If you’ve ever sat through a course that felt like it wasn’t designed with you in mind, you’re not imagining it. Most educational design quietly assumes there’s a “typical” student on the other end. Someone who absorbs information from a lecture, meets every deadline without issue, and does well on a written exam. That assumption shows up everywhere, and most of the time, nobody questions it.
You see it in how courses are assessed. One exam at the end, one submission format, one way to show what you know. That doesn’t work for everyone. Some people freeze up on timed tests. Some express what they know way better through doing something than writing about it. Some are dealing with things outside of school that affect how and when they can engage. Designing around one type of learner means everyone else is just expected to adapt.
The more interesting shift is to ask what happens when we treat variability as the norm rather than the exception. That’s the core idea behind UDL. Rather than adding accommodations as an afterthought, you build flexibility in from the start. For the learning resource my group is working on about password security and hashing, we can’t just drop a block of technical text and call it a lesson. Some people will want a visual, some will want to actually try something a little more different, and others will need the foundational concepts explained before the technical stuff even makes sense.
What I found most useful from the readings this week is that designing for a wider range of learners doesn’t make things easier in a bad way. It just makes things work better overall. Captions help people who aren’t native English speakers. A clear structure helps anyone tired or distracted. Flexible pacing helps people who have a lot going on. Once you stop designing for a stereotypical average student and start designing for real people, the whole thing gets better for everyone.
Reference
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Comments