Comparing Traditional Learning Materials with Those Created with Instructional Design and Universal Design for Learning Attributes: The Students’ Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are foundational universal design for learning (UDL) principles that support accessibility and inclusivity that can be incorporated into instructional materials. Creating instructional materials that are accessible and inclusive is a comparatively new challenge that is gaining awareness. A problem is that most professors do not know how to design for accessibility and inclusivity. Universal design for learning is also referred to as universal instructional design. This paper discusses the instructional design and UDL principles designed into instructional materials that were created to teach piping trades students how to solder and braze copper pipe. A summative quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted to determine whether the students felt that the new materials had more instructional design and UDL attributes than the original materials. The findings showed that there were significant differences between the instructional design and UDL attributes of the new materials as compared to the original materials. There were no significant differences between some of the attributes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".