Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a scientifically validated framework that has been included in policy like the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. However, studies have pointed out the variability in definitions and implementation surrounding UDL. In order to clarify this conversation, researchers collected and analyzed the narratives of experts in the origination and research of UDL. Nineteen experts participated in semi-structured interviews that examined definitions of UDL, its critical components, and identified priorities within the framework. Findings resulted in five themes. Implications for future research, policy, and practice are offered.
CoyneP.EvansM.KargerJ. (2017). Use of a UDL literacy environment by middle school students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 4–14.
6.
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.
HitchcockC.MeyerA.RoseD.JacksonR. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
13.
JacksonR. (2005). Curriculum access for students with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of universal design for learning. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
14.
JiménezT. 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.
15.
KennedyM. J.ThomasC. N.MeyerJ. P.AlvesK. D.LloydJ. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 71–86.
16.
LeichliterM. E. (2010). A case study of Universal Design for Learning applied in the college classroom. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4625. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4625
17.
LencioniP. (2002). The four obsessions of an extraordinary executive: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
18.
LeongP.JosephS. R.BoulayR. (2010). Applying constant comparative and discourse analyses to virtual worlds research. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 3(1), 3–26.
19.
LowreyK. A.HollingsheadA.HoweryK.BishopJ. (2017). More than one way: Stories of UDL, inclusive classrooms, and students with intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 225–242.
20.
LowreyK. A.SmithS. J. (2018). Including individuals with disabilities in UDL framework implementation: Insights from administrators. Inclusion, 6(2), 127–142.
21.
LowreyK. A.ClassenA. I.SylvestA. E. (2019). Exploring ways to support preservice teachers’ use of UDL in planning and instruction. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9, 261–281.
22.
MeyerA.RoseD. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In RoseD. H.MeyerA.HitchcockC. (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Harvard Education Press.
23.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST, Inc.
24.
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.
25.
PolandB. (2003). Transcription quality. In HolsteinJ.GubriumJ. (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–287). Sage.
26.
RalabateP. K. (2011). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. The ASHA Leader, 16(10), 14–17.
27.
RaoK.OkM. W.BryantB. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166.
28.
RaoK.TannersA. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211–229.
29.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 67–70.
30.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
31.
SchwandtT. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage Publications, Inc.
32.
ScottL. A. (2018). Barriers with implementing a Universal Design for Learning framework. Inclusion, 6(4), 274–286.
33.
ScottL. A.ThomaC. A.PugliaL.TempleP.D’AguilarA. (2017). Implementing a UDL Framework: A study of current personnel preparation practices. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 25–36.
34.
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.
35.
WaitollerF. R.King ThoriousK. A. (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.
36.
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.
