Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Western Sydney University, 102084 Inclusive Education

Assessment 2

Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Part 1 – UDL and Case Study…………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Part 2 – Lesson Plan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

1
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Part 1 – UDL and Case Study

It is widely acknowledged that all students learn differently, and therefore have different learning needs and abilities. It is a teacher’s job

to ensure the abilities of all students are recognised, and the needs of all students are met in the classroom. However, this is becoming

increasingly difficult due to growing diversity within schools. One way to ensure that classrooms are receptive to all student needs is through

the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. This case study will use the UDL framework to identify the unique strengths and needs of a

student I taught during my first practicum, who had hyperactive/impulsive type Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and learning

problems affecting literacy (the fake name of ‘John’ will be used to identify him henceforth). Before revising one of my lessons plans through

UDL framework, such that it better accommodates John’s needs and the needs of all students.

In Australia, students of all abilities have the right to learn alongside their typically developing peers in the general education classroom

thanks to The Disability Standards for Education (Commonwealth of Australian, 2006). Research has confirmed that inclusion is beneficial for

students with disabilities and has been shown to improve achievement, behaviour and even self-esteem (Maddin & Slavin, 1982, p.1). One way

of ensuring that the classroom is appropriate for all students is through UDL. UDL is a theory for teaching that “recognises the need to create

opportunities for the inclusion of diverse learners through providing curricula and instructional activities that allow for multiple means of

representation, expression, and engagement” (Riviou & Kouroupetroglou, 2014). The two main advantages of UDL are that access for all is built

in and therefore more functional and that it already accommodates many people, not just those with a disability (Howard, 2003, p.114).

2
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Though further research on UDL is still required, existing studies have demonstrated its efficacy. As one meta-analysis found 17 out of 18

independent studies supported UDL, and stated that by implementing UDL “classroom teachers should give their students the greatest chance

at educational success” (Capp, 2017, p.805). In order to successfully implement UDL, teachers need a firm understanding of their students and

may complete a ‘positive profile’ of students to help them identify areas of strength and need, before designing learning activities that meet

requirements for all students. My student, John, had many unique strengths and positive attributes, accompanied by some specific needs, for

example John was always willing to participate in classroom discussion but sometime interrupted others, John had a firm grasp of concepts and

poetic techniques but struggled with reading and writing, and John had a lot of positive energy but sometimes had trouble sitting still or staying

on task. John was interested in music and liked to work with his friend in the class. The following is a discussion of how the UDL framework

could be used to help John.

From my experience with John I often found him highly willing to engage in classroom activities and discussions, although this was

sometimes at the cost of other students participating or understanding. This is unsurprising as the criterion for diagnosing hyperactive ADHD

includes “blurting out answers before questions have been completed”, “difficulty awaiting turn” and “interrupt[ing] or intrud[ing] on others”

(Barkley, 2014, p.52). Willingness to engage and participate should not be seen as a weakness, but the problem of calling out could be

overcome by multiple means of representation. Establishing and explaining the need for a universally enforced rule of putting your hand up and

awaiting permission before you speak at the beginning of the school year may have helped to meet John’s unique needs as well as benefiting

3
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

other students, as they would get to hear questions, think about them and formulate their own responses. This rule could be represented

repeatedly and through multiple means throughout the classroom, for example having a poster of this rule up on the wall, and the teacher

reiterating verbally and representing physically the need to put your hand up before answering a question. Furthermore, as UDL focuses on

designing learning practices that meet all needs rather than patching existing practices, we must consider ways of stimulating student thought

and discussion that do not require immediate answers at all, such that John does not have the opportunity to interrupt others. Activities such

as a “think-pair-share” allows students time to think about their response before sharing it with a partner and then with the whole class.

Indeed, one study on the think-pair-share strategy found that it improved “critical thinking, analysis, argument, prioritization, problem solving,

and resolution skills” (Kaddoura, 2013, p.18). As such, it can be seen that the implementation of ‘think-pair-share’ activities would be beneficial

for all students as everyone is required to think of a repose and is given the opportunity to share it. Moreover, it still allows John to participate

meaningfully without disturbing others and may even improve the quality of his contributions as he has time to think properly about what he

wants to say.

Providing multiple means of representation is important for all information presented in the classroom, especially class content. Howard

(2003) proposes that within the UDL framework, all curriculum work should be built around ‘big ideas’, background knowledge should be

utilized, and all knowledge should be meaningfully integrated, teaching strategies should be explicit and mediated scaffolding should be

provided (p.14), and all of this should be done through the lenses of multiple modes of representation. This means to say that information

4
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

ought to be provided to students in as many modes as possible, including written information, pictures or diagrams, verbal information and

discussion, through film or music, mathematically through statistics, equations or graphs, or physically through movement or 3D models they

can interact with. Providing multiple means of representation for students with identified needs, such as John, is often made easier through the

use of assistive technology. Though assistive technology is not synonymous with UDL (this means to say that the mere presence of assistive

technology does not make a classroom ‘universally designed’), some technology is required for successful implementation; Edyburn (2010)

goes so far as to say that its flexibility is the reason why UDL is possible today. In term three, John’s class was already running a differentiated

novel study, where students were able to choose from three different novels based on their interest and ability, but John may have been able to

engage with content more effectively if he had been given access to a recording or audio-book of the same novel. This would have been

appropriate for most lessons, unless reading was the target skill of the lesson, in which case excerpts from the novel could have been used and

additional assistance could have been provided. John had responded well to aural stimulus previously when we learnt poetic techniques

through songs.

The next step for effectively implementing UDL is considering how to provide multiple means of engagement for a variety of students

within the classroom. Integrating multiple means of engagement is arguably the most significant principle of UDL, as students’ engagement in

course content often determines their attitude towards work and their ability to achieve. Arghode, Wang & Lathan (2017) site many reasons for

ensuring student engagement, including that it makes students less resistant and better behaved, and improves student achievement to the

5
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

point where they may exceed expectations (p.143). In the case of John, Climie and Mastoras (2015) suggest the following for engaging students

with ADHD, and again it is important to note that these approaches will likely benefit other students as well: “interest and successful work

completion among children with ADHD can be enhanced through enthusiastic teaching with active participation, increasing the novelty and

variety of tasks, providing task-related choice, using computer-assisted instruction, and scheduling more expectations in morning periods”

(p.298). This closely relates to the UDL framework as there is a focus on choice, variety and flexibility. To help engage John we should aim to

provide an assortment of environments and activities for learning, such as including his interest in music and allowing him to work with others.

It can also be helpful to have an activity or procedure to help prepare students for engagement in class, as one study shows that engagement in

samatha meditation, such as mindfulness and breathing exercises, helped students, particularly those with ADHD, to engage in classroom

activities and achieve greater results (Singh et al., 2018, p.1874). As such it may be useful to use meditation techniques or allocate a ‘calm-

down corner’ for John to help with his level of engagement.

In many cases, I found that John was competent and often capable of completing class work, as research suggests that individuals with

ADHD “have been found to demonstrate cognitive strengths in the areas of logical thinking and reasoning, emotional intelligence, and

creativity” (Climie & Mastoras, 2015, p.297). Although John’s literacy problems did impair his reading and writing ability, his ability to

understand course content was not diminished so long as he was engaged in class work. What is important for John is that he be given different

avenues for expressing his understanding of the content. As I was teaching John in English, there is often a bias towards extended written

6
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

responses, particularly in senior years as assessments become geared towards the HSC. But as John was a junior student there is additional

flexibility to allow other opportunities to demonstrate what he has learnt, as UDL calls “multiple means of expression”. For example, providing

John with assistive technology in the form of a laptop that has text prediction and auto-correct may have helped him to complete activities that

required a substantial amount of writing but where not focused on developing spelling skills. Additionally, John may have been able to show his

understanding in other ways, such as through discussion, constructing a mind map or table even drawing a picture or diagram. When working

in groups John should be afforded the opportunity to apply his own strengths, as “a child with ADHD might be valuable in contributing out-of-

the-box ideas, whereas he or she may be less successful in a role of organizing group tasks, taking notes, or creating the timeline” (Climie and

Mastoras, 2015, p.298). Assigning different roles to different students during group work is an effective way of making sure everyone is

contributing in a way that shows their understanding.

As such it can be seen that John, like all students, has his own specific strengths and weaknesses but through the use of UDL we can

design a learning curriculum that meets the needs of all students in the classroom. Part 2 demonstrates this through the amendment of one of

my previous lessons plans.

7
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Part 2 - Lesson Plan

Changes indicated on lesson plan using the following key:

Green = multiple means of representation Purple = multiple means of engagement Blue = multiple means of expression

Resources:
- Class set of ‘No More Boomerang’ poems printed
- ‘Poem in Pictures’ PowerPoint
- Glossary of Poetic techniques
Lesson Stages Teacher Activities
Preparation Prepare presentation
5 min Write up LI/SC/SST/LP
Mark the roll
10 min Reading Read poem aloud. Use the ‘poem in pictures’
PowerPoint from last lesson to provide visual
stimulus as well as aural, and to connect this lesson
with previous learning.
Annotation Provide students with a glossary containing the
35 min definitions and examples of poetic techniques that
we’ve studied this semester, quickly go through all
techniques again to refresh students’ memory.
For the first half of the poem, read the poem aloud
line by line and have students identify the use of
techniques, model the annotation on the board and
discuss why that technique may have been
used/what effect it has on the poem.
Student Activities
Enter classroom
Unpack supplies
Settle down
Encourage students to engage in meditation and
mindfulness to prepare themselves for the lesson.
Students then read poem individually.
Students copy down annotation onto their electronic
or printed copy of the poem. For the second half of
the poem, inform students that they can now work
individually, in pairs/small groups or with the teacher
to identify techniques and annotate the rest of the
poem. When students are annotating encourage
them to use their own methods e.g. highlighting,

8
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)
Questions Conduct a think-pair share on the question “what is
20 min the poem about?” Use a visual online timer and
allow students 2 minutes to think, 3 minutes to pair
and 5 minutes for everyone to share with he class.
References
using colour or underlining, so long as they are
effectively identifying different techniques.
Finally, have students create a mind map, list or
table, write a few sentences, or draw a picture that
explain what the poem is about. If they finish early
they should consider the purpose and tone of the
poem.
9
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Arghode, V., Wang, J. & Lathan, A. (2017). Exploring Instructors’ Practices in Student Engagement: A Collective Case Study. Journal of

the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,17(4). 126-149. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v17i4.22099

Barkley, R. A. (Ed.). (2014). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, fourth edition: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. Guildford Press;

New York, NY.

Capp, M., J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016, International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8). 791-807, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074

Climie, E., A., & Mastoras, S., M. (2015). ADHD in schools: Adopting a strengths-based perspective. Canadian Psychological, 56(3). 295-300. doi:

10.1037/cap0000030

Commonwealth of Australia (2006). Disability Standards for Education 2005 plus Guidance Notes. Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/disability_ standards_for_education_2005_plus_guidance_notes.pdf

Edyburn, D., L. (2010). Would you recognise universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new direction for the second

decade of UDL. Learning disability Quarterly, 33(1). 33-41. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25701429

10
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Howard, J., B. (2003). Universal Design for Learning, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4). 113-118. doi:

10.1080/10402454.2003.10784474

Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students' critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly,

36(4), 3-24. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1372123014?accountid=36155

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. L. (1982) Count Me In: Academic Achievement and Social Outcomes of Mainstreaming Students with Mild Academic

Handicaps. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Riviou, K. & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2014). Designing an Educational Scenario Using the Principles of Universal Design for Learning, 2014 IEEE

14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2014.213

Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Nabors, L., Myers, R. E., Felver, J. C., Manikam, R. (2018). Samatha Meditation Training for Students with Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Effects on Active Academic Engagement and Math Performance. Mindfulness, 9(6). 1867-1876. doi:

10.1007/s12671-018-1014-0

11