# data[].attributes.body
1.Copy & paste a question from an assessment paper into the Gunning Fog Index.

2.If you score above 8, reword the question to get as close to 8 as possible.

3.Did the reworded question change the integrity of the task?

4.What impact could this change in phrasing have on your students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a tool that tries to calculate the Gunning Fog Index. It is a weighted average of the number of words per sentence, and the number of long words per word. An interpretation is that the text can be understood by someone who left full-time education at a later age than the index.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a tool that tries to calculate the Gunning Fog Index. It is a weighted average of the number of words per sentence, and the number of long words per word. An interpretation is that the text can be understood by someone who left full-time education at a later age than the index.

# data[].attributes.body
Online resource

# data[].attributes.headline
Let's take the Bell Curve Away from the Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Let's take the Bell Curve Away from the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The normal distribution is pretty cool. It's a mathematically determined probability distribution that does a good job of describing the patterns of variability between scores for many variables in the natural world. Sometimes called the Gaussian Distribution, after its creator, German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss, the normal distribution has become a centerpiece for many-a-statistics class around the world.

One criticism of the normal distribution is that it is over-applied and over-used. This criticism is partly based on the ideas that (a) fewer naturally occurring variables than one might believe actually conform to the normal distribution and, importantly, (b) forcing groups of humans into bell-curve conceptualizations of variables has the capacity to stifle growth.

I am fortunate to be an educator - having taught at the college level since Fall of 1994. And I absolutely love it. In this job, I get to take several bright young minds and lead them on a journey of discovery - helping them to learn totally new ways to understand the world and their place in it. My students are, almost across the board, bright, hard-working, and appreciative - and they learn a ton in their four(ish) years here at SUNY New Paltz.

To some extent all teachers take some time to think about their philosophy of education - asking, essentially: What are my goals here? What am I trying to teach? What do I want my students to walk away with? And so forth. I've been thinking a lot about my philosophy of teaching lately - and it relates strongly to issues related to the bell curve. I thought others might find it provocative and perhaps useful. Here is the story of my philosophy of teaching.

It all started when I was a PhD student in Psychology at the University of New Hampshire in the 1990s. The Psychology PhD program there is really great - largely as it includes a very thoughtful teacher-education element - all about helping mentor young PhD students to learn about the process of college teaching. You see, in most academic departments, graduate students who teach are just given a textbook and are told "good luck!" At UNH, third-year graduate students all take a one-year "teaching practicum course" that runs concurrent with their teaching of Introductory Psychology to undergraduate students. The practicum course is taught by masterful and experienced teachers who have a lot to say about issues of college teaching. I got a ton out of that experience.

And I will never forget one particular lesson - provided by Dr. Peter Fernald, who started class by saying essentially this: It's bad practice to shoot for a normally distributed grade distribution in the teaching process. Whoa! Never heard that before. For years, prior teachers of mine had literally drawn normal distributions on the board after exams and show students scores in this context. This Dr. Fernald fellow was going fully against the grain. But I knew him to be an extremely strong and experienced teacher - and something about this idea matched naturally with my own take on the world. I was all ears. What was he talking about!? ...

So Dr. Fernald painted a portrait of two (highly simplified) teaching philosophies - one that is based on a relativistic approach to understanding student success and the other based on the concept of student mastery. The relativistic approach is very grade-focused. It essentially sees grades as a critical part of the teaching process - with a priority placed on the teacher optimally discriminating students from one another in terms of achievement. From this perspective, the main goal of teaching is to, using highly valid measuring instruments, sort the students in some kind of order - ultimately leading to a distribution of scores (one that maps onto a normal distribution) that accurately reflects who's at the top, who's in the middle, and who's at the bottom. This relativistic approach to teaching is actually quite common at the college level.

Dr. Fernald had some nits to pick with the relativistic approach to teaching - as follows:

1. From this perspective, grades are not used to motivate or inspire students - they serve little function for the students at all, actually.

2. From this approach, the ideal outcome is to have most students end up near the middle of the distribution. This is how normally distributed variables come out. Well, let's dissect that a bit. Suppose that you are teaching a class on statistics, and your distribution of scores is normal - and the mean (average) score is 80 (of a possible 100). So that means that the lion's share of students got about 80. Well to some extent, a student with a score of 80 missed 20% of the material. That student is, at the end of the class, fully ignorant of ⅕ of the course material. And if this is a normally distributed variable, then get this: MOST students are clueless when it comes to about ⅕ of the material. Further, get this: The teacher, who takes pride in a grade distribution that is a normal distribution, sees this outcome as optimal!

3. In light of all this, Dr. Fernald went out on a limb and, with his gentle manner, made a very bold statement. If you are teaching in a way that is focused on trying to create a normally distributed grading system, then you, the teacher, must be unclear in your presentation. In fact, you must be effortfully unclear, to some extent. If the goal is to have most students not understand 20% of the material at the end of the semester, then your teaching simply must be unclear about 20% of the time as far as the typical student in the class is concerned.

As you may have guessed, I don't exactly adhere to the relativistic approach to teaching and grading. Dr. Fernald, a true humanist in every sense, shared, then, an alternative approach to teaching - which we might call the mastery approach to teaching. From this perspective, all students are given the benefit of the doubt - the idea is that if the student got into this college in the first place, he or she should be able to master the material that we have to present to him or her - and the job of the teacher is to facilitate such mastery on behalf of each and every student.

The mastery approach requires an extraordinary amount of work on behalf of both instructor and student. Some material is not easy. For instance, when I teach statistics, I have students compute something called "statistical power" by hand. Wow, do students find it difficult. So I work with them on it - a lot. They read a full chapter on this topic in the textbook. We go over multiple example problems in class. They have an extra lab component in the course - and the lab instructor goes over this content with them multiple times. I have eight hours of office hours a week, and I tell students in the class to come to my office hours to further go over the material more if they like. Several students take me up on that. It's a ton of work. But you know what? Most of them ultimately get it. They master the material. And my standards for the material are absolute. There is real content - and they only get credit for fully understanding that content - and they are given every opportunity to master that content to meet the absolute standards.

The mastery approach is, clearly, student-focused. The core goal of this approach is education. Facilitating learning. Getting students to connect with and understand the material. It is not focused on showing who gets it and who doesn't on some variant of a normal distribution .

In using a mastery approach, grading still exists - but it plays out differently. From this perspective, grades aren't used primarily to discriminate students from one another. Grades are, rather, used to reward students for meeting absolute standards. If a student meets an absolute standard, then he or she should get an A. Otherwise, perhaps an F actually makes most sense.

So a grading distribution from a class of students in a mastery-taught class looks a bit different from a distribution that pertains to a relativistic class. While the mean, or average score, may be similar across the two classes, the pattern of variability will differ. The relativistic class, as we've discussed, will have a normal distribution - with few scores that are very high and few that are very low. A mastery-taught class will be more bi-modal - with, ideally, many scores in the A range - and then, as not every student puts in the work to master the material, several scores in the D and F range as well.

I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Fernald's approach to teaching - teachers are here to inspire - to lead - to work to get all of their students to see how awesome the content is and to take them on a journey of discovery that gives each student the opportunity to fully master the material at hand. Focusing on teaching in a way that is designed to lead to a normally distributed grading distribution, on the other hand, misses this boat - completely.

If you are a teacher, I urge you to spend more time inspiring and working first-hand with your students and less time worrying about whether the students' grades are normally distributed. The greatest teachers are not the ones whose gradebooks best reflect normally distributed grades -- they are the ones who give each of their students 100% of their time and attention - and who believe in the success of each student they encounter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Take the Bell Curve Away from the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bell curve has been used in education for decades - as a way to discriminate "the good" students from "the bad" students. This approach to education flies in the face of education itself - which is all about inspiring young minds to learn about the nature of the world and their place in it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Myth of Average:  Todd Rose at TEDxSonomaCounty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shelley Moore: Transforming Inclusive Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UDL planning template_Y12 English assessment

# data[].attributes.body
Grant Wiggins explains 'big idea'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a first grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate manner to teach science, because it starts off with the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog--a windable toy dog--and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says "What makes it move?" Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question, "What makes it move?" Then there is a picture of a motorbike and the question, "What makes it move?" and so on.

Nobody can be a good reasoner unless by constant practice he has realized the importance of getting hold of the big ideas and of hanging onto them like grim death.
- A. N. Whitehead, 1929

What is a "big idea"?
So, we musn't equate "big idea" with a concept taught as a fact or definition. Only when we help the learner see firsthand that an idea is an inference, and one with power to provide meaning and transfer, does it become a "big idea."

The difference between a vital idea with power and a lifeless scientific notion was beautifully clarified by Nobel Physicist Richard Feynmann in discussing science instruction:
Any understanding, essential question, or transfer task is made up of a big idea; it is built out of it, in other words. So, making a question using a big idea turns into an essential question. A food chain is a big idea. "On what energy do we depend and how can we ensure access to it?" is an essential question about that big idea. While it is true that sometimes when asked to name a big idea we frame it instinctively as a question or a statement, sometimes we just express it as a phrase or word.
A true idea doesn't end thought, it activates it. It has the power to raise questions and generate learning. So, build your unit around one idea with power, an idea that helps learners make sense of otherwise isolated content and which cannot help but bring inquiry to the fore.
We first started talking about "big ideas" to help those using the UbD template who did not find it easy to come up with essential questions (and understandings). People were often inappropriately trying to come up with a factual question, such as: "What is a food chain?" So, we would say, "No, that is a factual question that is answered in the book." We would follow this up by asking them: "So, what's the big idea about the fact? What does the idea of 'food chain' help us to see or understand better?"

Our hope was that this additional step might ease the transition from focusing only on "content" to focusing on learning content for understanding. Alas, some people heard the phrase differently: they thought the phrase "big idea" was synonymous with "understanding" Or "question." Others, who had no trouble coming up with questions and understandings, then wondered if they had somehow missed something by not also coming up with big ideas. So, they would ask: "Why is there no box in the template for big ideas?"

"Big idea" doesn't have its own template box because many boxes in the template should refer directly or indirectly to big ideas. If I say "audience and purpose" that's a phrase representing a big idea in writing and reading. If I ask: "What is my purpose and who is my audience?" I am acknowledging the importance of that idea and framing it as an essential question. If I say "Great writing, like great art, is a function of utter clarity about purpose and audience," then I am proposing a specific understanding about that idea. If I ask you to write the same piece for two different audiences, I am asking you to transfer your grasp of the idea in writing. (Note, therefore, that we both may agree on the importance of "audience and purpose" as an idea but propose different "understandings" about it.)

So, what makes an idea ? An idea is if it helps us make sense of lots of otherwise meaningless, isolated, inert, or confusing facts. A big idea is a way of usefully seeing connections, not just another piece of knowledge. It is more like a lens for better looking than something additionally seen; more like a theme than the facts of the story.

In the language of UbD, a is a powerful intellectual tool, from which we can derive more specific and helpful understandings and facts.

I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about--physics, biology, chemistry--but that wasn't it. The answer was in the teacher's edition of the book: the answer I was trying to learn is that "energy makes it move."

That's only the definition of energy; it should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not what makes it move is energy. This is a very subtle [but important] difference.

Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: If you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around.

What a good way to begin a science course! Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy, the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. [Otherwise,] suppose a student would say, "I don't think energy makes it move." Where does the discussion go from there?

I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition.

Test it this way: you say, "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language." Without using the word "energy," tell me what you know now about the dog's motion." You cannot. So you learned nothing about science.

In short, if the word is just a technical term rather than a vital approach, it isn't a big idea.

Covering facts vs. uncovering understandings: avoiding the temptation to treat all scientific ideas as facts.

But teachers often unwittingly conflate terms with ideas. In their desire to make teaching more efficient, they often treat the theory or strategy as a fact related to a definition, as in Feynmann's example. They end up turning an insightful inference into a thought-ending word. We pay for this desire to cover things ever more quickly: by treating all ideas as facts to be learned instead of inferences to be validated and analyzed through use, we unwittingly end up inhibiting meaning and transfer. Students end up just trafficking in meaningless words; science gets treated as a foreign language rather than a body of knowledge and understanding.

Let's put this issue of efficiency vs. effectiveness in terms of the learner, the novice struggling to understand. After a few days in your room as a new student, I will likely feel overwhelmed with information; I don't yet see a pattern or a mental organizer by which I can begin to make sense of all that you are teaching me and that we are reading about. I need a helpful schema, a framework, a touchstone, a guidepost, a strategy for making sense of everything I am learning. In other words, I need a framework for my new content: I need a way to order, categorize and prioritize what I am learning.

Now, suppose we ask: if you could as teacher alert the student to a key recurring idea that can make sense of the learning as well as further it, what would it be? What aphorism, imperative, and/or rules of thumb would permit the student to make more and more sense of their work and how to be successful all year in your course? That's what we're calling a big idea.

Here are some possible answers, for different subjects and grade levels:

* In history class: verify the source and determine the credibility of the source. Keep asking: Who said it? Why? How credible a statement is it? How credible is the source of the statement?
* In reading: Converse with the author. Assume the text makes sense. You will likely only understand the text if you assume it is meaningful and ask questions of it - if you 'converse' with the author.
* In evolution: keep remembering that the idea that mutations are random and that selection is "natural" means that there is no guiding purpose to life-form change. This is the part of the theory of evolution that is most controversial, not the idea of evolution per se.
* In writing: keep asking - Who is my audience? What is it I want them to see, think, feel, or do?

What modern theories of human learning and understanding tell us is that the learner has to be helped to "construct" understandings, not just be told them. No meaning and no transfer occur if "useful theory" is reduced to fact - even though teaching thereby becomes more efficient. The distinction between "knowledge" and "understanding" (or, if you like, "facts" and "genuine ideas") is not merely semantic. We slowly come to an understanding, as a result of using facts and ideas to make sense of things. (Facts are apprehended, ideas are comprehended, in Dewey's original formulation). "Teaching" an understanding is as counter-productive as "teaching" someone to be honest. Learners have to see the power of honesty and the unforeseen consequences of dishonesty before they can truly commit to honesty as a value.

The real harm of stressing that ideas are merely words, phrases, and statements with technical meaning (instead of the power they represent) is that such teaching tends to end thought rather than further it. Rather, a big idea is alive. We develop understanding by extending and challenging understanding. A big idea reaches out, it pushes against boundaries, it asks us to possibly rethink other things we thought we knew. It raises questions and problems - and thus, generates new ideas. We see new connections and we initiate inquiries to validate or critique the idea. A big idea activates thought and permits transfer - and, thus creativity. "Coverage" of an idea, by contrast, kills it: our job is not to think with ideas but just learn stuff. The best teaching does the opposite. It brings seemingly inert content to life. And in science it reminds us that today's Big Idea is potentially tomorrow's discredited notion. This is key to empowering the student: there will always be room for new ideas in any authentic teaching of science as fallible theorizing.

The article Jay McTighe and I recently wrote for Educational Leadership called 'Put Understanding First' makes the point in a different way: both teachers and students need to understand that there are three different educational goals always at play: Acquisition, meaning-making, and transfer or prior learning. Here is a brief excerpt from the article (which was in the May 2008 issue, on High School Reform):

An idea is "big" if it helps us make sense of lots of confusing experiences and seemingly isolated facts. It's like the picture that connects the dots or a simple rule of thumb in a complex field. For example: "the water cycle" is a big idea for connecting seemingly discrete and one-way events (the water seems to just disappear as it evaporates). "The heroic cycle" enables us to comprehend literature from many places, cultures, and times. "Measure twice, cut once" is a profound reminder about how to avoid heartache and inefficiency in building anything.

A big idea is thus a way of seeing better and working smarter, not just a vague notion or another piece of knowledge. It is more like a lens for looking than another object seen; more like a theme than the details of a narrative; more like an active strategy in your favorite sport or reading than a specific skill. It is a theory, not a detail.

If an idea is "big" it helps us make sense of things. So, an idea is not "big" merely because it categorizes a lot of content. "Change," "relationships," and "number system" certainly encompass an enormous amount of knowledge and understanding, but these concepts don't contain much insight or direction beyond their definition. They aren't particularly powerful or illuminating on their own as concepts. On the other hand, "For every action there is an equal reaction" is a powerful idea about change: we can use it to study, organize, make sense of phenomena, and predict changes in motion. So, too, is the idea that "blood is thicker than water" powerful for understanding many relationships in societies and throughout history - and, perhaps for understanding a few puzzling decisions made by our family members!

A genuine idea is thus not a "mere" idea. It is not abstract in the bad sense, it is concrete; it is a useful theory; it has real impact. For example, consider a detective trying to make sense of many puzzling clues whose meaning and relationship are unclear. Any theory as to "whodunit" will relate to motive. A good detective has some big ideas about motive to bring meaning to what might otherwise seem like odd, isolated, and unique little facts to the rest of us. The "big idea" (whether it is "Look for love triangles" or "Follow the money") is thus quite practical: it helps distinguish clues from unimportant facts, and shows the way toward more facts - and a persuasive narrative.

Similarly, in literacy or history teaching, the important "themes" are big ideas. Why? Because - if used properly - they provide learners with mental schemas or templates that help make sense of all the details of texts that threaten to overwhelm inexperienced readers. If I am alerted to "the heroic quest," or "the American Dream" I can read and think with more control and insight.

In science, the most illuminating hypotheses are the big ideas of science. So, the idea that we are all part of a "food chain" of living and nonliving things is big because it links seemingly different (and isolated) animals and plant matter into a bigger comprehensible "ecosystem" of energy exchange. We then see the role of predators, garbage, and our relationship to nature in a completely new and helpful way than before. Newton's laws of motion are three of the biggest ideas ever posed: suddenly, thousands of seemingly unrelated facts and phenomena - spoons dropping, the tides, the moon's orbit - had not only a meaningful explanation but could be seen as part of a huge coherent system with endless predictive and connective power.

In short: think of "big" as "powerful" not as a large abstract category.

a powerful idea vs. a mere abstraction

John Dewey - as we might expect - articulated the notion of a useful idea long ago. He often wrote to describe the difference between a "genuine" idea and an idea treated as a "fact":

Ideas are not then genuine ideas unless they are tools in a reflective examination which tends to solve a problem. Suppose it is a question of having the pupil grasp the idea of the sphericity of the earth. This is different from teaching him its sphericity as a fact. He may be shown (or reminded of) a ball or a globe, and be told that the earth is round like those things; he may then be made to repeat that statement day after day till the shape of the earth and the shape of the ball are welded together in his mind. But he has not thereby acquired any idea of the earth's sphericity; at most, he has had a certain image of a sphere and has finally managed to image the earth after the analogy of his ball image. To grasp sphericity as an idea, the pupil must first have realized certain perplexities or confusing features in observed facts and have had the idea of spherical shape suggested to him as a possible way of accounting for the phenomena in question. Only by use as a method of interpreting data so as to give them fuller meaning does sphericity become a genuine idea. There may be a vivid image and no idea; or there may be a fleeting, obscure image and yet an idea, if that image performs the function of instigating and directing the observation and relation of facts.

To better explain what curriculum needs to be, we think it is helpful to distinguish what are in fact three different yet interrelated academic goals of high school -- students should be helped to: 1) acquire important information and skills, 2) make meaning of that content (i.e., come to understand important ideas), and 3) transfer their learning to new situations, effectively. In this paper, we will refer to these three key learning goals as A-M-T. Acquisition is a means; meaning making and transfer are the ends.

The categories should seem intuitively sound. A fact is a fact; a skill is a skill. We acquire each in turn. To ask, however: What do these facts imply? Or: When would I use this skill (or not)? is to ask what those facts and skills mean. A third question can also be asked: How should I apply my prior facts, skills, and ideas effectively in this particular situation? This question is about transfer. I must take what I have previously acquired and understood, and see how it can best be used in a particular and novel situation. Thus, when we speak of "learning for understanding," we really are referring to two different long-term aims: meaning making and transfer, utilizing previously acquired knowledge and skills - our short-term goal.

While such a classification scheme is not new or radical (see Dewey, 1933 ; Bloom, 1956 ; Marzano, et. al. 1992 ), the distinctions are real - and critical to intelligent planning, purposeful instruction, and valid assessment. Put simply: if you want understanding and transfer, you have to design backward from it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authentic Education - What is a Big Idea?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a first grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate manner to teach science, because it starts off with the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog--a windable toy dog--and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Coming soon! UDL Guidelines 3.0

The UDL Guidelines are a living, dynamic tool that is continuously developed based on new research and feedback from practitioners. In 2020, CAST launched our most recent effort to update the UDL Guidelines, with a specific focus on equity. There has been a strong call from the field-both practitioners and researchers alike-to more fully develop the Guidelines to address critical barriers rooted in biases and systems of oppression. The current update aims to respond to this call and to work toward fulfilling the promise of the Guidelines as a tool to guide the design of learning environments that more fully honor and value every learner.

Since our launch in 2020, we have been committed to a community-driven, inclusive, and transparent updating process. As part of this effort, we are:

Collaborating with an Advisory Board, a UDL Guidelines Collaborative, and a Young Adult Advisory Board to guide our work

Conducting focus groups with a diversity of participants to learn from their perspectives, lived experiences, and feedback

Reviewing the research on the UDL Guidelines research pages to understand the balance of different research fields, methodological approaches, epistemological approaches, and author positionalities

Conducting literature reviews of equity-oriented research that connect to and extend the Guidelines, such as disability studies and critical pedagogy studies

We are excited to share this next iteration of the UDL Guidelines in 2024. If you are interested in receiving our UDL Guidelines 3.0 newsletter to stay updated on our progress and to share your ideas and perspectives, please complete this brief form.

Review the Summary

Explore the Full Draft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST.

# data[].attributes.body
You can use the comment box or create your own post to share your big ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Often the methods and materials used in assessments require additional skills and understanding. These are considered to be construct irrelevant. Construct-irrelevant features of assessments may pose barriers for some students, preventing an accurate measurement of the construct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ongoing assessment is an essential part of any course. Learners vary in the ways in which they learn and can demonstrate what they are learning. Because of this variability, construct-irrelevant features in assessments can create barriers that prevent some learners from accurately demonstrating what they have learned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CAST Professional Publishing - Until learning has no limits®

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CAST Professional Publishing produces books that help educators at all levels improve their practice-and change students' lives-through Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

# data[].attributes.body
A simpler rubric

# data[].attributes.headline
Flow chart to assist in identifying barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Flow chart to assist in identifying barriers to learning

# data[].attributes.body
PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Currie-Rubin (2015) Data Inquiry and Universal Design for Learning