UDL in Your Syllabus
Your syllabus is a powerful rhetorical document that speaks volumes to students about your values and priorities as an instructor. As such, it can begin the work of exclusion or inclusion even before the first day of class!
Consider, for instance, how the tone, structure, and content of course syllabi tend to lay out the “rules” for the class – which students must abide or risk penalty. For students with disabilities, with full- or part-time jobs, with families, and/or with diverse linguistic backgrounds, the rigidity of such a syllabus already erects barriers to access because it frames any request for flexibility or accommodation as a break from the rules. That is, it frames the student as a “problem” to be dealt with rather than as a human adult with a complex life to navigate.
As a document (or Canvas page, or website), the syllabus should itself be accessible in its organization and content (more on that topic on the next page in this module). Beyond that, though, the syllabus can and should communicate how you value accessibility through the policies laid out therein – policies that, ideally, indicate a desire to engage students in conversation more so than bind them to a contract.
Take a few minutes to scroll through the “UDL Syllabus” guide below and familiarize yourself with a few of its practical applications. This guide includes specific examples of syllabus components and UDL considerations.
If the iFrame below isn’t working, you may need to select “Allow Blocked Content” in your web browser. Alternatively, you can access the guide via this link (opens in a separate tab): http://udloncampus.cast.org/page/planning_syllabusLinks to an external site.
References & Further Reading
- McBurney Center webpage with instructor resources and sample syllabus statement
- Webpage on the “UDL SyllabusLinks to an external site.” by CAST (UDL on CampusLinks to an external site.)
- Womack, Anne-Marie. “Teaching Is Accommodation: Universally Designing Composition Classrooms and Syllabi.” College Composition and Communication (2017): 68.3 pp.494-525
