Examining the practice through the lens of experts in the field is critical to understanding the challenges and benefits of the Universal Design for Learning framework implementation in education. This qualitative study utilized a method of keyword analysis, previously not commonly used in educational research, to examine the narratives of 19 experts in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) research on policy, measurement, and future research directions. The keyword analysis of data obtained from semi-structured interviews resulted in five themes. Discussion of those themes related to current literature in UDL and implications for future research and practice are offered.
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
2.
BergerR. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
3.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
CraigS. L.SmithS. J.FreyB. (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
6.
EdyburnD. L. (2019). Universal design for learning and the landfill of revolutionary educational innovations. In GronsethS. L.DaltonE. M. (Eds.), Universal access through inclusive instructional design (pp. 332–342). Routledge.
7.
EdyburnD. 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
Griful-FreixenetJ.StruyvenK.VersticheleM.AndriesC. (2017). Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695
10.
HallT. E.MeyerA.RoseD. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press.
HollingsheadA. (2021). UDL: It’s the same thing I’m already doing. In LowreyK. A. (Ed.), Critical issues in universal design for learning (pp. 105–117). Knowledge by Design.
13.
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
14.
Institute of Education Sciences, & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. https://ies.ed.gov/pdf/CommonGuidelines.pdf
15.
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, 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956
16.
MadausJ. W.KowittJ. S.LalorA. R. (2012). The higher education opportunity act: Impact on students with disabilities. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 26(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1891/216866512805000893
17.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST, Inc.
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
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
23.
PolandB. (2003). Transcription quality. In HolsteinJ.GubriumJ. (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–287). Sage.
24.
RaoK.OkM. W.SmithS. J.EvmenovaA. S.EdyburnD. (2020). Validation of the UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519847755
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27.
SchwandtT. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage.
28.
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, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.25
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ. (2012). Keyword analysis: A new tool for qualitative research. In BourgeaultI.DingwallR.De VriesR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research (pp. 536–556). Sage.
31.
SealeC.ZieblandS.Charteris-BlackJ. (2006). Gender, cancer experience and internet use: A comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Social Science & Medicine, 62(10), 2577–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.016
32.
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
ZhangL.YangS.CarterR. A. (2020). Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know and where we go. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448
