Review

Reviewed Work(s): Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for
Learning by David H. Rose and Anne Meyer
Review by: Stephanie L. Moore
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development , Oct., 2007, Vol. 55, No. 5
(Oct., 2007), pp. 521-525
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220506

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Technology Research and Development

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Education Tech Research Dev (2007) 55:521-525
DOI 10.1007/s 11423-007-9056-3

BOOK REVIEW

David H. Rose, Anne Meyer, Teaching Every Student

in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 N
Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA 22311-1714, Product no. 101042,
$22.95 ASCD members, $26.95 nonmembers, ISBN-0-87120-599-8

Stephanie L. Moore

Published online: 17 August 2007

@ Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

A brief history/some background

In the 1950s, the idea of "universal design" first emerged. At the time it was arti
barrier-free design, an idea growing in concept in Europe, Japan and the US.
described in the early stages as a growing global awareness of the necessity for and
of building environments that were obstacle-free. The early emphasis was on re
obstacles for people with physical disabilities-when a building was designe
"universal" access, it would by design accommodate users with disabilities. By th
the idea had matured and gained political strength. During the '70s, US architec
Bednar described universal design as an awareness that everyone's functional cap
enhanced when environmental barriers are removed. The best example to date rem
curb cut-a city planning feature designed to benefit individuals in wheelchairs,
turned out to benefit many others such as joggers, parents pushing strollers, e
awareness would soon become a cornerstone for design practices in fields such a
tecture, civil engineering, and human factors engineering. The political strength
came from the disability rights movement, focusing on the rights of individ
disabilities.
By the 1980s, this concept had gained strength in numbers (or critical mass;
1995). In 1987, the World Design Congress passed a resolution stating that d
should factor disability and aging into designs, adding professional strength
approach (Adaptive Environments 2006). A number of professions adopted u
design as a core tenet of professional practice: when a supermarket or a building
infrastructure or an airplane is designed and built, it should be able to accommod
range of users. This "wide range" was not simply a range of physical abilities, bu
of ages and life stages-what is called "lifespan design." Any person, regardless o

S. L. Moore (FA)
Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning, University of Northern Colorado,
Greeley, CO, USA
e-mail: Stephanie.Moore@unco.edu

Springer

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 522 S. L. Moore

physical limita
et al. 1991). In
from accessibl
requires only
everything we
By the 1990s,
widespread ch
service provid
Rehabilitation
the book under review here.

The fundamental premise of UDL

In their text, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age, Rose and Meyer put forth the most
comprehensive articulation of universal design for learning (UDL) that has been offered to
date. Indeed, there are many valuable aspects to the book. They state, "...barriers to
learning are not, in fact, inherent in the capacities of learners, but instead arise in learners'
interactions with inflexible educational materials and methods" (p. vi). This is akin to
Rummler's statement that when you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system
will win every time (2004). At the heart of UDL is the view that "failure to learn" is not a
measure of the inherent capacity of the learner but a reflection of learning systems (some
part of the systems, such as materials, strategies, policies or infrastructure) that fail to
address the needs of all learners.

Rose and Meyer argue that brain research reveals just how different learners are and
how the same instructional approaches will not work for every learner, regardless of
whether a learner has a disability or not. They describe recognition networks, strategic
networks, and affective networks, including what the implications of these networks are for
how learning should be designed. For example, they describe how both bottom-up and top-
down processing play a role in learning content often associated with recognition networks
(e.g. learning to read) and how instruction that incorporates both directions of processing
benefits a wider range of learners and is more responsive to diversity in the learner
population. For instance, reading research reflected in the work of Adams (1990) dem-
onstrates that learning to read becomes constrained at some point if a student only has
mastered large patterns (e.g. word recognition or large vocabulary) or only has basic skills
(e.g. letter recognition or letter-sound correspondence). A student with vocabulary but lack
of decoding skills when she encounters new words will not develop into a strong reader.
Conversely, the student who has learned to decode phonemes and words will not become a
reader until he has developed a larger vocabulary and gained exposure to more contexts for
understanding. Other students may have neither large vocabulary exposure in their back-
ground (a strong correlate for students who do not go on to read; Hart and Risley 1995) nor
the basic skills for decoding even simple words. Given the reality of this diversity,
instructional strategies that include both bottom-up and top-down processing capture a
much broader range of students and the backgrounds they bring to learning environments.
Additionally, Rose and Meyer argue that UDL is now possible because new technol-
ogies make it possible to build learning materials and environments that are more flexible.
They provide a positive picture for the role technology can play in creating learning
systems that bend with the individuals in the systems. In his testimony before Congress,

Springer

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Teaching every student in the digital age 523

Rose adds that technology can not only help us overc

design learning environments with fewer barriers
The authors provide an excellent treatment of se
tives, outlining just how separating outcomes fr
flexible learning environments. For example, a u
focus on end results, or outcomes, and not pre-spec
If the goal is for a student to learn to read beginni
accuracy), then the means for accomplishing that
require only a few minutes of instruction and some r
may require numerous repetitions. Still other stude
game or practice session that allows them high rep
Additionally, assessments can be designed along
dents the opportunity to demonstrate mastery, comp
in a college level class, students can demonstrate th
content in a final project that can take the shape o
multimedia demonstration, or a final product in w
describe their decisions based on course content.
At the core of this framework for design is an emphasis on multi-modal representations
of content and flexible learning materials and systems that clearly separate ends from
means. However, there are some significant gaps and assumptions in the text. These gaps
may not be due to any lack of awareness of the part of the authors, however, so much as the
instructional design community's lack of awareness on this topic and subsequent absence
in the dialogue. Universal Design is not a new set of ideas that is yet another fad to pass,
but instead has become the design standard for other professions and an adopted set of
principles for Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies (see for
example Japan, Pacific Bell, and UN post-conflict redevelopment policies, referenced
below). As it becomes more widespread, there are some areas where the instructional
design community can provide good insight that will yield strong solutions.
For example, in Chapter 3, Rose and Meyer argue that new digital media (versus
traditional media of textbooks and lecture) facilitates a more universally designed envi-
ronment because the new media is inherently flexible. They outline four characteristics of
digital media that are particularly beneficial for classroom application: digital media are
versatile, are transformable, can be marked, and can be networked. Indeed, these are
potentially valuable characteristics of learning environments or materials mediated by
technology. However, these are not intrinsic characteristics of the technology, in many
cases. Therefore, an assumption that use of HTML (that can be marked up and linked)
makes that learning resource (such as a website) flexible and accessible is an erroneous
assumption. Conscious design considerations and features have to be built into the website.
A website can be just as inaccessible as a building with no ramps or elevators. The
technology alone is not flexible or accessible-we build those sorts of environments only
through deliberate design that includes universal design and accessibility as part of the
framework.

Enter the discipline of instructional design. Design models demonstrate (in different
ways) that design of learning environments, materials, and systems is a conscious set of
decisions centered around a variety of factors (e.g. learning goals and objectives, learners
characteristics, media characteristics, message design, etc.; e.g. Morrison et al. 2004;
Smith and Ragan 2005). These models can inform the universal design framework to
provide a more robust framework for how flexible, universal learning systems are
designed. The models highlight design considerations and provide systematic processes

Springer

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 524 S. L. Moore

that,to date,
rounded conce
design decisio
characteristic
aware or una
instructional
that would yie
Additionally,
design. Nearly
materials, stra
on systemic-le
ronments to b
feedback syst
features play
achieve a univ
Universal Des
principles app
individual lev
system, the sy
And universal
improvement.
tional design
analysis of th
(or audience)
should lead on
modalities, and
truly optimal
professional r
ments we buil
practices and
strengthen ho

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adaptive Environments. (2006). History of universal design. http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/index.
php?option=Content&Itemid=26. Accessed July 17, 2007.
Fletcher, V. (2002). Universal design, human-centered design for the 21st century. Adaptive Environments
Center, Inc.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American
children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Japan (2006).-Ministry of Land, Infrastructure & Transport-General principles of universal design policy.
http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/2006/a policy bureau/01 udpolicy/03 10.html. Accessed July 17, 2007.
Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2004). Designing effective instruction, 5th edition. Prentice-Hall: Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Mace, R., Hardie, G., & Plaice, K. (1991). Accessible environments: Towards universal design. In W. E.
Preiser, J. C. Visher, & E. T. White (Eds.), Design interventions towards a more humane architecture
(pp. 155-176). New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold.
Pacific Bell. (2007). Universal design policy, http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm Accessed July
17, 2007.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. New York: The Free Press.

Springer

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Teaching every student in the digital age 525

Rose, D. (2001). Testimony to committee on appropriations

services, and education: hearing on educational technology
books/afb/kit/tkit55.htm accessed July 17, 2007.
Rummler, G. A. (2004). Serious performance consulting:
International society for performance improvement an
development.
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
United Nations. (1999). Copenhagen declaration on social development. United Nations division for social
policy and development. Available online at: http://www.visionoffice.com/socdev/wssdco-0.htm
accessed July 17, 2007.
Welch, P. (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Adaptive environments center and MIG
communications.

Springer

This content downloaded from

143.88.66.66 on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:38:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms