Exceptionality

A Special Education Journal

ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20

Universal Design for Learning in Pre-K to Grade 12

Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Research

Min Wook Ok, Kavita Rao, Brian R. Bryant & Dennis McDougall

To cite this article: Min Wook Ok, Kavita Rao, Brian R. Bryant & Dennis McDougall (2017)
Universal Design for Learning in Pre-K to Grade 12 Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Research,
Exceptionality, 25:2, 116-138, DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

Published online: 27 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 124

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hexc20

Download by: [64.134.217.112] Date: 30 March 2017, At: 09:05

EXCEPTIONALITY
2017, VOL. 25, NO. 2, 116–138
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

Universal Design for Learning in Pre-K to Grade 12 Classrooms:

A Systematic Review of Research
Min Wook Oka, Kavita Raoa, Brian R. Bryantb, and Dennis McDougalla
a
University of Hawai’i at Manoa; bThe University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT
Some researchers have characterized Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as
a promising framework to provide diverse students with access to the
general education curriculum, but to what extent and how have UDL-
based interventions fulfilled that promise? The purpose of this review was
to analyze studies that investigated impacts of UDL-based instruction on
academic and social outcomes for pre-K to grade 12 students. For the 13
studies that qualified for our review, we analyzed how researchers applied
UDL principles as well as outcomes and efficacy of UDL-based interventions.
Results of this analysis suggest that overall, UDL-based instruction has the
potential to increase engagement and access to general education curricu-
lum for students with disabilities, and improve students’ academic and
social outcomes. However, we found mixed results; the efficacy of UDL-
based interventions varied considerably within and across many studies,
with effect sizes ranging from small to large. In addition, we found that
although authors noted that their interventions were UDL-based, there was
considerable variance in how authors reported connections between spe-
cific UDL guidelines and components of their interventions.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has been characterized as a framework that can support the
needs of all students, including students with disabilities and culturally and linguistically diverse
learners (Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, Serpa, Domings, & Rose, 2012, Rao, 2015). Rather than adapting
and/or modifying lessons as they are being administered, UDL focuses on building supports
proactively into lesson goals, curriculum resources, instructional practices, and assessments. Based
on the concept of universal design, which originally focused on access to the environment
(Goldsmith, 1963; Mace, 1988), UDL extends the notion to the provision of “cognitive access” to
learning environments. In contrast to a one-size-fits-all approach, the UDL framework focuses on
providing options that can meet the needs of a range of learners by building flexibility into
curriculum and instruction (Rose & Gravel, 2009).
The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) has been involved in the development and
research on UDL since the 1990s. CAST’s research on UDL draws from learning science, cognitive
science, and neuroscience research on how and why people learn differently, through an interrela-
tionship of recognition, strategic, and affective networks in the brain (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2013).
The guiding principles of UDL are based on the premise that flexible options should be provided to
address these learning networks. The UDL framework is organized around 3 principles of providing
multiple means of representation, expression and action, and engagement. Under these 3 broad
principles, CAST has compiled 9 guidelines and 31 checkpoints that provide guidance on specific
research-based practices that can support diverse students (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012). An inter-
active listing of the 31 specific “checkpoints” is published on the National Center for UDL website

CONTACT Min Wook Ok [email protected] College of Education, Department of Special Education Wist 120, 1776
University Ave, Honolulu HI 96822, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
 EXCEPTIONALITY 117

(National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2010), along with detailed definitions, descrip-
tions, and examples of how they can be operationalized in curriculum and instruction. The
checkpoints are supported by research evidence and represent specific practices that were effective
in reducing barriers to learning. The evidence base supporting the individual UDL checkpoints
includes evidence from experimental research, scholarly review, and expert opinion (National Center
on Universal Design for Learning, 2011)
Although the components that make up the UDL framework are based on research-supported
practices, an understanding of how UDL can be applied to curriculum and instruction to support
diverse learners is still emerging. Research on how to apply the framework to pedagogical practices is
relatively nascent (Edyburn, 2010; Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2015; Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014). In
policy and practice, there has been great interest in integrating the UDL framework in educational
environments. The Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) and the Race to the Top Assessment
Program (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) have emphasized the need to include UDL in teacher
training programs. At the state and district levels, UDL principles and guidelines have been a focus
of professional development and training programs (e.g., Maryland State Department of Education,
2011). Although UDL has an intuitive appeal and a conceptually sound basis as a framework that
supports inclusive education, the promise of UDL as an instructional equalizer will remain unful-
filled until a base of empirical evidence validates UDL’s benefits for diverse students and identifies
specific practices that have a positive impact on student outcomes.
In theory, UDL principles can be operationalized and applied to curricula and instruction in
various ways. For example, Hall, Meyer, and Rose (2012) noted that the UDL guidelines can be
“mixed and matched” (p. 20) and applied according to specific goals of lessons and units. Although
the UDL guidelines provide a menu of options for designing instruction that addresses learner
variability, researchers have not validated how UDL principles can be “mixed and matched” and
which guidelines and myriad of checkpoints should be when applied to design effective instruction
for all. By analyzing how researchers have applied UDL in extant intervention studies, and by
evaluating outcomes and intervention efficacy for specific learners, we hope to provide insights to
researchers and practitioners on how to better design and implement effective UDL-based practices
to address a wide range of student needs. In our earlier study (Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014), our intent
was to examine issues relating to research in UDL and to offer guidelines for best practice; here, we
expand the effort to quantitatively summarize findings across studies using meta-analysis techniques.
UDL is a framework that can be used when designing instruction (Basham & Marino, 2013). We
systematically reviewed intervention studies that investigated applications of the UDL framework to
curriculum and instruction for pre-K-twelfth grade students. We use the term “UDL-based inter-
vention” to describe the curriculum and instructional practices aligned to the UDL framework. The
purposes of our review were to:

(1) Describe research designs and methods (e.g., participants, settings) authors used.
(2) Identify how researchers applied the UDL framework to pedagogy.
(3) Evaluate outcomes, as well as efficacy based on effect sizes, for UDL interventions.

We sought to answer the following research questions, which correspond to each of the 3 afore-
mentioned purposes of our review:

(1) What research designs and methods have researchers used to investigate the impact of UDL-
based interventions?
(2) What UDL-based interventions have researchers used and how do they describe the
application of UDL?
(3) What are the outcomes and how effective are UDL-based intervention studies?
118 M. W. OK ET AL.

Methods
Search procedures and criteria for selecting studies
To find studies that qualified for this review, we searched the following 5 databases within
EBSCOHost: PsycINFO, ERIC, Academic Search Premier, Professional Development Collection,
and Social Sciences Index. We used the following search terms: universal design for learning,
universal design, elementary, middle, high, primary, and secondary. Initially, we located 58 articles
that might qualify for our review. The first and second authors read the online abstracts of these 58
articles, and then applied the following criteria to determine that 13 of the 58 studies qualified for
this review:

(1) Studies were empirically based using qualitative, quantitative, single-case, or mixed-method
research methods and designs.
(2) Studies had to investigate intervention impacts. We excluded anecdotal reports, “how to”
articles, and studies that investigated only universal design for assessment.
(3) Studies had to describe an intervention that applied component(s) of the UDL framework.
(4) Studies had to report academic or social outcomes of the UDL intervention. We excluded
studies that investigated only perceptions of UDL-based instruction.
(5) Studies had to be published in an English language, peer-reviewed journal. We excluded
studies published as book chapters, master’s theses, or dissertations.
(6) Studies had to be conducted in pre-K to grade 12 settings with participants of ages within
that grade range. We excluded UDL studies conducted in postsecondary settings.
(7) Studies had to be published from January 2000 through December 2014.

Framework for reporting, procedures for coding, and inter-coder agreement

Table 1 and Table 2 provide an overview of key information from the 13 qualifying studies. To derive
the information for the columns in the tables, we began by coding information from each article and
established inter-rater agreement. Our procedures for coding information were as follows. First, we
created a coding sheet and placed pertinent information from each of the 13 studies into the
appropriate columns. The columns included purpose of study, research design, participant demo-
graphic information, setting, duration, dependent variable, outcomes, and key UDL-components of the
projects and interventions described in each article. To ensure that we had a shared definition and
understanding of constructs for which we were looking, the first 3 authors examined 2 articles together
and discussed what information would be coded and how. If disagreements arose, we discussed issues
and reached consensus about our definitions and coding procedures. After coding 2 articles as a team,
the first author randomly assigned the 11 remaining articles to each of the 3 reviewers.
In order to evaluate inter-rater agreement, the lead author randomly selected 3 of the 13 studies
(23%) and the reviewers examined the articles to check for inter-rater agreement. The other 2
reviewers were not told which 3 articles would be used to check for inter-rater agreement. Reliability
(percentage of agreement across codings) was later calculated for the 3 articles; the resulting
percentage of agreement, 88.5%, was an acceptable level of agreement for inter-rater reliability in
research syntheses (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Finally, we used consensus to resolve disagreements
and to make final adjustments to entries.

Outcomes, efficacy, and effect sizes

To evaluate outcomes and efficacy of UDL interventions, we first located author-reported effect size
indices pertinent to our research question about efficacy of UDL interventions. If authors did not
 EXCEPTIONALITY 119

report such indices but provided sufficient statistical results, we computed the indices ourselves. For
studies that used group research designs, these indices included Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988) and eta
squared or partial eta squared, which quantified the magnitude of UDL impacts for between-group
(UDL vs. non-UDL) or within-group (pre-post UDL) comparisons. Per Cohen, d values of 0.20, 0.50,
and 0.80, respectively, suggest small, medium, and large effect sizes, and eta squared values of 0.01 to
0.05, 0.06 to 0.13, and greater than 0.14, respectively, suggest small, medium, and large effect sizes.
Where authors reported r as an effect size, we converted r to r2. For the only single-case design study
that qualified for our review, Browder Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Lee (2008) did not
report any effect size indices. Thus, using procedures illustrated in Parker, Vannest, and Davis
(2011), we computed an overall study effect size, Phi, after we calculated and aggregated results based
on the percentages of all nonoverlapping data (PAND) between the baseline and intervention phases
for the 3 participants in the study. Per Cohen (1988), Phi values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50, respectively,
suggest small, medium, and large effect sizes, with a maximum Phi value of 1.0.

Results
In Tables 1 and 2 we report results for the 3 research questions that we posed for this review of
UDL-based intervention studies. Table 1 addresses results for research questions 1 and 3, and
Table 2 describes results for research question 2.

Research question 1: Research designs and methods

Table 1 summarizes descriptive features for the 13 studies that qualified for this review. Authors of each
of the 13 studies reported number of student participants (N = 3550 students, Md = 106, range = 3 to
1153). Eleven of 13 studies specified participants’ gender (male = 1459, female = 1378). Each study also
reported school level of participants (n = 7 secondary, n = 5 primary, plus 1 study that included
secondary and primary students). Across the 13 studies, participants included a variety of disabilities (e.g.,
autism, learning disabilities) and languages (e.g., bilingual, English Language Learners) (see details in
Table 1). Authors of 2 studies (Katz, 2013; Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013) noted that participants
included students with disabilities, but provided no information on disability type. For the 6 of 13 studies
that reported complete data on ethnicity of participants, those students were White (n = 1607), African
American (n = 207), Hispanic (n = 117), Asian (n = 74), and multiracial (n = 5). Authors of the 5
remaining studies provided partial or no data for ethnicity. Eight of the 13 studies did not provide any
data on socioeconomic status (SES). Two studies (Dalton et al., 2011; Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming,
2008) provided only schoolwide SES data, and 3 studies (Hall et al., 2015; King-Sears et al., 2015; Marino
et al., 2014) provided SES information on participants.
Overall durations for the 13 intervention studies ranged widely from 1 session to 1 school year.
Length of time for instructional intervention sessions ranged from 20 to 90 minutes for the 11
studies that reported such data. Interventions occurred in inclusive general education classrooms for
10 of the 13 studies. The remaining 3 studies were conducted in the following settings: in both
inclusive and separate classrooms (n = 1), in a special education classroom (n = 1), and in a
computer lab (n = 1). Frequencies of studies by academic content included science (n = 5), reading
(n = 4), and social studies (n = 2). The remaining two studies (Katz, 2013; Lieber et al., 2008)
addressed multiple subjects.
Research designs included 7 quantitative group designs (5 quasi-experimental, 1 pre-experimen-
tal, and 1 correlational), 3 mixed methods designs (each quasi-experimental plus interviews), 2
qualitative designs (both case studies), and 1 single-case research design. None of the 13 studies
utilized a true-experimental research design that included initial random selection of participants
from a defined population. In addition, in the between-group studies that used random assignment,
researchers assigned intact classes or teachers of intact classes to UDL vs. non-UDL treatments,
rather than assigning individual students at random to UDL vs. non-UDL treatments. In 1 of the
 120

Table 1. Descriptive features and outcomes for qualifying studies that investigated UDL interventions.
Research Design Outcomes including Intervention Efficacy
Study Participants Duration, Setting UDL-based instruction Target skills per Effect Sizes
Reading (n = 4)
Browder, Mims, n=3 Single case design: Multiple probes across Shared stories individualized Student participation Students participated more in story
Spooner, Ahlgrim- Age: m = 8 yrs. participants for students with multiple during shared story-based telling during UDL-based intervention
Delzell, & Lee Gender: 2M + 1F 30 min disabilities based on UDL lessons (# of correct steps phase vs. baseline phase.
(2008) Disability: 3 ID 3 times/week principles of tasks analysis during PAND = 100% for each of 3 students
3 and half months the story reading)
M. W. OK ET AL.

Phi = 1.00 aggregated for 3 students

SPED classroom ES = very large
Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, n = 16 Quasi-experimental design: Non- Literacy by Design (LBD) Phonemic awareness, After controlling for pre-test differences,
Zeph, & Smith Age: m = 7.5 yrs. equivalent experimental group and phonics, comprehension, adjusted means for post-test scores for
(2012) Grade: K-2nd control group with students in 6 intact fluency, vocabulary LBD group were greater than means for
Gender: 11M + 5F classrooms, analyzed outcomes using (WJTA-III and criterion- control group with ESs (coefficient for
Disability: 16 ID ANCOVA referenced measures) LBD treatment divided by model’s root
20–30 minutes mean square error) as follows: Passage
4–5 times/week Comp. = 1.44, Listening Comp.
8 months composite = 1.00, Concepts About Print
Inclusive, separate, substantially separate = 0.92, Word Attack = 0.91, Oral Comp. =
classrooms 0.77, Understanding Directions = 0.58,
Basic Reading composite = 0.44, Sound
Awareness = 0.36, Picture Vocabulary =
0.23, WJ-III Letter-Word ID = 0.17, Letter
Identification 0.09.
ESs = variable from small to large.
Dalton, Proctor, n = 106 Quasi-experimental design, students not Improving Comprehension Reading comprehension Adjusted for initial differences in
Uccelli, Mo, & Grade: 5th randomly assigned to conditions; rather, Online (ICON) with three and vocabulary comprehension, ESs as function of
Snow (2011) Gender: 62M + 44F two intact classes per condition assigned different types of supports performance on narrative condition (CS vs. VOC vs. CS+VOC) were
Disability: NR; to each of 3 conditions for total n = 6 embedded: and expository text near zero to small for reading comp
68 English mono- classes, but authors analyzed outcomes at 1. Comprehension strategy (GMRT, ICON assessment) (GMRT = 0.02; narrative comp. = 0.03;
lingual, 21 Spanish student level with ANCOVA (CS) expository comp. = 0.04), and medium
English bilinguals, 90 min, twice/week, 2. Vocabulary (VOC) and small-to-medium and large for
17 other bilinguals 24 sessions 3. CS + VOC combined vocabulary GMRT= 0.06; research-
Computer lab developed voc. = 0.27); for two instances
where ESs were greater than small, CS
underperformed VOC and CS+VOC, with
VOC and CS having similar ES. ESs =
variable.
Pre-test to post-test ES gain for all
students combined (n = 106) on GMRT-
Comp. = 0.08 and GMRT-Voc. = 0.33. ES
= small.
Hall, Cohen, Vue, & n =284 Mixed methods; Strategic Reader Tool with Vocabulary and Quantitative: Each of four groups of
Ganley (2015) Age: m = 11 yrs., 6 Quantitative: pre/quasi-experimental online CBM Comprehension students (LDs online, LDs offline, non-
months design; (GMRT, interview, survey) LDs online, non-LDs offline) improved
Grade: 6th–8th pre- to post-test change within groups their pre-to-post test scores on GMRT
Gender: 144M using paired t-tests; non-equivalence in (voc. and comp. sub-tests) nominally and
+140F starting status of UDL vs. non-UDL groups. statistically significantly.
Disability: 64LD, 8 Also postintervention only Likert-type, 4- Authors did not report ESs. Non-
ADHD, 1 hearing point, student survey items. equivalence in starting status of groups
impairment Qualitative: teacher interview who used online (UDL) vs. traditional
40–55 minutes/session (non-UDL) intervention, as seen in
11–12 weeks pretest scores, plus study’s design and
Inclusive ELA classroom lack of adjusting for initial differences
preclude valid comparisons between
performances of online vs. offline groups
and preclude our calculating
corresponding ESs. Comparisons are
valid only for pre- to postchanges within
(not between) a group in this study.
Qualitative: Teachers reported being able
to design tailored interventions for
students and to make measurement-
driven instructional decisions in
conjunction with the use of Strategic
Reader.
Science (n = 5)
Dymond, Renzaglia n = 101 Qualitative: Case study Universally redesigned Unified Science UDL course was beneficial for students
Rosenstein, Chun, Grade: High school One school year inclusive science course (Interview, meeting with and without SCD. Students with
Banks, Niswander, (NS) Inclusive science classroom minutes, lesson plans, SCD improved social skills/interpersonal
& Gilson (2006) Disability: 25MD, focus group) relationship, more enjoyment for
8 SCD attending classes, and achieved/
Gender: NR advanced on their IEP goals.
King-Sears, Johnson, n = 60 Quasi-experimental without random Multi-component module of Chemistry (3 equivalent Overall, students increased their scores
Berkeley, Weiss, Grade: 10th–12th assignment of students to UDL vs. non- UDL-based chemistry lessons tests of calculating mole from pre- to post-test. Post-test scores
Petters-Burton, Age: 10–14 yrs. UDL conditions, but 4 intact classes conversions) were similar for students in UDL vs. non-
Evmenova, Gender: 25M +35F randomly assigned to conditions. UDL treatment (d = –0.06 = very small
Menditto, & Hursh Disability: 10LD, 5 90 min/session ES in favor of non-UDL), whereby
(2015) OHI, 1 ED, 2 3 sessions students without disabilities had lower
Autism, 1 SLI 2 weeks post-test scores in UDL vs. non-UDL
and 19 ELL Inclusive science classroom treatment (d = –0.53 = medium ES)
EXCEPTIONALITY

whereas students with disabilities had

higher post-test scores in the UDL vs.
non-UDL treatment (d = 0.80 = large ES);
similar results for delayed pretest as for
121

post-test.
(Continued )
Table 1. (Continued).
Research Design Outcomes including Intervention Efficacy
122

Study Participants Duration, Setting UDL-based instruction Target skills per Effect Sizes
Marino (2009) n = 1153 Quantitative design: Alien Rescue—a technology- Astronomy (knowledge of 1. Across combined reader levels,
Grade: 6th–8th Explorative correlational study using based science curriculum scientific concepts, frequency of tool use correlated (a)
Gender: 50%M criterion variables (groupings of students’ processes and vocabulary positively but weakly with post-test
+50%F reading levels and use of UDL-aligned [pre-post-test]; scores, r2 = 0.05, 0.03, 0.01, 0.01,
Disability: 126 cognitive tools) to predict students’ solutions form [post-test respectively, for TSCL, TSHT,
severe RD, 205 science knowledge; results analyzed via only]) TSOA, TSCP; (b) positively but weakly
poor readers, 822 ANOVAs and multiple regression with solutions forms, only for TSHT, r2 =
M. W. OK ET AL.

proficient readers 4 weeks 0.01, with statistically insignificant

Inclusive science classrooms correlations for use of other tools (TSCL,
TSOA, TSCP) and solution forms. All ESs =
small.
2. More proficient readers tended to use
tools more frequently than less proficient
readers; eta2 = 0.03, 0.01, 0.01, 0.006,
respectively, for TSCL, TSCP, TSOR, TSHT.
All ESs = small.
3. Post-test scores DV: Though both
benefitted, less proficient readers
benefitted more from using TSCL than
high proficient readers. Across both
reader levels, using TSOA negatively
impacted post-test scores.
4. Solutions form DV: Though both
benefitted, more proficient readers
benefitted more from using TSHT than
less proficient readers.
Marino, Gotch, Israel, n = 341 Mixed Methods UDL-enhanced units including Life science (pre-post-test, Quantitative:
Vasquez, Basham, Age: 10–14 yrs. Quantitative: Quasi-experimental design four life science video games focus group interview) 1. Cannot calculate ES for impact of UDL
& Becht (2014) Grade: 5th and 7th using repeated measures factorial analysis and a UDL-aligned on student engagement because data
Gender: 49%F and multiple regression supplementary print-based were qualitative, not quantitative.
+51%M Qualitative: Content-analysis of semi- textbook for struggling 2. Pre- and post-test scores higher for
Disability: 57 LD structured focus group interviews of readers non-UDL units vs. UDL units, r2 = 0.036 =
“several” students, with and without medium ES.
disabilities, who teachers identified upon 3. No difference in gains from pre- to
researchers’ request post-test for UDL vs. non-UDL units, r2 =
800 minutes 0.004. ES = small.
Inclusive science classroom Qualitative: Authors cited multiple
examples of students stating they liked
some UDL-aligned items (video games
and pictures in alternative textbook) and
disliked some non-UDL items (reading
books and taking pencil-paper tests).
Authors concluded that students were
more engaged during video games.
Rappolt- n = 621 Mixed Methods Universally Designed for Magnetism & Electricity Quantitative: Controlling for prior science
Schlichtmann, Grade: 4th Quantitative: quasi-experimental design, Learning Science Notebook (Assessing Science knowledge, reading levels and science
Daley, Lim, Disability: (NS) 10% pairs of teachers matched then each (UDSN) Knowledge [ASK]) motivation, students in classes that used
Lapinski, Robinson, having IEP or a 504 teacher in pair randomly assigned to UDL science notebooks scored
& Johnson (2013) plan experimental or control treatment; multi- significantly higher, on ASK post-test for
level modeling used to analyze student magnetism and electricity, than peers in
outcomes classes that used use traditional pencil-
Qualitative: content analysis of teacher and-paper science notebooks. 44% of the
interviews and student focus group variance in these post-test scores was
interviews accounted for by assignment to the UDL
8–10 weeks science notebook treatment. ES = Large
Inclusive science classroom Impact of UDL science notebooks on
students’ ASK post-test scores was
similar, on average, regardless of
students’ reading level and science
motivation.
Qualitative: 5 thematic categories
1.High excitement/interest for UDSN
2. UDSN “fun” because of “doing” science
as opposed to pencil-paper.
3. UDSN associated with students
showing/explaining their thinking and
taking ownership.
4. UDSN tools promoted students’
confidence, competence, showing what
they know.
5. Practical frustrations using UDSN
included insufficient number and speed
of computers.
Social Studies (n = 2)
Basham, Meyer, & n = 35 Qualitative: Case Study Digital Backpack project (DBP) Knowledge of freedom DBP supported diverse students to
Perry (2010) Grade: 9th–11th 3.5–6.5 hours (Observations, field notes, overcome various learning and access
Gender: 13M +22F Inclusive social studies classroom surveys, interviews, barriers and gain new knowledge of
Disability: 11 LD student generated freedom successfully in a project-based
artifacts) learning; it was also found that the
flexible and scaffolded features of DBP
helped the students engaged in the
learning experience.
EXCEPTIONALITY

(Continued )
123
 124

Table 1. (Continued).
M. W. OK ET AL.

Research Design Outcomes including Intervention Efficacy

Study Participants Duration, Setting UDL-based instruction Target skills per Effect Sizes
Kennedy, Thomas, n = 141 Quasi-experimental design without Content acquisition podcasts 2 units of World History Between-groups: On two units of world
Meyer, Alves & Age: m = randomized assignment of students to (CAPs) (Content knowledge history, CAPs students scored higher
Lloyd (2014) 16.6 yrs. CAPSs vs. control group conditions, but [pre-/post-test] and CBM than control group students on (a) CBMs,
Disability: 27 LD, 3 randomized assignment of order of for vocabulary) as indicated by d values (SWD = 1.83 and
BD, 2 ID conditions to the 5 intact sections of 1.24; GE students = 0.84 and 1.04) and
Gender: 65%M students taught by one teacher. (b) post-tests (SWD = 1.84 and 1.32; GE
+35%F 50 minutes students = 0.61 and 0.95). ESs = large.
5 times/week Within groups: Multilevel growth model
8 weeks analysis indicated that CBM scores were
Inclusive classroom higher when students used CAPs as
opposed to when they used control
group.
Various academic areas (n = 2)
Lieber, Horn, Palmer, n = 58 Descriptive case study with pre- Children’s School Success Academic: multiple Authors reported no ESs; we calculated d
& Fleming (2008) Age: m = 4.5 yrs. experimental single-group, pretest/post- (CSS) measures of literacy and for changes from start vs. end of year
Gender: test design using paired t-tests. math (PPVT-III, WJTA) adjusted for pre-to-post correlation for:
42M +16F One school year Social skills (Social Skills Literacy: Emerging writing = 0.87; letter
Disability: 29 SLI, Preschool GE classroom/ Rating System [SSRS]) naming = 0.83; WJ-WA = 0.77; WJ-LWI =
19 DD, 1 ED, 1 OHI, Multiple content areas 0.56; Rhyming = 0.46; picture naming =
1 ID, 1 Autism 0.35; PPVT III = 0.29. ESs = variable from
small to large.
Math: WJ-QC = 0.84; WJ-AP = 0.80; WJ-
QCNS = 0.67. ESs = moderate-large
Social Skills: SSRS = 0.22. ES = small.
 Katz (2013) n = 631 Quasi-experimental, pretest/post-test Three-Block Model of UDL 1. Students’ academic 1. Academic: Controlling for years of
Grade: 1st–12th design with purposive sampling and engagement teaching experience and teachers’
Gender: 327 M + assignment of teachers to UDL vs. non- 2. Students’ social education, engaged behavior at post-test
314 F UDL conditions; differences in starting variables was greater for students in UDL
Disability: not status between teacher groups for 3. Teachers’ instructional classrooms than for students in non-UDL
specified, but demographics and for their students’ practices classrooms. Partial eta2 = 0.30. ES =
noted students engagement, but starting status similar for large, but ES estimate impacted not only
with disabilities, 77 student groups’ demographics. by pre- to post-test increase in
ESL and gifted Duration: NR engagement for UDLs, but also by
students Inclusive classrooms decrease for non-UDLs. Engagement was
sole “academic” DV and did not measure
students’ academic achievement or
products, only appearance of being on-
task.
2. Social: UDL intervention tended not to
impact UDL students’ self-reported
responses for inclusivity, autonomy,
classroom climate and school climate,
with near-zero ESs, based on pre- and
post-test means that authors reported.
3. Instructional practices: Fidelity
measures indicated that when compared
to teachers of non-UDL classrooms,
teachers trained and assigned to
implement UDL (a) increased their use of
differentiated media and small/partner
grouping, and (b) decreased their use of
whole class grouping and pencil-paper
tasks.
Note. A = Asian; AA = African American; ADD = attention deficit disorder; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BD = behavior disorder; CBM = curriculum based measurement; DD =
development delay; ED = emotional disturbance; ELA = English language arts; ELL = English language learner; ES = effect size; F = female; GE = general education; GMRT = Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Test; H = Hispanic; HS = high school; ID = intellectual disability; LD = learning disabilities; M = male; m = mean; MD = mild disabilities; MR = multiracial; N = total number; NR = no
reported; NS = not specified; OHI = other health impairment; PPVT-III = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.); RD = reading difficulties; SCD = severe cognitive disabilities; SLI = speech or
language impairment; TSCP = tools that support the cognitive process; W = White; WJTA-III = Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement (3rd ed.); WJ-AP = Woodcock Johnson Applied Problem;
WJ-LWI = Woodcock Johnson Letter-Word Identification; WJ-QC = Woodcock Johnson Quantitative Concepts; WJ-QCNS = Woodcock Johnson Quantitative Concepts Number Series; WJ-WA =
Woodcock Johnson Word Attack.
EXCEPTIONALITY
125
 126

Table 2. Examples of application of UDL principles to PreK-12 education curriculum.

UDL-based
Studies Intervention Summaries/Examples of application of UDL Principles
Reading (n = 4)
Browder, Mim, Spooner, Shared stories individualized Authors described how teachers undertook an individualized task analysis process to develop adapted books and design a read
Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee for students with multiple aloud experience that aligned with UDL principles. For example, materials for one student were adapted in alignment with UDL in
M. W. OK ET AL.

(2008) disabilities based on UDL the following ways:

principles Representation: presented two book options by sweeping in each book across student’s full field of vision, use a light box behind the
objects
Expression: changed switch from Big Mac Switch to Jelly Bean Switch
Engagement: Used low lighting in the room to reduce high tone and increase engagement, before beginning lesson, “warmed up”
arm and head movement using music and practice switch activation, used light pen and tapping to cue student to look at one of
the objects or books, increased wait time from 2 to 5 seconds
Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Literacy by Design (LBD): Authors provided information on specific features of LBD E-books aligned with each UDL principle. For example:
Zeph, & Smith (2012) literacy instruction including Representation: sentence-by-sentence digitized voice with synchronized highlighting, word and phrase synthetic text to speech with
UDL scaffolded e-books and synchronized highlighting, animation and oral pronunciation of onset-rhyme for phonetically regular words, hyperlinked glossary
software programs items with graphic and multimedia illustrations, story illustration enhancements, video and photo essays to build background
information
Expression: prompts to apply reading comprehension strategies and personal response, pedagogical agents that provide prompts,
think aloud and models, varied response options, prompts to each read, partner read and read independently guided by
pedagogical agents who demonstrate the process
Engagement: use of popular children’s stories with quality illustrations, students are encouraged to decide when to click on a support
option and are given control of the mouse so that they are in charge of navigation, students are encouraged to choose their
response options, students listen to their oral reading recordings, prompts to reflect on a progress and identify what they like or
don’t like, in addition to teacher-guided reading, students may elect to read stories independently
Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Improving Comprehension Authors described features of the ICON scaffolded digital text environment that aligned with each UDL principle. Some features
Mo, & Snow (2011) Online (ICON): noted in Table 2 (p. 79):
A universally designed web- Representation: text-to-speech with synchronized highlighting, Spanish text translation, bilingual pedagogical agents hyperlinked
based scaffolded text glossary, illustrations, customizable font size/screen contrast
environment for enhancing Action and Expression: Varied ways of responding (closed, constructed, and open-response options), choice of response mode (audio-
reading achievement record or type), prompts to us reading comprehension strategies, pedagogical agents that provide modeling and hints
Engagement: age-appropriate and appealing stories, quality interface design, easy navigation, various challenges (level, support),
offers student choice and customization,, emphasis on thinking rather than correct answers
Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Strategic Reader: Digital Authors described features of the Strategic Reader Tool, a universally designed interactive digital reading environment.
Ganley (2015) reading environment based Digital reading environment: integrated reading strategies, digital books, accessible features (e.g., text-to-speech, dictionary,
on UDL and previous research multimedia glossary, customizable font size and contrast, highlighting, bookmarking), embedded reciprocal teaching questions
with embedded CBM Online forum for ongoing teacher-to-student and student-to-student discussion
Progress Monitoring using CBM embedded within Strategic Reader
Science (n = 5)
Dymond, Renzaglia Universally redesigned Authors provided specific questions aligning to UDL principles, used for redesigning of curriculum. Examples of features of
Rosenstein, Chun, inclusive science course curriculum were provided, but authors did not provide specific link between UDL principles and features of lessons redesigned.
Banks, Niswander, & adapting instructional Redesigned curriculum included:
Gilson (2006) delivery, student participation,Materials: more various materials such as overhead projector, large print, highlighted info, laptop/computers with Internet) to help
curriculum, materials and students to locate information, develop projects, and express their learning to teachers/peers
assessment areas in Participation: more active, interactive, leadership-related types of participation (e.g., hands-on activities, working on team projects,
curriculum students teaching other students), various options for participation were provided (e.g., working individually, or with others, choice
of roles in team projects)
Instructional delivery: more options for providing information (e.g., listen, read, explore interactive software, work with partner), more
various instructional delivery modes (e.g., teacher-directed, student-directed, technology-driven, student choice of these options)
Assessment and curriculum: more options for students for assessment accommodations (e.g., read-aloud feature), support students for
assessing the accuracy of answers and information given during presentation and poster sessions (e.g., rubrics, checklists)
King-Sears, Johnson, UDL Mole Module—chemistry Authors provided details on the UDL guidelines and denoted the UDL checkpoints addressed by the four types of materials in the
Berkeley, Weiss, curriculum comprised of four intervention condition.
Petters-Burton, types of materials aligned to Representation:
Evmenova, Menditto, UDL guidelines: 10 video clips, IDEAS Self-Management Strategy
& Hursh (2015) IDEAS self-management ● Options for mathematical expressions (support decoding of mathematical notations)
strategy, laminated strategy Strategy Sheet and Mole Equality Organizer
sheet, multiple copies of ● Options for perception (offer alternatives for auditory and visual information), and comprehension (highlight big ideas)
answer keys Multi-Media Mole Video Clips and Scaffolded Practice
● Options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols
Expression:
IDEAS Self-Management Strategy
● Options for expression, communication (build fluency with graduated levels of support for practice and performance), and
executive functions (support planning, strategy development)
Strategy Sheet, Procedural Facilitator, and Mole Equality Organizer
● Options for interest (minimize distractions)
Engagement:
IDEAS Self-Management Strategy
● Options for interest (minimize distractions), and self-regulation (facilitate use of strategy)
Strategy Sheet and Mole Equality Organizer
● Options for executive function (facilitate managing information and resources)
Scaffolded Practice
● Options for expression (build fluency with graduated levels of support for practice and performance)
Procedural Facilitator
Options for communication and expression (i.e., use multiple tools for construction)

Marino (2009) Alien Rescue: Technology- Author noted that Alien Rescue includes critical components of UDL and provided description of features of Alien Rescue. For
EXCEPTIONALITY

based scientific-inquiry example:

curriculum providing cognitive Authentic instruments provided by NASA, various options for cognitive tools and scaffolds (e.g., various level of background info
support tools using text, illustrations, pictures, animations, and videos, and graphic organizers), individual learning pace
(Continued )
127
 128

Table 2. (Continued).
UDL-based
Studies Intervention Summaries/Examples of application of UDL Principles
M. W. OK ET AL.

Marino, Gotch, Israel, Four life science video games Authors noted how game features aligned to specific UDL Guidelines 2.0 Checkpoints:
Vasquez, Basham, & and a supplementary print- Representation:
Becht (2014) based textbook for struggling PCI Science text based materials (UDL Checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5)
readers aligned with UDL Animated tutorials that can be accessed anytime (UDL Checkpoint 3.3)
guidelines Expression and Action:
Pictorial and verbal instruction (UDL Checkpoint 5.1)
Students choosing path through the (Checkpoint 6.1)
Engagement:
Students had choices (UDL Checkpoint 7.1)
PCI text provided choices to students (UDL Checkpoint 7.1)
Alternative assessment (UDL Checkpoint 9.3)
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, The Universally Designed for Authors provided description of features of UDSN, a web-based science notebook.
Daley, Lim, Robinson, Learning Science Notebook (a) Built-in digital technologies (access to tools and materials):
& Johnson (2013) (UDSN) UDSN was developed based on accessibility guidelines (e.g., Word Wide Web Consortium) enhance students’ access to tools and
materials. It has built-in features such as text-to-speech, word-by-word English-to Spanish translation, alt text, specific descriptions
for images, keyboard accessibility, and a multimedia glossary to take on difficulties with learning science that assists students
lacking in literacy skills, ESL students, those with sensory/mobility shortcomings, or those who benefit best by using features.
(b) Built-in pedagogy: Contextual supports (access to learning)
Pedagogy was built-in interface of UDSN to guide students and teachers to active learning and help them use UDSN effectively. For
example, the navigation feature of UDSN helped students to go through all sections of science activity. The “Show Me” feature
provided brief captioned videos guiding and prompting them for building explanations. Also, students could select multimedia
response options to express their thoughts (i.e., typing, drawing, audio recording, uploading a picture).
(c) Role of the teacher
The role of teachers facilitated active learning in using UDSN. For example, teachers could see all of their students’ explanations and
made quick notes to themselves for checking each student’s understanding. Teachers also could provide “What to look for”
information such as core concepts, common misconceptions, and model feedback. “Teacher Time Saver” provided sentence starter
support to help and prompt teachers to provide feedback (e.g., corrective information, alternative strategies, and encouragement to
engage in the science activity) to students. Due to teachers’ feedback, students were prompted to revisit to revise their explanation.
Social Studies (n = 2)
Basham, Meyer, & Perry Digital Backpack project (DBP): UDL was used to develop, design, and refine of digital backpack project. Authors provided descriptions of how DBP was connected
(2010) mobile technology in a to each UDL principle.
backpack including hardware, Representation: by leveraging various representation forms in the instructional support materials, students acquired new knowledge
software, and instructional of freedom. For example, materials for background knowledge were available in paper-based, digital, audio, and video formats to
support materials for project- activate students’ prior knowledge.
based learning activities Expression: student collaborated to develop a movie as a final project to express their understanding of freedom. As a group, they set
up and manage their project goals, decided what would be included and how to express their understanding of freedom in the
movie. A variety of technology tools (e.g., word processing, movie making, and audio editing tools) were available for creating the
movie.
Engagement: students chose their own roles in the group, and in a scaffolding framework, spent their time on self-regulating their
level of challenge.
Kennedy, Thomas, Meyer, Content acquisition podcasts Authors described the Multimedia Design Framework (MDF) for developing instructional multimedia taking into account
Alves & Lloyd (2014) (CAPS) were designed with considerations for SWD. Phase 3 of the MDF addresses specific UDL principles.
consideration of UDL Representation: CAPS “provide an alternative mode of presenting instruction to students using visuals, simplified explanations, and a
principles, evidence based format for learning they may be familiar and comfortable with” (p. 76)
instructional practices and Expression: Students can create CAPS to express vocabulary knowledge
cognitive theory of Engagement: CAPS can be motivating and provide a flexible tool to help students take charge of learning
multimedia learning. Authors
present the Multimedia
Design Framework that
includes UDL in one of the
design phases.
Various Academic Areas (n = 2)
Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Children’s School Success CSS incorporated the principles of universal design to address academic and social competence for all students and provided
Fleming (2008) (CSS): Accessible general specific tips and examples of curriculum modifications that teachers can make to address the needs of individual children. Authors
education curriculum provided an example lesson how each UDL principle was applied. For example, in a lesson called: “Apples can be compared in
designed for preschoolers who different ways, “ UDL was addressed in the following ways:
are at risk for school failure Representation: actual apples in different colors and sizes were provided
Expression: students measured apples differently using various tools; students counted number of apples and reported the number
in different ways (e.g., write in number cards or speak out)
Engagement: students focused on specific topic (e.g., size, color, shape) based on individual interests and preferences. Small group
and large group activities
(Continued )
EXCEPTIONALITY
129
 130
M. W. OK ET AL.

Table 2. (Continued).
UDL-based
Studies Intervention Summaries/Examples of application of UDL Principles
Katz (2013) Three Block Model of UDL Author provided a detailed description of the Three Block Model of UDL model (p.192), designed to help teachers to create
inclusive environments and enhance student engagement. Noted that the Three Block model was based on instructional
pedagogies related to UDL, however, specific connections to how each component of the model related to UDL were not provided.
(a) Block 1: Social and Emotional Learning:
This block was designed to develop compassionate learning communities. The Respecting Diversity (RD) program was used to
develop a democratic classroom environment as well as to help students develop self-concept, sense of belonging and respect
diversity.
(b) Block 2: Inclusive instructional practice:
To address the diverse learning modes of students, this block focused on the design of physical and instructional environments
using a step-by-step framework for planning and instruction that took into consideration access to differentiated learning
opportunities. Research-based practice emphasizing mastery of complex concepts and student autonomy using scaffolding and
teamwork was used as a basis for providing instruction to teachers on unit planning, for instance, assessment for learning and
differentiated instruction. A focus was placed on fostering student academic engagement and the importance of inclusive practices.
(c) Block 3: System and Structure:
This block focused on school-wide inclusive policy, leadership, professional development, and implementation and funding
requirements.
Note. The level of specificity about how interventions applied UDL principles, guidelines, and/or checkpoints are as noted in the article.
 EXCEPTIONALITY 131

more strongly designed studies, Rappolt-Schlichtmann and colleagues (2013) employed a rando-
mized control trial (RCT). To do so, the authors matched pairs of teachers within individual schools
on the basis of “teacher experience and classroom demographics” (p. 5), then randomly assigned 1
teacher in each pair to the control group and the other teacher in each pair to the experimental
group.

Research question 2: Application of UDL principles

As seen in Table 2 and in the following paragraphs, researchers applied UDL principles to their
interventions in various ways. Some studies investigated use of instructional materials that aligned
with UDL principles, such as technology-based learning environments with built-in UDL-aligned
options. Other studies investigated use of instructional methods based on UDL-principles. Authors
of 7 of 13 studies included detailed information on how their interventions incorporated specific
UDL principles of Representation, Expression/Action, and Engagement, whereas authors of the 6
other studies did not make specific connections between their intervention components and UDL
principles.

UDL-based materials
Seven studies examined UDL-based instructional materials and technology-based environments that
aligned with UDL principles. Three of these studies (Coyne et al., 2012; Dalton et al., 2011; Hall
et al., 2015) examined how digital text environments provided flexible options for students and
focused on literacy-related outcomes and 4 studies (Kennedy et al., 2014; Marino, 2009; Marino
et al., 2014; Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013) examined how digital materials supported students in
the acquisition of content in science and social studies. Coyne and colleagues examined how literacy
instruction was supported by universally designed e-books and software programs. They described
how specific components of the “Literacy by Design” (LbD) intervention addressed each of the 3
UDL principles. For example, text-to-speech with synchronized highlight (Representation), pedago-
gical agents that supported reading comprehension (Expression/Action), and choices (Engagement)
were part of the LbD environment. Dalton and colleagues used Improving Comprehension Online
(ICON), a universally designed web-based scaffolded text environment to examine outcomes of
using reading comprehension strategies and vocabulary strategies. They provided extensive detail
about how the features of ICON aligned with each of the 3 UDL principles. ICON included text-to-
speech components (Representation), varied response options (Expression/Action), and varied levels
of challenge (Engagement). Hall and colleagues used the “Strategic Reader Tool,” a digital environ-
ment that integrated reading strategies, digital books, accessible features (e.g., text-to-speech, dic-
tionary, multimedia glossary, customizable font size and contrast, highlighting, bookmarking) and
embedded reciprocal teaching questions. Their intervention included for ongoing teacher-to-student
and student-to-student discussion and curriculum-based measures to monitor student progress. Hall
and colleagues noted that the Strategic Reader Tool was developed based on previous UDL research
but they did not provide specific details on how components of the intervention mapped to UDL
principles.
Marino (2009) used a web-based scientific-inquiry curriculum that provided cognitive support
tools and examined how students used the tools in a digital environment. He noted that the “Alien
Rescue” game addressed UDL and provided description of Alien Rescue’s features, but did not make
specific connections between the features of Alien Rescue and each UDL principle. Features that
were consistent with UDL included the provision of cognitive tools and scaffolds and the opportu-
nity to proceed at an individualized pace. Marino and colleagues (2014) developed an UDL-based
intervention that included 4 life science video games and a supplemental print-based textbook for
struggling readers. The authors provided specific examples how the features of the games aligned
with each UDL principle. For example, the games included a virtual dictionary (Representation), the
ability to engineer new pathogens (Expression/Action), and student choice (Engagement). The
132 M. W. OK ET AL.

authors also mapped the instructional features to the UDL checkpoints. Rappolt-Schlichtmann and
colleagues (2013) used the Universally Designed for Learning Science Notebook (UDSN), a web-
based science notebook that provides access to flexible tools and materials as well as contextual
supports. UDSN was developed based on digital material accessibility guidelines of the World Wide
Web Consortium; pedagogical supports, such as choices of response modes, were built in. The
authors described the features of the UDSN environment, such as built in text-to-speech and
translation tools, navigation features and response options; but they did not make connections to
specific UDL principles. Kennedy and colleagues (2014) developed content acquisition podcasts that
focused on improvement of vocabulary performance in a social studies unit. The authors described a
Multimedia Design Framework (MDF) for developing instructional multimedia, taking into account
considerations for students with cognitive disabilities. Phase 3 of the MDF addressed specific UDL
principles, having designers consider how the multimedia product provides multiple means of
representation, expression and action, and engagement.

UDL-based instructional methods

Of 6 studies that examined ways in which UDL principles could be applied to instructional method
and strategies, 5 of these studies (Basham, Meyer, & Perry, 2010; Browder et al., 2008; Dymond et al.,
2006; King-Sears et al., 2015; Lieber et al., 2008) investigated lesson level or curriculum level
applications of UDL. One study (Katz, 2013) investigated UDL principles at a school-wide level.

Lesson and curriculum level. Lieber and colleagues (2008) developed the Children’s School
Curriculum (CSS), an accessible general education curriculum designed for preschoolers who are
at risk for school failure. The authors provided examples of how each UDL principle was met
through CSS lessons and noted that CSS also allowed teachers to make additional appropriate
curriculum modifications and accommodations to meet individual student needs. Browder and
colleagues (2008) created “shared stories” for young children with multiple disabilities, adapting
the books in accordance with UDL principles. The authors provided specific examples how each
UDL principle was applied in the shared story lessons, through the use of representational options
(Representation), switches (Expression/Action), and warm ups and appropriate cues (Engagement).
Basham and colleagues (2010) described the digital backpack project, a resource kit that included
hardware, software, and instructional support materials for project-based learning activities. The
authors noted UDL was grounded to develop, design, and refine the digital backpack project. The
authors provided brief information how the digital backpack project was connected to each UDL
principle. For example, various instructional support materials were provided to activate background
knowledge (Representation), create student-developed movies (Expression/Action), and provide
students with opportunities for choice, self-regulation, and challenge (Engagement).
Dymond and colleagues (2006) redesigned a science course adapting instructional delivery/
organization of the learning environment, student participation, curriculum, materials, and assess-
ments to align with UDL principles. The researchers described the process used for considering UDL
and redesigning the curriculum; features of the curriculum were described in great detail. King-Sears
and colleagues (2015) examined outcomes of using the “UDL Mole Module,” a chemistry curriculum
composed of 4 types of materials (i.e., 10 video clips, a self-management strategy, a laminated
strategy sheet, and multiple copies of answer keys) that were aligned to UDL principles and guide-
lines. King-Sears and colleagues described how the curriculum components were aligned with UDL
principles and guidelines. For example, students had options for perception, language, mathematical
expression and symbols (Representation), support for executive functions (Expression/Action), and
options to recruit interest (Engagement).

School level. Katz (2013) described the implementation of the Three-Block Model of UDL consist-
ing of social and emotional learning, inclusive instructional practice, and system and structure. Katz
noted that the 3-Block Model was based on instructional pedagogies related to UDL but did not
 EXCEPTIONALITY 133

make explicit connections between components of the model and specific UDL principles or
guidelines. The 3-Block Model includes various practices at different levels, some beyond the
scope of the UDL framework. For example, according to the information about the model that the
author provided, the model includes “hiring of administrators with expertise/vision,” “distributed
leadership,” and “budgeting” (p. 192). It is unclear how the model as a whole aligns with UDL
guidelines, other than sharing a value on inclusive practices at a classroom and schoolwide level.

Research question 3: Efficacy of outcomes for UDL-based instruction

The right-hand column of Table 1 lists outcomes and effect sizes that address the efficacy of interventions
for the pertinent studies that we reviewed. Effect sizes across studies ranged considerably from small to
large in the 10 studies for which we were able to locate or calculate effect sizes. Each of those studies targeted
academic outcomes. Effect size magnitudes also varied considerably within studies that targeted multiple
variables, suggesting that UDL interventions favorably impacted some academic outcomes but not others,
as in Coyne and colleagues (2012), Dalton and colleagues (2011), Katz (2013), and Lieber and colleagues
(2008). Thus, the efficacy of UDL-based interventions was quite variable in studies that targeted students’
academic outcomes. Two studies, however, provided evidence of consistently strong efficacy. First, in the
only study that utilized a single-case research design (Browder et al., 2008), all 3 students improved their
story telling markedly (Phi = 1.0; PAND = 100%) from baseline to intervention phases after they read books
adapted using UDL principles. Second, in Kennedy and colleagues (2014), high school students who used
UDL-aligned content acquisition podcasts consistently scored higher (d values ranging from 0.61 to 1.84)
than “business as usual” peers on curriculum-based measures and post-tests for 2 units of World History.
Finally, 2 of the 10 studies (Lieber et al., 2008; Katz, 2013) also included “social” outcomes, and their near-0
to small effect sizes suggested weak efficacy for these UDL interventions that targeted social outcomes. The
mixed results of the studies revealed that, overall, UDL-based instruction and curriculum were sometimes
beneficial for teaching students a variety of academic content (e.g., reading, science, social studies).

Discussion
In this review of UDL studies, we examined processes and outcomes of curriculum and instruction
aligned with the UDL framework and the ways in which researchers described their application of
UDL principles and guidelines to interventions. The results of this review illustrate that UDL-based
interventions are effective for addressing learner variability and thereby increasing access to curri-
culum for diverse students in PreK-12 settings.

Research question 1: Research designs and methods

We found that very few of the studies we reviewed utilized true-experimental designs with random
assignment. Moreover, as with the vast majority of studies of educational interventions, none of these
studies used random selection. These findings might be related to 2 factors. First, research studies on UDL
interventions are relatively new and few compared to more establish interventions that already have
achieved a strong evidence base. Second, UDL researchers are still in the process of defining what comprises
a UDL-based intervention and establishing standards for reporting how UDL is applied within an inter-
vention. True-experimental studies with random selection from a population and random assignment to
conditions are required to formulate credible causal inferences that have internal and external validity
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Thus, as UDL develops further, we recommend that researchers utilize
random assignment in future UDL group studies. Doing so will bolster internal validity, enable clearer
evaluation of the efficacy of UDL interventions, and illuminate findings from UDL studies in what remains
an emerging field of research.
We also found that most authors of the qualifying studies reported participants’ demographic
information including total number, gender, and specific disability information. However, nearly
134 M. W. OK ET AL.

half the studies did not provide ethnicity and/or SES information of their samples. In addition, only
11 of 13 studies provided information about setting and duration of the intervention. As Rao and her
colleagues (2014) noted, providing complete data on demographic representation of the sample is
critical to allow others to conduct replication studies and for readers to frame the type of students
and contexts to which study findings apply.

Research question 2: Applications of UDL to curriculum and instruction

Researchers described their application of UDL principles to curriculum and instruction in widely
different ways for teaching a broad range of subject matter. All studies described the features of
UDL-based instruction, but the degree to which researchers made links between the features to each
UDL principle varied. In 7 of the 13 studies, researchers laid out specific connections between UDL
principles and the components of their interventions, providing some insights into how and why
their intervention aligned with UDL. Researchers in 2 studies (King-Sears et al., 2015; Marino et al.,
2014) provided clear and detailed descriptions of how various components of their intervention
linked to specific UDL guidelines and checkpoints. For 6 of 13 of the studies, researchers did not
explicitly link intervention components to UDL guidelines. Thus, it was left to the reader to
determine the relationship between the intervention and the UDL framework.
This relatively small set of 13 studies depicts various ways that UDL can be applied and highlights
challenges in establishing a solid foundation of research on UDL-based methods. Each study
described a package of components that included instructional materials and methods, various
content areas and different foci of instruction (e.g., lessons, curricula, schoolwide). UDL was
implemented in varied ways: through the use of digital environments and by instructional methods
implemented by teachers. At its core, UDL focuses on reducing barriers in the curriculum, so lessons
that are designed from the outset using flexible methods, materials, and assessments can align with
UDL. To determine if the use of UDL has intended benefits, researchers should clearly denote how
they applied UDL guidelines to curriculum and instruction or to larger scale implementation efforts.
Inherent to its nature as a design framework, UDL can be applied in variable amounts and ways
to interventions and classroom practices. The UDL guidelines act as a menu of options that
educators can consider in order to design flexible instruction and provide scaffolds that address
learner variability. Rao and colleagues (2014) recommended that researchers who seek to establish
the efficacy of UDL-based interventions should describe in detail how their interventions and its
components align with specific UDL guidelines and checkpoints. Clear alignment of practices to the
UDL framework will help researchers design replication studies and to better evaluate the compo-
nents of UDL-based interventions that are effective.

Research question 3: Efficacy of UDL-based instruction

Outcomes from studies we reviewed suggest that overall, UDL-based instruction has the potential to
help teachers meet academic needs of all students and to support the achievement of students with
varied needs. However, the magnitude of intervention effect sizes varied from small to large within
and across most of the pertinent studies in our review; in other words, the efficacy of UDL-based
instruction varied considerably in these studies. We also found mixed results for students’ academic
outcomes in studies that compared efficacy of UDL-based instruction versus traditional or non-UDL
instruction. Because UDL is an instructional design framework that can be applied to curriculum
and instruction in a multitude of ways, it will be necessary to establish the ways in which UDL
checkpoints can be effectively applied to instructional practices, including established evidence-based
practices, to reduce barriers, increase cognitive access, and support achievement for a wider range of
learners.
 EXCEPTIONALITY 135

Limitations of this review

We address 2 limitations of our review. First, our findings were based on only 13 studies. As evidenced
by publication dates of these 13 studies—6 studies during 2013 through 2014, an average of 1 study per
year from 2006 through 2012, and 0 studies from 2000 to 2006—UDL intervention studies are
relatively new and few, but have increased markedly very recently. Second, too few effect sizes were
available from our 13 qualifying studies to permit analyses and findings of the type in meta-analytic
reviews based on tens or hundreds of effect sizes. Moreover, we found UDL implementation and the
rigor of research designs varied in these 13 studies. Thus, it remains to be seen which UDL principles
reliably predict the magnitude of effect size indices in UDL-based intervention studies.

Recommendations for future research

Altogether, results from our review suggest that researchers should continue to investigate the
efficacy of UDL-based interventions. We recommend that researchers utilize more rigorous designs
and procedures, including true-experimental group designs that enable valid causal conclusions.
When using intact groups, we recommend that researchers utilize appropriate procedures and
statistical analyses to account for differences in the starting status of such groups, especially when
researchers seek to compare postintervention performance or pre-to-post-test changes in perfor-
mance of students in UDL treatment groups versus non-UDL groups. In addition, when investigat-
ing how UDL-based instruction impacts engagement, we recommend that authors collect not only a
direct observational measure of engagement but also a concurrent measure of students’ academic
performance, productivity, or accuracy, or a concurrent measure of students’ social skills, rather than
assuming that students automatically accrue gains in academic or social skills when engagement
increases. Finally, given that research on UDL interventions is in a relatively nascent stage, research-
ers should consider using single-case research designs to investigate the outcomes of interventions
that include UDL components. Doing so might help researchers to more clearly operationalize UDL
principles and procedures.
Definitive answers are not yet available for many questions about the comparative efficacy of
UDL-based instruction for students of various types and needs, such as students with versus
without reading challenges, and students with and without disabilities of particular types. Rao
and colleagues (2014) suggested that researchers report results based on disaggregated data to
understand the comparative effects of UDL-based instruction for different types of students. In
addition, we recommend that researchers be vigilant in collecting and retaining data on specific
demographic characteristics of participants and teachers, setting variables, and other variable that
might prove to be reliable correlates or predictors of improved outcomes. We recommend, too,
that researchers provide information that is detailed enough to make explicit the links between
UDL guidelines and the features of their UDL-based instructional interventions. Finally, we
recommend that researchers provide sufficient details about what constitutes the intervention
(i.e., control, non-UDL, usual, or traditional) to which the UDL-based intervention is being
compared.
Instructional and assistive technologies provide flexible environments that align with many UDL
guidelines. Several studies have examined the use of digital environments that have built in features
consistent with UDL. Additional research is needed to determine how students make use of these
UDL-based features and how the flexibility afforded by these digital tools can most effectively be put in
place to student achievement. Last, UDL guidelines can be applied to existing evidence-based practices
to reduce barriers, provide options, and increase flexibility. Future research can investigate how UDL
guidelines can be effectively applied to existing evidence-based practices while maintaining fidelity to
the core components of these established practices and the integrity of the conceptual underpinnings
of UDL.
136 M. W. OK ET AL.

Implications for practice

Findings of our review suggest that UDL-based practices hold promise for diverse students in grades
PreK-12. UDL-based instructional practices provide flexibility and scaffolds that promote access to
the general education curriculum and support achievement on academic outcomes. In addition,
qualitative data from a number of studies indicated that teachers and students were engaged and
motivated by UDL-based practices. However, consistent with Lieber and colleagues (2008), although
UDL holds promise for promoting academic outcomes and access of students with disabilities to the
general education curriculum, we believe that educators need skills, experience, and dispositions
necessary to modify and adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of all students. Additionally,
practical and contextual factors, such as teachers’ working conditions, are likely to influence the
fidelity of implementing UDL-based instruction. According to Dymond and colleagues (2006),
“Teamwork is essential to creating and implementing UDL lessons” (p. 306). In nearly half of the
studies that qualified for our review, researchers emphasized that a team effort among stakeholders,
such as special educators, general education teachers, co-teachers, university researchers, and school
administrators, was important for integrating a UDL framework into planning and implementing
curricula (Browder et al., 2008; Dymond et al., 2006; Lieber et al., 2008; Marino, 2009; Katz, 2013).
Dymond and colleagues also reported that teachers were often concerned about the amount of time
required to design and implement UDL-based lessons. Thus, we recommend that educators establish
a realistic timeline for integrating UDL into lessons, recognizing that it is an incremental process that
takes time.
Researchers have described processes for applying UDL guidelines during lesson planning,
particularly processes that provide options and scaffolds while designing instructional goals, meth-
ods, materials and assessments (Meo, 2008; Basham & Marino, 2013; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2013).
A recent blueprint published by the UDL Implementation Resource Network (UDL-IRN) explicates
key elements of UDL application, defining common misconceptions and describing stages of UDL
implementation at school and district levels (Nelson & Basham, 2014). These resources describe
ways in which UDL can be applied and provide guidelines for practitioners and researchers to
consider. Educators can begin with easy-to-implement UDL principles that promote incremental
changes, for example, identifying barriers in 1 lesson and redesigning that lesson with the UDL
guidelines in mind. Hall and colleagues (2015) suggest that when technology is included as part of a
UDL lesson, how teachers effectively use the UDL-based tools and instruction is more important
than the technology itself for students’ meaningful learning and engagement. Although a tool or
curriculum might be designed with UDL principles in mind, teachers will benefit from using UDL in
an intentional way during the learning process with knowledge of how flexible options can benefit
varied learners. As a foundation for UDL implementation, administrators can put key supports in
place to provide incentives for teachers. In order to truly integrate UDL into their practice, teachers
benefit from professional development, coaching, adequate preparation time, and opportunities to
collaborate with colleagues. Based on an understanding of how and why UDL can benefit all
learners, teachers will be able to identify barriers within curriculum and instruction and to design
flexible and engaging inclusive learning environments.

References
(Asterisks indicate studies that qualified for this review.)
*Basham, J. D., Meyer, H., & Perry, E. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 42(4), 339–359.
Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal
design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15.
*Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with
multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1/2),
3–12.
 EXCEPTIONALITY 137

Chita-Tegmark, M, M., Gravel, J. W., Serpa, M. B., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Using the universal design for
learning framework to support culturally diverse learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17–22.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research syntheses. New York, NY: Russek Sage Foundation.
*Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning
approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 162–172.
*Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading
strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and
bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100. doi:10.1177/1086296X103978732
*Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E. J., Banks, R. A., Niswander, V., & Gibson, C. L. (2006). Using a
participatory action research approach to create a universally designed inclusive high school science course: A case
study. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 293–308.
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(1), 33–41.
Goldsmith, S. (1963) Designing for the disabled: The new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
*Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology:
Strategic Reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72–83. doi:10.1177/0731948714544375
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012) Universal design for learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. United States Department of Education. Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C.
(2008).
*Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive
education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153–194.
*Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to
improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2),
71–86. doi:10.1177/0731948713507262
*King-Sears, M. E., Johnson, T., Berkeley, S., Weiss, M., Peters-Burton, E., Evmenova, A., Menditto, A., & Hursh, J.
(2015). An exploratory study of universal design for teaching chemistry to students with and without disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 84–96. doi: 10.1177/0731948714564575
*Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access to the general education curriculum for preschoolers
with disabilities: Children’s school success. Exceptionality, 16(1), 18–32. doi: 10.1080/09362830701796776
Mace, R. (1988). Universal design: Housing for the life span of all people. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
*Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools.
Exceptionality, 17(2), 88–102. doi: 10.1080/09362830902805848
*Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school
science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with
learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87–99. doi:10.1177/0731948713503963
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
Meo, G. (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.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2013). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA:
Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved from http://udltheorypractice.cast.org/loginhttp://udltheoryprac
tice.cast.org/login
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2010). UDL guidelines [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.
udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). UDL guidelines version 2.0: Research Evidence [webpage].
Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence
Nelson, L. L., & Basham, J. D. (2014). A blueprint for UDL: Considering the design of implementation. Lawrence, KS:
UDL-IRN. Retrieved from http://udl-irn.org.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011). Effect size in single case research: A review of nine non-overlap
techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 302–322.
Rao, K. (2015). Universal design for learning and multimedia technology: Supporting culturally and linguistically
diverse students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(2), 121–137.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and
Special Education, 35(3), 153–166. doi:10.1177/074193251351890
138 M. W. OK ET AL.

*Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K. H., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design
for learning and elementary school science: Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science
notebook. Journal of Education Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0033217
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2009). Getting from here to there: UDL, global positioning systems, and lessons for
improving education. In D. T. Gordon, J. W. Gravel, & L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for
learning (pp. 5–18). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Shadish W., Cook T., & Campbell D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
U.S. Department of Education (2009). Race to the top assessment program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html