A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models

Abstract

Universal design for learning (UDL) has gained considerable attention in the field of special education, acclaimed for its promise to promote inclusion by supporting access to the general curriculum. In addition to UDL, there are two other universal design (UD) educational models referenced in the literature, universal design of instruction (UDI) and universal instructional design (UID). This descriptive review of 13 research studies conducted in pre-K–12 and post-secondary settings examined how researchers are applying and evaluating UD in educational settings. Results of the review illustrated that studies use a range of research designs to examine student outcomes and participant perceptions of UD-based curriculum and instruction. Researchers report on their application of UD principles in varied ways, with no standard formats for describing how UD is used. Based on results of the review, we provide recommendations to help establish a meaningful research base on the validity of UD in education.

Keywords

universal design for learning universal instructional design universal design of instruction universal design inclusion access

Universal design for learning (UDL) has become a popular instructional topic in special education that gained prominence in the 1990s with the growing awareness of the need to provide individuals with disabilities access to the general curriculum. The Individuals With Disabilities Educational Act of 1997 and 2004 furthered these mandates at a K–12 level, and the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) and Sections 504 (1973) and 508 (1998) of the Rehabilitation Act mandated equitable access to curriculum at a post-secondary level. More recently, legislation at the federal and state levels specifically mentioned UDL as part of special education initiatives. For example, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; 2008), the Race to the Top Assessment Program (U.S. Department of Education [USED], 2009), and the Task Force to Explore the Incorporation of the Principles of UDL into the Education Systems in Maryland (Maryland State Department of Education, 2011) emphasize the importance of training teachers to use UDL to create more inclusive environments for teaching and learning.

The term universal design (UD) was coined by Ron Mace as a way of “designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life” (Center for Universal Design, 2010). The original UD principles, which were developed by a team of architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental design researchers (Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998), originally focused on proactively reducing environmental barriers and providing increased access to the physical environment. Educational models based on this concept, such as UDL, extended the idea of access to the learning environment (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006).

UD Educational Models

In addition to UDL, universal design of instruction (UDI) and universal instructional design (UID) are often referenced in the literature as frameworks for extending access in educational environments. Each model has a set of principles that focus on reducing barriers in learning environments and increasing access to curriculum and instruction for diverse learners, especially students with disabilities. Table 1 provides an overview of the main principles, guidelines, and performance indicators associated with each model. Although each model uses slightly different terms to denote guiding principles, we use the term “principles” to denote the major principles, guidelines, and performance indicators of the respective models.

Table 1.

Principles Associated With Universal Design Models.

Model	Principles/guidelines
UID (Goff & Higbee, 2008; http://www.cehd.umn.edu/passit/)	a. Creating welcoming classrooms b. Determining essential components of a course c. Communicating clear expectations d. Providing timely and constructive feedback e. Exploring use of natural supports for learning, including technology f. Designing teaching methods that consider diverse learning styles, abilities, ways of knowing, and previous experience and background knowledge g. Creating multiple ways for students to demonstrate their knowledge h. Promoting interaction among and between faculty and students
UDL (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2010; www.udlcenter.org/)	Principle I: Provide multiple means of representation Principle II: Provide multiple means of action and expression Principle III: Provide multiple means of engagement
UDI (Burgstahler, 2009; http://www.washington.edu/doit/CUDE/)	a. Class climate b. Interaction c. Physical environments and products d. Delivery methods e. Information resources and technology f. Feedback g. Assessment h. Accommodation

Note. UID = universal instructional design; UDL = universal design for learning; UDI = universal design of instruction.

All three UD educational models focus on cognitive access and highlight ways in which educational resources, teacher pedagogy, and the flexible design of curriculum and instruction can address students’ needs and support diverse learners. UD principles can be applied to curriculum and instruction at many levels, from lesson objectives and materials to instructional methods and assessments (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012). The three frameworks provide guidelines for building in support and flexibility during the planning process and for proactively designing instruction with the objective of including the greatest number of users possible.

Along with the three main principles presented in Table 1, the UDL framework, associated with the work of the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), presents 9 guidelines and 31 specific checkpoints under the three principles, detailing how flexible options and learner supports can be built in to lesson design and implementation. The UDI and UID frameworks provide broader, less specific guidelines for lesson and curriculum design; however, these frameworks address additional factors such as student–instructor interactions, classroom environment, and accommodations. Although the principles of all three models are applicable to both pre-K–12 and post-secondary environments, the UDI and UID frameworks are often associated with post-secondary environments and courses in the literature. The UID principles are derived from Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good practice for undergraduate education (Goff & Higbee, 2008). The UDI principles address elements relevant for post-secondary environments such as instructional materials, facilities, strategies, web-based instruction, labs, fieldwork, and demonstrations (Burgstahler, 2009). In this article, we will use the term UD in education to refer to the three models (UDL, UDI, and UID) that are a focus of this review.

Research on UD in Education

Although UD in education has become increasingly popular in the past decade and is often referenced in the literature, the research base supporting its efficacy is in a nascent phase. The National Center on Universal Design for Learning (NCUDL; 2011) website provides extensive research evidence compiled by CAST to support each of the 31 UDL checkpoints. However, studies supporting the discrete checkpoints do not examine the application or effects of the broader framework of UDL. Edyburn (2010) noted the dearth of research on UDL and the implications of this scarcity, stating that “without an adequate base of primary research, an analysis of research evidence establishing UDL as a scientifically validated intervention is not possible” (p. 34). Another barrier to establishing efficacy has been the lack of clear definition of what constitutes an intervention that is universally designed. There is no consensus on how UD principles should be applied, nor is there agreement as to how much or in what combination the principles or guidelines of any model need to be present for an educational intervention to be considered universally designed. For example, is a lesson universally designed if the teacher includes multiple means of representation within instructional materials? Or do several UD principles have to be applied to various components of the lesson such as instructional materials and teaching strategies? Moreover, to make claims about the efficacy of UD in education, it will be necessary to define the UD components of an intervention and examine how those components contribute to increasing access to curriculum and instruction.

Edyburn (2010) highlighted that UDL is essentially about instructional design and noted the importance of making clear connections between principles and components of instruction such as learning objectives, learner characteristics, support strategies, technology, and outcomes. Because UD principles can be applied to various instructional elements, including resources, strategies, activities, and assessments, there are innumerable ways that the principles can be applied to practice. To give definition and shape to the broader construct of UD in education, it is important to articulate what exactly constitutes an intervention that is universally designed by describing UD principles applied within an intervention.

Purpose of the Study

To know what the empirical literature says on UD in education, we undertook a systematic review of intervention articles referencing the three UD educational models, UDL, UID, and UDI. We reviewed studies conducted in primary, secondary, and post-secondary settings to determine how UD principles are applied to interventions across the spectrum of formal education (pre-K through post-secondary). To gain an understanding of how researchers operationalize, apply, and evaluate UD design in education, we examined the following facets of studies: (a) What are the stated purposes, research methods (i.e., designs, participants, settings, duration), findings, and implications reported for studies explicitly involving UD as part of an educational intervention? and (b) How are UD principles applied to the interventions? Because we were interested in examining how researchers describe and discuss the use of UD in education, we recorded information on the purposes and implications of studies as stated by the authors without attempting to interpret or analyze their representation of this key information.

Method

Search and Selection Process

We searched five databases that catalog articles in the fields of education, social sciences, and psychology to find an initial set of articles to examine. We used EBSCOHost to search the following databases: ERIC, Academic Search Premier, and Professional Development Collection; we also searched PsycInfo and Social Sciences Index. We used the following primary keywords: universal design for learning, universal instructional design, universal design of instruction, and universal design; and the following secondary keywords: post-secondary, college, university, higher education, elementary, middle, high, and secondary in all searches. We used Boolean search terms (AND, OR) and wildcards (such as the asterisk) to double-check results and ensure that combinations and alternative forms of the keywords were searched. Our searches were conducted between October 2011 and January 2012, so the set of articles we found represent those referenced in databases prior to January 2012.

The initial search yielded more than 200 unique articles with the search terms above. Two members of the research team carefully reviewed the titles and abstracts of search results and selected articles that met the following inclusion criteria:

Reported an empirical study (using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method design)

Reported on a study conducted at pre-K–12 or post-secondary level

Referenced UDL, UDI, and/or UID as the framework for the study

Published in peer-reviewed journals.

We also looked for previous reviews of UD in education and found one review of UD in post-secondary education (Roberts, Park, Brown, & Cook, 2011). We examined the eight articles found in this review to determine whether they met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the set of 200 articles that met inclusion criteria, several studies examined perceptions of faculty and disability service providers about UD models. Because these studies were not primarily about application of UD models to curriculum and instruction but rather about perceptions of the models themselves, we chose to exclude them. After coding all articles (as described in the following section) and discussing at length how articles might best be examined to answer the research questions, we excluded articles that

were only descriptive case studies, with no research design or participant outcomes reported,

examined usability or accessibility of software rather than application of UD models to teaching and learning outcomes, or

mentioned UD as a general concept, rather than describing how a UD model was applied to teaching and learning.

After examining each article carefully, we identified 13 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles became the focus of our review and are identified with an asterisk in the “References” section of the article.

Coding and Interrater Reliability

The 13 articles were randomly assigned to each of three raters to be coded. The coding sheet contained 24 categories including UD model used, purpose of study, research methods, participant demographic information, setting, duration, and results and implications of the study as defined by the authors. We also coded information on the application of UD principles to interventions by descriptively noting how and where researchers made connections between UD principles and their interventions.

A total of 7 articles out of 13 were randomly selected and coded to check interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was established in two phases. Initially, 4 articles were coded by all three raters. The three raters coded the articles independently, discussed questions that arose during the coding process, and clarified coding procedures to derive a shared consensus of category definitions. Second, each rater recoded the initial 4 articles based on the revised coding categories. Then, an additional 3 articles were coded by two of the three raters.

Interrater reliability was calculated by using this formula on the information coded, cell by cell, in the 24 categories: the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100. For categories containing descriptive information (e.g., application of UD principles), agreement was determined if both raters selected the same information from the article. For example, for the item on application of UD principles, raters looked for specific references to application of UD principles and noted down (a) the section of the article where this information was provided and (b) the actual sentences/paragraphs about how UD principles were applied to the intervention. For purposes of calculating interrater reliability, if both raters had noted down the same sections and passages, it was considered an agreement. Discrepancies (e.g., one rater found less or different information than the other) were resolved by the raters discussing the article and coming to an agreement on what descriptive information to include. As a final check, one rater compiled the descriptive information from all the coding sheets and reviewed each article to ensure that the information was consistently represented. Interrater reliability calculated for all seven articles, in terms of percentage of agreement, was 88%, which is within the range typically reported for interrater reliability in research syntheses (Cooper & Hedges, 1994).

Results

We report results of the review according to educational level of the participants. Of the 13 studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 8 studies were conducted in pre-K–12 environments (see Table 2) and 5 were conducted in post-secondary settings (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Pre-K–12 Articles Referencing UD Educational Models.

Study, model	Stated purpose of study	Research methods	Findings and stated implications	Description of UD application
Abell, Jung, and Taylor (2011) UDL	To examine students’ perceptions toward their instructional environments in classrooms exploring UDL	Quantitative (survey) 867 students Grade: 5–12 Gender: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Disability: N/R Duration: one school year Setting: N/R	For the survey subscales of personalization and participation, high school students had significantly higher perception scores than upper elementary school students or middle school students. For investigation, there was no significant difference among upper elementary, middle school, or high school students. Students with female teachers overall had significantly higher personalization scores than students of male teachers. UDL-aligned instructional approaches and curriculum materials might create more interest and engagement in curriculum materials for older students, giving students more opportunities for success with the rigorous academic requirements found at the senior high school level.	Introduction: Overview of UDL and three principles provided. Authors give examples of ways that UDL can be incorporated in curriculum and broadly described the features of a “classroom aligned to UDL principles” (p. 175) and provide a few examples (scaffolded instructional curricula, instructional personalization, project-based learning) .Methods: Table illustrated how questions on survey were rephrased to align to UDL principles. Authors described the rephrasing of items on the survey to better capture the UDL elements of the classroom environment.
Basham, Meyer, and Perry (2010) UDL	To define the concept and necessary components of the digital backpack; to discuss its potential as a readily accessible and adaptable means for schools to appropriately provide for desired outcomes in diverse student environments	Qualitative (case study: design-based research) 35 students Grade: 7–11 High school Gender: 13 M, 22 F Ethnicity: 27 AA, 1 W (partially provided) Disability: 1 LD (partially provided) Duration: 3.5–6.5 hr Setting: Urban/rural high school	Authors described how project developed in each of the three consecutive design cycles. With appropriate scaffolding provided, students used multimedia technologies and made connections between what they learned in a school setting and the museum experience. Authors noted that the digital backpack provided students multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, noting the components of the technology and process that connected to each principle. Authors stated “the alignment of the digital backpack with the UDL framework provided a flexible and scalable learning experience that allowed each student to succeed in learning content and using new technologies” (p. 355).	Introduction: Definition and general description of UDL provided. Authors noted that three principles of UDL were embedded in the digital backpack, and provided some examples of how each principle was applied. Article described the technologies used in great detail, with some discussion of how these technologies connected to UDL principles.
Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Lee (2009) UDL	To demonstrate a method for planning and implementing shared stories for students with multiple disabilities that incorporated both task analytic instruction and team planning using principles of UDL	Single subject (multiple-probe across participants) 3 students Grade: Elementary (M = 8 years) Gender: 2 M, 1 F Ethnicity: N/R Disability: All ID Duration: 30 min, 3 sessions/week, 3.5 months Setting: special education classroom in urban elementary school	All three participants increased their independent responses during the intervention phase. Shared stories activity, which applied the principles of UDL, was effective in increasing independent responses aligned with indication of early comprehension. Team planning with UDL for shared stories was an important strategy that allowed students to participate in lesson. Applying these principles might help early childhood teachers plan ways to present materials and get all students ready to respond.	Introduction: General description of UDL and three principles with brief examples were provided. Methods: The authors provided specific examples of how each principle was applied during a team-based task analysis process to individualize intervention for each participant.
Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, and Strangman (2005) UDL	To investigate the potential of computer-based read-aloud testing accommodations, examining not only group-wide effects but also the impact of the accommodation on individual students	Mixed method (quasi-experimental and case study) 10 students Grade: high school, 10–11 Gender: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Disability: All LD Duration: Study conducted over 3-week period; students given a 50-min training on CBT procedures and 45 min to take the test Setting: Suburban public high school resource room social studies class	On the National Assessment of Educational Progress history and civics test, students’ scores showed a statistically significant effect of CBT on long reading passages. Students performed slightly better on paper-based test for short passages, but result was not statistically significant .Analysis of the qualitative data suggested that student preferences for CBT-TTS were linked to features that promoted independence and flexibility and that students strongly endorsed the text-to-speech feature within the CBT-TTS format. Authors noted that the computer-based test fulfilled UDL’s recommendations that “students be provided multiple, flexible means of representation of information, namely text and audio, with opportunities for simultaneous presentation if possible, namely synchronized highlight. The system also allows students to proceed through the test in any order, to read questions before passages, and the like, as well as adjust font size and voice parameters” (p. 23).	Introduction: General description of UDL/UD and three principles of UDL provided. Authors made reference to UDA briefly and noted that there has been an effort to apply UDL to large-scale assessments. Methods: UDL principles were referenced as a context for one of the testing conditions of the intervention. Features of CBT condition that link to UDL principles were specified, such as text-to-speech and provision of choice.
Dymond et al. (2006) UDL	To describe the experiences of school personnel involved with redesigning one inclusive high school science course	Qualitative (case study: participatory action research) 3 teachers 101 students Grade: High school Gender: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Disability: 25 MD, 2 CD Duration: 2 semesters Setting: High school in small city in Midwest, general education inclusive science class	Reported effectiveness of UDL strategies and specific outcomes for students in relation to UDL-based curriculum and instruction. The redesigned curriculum was especially positive for students with disabilities for increasing their social interaction, participation, and completion of work, grades, and test scores. One predominant outcome was the impact of UDL-based strategies on relationships and interactions among students with severe CD and other students.	Introduction: General description of UD provided. Brief examples of UDL identified in literature .Methods: Several broad examples of UDL application were provided. Table 2 identified specific questions related to curriculum and instruction that align to UDL principles. Article described specific UDL strategies but links to principles and information on the extent to which strategies were used in particular lessons were not explicit.
Kortering, McClannon, and Braziel (2008) UDL	To provide findings on student perceptions of individual interventions based on the principles of UDL	Mixed method (survey) 290 students 22 teachers Grade: High school Gender: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Disability: 37 LD, 6 BD, 2 ID, 12 ADD Duration: 24 sessions, 90 min each (14 algebra and 10 biology) Setting: General high school algebra and biology classrooms	General and special education student participants reported strong levels of favorable agreement with the effectiveness of, utility of, and satisfaction with the UDL interventions, in comparison with their other academic classes. They also reported favorable ratings of learning important and useful information, information to help them on their exams, and staying on task and working hard. More than 90% of student responses called for their teachers to do more of this type of instruction. Authors commented that this is a preliminary finding that points to increased engagement in high school academic classes.	Introduction: Overview of UDL and three principles were provided. Methods: Detailed description of the UDL-based intervention, including a table with the instructional strategies used, is provided. Authors stated that these instructional strategies were linked to three UDL principles, but did not make specific links between instructional strategies and principles.
Lieber, Horn, Palmer, and Fleming (2008) UDL	To explore the notion of access to the general curriculum for pre-school children with special needs, with a specific focus on ensuring that children not only have access but also make meaningful progress	Mixed method (one group pre-test–post-test and case study) 58 students Grade/age: Pre-school M = 4.5 years Gender: 42 M, 16 F Ethnicity: 17 H, 6 AA, 29 W, 2 A, 3 multiracial Disability: 29 SLI, 19 DD, 1 ED, 1 OHI, I ID, 1 Autism Duration: 1 school year Setting: N/R	Students made gains in math skills and social skills: CSS curriculum improved learning outcomes in literacy, math, and social skills .Children experienced significant gains in literacy as indicated by their Rhyming, Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack Emergent Writing, Letter Naming Task, Picture Naming, and PPVT-III scores. Children also experienced significant gains in math skills as indicated by their Applied Problem, Quantitative Concepts, and Quantitative Concepts Number Series scores. They also experienced significant gains in social skills as indicated by their standardized Social Skills Rating System scores.	Introduction: Examples of how UDL principles were specifically applied to lesson elements in school-wide CSS curriculum provided. Methods: Noted that CSS was designed with UDL principles and provided an example lesson how each principle was applied. Authors highlighted how specific practices helped the two participants in their in-depth study and made explicit connections with UDL principles.
Marino (2009) UDL	To examine the relationship between students’ reading ability, use of cognitive tools, and their comprehension of scientific concepts and processes	Quantitative (one group pre-test–post-test) 1,153 students Gender: 50% M, 50% F Grade: 6–8 Ethnicity: 91% White, 1% AA, 5% A, 3% H Achievement data Disability: 126 reading difficulties Duration: 4 weeks Setting: middle school inclusive science classes in Northeast	Students who scored below the 50th percentile on reading assessment utilized and benefited from the technology-based cognitive tools in highly similar ways. Low ability readers benefited more from tools that share cognitive load than their proficiently reading peers. However, they did not use any of the tools as frequently as their proficiently reading peers. Students with severe reading difficulties in this study were able to perform as well as their peers who scored in the 26–50 percentile on post-test measures, providing “tangible evidence that the UDL framework has the potential to improve access and learning for students with severe reading difficulties” (p. 100).	Introduction: Description of UDL and the use of technology-based tools to support UDL principles provided. Author noted that this study is designed to address the need for research on technology-based tools that can be used in development of UDL curricula. Methods: Alien Rescue curriculum used in the study includes critical components of UDL framework. Description of cognitive tools and scaffolds within Alien Rescue environment were provided, but links to specific UDL principles were not made.

Note. UD = universal design; UDL = universal design for learning; N/R = not reported; M = male; F = female; AA = African American; W = White; LD = learning disabilities; ID = intellectual disabilities; CBT = computer-based testing; TTS = Text to Speech; UDA = universal design for assessment; MD = mild disabilities; CD = cognitive disabilities; BD = behavior disorder; ADD = attention deficit disorder; H = Hispanic; A = Asian American; SLI = speech language impairment; DD = development disabilities; ED = emotional disturbance; OHI = other health impairment; PPVT-III = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition; CSS = Children’s School Success.

Table 3.

Post-Secondary Articles Referencing UD Educational Models.

Study, model	Stated purpose of study	Research methods	Findings and stated implications	Operationalization/application of UD principles
McGuire-Schwartz and Arndt (2007) UDL	To explore and document how teacher candidates in pre-K through Grade 3 classrooms understood and used the principles of UDL in lesson planning and teaching	Qualitative (case study: action research) Two studies w/ 41 teacher candidates Gender: N/R Age: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Duration: Study1: 2 semester Study 2: 6 weeks Setting: Study 1: Private college Study 2: Public college	Study 1: Increased student learning and engagement. Study 2: The principles and practices of UDL affected student learning. All of the participants reported that using the principles and practices of UDL frequently or almost always benefited their lesson plans and the students with who they worked. They found that the tools and resources that they utilized were useful in planning lessons; UD lessons used multiple approaches that almost always or frequently met the needs of a wide variety of students, including those with disabilities.	Introduction: Overview of UDL framework was provided. Methods: Authors described two studies of pre-service teacher training and application of UDL. No specific information on how participants applied UDL principles.
Parker, Robinson, and Hannafin (2008) UDI	To analyze student online interactions and course evaluations to produce examples of how the web-enabled course design created an environment that helped instantiate both the adult learning tenets and the UDI principles	Qualitative (case study) 114 teacher candidates Gender: N/R Age: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Duration: 1 hr 40 min weekly over a 15-week semester Setting: Public university, core special education class	The UD-based course design and delivery provided opportunities for practical, applied learning activities and critical reflection within a community of practice, enabled self-directed learning, and facilitated the development of a respectful environment in the course. Authors connected student outcomes to specific UDI principles.	Introduction: Description/definition of UDI and a website link provided for examples of faculty products that reflect UDI principles. Methods: Specific examples of how UDI principles were applied within course instruction provided.
Rao and Tanners (2011) UID and UDL	To (a) examine how UID and UDL guidelines can be considered during the instructional design process and applied in an online course environment, and (b) determine which elements of UD were most valued by and useful to students enrolled in the online course	Qualitative (case study) 25 graduate students Gender: N/R Age: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Duration: 16 weeks Setting: Rural locations on several islands in Hawaii	Students indicated a preference for several UD-based pedagogical elements within the course. Students utilized multimodal resources, found short assignments useful for retaining course content, and appreciated the interaction and organization of course .Authors made connections between specific UID and UDL principles and course components valued by students.	Introduction: Overview of three UD educational models provided. Study focused on application of two models (UID and UDL) to course design. Methods: Detailed description of course design and instruction and links to UID and UDL principles provided. Table 2 noted how specific elements of course were designed to meet UID and UDL principles.
Schelly, Davies, and Spooner (2011) UDL	To measure the effectiveness of UDL instructor training, as indicated by student perceptions of UDL implementation and to determine the feasibility of changing faculty behaviors via student perceptions	Quantitative (one group pre–post survey) 5 instructors, 1,362 students completed pre-survey; 1,233 students completed pre and post survey Gender: N/R Age: N/R Ethnicity: N/R Disability: 8% of survey completers reported having a disability (specific info N/R) Duration: N/R Setting: Intro to psychology course	Results indicated that UDL training for instructors appeared to change students’ perceptions about how their instructors presented ideas and information, engaged students, and allowed students to express their comprehension of course content. Two areas that appeared to have the most impact on changing instructors’ behavior were (a) the importance of presenting concepts in multiple ways and offering course materials in a variety of formats and (b) the need to summarize key concepts before, during, and immediately following instruction. Instructors incorporated these UDL strategies into their teaching almost immediately following the training sessions.	Introduction: Overview of UDL and three principles were provided. Method: Authors noted that instructors were trained in UDL-related strategies and provided some examples of the strategies. Detailed listing of survey questions about UDL-based strategies was provided.
Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) UDL	To determine the effects of teacher training about UDL on the lesson plan designs of special education and general education teachers in a college classroom setting	Quantitative (true experimental pre-test–post-test) 72 students Gender: 17 M, 55 F Age: 19–58 M = 33 years Ethnicity: 60 W, 9 AA, 3 Others Duration: N/R Setting: Education major classes in a southeastern university	Both special education and general education teachers in the experimental group showed an increase in mean scores on including UDL-based modifications from pre- to post-test. The intervention, a 1-hr training on integrating UDL, enabled general education and special education teacher to develop lesson plans that involved a student with a mild or severe cognitive disability. Participants in the experimental group showed a considerable amount of growth in lesson plan development between the pre-test and post-test compared with the control group’s pre-test and post-test.	Introduction: Overview of UDL and three principles was provided .Method: Authors noted that participants in treatment group were given a 1-hr lecture on UDL focusing on modification of lesson plans using the three components of UDL. Some examples of UDL-based strategies included in training were provided. Scoring rubric assessing the use of three components of UDL was provided.

Note. UD = universal design; UDL = universal design for learning; N/R = not reported; UDI = universal design of instruction; UID = universal instructional design; M = male; F = female; W = White; AA = African American.

Eleven studies referenced UDL, one UDI, and one both UDL and UID. All of the pre-K–12 studies referenced UDL as the educational model they were using, whereas the post-secondary studies referenced UDL, UDI, and UID. In the following sections, we summarize information about the purpose, research methods, outcomes, and application of UD principles in the 13 intervention studies reviewed. In Tables 2 and 3, we present the purpose and implications of the studies as stated by the authors of the article.

Purpose and Research Methods

One purpose of this review was to examine how research on UD is being conducted by examining the purpose and research methods (including research designs, participants, settings, and duration) of each study. The purposes of the studies ranged from investigating student perceptions of UD-based curriculum to examining of student outcomes for UD-based interventions. The set of pre-K–12 studies described various types of academic curriculum and classroom projects that incorporated UDL principles. These studies investigated outcomes for students on various dependent variables, including student engagement in lessons (Abell, Jung, & Taylor, 2011), attainment of academic goals (Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2009; Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming, 2008), and use of technology-based tools to provide cognitive supports for the learning process and for assessment (Basham, Meyer, & Perry, 2010; Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, & Strangman, 2005; Marino, 2009). Two studies examined how students responded to curriculum that teachers had designed in alignment with UDL principles (Dymond et al., 2006; Kortering, McClannon, & Braziel, 2008). In the post-secondary set of articles reviewed, two studies examined student perceptions of university-level courses that used UD principles (Parker, Robinson, & Hannafin, 2008; Rao & Tanners, 2011) and three studies examined the effects of UD training and curriculum on instructor practices (McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007; Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011; Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder, 2007).

Five of the 13 studies used qualitative designs, 5 used quantitative designs, including 1 single-case design, and 3 used mixed-method designs. The level of detail provided in the studies for demographic variables of participants varied. Three studies provided information about grade levels, gender, ethnicity, and disability status. Information on participant gender and ethnicity was not provided in 8 studies and disability information was not provided in 5 studies. Overall, the 8 pre-K–12 studies provided greater detail about participant characteristics and 7 of those studies provided specific information on disability status. Only 1 post-secondary study provided detailed participant information and none of the studies reported on participant disability status. The duration of the studies varied from interventions that lasted a few hours to courses that lasted semesters and intervention projects that lasted over the school year.

Findings and Stated Implications

In addition to examining the purpose of each study and its research methods, we coded information on each study’s findings and the UD-related implications as stated by researchers. The reporting of findings varied widely because the research designs and methods of analyses were diverse. Analyses included inferential statistics on pre- and post-test data; qualitative coding of perceptions of survey, interview, and observational data; and single-case visual inspection methods of individual student responses to curriculum-based interventions. The fourth columns of Tables 2 and 3 provide details about study findings and implications related to the use of UD principles, which are summarized according to study focus (i.e., academic skills, student perceptions, and instructor implementation of UD) in the following subsections.

Academic skills

In the quasi-experimental and single-case studies, researchers noted gains in specific academic outcomes related to literacy, math, and science content knowledge and attributed the gains to the UD-based interventions (Browder et al., 2009; Lieber et al., 2008; Marino, 2009). Lieber et al. (2008) found that students participating in a school-wide curriculum that integrated several components of UD demonstrated statistically significant gains in literacy, math, and social skills on standardized tests. In their single-subject multiple-probe across-participants study, Browder et al. (2009) found that three students with severe disabilities increased their independent responses during a UDL-based intervention, an indication of the development of early comprehension skills.

Two studies examined how students used computer-based tools that provided strategic and cognitive supports (e.g., multimodal features that provide scaffolds as they read, review, and access information). Marino (2009) examined how readers of varying ability levels used cognitive tools in a web-based environment designed to teach science content. Results of this study showed that low readers benefited from the tools that supported cognitive load and that students with severe reading difficulties were able to perform as well as their peers who scored in the 26–50 percentile on post-test measures. The author noted that these results indicated that the UDL framework has the potential to improve access for students with severe reading difficulties. Dolan et al. (2005) found that students’ scores showed a statistically significant difference in the computer-based condition for long reading passages and that students showed a preference for testing accommodation features that promoted independence and flexibility.

Basham et al. (2010) examined how UD-based approaches affected the learning experience and process for students. Using an iterative design-based research model, these researchers described the benefits of integrating technology and instructional scaffolds to support students’ knowledge and skill acquisition. In describing the UDL-related implications of their studies, researchers noted benefits for students when the UDL principles of multiple means of representation were included in curriculum (Basham et al., 2010; Browder et al., 2009; Marino, 2009).

Student perceptions

Results of the studies that examined student perceptions reported increased student engagement with interventions and curriculum based on UD principles (Abell et al., 2011; Kortering et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2008; Rao & Tanners, 2011). Kortering et al. and Abell et al. noted the potential of increased engagement to promote academic success for secondary students and to provide access to rigorous high school curriculum. Parker et al. (2008) and Rao and Tanners (2011) found that UD-based practices fostered the formation of community and increased interaction in college-level courses. Schelly et al. (2011) found that instructor training on UDL resulted in changes and improvements in instruction from a student perspective.

Instructor implementation

Three studies examined the outcomes of training instructors to implement UD into curriculum. Dymond et al. (2006) conducted a case study of a curriculum redesign and found that the curriculum was especially positive for students with disabilities for increasing their social interaction, participation, and completion of work, grades, and test scores. McGuire-Schwartz and Arndt (2007) conducted a case study with teacher candidates, and participants reported that using the principles of UDL frequently benefited their lesson plans and the students with whom they worked. Spooner et al. (2007) conducted an experimental study found that a 1-hr training on UDL resulted in a considerable amount of growth in the ability of general and special education teachers to include UDL-based modifications in lesson plans to address the needs of students with a mild or severe cognitive disability.

Disability-related information

When we coded the results of the studies, we also noted whether researchers disaggregated findings in relation to specific disabilities. Six of the pre-K–12 studies described the results and implications of UD-based interventions for students with disabilities in particular (Browder et al., 2009; Dolan et al., 2005; Dymond et al., 2006; Kortering et al., 2008; Lieber et al., 2008; Marino, 2009). The remaining studies described the benefits for all participants, without specifying whether practices differentially benefited participants with specific characteristics (e.g., disability status).

Information on Application of UD Principles

The second focus area for this review was researchers’ descriptions of their application of UD principles to interventions. During the coding process, the raters looked for explicit connections made between UD principles and elements of the intervention. Because of the variability in how researchers reported this information, we did not assign a rating or value for the extent to which researchers describe UD principles; rather we simply noted the connections to UD principles provided in the article. The fifth columns in Tables 2 and 3 summarize the ways in which UD principles were described in relation to interventions. In these columns, we also noted whether UD principles were addressed in the introduction and methods sections of an article to consider the formats that researchers used for reporting this information

Two of the pre-K–12 articles provided information about how the UDL principles related to their intervention with specificity and detail, making explicit links between principles and components of their interventions. Browder et al. (2009) noted how they operationalized the three UDL principles into specific instructional practices for three students in their single-subject study. For example, they included a table describing the use of a light box, a switch, and specific praise for each student related to the UDL principles of representation, expression, and engagement. Lieber et al. (2008) also made explicit connections between the three main UDL principles and the specific instructional practices within the school-wide curriculum that was the focus of their examination and included a sample lesson in their study. Three pre-K–12 articles gave examples of the components of their interventions, rather than the full intervention, aligned with UDL principles (Abell et al., 2011; Dolan et al., 2005; Dymond et al., 2006). Although all of the pre-K–12 studies mentioned the 3 main UDL principles, none made connections between instructional practices and the 9 UDL guidelines or 31 checkpoints that are subdivisions of the 3 main principles of Representation, Action and Expression, and Engagement.

In the post-secondary set of articles, Parker et al. (2008) and Rao and Tanners (2011) provided specific and detailed information on connections to principles of the UID and UDI models. In both articles, the authors reported on instructional practices within university-level courses and noted how their instructional practices mapped to principles of their selected UD models. For example, these researchers described how they used asynchronous and synchronous technologies to provide options for students and described how specific activities and assignments in their courses aligned with UD principles. These researchers also described the use of UID and UDI principles during the design and implementation of their courses and referenced specific principles in the discussion of outcomes. Two articles provided examples of UDL-related strategies in their interventions as well as additional information, such as rubrics and survey questions used to assess the UDL-components (Schelly et al., 2011; Spooner et al., 2007).

In general, articles followed a format of providing background information on the UD model in their Introduction sections and information on application of principles in the methods sections of the studies. However, the depth of information reported on the application of principles varied in format and content across the set of articles.

Discussion

In this section, we discuss the implications of this review and related considerations for future research on the application and evaluation of UD educational models.

Current Snapshot of UD Research

This review of articles revealed that the empirical literature on UD in education addresses many levels of educational practice. Researchers applied UD principles for a range of purposes and examined factors as varied as learning processes, testing accommodations, technology-based learning environments, professional development, and classroom practices. Researchers consistently provided a strong rationale for the need to use UD principles within educational environments. However, the extent to which researchers explicitly connected UD principles to their interventions, measures, and findings varied greatly, posing challenges for the analysis and interpretation of the effectiveness of applying UD principles to educational practices. In aggregate, the findings of the studies supported the use of UD principles by providing evidence of the benefits and positive outcomes for students and educators. However, because the studies used a range of research designs, most of which did not establish causality of effectiveness, the evidence should be interpreted with caution as a set of preliminary positive results based on varied methods of analysis. In the following sections, we present some specific issues that emerged from this review and related recommendations.

Definition of UD Principles

Although all of the articles made mention of procedures and guidelines associated with their selected UD educational models at some point in their paper, researchers used the terminology related to the UD educational models in widely varying ways. Researchers used the term “universal design for learning” most often to refer to the UDL model and its associated principles published by the CAST (2012) and the NCUDL (2010) websites, yet the phrase “universal design for learning” was also sometimes used as a generic term to connote ways in which principles from the different UD models can be applied to curriculum and instruction. Articles that referenced UDI and UID most often defined principles associated with these models in the literature (as listed in Table 1). A few articles used the term UDL, and referred to a combination of principles associated with all three models (UDI, UID, and UDL).

This inconsistent use of terminology is a barrier to research on the efficacy of the application of UD educational models. As McGuire, Scott, and Shaw (2006) noted,

Leaders in the development of UD in educational settings, including researchers and practitioners, must be intentional in their use of terminology, understanding which terms are linked to a theoretical model for the purpose of assessment, evaluation, and validation, and which terms reflect a befuddling use of adjectives with no specific meaning. (p. 172)

Whatever the referent, researchers emphasized the importance of UD educational principles. Many of the articles dedicated a significant portion of their introductory and background sections to describing the importance of including UD principles in the design of curriculum and instruction. Several articles also noted the dearth of research on the effects of applying UD educational models to practice and called for further empirical validation of UD’s application to instructional environments.

Operationalization and Application of UD Principles

Rather than providing only a general definition about the model and its principles, descriptions of studies are enhanced by a clear delineation of principles being used and how they are applied to specific elements of the intervention. Although all researchers stated that their interventions are based on principles of a UD model, the level of detail about how the components of their interventions aligned to specific principles and guidelines varied greatly. Authors who provided explicit links between principles and practices did so in different ways, with no standard format for reporting links between principles and their application to discrete elements of their projects or interventions. Some provided a few examples of UD-based strategies that were part of their interventions, whereas others included tables or narrative descriptions that connected principles to practices. The lack of explicit descriptions in many articles is problematic for several reasons. First, those who wish to apply successful UD practices can benefit from specific examples of how to successfully operationalize the UD principles. Second, researchers wishing to examine the efficacy of UD educational application instruction can do so only by knowing specifically which UD-based components of an intervention resulted in positive outcomes, which can only occur when detailed information is provided about how interventions operationalize the principles.

Recommendations for Reporting Information

The efficacy of applying UD to curriculum and instruction can be established over time, as research accumulates to prove or disprove that UD-based interventions work, for whom, and under what conditions. For this to occur, it is important for researchers to do two things. First, researchers will need to describe their interventions explicitly (Gersten et al., 2005; Odom et al., 2004). Those who wish to replicate UD-based intervention research and make adjustments to specific features of UD-based intervention studies can do so only when they know exactly what UD-based procedures were applied. We suggest that research articles on UD in education contain a section that details the connections between UD principles and intervention components. This can be reported as part of the methods section when describing the intervention or procedures. For example, if using the UDL framework, researchers should note which guidelines or checkpoints associated with multiple means of representation, action, and expression are incorporated into the lessons and how they are operationalized. By providing information on how UD principles are operationalized and applied to various components of pedagogy such as specific learning objectives, instructional strategies, and technology, researchers will give shape and form to the construct of UD in education. This information is useful not only for researchers but also for practitioners interested in designing effective UD-based curricula and instruction. Researchers can provide additional information for those seeking to replicate an intervention by including examples of their lessons and how the lessons were implemented.

Second, researchers should report complete demographic characteristics of their samples, including disability categories (Gersten et al., 2005; Hammill, Bryant, Brown, Dunn, & Marten, 1989; Rosenberg et al., 1994). Because UD-based educational interventions intend to increase access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities while also benefiting a range of learners with and without disabilities, it is particularly important to report specific participant information. By doing so, researchers enable research consumers to ascertain for what specific types of learners UD-based intervention are effective. It is important to know the effects of UD intervention on different groups of at-risk learners (e.g., students with learning disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse learners) rather than examine solely whether they are effective generally across different groups of learners.

In keeping with quality indicators for experimental research, we recommend that researchers follow the recommendation supplied by Gersten et al. (2005) to “provide enough about information about participants so that readers can identify the population of participants to which results may be generalized” (p. 155). This includes providing information on disability status; demographic information on age, race, gender, English language learner status, and special education status; and achievement scores. When describing how instructors apply UD principles to the design and implementation of curriculum and instruction, it is important to present their backgrounds and professional experiences to understand the factors that contribute to instructor ability to adopt and use these practices. Information should be provided concerning age, gender, ethnicity, years of professional experience, and degrees earned (Boudah, 2011). If applicable, information may also be presented on years teaching in a specific content area (e.g., history, special education methods, and materials) and certifications achieved.

Providing this level of participant information in addition to details about the setting and duration of the intervention will allow UD researchers and research consumers to clearly determine the implications of the study (e.g., For what types of learners was the UD-based intervention effective?). Ideally, researchers can also disaggregate findings and include information on whether and how UD-based practices are effective for specific student populations. This level of detail will facilitate replication efforts and meaningful syntheses of findings across studies—both of which are critical for building a valid base of research on UD in education.

Implications of Research Designs Used

While reviewing the approximately 200 articles identified in our original search, we were struck by the scarcity of empirical examinations exploring the efficacy of UD models. Most of the literature consists of descriptive studies about the importance of using UD in education and descriptions of how researchers applied the principles. Of the 13 articles that met our criteria as an intervention research study, over a third used qualitative methods to describe how the use of UD educational models was perceived by faculty and students and which practices participants reported as effective. Although these studies established that the application of UD principles are valued by stakeholders, they are not designed to examine whether UD-based interventions caused improved learner outcomes in terms of content and/or skill acquisition.

One of the reasons for the scarcity of quantitative intervention studies in the field may be that the discipline currently is at a more nascent stage of defining and describing what UD educational models are and how they can be applied. Certainly, the current literature is starting to give definition and shape to what a UD educational model-based project or intervention looks like, but eventually researchers will need to address whether instruction incorporating UDL actually causes better results than conventional lessons and courses by conducting high-quality experimental studies, including true experimental, quasi-experimental, and single-subject designs.

Limitations and Further Research Needs

We recognize that any examination has its limitations. First, it is always possible that we missed some articles. Specifically, due to the large number of articles found through the original database searches, we did not use additional search methods, such as ancestral searches. As a result, we may have missed articles not uncovered by our search of electronic databases. Moreover, other research studies may have been published after we conducted our review and are therefore not included in our results. Thus, it is important for scholars to update this review by systematically identifying and examining future studies conducted on UD educational application (e.g., UDI, UDL, UID). Second, we did not review all aspects of studies (e.g., treatment fidelity, attrition) and we perhaps omitted elements of UD educational applications, such as the emerging focus on UD for large-scale assessment. Future research can expand upon our work by taking into consideration articles and applications of UD that we did not include in our review.

Based on this review of literature, we posit that establishing standards for reporting how UD is applied in studies can strengthen future research on UD in education. Detailed reporting of UD components within a study will assist researchers as they design future experimental research that replicates and expands upon extant research examining the efficacy of UD-based practices. Future research will need to answer the questions of whether and how the use of UD in curriculum and instruction provides access to information for students with disabilities and to define what an effective UD-based practice looks like. There can be little doubt that UD has made an appreciable difference in the lives of people with disabilities. Houses and other buildings that posed accessibility challenges for people with disabilities are now accessible because of the application of UD principles. Can the same be said when UD is applied to curriculum and instruction, or is it simply an intuitive concept that has little real effect on students’ performance levels? Further research is needed to meaningfully address this critical question.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

*Abell

M. M.

Jung

Taylor

(2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of universal design for learning. Learning Environments Research, 14, 171–185. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).

Basham

J. D.

Meyer

Perry

(2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 339–359.

Boudah

(2011). Conducting educational research: Guide to completing a major project. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

*Browder

D. M.

Mims

P. J.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Lee

(2009). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 3–12.

Burgstahler

(2009). Universal design of instruction (UDI): Definition, principles, guidelines, and examples [website]. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2012). What is universal design for learning [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html

Center for Universal Design. (2010). Ronald L. Mace [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm

Chickering

A. W.

Gamson

Z. F.

(1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3–7.

10.

Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

(1994). The handbook of research syntheses. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

11.

*Dolan

R. P.

Hall

T. E.

Banerjee

Chun

Strangman

(2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Available from http://www.jtla.org

12.

*Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Rosenstein

Chun

E. J.

Banks

R. A.

Niswander

Gibson

C. 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, 293–308.

13.

Edyburn

D. 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, 33–41.

14.

Gersten

Fuchs

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

15.

Goff

Higbee

J. L.

(Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education. Minneapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, University of Minnesota.

16.

Hall

T. E.

Meyer

Rose

D. H.

(2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Hammill

D. D.

Bryant

B. R.

Brown

Dunn

Marten

(1989). How replicable is current LD research? A follow-up to the CLD research committee’s recommendations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 174–179. doi:10.2307/1510686

18.

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. United States Department of Education. Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C. (2008).

19.

Kortering

L. J.

McClannon

T. W.

Braziel

P. M.

(2008). Universal design for learning: A look at what algebra and biology students with and without high incidence conditions are saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 352–363. doi:10.1177/0741932507314020

20.

*Lieber

Horn

Palmer

Fleming

(2008). Access to the general education curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities: Children’s school success. Exceptionality, 16, 18–32. doi:10.1080/09362830701796776

21.

*Marino

M. T.

(2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17, 88–102. doi:10.1080/09362830902805848

22.

Maryland State Department of Education. (2011). A route for every learner: Recommendations from the task force to explore the incorporation of the principles of universal design for learning into the education systems in Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy/state/maryland

23.

McGuire

J. M.

Scott

S. S.

Shaw

S. F.

(2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 166–175.

24.

*McGuire-Schwartz

M. E.

Arndt

J. S.

(2007). Transforming universal design for learning in early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 127–139.

25.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2010). UDL guidelines [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines

26.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). UDL guidelines version 2.0: Research evidence [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence

27.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. D.

Thompson

Harris

(2004). Quality indicators for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: Executive summary. Reston, VA: Division for Research, Council for Exceptional Children.

28.

*Parker

D. R.

Robinson

L. E.

Hannafin

R. D.

(2008). “Blending” technology and effective pedagogy in a core course for preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24, 49–54.

29.

*Rao

Tanners

(2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211–229.

30.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1998), 34 C.F.R. Part 104.

31.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Amendments (1998), 34 C.F. R, Part 104.

32.

Roberts

K. D.

Park

H. J.

Brown

Cook

(2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 5–15.

33.

Rose

D. H.

Harbour

W. S.

Johnston

C. S.

Daley

S. G.

Abarbanell

(2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 135–151.

34.

Rosenberg

Bott

Majsterek

Chiang

Gartland

Wesson

. . . Wilson

(1994). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 56–59. doi:10.1177/074193259401500108

35.

*Schelly

C. L.

Davies

P. L.

Spooner

C. L.

(2011). Student perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 17–30.

36.

*Spooner

Baker

J. N.

Harris

A. A.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Browder

D. M.

(2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108–116. doi:10.1177/07419325070280020101

37.

Story

M. F.

Mueller

J. L.

Mace

R. L.

(1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/pudfiletoc.htm

38.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top assessment program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html