SDT & UDL

The rigidity found in education serves a purpose. It provides a framework for educators to assess students’ understanding of course content; however, the lack of choice and expression can negatively impact intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-determination theory (SDT) asserts that fulfilling students’ basic needs for competence, such as the feeling of effectiveness and mastery in their learning, relatedness, connecting with others and their course material, and autonomy, including ownership of their learning and making decisions in their education, motivate them to grow, learn, and achieve in their academics (Legault, 2017). Hanewicz et al. (2017) showed that providing students with a choice of assignments created a positive learning experience and motivated them in their educational journey. The element of allowing student autonomy and choice to express their learning and comprehension of course material is a central thesis of Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Universal Desing for Learning leverages the neuroscience of learning to enhance and personalize education for everyone (CAST, 2018). UDL views student learning as a continuum of starting points based on age, prior knowledge, cognitive development, physicality, and social experience. Using this lens, UDL empowers educators to modify curriculum elements to personalize students’ education (Rose & Dolan, 2000). Supporters of the Universal Design for Learning recognize how traditional approaches to instruction limit the flexibility required for students to complete their studies. Inflexibility creates barriers to learning (La et al., 2018).

Simmons et al. (2010) investigated the effectiveness of implementing UDL principles with strategies such as flexible assessment, multiple means of representation of course content, and multiple avenues of action and expression in course final assignments. The student experience was positive overall, and the authors theorize that UDL can enhance student autonomy by preparing them to be lifelong, agile learners.

References

Almeqdad, Q.I., Alodat, A.M. Alquaraan, M.F., Mohaidat, M.A., & Al-Makhzoomh, A.k. (2023) The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Edcuation, 10(1), 2218191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191

CAST (2018). Universal design for learning version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidlelines.cast.org

Hanewicz, C., Platt, A., Arendt, A. (2017). Creating a learner-centered teaching environment using student choice in assignments. Distance Education, 38(3), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369349

La, H., Dyjur, P., & Bair, H. (2018). Universal design for learning in higher education. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. Calgary: University of Calgary

Legault, L., (2017). Self determination theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, (1-9). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1162-1

Rose, D.E. & Dolan, B. (2000). Universal design for learning: Associate editor’s column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47.

Ryan, R., Deci, E., (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-78.

Simmons, C.D. Willkomm, T., &Behling, K.T. (2010). Professional power through education: Universal course design initiatives in occupational therapy curriculum. Occupation Therapy Health Care, 24(1), 26-96. https://doi.org/10.3109/07380570903428664