You are here:

Nested Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Hybrid Online Courses
Proceeding

, University of Louisville, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, BC, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-24-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Teachers are challenged to teach increasingly diverse students in their classrooms to high standards. To help teachers reach these students, materials are needed that provide multiple representations, support multiple means of expression and engagement, and have different assessment strategies. The idea of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is to provide materials with this degree of flexibility and scaffolding to meet each students’ learning needs. This paper is about the ideas and strategies of creating/developing hybrid online course to maximize student learning outcomes through a UDL perspective. These free online multimedia tools are easily nested as part of any hybrid/online course.

Citation

Bauder, D. (2016). Nested Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Hybrid Online Courses. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1127-1133). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aycock, A. (2016). Introduction: Alan Aycock's perspective ongoing hybrid. Learning Technology Center. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Retrieved from: http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/hybrid/faculty_ Resources/aycock_comments.cfm?printformat=TRUE
  2. Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.
  3. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. Routledge.
  4. Bergman, M. (2016). Personal communication. University of Louisville. Boston, W.E., and Ice, P. 2011. Assessing retention in online learning: An administrative perspective. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer142/boston_ice142.html.
  5. Cavanagh, T. (2013). The new is now the norm/Pegagus. Retrieved from http://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/the-new-isnow-the-norm/.
  6. Christensen, T.K. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235-243.
  7. Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.
  8. Edyburn, D.L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41.
  9. Hensley, G. (2005). Creating a hybrid college course: Instructional design notes and recommendations for beginners. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(2).
  10. Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments (pp. 401-412). Springer New
  11. Jiménez, T.C., Graf, V.L., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41.
  12. Kaleta, R., Skibba, K. & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A.G. Picciano and C.D. Dziuban (Eds), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (pp. 111–144). Needham, MA: Sloan
  13. Kerres, M., & DeWitt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media. 28 (2-3), 101-113.
  14. McMahon, M., & Pospisil, R. (2005). Laptops for a digital lifestyle: Millennial students and wireless mobile technologies. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 421431
  15. Nelson, L.L. & Basham, J.D. (2014). A blueprint for UDL: Considering the design of implementation. Lawrence, KS: UDL-IRN. Retrieved from http://udl-irn.org
  16. Nesbit, J.C., & Adesope, O.O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
  17. Paine, P.F. (2003). An outline for designing a hybrid first year language course with WebCT. Eric Document ED479812.
  18. Prensky, M.R. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
  19. Roehl, A., Reddy, S.L., & Shannon, G.J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2) 44-9.
  20. Skibba, K.A. (2006, March). ACross-Case Analysis of How Faculty Connect Learning in a Hybrid Courses. Proceedings of 47th Annual Adult Education Research Conference. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  21. Soules, M. (2005). Collaboration and publication in hybrid online courses.
  22. UDL-IRN (2011). UDL in the Instructional Process. Version 1.0. Lawrence, KS
  23. U.S. Government (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315). Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/heoa-compliance-obligations.html.
  24. Wyatt, L.G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10-20.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections