Recommendations for a National Research Agenda in UDL: Outcomes From the UDL-IRN Preconference on Research

Abstract

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework that continues to receive increased attention at federal and state levels. The benefits of UDL include providing an approach to curriculum and instructional design that creates flexible instructional goals, methods, materials, and assignments. Despite the growing popularity of UDL in national policies, measuring the implementation of the UDL framework remains elusive. In March 2017, the research committee of the Universal Design for Learning–Implementation and Research Network (UDL-IRN) convened a preconference of researchers and practitioners to discuss and make recommendations for a national research agenda. Four workgroups address issues related to UDL. These included (a) operationalizing and applying UDL, (b) instruments for the measurement of UDL, (c) teacher education/professional development (PD) in UDL, and (d) UDL tools, technologies, and resources. The results of the workgroups’ effort to identify issues and strategic actions in UDL implementation and research are reported.

Keywords

Universal Design For Learning (UDL)research agenda

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has become increasingly popular in the past two decades as a means to promote inclusion and access to the general curriculum. The UDL framework focuses on the provision of multiple means of representation, expression, and action, and engagement within the learning environment to ensure access for all learners, including students with disabilities. Since its development by Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) in the 1990s and early 2000s, UDL has been referenced in policy, including the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004), Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA; 2008), and most recently in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015). For example, sections of ESSA include UDL as a framework to consider for the development and application of alternate assessments, for comprehensive literacy instruction, and when considering and implementing technology solutions to support the learning needs of all students. The UDL framework presents a set of guidelines that can be used to design instructional experiences that reduce barriers in the curriculum and integrate flexible and engaging pedagogical supports from the outset. UDL emphasizes intentional and proactive design that takes into account learner variability; by designing with UDL in mind, educators can make curriculum and instruction more accessible to students with and without disabilities.

More than two decades ago, the IDEA (1997) mandated that students receiving special education services should have “access to the general curriculum” and be given opportunities to participate in high-quality, standards-based instruction as their typically developing peers. This requirement for access emphasized the need to design meaningful educational experiences that went beyond traditional notions of access. Traditionally, access focused on the redesign of educational resources to provide alternative formats (e.g., Braille, alt tags to describe digital images) or the provision of information in multiple formats. With IDEA’s (1997) requirements, schools were faced with expanding what accessibility required as well as the means to accomplish this shift in practice. The UDL framework incorporates this notion of accessible educational formats and materials and takes it further by emphasizing flexibility, choice, and engagement, thereby ensuring meaningful cognitive access for all students. Where accessibility requirements are focused on providing alternate formats for sensory and/or mobility access, UDL focuses on the instructional experience and the supports and scaffolds that can be integrated to support student mastery of content and skills.

The UDL framework (see Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; and see Table 1) guides the development of flexible learning environments that design and plan for learner variability. UDL can be applied to instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments to reduce barriers and provide flexible approaches or options that are useful for a range of learners. This is accomplished by proactively addressing the needs of diverse learners at the design phase of curriculum development. The UDL framework posits that instructional designers (e.g., teachers, curriculum developers) develop and implement learning content and activities that take into account three principles: multiple means of engagement (i.e., providing multiple ways to motivate students by tapping into their interests and offering appropriate challenges), multiple means of representation (i.e., providing learners a variety of options to acquire and process information and knowledge), and multiple means of action and expression (i.e., providing learners multiple ways to physically interact with materials and use assistive technologies, and communicate their learning to others; CAST, 2017). These principles are further disaggregated into a set of nine guidelines containing 31 specific checkpoints (see website: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines).

Table 1.

Defining UDL.

DefinitionOrkwis and McLane (1998)^a	DefinitionCenter for Applied Special Technology (2015)^b
. . . universal design [for learning] means the design of instructional materials and activities that allow the learning goals to be achievable by individuals with wide difference in their abilities to see, hear, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember. Universal design for learning is achieved by means of flexible curricular materials and activities that provide alternatives for students with disparities in abilities and backgrounds. These alternatives should be built in the instructional design and operating systems of educational materials—they should not have to be added later.	[Universal Design for Learning is] . . . a set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized an adjusted for individual needs.

DefinitionOrkwis and McLane (1998)^a

DefinitionCenter for Applied Special Technology (2015)^b

. . . universal design [for learning] means the design of instructional materials and activities that allow the learning goals to be achievable by individuals with wide difference in their abilities to see, hear, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember. Universal design for learning is achieved by means of flexible curricular materials and activities that provide alternatives for students with disparities in abilities and backgrounds. These alternatives should be built in the instructional design and operating systems of educational materials—they should not have to be added later.

[Universal Design for Learning is] . . . a set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized an adjusted for individual needs.

Note. UDL = Universal Design for Learning.

p. 9. ^b http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

The Challenge of UDL Implementation and Research

Today, some state and local educational efforts are developing plans for UDL implementation (e.g., Idaho, Iowa), whereas others have begun applying UDL as a matter of policy (e.g., Maryland). Although levels of UDL application vary, the increased focus on the UDL framework necessitates further inquiry. For example, states such as Maryland and Michigan are increasingly requiring individual districts, schools, and classrooms to adopt ways to apply the UDL framework to their curriculum materials, instruction, and subsequent assessment (Lowery, 2012). These efforts necessitate an understanding of the impact of these activities.

Measuring the impact of the UDL framework remains elusive. Recent reviews of empirical studies on UDL at the PK–12 and postsecondary level (Crevecoeur, Sorenson, Mayorga, & Gonzalez, 2014; Ok, Rao, Bryant, & McDougall, 2017; Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014; Roberts, Park, Brown, & Cook, 2011) include summaries of varied approaches researchers have used to investigate the impact of UDL. Other studies have examined teacher perception (Lowrey, Hollingshead, Howery, & Bishop, 2017) and UDL implementation, including the various settings in which UDL has been considered (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014). Although the literature continues to expand on reporting applications of UDL, the ambiguity of how UDL is defined, the different measures used to characterize it as a construct or variable, the manner in which UDL is implemented, and an assortment of other inconsistencies (e.g., a framework that contains 31 checkpoints that can be applied in varied combinations) suggest the need for further consideration and possible direction for the research community with respect to the UDL framework and its application to the learning environment.

Identifying Issues and Strategic Actions in UDL Implementation and Research

In an effort to further understand ways to foster and facilitate consistent research on the UDL framework, researchers and practitioners gathered in Orlando, Florida, on March 29, 2017, for the Universal Design for Learning–Implementation and Research Network (UDL-IRN) annual summit. There, the UDL-IRN research committee and CAST hosted a research preconference for the UDL-IRN Summit 2017. Participants from across the world, who were involved in research and/or implementation of UDL with affiliations in higher education, local education agencies, and/or educational policy, convened to identify and discuss issues related to UDL research. The participants were invited and self-nominated, based on their experience in research, implementation, or both; all were experts who were well aware of UDL research and implementation in their settings. Participants worked in four workgroups to discuss issues and develop next steps for UDL research. The intent of the preconference was to bring together researchers who were considering the implications of UDL application as well as practitioners and educational leaders engaged in efforts to implement UDL across a range of educational environments.

The four workgroups were structured by the UDL-IRN research committee prior to the summit. Two factors were applied for the categorization. First, the UDL-IRN research committee reviewed an interactive database constructed from a review of the UDL research as of August 2016 (Rao, Smith, & Lowrey, 2016; see http://udl-irn.org/udl-research). Next, the committee identified areas based on relevant areas/themes identified in the current UDL literature (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014) that demonstrate a compelling need for topic clarification and identification of strategic actions in UDL research. As a result of this two-step process, these areas/workgroups represent

operationalization and application of UDL

instruments and tools for measurement of UDL

teacher education/professional development (PD) in UDL

UDL tools, technologies, and resources

Attendees were introduced to the topic areas, with information shared to contextualize each of the areas based on current research and practice. After this initial overview, participants were asked to join one of the four groups from which to further interact. Each group was tasked to identify key issues, discuss the relevance of the issue in context to UDL research, and develop strategic action items and next steps that, as a workgroup, could facilitate further conceptualization and understanding for the broader field of UDL research and implementation. Members of each workgroup discussed their topic for 2 hr, coming to consensus about the immediate needs in the arena of UDL research for their topic area. Groups documented their main ideas on a collaborative document and shared those ideas with the full group as a closing activity, identifying themes that emerged from their discussion, summarizing key issues, and prioritizing the action items the group committed to continue working on after the preconference.

The purpose of this article is to share with the broader field the ideas generated within these workgroups. Our intentions are that the ideas generated will continue to have an impact on research, policies, and practices concerning the application of the UDL framework within classrooms and schools across the country. Although each workgroup continues to work on ideas and products related to the March 2017 discussion, the goal of this article is to document for the field primary issues that seek to further understand the impact of the UDL framework, particularly on ways to further include all students in the general education setting. These efforts seek to put into practice federal and state legislative and policy initiatives that identify the principles of UDL as a cornerstone of inclusionary support for all learners, particularly those identified with a disability. Below, we summarize the ideas and strategic actions developed by each workgroup.

Issues and Strategic Actions Related to the Operationalization and Application of UDL (Workgroup 1)

Summary of Topic

As a framework, UDL presents a set of principles for designing flexible and engaging curriculum and instruction. UDL applications encompass various strategies and tools (e.g., digital tools) that can be applied to pedagogical practices, curriculum, and instructional environments. The current research base on UDL illustrates that researchers apply the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of UDL in varied and inconsistent ways across their interventions. In addition, there are no standards for reporting how UDL is applied to an intervention (e.g., there is no uniform fidelity of implementation across studies) or case within a study, resulting in a research base that addresses UDL application in wide-ranging ways (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014).

Key Issues

The discussion of this workgroup focused on the need to identify criteria for making a claim that UDL exists. Two interrelated issues include how researchers or practitioners report the operationalization of the components of the UDL framework in their work and how researchers/practitioners report the ways UDL components (e.g., UDL guidelines and checkpoints) are applied. The workgroup recognized that although the UDL framework can be applied at varied levels (i.e., macrolevel to instructional environments or microlevel to individual lessons or activities in a classroom), it is essential that the field clearly articulate the criteria necessary to identify a UDL-based intervention.

Operationalization versus standardization

Workgroup members agreed that there is a need to operationalize rather than to standardize the use of the UDL framework. The workgroup emphasized the need to operationalize by clearly defining the UDL guidelines, and checkpoints used during design and implementation, in contrast to standardizing, which suggests using UDL in a predetermined way. Because UDL can be applied to reduce barriers and increase access through an intentional design process relevant to specific purposes (e.g., curricula, lessons, tool), it is important to retain flexibility in its application. Researchers and practitioners can apply guidelines and checkpoints as needed and appropriate for a specific scenario, rather than implementing UDL as a fixed, prescribed set of guidelines/checkpoints independent of consideration of the scenario and learning context. The intent, then, of the workgroup is not to prescribe to the researcher or practitioner but to recognize the need to operationalize UDL if we are to gain a further understanding of the framework’s implementation and the associated outcomes.

The workgroup members discussed the danger of being reductionist in terms of UDL usage. UDL is not simply a listing (emphasis added) of various flexible options and strategies; rather, it is a process (emphasis added) of designing intentionally to reduce cultural, cognitive, behavioral, and physical barriers. The workgroup agreed that research on UDL must insure that this feature of intentional, systematic design is adequately described when making a claim that UDL was implemented.

Clearly defining UDL as a variable

When publishing studies on UDL, a core question that researchers must address is “how were the guidelines and checkpoints used in an intervention?” Researchers should clearly define the independent and dependent variables in relation to the way UDL is being applied with regard to the research questions or hypotheses of their study. To make claims of UDL’s effectiveness, it is important to understand how UDL was applied to an intervention and the role of those components on the dependent variable. Another essential aspect in UDL research is highlighting the beneficiaries of UDL-based intervention, for example, the students for whom UDL-based supports were effective. Because UDL addresses learner variability and is designed to benefit a wide range of learners, it will be advantageous to determine how a UDL-based intervention provides outcomes that benefit different subgroups of students, such as students with specific disabilities and language learners. This will provide information on effective ways to apply UDL to address learner variability, with additional information on how UDL can be used to support students with specific needs.

Finally, the workgroup discussed the needs for descriptive information on how UDL is applied. Clear definitions of how UDL is applied in the research can result in evidence-based models that can be used by districts and schools. One member of the workgroup, who works as a district-level administrator, emphasized the need for program evaluation when UDL is applied at a district or classroom level. He noted the need for information on student outcomes related to the use of UDL.

Strategic Actions

Establishing reporting criteria for UDL

The group agreed that it is important that the field establish quality indicators for reporting the existence of UDL (or making a claim that UDL is present). These “reporting criteria” would focus on methods and procedures (e.g., reporting how UDL was used during the design process, what guidelines and checkpoints were present, and how they were provided), rather than establishing standards for UDL usage, which should remain flexible and responsive. Workgroup members felt it is important to engage the larger UDL community in the development of these reporting criteria. As a next step, the workgroup will establish some ideas and structure for these criteria and discuss ways to engage UDL researchers and practitioners in the process of validating these criteria.

Establishing an online exchange for stakeholders interested in UDL research and implementation

The workgroup agreed that it would be practical and useful to establish an online exchange of UDL researchers. This exchange would essentially be a list or database of researchers interested in conducting research on UDL implementation. Administrators could use this exchange to identify UDL researchers who could assist with implementation and evaluation in their districts or schools. For example, if a school district seeks to conduct a program evaluation on UDL implementation, it could find UDL researchers who are interested in doing this work. This database would allow university-based researchers to advertise their availability and willingness to conduct UDL research, and serve as an avenue to connect graduate students who are seeking research sites.

Issues and Strategic Actions Related to the Measurement of UDL (Workgroup 2)

Summary of Topic

In addition to clearly operationalizing UDL, a second pressing need to enhance opportunities for UDL research is that of establishing effective measures for UDL as an independent variable as well as a pool of dependent variable measures that would enable the theoretical outcomes of UDL to be assessed. Without such measurement and associated research, it is difficult to justify claims that UDL is, in fact, effective in improving student outcomes.

In existing studies of UDL, there is great variability in the way the construct of UDL is measured. Existing measures have focused either too narrowly on traditional accessibility (e.g., providing access to content via accessible documents, closed captioning) and/or omitted the aspects of UDL during the design process (e.g., the thoughtful process of identifying learning outcomes, reflecting on individual learner variance, and making assessment and learning decisions in reflection of these; UDL-IRN, 2011). Indeed, in the absence of a direct measure for UDL, many studies exploring the effect of UDL in the literature (e.g., see Ok et al., 2017) demonstrate an emphasis on methods and tools as demonstrations of UDL application, with less emphasis on the design process that is definitive of the UDL framework (e.g., Edyburn, 2010; Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007).

Key Issues

Addressing the complexity of the construct “UDL”

The workgroup agreed that measurement of UDL must proactively address these issues by accounting for the complexity of the construct as one that includes both design and delivery. By incorporating a systematic design process, there is a greater potential in the research to demonstrate that the UDL framework itself is effective. This systematic design process, mostly absent from current UDL measures, would demonstrate the sum benefit of the best practice methods (i.e., the UDL checkpoints) utilized in framework implementation. Such a multifaceted design (inclusive of both the design process and the delivery elements) would also preclude the common misunderstanding that one is already practicing UDL when one learns that they have been using UDL checkpoints prior to being exposed to the framework (Edyburn, 2010).

Maintaining a focus on the intentional and flexible use of UDL

Workgroup members emphasized the need to take into account the intentional design process be considered as part of the independent variable in a UDL research study. Inasmuch as the goals of UDL are to provide access to learning and develop expert learners (Meyer et al., 2014), these outcomes must continue to drive the design process. Workgroup members concluded that the introduction of a measure should influence this process only as a scaffold for decision making, without unnecessarily emphasizing methods (which may or may not be relevant in a given context). For example, although providing options for students to express their learning is a best practice in UDL, there are common settings, as part of the curriculum, in which a specific method of assessment (e.g., essay writing) is necessary. A measure that forced multiplicity of assessment methods, rather than recognize a single assessment format is warranted, would, thus, fail to capture this nuance.

Strategic Actions

The workgroup’s discussion anchored on identifying measurement-related outcomes that would serve as focal points providing immediate benefits for the field.

Establishing a knowledge base of UDL-dependent variables

The workgroup identified a need for a bank of existing dependent-variable measures related to UDL implementation, to be assembled and shared with the field. Such a bank would match theoretical UDL outcomes (e.g., improved academic performance, executive functioning, engagement in course work) with existing validated measures, and enable the field to also identify where gaps exist among currently available measures.

Acknowledgment of UDL measurement issues

The workgroup determined the need for a paper articulating the perceived errors of measuring UDL (e.g., its narrow focus on traditional accessibility or studies reporting methods without intentional design). Such a paper would review the literature to underscore limitations, recognize that these errors are symptomatic of the relative youth of UDL, and offering insights to avoid them moving forward. However, inasmuch as a measure of UDL as an independent variable depends on how UDL is operationalized, the workgroup concluded that progress in operationalizing UDL must preclude—or at least occur in conjunction—with an attempt to develop a measure thereof.

Issues and Strategic Actions Related to Teacher PD and Preparation to Implement UDL (Workgroup 3)

Summary of Topic

In-service teacher PD as it relates to UDL has been limited. Although some studies include components of UDL in an in-service PD package (Thomas et al., 2012), none has been identified that focuses specifically on the process of training teachers to implement the UDL framework in authentic school settings. Meo (2008) offered a blueprint for preparing high school teachers to design curriculum focused on reading vocabulary and comprehension utilizing the UDL framework as a model of CAST’s Planning for All Learners (PALS) strategy. However, to date, no studies have examined the process of facilitating in-service teachers to implement the UDL framework in practice.

The implementation of UDL in preservice teaching yields similar results. UDL in the context of preservice teacher preparation has centered mostly on UDL as it relates to lesson planning. McGuire-Schwartz and Arndt (2007) shared findings from two studies designed to measure teacher candidates’ use of UDL in student teaching and in their first practicum placement. The first study examined 36 student teacher–designed action research projects implementing UDL in their student teaching placement. In the second study, five teachers learned the principles of UDL and utilized them in lesson planning. Both groups showed positive results in the use of the principles in lesson design.

In 2007, Spooner et al. evaluated the planning of 72 preservice teachers in a graduate and undergraduate program after presenting a 3-hr class on UDL. Lesson plans were then evaluated to see whether the three principles were incorporated into the plans. Findings demonstrated inclusion of the three UDL principles in lesson plans. Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2013) utilized the rubric developed by Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) to compare 45 preservice teachers’ plans after they participated in a 3-hr UDL module focusing on flexible materials, techniques, and instructional delivery strategies. Findings demonstrated improvement in the number of UDL principles included in the design of participants’ lesson plans. This study also measured implementation during a maintenance phase and found participants continued to utilize the principles of UDL in their planning. A limitation, however, was that no measurement of actual teaching took place. In 2010, Evans, Williams, King, and Metcalf described the process of redesigning their teacher education program to integrate the UDL framework into their preservice teacher education program. Authors provided a framework for redesigning programs that included teaching, planning, and assessment. These studies align with the findings of Vitelli (2015) and Scott, Thoma, Puglia, Temple, and D’Aguliar (2017), who found that teacher preparation programs may teach a general understanding of the three principles of UDL, but provide little practice actually implementing the UDL framework in lessons or extending the framework past the three principles in content. Others have offered detailed PD recommendations for the inclusion of UDL in in-service and preservice training (Israel, Ribuffo, & Smith, 2014).

Key Issues

Six key issues were identified by the workgroup with respect to examining future needs related to UDL and teacher education (both preservice and in-service): identifying and disseminating models of UDL implementation, researching systems of UDL practice, identifying the necessary components of UDL implementation, the need for action and longitudinal research in UDL, ascertaining the amount of effort required to prepare teachers to utilize UDL, and the lack of UDL being modeled by professional developers and teacher preparation faculty.

Identifying and disseminating models of UDL implementation

The identification of effective models of UDL implementation was established as a priority need for expanding the field of PD and teacher preparation in the area of UDL. To provide meaningful PD to practicing teachers as well as to teacher candidates, the committee agreed that the ability of PD programs to disseminate models of specific UDL practices, places, and resources would be advantageous. The committee proposed that Model UDL Practices could be defined as practices demonstrating effective UDL planning, collaboration, and assessment, and so forth. Model UDL Places was defined as classrooms, schools, school districts, or postsecondary places that implement the UDL framework successfully with measured outcomes. Finally, Model UDL Resources were defined as resources that have been beneficial in the PD of preservice and in-service teachers learning to implement the UDL framework.

Researching systems of UDL practice

The idea of systems of UDL practice was identified. Systems was defined as the systematic implementation of UDL practices at the state, district, and/or school level. The committee agreed that systems of UDL practice aligned closely with the need to identify locations implementing UDL with fidelity. Further discussion determined that there are a myriad of factors influencing UDL implementation. These factors include the documentation of the implementation effort, measurement of the effectiveness of implementation, resources that were necessary for implementation, and the challenges and success experienced during implementation. These were factors that are essential for increasing the personnel preparation knowledge base at the state, district, and/or school level.

Identifying the phases and primary components of UDL implementation in teacher PD and preparation

In tandem with UDL models and systems of UDL practice was the workgroups recommendation that to improve teacher preparation and PD, research studies should include findings that address UDL implementation from the perspective of phases of implementation. Three phases, with accompanying primary components, were identified as necessary to understanding UDL implementation:

Phase 1—identifying the context and content used to implement of PD/teacher preparation;

Phase 2—identifying critical factors related to stages of PD planning, implementation, and reflective evaluation; and

Phase 3—identifying the degree of sustainability of UDL that follows PD.

The first component, context and content, arose from a discussion that current PD models/curricula tend to overemphasize understanding the principles of UDL and lesson planning templates, and underemphasize the UDL framework as a comprehensive whole that includes nine guidelines and 31 checkpoints. Discussion around the second component—stages of UDL planning, implementation, and reflective evaluation—addressed the workgroup’s consensus that current studies on teacher preparation and PD typically omit mention of how the UDL framework is addressed relative to one or more of these stages, and rarely address all three. Research that examines all three of these stages would expand the information being distributed in PD and teacher preparation. Finally, it was the workgroup’s observation that no study in the literature has identified or addressed factors related to the sustainability of UDL implementation—the third component. Workgroup attendees suggested that future research attending to these components relative to thinking how they apply to phases of implementation would advance the content and meaningfulness of teacher preparation and PD on UDL.

The need for action and longitudinal research in UDL

The workgroup discussed the organic nature of the UDL framework as it related to implementation. They recommended that researchers can collaborate with stakeholders (i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, and students directly involved in UDL implementation) to conduct action research. By embedding research into practice, the field will benefit from information about the realities of applying UDL in varied settings. Longitudinal research of UDL implementation is also needed. By creating a culture of the stakeholder as researcher, individuals who are closest to the implementation may be able to provide information useful to shape PD and teacher training practices.

Ascertaining the amount of effort required to prepare teachers to utilize UDL

With the emergent emphasis within federal legislation to include UDL in K–12 and higher education (e.g., ESSA, 2015; The Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008), continued research regarding teacher preparation programs to prepare candidates to utilize the UDL framework in practice is essential. Although Vitelli (2015) and Scott et al. (2017) found most teacher preparation programs report that they prepare teachers to implement the three UDL principles, few studies (beyond those cited in the summary of topic section) have documented or detailed the work of teacher preparation programs to prepare future teachers to implement UDL. More programs should document their efforts and distribute them to inform the field.

The lack of UDL being modeled by professional developers and teacher preparation faculty

Finally, professional developers and teacher preparation faculty should utilize UDL in their practice. The workgroup identified that, more often than not, faculty are presenting UDL as content using traditional methods of teaching, rather than implementing the principles of UDL. Teacher preparation faculty and PD providers should model the implementation of UDL in their own classrooms, programs, and PD.

Strategic Actions

Workgroup participants identified two foci for next steps in teacher preparation and PD. First, participants suggested that advancements in PD and teacher preparation would be most improved through the identification of the essential components of UDL that should be addressed in teacher preparation and teacher training. Understanding exactly what is needed to make UDL implementation successful informs the content necessary for teacher preparation and PD. Efforts to identify these components should be prioritized.

Second, the recommendation to enable stakeholders to take on the role of researcher (specifically district personnel) through action research would be beneficial in creating information that is informative to the field. Research is costly. UDL implementation is spread out across the United States and internationally. Higher education budgets are short. Creating researchers from within who could partner with university researchers would meet the need of the field for valid information and allow a broader contribution from practice.

Issues and Strategic Actions Related to UDL Tools, Technology, and Resources (Workgroup 4)

Summary of Topic

In 2009, King-Sears wrote a thoughtful and pointed commentary on UDL and technology. King-Sears made the case that UDL, instead of being primarily about the use of technology in educational settings—a common belief, was instead “ . . . about the pedagogy, or instructional practices, used for students with and without disabilities” (p. 1). The discussion and thinking of the technology workgroup reflected how technology is a tool by which UDL reaches education and educational environments. The workgroup represented a wide variety of stakeholders (e.g., researchers and practitioners at public and private institutions, K–12 teachers) The workgroup focused, in large part, on futurist thinking—the ability to envision scenarios for a desirable educational future that is viewed through a UDL lens. The overall theme was to identify those gaps within the field with regard to UDL tools, technology, and resources. In addition, the group identified the need to compile ideas that could be addressed through research, objective critique, and to encourage future technology research that could inform UDL practices.

Key Issues

The workgroup grappled with the challenge of predicting the impact innovative tools, evidence-based practices, and resources will have on the future design, development, and implementation of UDL. Specifically, the workgroup recognized the vital importance technology may have within the following areas:

the emergence of bilingual and multilingual learners and their need for technology supports

the ability to address physical, cognitive, social, and cultural barriers to learning

UDL availability across online learning management systems

advances in big-data analytics

The workgroup acknowledged that there were a variety of innovative tools that had connections to UDL practices (see Table 2). The workgroup also recognized that many of these examples could be considered to apply to more than one UDL principle—that these applications could take on different connections and significance within the UDL framework, depending on the context and intended outcome of their use. For example, some individuals would benefit from the use of virtual reality to help them understand the content, whereas other individuals might find the experience to be primarily motivating and engaging.

Table 2.

Technology Innovation Areas (Supporting UDL Principles) and Example Applications.

Innovation area/UDL principle	Example application
Virtual reality (representation and engagement)	Simulations students experience with Google cardboard or other virtual reality headsets http://www.emergingedtech.com/2017/07/virtual-reality-in-education-where-are-we-and-whats-next/
Augmented reality (representation and engagement)	App being developed called Edustream that will allow the wearer, in particular, the classroom teacher, to access documents and computers hands free https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/07/04/putting-the-world-in-their-hands-augmented-reality-in-the-classroom/
Gamification (engagement and expression)	Gamification with the goal of enhancing students’ soft skills associated with growth mind-set http://www.emergingedtech.com/2016/10/5-ways-gamification-develops-student-growth-mind-set/
Mobile technologies (representation and engagement)	Wait: Parents want kids to use mobile devices in school? https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/05/07/parents-want-kids-to-use-mobile-devices-in-schools/
Wearable technology (representation and engagement)	A new educational wardrobe! 15 applications for education http://www.emergingedtech.com/2016/10/15-powerful-wearable-technologies-and-ideas-education-applications/
Robots (expression and engagement)	Robots in an English class improves writing (and empathy) https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/07/28/how-robots-in-english-class-can-spark-empathy-and-improve-writing/
Learning management systems (engagement)	Moving student work beyond the LMS https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/02/13/techniques-for-unleashing-student-work-from-learning-management-systems/
Artificial intelligence (engagement)	SOCRATIC, a digital tutor app http://www.emergingedtech.com/2017/05/ai-powered-digital-tutor-app-socratic-goes-world-wide/
Online and digital learning (engagement)	Online camps helping learners stay connected to STEM year round https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/07/06/how-online-camps-help-kids-stay-connected-to-stem-skills-and-mentors-year-round/
Internet of things (representation, expression, and engagement)	Teaching the internet of things http://www.emergingedtech.com/2017/06/teaching-iot-in-college-courses/
Social networking (engagement and expression)	Social media affecting mood? https://ww2.kqed.org/education/2017/04/12/is-social-media-making-you-sick/
Immersive learning networks (engagement)	Ethical considerations using virtual reality https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/08/17/five-ethical-considerations-for-using-virtual-reality-with-children-and-adolescents/

Note. UDL = Universal Design for Learning.

Strategic Actions

There is a critical need for fundamental research within the construct of technology and UDL. For example, a question might be as follows: Which features of an iPad leads to the greatest student gains in a specific context? To meet this need, the idea of mobilizing graduate students and action researchers to conduct research, as well as bringing stakeholders together to identify a shared research agenda, may be one avenue toward generating new knowledge regarding valid technology tools and resources. In addition, the idea of creating a database of unanswered research questions associated with UDL technology tools seems to be a reasonable strategy to guide the generation of new ideas and relevant information.

A second theme was the identification of a limited number of educational technology companies with any knowledge of UDL or effective accessibility and pedagogical practices. The workgroup agreed that without PD, UDL would not be incorporated in emerging technologies. Therefore, a concerted effort should be made to describe the process by which educational technology companies can certify their products align with the UDL framework.

Technology developers and UDL practitioners need to identify ways to communicate with one another. An effective strategy for stakeholders developing technology tools, that can apply to stakeholders implementing these tools, will be for developers to understand the UDL construct and framework first, and subsequently, leverage it against UDL stakeholders’ desire for new and effective technologies. Furthermore, the field should work to arrange for collaboration between technology developers and UDL stakeholders to identify ways to gather and analyze data associated with technologies that are attributed to supporting the UDL framework. An additional challenge relates to the shift in federal educational priorities and funding. These have created unknowns about future revisions to the National Education Technology Plan, making it unclear how UDL tools and resources will be addressed and prioritized.

Finally, the workgroup identified challenges related to the speed at which information related to technology tools and resource are delivered to the field. The workgroup acknowledged that conventional pathways reporting research on technology tools associated with UDL were traditionally through journal publications. Contemporary developers of technology tools/software are developing and deploying updated and new versions of their products at a rate much faster than the typical time it takes from submission of a manuscript to its publication. It is intuitively problematic if examples of effective technology tools and resources that promote UDL implementation are not reported to the field in a timely manner.

Discussion

An overriding theme across the four workgroups is a consistent message that if the UDL framework is to be implemented in a manner that will actualize the design and planning of learning experiences aligned with the needs of all students, particularly those with disabilities, the field requires further research in the direction, development, measurement, preparation, and applicable tools and solutions. Although each workgroup engaged in focused discussion and identified key issues with respect to its unique areas, each of the group’s strategic actions propose ideas and topics that further understanding, through research, of the UDL framework in practice. Given the need to further operationalize what UDL “looks like” in application to research, practice, and tools/resources; the challenges faced in measuring its impact; and how professionals should be prepared to implement UDL, it appears the field requires further guidance. Table 3 represents a summary of the key issues, strategic action, and proposed solutions that were identified by the workgroups. We consider these our recommendations toward establishing a national research agenda on UDL.

Table 3.

Summary of UDL-IRN Preconference Workgroup Discussion on Establishing a National Research Agenda on UDL.

Key issues	Strategic action items/proposed solutions
Workgroup 1: Operationalization and application of UDL
1. The need for clear statements of how the UDL principles/guidelines/checkpoints are used and applied in research. 2. Understanding that variability and flexibility are key to the UDL framework. 3. The field needs to (a) be careful and avoid being reductionist about UDL and (b) address process of applying/designing with UDL to reduce barriers. 4. The field needs to know what is effective UDL. It needs clarity on operationalizing student outcomes in relation to UDL applications.	Developing a set of reporting criteria—quality indicators—associated with claims of UDL Compiling a database of researchers and practitioners available to conduct/participate in research/program evaluation in UDL Establishing a UDL-IRN research team
Workgroup 2: Measurement of UDL
1. The measurement of UDL must account for the complexity of the construct and the specificity of the context of its application. 2. Measurement of UDL must consider fidelity and intentionality in the application of UDL before it may be measured. (This hinges on a shared understanding of the operationalization of UDL variables.) 3. Researchers must consider the risk that development of a UDL measure will guide the design, rather than the learning objective guiding the design. Measures must, therefore, enable dynamic design to the extent possible.	Compile information and examples of instruments and measures on UDL, and provide the field access to this on the UDL-IRN website Develop a white paper on issues, features, methods, and procedures to measure UDL
Workgroup 3: Teacher PD and preparation to implement UDL
1. TPDTPs need to include appropriate models of UDL practices, places, resources. 2. UDL stakeholders (teachers, administrators, parents, students) need to conduct and share action research with TPDTP. 3. In UDL, need to think that developing UDL knowledge and skills is relative to phases: ● Phase 1—Identifying the context and content used to implement of PD/teacher preparation ● Phase 2—Identifying critical factors related to stages of PD planning, implementation, and reflective evaluation ● Phase 3—Identifying the degree of sustainability of UDL that follows PD	Continue to identify the essential components and practices in UDL that enable TPDTP to produce practitioners who can effectively implement UDL Train UDL stakeholders to be action researchers, partnering with TPDTP
Workgroup 4: UDL tools, technology, and resources
1. Consideration of emerging ideas affecting technology: ● Bilingual and multilingual learners and their need for technology supports ● More social justice tension in educational settings from pre–K to postsecondary ● Expectations of universality in all learning platforms ● Advances in data understanding and making constructive use of the prodigious amount of data that the use of technology generates 2. Consideration of new/innovative technologies that are on the horizon and implications for their use in UDL applications	Mobilize action research on technology tools and resources that related to UDL Identify ways to help technology developers understand the UDL construct and framework, promote communication and collaboration in the development of technology tools and resources Identify strategies and platform to get information related to emerging technology tools and resource applicable to UDL, delivered to the field more quickly and efficiently

Note. UDL-IRN = The Universal Design for Learning–Implementation and Research Network; UDL = Universal Design for Learning; TPDTP = teacher professional development and training program; PD = professional development.

A Confluence of UDL, Policy, and Research

One of the principle reasons for holding the preconference and the subsequent work is based on the growth of UDL as part of educational initiatives and federal and state policies over the past decade. These requirements create the imperative for the consideration of UDL when designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment. As a result, state and district leaders, practitioners, and researchers are focused on what UDL is, the impact of UDL on the design and planning of learning experiences, and the subsequent impact of UDL-based efforts on student outcomes. Although the workgroups did not concentrate their discussions exclusively on the role policy serves in UDL implementation and related research, it is clear that recent legislative actions and policy documents that cite UDL are one of the primary reasons the field needs to clarify the key issues presented in each of the four workgroups. That is, existing federal policies and state initiatives warrant district and classroom UDL consideration.

The UDL framework is referenced in ESSA of 2015, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, and other federal policy documents. In ESSA, Congress offers an endorsement of the framework as a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice. Furthermore, ESSA requires that states must show that they have implemented the use of assessments for reading or language arts, mathematics, and science that apply the principles of the UDL framework in their development.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 was the first federal legislation to define and endorse UDL, explaining its relevance to preservice teacher preparation, in-service teacher development, and in the postsecondary higher education setting. In each of these areas, the Higher Education Opportunity Act expects a level of accountability in alignment to the principles of UDL in programs that prepare future teachers, in the design and implementation of teacher preparation programs, and in the efforts to integrate technology in higher education coursework.

Beyond these two legislative acts, federal policies such as the 2016 National Education Technology Plan further integrate the concept of UDL to reinforce the importance of the framework as a means to further personalize learning through planning and design of educational technologies. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Technology issued an Ed Tech Developer’s Guide that encourages developers to consider the use of the UDL framework when developing learning tools and environments via technology-based solutions and tools.

Requirements to incorporate the principles of UDL for learning, assessment, and technology applications direct educational leaders and classroom teachers to support the learning needs of all students, particularly children with disabilities. Considering the aforementioned policy initiatives, and the need for research, the four workgroups’ identification of issues and strategic actions further contextualize for the field, the necessary topics and efforts to expand research identifying successful implementation of the UDL framework in instruction, student learning, and overall, student outcomes. Similarly, the ideas generated by the workgroups acknowledge the relevance to further research seeking to clarify the manner in which the UDL framework should be examined and the measures needed to determine the true impact of UDL on student learning and overall development.

Conclusion

Although each group worked independently, the outcomes of their combined efforts have implications to translate policy mandates and to provide structure for UDL research that can guide varied stakeholder groups, including practitioners, researchers, and developers. The efforts of Workgroup 1 (operationalization and application of UDL) highlight that UDL is a framework that allows for variable interpretation when it is applied to the learning environment. Practitioners and researchers need to be certain what constitutes UDL in their use. If an intervention is deemed to be aligned to the principles of UDL, then there are certain criteria or parameters to which practitioners or researchers must adhere. After the preconference, Workgroup 1 has convened and further developed these ideas and has recently published the UDL Reporting Criteria on the UDL-IRN’s website at udl-irn.org/udl-reporting-criteria.

As reported by Workgroup 2 (instruments and tools for UDL measurement), having a common language, so to speak, regarding the variables and constructs associated with the UDL framework, allows researchers and practitioners to develop appropriate measures, share and compare findings, and be confident that outcomes are due to valid and reliable UDL applications. Furthermore, with guidelines or established parameters, measures can be further developed, expanding our understanding on the impact of the UDL framework on supporting the learning needs of all students.

According to Workgroup 3 (teacher education/PD), professionals need to be prepared to understand what the alignment to the principles of UDL means and actually looks like in practice. UDL may not be a boxed curriculum that offers teachers user instructions. If policy requirements (e.g., ESSA, 2015; HEOA, 2008) related to UDL are to be met within the educational setting, teacher development and practitioner preparation programs need to infuse instructional experiences that foster more than just an awareness of UDL, but competency in implementing UDL. Finally, practitioners and researchers require UDL-aligned solutions (Workgroup 4: tools, technology, and resources). Technology can serve as a primary tool by which UDL serves the variable learning needs within diverse educational environments.

Policy requirements appear to have established a foundation for practitioners and researchers to work to realize the potential of the UDL framework for all students. The key issues and strategic actions of each of the workgroups represent what we consider our recommendations for a national research agenda on UDL. With each group focused on their unique understanding of key issues and proposed strategic actions, the intent of their initial work as described is to provide further direction to the field to support successful implementation of the principles of UDL in the area of learning and assessment, while also fostering mechanisms to consider as well as measure the impact of these efforts on supporting all students, including those with disabilities. Although each group had varied stakeholders, implications for both the research and the practitioner were at the forefront of discussions and outcomes. For example, Workgroup 1 sought to develop a tool that could provide structure to researchers and teachers. For practitioners, the reporting criteria will highlight student outcomes specific to the UDL framework and, thus, additional evidence of effective practice for subsequent classroom application. Workgroup 2’s effort establishes what measures are already used in studies and provides a repository of measures for researchers and practitioners who seek to evaluate UDL interventions and classroom practices. Teacher educators and researchers can benefit from Workgroup 3’s efforts to compile information on essential components of UDL training for both pre- and in-service teachers. Workgroup 4’s efforts are useful for educational technologists, teachers, and developers who are considering effective ways to integrate technology into instruction to support all learners.

Future efforts are clearly needed in the implementation and research of the UDL framework, but this work will be challenged if the field does not address the four topical issues of the workgroups. By operationalizing what UDL is, preparing professionals with the capacity to implement these principles, identifying tools that allow for this facilitation, and considering the ways to measure UDL’s impact, UDL implementation will improve.

Supplemental Material

JDPS-01-18-0006R2_Appendix – Supplemental material for Recommendations for a National Research Agenda in UDL: Outcomes From the UDL-IRN Preconference on Research

Supplemental material, JDPS-01-18-0006R2_Appendix for Recommendations for a National Research Agenda in UDL: Outcomes From the UDL-IRN Preconference on Research by Sean J. Smith, Kavita Rao, K. Alisa Lowrey, J. Emmett Gardner, Eric Moore, Kimberly Coy, Matthew Marino and Brian Wojcik in Journal of Disability Policy Studies

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.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental list of participants in the UDL-IRN Preconference on Research and Implementation of UDL is available online.

References

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2015). What is UDL. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl)

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2017). Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/

Courey

S. J.

Tappe

Siker

LePage

(2013). Improved lesson planning with Universal Design For Learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 361, 7–27. doi:10.1177/088840641244617

Crevecoeur

Y. C.

Sorenson

S. E.

Mayorga

Gonzalez

A. P.

(2014). Universal Design for Learning in K-12 educational settings: A review of group comparison and single-subject intervention studies. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 3(2), 1–23.

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. doi:10.1177/073194871003300103

Evans

Williams

J. B.

King

Metcalf

(2010). Modeling, guided instruction, and application of UDL in a rural special education teacher preparation program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(4), 41–48. doi:10.1177/875687051002900409

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-315) § 122 Stat. 3078.

Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (1997). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ17/PLAW-105publ17.pdf

10.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

11.

Israel

Ribuffo

Smith

(2014). Universal Design for Learning innovation configuration: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations

12.

Jiménez

T. C.

Graf

V. L.

Rose

(2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of Universal Design for Learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41–54.

13.

King-Sears

(2009). Universal Design for Learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199–201. doi:10.2307/27740372

14.

Lowrey

K. A.

Hollingshead

Howery

Bishop

J. B.

(2017). More than one way: Stories of UDL and inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42, 225–242. doi:10.1177/1540796917711668

15.

Lowery

L. M.

(2012, July 24). Memorandum on Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved from http://archives.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/67237AF5-FC24-4DDF-910F-4AD92E160263/33592/UDLAdoption.pdf

16.

McGuire-Schwartz

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. doi:10.1080/10901020701366707

17.

Meo

(2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21–30. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30

18.

Meyer

Rose

D. H.

Gordon

D. T.

(2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: Center for Applied Special Technology.

19.

M. W.

Rao

Bryant

B. R.

McDougall

(2017). Universal Design for Learning in pre-K to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25, 116–138. doi:10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

20.

Orkwis

McLane

(1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access (ERIC/OSEP topical brief). Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP Special Project on Interagency Information Dissemination. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423654). Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED423654

21.

Rao

M. W.

Bryant

B. R.

(2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 153–166. doi:10.1177/0741932513518980

22.

Rao

Smith

S. J.

Lowrey

(2017). UDL and intellectual disability: What do we know and where do we go? Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 37-47.

23.

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.

24.

Scott

L. A.

Thoma

C. A.

Puglia

Temple

D’Aguilar

(2017). Implementing a UDL framework: A study of current personnel preparation practices. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 25–36. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.25

25.

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

26.

Thomas

C. N.

Hassaram

Rieth

H. J.

Raghavan

N. S.

Kinzer

C. K.

Mulloy

A. M.

(2012). The integrated curriculum project: Teacher change and student outcomes within a university–school professional development collaboration. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 444–464. doi:10.1002/pits.21612

27.

Universal Design for Learning Implementation and Research Network. (2011). Critical elements of UDL in instruction (Version 1.1). Lawrence, KS: Author.

28.

Vitelli

E. M.

(2015). Universal Design for Learning: Are we teaching it to preservice general education teachers? The Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 166–178. doi:10.1177/0162643415618931

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB