WTS 1 and 2

Universal Design for Learning in Mathematics

Jeanette Wardlow
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 and 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
February 18, 2016

page 1 of 16

WTS 1 and 2

page 2 of 16

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes
of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
Dispositions. The teacher appreciates multiple perspectives and conveys to learners
how knowledge is developed from the vantage point of the learner.
Performances. The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations
of disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students' prior understandings.

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and
can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct
knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional
strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher is disposed to use students strengths as a basis for growth,
and their errors as an opportunity for learning.
Performances. The teacher assesses individual and group performance in order to
design instruction that meets learners current needs in each domain (cognitive, social, emotional,
moral, and physical) and that leads to the next level of development.
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals

WTS 1 and 2

page 3 of 16

Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction

Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
For Wisconsin Teaching Standards (WTS) 1 and 2, I want to focus on improving
engagement in my mathematics classes. I teach Algebra 1 at Baraboo High School. Our students
are required to take three credits of mathematics in order to graduate. Some students are able to
enter straight into Geometry when they become a freshmen. Otherwise, these students must take
and pass Algebra 1 to earn their first math credit at the high school. One of the most important
skills that we work to develop in Algebra 1 is solving equations. My colleagues and I decided
that we would focus our Student Learning Objective around this skill. In order to improve my
students understanding of this topic, I chose to incorporate Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) techniques into my lessons. By incorporating these techniques into my lessons, I hope to
increase student engagement and, in turn, their understanding of the topic.
I chose two knowledge descriptors to assist in guiding my implementation of UDL
teaching practices. WTS 1 emphasizes the importance for an instructor to know the processes of
inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches. In mathematics,
there are many different ways to produce a correct answer and it is important that, as the

WTS 1 and 2

page 4 of 16

instructor, I allow students to explore and discover all of these different paths. UDL strategies
emphasize the importance of multiple avenues for student exploration as well. WTS 2 focuses on
an instructor being able to use instructional strategies that promote student learning for a wide
range of student abilities. UDL was originally designed for individuals with disabilities and then
became more widespread when it was realized that all students were able to benefit from these
strategies. Not only do these strategies assist students who have lower mathematical abilities, but
they also encourage students who have stronger skills to explore the material more and
strengthen their understanding.
Throughout the semester, I chose to check in on my students understanding in a few
different ways. We would complete warm ups, homework, and assessments in class that would
include solving different types of equations. Through these processes, I was able to use the
disposition descriptor from WTS 2 to influence my practice. I was able to assess their errors as
an opportunity for learning. I then used this information to guide my instruction.
I also chose a performance descriptor to assist in my practice. The WTS 2 indicates that
an instructor effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of disciplinary concepts
that capture key ideas. I accomplished this in a few ways. I made sure to include solving
equations in multiple ways throughout the class and I also provided different representations for
students to use to assist in this process.
Assessment of Student Performance and Student Learning Environment While Learning
Student Learning Objective(s)
I teach two sections of Algebra 1 at the high school. Within these two sections, I have a
total of 42 students: 38 are freshmen, 2 are sophomores, and 2 are juniors. I also have a total of 4
special education students. We have a block schedule, so we meet as a class every other day for
90 minutes. Algebra 1 is aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Our state standards
require our Algebra 1 students to not only solve equations and inequalities, but also to create

WTS 1 and 2

page 5 of 16

equations and inequalities from situations given to them. State standard

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.1 states that student must be able to create equations
and inequalities in one variable and use them to solve problems.
Students took the pre-assessment before we had discussed solving any type of equation.
Artifact A shows that out of my 41 students, 4 received a 60% or above which placed them in the
proficient category. 7 of my students werent in attendance, 6 received no points, and the rest (24
students) received a score that was below our proficient level of 60%. Artifact B shows how the
medium level student struggled with organizing their work and often made mistakes such as
combining terms that were not the same. Even the high level student made this common mistake.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment
assessment show that while some students already have strong equation solving skills, most need
to work to improve these skills. I will need to research instructional techniques to assist my
students in developing these skills. The essential question that directly relates to my learning goal
is: How do UDL Strategies affect engagement in high school math students?
Research Summary
Students must be able to solve equations throughout their high school career. Now that
more and more schools are requiring three credits of mathematics for graduation, students need
to be fully engaged in their math classes so they are able to build all of the necessary skills that
they will need for the rest of their high school career. UDL techniques are a great way to engage
our students in these skills and assist them in achieving proficiency in problem solving.
Margaret King-Sears wrote about UDL strategies in 2009. She discussed the seven
principles that drive the design of UDL. These principles are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Equitable use
Flexibility in use
Simple and intuitive use
Perceptible information
Tolerance for error
Low physical effort

WTS 1 and 2

page 6 of 16

7. Size and space for approach and use

The first principle, flexibility in use, emphasizes the importance of options for students.
King-Sears recommend using both physical and virtual manipulatives when introducing material
(2009, p. 199). This choice allows the students to reflect on how they learn best and make a
choice in how they want to learn the material. The importance of choice is also prevalent in the
principle, perceptible information. This principle also indicates the importance of specific
language. Teachers must speak with clear verbal explanations, especially to assist students with
language learning disabilities (King-Sears, 2009, p. 200). Tolerance for error is also important in
UDL. Students must be able to make mistakes and learn from them in order to grow in their
problem solving techniques. This principle also emphasizes the need for immediate feedback for
the students. The last two principles go hand in hand. Materials must be comfortable for the
students to use and not wear them out before they get to actually doing any mathematics. The
principle of appropriate size and space indicates that all materials need to be able to be seen from
all corners of the room. Students need to have the ability to take in the information without
placing stress on their body, emphasized in the principle of low physical effort.
Basham and Marino dove deeper into some of these principles in their 2013 article
Understanding STEM Education and Supporting Students through Universal Design for
Learning. They emphasized the importance for multiple means up representation. They wrote,
UDL stipulates that curriculum, instruction, and related materials should provided multiple
representation of key concepts, principles, and vocabulary (Basham and Marino, 2013, p. 10).
They also stressed the importance of setting clear expectations with flexible methods and
materials (Basham and Marino, 2013, p. 11). Basham and Marino (2013) described a game that
was used in a STEM class. The game provided multiple levels of challenge so students were able
to pick what level best suited them at the time. This game not only provided students with a

WTS 1 and 2

page 7 of 16

different level of challenge, but also with multiple ways to achieve the goal set before them.
Students needed to engineer their own bacteria and were given multiple avenues to achieve this
goal (Basham and Marino, 2013, p. 12).
Margaretha Vreeburg Izzo wrote her own principles of UDL in her 2012 article
Universal Design for Learning: Enhancing Achievement of Students with Disabilities. These
principles were very similar to those of King-Sears. They were:
1. Multiple means of representation
2. Multiple means of strategic engagement
3. Multiple means of expression
These principles stress the importance of both delivering material in different ways, but
also allowing the students to present their knowledge in multiple ways. Izzo wrote multi-modal
teaching will increase the probability that students will acquire the key content of a topic (2012,
p. 344). Students will stay much more engaged in class and the content if it is being delivered in
multiple formats. These could include anything from youtube videos to different versions of
notes from multiple students. It is also important to keep students involved in the lesson by
providing them what they need. Some students fall behind when taking notes or their minds
begin to wander. Providing these students with a skeleton can be very helpful so they are able to
stay focused on the discussion and ask questions (Izzo, 2012, p. 345). Finally, Izzo encourages
giving students the opportunity to express their knowledge in multiple ways. Izzo wrote,
Some students may not be motivated to study for a test, but are highly motivated to create a
multimedia presentation that will be posed to the class website to demonstrate their knowledge of
a topic. Structuring assessments so student have multiple opportunities to demonstrate their
learning through multimedia projects written papers, or shorter and multiple quizzes throughout
the course will learn more in a class than if student have one comprehensive exam at the end of a
course (2012, p. 345).

WTS 1 and 2

page 8 of 16

By allowing students options to show their knowledge, the students are able to discover way that
they learn best while also taking responsibility in producing something that they are proud of.
The final article that I read was Mini anchors: A universal design for learning approach
written by Janet Mannheimer and Ted Hasselbring. This article was about a project that the
authors had created using UDL techniques to guide the design. Mannheimer and Hasselbring
(2014) created Math Pursuits as a way for students to engage in mathematical material. The
game is influenced by many principles of UDL. First, the game is on the computer and is
equipped with many features that assist students at different levels. There is a read aloud option
for students who struggle with literacy. The computer also allows for the curriculum to be
individualized to each student. The game will offer advice if students are struggling on more
difficult questions or if they are not being challenged enough (Mannheimer and Hasselbring,
2014, p. 25). The students still had autonomy and get to choose what level they believe they are
at. The program provided a prescription for how to individualize instruction by embedding
numerous, short, video-based scenarios within a computer-based program to provide learners
with multiple ways to perceive, engage with and interact with the material (Mannheimer and
Hasselbring, 2014, p. 22). These principles that guided Mannheimer and Hasselbrings project
(autonomy, multiple delivery methods, and immediate feedback) will also guide how I design my
lessons.
Research Implications
My research question was How do UDL Strategies affect engagement in high school
math students? I had worked a little bit with UDL Strategies previously, but I was unaware of
the principles that guided the techniques. I regularly gave students back their assessments the
next class period, but hadnt thought about what kinds of feedback I could deliver to the students
immediately. I think this is very important for students. Especially since we dont have class

WTS 1 and 2

page 9 of 16

everyday, students often are concerned with other aspects of life that occurred in between the
time I saw them last. I also have dabbled with different means of presenting information, but
hadnt thought about utilizing videos that may already be made from someone else. Using a
video will allow students to go at their own pace and ask questions when they have them without
being put on a platform in front of their peers. The research also emphasized the importance of
remembering that our students are human and we need to nurture the whole person. I know that I
can become very math driven sometimes and forget that students with a concussion may be
having a hard time concentrating in class because of the florescent lights.
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline
1. Utilize lesson materials that provide immediate feedback to students (Plickers, Kahoot, etc)
2. Provide multiple delivery methods for lessons (online notes, algebra tiles, videos, etc)
3. Utilize warm up and exit slips to practice problem solving skills
4. Create a learning environment that nurtures the students as a whole person (lamps,
notes that are legible from all areas of the room)
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1.

Standardized goal: CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.1 Create equations and

2.

inequalities in one variable and use them to solve problems.

Targeted learning objective: Same

Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Task: Students will complete a 22 question quiz that covers a variety of
problem solving skills.
2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. Earn a 60% or higher on the quiz (53/88 points)
b. Improving their original score by 40% was also considered successful

WTS 1 and 2

page 10 of 16

c. Students should show all work to show their knowledge of the concepts
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
Students will complete the 22 question quiz after all of the topics have been
covered.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Throughout this process my goal was to implement UDL techniques to improve my
students engagement level and, in turn, improve their problem solving skills. While
implementing, I found that these techniques were very beneficial to all students in my class.
Students responded very well to the different types of immediate feedback that were
given. We played a few Ka-hoot games and students who rarely even took notes were involved
and playing the game along with the rest of the class. The part about this game that I didnt like
so much was that I didnt get to monitor how the students were responding. I was only provided
with feedback about how the class as a whole responded, not how each individual responded.
Since I really wanted information about individual students, I started to use Plickers for some
review. This program allowed me to monitor individual student responses and still provide
instant feedback to the students. The students really liked this format as well. They were able to
then ask specific questions and I was able to encourage students who are shy to share their
answers when I know that they had gotten the answer correct. The students then practiced
reasoning through their responses and modeling their problem solving process on the board.
I also tried to incorporate multiple instructional methods to deliver content. I posted the
notes that we had taken everyday on the Google classroom. This wasnt very successful because
many students dont have Internet access at home so they werent able to retrieve the notes. I
realized that if I wanted to incorporate technology, I would need to do so during class time. I
started to utilize EdPuzzle in class. This program allowed me to manipulate youtube videos that

WTS 1 and 2

page 11 of 16

were already online by speaking over them, pausing them so students could work, and eliminate
unnecessary parts of the clip. This provided a strong problem-solving model for students. When
the video paused so students could work on their own problems, there were some students that
wanted to keep the video going. After a few times of using this process, students started to get
the hang of it and would use the video to check their work instead of producing it for them.
I also started using the warm up problems to practice their problem solving skills.
Previously, I had used problems that either reviewed what they had done the previous day or
would set them up for material that we were starting that class. With this project, I tailored the
warm up problems to focus on the problem solving skills that would lead into the lesson. For
example, Explain the steps you would use to isolate x in 2x 34 = 6. This type of problem will
assist students when solving systems of equations with substitution as well as remind them how
to solve for a single variable. The students responded well to these warm ups and were able to
refer back to them later in class.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I worked this semester to increase proficiency in the student learning objective of writing
and solving equations. Students were considered proficient if they were able to score a 60% or
higher on the assessment. I also considered the student successful if they were able to make a
40% gain on the assessment.
The UDL techniques that I utilized were successful for the majority of the students.
Artifact A shows that the number of students at a 60% or higher increased from 4 students to 22
students. There were also 2 students that increased their score by 40%. Even though they did not
receive a proficient grade, these students still made tremendous gains. The amount of students
that had left their paper blank also cut in half from 6 students on the pre-assessment to 3 students
on the post assessment. The students who had left their assessments blank had missed a

WTS 1 and 2

page 12 of 16

considerable amount of time at school due to health concerns. There were also 7 students who
were not at school during one or both of the assessments, so their data cant be judged.
The students also made great gains on the organization and were able to explain their
thinking through showing their work on their paper. Artifact C shows the medium level earning
partial credit because the students were able to show what steps they took to arrive at their
answer. These medium students still struggled with interpreting what the solution meant, but they
were able to complete the correct work. With the exception of 2 students, all students were able
to either become proficient or increase their score by 20%
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
Altering the learning environment of my class had positive results with my students.
Often, they would ask to have the lamps on and use natural light instead of the overheard
florescent lights. When we would do this, student engagement increased. The students had fewer
side conversations and offered more insight into the lessons. I also altered the seating
arrangement to make sure that the board was legible from all areas in the room. By doing this,
students didnt have to strain their eyes or necks to follow along. There were fewer questions
about what I had said previously and more that focused on resolving misconceptions. Overall,
these changes in the learning environment resulted in some very positive changes.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
My research plan was based on the question, How do UDL Strategies affect engagement
in high school math students? Throughout this process I learned that students need some time to
get used to different methods of instruction, but once processes are formed, students are very
engaged in the material. If I allow students opportunities to interact with the material, they will
ask questions and become more invested in the content.
What Worked and Why

WTS 1 and 2

page 13 of 16

1. Incorporating warm up problems was very successful. The students were reminded
of the problem solving steps and having these processes reviewed often allowed
students to be able to recall them easier.
2. The students really enjoyed watching the youtube videos. I was able to utilize a
program called EdPuzzle to adapt the videos and have the students stop where I
wanted them to. This allowed the students to work at their own pace and ask
questions that pertained to their misconceptions.
What Did Not Work and Why
1. When students played Ka-hoot by themselves, they would sometimes get frustrated
and start to shut down. The students started to feel like they werent able to get
anything correct and there wasnt enough time to correct all of the mistakes during a
fast paced game.
2. After every class, I posted the notes that we took on the Google classroom so students
could refer to them at a later date. Although I brought in computers on the first day so
students were in the classroom, many didnt utilize this resource because they dont
have internet at home.
My Next Steps
1. Continue to work with colleagues in my department and in the school to implement
UDL into more lessons.
2. Seek out more UDL resources on the internet and at conferences.

WTS 1 and 2

page 14 of 16

References
Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM Education and Supporting
Students Through Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4),
8-15.
Izzo, M. V. (2012). Universal Design for Learning: Enhancing Achievement of Students with
Disabilities. Procedia Computer Science, 14(Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Software Development for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Infoexclusion (DSAI 2012), 343-350. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.039
King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal Design for Learning: Technology and Pedagogy. Learning
Disability Quarterly, (4). 199.
Zydney, J. M., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2014). Mini Anchors: A Universal Design for Learning
Approach. Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 58(6), 2128.

Artifact A: Student Results

WTS 1 and 2

page 15 of 16

WTS 1 and 2

page 16 of 16

Artifact B: Low-Medium-High Student Results on the Pre-Assessment

Low Response:

Medium Response:

High Response:

Artifact C: Low-Medium-High Student Results on the Post-Assessment

Low Response:

Medium Response:

High Response: