UDL Implementation in Higher Education: Drawing lessons from the COVID online pivot and reconnecting with inclusive design in the face-to-face classroom
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
After two decades of advocacy across North American campuses, it is fair to assert that Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is finally having an impact on the inclusion of students with disabilities across campuses (Schreffler et al., 2019). It is helping shift instructors and departments away from medical model approaches to students with disabilities (Edwards et al., 2022), and facilitating the adoption of the social model of disability in classroom practices (Fovet, 2014). In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic forced campus closures and an overnight shift to online instruction and assessment across the world (Hodges et al, 2020). Many have argued that this pivot has helped increase awareness of accessibility and has developed inclusive design as a mindset among instructors (Dhawan, 2020). Equally numerous are researchers and practitioners who feel that the pandemic has weakened institutions’ commitment to inclusion, made accessible learning more difficult to achieve, and generally hindered the development of UDL in higher education (Napierala et al., 2022). This dichotomy in perspectives is pervasive and encountered in most jurisdictions; it demonstrates the need for higher educators to ‘reconnect’ despite these lived experiences and to journey collectively and collaboratively towards more inclusive practices, in this period of healing. This interactive session will lead the audience in assessing to what extent each of these assertions might be true, and how campuses can draw important lessons from these experiences, in relation to UDL implementation – particularly in Technology Enhanced Environments (TELs). It will examine how researchers and practitioners must draw from lessons learnt in online teaching and learning in these two disruptive years to ‘reconnect’ with the inclusive design mindset et advance UDL implementation as they return to the fade to face classroom. It will demonstrate how sometimes difficult and rushed reflections around inclusive design in TELs that occurred during the global health crisis, now have the potential to radically overhaul previous attitudes and assumptions, and to erode initial resistance to inclusive design as a mindset. The presentation draws from multiple interactive workshops which have been offered to UDL advocates and faculty throughout the pandemic. It presents the analysis of phenomenological data gathered throughout these professional development sessions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle