styles, and preferences.
One basic premise of UDL is that a curriculum should
include alternatives that make the learning in it accessible and
applicable to students with different backgrounds, learning
~ Journal of Special Education Technology
styles, abilities, and disabilities. The "universal" in Universal
Design for Learning does not imply a single solution for
everyone, but rather it underscores the need for inherently
flexible, customizable content, assignments, and activities.
Flexibility is essential for two reasons: [a] individual
differences between learners and (bI differences between
instructional media.
Individual Differences. Research in the neural and
cognitive sciences has increasingly stressed the multiplicityof
influences, which make up our human capacity. Study of the
brain, the organ that we learn with, reveals it to be an organ
that is a collection of many specialized components. It is not
one universal or general-purpose learning device but rather a
toolbox filled with many different kinds of neural learning
tools, each devoted to a specific purpose.
Individual differences among learners reflect that
specialization. That is, individuals differ from one another not
just along some universal continuum (like IQI but they differ
from one another alongmany dimensions of specialization in
the brain. Whereas psychologists used to assess the differences
between individuals on the basisof a singledimension such as
IQ, it is more common now to understand individual
differences in terms of composites of specialized skills and
abilities [e.g, Howard Gardner's work] or "many kinds of
minds" [Levine]. When we focus on categorical differences
between learnerssuch as "disabled/non-disabled" or "gifted/not
gifted," we miss the many differences between learnerswithin
a category and the many similarities between learners across
categories. UDL assumes that every learner is an individual
with individual needs, interests, strengths, and limitations.
UDL achieves the goal of meeting individual needs by
providing alternatives, not by seekinga single solution for all.
Providing both stairs and ramps is preferable to trying to
invent a singlemethod of entry that works for all peopleat all
times. Alternatives offer increased access for those who need
it and alsoofferopportunitiesforeveryone to choose according
to circumstances. Sometimes we prefer to use the stairs [e.g.,
to keep in shape, to avoid waiting for the elevator) and
sometimes we preferto use the elevator such as for very long
verticalclimbs or for carryinga lot of luggage.
Media Differences. There is no universal medium of
instruction. Different media present different challenges,
different demands on the learner, and different strengths in
conveying different kinds of meaning. Consequently, the
"universal" in OOL refers to a selection of alternative media
and also the capacity to transform content from one medium
to another. These options accommodate several kinds of
media, chosen as appropriate to the task and to the learner
rather than to any assumption about the pre-eminenceof one
medium or another.
Only through a process of design that recognizes the
differentiated strengths and weaknesses of both students and
Rose
media can we hope to create learning contexts and materials
that are flexible enough to accommodate all learners.
Alternatives, and the flexibility for transforming the way
material is presented and the way students respond, are
central to UDL. The "universal" in OOL implies not one
method or medium for all students but multiple methods and
media to achieveone goal-success-for all students.
How UDL Addresses Learner Differences
Applying universal design to learning materials and
activities can increase access for learnerswith wide disparities
in their abilities to see, heal; speak, move, read, write,
understand English, attend, organize, focus, engage, and
remember. For example, history texts provided in standard
print formats are inaccessible to students who are blind and
present barriers to students who are dyslexic or for whom
English is a second language. The same material in universal-
designed electronic format can offer options for different
learners. It can be (al read aloud by a computer or screen
reader, (bl printed on a Braille printer; lcl offered in spoken or
written translation, [d] presented with highlighted main
points and organizational supports, and [e] includehyperlinks
to definitions, elaborations, and related media for more in-
depth understanding. These options, in some casescriticalfor
students with disabilities, also offer new learning
opportunities for students with a range of learning needs,
interests, and abilities.
The role of technology in Universal Design for learning
Although UDL would be theoretically possible using
traditional materials, it is not practically feasible. Offering the
varied content, tools, options for expression, and media to
provide the necessary alternatives would consume more
space, cost more, and require more logistical management
than most schools could afford. Consequently, UDL involves
the use of digitalmultimedia technologies. Two characteristics
of digital multimedia make it ideally supportive of UDLj its
versatility and its flexibility.
Versatility. With appropriate software, a computer can
emulate a textbook, an audio CD player, a video game, a
phone, a VCR, a spreadsheet, a drafting table, an editing
studio, or even a battlefield. Through a computer we can
control and combine many of these separate tools to create
hybrids of great power. Books that talk, a database that dials
the phone, or a video with an audio and a text track are all
possible.
Flexibility. 'Ieachers know that students vary in the
strengths and limitations of their sensory, motor,
motivational, and emotional makeup, their amount of
exposure to literacy, their languages and cultural backgrounds,
and their preferred learning styles. Unlike print, where one
size is supposed to fit all, digital media are malleable and can
69
~ Journal of Special Education Tedmology
be adjusted for different learners.
Digital multimedia are not, however; inherendy UDL.
Multimedia can be just as inaccessible as printed textbooks.
Computer learning games, for example, are usually highly
inaccessible to many students; the images are inaccessible to
blind students, the aural prompts and feedback are
inaccessible to deaf students, the text-based explanations are
inaccessible to students with dyslexia, and so on. All of these
barriers are easily avoidable with proper design of the software.
The inherent flexibility of multimedia creates an opportunity
for UDL, but only proper design can make it a reality.
Universal Design and AssistiveTechnology
Because Universal Design for Learning utilizes the power
of digital technology, the term is sometimes confused with
assistive technology. How do they differ?
Assistive technology is designed to help individual
students access the mainstream curriculum. Under most
circumstances, the assistive technology is necessary because
the mainstream curriculum is inflexible and inaccessible to
that student without it. In the assistive technology model, the
curriculum itself doesn't change, but the student uses a tool to
help himlher access the curriculum.
A video enlarger is an example of an assistive technology
that can make a textbook more accessible to a student who
has low vision. By placing any traditional book or text in the
enlarger, the print can be magnified optically. Note that the
enlarger is not a part of the curriculum, it is a device used by
an individual student to overcome a barrier inherent in the
curriculum's original design. A UDL curriculum, on the other
hand, would include a digital version of the textbook from the
publisher that could be used by any student. The font and
image size of that version could easily be varied to meet
individual preferences of any student, or the text could be read
aloud by the computer as an additional scaffold. No additional
70
tools are needed. With UDL1 the curriculum itself is flexible
and customizable with scaffolds already built in.
Other examples of assistive technologies are [a]
alternative keyboards, [b] motorized wheelchairs, Ie) adaptive
switches, [d] Braille typewriters, [e] hearing aids, l~ pencil
grips, and Igl picture boards. The focus of these assistive
technologies is the individual student with a disability; the
focus of UDL is the classroom curriculum with all of its
intended students.
Will UDL replace assistive technology? No. Assistive
technologies will always have a role in the education of some
learners. Children with physical disabilities need properly
designed wheelchairs, adaptive switches to control devices, or
speech synthesizers. VOL will not eliminate the need for such
devices. But such devices will be used for the same reasons we
use eyeglasses, that is, to enhance our abilities rather than to
compensate for inadequately designed learning materials.
Exclusive emphasis on assistive technologies places the
burden of adaptation on the learner not the curriculum. The
idea that students must procure or "be prescribed" special
individual tools whenever theycannot use standard curriculum
undermines learning for everyone. Exclusively print-based tools
and methods, uncaptioned videos and software, undescribed
images and posters, all create a culture of failure for many of our
children. As Universal Design for Learning becomes viable and
pervasive, assistive technology will no longer be required to
make up for inadequacies in curriculum.
CONCLUSION
JSET provides an exciting context for exploring the
relationships between special education technologies and
Universal Design for Learning. In the boundaries and overlaps
between these complementary approaches to using
technology, we will ultimately find the solutions that our
students, all of them, will need.