[senit] UDL

Ann, Simon:

This has been a brilliant couple of days of really thoughtful  
messages. I'm sure many (if not all) of us are on the list due to the  
combination of a real love of working with students who have various  
special needs (interpret that as you wish, there are so many terms  
floating about), and a bit of what many people would probably see as a  
geeky enthusiasm for technology. I personally find the techie bits  
fairly interesting, but it's great to see educational principles and  
philosophy getting their share of airtime.

For me, the fascinating bullet point of the three is part 2  -  
multiple options for expression and control.
Also great to see Ira's comment about moving away from the 'medical  
model'. This has always been a major element in our school's ethos,  
whereby we want to know about skills, abilities and educational  
assessment - medical terms and labels don't really help much in that  
process.

Best,

Sean O'Sullivan
sean.frankwise at easynet.co.uk
Headteacher
Frank Wise School, Banbury
http://www.frankwise.oxon.sch.uk

http://www.parkroadict.co.uk

On 1 Apr 2008, at 18:04, Ira David Socol wrote:

> Ann, Simon:
> One nice start point is
> http://jset.unlv.edu/18.4/hitchcock/first.html
> But I'd say - that in the ten years people have carried this overall  
> concept in different directions.
> So, for me, the "multiple" choices has become the focus, with an  
> emphasis on choice and a move away from "diagnosis and  
> prescription." Thus, particularly in literacy and writing, my focus  
> has been on the question of (first) what differences there might be  
> if a student acquires text through audio or screen-reading vs.  
> traditional ink-on-paper, and (second) if there is a difference what  
> can we suggest to teachers in terms of giving students what they  
> need, and (third) what students will tend to choose what 'tools' for  
> which tasks?
> Example: We did a project with 13-year-olds and history curriculum,  
> and made text-to-speech available to all students in a fully  
> inclusive school, and were fascinated to see that almost every  
> student made some use of it. Many for just unfamiliar words, others  
> for difficult passages, some used the computer speech as their  
> exclusive content delivery system. The issue of dyslexia seemed to  
> vanish from the rooms involved, and teachers reported better results  
> with students with "attention issues" as well.
> Another big push is in assessment, and CAST has an oline journal  
> heavily devoted to that.
> There are many people working in many areas of UDL, maybe we can  
> hear a few more voices.
> Ira
> Simon Judge writes:
>> This is an interesting thread, thanks.  - What is the key paper/ 
>> study to read on these principles (not the book!)?  - How does it  
>> differ from the principles of differentiation in the UK? Cheers.
>> Simon -----Original Message-----
>> From: senit-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>> [mailto:senit-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ann
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:41 PM
>> To: senit at lists.becta.org.uk
>> Subject: [senit] UDL Hi Jamie, Universal Design for Learning (UDL)  
>> is a phrase I haven't seen for a while.
>> I hope Mike Blamires is still reading SENIT postings as it was  
>> something he
>> was very interested in and I am sure will have much to contribute  
>> on the
>> subject. He wrote an excellent chapter about it in Enabling  
>> Technology.
>> Extracting my copy from the bookshelf, I see that the Centre for  
>> Applied
>> Special Technology (CAST) proposed 3 principles that could be  
>> applied to the
>> curriculum and set an agenda for Inclusion, as follows: 1. Provide  
>> multiple representations of content.
>> 2. Provide multiple options for expression and control.
>> 3. Provide multiple options for engagement and motivation.  I  
>> wonder how far we have moved along that route in the ten years  
>> since they
>> were proposed??