Application of Universal Design for Learning

Part 1a. Case Study: ‘Student H’ – Needs and Strengths

‘Student H’ is an approximately six-year-old Stage One male student who I have observed in a
classroom context and has been seen to demonstrate symptoms associated with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD). The dominant deficit symptom that Student H demonstrates is his inability to
communicate verbally with articulated language; whilst he does not present as a mute he cannot
form identifiable words and relies on issuing inarticulate sounds and other non-verbal actions and/or
signs to attempt communication. Through observing his classroom behaviour and then
contextualizing them against the diagnostic criteria for ASD as outlined by the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereon to be referred to as DSM-5), Student H provides an
appropriate case study for the purposes of this assessment. This assignment will review the needs of
Harrison as a student with ASD, as well as his strengths, and informed by these assessments and
appropriate literature, an attempt will be made to establish a Universal Design for Learning
framework for this student to obtain the maximum inclusive educational benefit. In the second part
of this assignment a previously delivered lesson plan will be modified, demonstrating the
adjustments made as informed by the UDL framework, so that this student and his classmates will
benefit from improved inclusivity.

As previously stated, Student H demonstrates behaviours that meet the criteria for ASD as
outlined in DSM-V. By assessing his behaviours based on the Autism Spectrum Disorder 299.00
(F84.0) criteria as cited by the organisation Autism Speaks on their website, it may be concluded that
he requires very substantial support in social communication and requires support with his
restrictive and repetitive behaviours. His inability to present any articulate verbal communication
through formal speech reflects the statistical observations provided by Patten, Ausderau, Watson
and Baranek (2013) regarding the failure rates of students with ASD to develop functional verbal
communication. Student H’s behaviour also reflects the findings of these authors with respect to
their findings re nonverbal status and sensory hyporesponsiveness and hyperresponsiveness.
Student H’s lack of articulate verbal communication capabilities also reflect the ASD diagnosis
provided by Kasari, Brady, Lord and Tager-Flusberg (2013), where they state that “Although from a
clinical/educational perspective, the exact number of words used does not matter that much,
researchers may want to impose a quantitative definition for this population (e.g., fewer than 20
functional words)."

Student H has specific educational needs because of his requirements for very substantial
support in social communication. As discussed by Westerveld, Paynter, Webster, Hodge & Roberts,
students with ASD have differing issues relating to oral language skills and this in turn has
implications for their emergent literacy development. Leytham, Pierce, Baker, Miller and Tandy
(2014) also make specific reference to the interrelationship between ASD and poor oral
communication skills and their effect on literacy skills. I have observed in classroom practice that
Student H has been unable to verbally engage in phonics lessons where responses have been
required and/or verbal communication is part of the learning environment. This represents a
definitive situation where this student’s literacy has been affected by his nonverbal ASD status.

Another aspect of Student H’s nonverbal ASD behaviours is his hyporesponsiveness and
hyperresponsiveness to stimuli, as manifested in physical behaviours such as ignoring his classmates
and teachers, followed by excessive displays of arm-waving and/or issuing of inarticulate sounds to
obtain attention or to express his displeasure. These behaviours reflect observations made on the
necessity for techniques that may benefit the social communication capabilities of the child
experiencing ASD as discussed by Patten et. al. (2013). Observations of Student H’s
hyperresponsiveness reflect conclusions drawn by Little, Ausderau, Sideris and Baranek on how this
aspect of ASD behaviours impacts upon participation in activities. Student H has demonstrated a
propensity to either withdraw from activities and instruction within the classroom, and/or require
more personalised or one-on-one focused pedagogical activities to ensure that he remains on task or
doesn’t divert attention from other students.

Student H has also demonstrated due to his significant nonverbal ASD communication issues a
substantial need for support vis-à-vis his socialisation. In his class he is the only student who may be
seen to present aspects of a disability (i.e. his lack of articulate speech) and this places him in the
position of being vulnerable to rejection by his classmates. This potentiality reflects the observations
made by Boutot (2007) who states that “Compared to typical students, students with ASD often
have significant social skills deficits that may interfere with their acceptance by others.”. It is also
important that whilst Student H is currently approximately six years old, and thus he is not
susceptible to the additional socialisation challenges that he may face when he enters later years at
school. As Duncan and Klinger (2010) state, students with ASD experience substantial difficulties in
establishing and/or maintaining friendships in adolescence and adulthood. Student H’s nonverbal
ASD-related behaviours may require even more substantive support at school in a social
communication context, as he gets older and participates in later stages of his education.

Whilst Student H is still very young, it has been observed whilst working with him in the
classroom that he is very loyal in his behaviours demonstrated towards teachers, myself, volunteers
and his classmates. This behaviour appears to corroborate a specific strength of the child with ASD
identified by the Autism Speaks organization, vis-à-vis its listing of strengths and challenges. (2018).
Unfortunately, his age and his lack of verbal capabilities does not allow him to demonstrate other
strengths in his social communication activities.

So far Student H’s needs and strengths have been discussed, as they relate to his ASD social
communication context. Student H does not have as substantive demonstrable needs regarding his
repetitive and restrictive behaviours, as those have not been observed to have been as prominent.
Student H has demonstrated a focus on preferring specific materials in his classroom setting that are
specific to his use and his alone. However, and this is due to his nonverbal status, he does not
demonstrate any echolalia which is a specific diagnostic criterion for ASD as outlined by DSM V
(Autism Speaks, 2018). It may be that his restrictive and repetitive behaviours may present problems
for socialisation and behaviour in the future, as informed by readings such as those by Boyd,
McDonough and Bodfish (2012). Currently however this is not an issue for Student H.

Part 1b. ‘Student H’ and Universal Design for Learning

In this part of the assignment the needs and strengths of Student H will be considered as the
basis for formulating appropriate designs for learning, as exemplified in the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) cited by Loremann, Deppeler and Harvey (p.141, 2011) alongside the implementation
of differentiated instruction. The combined theoretical model for these two constructs may be
articulated as “…the planning of curriculum activities in such a way as to ensure all learners are able
to access them.”, and the “pedagogical techniques used in the classroom to deliver the appropriately
designed curriculum to a wide range of learners.” (Loremann, Deppeler and Harvey).
 Loremann, Deppler and Harvey continue to outline UDL as being formulated via three elements;
multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression and multiple means of engagement.
(p.140). These elements may then be combined with the nine principles of Universal Design for
Instruction (as outlined by McGuire, Scott and Shaw, 2006) to formulate a pedagogical praxis that
offers comprehensive, equitable and differentiated learning environments. For example, the fourth
principle of UDI expounded by McGuire, Scott and Shaw refers to ‘perceptible information’ (i.e.
“Instruction is designed so that necessary information is communicated effectively to the student,
regardless of ambient conditions or the student’s sensory abilities”). This reflects the requirement
within a UDL framework to provide students with multiple means of representation for the purposes
of acquiring information and knowledge.

When considering Student H’s learning requirements and contextualizing them with the
constructs and praxis of UDL and differential instruction, it would be appropriate to use Student H’s
needs as affected by his experiences with nonverbal ASD to formulate a response. For example, it
has already been identified that Student H in unable to formulate articulated verbal questions
and/or responses to classroom activities. A UDL activity that is appropriate for Student H as well as
his classmates must therefore look to nonverbal forms of representation, expression and/or
engagement. This may take the form of designing literacy activities that focus on nonverbal
communication. Leytham, Pierce, Baker, Miller and Tandy (2014) look at how the Nonverbal Reading
Approach (NRA) may be adapted for students using phonic instruction guided by the teacher, a
computer, or a combination of both to assist in developing word identification skills. Student H with
his inability to speak the words would nominally be at a disadvantage. However, if his class was
provided with augmentative or alternative communication systems as the part of the multiple
means of expression, then he should be able to formulate the appropriate word identification
literacy skills. To support this proposition, during my time observing Student H his class were able to
access material that demonstrated the constituent alphabet of the sign language Auslan. During one
such literacy activity all students were asked to use the same method of expression (i.e. ‘signing’)
their responses to the questions posed by the teacher. This led to Student H’s specific learning needs
being addressed plus this praxis had the additional benefit of encouraging equity and social
inclusiveness within the classroom.

Student H would also benefit from a UDL learning environment where assistive technologies such
as text to speech software may be made available for all members of his classroom. As outlined by
Sevensma (2014) and King-Sears, Swanson and Mainzer (2011), the use of assistive technology in the
classroom is not to be defined by its use by one student. In a UDL framework where assistive
technology is aimed at the collective needs of all students, is accessible to all students, and may be
integrated with other instructional activities, then it has definitive learning benefits for Student H
and his colleagues. The combination of multiple means of expression and engagement as
represented using assistive technology in this context allows all students to demonstrate their
learning and their willingness to use technology in a learning environment.

Another way of formulating differentiated instruction within a UDL framework so that Student
H’s needs for substantial support in social communication are met would be to introduce small
group activities as standard pedagogical practice. As argued by Ledford and Wehby (2014) small
group learning arrangements provide learning benefits to students with ASD, and they also
represent a potential learning design that may be applied across an entire class.

So as to demonstrate how one may implement UDL and differentiated instruction praxis,
informed by an understanding of the case study of Student H (vis-à-vis his nonverbal autism), so as
to obtain the maximum learning benefit for him and his classmates, I have adapted the following
lesson plan from my previous practical experience with red coloured text indicating the appropriate
differentiation and adjustments. It is to be noted that whilst Student H is currently aged six years old,
it will be assumed for the purposes of this lesson plan he demonstrates the same ASD-related
behaviours as described above in a Year Seven English lesson.

Part 2. UDL & Differentiated Instruction Lesson Plan

Procedures
Time Organisation Teaching/ learning activities

0-5 Classroom Teacher:

Entry
 Have whiteboard ready with lesson agenda. Have
worksheets ready on desk facing down.
 Stand at door way to class room and make sure students
have their pens out
 Direct students into the classroom and put their pens and
work book on their desk, stand behind their seats and
bags on the floor. Not to turn over their work sheets
 Gather students’ attention and when all good instruct
students to sit.
 Stand at front and centre of classroom and use
pauses/silence to make sure students are giving me their
attention.
 Be sure to praise the students for following instructions.
 Have a time schedule for today’s lesson outlined on the
whiteboard for all students to see
 Students requiring access to Assistive Technology or
other Learning Devices to be provided with said devices
before teaching commences.
Students:

 Wait for teacher to direct students into the classroom

 Students to have their workbooks and pens out
 Move into classroom, put their pens and work books on
desk, stand behind their chairs
 When attention given to teacher sit down.
5-15 Word Games I: Teacher:
Repetition
 Direct students to turn over their work sheets
 Use clues to get the students to fill in the letters for the
word ‘repetition’
 When the word correctly identified get the students to
fill in the gap in the first worksheet definition statement.
 Ask one of the students to read the definition and ask for
questions if any problems. Make sure all have completed
this task.
 Questions to be submitted in writing and/or
electronically so that they can formulated without
disadvantaging students with ASD related or other
speech difficulties. (Multiple Means of
Representation/Multiple Means of Expression)
 Students:
 Students play the word game to identify the word
repetition. Once this has been done the students are to
complete the definition and read it back to me.
 Students may present their understanding of the
definition verbally or non-verbally
15-30 Spike Milligan Teacher:
Poem: On The
 Read the poem once with the students
Ning Nang
 Instruct students to read poem to themselves
Nong
 Instruct students to number the lines and put words into
adjectives column and nature words column
 Instruct students to mark the poem with the rhyme
scheme Write example on the white board)
 Question students what nature words are plants, what
are animals and what are parts of the environment
 Hand out or make available electronically pictographs,
symbols or images to represent each type of nature
word (e.g. a picture of a cow) (Multiple Means of
Representation, Multiple Means of Expression)
 Ask for students’ reaction to the poem based on reading
and analysis
 Response may be verbal or written, with the students to
choose their preferred mode (Multiple Means of
Expression, Multiple Means of Engagement)
Students:

 Students to read the poem themselves, number the lines,

put words into adjectives column and nature words
column
 Identify what types of nature words are plants, animals
and environment
 Students use pictures etc to assist in comprehending
and representing their understanding of the nature
words.
 Students respond to the poem in either verbal or
written format, based on their choice.
30-45 Repetition Teacher:
Exercise
 Ask students to identify repetition in the poem
 Ask students to think about how the repetition works in
the poem and how it makes them feel
 Direct students to write three sentences describing this
on the worksheet.
 Discuss with students their answers
 Students to provide their answers in written format,
either using paper and/or their assistive technology
(Multiple Means of Representation)
 (If this segment runs short use ‘Book Of Milliganimals
examples for more repetition analysis)
 Students

 Students identify examples of repetition In the poem,

contemplate how
 Students to write three sentences describing their
responses
 Responses to be written by the students
 Discuss with class

45-50 Lesson Close Teacher:

 Things we learned today exercise

 Summarise lesson
 Ask students to submit their questions from the lesson
either in writing or electronically or verbally (Multiple
Means of Representation)
 Praise students for their efforts
 Make sure students leave with their chairs behind the
desks.
Students:

 Tell teacher what we learned today

 Submit questions from today’s lesson verbally, written
or electronically
 Leave with chairs behind desks.
Homework Put their worksheets from today’s lesson in their workbook
References:

Autism Speaks. (2018). DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria. Retrieved from

https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/diagnosis/dsm-5-diagnostic-criteria

Autism Speaks. (2018). Strengths and Challenges. Retrieved from

https://www.autismspeaks.org/family-services/tool-kits/asperger-syndrome-and-high-
functioning-autism-tool-kit/strengths-and-chall

Boutot, E. A. (2007). Fitting in: Tips for promoting acceptance and friendships for students with
autism spectrum disorders in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3),
156-161. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/211726763?accountid=36155

Boyd, B.A., McDonough, S.G. & Bodfish, J.W. (2012). Evidence-Based Behavioral Interventions for
Repetitive Behaviors in Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42 (6). 1236-
1248. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-011-1284-z

Duncan, A.W. & Klinger, L.G. (2010) Autism Spectrum Disorders: Building Social Skills in Group,
School, and Community Settings, Social Work with Groups, 33 (2-3), 175-193,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01609510903366244

Kasari, C., Brady, N., Lord, C., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2013). Assessing the Minimally Verbal School-
Aged Child with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Research : Official Journal of the
International Society for Autism Research, 6(6), 479–493. http://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1334

King-Sears, M.E., Swanson, C. & Mainzer, L. (2011). TECHnology and literacy for adolescents with
disabilities: a sound decision-making framework can assist teachers in adopting and
embracing current technologies and looking toward Web 3.0 in order to create universally
accessible learning environments to advance literacy learning for all students, and especially
students with disabilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54 (8). 569+
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA256930507&v=2.1&u=u
wsydney&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w#

Laythem, P.A., Pierce T., Baker, J., Miller, S & Tandy, D. (2014). Evaluation of the nonverbal reading
approach for two 12 to 13-year-old students with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders (9), 68-76. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.09.014

Ledford, J.R. & Wehby, J.H. (2015). Teaching Children with Autism in Small Groups with Students
Who are At-Risk for Academic Problems: Effects on Academic and Social Behaviours. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45 (6). 1624-1635. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-014-2317-1

Little, L.M., Ausderau, K., Sideris, J. & Baranek, G.T. (2015). Activity Participation and Sensory
Features Among Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 45 (9), 2891-2990. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-015-2460-3

Loreman, T., Deppler, J. & Harvey, D. (2011). Inclusive Education: Supporting Diversity in the
Classroom. Crows Nest, NSW. Australia. Allen and Unwin
McGuire, J.M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S.F. (2006). Universal Design and Its Applications in Educational
Environments. Remedial and Special Education 27 (3), 166-175.
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/07419325060270030501

Patten, E., Ausderau, K. K., Watson, L. R., & Baranek, G. T. (2013). Sensory Response Patterns in
Nonverbal Children with ASD. Autism Research and Treatment, 436286.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/436286

Sevensma, K. (2014) Exploring Text-to-Speech Readers for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from
https://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-daily/2014/03/07/exploring-text-to-
speech-readers-for-students-with-disabilities

Westerveld, M.F., Paynter, J., Trembath, D., Webster, A.A., Hodge, A.M. and Roberts, J. (2017) The
Emergent Literacy Skills of Preschool Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders 47 (2), 424-438. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-016-2964-5