From the webpage:
Learners differ in the ways that they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or deafness); learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia); language or cultural differences, and so forth may all require different ways of approaching content. Others may simply grasp information quicker or more efficiently through visual or auditory means rather than printed text. Also learning, and transfer of learning, occurs when multiple representations are used, because it allows students to make connections within, as well as between, concepts. In short, there is not one means of representation that will be optimal for all learners; providing options for representation is essential.
From the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Center.
Have you ever noticed how people keep running across topic map issues? Different domains, different ways of talking about the problems but bottom line it comes down to different ways to identify the same subjects.
When they create solutions, they don’t always remember that containers in their solutions are subjects too. That may be identified differently by others. We create information silos, useful in their own domains, but unless treated as subjects, are hard to share across domains.
Hard to share because without a map between identifications, can’t tell which container goes with what other container, or subject with subject.
Need to agree we each keep our identifications and use maps from one container/subject to the other.
So we benefit from each other instead of ignoring the riches gathered by others.
The UDL makes multiple modes of access (what we call subject mapping in topic maps) it’s Principle 1!
Makes sense. You want educational content to be re-used by many learners.
Now to explore how they realize Principle 1 in action. Hoping to start a conversation where topic maps will come up.