Some limitations of UDL for supporting neurodivergent students
A follow-up post
Welcome back to this two-part series on UDL and neurodiversity. The first post addressed the question how and why is UDL a good approach to supporting neurodivergent students? I wrote that post in the interest of fleshing out what is a commonly assumed connection between these two concepts, but one that is rarely supported. If you have not yet read that post, I urge you to read it first. The post you are reading now acts as a sort of postscript to that one, as I am going to address a few limitations of UDL in responding to neurodiversity in teaching. In some ways, this post feels a little bit heretical, because there is so much good that could be done by adopting UDL in a more serious way throughout higher education to remove barriers for students with and without disabilities. But, I firmly believe that we are better served by understanding the limitations of various teaching approaches than assuming that they are silver bullets, a theme that has been present on this newsletter since its inception a year ago (!) The rest of this post outlines three limitations or gaps in UDL for addressing the needs of neurodivergent students that I have recently identified, though there are likely more.
This post might be of particular interest to you if you are a faculty developer who promotes UDL on your campus. If more advanced practitioners of UDL come to your programs, they may have encountered challenges related to these limitations and be seeking advice. You might feel more prepared to support them having considered these limitations and others that you identify on your own.
The UDL guidelines do not extensively address sensory differences, sensitivities, and needs
Sensory differences and sensitivities are important elements of neurodivergent students and faculty experiences in teaching and learning settings. However, because the UDL guidelines are so focused on the specifics of learning, they do not make as much reference to environmental factors that affect learning, like sensory input. I was first turned on to this point by Ann-Marie Creaven’s article on the subject of sensory and social needs of students with disabilities, in which she points out that, “Before a student can engage with a UDL curriculum, their sensory and social needs must be met by the built environment in which in-person learning takes place. Ironically, although UDL is inspired by universal design principles from architecture, it overlooks the relevance of built or sensory environment for learning, and how that environment facilitates or does not facilitate social integration for disabled students.” Neurodivergent students are often looking for environments that reduce sensory inputs and help to prevent sensory overwhelm. This kind of overwhelm might be caused by the combination of the chatter in a large room full of students, bright fluorescent lights overhead, the hum of an air conditioning unit going on and off every few minutes, a neighbor’s phone vibrating with incoming messages, and more.
Creaven mentions this point, offering that the UDL guidelines do in fact recommend that instructors reduce threats and distractions to the greatest extent possible, but that this is limited to “varying” the levels of sensory input, rather than offering “respite.” Ultimately, the need for respite from sensory inputs bumps up against the premise of UDL - that offering options to students reduces the need for individualized accommodations. The more options we offer, the greater potential for sensory overwhelm in many cases. Moving beyond the issue of sensory overwhelm, it is clear that the UDL guidelines do not strongly consider what preconditions may be necessary for learning. In addition to sensory comfort or accommodation, we might recognize social integration and belonging as potential preconditions for learning that are often lacking for neurodivergent students.
The UDL guidelines do not seem to address the need for flexible or additional time on learning activities
Many neurodivergent students need more time for some activities than their peers, or experience less ability to predict how much time tasks will take, leading to the need for time flexibility. The need for additional time or a flexible approach to time may derive from executive functioning differences, differences in how certain types of information are processed, or the time needed to coordinate speech or movement among other factors. For some of these reasons, accommodations related to additional time on assessments or other deliverables are frequently sought by and granted to neurodivergent students. This aspect of neurodivergent students’ experience is not, in my opinion, particularly well-addressed by the UDL guidelines. To be fair, consideration 4.1 (“Vary and honor the methods for response, navigation, and movement”) does suggest that we “Embed flexibility in the requirements for rate, timing, speed, and range of motor action required to interact with instructional materials, physical manipulatives, and technologies.” This suggestion seems to mostly refer to the interactions students have with course materials, and potentially peers, but not the speededness of activities and assessments. Outside the UDL conversation, there has been some well-argued advocacy against highly-speeded assessments and against timed exams specifically. Arguments such as those made by Gernsbacher et al. about how timed exams are less valid, less reliable, less inclusive, and less equitable address the need for time flexibility among neurodivergent students more directly than the UDL guidelines.
The UDL guidelines do not address “access friction”
Access friction is a topic I have engaged on this newsletter before, which can succinctly be described as a phenomenon in which access needs come into conflict. As I have discussed in a few LinkedIn posts, the UDL guidelines seem to assume that there is no “downside” in terms of accessibility to offering students multiple ways of doing things in the learning environment. The UDL guidelines offer a general set of strategies that are designed to increase accessibility, but they do not go so far as to offer remedies for conflicts that may arise as a result of their implementation. For example, is it always a good idea to present information in multiple formats at the same time? A study in which showing text on a screen and speaking that same text seemed to benefit dyslexic students but disadvantage non-dyslexic students would complicate this advice. In my experience, instructors get very frustrated when they feel that they have made a good faith effort to implement UDL practices in pursuit of a more inclusive learning environment and are then faced with new conflicts. I try to tell faculty that being able to identify access friction in their classroom represents a lot of knowledge and sensitivity on their part. Often, the resolution of access friction will involve some individual accommodations or compromises within the learning community, somewhat in tension with the core ideas of UDL.
As always, I am open to your feedback and comments. What other shortcomings have you identified in the UDL guidelines for responding to neurodivergent student needs, or responding to neurodiversity in the classroom more generally? Please feel free to comment if you are logged into substack or contact me privately.
Photo by Martina Pastore on Unsplash