There is no debate on the incredible benefit Universal Design for Learning (UDL) brings. UDL enables students to accomplish the goal of teaching; for students to understand and retain what the teacher is communicating. UDL can do amazing things to make teaching successful such as reorganizing the presentation of material depending on what type of learner the student is. UDL also provides other ways of assessment. This is great because it enable the teacher to learn if they have reached their student of not. However, it does not force the student to learn the various ways one is called on to communicate. Do these students then suffer from not being able to perform later in life?
For example, student who has a hard time transcribing his thoughts or becomes mentally worn out by mental, through UDL will be offered an alternative way to showcase understanding. This student is then excused to some extent of reaching full potential of a different skill. To clarify, a student that is always able to put his explanation into words, will not have the same written strength as a other student who was not given those alternative venues.
I by no means mean to bash UDL and I clearly see the incredible benefit it offers. I simply, don't want to not consider one of the potential cons that will negatively affect the children.
No comments:
Post a Comment