Microtraining 4: UDL, Modality, and Materials Review

Use this 10-minute activity to separate the three UDL domains from modality labels and the distinct review of representative textbooks, OER, platforms, and ancillary materials.

Training Overview

Time

8–12 minutes during a regular AP&P meeting.

Purpose

Identify whether the COR reflects representation, engagement, and expression across authorized modalities.

Output

A shared distinction among UDL, DE approval, accessibility evidence, and accommodations.

UDL and Materials Standard

Representation

Multiple accessible ways to perceive and understand essential information.

Engagement

Multiple ways to participate, connect, persist, collaborate, and receive feedback.

Expression

Multiple rigorous ways to demonstrate proficiency when the mode is not itself an essential outcome.

Separate requirement: Representative textbooks, OER, platforms, media, and ancillary materials require their own accessibility and universal-design evidence. Strong instructional strategies do not automatically establish that the materials are accessible.

Committee Activity

Sample COR and DE Evidence

Instruction: Lecture and presentation slides.

Assignments: Weekly reading and one final written examination.

Modality: Approved for asynchronous online delivery. The addendum states that students complete weekly modules and discussion posts.

Representative text: Publisher website states that the digital textbook is “accessible.” No additional evidence is provided.

Accessibility statement: Accommodations will be provided to eligible students.

What evidence addresses representation, engagement, and expression?
Does asynchronous approval establish UDL?
Is the materials evidence sufficient?
Does the accommodations statement replace proactive UDL?

Example Debrief

What evidence addresses the three domains?

The weekly modules and discussions provide some engagement evidence, but the description is thin. Representation appears limited to lectures, slides, and readings, with no indication of accessible alternatives, captions, transcripts, demonstrations, or multiple explanations. Expression appears limited to one written examination, with no explanation of whether writing is the essential outcome or whether other rigorous demonstrations could be appropriate.

Does asynchronous approval establish UDL?

No. Asynchronous delivery may offer flexible timing and repeated access, but the course must still describe how students access information, interact and engage, receive feedback, and demonstrate proficiency. Modality is a design context, not automatic proof of UDL.

Is the materials evidence sufficient?

Not yet. A generic publisher claim may be a starting point, but reviewers need supporting evidence appropriate to the material, such as an accessibility conformance report or VPAT, an OER accessibility review, documented local testing, or other evidence addressing structure, navigation, non-text content, media, equations, interactivity, and assistive-technology compatibility.

Do accommodations replace proactive UDL?

No. Individualized accommodations remain essential, but UDL is proactive course design intended to reduce barriers before they occur. A statement that accommodations will be provided does not show multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression.

One-Minute Closing Standard

AVC review standard: For each authorized modality, the COR or DE addendum should reflect meaningful access to information, participation, feedback, and demonstration of learning. Materials review and individualized accommodations remain separate responsibilities.

Return to Training Start Return to AP&P Home Open Curriculum Review FAQs Previous Microtraining