Leveraging Emerging Technology to Design an Inclusive Future with Universal Design for Learning

  • Don Douglas McMahon Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, United States of America
  • Zachary Walker University College, London Institute of Education, United Kingdom

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore the opportunities and challenges that arise with the proliferation of new technology, to provide an understanding of why it is important to try new strategies in education, and to provide an inclusive framework for experimentation using tools such as robotisation, automatisation, artificial intelligence and immersive learning. Significant challenges exist in implementing transformative technologies with a limited or non-existent evidence base for their use, and designing inclusive educational experiences with a limited evidence base is even more challenging. In order to address this need, the article presents some ways in which educators can make informed implementation decisions around these new tools. First, we examine the rule of the least dangerous assumption, which supports trying new technologies even if the evidence base is lacking. Next, we present a strategy that educators can use to apply the research-based framework of UDL in order to make informed implementation choices with new technologies. Finally, based on information gained from experience in providing professional development, school level implementation, individual student interventions and teacher focus groups, we offer some recommendations for practice. We present several fun propositions that can help create a culture to support educators as they endeavour to create inclusive educational experiences with emerging technologies. We also explore current trends in technology use, describing and providing practical examples of implementation and integration to support a more inclusive future with emerging technologies.

References

Adams, D. (1980). The hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. London, UK: Pan Macmillan.

Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer reviewed journals from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56.

Almond, P., Winter, P., Cameto, R., Russell, M., Sato, E., Clarke-Midura, J., … Russell, E. M. (2010). Technology-enabled and universally designed assessment: considering access in measuring the achievement of students with disabilities — A Foundation for Research. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10(5), 4–51.

Aeppel, T. (2015, March 20). It took the telephone 75 years to do what angry birds did in 35 days. But what does that mean? Retrieved from https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/03/13/it-took-the-telephone-75-years-to-do-what-angry-birds-did-in-35-days-but-what-does-that-mean/

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.

Aquino, S. (2018, July 11). How the iPhone and App Store have redefined accessible software. Retrieved from https://www.macstories.net/stories/how-the-iphone-and-app-store-have-redefined-accessible-software/

Ayres, K. M., Mechling, L., & Sansosti, F. J. (2013). The use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/independence of students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders: Considerations for the future of school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50(3), 259–271.

Bell, V. (2010, February 15). A history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook. Slate Magazine. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/a-history-of-media-technology-scares-from-the-printing-press-to-facebook.htm

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.

CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

Cihak, D. F., Moore, E., Wright, R., McMahon, D. D., Gibbons, M. M., & Smith, C. (2016). Evaluating augmented reality to complete a chain task for elementary students with autism. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(2), 99–108.

Dieker, L., Hynes, M., Hughes, C., & Smith, E. (2008). Implications of mixed reality and simulation technologies on special education and teacher preparation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(6), 1–20.

Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying Principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7), 5–32.

Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150.

Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it ? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(Winter), 33–41.

Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(I), 7–24.

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Public Law 114-95, 114 U.S.C.

Gartner Inc. (2013). The Hype Cycle. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/technology/ research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp

Google. (2018). Introducing the Google disability support team. Google Accessibility Blog. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/accessibility/blog/post/announce-disability-support/

Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 1–11.

Hall, B. T., Strangman N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Access, 9, 2–22.

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). Public Law 110-315 U.S.C.

Ireland, G. V., & Woollerton, M. (2010). The impact of the iPad and iPhone on education. Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin University Department of Foreign Languages and Bunkyo Gakuin College, 10, 31–48.

Lloyd, J., Moni, K., & Jobling, A. (2006). Breaking the hype cycle: Using the computer
effectively with learners with intellectual disabilities. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9(3), 68–74.

McMahon, D., & Walker, Z. (2014). Universal design for learning features and tools on iPads and iPhones. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(2), 39–49.

Mechling, L. C. (2011). Review of twenty-first century portable electronic devices for persons with moderate intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(4), 479–498.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guide. Retrieved from http://inclusive.tki.org.nz/assets/inclusive-education/MOE-UDL-guide-summary.pdf

National Education Technology Plan. (2016). Future ready learning reimagining the role of technology in education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

ONCE. (2014). Second International Congress on Disability and University. Retrieved from http://ciud.fundaciononce.es/noticia_det5_en.html

Rao, K., Smith, S. J., Edyburn, D., Grima-Farrell, C., Van Horn, G., & Yalom-Chamowitz, S. (2018). UDL Reporting Criteria. Developed by a working group of the Universal Design for Learning Implementation and Research (UDL-IRN) Research Committee. Retrieved from https://udl-irn.org/udl-reporting-criteria/

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Scott, L. A. (2018). Barriers with implementing a Universal Design for Learning Framework. Inclusion: 6(4), 274–286.

SIHO. (2015). Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved from: http://siho.pxl.be/

Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers' attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.

Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre‐service teachers' computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143.

Thierer, A. (2013). Technopanics, threat inflation, and the danger of an information technology precautionary principle. Tech Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, & Technology, 14(1), 309.

Turnbull. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Turnbull, A. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today ‘s schools (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Walker, Z., Sheena, J. E., Wienke, W., & Tan, D., (2019). A review of interview preparation via virtual and mixed reality for individuals with intellectual and developmental disorder. Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(1), 87–97.

Walker, Z., McMahon, D., & Rosenblatt, K. (2017). Beyond Pokémon: Augmented reality is a universal design for learning tool. Sage Open, October-December, 1–8.

Walker, Z., Vasquez, E., & Wienke, W. (2016). The Impact of Simulated Interviews for Individuals with Intellectual Disability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 76–88.

Wood, Z. (2017). Book Pricing Figures. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/17/paperback-books-sales-outperform-digital-titles-amazon-ebooks

Zero Project. (2014). Innovative Policy 2014 on Accessibility. Retrieved from http://zeroproject.org/policy/norway/
Published
2019-09-24
How to Cite
MCMAHON, Don Douglas; WALKER, Zachary. Leveraging Emerging Technology to Design an Inclusive Future with Universal Design for Learning. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 3, p. 75-93, sep. 2019. ISSN 2232-2647. Available at: <https://ojs.cepsj.si/index.php/cepsj/article/view/639>. Date accessed: 15 oct. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.639.