3 Things: targeted universalism, jaggedness, and bad design
3 Things is a weekly blog post connecting a set of concepts or stories together that share a purpose or application. This week I’m looking at the role of the individual in education.
Today I listened to a talk by Dr. john powell of the Haas Institute at UC Berkeley, who spoke about the concept of targeted universalism. He provided a basic definition of targeted universalism as akin to equity, with the difference that while the goal of equity is ensuring that everyone is brought to the same level as the members of the dominant group, the aim of targeted universalism is to bring everyone to level where they can participate. In the classic illustration of equity, there are three people standing in front of fence trying to watch a baseball game. The first person is tall enough to see over the fence, the second person is just too short and the third is far too short to see. However, there are three crates for them to stand on. Equal distribution of crates would dictate that each person get a crate- allowing the first person plenty of room to see, the second just enough, but leaving the third still staring at the fence. Equitable distribution would be that the two people who are too short get enough crates to be as tall as the first person so that they can all see the game (the second person gets one and the third gets two). Targeted Universalism would suggest a new scenario in which the fence is too high for all three- equitable distribution means that all three people are as tall as each other, but they are still all too short to see the game. It is not enough to be level if level falls short. Instead, a new model needs to be created so that all three can see above the fence. Access is universal (for all) but targeted to the needs of each individual.
The importance of targeted universalism in education is hopefully obvious to you- all learners should be brought to the level in which they are attaining the learning outcomes. If all learners are brought to the same level but the learning outcomes are still out of reach, this design is bad. If only two of the three learners attain the learning outcomes, the design is bad. It’s only when all three have met the outcomes that the design and learning experience is successful.
The Jaggedness Principle
Todd Rose, in his book The End of Average, points out that the idea that designing for average person is faulty because the average person does not exist. We design as though the average person is average on every measure, yet no person actually is. This design system means that we design for no one. (For you skeptics, a more detailed explanation can be found in the Harvard Ed article, Beyond Average by Lory Hough).
The jaggedness principle is the concept that if you chart an individual’s measurements (physical or traits), you won’t see the smooth line that the averages will produce. Instead, each person will have peaks and valleys- eager to experiment with new hands-on activities in social settings (a peak), but hesitant to share in groups in the classroom (a valley). The jaggedness is, in a lot of ways, what really defines us as individuals. The jaggedness also makes us complex. The jaggedness can change in different contexts (classroom versus dorm room) and at different times (learning something new versus being familiar with a concept).
Targeted universalism applied to the jaggedness principle would mean that we need to strive to get every student to the learning outcomes regardless of their individuality. The student who struggles with huge reading loads needs to learn the same concepts as the student who is a speed-reading maven. The student who freezes in front of groups needs to produce the same output as the student who thrives in the limelight. And the key here really is not to bring them all to the same level- the sweaty-palmed blushing presenter doesn’t need to be as smooth as the attention-seeking thespian, but he needs to be able to meet the goals of the course and if it’s a speech class, it will involve a lot of growth.
However, the other part of Rose’s epiphany about averages is that not all people learn at the same rate in the same way. We need to give them room and flexibility. If the way we prefer learning something isn’t working, that doesn’t mean the student isn’t trying hard enough- it means the lesson isn’t designed for the student. It’s simply not enough to say that a student isn’t trying hard enough. If the lesson isn’t working, it’s not the student’s fault.
User error is bad design
Which brings me to my last point- bad design. There are a lot of ways to create bad designs. There are a lot of ways to create good design. But good design requires continuous improvement and iteration- one version won’t work for everyone and it won’t work forever. Universal design (UD) is a great way to account for jaggedness- by considering all of the jaggedness of your users while creating your design, you can make a lesson that will work for a large number of people. It’s important to realize that UD does not look at averages- it looks at individual needs. The classic UD example is the staircase in front of a building- usually just a few steps. But these steps don’t work for people in wheelchairs, people with bad knees, delivery carts, etc. and are more dangerous when wet or icy. Sure, you can build a ramp next to the stairs for those situations- but why not build a ramp in the first place? Why build the threshold to be so high? UD would dictate that you build a gradual ramp- not steep, but easy for wheels to get up.
The idea of user error being bad design is well summed up with the concept of the Norman door. Some doors are confusing. We’ve all done it- pulled when we should have pushed or pushed when we should have pulled. When this happens we feel like idiots. And this type of mistake is often called user error- the user didn’t use the product correctly. But the real problem is a design problem. The design fix isn’t to put a sign on the door, either. The door’s handles should make the direction of swing obvious- the side that is to be pulled should have a handle to pull and the side that is to be pushed shouldn’t. Or the door should swing both directions. (Watch the Vox/99% Invisible video about the Norman Door for more on this design concept).
Now think about learning. If the goal of teaching is for the students to learn, doesn’t that mean that when the students don’t learn, the lesson is bad? There is no student error when it comes to this.* Student error is bad design. Bad design isn’t necessarily bad teaching. It’s really only bad teaching when the teacher sees the design flaw as a student flaw.
This story originally appeared on Library Hacks
