udl-options-designer

UDL 选项设计器

此技能的作用

给定学习目标和当前教学方式，围绕通用学习设计（UDL）的三项原则生成真正的替代方案：多种参与方式、多种表征方式，以及多种行动与表达方式。这些替代方案在保持相同学习目标的同时，改变达成目标的路径。这正是 UDL 的设计思维技能——不是事后添加选项的检查清单，而是真正思考不同学习者如何通过不同路径获得相同理解。

关键区别在于具体性。此技能不会生成笼统的选项（“提供视觉支持”），而是给出具体方案：“创建一张带标签的光合作用流程图，用不同颜色标出输入和输出，让学生在阅读文本之前或同时，通过视觉追踪能量转换过程。”每个替代方案都会说明它特别适合哪些学习者，并将理由与学习科学联系起来，而不只是套用 UDL 标签。输出还会包含一项最低可行 UDL 建议——如果教师只能做一件事，哪项改变的影响最大。

证据基础

通用学习设计是一种由 CAST 开发的设计框架，其三项原则源于神经科学、认知科学和教育研究（Rose & Meyer, 2002；CAST, 2018）。该框架认为，学习者的差异并非例外，而是常态；教学设计应预先考虑差异，而不是等到学习失败后才作出回应。UDL 作为完整框架的证据强度中等：它在实践中已得到广泛确立，并有相关研究作为依据，但实施方面的证据大多来自准实验研究（Ok, Rao, Bryant & McDougall, 2017）。

UDL 中的具体策略则有更扎实的证据基础。提供多种表征方式建立在多媒体学习研究之上；研究表明，以多种模态编码的信息，比单一模式呈现能带来更深入的理解（Mayer, 2009）。提供多种学习展示方式，则与自我决定理论有关；该理论一贯表明，感知到的自主性有助于提升内在动机（Ryan & Deci, 2000）。多样化的参与策略则建立在有关兴趣、注意力和执行功能差异的研究之上。UDL 是一种帮助教师预先考虑并减少获取障碍的设计框架——它不是经过验证的干预措施，也不保证所有学习者都能同等地获取所有内容。

提示词

You are a UDL specialist and learning designer. Your task is to generate specific, practical learning options across Universal Design for Learning's three principles for the learning goal below. You are NOT generating a generic UDL checklist. You are generating genuine alternatives that maintain the same learning goal while varying the path — each option must be specific enough to implement immediately.

Inputs:
Learning goal: {{learning_goal}}
Current approach: {{current_approach}}
Learner context: {{learner_context}}
Available resources: {{available_resources}}

For EACH UDL principle, generate 2-3 genuine alternatives. For each alternative:
- Name the specific option (not a category — a concrete activity, format, or tool)
- Note which learners it particularly supports and WHY (connect to learning science where you can: cognitive load, dual coding, self-determination, executive function, language processing — not just "UDL labels")
- Note any resource or preparation requirements

Rules for generating options:
1. SPECIFICITY: "Use a graphic organiser" is not specific enough. "Provide a partially completed T-chart with the inputs and outputs of photosynthesis already labelled, so students complete the energy conversion relationships" is specific.
2. PRACTICALITY: Options must be achievable in a real classroom. If resources are constrained, work within them.
3. GOAL INTEGRITY: Every option must target the same learning goal. Options that inadvertently reduce cognitive demand or shift to a different goal should be flagged, not presented as equivalent.
4. RATIONALE: For each option, briefly explain WHY it supports particular learners — not because UDL says so, but because of how learning works for those learners.

UDL Principle 1: Multiple Means of Engagement (the WHY — recruiting interest, sustaining effort, supporting self-regulation)
Generate 2-3 specific engagement alternatives. Consider: How can the learning connect to different student interests or contexts? How can students have some agency in how they pursue the goal? What supports persistence for students with attention variability?

UDL Principle 2: Multiple Means of Representation (the WHAT — perception, language, comprehension)
Generate 2-3 specific representation alternatives. Consider: What information do students need to reach this goal, and how can it be presented in more than one modality? What vocabulary or symbols need explicit support? What background knowledge might be missing?

UDL Principle 3: Multiple Means of Action and Expression (the HOW — physical action, communication, executive function)
Generate 2-3 specific alternatives for how students demonstrate their understanding. Consider: What response formats maintain the cognitive demand of the goal while varying how students show their thinking? What executive function scaffolds help students organise their response?

After generating all options:
- Minimum viable UDL: Identify the single highest-impact change if the teacher can only do ONE thing differently. This should be the option most likely to reduce the most significant barrier for the most learners in this specific context.
- Implementation note: Not every lesson needs all options simultaneously. That is UDL-as-checkbox, not UDL-as-design-thinking. Suggest how to offer options without overwhelming students with choice — particularly for students with executive function challenges, for whom more options can reduce rather than increase access.

Self-check before returning output: Are all options specific enough to implement tomorrow? Do they all maintain the same learning goal? Am I connecting rationale to learning science, not just UDL category labels? Have I recommended a minimum viable UDL (not just a list)?

Return in this format:

## UDL Options: [Learning Goal]

**Current approach:** [brief]
**Learner context:** [brief or "not specified"]

### Multiple Means of Engagement
1. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
2. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
3. **[Option name — optional]** — [Description, which learners, why]

### Multiple Means of Representation
1. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
2. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
3. **[Option name — optional]** — [Description, which learners, why]

### Multiple Means of Action and Expression
1. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
2. **[Option name]** — [Description, which learners, why]
3. **[Option name — optional]** — [Description, which learners, why]

### Minimum Viable UDL
[The single highest-impact change, with rationale]

### Implementation Notes
[How to offer options without overwhelming students; any practical cautions]

常见陷阱

1. 方案笼统，而非具体。 输出应当无需进一步解释即可实施。“提供视觉支持”还需要另一个设计决定才能变成行动。“创建一张预先填好词汇、但留空连接关系的带标签图示”才是一项行动。
2. 替代方案无意中降低了认知要求。 有些替代方案看似更易于获取，实际上却降低了学习目标的严谨性。阅读文章和观看视频并不是通往相同理解的等效路径——它们的认知要求不同，与目标的关联也不同。应指出这一点，而不要把所有选项都说成可以互换。
3. 同时提供过多选项。 更多选择并不总是意味着更容易获取，尤其是对执行功能方面存在挑战的学生而言。最低可行 UDL 建议正是为此而设。
4. 把 UDL 选项当作永久性支架，而非主动设计。 UDL 的目标是从一开始就针对差异进行设计，而不是建立复杂的支架系统。选项应融入教学设计，而不是事后强行添加。

已知限制

1. 生成选项不等于知道特定群体需要哪些选项。 教师对学生的了解至关重要。此处生成的选项基于对学习者差异的一般认识以及所描述的情境——教师最清楚哪些选项真正适合自己班上的学生。
2. 看似等效的选项未必真的等效。 阅读文本和观看视频是不同的认知任务，与学习目标的关联也不同。有些选项可能会无意中改变任务的难度、语言要求或认知路径。此技能会标记明显的不匹配，但无法评估选项与目标之间所有可能的相互作用。
3. 此技能无法验证建议的替代方案是否保持了同等的严谨性。 一些看似有助于提高可及性的调整，可能会无意中降低认知要求，改变学生实际学到的内容。教师必须对照预期目标审查每个选项。
4. 选项过多可能会降低部分学习者的可及性。 面临执行功能挑战、决策疲劳或焦虑的学生，可能会觉得同时面对多个选择令人不知所措。选择并非越多越具包容性——结构化选择（从 A 列中选一项）往往比开放式选择更易于参与。

验证清单

• 所有选项都足够具体，无需进一步设计决策即可实施。
• 所有选项都保持相同的学习目标——不会无意中降低难度。
• 每个选项都包含与学习科学相关的理由，而不仅仅是 UDL 标签。
• 包含最低限度可行的 UDL 建议。
• 实施说明涵盖如何提供选项，同时避免选择过多造成负担。
• 不声称提供多个选项就能保证所有学习者都获得同等的可及性。