Reinforced by technological innovation of the 1990s, the adoption of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) encourages the education system to consider a new approach to designing better learning environments for all students. Since that time, UDL has evolved into a globally recognized framework for proactively designing and considering the needs of all learners, including those with disabilities and those with linguistic, cultural, racial, gender, or any other variability. The recent release of UDL Guidelines 3.0 presents an ideal opportunity for the field to reflect on the framework’s adoption, impact, and future direction. This article examines the evolution, application, and implications of UDL from its origins in the late 1990s to the release of the 3.0 Guidelines in 2024. Authors make recommendations for advancing the future of UDL that include establishing a global, reality-based community that utilizes scientifically rigorous methods to identify universal foundations for learning.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 123–133.
2.
Al-AzaweiA.SerenelliF.LundqvistK. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer reviewed journals from 2012 to 2015. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295
3.
AlmeqdadQ. I.AlodatA. M.AlquraanM. F.MohaidatM. A.Al-MakhzoomyA. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2218191
BashamJ.JonesM. (2005). The design and integration of an online and on-campus hybrid course model. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1884–1889). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
6.
BashamJ.LowreyA.JonesM.HuffmanD. (2006). Making use of the net: internet based videoconferencing and online conferencing tools in teacher preparation. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1440–1444). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
7.
BashamJ. D.BlackorbyJ. (2021). UDL next: The future of the framework. In LowreyK. (Ed.), Critical issues in universal design for learning (pp. 43–63). Knowledge by Design.
8.
BashamJ. D.BlackorbyJ.MarinoM. T. (2020a). Opportunity in crisis: The role of universal design for learning in educational redesign. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 71–91.
9.
BashamJ. D.BlackorbyJ.StahlS.ZhangL. (2018). Universal design for learning: Because students are (the) variable. In Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning (pp. 447–507). ETC Press.
10.
BashamJ. D.GardnerJ. E. (2010). Measuring universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12(2), 15–19.
11.
BashamJ. D.GardnerJ. E.SmithS. J. (2020b). 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
12.
BashamJ. D.MarinoM. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500401
13.
BashamJ. D.SmithS. J.SatterA. L. (2016). Universal design for learning: Scanning for alignment in K–12 blended and fully online learning materials. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 147–155.
14.
BorensteinJ.CushmanR. (2022). Introduction to RCR (RCR basic). Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program). https://about.citiprogram.org/
15.
BoysenG. A. (2024). A critical analysis of the research evidence behind CAST’s universal design for learning guidelines. Policy Futures in Education, 22(7), 1219–1238.
16.
CappM. 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
ChingC. C.BashamJ. D.PlanfettiE. S. (2005). Technology in education, technology in life: Toward a holistic perspective on integration in preparing tomorrow’s teachers. In VrasidasC.GlassG. V. (Eds.), Current perspectives on applied information technologies Vol 2.: Preparing teachers to teach with technology (pp. 225–240). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
26.
CookB. G.CookS. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911420877
27.
CookB. G.SmithG. J.TankersleyM. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 495–527). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-017
28.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
29.
CraigS. L.SmithS. J.FreyB. B. (2022). Professional development with universal design for learning: Supporting teachers as learners to increase the implementation of UDL. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1685563
30.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
DowningJ. (2006). On peer support, universal design, and access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities: A personnel preparation perspective. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100406
33.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaA.RosensteinA.ChunE. J.BanksR. A.NiswanderV.GilsonC. L. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a universally designed inclusive high school science course: A case study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100403
EdyburnD. L. (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(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103
36.
EdyburnD. L. (2020). Universal design for learning and the landfill of revolutionary educational innovations. In GronsethS. L.DaltonE. M. (Eds.), Universal access through inclusive instructional design: International perspectives on UDL (pp. 332–342). Routledge.
FovetF. (2024). Universal design for learning across schools in the global context: Current complex state of play. In Cases on effective universal design for learning implementation across schools (pp. 1–27). IGI Global.
40.
FrancomG. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1679055
41.
FuchsD.MirowitzH. C.GilbertJ. K. (2023). Exploring the truth of Michael Yudin’s claim: The more time students with disabilities spend in general classrooms, the better they do academically. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(4), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221097713
42.
Gäng-PacificoD.RusconiL. (2024). Translation and Transcultural Adaptation of the Universal Design for Learning Observation Measurement Tool (UDL-OMT). Education Sciences, 14(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111144
43.
GanzJ. B. (2014). The Controversy Surrounding Facilitated Communication. In Aided Augmentative Communication for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0814-1\_8
44.
GranovskiyB. (2018). Reauthorization of the perkins Act in the 115th congress: The strengthening career and technical education for the 21st century Act. In CRS report R45446, version 2. Updated. Congressional Research Service.
45.
GrigalM.HartD. (2022). A national overview of inclusive postsecondary education in the United States. In PlauteW. (Ed.), Conference proceedings ESOTA 2022: European State-of-the-Art Congress on Inclusive Post-Secondary Programmes for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (pp. 68–72). IN Inclusive Higher Education Network. https://joinin.education/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ESOTA-2022-conference-proceedings.pdf
46.
HasselbringT. S.GlaserC. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children, 10(2), 102–122.
47.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(9), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949002300902
HitchcockC.StahlS. S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340301800404
50.
HitchcockC. C. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in university designed learning environments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340101600404
51.
HollingsheadA.LowreyK. A.HoweryK. (2022). Universal design for learning: When policy changes before evidence. Educational Policy, 36(5), 1135–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951120
52.
HowardJ. B. (2003). Universal design for learning: An essential concept for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 113–118.
JimenezT. C.GrafV. L.RoseE. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41–54.
55.
KurttsS. A. (2006). Universal design for learning in inclusive classrooms. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1(10), 7.
LowreyK. A.HollingsheadA.HoweryK.BishopJ. B. (2017). More than one way: Stories of UDL and inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917711668
58.
MaceR. (1988). Universal design: Housing for the lifespan of all people. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
59.
MangiatordiA.SerenelliF. (2013). Universal design for learning: A meta-analytic review of 80 abstracts from peer reviewed journals. Research on Education and Media, 5(1), 109–118.
60.
MarinoM. T.IsraelM.PattersonM. S.BennettA.StevensG. (2024). Universal Design for Learning innovation configuration: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7b). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website.
61.
McKenzieJ.KarisaA.KahondeC. (2024). Universal design for learning in low-and middle-income countries: A review of the literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2024.2329628
62.
McLeskeyJ.MaheadyL.BillingslyB.BrownellM. T.LewisT. (2024). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
63.
MeoG. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/psfl.52.2.21-30
64.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Cast Professional Publishing.
65.
MooreE. J.SmithF. G.HollingsheadA.WojcikB. (2018). Voices from the field: Implementing and scaling-up universal design for learning in teacher preparation programs.Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417732293
66.
MurphyM. P. (2021). Belief without evidence? A policy research note on universal design for learning. Policy Futures in Education, 19(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320940206
O’ConnellK. (2001). Looking at textbooks. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 57.
70.
OkM. W.RaoK.BryantB. R.McDougallD. (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
71.
OrkwisR.McLaneK. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief.
72.
RaoK. (2021). Inclusive instructional design: Applying UDL to online learning. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.51869/101/kr
73.
RaoK.GravelJ. W.RoseD. H.Tucker-SmithT. N. (2023). Universal design for learning in its 3rd decade: A focus on equity, inclusion, and design. International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition), 6, 712–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14079-5
74.
RaoK.OkM. W.BryantB. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980
RaoK.SmithS. J.EdyburnD.Grima-FarrellC.Van HornG.Yalom-ChamowitzS. (2018). UDL reporting criteria. In Developed by a working group of the universal design for learning implementation and research (UDL-IRN) research committee. UDL. https://udl-irn.org/udl-reporting-criteria/
77.
RaoK.SmithS. J.LowreyK. A. (2017). UDL and intellectual disability: What do we know and where do we go?Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.37
78.
RauchJ. (2021). The constitution of knowledge: A defense of truth. Brookings Institution Press.
79.
RoseD. (2001a). Universal design for learning: Deriving guiding principles from networks that learn. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340101600208
RoseD. H.GroganD.RuzicR. (2000a). Walking the walk: Universal design on the web. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340001500307
84.
RoseD. H.HasselbringT. S.StahlS.ZabalaJ. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice (pp. 507–518). Knowledge By Design, Inc.
85.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
86.
ScheibelG. (2024). Addressing barriers to evidence-based practice: Using evidence-based decision making and high-leverage practices to meet student needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 56(6), 492–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221143471
87.
SchwabK. (2024). The Fourth industrial revolution: What it means, how to respond. In Handbook of research on strategic leadership in the Fourth industrial revolution (pp. 29–34). Edward Elgar Publishing.
88.
ShadleS. E.MarkerA.EarlB. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: Laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7
89.
Sivin-KachalaJ.BialoE. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (ED371726). (pp. 1990–1994). Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. & Software Publishers Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED371726.pdf.
90.
SmithS. J.RaoK.LowreyK. A.GardnerJ. E.MooreE.CoyK.MarinoM.WojcikB. (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
91.
SpoonerF.BakerJ. N.HarrisA. A.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020101
StarksA. C.ReichS. M. (2023). What about special ed?: Barriers and enablers for teaching with technology in special education. Computers & Education, 193, Article 104665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104665
94.
StockS. E.DaviesD. K.WehmeyerM. L. (2004). Internet-based multimedia tests and surveys for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340401900405
95.
SwanK. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In BourneJ.MooreJ. C. (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Sloan Center for Online Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology – National education technology plan (NETP)2010. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512681.pdf
102.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. National education technology plan. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
103.
U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
WehmeyerM. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100405
106.
ZhangL.Carter JrR. A.GreeneJ. A.BernackiM. L. (2024). Unraveling challenges with the implementation of universal design for learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7
107.
ZhangL.JacksonH. A.YangS.BashamJ. D.WilliamsC. H.CarterR. A. (2021). Codesigning learning environments guided by the framework of universal design for learning: A case study. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09364-z
