Universal design for learning (UDL) is a construct that first appeared in the literature approximately 20 years ago. Yet, there is little agreement about what UDL looks like in the classroom. The purpose of this article is to assist students, educators, and parents in identifying universal usability designs, behaviors, and tools that reflect the practice of UDL in the classroom. Three types of exemplars are highlighted: platform tools, web-based curricula, and embedded supports. It is argued that knowing what UDL looks like is an essential step in measuring the outcomes of UDL.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
2.
BryanT.BursteinK.BryanJ. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167–180.
3.
CawleyJ. F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 67–71.
4.
DaviesP. L.SchellyC. L.SpoonerC. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220.
5.
EdyburnD. L. (2002). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, 21(1), 1, 10–11, 21.
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.
7.
EdyburnD. L.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Knowledge by Design, Inc.
GilmourA. F.FuchsD.WehbyJ. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346.
11.
GrahamS.BerningerV.FanW. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 516–536.
12.
HallT. E.CohenN.VueG.GanleyP. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72–83.
HooverJ. J. (2013). Linking assessment to instruction in multi-tiered models: A teacher’s guide to selecting, reading, writing, and mathematics interventions. Pearson.
15.
Johnson-HarrisK. M.MundschenkN. A. (2014). Working effectively with students with BD in a general education classroom: The case for universal design for learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(4), 168–174.
16.
LekoM. M. (2015). To adapt or not to adapt: Navigating an implementation conundrum. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48, 80–85.
17.
LoremanT.ForlinC.SharmaU. (2014). Measuring indicators of inclusive education: A systematic review of the literature. In ForlinC.LoremanT. (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3, pp. 165–187). Emerald Group.
18.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
19.
PishaB.CoyneP. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197–203.
20.
RaoK.OkM. W.SmithS. J.EvemenovaA.EdyburnD. (2019). Validation of the UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research. Remedial and Special Education, 41, 219–230.
21.
SappW.HatlenP. (2010). The expanded core curriculum: Where we have been, where we are going, and how we can get there. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(6), 338–348.
22.
SchlechtyP. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. Jossey-Bass.
23.
SchroederN. L.AdesopeO. O.GilbertR. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39.
24.
SmithS. J.RaoK.LowreyK. A.GardnerJ. E.MooreE.CoyK.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.
