Recognize
My gut reaction is to ask, what does "recognize" even mean?! But, I stop, take a few step backs, and think about how many of the professors I've had over the years who never recognized diversity or inclusivity in their pedagogy, instructional processes, or instructional materials. Really in their curriculum which includes many of those elements (e.g., Lattuca & Stark, 2009). Recognize, let alone work to incorporate and embrace it.
While Universal Design is about creating a common design that works for everyone, we have the freedom to create a design system that can adapt, morph, or stretch to address each design need presented by each individual
Makes me think of UDL now as a stepping stone towards ID
I may be blind, but I don’t read Braille, I have some residual vision so the pictures help me navigate, also French is my second language and I’m currently juggling my kids and my job and haven’t slept all night so I’m stressed and a little bit distracted
These examples are helping me make sense of my comment previously on equalizing individuals' levels of degree regarding access to designs. I could simultaneously be aware of learners' needs which they talk to me about or I'm informed about, but also keep in mind that even when a learner might experience a barrier given the design at hand, they might also have plenty of other barriers unseen including stress, family, and financial concerns.
much universal design guidance categorizes design advice according to constrained categories of disability
This idea reflects notions from SEDL in that disability is a socially constructed concept. UDL has inadvertently (at least in the context of ID) established categories based on pre-established constraints.
not necessarily part of any formalized definition of Universal Design, but nevertheless are part of the popular assumptions about the term
I actually appreciate the transparency around defining something based on common assumptions or what one "often hears." In a recent experience, myself and a few others had collectively defined what we deemed to be "racist," and we were encouraged to cite sources. At first, this was an odd concept because I thought to myself, "well, I just know what it is, looks like, and sounds like." But then, for the context of the situation, I realized sources could be useful for those wanting to learn more about how we conceptualized it. So while I don't know too much about UDL, I appreciate these distinctions given some of the common knowledge.
than the student who has not read the background material, the student who is less fluent with the language
Conceptually, I understand how disability is being framed in that ANYONE excluded from material is a disabling experience. But, in this example highlighted, I worry that equalizing, generalizing, or refocusing the definition of disability in this way glosses over the levels of degree in access to the designs across learners. The authors don't say this, but would these two students be understood to have an equal lack of access—one who didn't read the material and who is less fluent with the language? Probably not, but something to remember in practice.
disability can be experienced by anyone excluded by the design
Ok, OR disability defined as someone excluded from the design
a mismatch between the needs of the individual and the design of the product, system or service
So disability is framed as an error between how the thing is designed and the intended beneficiary. So, disability of the system, not the individual, to do its intended stuff.
intended beneficiary
This reminds me of types of stakeholders in educational program evaluations. Could be a useful reference here. Mertens and Wilson (2012) mention the following 5:
Within ID, who's making the decisions and implementing strategies? Who are the intended and unintended beneficiaries? Most importantly, who's disadvantaged?
shown that a group that includes diverse perspectives, especially perspectives from the margins, trumps a group of the “best and brightest,” in decision-making, accurate prediction and innovation
So, a group with more diverse perspectives performed better than a homogenous group on certain skills. In the context of teaching and learning, I imagine it's more than simply putting diverse perspectives together. This happens all the time! So what about this design can foster the interactions and fostering of such diverse perspectives?
adaptive design
Is it adaptive because it's inclusive or inclusive because it's adaptive? Curious to know/learn more about adaptive designs—both from an instructor and learner perspective.
Three Dimensions
I appreciate the succinct principles, allowing me to carry around a framework for practicing and implementing ID
considers
Interesting verb choice. I tend to think of inclusive or inclusivity as an intentional effort of something, so I wonder about the selection behind "considers." What does it mean to consider diversity versus a more active verb? For me, both 'inclusive' and 'design' connote intentionality, but not so much with 'considers.'
What is Inclusive Design
After reading the site, I think ID is an ideology that, recognizes the contributions of UDL, while building off of them. As depicted in the photo above, we can create common designs (apparently with a rainbow!) accessible for everyone, while working to recognize and include the diverse perspectives and needs of each learner.