Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Universal design for learning (UDL) is based on knowledge gained from the field of architecture as well as from advances in cognitive neuroscience. It capitalizes on the inherent flexibility of technology to meet the needs of diverse learners. The term "universal" does not mean a single solution; instead, it implies recognition of each learner’s unique differences and creating learning experiences that support learners, maximizing their ability to progress. Many countries throughout the world have adopted UDL policies within their education systems as part of efforts to achieve inclusivity.

Overview

UDL has its roots in the field of architecture and cognitive neuroscience. It recognizes the promise of technology to meet the needs of individual learners because of the inherent and nearly limitless flexibility of technology itself. By the 2020s, some countries had legislation in place requiring attention to universal design (UD) in curriculum and assessment development. In many other cases, national legislation or international agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, obligating inclusive education meant that UDL often played a role in policies aimed at achieving this perceived right. In general, many experts worldwide advocated for incorporation of the concept into education systems.

UDL principles guide educators in finding innovative ways to make curricula accessible and appropriate for individuals with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities in various learning situations and contexts. This paradigm for teaching, learning, assessment, and curriculum development focuses on adapting the curriculum to suit the learner rather than the other way around. UDL guides teachers and curriculum developers toward creating flexible materials and methods before they are put in students' hands, rather than waiting until students arrive and trying to retrofit inflexible materials to each learner.

Architecture & UDL

The UDL movement in education has roots in the field of architecture. Architect Ronald Mace introduced the novel idea in the late twentieth century that physical environments could be designed from the start to meet the diverse needs of all the individuals who access such spaces. At the time, disability was not considered in design practice and aesthetics. A wheelchair user himself, Mace suggested that “designers examine the needs of diverse consumers (e.g., young people, elderly people, and those with temporary and permanent disabilities) and use this enhanced awareness to inform product design that is more functional to a broader range of people." The term “universal design” (UD) reflected this approach of “proactively incorporating inclusive design features while minimizing the need for individual, retrofitted accommodations."

Universally designed products and environments provide a more functional environment or product for everyone, not just people with disabilities. Universally designed products and settings have become increasingly common in all aspects of society. For example, TV captioning, which is necessary for individuals with hearing impairments, is also helpful to people in noisy settings such as airports or restaurants, and curb cuts which are required for wheelchair users are handy for kids on bicycles, parents with strollers, and travelers pulling wheeled luggage. In UD, the paradigm in education for addressing the instructional needs of students with disabilities and those at risk for learning difficulties, “disability” is accepted as a normal phenomenon of human diversity rather than as an aberration.

The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University, long a prominent leader in the area, defined UD as a way to design, create, and manufacture products and environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The Center outlined seven basic principles:

• Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

• Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

• Simple and Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

• Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

• Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

• Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

• Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

Attempts were made to apply these seven UD principles to learning and assessment, but they were not a perfect fit. A review of literature pertaining to UD in educational settings revealed a jumble of acronyms, such as UDI (universal design for instruction), UID (universal instructional design), UDE (universal design in education), and UDL (universal design for learning). UDL rose to the top in educational settings because it is based on developments in cognitive neuroscience that became widely accepted views of how the human brain learns.

Cognitive Neuroscience and UDL

In addition to its architectural underpinnings, UDL theory stems from the field of cognitive neuroscience, which aims to understand how humans actually learn by using brain scanning technology, such as positron emission tomography (PET) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Individual differences in the brain shed light on the incredible diversity of learning styles and preferences. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) in the United States has focused its research and development agenda on understanding individual differences in terms of three brain networks: recognition, strategic and affective. After releasing a set of UDL guidelines in the 2000s, CAST continued to update this tool, which remained in use throughout the world.

The Recognition Network of Learning

According to Meyer and Rose (2002), the recognition network is the “what” of learning. The question, “What is it?” is associated with recognition. Located in the back of the brain, recognition networks “enable us to identify and interpret patterns of sound, light, taste, smell and touch. These networks allow us to recognize voices, faces, letters, and words, as well as more complex patterns, such as an author's style and nuance and abstract concepts like justice.” Even though human brains all have the same basic recognition architecture and recognize things basically the same way, recognition networks can be very different. Each person has a brain that is slightly different from everyone else's. A UDL curriculum activates diverse learners' recognition networks by offering multiple means of representation (e.g., supplement an oral lecture with visuals) to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.

The Strategic Network of Learning

The strategic network is the “how” of learning. A classic strategic question is, “How do I do it?” These neural networks are located primarily in the front part of the brain, called the frontal lobe. People use strategic networks to “plan, execute, and monitor our internally generated mental and motor patterns—actions and skills as diverse as sweeping the floor, deciding a chess move, or choosing a college” (Meyer & Rose, 2002). During some activities people may be aware that they are applying a strategy. However, conscious or not, people use strategy in essentially everything they do. Strategic brain networks vary widely between individuals. To meet diverse learner's strategic networks, a UDL curriculum allows for multiple means of expression (e.g., have students design a website instead of writing a traditional report) to provide students with alternatives for demonstrating what they know.

The Affective Network of Learning

The affective network is the "why" of learning. A commonly heard affective question posed by learners is, "Why should I do it?" Affective networks are comprised of “many specialized modules, located predominantly at the core of the brain and associated with the limbic system. Because affective networks are distributed across many modules, learners exhibit vast differences along many continua that influence their motivation to learn and their subsequent and ongoing engagement with learning tasks” (Meyer & Rose). The affective network determines whether a student is engaged and motivated depending on the level of challenge, excitement, and interest. UDL principles call for the provision of multiple means of engagement (e.g., small group projects instead of individual or whole class activities) to tap into diverse learners' interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn.

These three brain networks show up clearly on MRI brain scans when people are given learning tasks that are new as well as practiced. When a learning task is novel, the brain "lights up" brightly in all three areas, demonstrating a high level of cognitive activity; conversely, when a learning task is practiced and familiar, the brain shows much less activity in these areas, because it has developed routines to reduce cognitive load. The brain also appears less engaged when a task is either too hard or too easy, thus supporting Lev Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. UDL principles help educators differentiate their teaching for individual learners according to each of the three brain networks.

Technology & UDL

UDL has a prime focus on using computers in the curriculum because, unlike traditional learning materials such as books, computers are uniquely flexible. Through technology, learning materials can instantly be transformed into formats that are better matched with individual learners; for example, text fonts can be enlarged for individuals with visual impairments or even printed out in Braille. Likewise, learners with auditory challenges can have video clips captioned. Students with mild reading disabilities can have words, sentences, or texts read aloud via text-to-speech software, and learners who struggle to comprehend can have metacognitive prompts embedded within the text.

There is a misconception that UDL may eventually eliminate the need for traditional for students with disabilities. This is not accurate, since children with physical or language disabilities continued to need properly designed wheelchairs, adaptive switches to control devices, and speech synthesizers. Similarly, students with severe disabilities still need some individualized special education services outside the general education classroom (dressing themselves, eating with utensils, using public transportation, etc.). However, there is an important philosophical difference between an exclusively AT approach and an inclusive UDL approach. A singular emphasis on AT places the burden of adaptation on the individual learner rather than on the curriculum itself. In essence, AT accepts an inflexible curriculum—say, a printed textbook—as a given, and then finds ways to make it accessible to particular learners. In contrast, a UDL approach posits that all aspects of the curriculum should be designed from the outset to be accessible to a wide range of learners rather than retrofitted after the fact.

Concurrent with the increasing focus on developing UDL curricula has been a growth in awareness that simply providing access to the general curriculum is insufficient to ensure optimal learning. There is an important distinction between access to information and access to learning. Therefore, researchers and designers have emphasized the need to provide access to learning itself. Just because a student can access a piece of content does not automatically mean they can understand or make sense of it. Mere access to the content is inadequate unless that access is mediated with instructional design supports appropriate for the specific disability of the user. Since instructional design elements that are suitable for one disability population might not be appropriate for someone with a different disability, the key is to build in maximum flexibility from the start. For example, it is generally believed that students with learning disabilities should not be exposed to overwhelming or distracting graphics in a computer program; conversely, some students with emotional disabilities prefer strong auditory and visual effects. However, since there is significant variation even within particular disability populations, assumptions about desirable design features cannot be made with complete confidence.

The design of universally accessible computer interfaces can have a positive social effect on individuals with disabilities. For instance, people with sensory disabilities can use computers to achieve face-to-face remote communication.

By the 2020s, artificial intelligence (AI) technology had become increasingly advanced and accessible, prompting both teachers and students to explore incorporating flexible and responsive AI tools into the implementation of UDL principles in educational settings.

Viewpoints

Ideally, a UDL curriculum will meet the needs of the full range of students who actively attend schools; students with a wide range of abilities and disabilities and not just those students in the narrow middle of the bell curve. However, some believed that educators should be cautioned not to overstate the promise of UDL in educational settings. Further, there are limits on what modern technologies can accomplish, and there are also limits on what teachers and special educators can provide for students in terms of time, training, and funding.

Experts advised that a combination of UDL and AT along with curriculum accommodations, curriculum modifications, and differentiated instruction would continue to play a role in the education of learners with disabilities.

Terms & Concepts

Access to the General Curriculum: The notion that students with disabilities should, whenever possible, participate in the same core curriculum (e.g., math, language arts, social studies, science) as their peers rather than being taught in a specialized class with different learning objectives.

Assistive Technologies (AT): Any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a person with a disability.

Differentiated Instruction: A theory of instruction based on the premise that learning approaches should vary and be adapted relative to the abilities and learning styles of each individual student in the classroom.

Instructional Design: An interdisciplinary field devoted to systematically developing learning objectives based on analyzing learners' needs, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of a given instructional approach.

Universal Design (UD): An approach to the initial design of products, services, and environments to make them usable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability, or circumstance.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL): An approach to curriculum design that emphasizes flexible goals, methods, assessments, and materials so as to decrease the barriers that typically limit student access to learning.

Bibliography

Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers, 17, 484-505.

About universal design for learning. CAST. Retrieved Aug. 21, 2024, from https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl

Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 8-15. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). New directions in research: The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135-140.

Center for Universal Design. The Principles of Universal Design. North Carolina State University. Retrieved Aug. 21, 2024, from

Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., Spooner, C. L., & University, C. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 26, 195-220. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 148-157. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, Universal Design for Learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 45-52.

Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36, 153-194. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial & Special Education, 27, 166-175. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 140-145.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age. Brookline.

Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Seoin, L., 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 Educational Psychology, 105, 1210-1225. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .

Saborío-Taylor, S., & Rojas-Ramírez, F. (2024). Universal design for learning and artificial intelligence in the digital era: Fostering inclusion and autonomous learning. International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/14694

Suggested Reading

Follette-Story, M., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. NC State University.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum

Mace, R. (1998). Universal design in housing. Assistive Technology, 10, 21-28.

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning. Harvard Education Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Universal design for learning, access to the general education curriculum, and students with mild mental retardation. Exceptionality, 14, 225-235.