Abstract
Educators and instructional designers have used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to guide their design of inclusive instruction for students with and without disabilities. Despite UDL having entered its 4th decade of development and research, there have been ongoing critiques of UDL for lacking clarity in definition, challenges with implementation, and insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. These critiques warrant further evaluation of UDL, especially with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings behind its conceptualization and implementation. Thus, we synthesized 32 peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2023 that focused on UDL implementation in preK-12 educational settings and measured various aspects of student learning outcomes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). Specifically, we evaluated each study’s intervention or instructional design in terms of its alignment to UDL checkpoints, guidelines, and/or principles as well as existing theories of learning or instructional design. Results revealed several interrelated challenges that stymie UDL research, including the absence of explicit alignment between UDL checkpoints and intervention or instructional designs investigated in the extant literature, the uneven coverage of implemented checkpoints and corresponding guidelines, the overlap among multiple checkpoints and guidelines, and the lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation processes. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for strengthening the research base for less frequently applied UDL checkpoints, recommendations for documenting checkpoints and relationships among checkpoints as indispensable components of UDL implementation, and directions for future research conducted via systematic UDL implementation guided by established theories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
(Note: References of all included studies can be found in Supplemental Table 3)
Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of “universal design for learning”. Learning Environments Research, 14, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2
Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer reviewed journals from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295
Basham, J. D., Gardner, J. E., & Smith, S. J. (2020). Measuring the implementation of UDL in classrooms and schools: Initial field test results. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520908015
Beerwart, A. A. (2018). An analytical integrative review of universal design for learning’s effectiveness for K-12 students (publication no. 10935531) Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Bernacki, M. L. (2018). Examining the cyclical, loosely sequenced, and contingent features of self-regulated learning: trace data and their analysis. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulated Learning and Performance. Routledge.
Boysen, G. A. (2021). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280
Braithwaite, J., Churruca, K., Long, J. C., et al. (2018). When complexity science meets implementation science: A theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC Medicine, 16, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1057-z
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
CAST. (2014). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.1. CAST.org.
CAST. (2018a). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. CAST.org.
CAST. (2018b). UDL and the learning brain. CAST.org https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2018/udl-learning-brain-neuroscience
Cook, S. C., & Rao, K. (2018). Systematically applying UDL to effective practices for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717749936
Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath & Co Publishers.
Edyburn, D. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487100330010
Edyburn, D. L. (2021). Ten years later: Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(5), 308–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220963114
Emery, A., & Anderman, L. H. (2020). Using interpretive phenomenological analysis to advance theory and research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1787170
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, (2015) 20 U.S.C. § 4104 et seq.
Fornauf, B. S., & Erickson, J. D. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through universal design for learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183–199.
Greene, J. A. (2017). Self-regulation in education. Routledge.
Greene, J. A. (2022). What can educational psychology learn from, and contribute to, theory development scholarship? Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 3011–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511259
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, (2008) 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.
Hollingshead, A., Lowrey, K. A., & Howery, K. (2022). Universal design for learning: When policy changes before evidence. Educational Policy, 36, 1135–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951120
Irbe, A. G. (2016). Application of universal design for learning in corporate technical training design: A quantitative study (publication no. 10014050), Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Kennedy, J., Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., Wu, S., Yost, J., & Campbell, W. (2018). A scoping review to explore how universal design for learning is described and implemented by rehabilitation health professionals in school settings. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(5), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12576
Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, J. P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507262
King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/277403
King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Evmenova, A. S., Rao, K., Mergen, R. L., Owen, L. S., & Strimel, M. M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956
Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T. W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008). Universal design for learning: A look at what algebra and biology students with and without high incidence conditions are saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 352–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250731402
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Mace, R. (1997). What is universal design. The Center for Universal Design at NCSU. https://disabilityandmultimodality.wordpress.ncsu.edu/universal-design-ud/
Marino, M. T., Black, A. C., Hayes, M. T., & Beecher, C. C. (2010). An analysis of factors that affect struggling readers’ achievement during a technology-enhanced STEM astronomy curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643410025003
Matthews, S., Cavanaugh, C., & Wilson, P. H. (2023). Multiple means of representation? A critical analysis of universal design for learning checkpoint 1.2. Policy Futures in Education, 21(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221097514
May, C. R., Johnson, M., & Finch, T. (2016). Implementation, context and complexity. Implementation Science, 11, 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemical Medicine, 22, 276–282.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: A systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733
Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal design for learning in pre-k to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
Paul, J., Khatri, P., & Kaur Duggal, H. (2023). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, why and how? Journal of Decision Systems, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, pp. 452–502
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). The Guilford Press.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., Smith, S. J., Evmenova, A. S., & Edyburn, D. (2020). Validation of the UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325198477
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis strategies. In Patricia Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 876–911). Oxford University Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Smith, S. J., Rao, K., Lowrey, K. A., Gardner, J. E., Moore, E., Coy, K., Marino, M., & Wojcik, B. (2019). Recommendations for a national research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the UDL-IRN preconference on research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319826219
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366
Webb, K. K., & Hoover, J. K. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library: A methodology for mapping multiple means of representation in library tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 537–553 http://hdl.handle.net/10342/4970
Zhang, L., Jackson, H. A., Yang, S., Basham, J. D., Hunt, C. L., & Carter, R. A., Jr. (2021). Codesign learning environments guided by the framework of UDL: A case study. Learning Environments Research, 25, 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09364-z
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary file 1
(DOCX 22 kb)
Supplementary file 2
(DOCX 18 kb)
Supplementary file 3
(DOCX 77.4 kb)
Supplementary file 4
(DOCX 35.7 kb)
Supplementary file 5
(DOCX 15 kb)
Supplementary file 6
(DOCX 42.4 kb)
Supplementary file 7
(DOCX 32 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, L., Carter, R.A., Greene, J.A. et al. Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ Psychol Rev 36, 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7