The Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning

Katz, J. (2014). The three-block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.36.1.153

The article that I have chosen to highlight for this blog post is The three block model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education, by Dr. Jennifer Katz. I was already familiar Dr. Katz’s work, after having been gifted a copy of her book, Ensouling Our Schools, by my former employer Treaty Education Alliance, shortly after its release in 2018. In MEDS 510, I also wrote an article critique on Universal Design for Learning by S. Barteaux, that referenced this Katz article, so I was already curious to read it shortly before MEDS 530 began.

One question that this article raises for the field of Special/Inclusive Education, is how we, as teachers, can design our classes to best meet the diverse learning needs of all students in ways that make the learning process better for everyone involved? This is a question that I have been developing my professional practice around since I began teaching, so I was curious to see if there would be new information I could gain from an in-depth reading of this article.

A new concept (construct, idea) that I encountered in this article, are the three major building blocks for creating truly inclusive classroom environments. “The first block examines Social and Emotional Learning and involves building compassionate learning communities” (Katz, 2012a, as cited in Katz 2013 p. 158). The second block examines Inclusive Instructional Practice and outlines a step-by-step planning and instructional framework (Katz, 2013). The third block focuses on the systems and structures that need to be in place to support UDL in the classroom. Before I read this article, I was not yet familiar with what each of the three blocks entailed. By reading the article I also realized that Ensouling Our Schools is really focused on the first block of the model, while this research article focused almost exclusively on the second block of the model.

A connection that I can make between this article and at least one other article from the course, is the article by Brown and Andrews on Special Education, from The Canadian Encyclopedia. In the Brown and Andrews online article, they share the history and evolution of Special Education, from one of institutionalization and segregation to categorization, to integration, mainstreaming, and ultimately towards inclusion. In referring to the high incidence of exceptional students with exceptional gifts, they assert, “these students can benefit from differentiated instruction, and collaborative learning experiences within well organized and structured classroom environments” (Brown & Andrews, 2014 para. 4). I would also assert that I believe all students would benefit from these approaches and that is where my interest in Universal Design for Learning comes into play.

Since the beginning of my teaching career, I have spent the majority of my time working with youth who didn’t fit well within the institutional compartmentalized boxes that Sir Ken Robinson and RSA Animate illustrate so well in their video Changing Education Paradigms.

Most of the youth whom I’ve worked with are Indigenous youth within Treaty 4 Territory, in what is now known as southern Saskatchewan. This region includes the traditional territories of the Plains Cree, Saulteaux, Nakota, Dakota, Lakota and homelands of the Metis, which were established here long before Canada became a country. These various cultures and nations across turtle island are all so diverse in their languages and cultural customs. However, they also share commonalities such as holistic worldviews on the sacred interrelationships that exist between living and non-living beings. Traditionally, teachings were largely passed along orally, and lessons were learned kinesthetically and experientially. In my continued work with Indigenous youth, I sense tremendous value in differentiated instruction — in collaborative learning experiences — and in becoming more culturally responsive in our teaching practices. I appreciate the Indigenous lens that was incorporated into Ensouling Our Schools, and how I now recognize that much of my time spent with Treaty Education Alliance was focused on working collaboratively with schools, teachers and students to implement aspects of the first and second blocks of this three-block model.

One concern that I have after reading this article, is around the compulsory nature of research studies having to be so limited in their scope that they often miss an opportunity to share the big picture and holistic views on which this three-block model of UDL was built.

In the present study, teachers were not asked to implement the RD (respecting diversity) program or classroom meetings. The research was intended to determine the outcomes of Block 2, instructional practices inherent in the model only. For that reason, significant outcomes for social variables other than interactions were not expected. (Katz, 2013 p. 180)

Although the three-block model is very holistic in nature, for the purposes of the research article, Katz chose to limit the study to a compartmentalized scope within this holistic model, and the reader is never properly introduced to what the third block of the model entails until flipping to the Appendix A on p. 192 that shares a graphic organizer providing a basic overview of the framework.

I would love to see our educational systems evolve to a place where each block is working together for the benefit of students. Is it possible to create a study that incorporates elements from all three blocks? I am a big picture thinker and am worried that too narrow of focus in our applied project will render it meaningless or of little value.

However, I can also see the essential need to limit a research study to a smaller scope. In this case, Katz was primarily interested in testing the effectiveness of inclusive instructional planning (block 2 strategies). I am already a firm believer in the benefits derived from implementing strategies from the first, second, and third blocks, so I have no doubts that when combined, all kinds of data could be gleaned to show positive results across the board.

While reading the Limitations of the Study/Future Directions, I had a big “Ah-Ha” moment when I read, “future research will need to determine whether teachers less motivated to implement the model can effectively be involved in its implementation, and what training methods would be required under such circumstances” (Katz, 2013 p. 183). This quote highlights the emotional blocks and impediments to the greater implementation of UDL within our classrooms. I can now see myself building an applied project around this recommended research area. No doubt I will be giving it some more thought.

References

Barteaux, S. (2014). Universal design for learning. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 6(2), 50-54. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230738

Brown, R. & Andrews, J. Special education.  The Canadian Encyclopedia, 20 October 2014, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/special-education

Katz, J. (2014). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.36.1.153

Katz, J. & Lamoureux, K. (2018). Ensouling Our Schools: A universally designed framework for mental health, well-being, and reconciliation. Portage and Main Press.