The Potential of Mixing It Up
Katie
Saturday morning cartoons were all the rage in the 1980s. Every Saturday morning, I wheeled the piano bench from the den so I could set up a makeshift TV tray for my Cream of Wheat and mug of hot cocoa. Watching television was a rare treat. We weren’t allowed to watch during the week, so on Saturday morning, I sat, mesmerized by animated friends. Leaning over the bench, syrup dripping from my chin, I took in the lineup of Muppet Babies, The Smurfs, and Alvin and the Chipmunks. A lesser-known classic, The Wuzzles, was my favorite.
The Wuzzles was a fanciful cartoon about creatures who were two different animals combined. According to the show, the word wuzzle meant “to mix up.” For my birthday, I asked for a plush version of Bumblelion, who was half bumblebee and half lion. The same year, I was Hoppopotamus—half rabbit, half hippopotamus—for Halloween.
There was something so incredibly whimsical about the Wuzzles and how two different animals could merge together. Each animal had important characteristics, but together, they were . . . better. I mean, a lion who is courageous and can fly? Kismet.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and blended learning (BL) can create a more inclusive, more equitable, more innovative learning landscape that meets the needs of all our learners. But before diving into how UDL and BL work together, let’s unpack the core components and characteristics of the UDL framework.
What Is Universal Design for Learning?
UDL grew out of efforts to help students who were underserved in schools, especially those with disabilities. The innovation came in realizing that lowering barriers for those students also lowered previously unseen barriers for learners who were not identified for special education. This in turn led to a recognition that universally designed education would encompass all learners because human variability is a continuum of difference that changes according to context, opportunity, etc.
The term Universal Design was coined by architect Ronald Mace in 1988. He defined it as the “design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.”1 Buildings that not all people could enter were deemed “architecturally disabling.” UDL adapts Mace’s definition to learning.
When working with educators and schools all over the world, we are sometimes met with “Oh, UDL? We’re already doing that.” The truth is, we are often not. The practice of providing choice in a classroom is often mistaken for UDL, and while choice is certainly a component of UDL, it hardly defines it. If we were truly implementing UDL, all students would have access to advanced coursework, all students would be making progress toward grade-level standards, all students would have autonomy and agency over their learning, and we wouldn’t be making so many damn copies at the copy machine.
We need authentic, self-differentiated, flexible learning to provide equal opportunities for our learners to succeed, regardless of the learning landscape. Our schools are not working equally for all students because we often rely on one-size-fits-all practices out of habit, we don’t know what else to do, or we don’t believe all kids are capable of deep learning in inclusive classrooms. Moving toward full and genuine implementation of UDL is critical.
Oftentimes, educators hear about UDL and think of it as a checklist or collection of strategies. UDL isn’t something you do as much as something you believe about teaching and learning. The UDL framework recognizes and embraces learner variability and provides a lens for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size-fits-all solution. The “universal” concept means we can design a lesson with enough flexibility to work for all learners that remains focused on the same firm goals.
David Rose is a cofounder of CAST and a father of UDL. In a book he coauthored, Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice, he wrote, “Most curricula are designed and developed as if students were homogeneous, and the most common approach to curriculum design is to address the needs of the so-called ‘average student.’ Of course, this average student is a myth, a statistical artifact not corresponding to any actual individual. But because so much of the curriculum and teaching methods employed in most schools are based on the needs of this mythical average student, they are also laden with inadvertent and unnecessary barriers to learning.”2
The Higher Education Opportunity Act defines UDL as “a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (a) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities.”3
If we want all students to have equal opportunities to learn, we have to be incredibly purposeful, proactive, and flexible. This work begins with beliefs about students and the power of design and flexibility to eliminate barriers to learning.
A UDL practitioner believes:
- Variability is the rule, not the exception. Students may need to learn in different ways, using different materials, at different paces, to reach the same goals.
- All students can work toward the same firm goals and grade-level standards when provided with nurturing conditions and adequate support.
- All students will become expert learners if barriers are removed.
These beliefs are the seeds of UDL. All the UDL strategies in the world won’t transform practice if they aren’t in service of the belief that all students can learn, regardless of variability. And to provide equal opportunities to learn, we have to be incredibly flexible, commit to iterative design, and ensure we can elevate and celebrate deep learning regardless of the learning landscape.
Streaming Digital TV and Designing for Autonomy
Do you remember what watching television used to be like before streaming? Programming was on a set schedule. If we wanted to watch Friends growing up, we had to be home and parked on the couch every Thursday night at 8:00 p.m. We had to wait for a commercial break to use the bathroom. And the season finale always left us frustrated, as we’d have to wait an entire summer before learning whether or not Ross and Rachel were getting together. It was torture. We had zero control over our experience as viewers.
Our children have no idea what pre-streaming television was like. They decide what they watch, when they watch, where they watch, and how much they watch (with parent approval, of course).They can pause an episode at any moment to grab a snack or use the bathroom. They rewind an episode if we dare to interrupt and intrude on their experience.
Streaming has shifted control from the networks to the viewer. Our children personalize the experience every time they select content. They control the pace of their progress through a show and decide how much time they will spend watching a particular show . . . one episode or three?
The traditional approach to teaching shares several similarities with network television. Students, like viewers, have to be in a particular place at a particular time to learn and have little to no control over the content or substance of their learning.
It should not surprise anyone that a network television approach to education fails to engage the majority of learners. You might get lucky channel surfing and stumble upon a rerun of a favorite show or an iconic movie like The Breakfast Club. There is a momentary thrill when you think, “Score! The Breakfast Club!” It is quickly followed by the realization you’ll have to sit through endless commercials, but you may stick with it if there isn’t anything better on.
We equate these TV treasures with those teachers who light up a room and captivate students’ attention. We’ve all had teachers who somehow pull us in with their personalities, energy, and passion for their subjects, even if we are not particularly interested in geometry or world history. But although these teachers may captivate the students lucky enough to land in their classrooms, the ability to control one’s learning experience is more likely to move the masses in terms of engagement and motivation.
Like streaming, blended learning is designed to give students control over the time, place, pace, and path of their learning experience. Yet this intentional transfer of control from teacher to learner is often absent from the conversation. It’s because giving up control is scary. It requires us to trust students and believe they are capable of driving their learning.
What Is Blended Learning?
Blended learning is the combination of active, engaged learning online combined with active, engaged learning offline to provide students with more control over the time, place, pace, and path of their learning. This definition is adapted from Staker and Horn’s oft-cited definition, and it reflects a constructivist perspective, placing emphasis on the student’s role as an active participant in the learning process.4
Time and place. Blended learning acknowledges learning is not restricted to a particular time or place. Though “seat time” requirements suggest a physical body needs to be in a particular location at a particular time to learn, students benefit when they move around, make observations, experiment and tinker, and engage with people beyond the classroom.
It’s incredible to consider that we live in a time when we can access information and learn from just about anywhere, anytime. We can log on to the internet thirty thousand feet in the air and work while traveling or record a quick voice memo to capture an idea for a blog post while on a hike. That flexibility and ease of access should be reflected in our formal educational system.
Pace. Blended learning values the student’s ability to control the pace of learning. Pacing can make or break an experience. If a lesson moves too quickly, some students fall behind, become frustrated, and disengage. If a lesson moves too slowly, some students get bored, become frustrated, and disengage. See the pattern? It is impossible to maximize engagement when learners are asked to move lockstep through learning experiences. So why do we continue to use this approach in classrooms all over the world while simultaneously lamenting a lack of student engagement? If we want to maximize engagement, we have to design learning experiences that allow students more control over the pace.
Path. Blended learning acknowledges the path each learner takes to get from point A to point B may need to be different. Some learners will take a direct route without needing any assistance. Others will need road signs and a map or an alternate route to make the journey. Still others will benefit from following an experienced guide who has an intimate understanding of the terrain.
To personalize a learner’s path, we must understand what our learners need and make time to connect with them throughout the learning process to ensure those needs are being met. Teachers must lean on instructional models that create the time and space for these critical conversations about progress and path.
Too often, schools invest in technology, improve the wireless infrastructure, purchase a learning management system (LMS), and call it blended learning. There is a distinct difference between a technology-rich learning environment and a student-centered blended learning environment. If we are not pairi...