Universal design for learning (UDL) is widely accepted as beneficial to learning for all students, regardless of disability status. Psychological theories help us understand the mechanisms underlying these benefits. Self-determination theory (SDT) provides a theoretical basis for understanding why deep learning occurs when courses are designed following UDL guidelines.
Objective
The purpose of the present study was to utilize SDT as a model to examine whether UDL supports need satisfaction and, as a result, deep learning.
Method
Totally, 109 undergraduate students participated in an online survey, rating the presence of pedagogical practices in a selected course and their levels of satisfaction with psychological needs and deep learning with course materials and content.
Results
Results from the present study demonstrated that UDL has an indirect effect on deep learning through both autonomy satisfaction and competence satisfaction but not relatedness satisfaction.
Conclusion
SDT explains the psychological mechanisms underlying UDL and provides further evidence for the benefits of incorporating UDL into course design to increase deep learning for all students.
Teaching Implications
The present findings provide faculty with a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the benefits of UDL and support efforts to include the guidelines in course design.
AdefilaA.BroughanC.PhimisterD.OpieJ. (2020). Developing an autonomous-support culture in Higher Education for disabled students. Disability and Health Journal, 13(3), 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100890
2.
AroianL. A. (1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(2), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730442
3.
BashamJ. D.GardnerJ. E.SmithS. 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
4.
BiggsJ.KemberD.LeungD. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
5.
BoysenG. A. (2024). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 10(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280
6.
BurgstahlerS. (2021). Universal design: Process, principles, and applications. University of Washington.
7.
CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. CAST.
8.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
9.
ChewS. L.HalonenJ. S.McCarthyM. A.GurungR. A. R.BeersM. J.McEntarfferR.LandrumR. E. (2018). Practice what we teach: Improving teaching and learning in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 45(3), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318779264
10.
ChiuT. K. F. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124(3), 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
11.
CoureyS. J.TappeP.SikerJ.LePageP. (2012). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178
12.
CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
13.
DeciE. L. (1991). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In RenningerA.HidiS.KrappA. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70). Erlbaum.
14.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
15.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
16.
DeciE. L.VallerandR. J.PelletierL. G.RyanR. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
17.
DempseyA. M.NolanY. M.LoneM.HuntE. (2023). Examining motivation of first-year undergraduate anatomy students through the lens of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A single institution study. Medical Science Educator, 33(4), 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01823-x
18.
FarkasM. S.GrolnickW. S. (2010). Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emotion, 34(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9176-7
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
21.
IsmailovM.ChiuT. K. (2022). Catering to inclusion and diversity with Universal Design for learning in asynchronous online education: A self-determination theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819884
22.
KennetteL.WilsonN. A. (2019). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v2i1.17
23.
King-SearsM. E.StefanidisA.EvmenovaA. S.RaoK.MergenR. L.OwenL. S.StrimelM. M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122(6), 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956
24.
NarkonD. E.WellsJ. C. (2013). Improving reading comprehension for elementary students with learning disabilities: UDL enhanced story mapping. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(4), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2012.726286
25.
ReeveJ. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
28.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2011). A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being. In ChirkovV. I.RyanR. M.SheldonK. M. (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context: Perspectives on the psychology of agency, freedom, and well-being (pp. 45–64). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8_3
29.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
30.
StandageM.DudaJ.NtoumanisN. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22359
31.
TaylorG.JungertT.MageauG. A.SchattkeK.DedicH.RosenfieldS.KoestnerR. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002
32.
TobinT. J.BehlingK. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press.
33.
VansteenkisteM.RyanR. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
34.
ZhangL.BashamJ. D.CarterR. A. (2022). Measuring personalized learning through the lens of UDL: Development and content validation of a student self-report instrument. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72(2), 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101121
