Introduction to Special Series on Universal Design for Learning

Although universal design for learning (UDL) has a long history in remedial and special education, research on UDL interventions remains limited. More common are descriptions of ways practitioners and other education professionals interpret and operationalize UDL. At times, UDL seems an elusive construct. It can seem elusive because while interventions may align with some aspect of UDL’s principles, guidelines, and benchmarks (for elaboration, refer to the articles in this special issue as well as CAST, 2018), some interventions were not proactively designed with learner variability and the UDL framework in mind. Even more confusingly, UDL has been interpreted as interventions, methods, or activities that provide more than one way of presenting new content, practicing the content, and then expressing what students have learned. But in order for those ways to be responsive to the needs of specific learners, practitioners need to be aware of and plan for learners’ differing needs. For example, UDL research and implementation for students with disabilities requires analysis of these learners’ needs when planning, then being instructionally responsive. In addition, interventions may incorporate some aspects of UDL, but were not designed with the principles, guidelines, and benchmarks of UDL. Indeed, some interventions may align well with UDL, albeit derived from other theoretical perspectives.

One of the tenets of UDL-based interventions is that they are proactively and flexibly designed and delivered to reach the maximum number of learners. Absent knowing learners’ needs, practitioners are limited in how proactively they can design responsive instruction, practice, and assessment. As such, the three basic principles of UDL should be incorporated in flexible and varied ways so multiple options are used when students have new content represented to them, they engage in practice of that new content, and express themselves to show what they know (CAST, 2018).

In this Remedial and Special Education special issue, four sets of authors describe distinct types of research on UDL. The four teams of researchers were asked to contribute scholarship that provides the field with more clarity on how UDL can be operationalized and measured, thereby addressing issues practitioners and researchers struggle with, as noted by previous reviews of UDL research (Ok, Rao, Bryant, & McDougall, 2017; Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014).

Root, Cox, Saunders, and Gilley (this issue) delved deeply into how UDL is operationalized for students with extensive support needs in an intervention on personal finance skills focused on calculating percentages. Building on schema-based instruction, Root et al. tapped into the UDL framework to further develop the instruction. They focused on removing barriers and providing supports when teaching three middle school students with intellectual disability and autism, language impairment, and other health impairments about how to calculate “percent of change” word problems in real-life situations (e.g., leaving a tip; purchasing an item on sale). Although the schema-based instruction was already a robust intervention, Root et al. found that incorporating UDL-based procedures further strengthened the intervention, providing individualized supports responsive to students’ needs.

King-Sears and Johnson (this issue) replicated chemistry research (King-Sears et al., 2015) with high school students with and without learning disabilities (LD) to determine how well students learned when UDL supports were in place. In Study 1, the UDL treatment group was compared to a “business-as-usual” group. All students were in co-taught chemistry classes. Students in the UDL treatment group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group on posttests. In Study 2, students with LD in a self-contained chemistry class received the UDL intervention. Although there was no comparison group for Study 2, students’ mean posttest scores were similar to those in Study 1’s co-taught UDL treatment classes. When the students with and without LD in co-taught and self-contained chemistry classes received UDL interventions, their learning exceeded that of their peers, with students receiving UDL interventions scoring almost twice as high on posttests than their peers.

In an effort to systematize how practitioners and researchers report about how they operationalize UDL interventions, Rao, Ok, Smith, Evmenova, and Edyburn (this issue) developed the UDL Reporting Criteria document. Content in this document assists stakeholders, whether practitioners, researchers, or journal editors, in determining the extent to which interventions meet minimal criteria when reporting on UDL components of a practice or intervention. The authors reviewed 20 UDL studies using the minimal criteria, and they present results indicating strengths and areas of need. For example, only two studies met all UDL reporting criteria; most studies lacked details about which of the nine UDL guidelines and/or 31 UDL checkpoints were used in interventions. The UDL Reporting Criteria document is the first systematic guidance for UDL stakeholders, a resource that benefits them and consumers of UDL research in providing direction for how thoroughly UDL interventions are described in future studies.

Finally, to fill a void for practitioners and school-based personnel, Basham, Gardner, and Smith (this issue) provide preliminary field test results of a measure of the implementation of UDL in classrooms. The UDL Observation Measurement Tool is in its initial iteration, laying the groundwork for future development. The researchers’ contribution is not only the tool but also reporting the tool’s reliability. Whether at this stage of development or after further refinements, the tool can be useful for those familiar with UDL to measure UDL in classrooms.

Content in this Remedial and Special Education issue contributes in several ways to UDL interventions for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. The empirical basis for students’ learning expands by two studies that were designed from the start with the UDL framework and students’ needs in mind (King-Sears & Johnson, this issue; Root et al., this issue). In addition, the UDL Reporting Criteria (Rao et al., this issue) and the UDL Observation Measurement Tool (Basham et al., this issue) provide valuable guidance in reporting UDL research and measuring UDL implementation. These contributions extend ongoing conversations about operationalizing UDL and optimizing its use with diverse learners, including students with disabilities.