I’ve often struggled with the ‘direction’ of special education. My first exposure to Special Education took the form of a student with dyslexia being offered additional supports (extra exam time, one to one tuition, aural/oral exams, etc.). This struck me as education+ .., where ‘normal’ student received education, a ‘special’ student received additional support. From a presumption of additional, is extra, and extra is better, I questioned why the additional supports were not the norm. 

 

While I was in school, my brother was in university. He was given an extra 30 minutes to write his exams, he was allowed to type his exam answers on a laptop rather than writing, and spelling and grammar mistakes were ignored. This was a business subject. I questioned how ‘detrimental’ would it be to the development of a ‘normal’ student if they had 30 minutes extra exam time, typed their answer, and were assessed on their business knowledge rather than their spelling and grammar? 

 

 

Through my studies and in my teaching I have been obsessive with the UDL concept. In brief UDL is:

 

·         Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge,

·         Multiple means of expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know, and

·         Multiple means of engagement to tap into learners' interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn

 

The main message for me as an educator was that of providing students with options. In this module alone we’ve been tasked with reading articles, watching videos, listening to podcasts, undertaking presentations, engaging in Q and A discussion and more. This is a considerable departure to the stand and deliver, “sage on a stage” form of lecture that I experienced at undergrad level. On a personal level I have had success (and failures) in using UDL to offer students of all skill levels, and varying abilities, to learn in different ways and show their knowledge in ways that suit them. 

 

            What stops educators (at third level or otherwise) from engaging in UDL practices? 

For discussion purposes, the graph below shows the approximate 100,000 pieces of assessment undertaken by all first years in UCD in 2011. Approximately 85%-90% of assessment is written. For students who struggle with writing, or are more adept at communicating in different mediums, this is an alarming stat. (I couldn’t access the exact stats, the paper it is from is behind a paywall. It is a paper by Geraldine O’Neill in the School of Education in UCD.) 

The above graph led me to reviewing the breadth of assignments that I gave to students, and all but one were written tasks, the other a presentation.

 

            Why is education so dependent on the written essay? Is it to have tangible quantifiable metrics in grading? Which leads to why are we so dependent on grades? Can/should we try to move away from this?

I have had many failures in my ‘alternative provisions’ which I try to see the positives in, in the form that I am trying to offer multiple inclusive forms of education and assessment. There is bound to be failures. I do find pressure from a QA position to minimize uncertainty and defer to the accepted safe paths. I think education needs to embrace the topic we discussed last time out of the hidden curriculum. I believe this to be true particularly in schools, including the arguments for specialist (not special) schools, such as dance schools, art schools, sports schools; the case for banning homework at developmental ages so children play and find passions and learning in a non ‘forced’ manner and many more.