Since the Guidelines debuted, we have collected and specifically solicited feedback from the field. These comments were then used to revise and edit the content and form of the UDL Guidelines Version 2.0. The following highlight some of the changes we have made.
We made this change because we felt that the term student was too narrow. Student implies someone who is in the classroom, but we realized that learning happens in many different learning environments where the term student might not be traditionally applied (e.g. museums, after school programs, adult learning). The word learner was therefore chosen because of the range of situations to which it could apply.
The UDL framework is based around individual variability. It can be seen across all three principles (representation, action and expression, and engagement), and there are many sources for this. In this revision we tried to emphasize variability where ever we could.
In Guidelines Version 1.0 we included a series of questions to help readers understand the concept of UDL. We have extended that work and added three new questions, how has UDL been defined; is technology necessary for the implementation of UDL; and how can you use the Guidelines? These questions were added based on feedback we received from the field to clarify and further define what the UDL framework is and how it relates to technology.
We also focused on revising and expanding the question, what evidence supports the practices of UDL? Though it is certainly not comprehensive in its scope, we broke down this question into five primary areas of research; foundational research on UDL, principle level research, promising practices research, implementation research, and additional research questions. It is important to note that we are now beginning the process of further revisions to the research that supports the Guidelines. This work will be debuted at a later point.
We decided that using “provide options that” at the beginning of each checkpoint was too redundant. To fix this problem, while retaining the idea that each checkpoint still implies providing options, we made each guideline end with “that…” with the intention that the checkpoint is what is needed to finish the guideline.
There were quite a few checkpoints that we needed to clarify to more accurately reflect our intended meaning. For instance, one checkpoint now reads “optimize individual choice and autonomy”. The purpose behind this was to emphasize that many of the options are bidirectional in the sense that simply increasing or decreasing is not ideal. In the case of choice, too much choice can actually hinder the ability to choose, while too little choice can result in disengagement. In other words optimize implies working towards an ideal level.
In this version of the Guidelines we have made the effort to include more content domains. Admittedly, Version 1.0 focused too much on Language Arts, so in Version 2.0 we tried to include more language from math, science, art, and social studies. We also tried to add more examples for the checkpoints. When possible we added examples from different content areas with the hope that these are more relevant for a variety of teachers.
Last Updated: 04/17/2013