The Universal Design for Learning Approach Paper Example

Introduction

The Universal Design for Learning is a structure used for guiding the delivery and construction meant to assist all learning students (Zigmond, 2006). UDL also consist essential public policies that had an impact on both students that are disabled or not. According to research, the description of EDL was related to instructional support, respect to assessment, as well as technology for engineering, math, and science for disabled students and English language learners. In other words, UDL is a strong influence of policies. However, systems from UDL have no guarantee that the practice of education will have an impact that will result in better instructions (Klingner, 2004). With this said, this article will, therefore, elaborate more on the role of the UDL approach and how it will improve the vocabulary performance of adolescent by using the Evidence-based Multimedia.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Literature Review

According to Kauffman & Hallahan (2005), UDL is a paradoxical system that exists in the field of adolescent because of the instructions it offers to meet their educational needs. The aim of this system is to create personal guidance to mitigate how it impacts the adolescent due to the given set or task of demands. Zigmond (2006), on the other hand, implied that all practices derived from the UDL approach were always grounded in evidence.

Xin & Rieth (2001), Deshler & Lloyd (2013), and Vaughn et al., (2009), claimed that throughout their research, they discovered that technology was effective in delivering vocabulary instructions. When UDL was related to accessible curricula and materials by focusing on instructional materials, it became flexible enough to meet all learners' need. The developments of Technology concurrently enhanced learning and teaching through UDL framework because of the power of technology which empowered students, encouraged independence and made learning more individualized, affordable by the flexibility within technologies like digital texting,, flexible based-assessment systems and text-to-speech software. (Basham, Meyer & Perry, 2010).

Israel and Morino (2014) also affirmed that technology was integrated into learning and teaching especially when it was used within the framework of UDL. However, the UDL framework could not apply to kids that have learning disabilities because there was a need for additional support. UDL also had other challenges because of the widespread concerning the instructions that technology was something for everyone. Nevertheless, Basham and Marino, (2013), had disagreements on the claim because of the confusion brought among the researchers, practitioners, and policymakers because of lack of the suitable mechanisms to measure and identify the desired instructions.

Ralabate et al., (2012), on the other hand, examined the implementation of UDL at the local and state levels and discovered that even though it is broadly recognized it also had many state technology plans and so the confusion brought by UDL came up because of other initiatives and how it was implemented. Although most surveyors investigated and developed measures that evaluated UDL as a framework, Basham & Gardner (2010), discovered that the nature of UDL makes learning for adolescent easier and faster than when compared for special educators to students with learning disabilities. King-Sears (2009), affirmed that even though the standards are facilitated, the UDL can be considered as a guiding framework because it interfaced with the relevant and existing instructional approach.

The reason behind the use of UDL according to Kaplan & Maehr (2007), was that teachers already addressed the issue of monitoring the data-based decisions within the UDL context. To facilitate this, the authors added that the effectiveness of this framework requires the teachers to give prompt feedback to students in a way that they are guided towards their success. In this way, the young group will differentiate between their motivation, performance and goals and the assessment practice. When this is done, it will be easier for the teachers to offer mastery-oriented feedback while the adolescent students invested more in studying not for the sake of learning but as a way of increasing their self-efficacy, self-regulation, and persistence (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007).

Having mentioned that UDL can provide an guiding framework where the evidence-based multimedia should be facilitate, teachers should have the understanding how the framework of UDL can meet the requirements of all learners as well as making them understand the impact of the instruction that comes with the UDL framework. Therefore, as the adolescent learn more about the UDL framework, teachers will have the chance of seeing how the practice would fit within the context of the UDL.

Conclusion

UDL is a framework designed to give practical recommendations that guided and assisted the adolescents about the programs that helped them to learn efficiently and fluently. To address the limitations as mentioned earlier, the research study was purposed to use the multimedia-based intervention to reflect UDLs principles to give a more specific instructional framework. However, it was discovered that even though it is broadly recognized it also had many state technology plans. Moreover, the nature of UDL makes learning for adolescent easier and faster than when compared for special educators to students with learning disabilities. We, therefore, propose that the UDL framework to be improved and shaped particularly for vocabulary performance for adolescents that either has learning disabilities or not.

References

Basham, J. D., & Gardner, J. E. (2010). Measuring Universal Design for Learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12, 15-19.

Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 8-15.

Basham, J. D., Meyer, H., & Perry, E. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,42,339-359. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782555

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review,19, 141-184. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5

Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

King-Sears, M. E. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199-201

Klingner, J. K. (2004). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248-255. doi:10.1177/00222194040370031001

Deshler, D. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2013). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:10.1177/0022219413487406

Israel, M., & Marino, M. T. (2014). Innovation configuration on supporting K-12 students with disabilities in content learning through technology (Document No. IC-10). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: ttp://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Ralabate, P., Dodd, E., Vue, G., Karger, J., Smith, F., Carlisle, A., & Eidelman, H. (2012). Understanding the impact of the race to the top and ARRA funding on the promotion of universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on UDL.

Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, C. K., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297-324. doi:10.1080/19345740903167018

Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87-103.

Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social studies classrooms: A reality check. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 249-268. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560500455711