Ten Years Later: Would You Recognize Universal Design for Learning If You Saw It?

In 2010, I published a critique, “Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL,” that outlined a number of fundamental challenges associated with operationalizing and measuring the outcomes of UDL. Since that time, the footprint of UDL has expanded greatly. Universal design for learning has captured the imagination of educational policymakers and was written into the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2015) as well as the 2016 update of the National Technology Plan (CAST, 2016). It is now a routine topic in pre-service teacher education (Lowrey et al., 2019) as well as in-service professional development (Craig et al., 2019). Publishers (UNICEF, 2020) and test developers (Rose et al., 2018) market products they claim were designed in accordance with UDL principles. Nonetheless, researchers continue to raise the question about how to define UDL (Capp, 2017; Crevecoeur et al., 2014; Ok et al., 2017), a fundamental issue that must be resolved prior to establishing the efficacy of UDL interventions.

Recently, I revisited my original claim of whether UDL was on a pathway to becoming an educational fad (Edyburn, 2010, 2020). Two types of methodologies were used. First, a content analysis methodology to ascertain the characteristics of an educational fad and attempt to determine whether the term UDL was on a similar trajectory. The results showed some parallels but were inconclusive. A second tactic examined characteristics of the research base and whether or not the promise of a fad would flame out before a literature base was established. This analysis revealed continuing problems with (a) definitional clarity about a UDL intervention; (b) inability to isolate the active ingredients thought to make UDL effective; (c) guidelines about the dosage of UDL intervention need to achieve access, engagement, and success; and (d) appropriate research methodologies relevant to the standard of evidence-based practice.

Despite these concerns, I remain hopeful about the potential of UDL. The following article provides exemplars of universal usability that could be readily observed in the UDL classroom by monitoring how students use their technology. Three types of exemplars are highlighted: (a) platform tools, (b) web-based curricula, and (c) embedded supports. Such efforts provide a foundation for understanding the primary and secondary beneficiaries of UDL interventions and serve as an essential step forward in measuring claims about the efficacy and outcomes of UDL when implemented at scale.