No abstract

Standardizing aspects of assessments has long been recognized as a tactic to help make evaluations of examinees fair. It reduces variation in irrelevant aspects of testing procedures that could advantage some examinees and disadvantage others. However, recent attention to making assessment accessible to a more diverse population of students highlights situations in which making tests identical for all examinees can make a testing procedure less fair: Equivalent surface conditions may not provide equivalent evidence about examinees. Although testing accommodations are by now standard practice in most large-scale testing programmes, for the most part these practices lie outside formal educational measurement theory. This article builds on recent research in universal design for learning (UDL), assessment design, and psychometrics to lay out the rationale for inference that is conditional on matching examinees with principled variations of an assessment so as to reduce constructirrelevant demands. The present focus is assessment for special populations, but it is argued that the principles apply more broadly.

This article describes the mechanism through which cultural variabihty is a source of learning differences. The authors argue that the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can be extended to capture the way in which learning is influenced by cultural variabihty, and show how the UDL fi-amework might be used to create a curriculum that is responsive to this cultural dimension of learning. We also suggest that when used in this way, the UDL framework may not only reduce barriers for culturally diverse learners, but also increase the learning opportunities for all learners-helping them to develop proficiency in a broader range of expressive, analytic, and cognitive styles that are crucial to success in the twenty-first century.

No abstract

Background Educators and researchers have long emphasized the need to engage students in disciplinary thinking in order to develop rich, discipline-specific practices and habits of mind. Yet, these opportunities are often under-nurtured in today's classrooms and are especially limited for students with disabilities. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one promising avenue for supporting all students to engage in disciplinary thinking (ways of knowing, reasoning, and doing specific to the discipline). This framework for teaching and learning suggests embedding options into curricula in order to expand learning opportunities for students with and without disabilities. Researchers have yet to investigate how UDL and disciplinary thinking can complement one another. Research Question This study explores the following question: How, if at all, do teachers working within a school that explicitly promotes the UDL framework use UDL to prompt students’ disciplinary thinking in English Language Arts (ELA)? Setting The study was conducted in a fifth grade classroom of an inclusive elementary school in an urban district in the northeast United States. Participants Participants included two fifth grade co-teachers and their class of 21 students with and without documented disabilities. Research Design This qualitative case study spanned a 10-week ELA unit. Data were gathered via videotaped observations, collection of instructional materials, interviews with the co-teachers, and collection of student work. CAST is a nonprofit education research and development organization that works to expand learning opportunities for all individuals through UDL. The analytic framework joined CAST's UDL Guidelines and common themes distilled from the literature that characterize disciplinary thinking in ELA. This framework was used as a starting place to code the co-teachers’ practice and students’ thinking. An open coding strategy was applied to capture emergent themes. Findings Data reveal that the co-teachers used specific strategies to create opportunities for all students to engage in disciplinary thinking. First, particular UDL guidelines/checkpoints were applied. For example, to support learners in “reading like writers,” the co-teachers applied strategies consistent with Guideline 6: “Provide options for executive functions,” encouraging students to develop the planning and organizational practices of expert readers and writers. Second, particular UDL guidelines/checkpoints were used in ways that are not explicitly suggested in the UDL Guidelines. For example, to support students in “reading for meaning” and “reading like writers,” the co-teachers’ strategies were generally consistent with Guideline 3: “Provide options for comprehension.” Yet, the co-teachers moved beyond “comprehension” by empowering students to construct their own sophisticated, disciplinary analyses. Conclusions The co-teachers’ instructional moves and the richness of students’ thinking offer important implications for future iterations of the UDL Guidelines and suggest that all learners can and should be challenged to engage in discipline-specific practices and habits of mind.