Commitment to education is a way of life for most teaching faculty in a university. Believing in the primacy of teaching and student learning, college faculty who want to develop high quality learning environments use best practices to ensure student success. Universal Design Factors (Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), 2005) should be considered to meet the learning needs of all students. Faculty may wonder how they can support struggling students without compromising rigorous standards. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles enable faculty to effectively design their materials and instruction delivery to benefit students with diverse learning needs without changing their course content. Since individual students process information in unique and different ways, Universal Design principles allow faculty to present course material in ways that create equal access, provide for students to document learning in various ways, and motivate students to be engage in and become self-directed learners. While there are many principles to be considered for UDL, this project focuses on an easily accessible technology, Camtasia, to begin implementing UDL principles in any professor’s classroom.
Click here to play the demonstration video. (Adobe Flash plugin required)
Click here to read a transcript of the video. (HTML)
Arquette, C. (2004). A University-Public School ‘Key-Pal’ Partnership. T.H.E. Journal, 32(5), 10-16.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-Regulation: An introductory overview. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation. (pp.13-35). San Francisco: Academic Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Retrieved 3/9/06 from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index/html.
Darling-Hammond, L., Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Sherin, M., Griesdorn, J. & Finn, L. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.) Preparing teachers for a changing world. (pp. 169-200). CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grabe, M. & Grabe, C (2004). Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning. New York: Houghton Miffllin.
Hitchock, C. & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Educational Technology, 19(4), 45-52.International Society for Technology in Education (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved August 1, 2005 from: http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html
Male, M. (2003). Technology for inclusion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Michaels, C. & McDermott, D. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators’ perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29-44.
Murray, C. (2006). Education takes $59M hit in new federal budget: Educational
technology is among the budget’s biggest losers. eSchool News. Retrieved January 9, 2006 from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6010.National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved August 1, 2005 from http://www.ncate.org/public/technology21.asp?ch=113.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press.
Norton, P. & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
O’Connell, J. & Phye, G. (2005). Creating strategies for improved teaching and learning. T.H.E. Journal, 32(12), 27-29.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
TechSmith (2005) Camtastia studio. Okemos, MI. www.techsmith.com
Thorsen, C. (2006). TechTactics technology for teachers. Boston: Pearson Education.
Wertsch, J. V. (1986). Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambride: Cambridge University Press.