RevisionDUA

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183-199 183
Toward an Inclusive Pedagogy Through Universal Design for
Learning in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature
Beth S. Fornauf, University of New
Hampshire, Joy Dangora Erickson, Endicott
College
Beth S. Fornauf¹
Joy Dangora Erickson²
Abstract
The
of Universal
Design Design
for Learning
has gained
traction
K-12 and
postsecondary
settings
over the past two setThepresence
presence
of Universal
for (UDL)
Learning
(UDL)
has ingained
traction
in K-12
and postsecondary
decades
as educators
to reframe
traditional
means
of teaching
and learning.
In the realm
of higher
education,
tings over
the pasthave
two sought
decades
as educators
have
sought
to reframe
traditional
means
of teaching
and learnUDL-related
is somewhat
limited, hampered
by competing
definitions,
aims, and constructs.
purpose of
paper is to
ing. In theresearch
realm of
higher education,
UDL-related
research
is somewhat
limited, The
hampered
bythis
competing
review
literature
on
UDL
in
postsecondary
settings
to
understand
how
faculty
and
researchers
conceptualize
and
operationalize
definitions, aims, and constructs. The purpose of this paper is to review literature on UDL in postsecondary
UDL.
This review
ex- tends the
work
of previous
by focusing
solely on UDL,
developed by researchers
at the
Centerexfor
settings
to understand
how
faculty
and research
researchers
conceptualize
andasoperationalize
UDL. This
review
Applied
Special
Technology
(CAST)
and
including
research
that
is
both
empirical
and
descriptive.
Our
findings
suggest
that
tends the work of previous research by focusing solely on UDL, as developed by researchers at the Center
ambiguity
still exists
as toTechnology
UDL’s application
as an intervention,
or framework;
hasisimplications
for its use
in advancing
inclusive
for Applied
Special
(CAST)
and including
researchthisthat
both empirical
and
descriptive.
Our
pedagogy and in disrupting a discourse of normalcy that is pervasive in postsecondary settings. Implications for future research are
findings suggest that ambiguity still exists as to UDL’s application as an intervention, or framework; this
offered.
has implications for its use in advancing inclusive pedagogy and in disrupting a discourse of normalcy that
is pervasive in postsecondary settings. Implications for future research are offered.
Keywords: universal design for learning, postsecondary education, higher education, disability studies
The image
of a large
halllecture
filled with
hundreds
students
The image
oflecture
a large
hall
filled of
with
hunas
the archetypical
college
may still be
prevalent
on
dreds
of students
as classroom
the archetypical
college
classsome
campuses,
but
by
and
large
this
conception
is
room may still be prevalent on some campuses, but
misrepresentative
of many
institutionsisofmisrepresentative
higher education (IHEs).
by and large this
conception
of
As
is
the
case
in
K-12
settings,
a
range
of
class sizes,
many institutions of higher education
(IHEs). As is
instructional methods, and learning environments are
the case in K-12 settings, a range of class sizes, inrepresented across and within postsecondary settings; smaller
structional methods, and learning environments are
instructor-student ratios, advances in technology, and other
represented across and within postsecondary settings;
emerging innovations continue to transform the landscape for
smaller instructor-student ratios, advances in techboth faculty and students. The presence of Universal Design for
nology, and other emerging innovations continue to
Learning (UDL) in IHEs has gained traction over the past nearly
transform the landscape for both faculty and students.
two decades as educators have sought to reframe traditional
The presence of Universal Design for Learning
means of teaching and learning. Developed by the Center for
(UDL)
in IHEs has gained traction over the past nearApplied Special Technology (CAST) and derived from Universal
ly
two
decades as educators have sought to reframe
Design (UD) in architecture, UDL focuses on purposeful design
traditional means of teaching and learning. Develthat considers the diverse needs of a wide variety of individuals
oped
by 2017;
the Center
Applied
Special
(Dolmage,
McGuirefor
et al.,
2006; Meyer
et al.,Technology
2014; Rose
(CAST)
and
derived
from
Universal
Design
(UD)
& Meyer, 2002). UDL is focused specifically on the
proactive
in
architecture,
UDL
focuses
on
purposeful
design
design of learning environments (including K-12 and higher
that considers
the and
diverse
needs of from
a wide
education
classrooms)
is distinguished
othervariety of
individuals (Dolmage, 2017; McGuire et al., 2006;
Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL is
focused specifically on the proactive design of learning environments (including K-12 and higher education classrooms) and is distinguished from other
1
University of New Hampshire; 2 Endicott College
similar
offshoots
of UDof
(e.g.,
InstructionalInstructionDesign,
similar
offshoots
UDUniversal
(e.g., Universal
Universal
Design
for Instruction)
by itsfor
grounding
in the by its
al Design,
Universal
Design
Instruction)
neuroscientific
aspects
of learning (Schreiner
et al., of
2013).
CAST
grounding in
the neuroscientific
aspects
learning
founders
maintain
that
UDL
is
an
integrative
framework
that
(Schreiner et al., 2013).
combines
understandings
from neuroscience,
architecture,
and
CAST
founders maintain
that UDL
is an integratechnology to design instruction and learning environments
tive framework that combines understandings from
(Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Furthermore, CAST
neuroscience, architecture, and technology to design
defines UDL as a “framework to improve and optimize teaching
instruction and learning environments (Meyer et al.,
and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how
2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Furthermore, CAST
humans learn” (CAST, 2018). The framework is built on the
defines UDL as a “framework to improve and optipremises that (a) there is systematic variability among learners,
mize teaching and learning for all people based on
(b) learning is equal parts cognitive and emotive, and (c) the
scientific insights into how humans learn” (CAST,
networks of the brains engage, process, and represent
2018).
The framework is built on the premises that
information in different ways for different people (Meyer et al.,
(a)
there
is systematic variability among learners, (b)
2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002). In conjunction with brain research,
learning is equal parts cognitive and emotive, and (c)
UDL continues to evolve as educational research related to
the
networks
brainsand
engage,
process,
repredifferent
methodsof
of the
instruction
curriculum
designand
advances.
sent
information
in
different
ways
for
different
people
Federal education laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities
(Meyer et
2014;and
Rose
& Meyer,
2002).
In conjuncEducation
Actal.,
(IDEA),
the Every
Student
Succeeds
Act
tion with
research,
(ESSA),
havebrain
signaled
support UDL continues to evolve as
educational research related to different methods of
instruction and curriculum design advances.
Federal education laws, including the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), have signaled support
184 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
(McGuire
et al., 2006).
A primary
the review
by
for
in elementary
and secondary
schools. The
1997
ary settings
(McGuire
et al.,
2006).reason
A primary
reason
forUDL
UDL
in elementary
and secondary
schools.
The settings
and colleagues
is centered
on UDI rather
on UDLon
reauthorization
of IDEA pushed
the boundaries
of educational
the review
by Roberts
and colleagues
is than
centered
1997 reauthorization
of IDEA
pushed the
boundaries Roberts
may
very
well
be
that
the
use
of
UDL
outside
of
K-12
settings
access,
requiring
that
students
with
labeled
disabilities
be
of educational access, requiring that students with la- UDI rather than on UDL may very well be that the
at that
Recently
however,
appears
educated
in the least restrictive
environment
the greatest
useespecially
of UDLlimited
outside
oftime.
K-12
settings
was itespecialbeled disabilities
be educated
in thetoleast
restrictive was
that
UDL
has
been
more
widely
accepted
as
a
relevant
extent
possible,
and
provided
with
assistive
technology.
This
law
environment to the greatest extent possible, and pro- ly limited at that time. Recently however, it appears
designing
experiences
represented
(theoreticaltechnology.
if not practical)
union
between
special framework
that UDLforhas
been postsecondary
more widelylearning
accepted
as a relevided witha assistive
This
law
represented
and/or environments (UDL on Campus, n.d.). As such, UDL has
and general education (Hehir, 2009). According to CAST
a (theoretical if not practical) union between special vant framework for designing postsecondary learning
become a more familiar term across educational age spans
researchers, IDEA effectively opened the door for a UDL
experiences
and/or environments (UDL on Campus,
and general education (Hehir, 2009). According to also
with a multitude of theoretical and practical interpretations.
approach in K-12 classrooms; however, UDL has undergone
CAST researchers, IDEA effectively opened the door n.d.). As such, UDL has also become a more familiar
much theoretical revision since that time (Meyer et al., 2014). An Nevertheless, Roberts and colleagues’ 2011 re- view detailed
for a UDL approach in K-12 classrooms; however, term across educational age spans with a multitude of
several noteworthy findings. First, the authors found very little
unintended consequence of linking UDL with policies related to
UDL has undergone much theoretical revision since theoretical and practical interpretations.
research that explored the effectiveness of UD models on student
students with labeled disabilities is the conflation of UDL and
that time (Meyer et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, Roberts and colleagues’ 2011 reoutcomes (GPA, retention rates, etc.). In addition, these authors
special education. UDL is often misinterpreted as a special
An
unintended
consequence
of
linking
UDL
view
detailed several noteworthy findings. First, the
education initiative, or a framework only for students with labeled emphasized that empirical work exploring UD in higher education
with
policies
related
to
students
with
labeled
disabilauthors
found very little research that explored the efwould benefit from more quantitative and mixed methods
disabilities. The 2015 passage of ESSA may have somewhat
ities is the conflation of UDL and special education. approaches.
fectivenessThe
of authors
UD models
on student outcomes (GPA,
expressed concern that three-fourths of
assuaged this confusion—for the first time, UDL as a practice
UDL
is
often
misinterpreted
as
a
special
education
retention
rates,
etc.).
In
addition,
thesemethods,
authorswhich
emthe pieces in their re- view employed qualitative
was endorsed by federal general education legislation (Gravel,
initiative,
or
a
framework
only
for
students
with
laphasized
that
empirical
work
exploring
UD
in
higher
2017). While UDL’s founding organization, CAST, has historical substantially limited the generalizability of their findings. Since the
beled disabilities.
2015 UDL
passage
ofonESSA
educationof would
fromthere
more
quantitative
Roberts benefit
et al.’s review
have
been four and
connections
with specialThe
education,
focuses
learnermay publication
have somewhat
this confusion—for
the subsequent
mixed methods
approaches.
The authors
expressed
reviews of
UDL-related literature.
While some
of
variability
rather than assuaged
disability. Furthermore,
the UDL framework
first
time,
UDL
as
a
practice
was
endorsed
by
fedconcern
that
three-fourths
of
the
pieces
in
their
rethese
have
incorporated
UDL
applications
in
higher
education,
can be applied to settings outside the confines of K-12 education,
eral
general
education
legislation
(Gravel,
2017).
view
employed
qualitative
methods,
which
substannone have concentrated solely on postsecondary settings.
as evidenced by its definition in the 2008 reauthorization of the
WhileEducation
UDL’sOpportunity
foundingAct.
organization,
CAST,
tially limited
thevaried
generalizability
of their
these have
in focus, examining
UDLfindings.
in PK-12
Higher
This extension of
UDL intohas Rather,
historical
connections
withinspecial
education,
Since the
of Roberts
etoral.’s
(Ok publication
et al., 2017), Universal
Design
UDL review
as an
higher
education
will be explored
this paper.
Despite theUDL environments
focuses on
learner
variability
ratherinitiatives,
than disability.
there haveintervention
been four(Capp,
subsequent
reviews
of UDL-reeducational
2017; Rao
et al., 2014),
and UDL
prevalence
of UDL
in statewide
educational
federal
Furthermore,
thepreservice
UDL framework
can becoursework
applied to aslated
literature.framework
While some
of these
have Each
incorpoan educational
(Al-Azawei
et al., 2016).
of
legislation,
and even
teacher education
settings
the confines
ofperiences
K-12 education,
as these
ratedreviews
UDLmakes
applications
in highertoeducation,
a distinct contribution
the literature.none
(Scott
et al.,outside
2017), research
on the exof UDL
by both and Capp
(2017),
Rao and col- leagues
implementation
educators
at multiple
is limited
(Gravel, Analyses
evidenced bybyits
definition
in thelevels
2008
reauthorizahave concentrated
solely
on and
postsecondary
settings.
highlight
outcomes
of UDL
as an intervention;
2017).
In the
of higher
education,
UDL-related Act.
research is (2014)
tion of
therealm
Higher
Education
Opportunity
Rather,
thesethehave
varied
in focus,
examiningboth
UDL
the generally
positive effects
UDL
at
not only
limited,
but ambiguous—hampered
by competing
This
extension
of UDL into higher
education note
in PK-12
environments
(Okof et
al.,implementation
2017), Universal
educational
Capp’s meta-analysis
is theoretically
definitions
and interpretations.
While guidelines
for prevalence various
will be explored
in this paper.
Despite the
Design
or UDL levels.
as an educational
intervention
(Capp,
situated
within
an
inclusive
education
framework
and
examines
implementation
exist
(CAST,
2018),
many
UDL
scholars
are
of UDL in statewide educational initiatives, federal 2017; Rao et al., 2014), and UDL as an educational
the
outcomes of(Al-Azawei
UDL implementation
empirical
studies
reluctant
to identify
definitions
or criteria.
UDL iseducation
intended
legislation,
andstrict
even
preservice
teacher
framework
et al., in2016).
Each
of these
between
2013
and
2016
(N=18).
Rao
et
al.
captured
somewhat
neither
as
a
program,
nor
as
something
to
implement
with
fidelity.
coursework (Scott et al., 2017), research on the ex- reviews makes a distinct contribution to the aliterature.
sense
the terrain
of Universal
Design,
the
Thus,
there are
of UDL;
a sense, its at broader
periences
ofmultiple
UDL interpretations
Analyses
byofboth
and Capp
(2017),
and examining
Rao and colimplementation
byin educators
efficacy
of
multiple
models
of
UD
(e.g.,
Universal
Design
for
dynamic
and
flexible
nature
can
also
be
interpreted
as
its
multiple levels is limited (Gravel, 2017). In the realm leagues (2014) highlight the outcomes of UDL as an
Universal
Design, UDL)
across primary,
greatest
source
of elusiveness.
Despite this ambiguity,
intervention;
bothInstructional
note the generally
positive
effects
of higher
education,
UDL-related
researchUDL
is has
not Instruction,
secondary,
and
higher
educational
settings.
The
authors included
had
successful
forays
into
higher
education,
both
in
research
and
levels.
only limited, but ambiguous—hampered by compet- of UDL implementation at various educational
empirical
research in their
(N=14), with
the goalwithof
in practice. A 2011 literature review synthesized empirical work in only
meta-analysis
is review
theoretically
situated
ing definitions and interpretations. While guidelines Capp’s
understanding how researchers are employing different models
postsecondary education related to UDL; however, included
for implementation exist (CAST, 2018), many UDL in an inclusive education framework and examines
UD as an intervention. Al-Azawei and colleagues’ (2016)
publications drew on other UD models as well (Roberts et al.,
outcomes of UDL implementation in empirical
scholars are reluctant to identify strict definitions or ofthe
aimed to pick up where Rao et al. (2014) left off; however,
2011). Universal De- sign for Instruction (UDI) was once
criteria. UDL is intended neither as a program, nor review
studies
between 2013 and 2016 (N=18). Rao et al.
they analyzed only those empirical studies that utilized the UDL
considered the version of UD most applicable to higher
as something to implement with fidelity. Thus, there captured a somewhat broader sense of the terrain of
framework (CAST, 2018; Rose &
education, as it was specifically developed for use in
are multiple interpretations of UDL; in a sense, its Universal Design, examining the efficacy of multiple
postsecondary
dynamic and flexible nature can also be interpreted as
its greatest source of elusiveness.
Despite this ambiguity, UDL has had successful
forays into higher education, both in research and in
practice. A 2011 literature review synthesized empirical work in postsecondary education related to UDL;
however, included publications drew on other UD
models as well (Roberts et al., 2011). Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) was once considered the
version of UD most applicable to higher education, as
it was specifically developed for use in postsecond-
models of UD (e.g., Universal Design for Instruction, Universal Instructional Design, UDL) across
primary, secondary, and higher educational settings.
The authors included only empirical research in their
review (N=14), with the goal of understanding how
researchers are employing different models of UD as
an intervention.
Al-Azawei and colleagues’ (2016) review aimed
to pick up where Rao et al. (2014) left off; however, they analyzed only those empirical studies that
utilized the UDL framework (CAST, 2018; Rose &
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 185
Meyer,
The The
authors
of this review
while the consciously
shifted
their interpretations
of disabilityof
away
from
consciously
shifted
their interpretations
disability
Meyer,2002).
2002).
authors
of thisconcluded
review that
concluded
literature
suggested
that UDL holds
promise as
a pedagogical
deficits
to disablingdeficits
environments
(Gravel, Edwards,
away from
individual
to disabling
environthat while
the literature
suggested
that
UDL holds individual
framework
grade spans andframework
formats (online,
hybrid,grade
etc.), Buttimer,
& Rose, 2015;
Meyer etButtimer,
al., 2014), which
is somewhat
ments (Gravel,
Edwards,
& Rose,
2015;
promise across
as a pedagogical
across
the
ways
in
which
researchers
interpret
and
comply
with
UDL
consistent
with
a
DSE
framework.
DSE
supports
the
notion that
spans and formats (online, hybrid, etc.), the ways in Meyer et al., 2014), which is somewhat consistent
principles
remain ambiguous.
No clear
about
the validity
with framework.
certain types ofDSE
bodily
(cognitive,
behavioral,
with a DSE
supports
the
notion that
which researchers
interpret
andanswers
comply
with
UDL individuals
of
UDL
as
a
framework
were
realized.
This
review
is
distinctly
linguistic,
etc.)
impairments
are
disabled
by
inhospitable
principles remain ambiguous. No clear answers about individuals with certain types of bodily (cognitive,
different from prior re- views for several reasons. While our aim is environments and social systems that privilege able bodies, often
behavioral, linguistic, etc.) impairments are disabled
the validity of UDL as a framework were realized.
to gain a sense of the scope of Universal Design research in
in discrimination or exclusion (Gabel, 2005). Likewise in
by inhospitable
environments and social systems that
This review is distinctly different from prior re- resulting
higher education like Roberts and colleagues (2011), we have
K-12 settings, the expectation is that students with disabilities
views for several reasons. While our aim is to gain privilege able bodies, often resulting in discriminaelected to look beyond empirical work that emphasizes outcomes should somehow be normalized; the teacher’s role is to
a sense of the scope of Universal Design research in tion or exclusion (Gabel, 2005). Likewise in K-12
and seeks validity. We are interested in the application of UDL
remediate students with individual education programs (IEPs) in
higher education like Roberts and colleagues (2011), settings, the expectation is that students with disabilthat advances and sustains inclusive pedagogy as an end in
order to make them more like their “typical” peers. Ironically, this
we have elected to look beyond empirical work that ities should somehow be normalized; the teacher’s
itself. By analyzing empirical and descriptive pieces, we hope to often happens by removing these students from the classroom
emphasizes outcomes and seeks validity. We are in- role is to remediate students with individual educagain a clearer understanding of the various ways researchers in and attempting to raise them to a “normally” performing level
terested
in the application of UDL that advances and tion programs (IEPs) in order to make them more like
higher education are operationalizing and conceptualizing UDL. before readmitting them in the general class- room (Hehir, 2002;
sustains inclusive pedagogy as an end in itself. By their “typical” peers. Ironically, this often happens
Due to its continued iteration and development in the years since Taylor, 1988). The UDL framework can disrupt the narrative of
analyzing
and todescriptive
we hope achieving
by removing
these
the (Taylor,
classroom
its
inception, empirical
we have elected
focus solely pieces,
on the UDL
readiness
as astudents
gateway tofrom
inclusion
1988),and
as
to
gain
a
clearer
understanding
of
the
various
ways
attempting
to
raise
them
to
a
“normally”
performing
framework (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer,
it recognizes learner variability as an educational norm, and
researchers
in higher
education
operationalizlevel the
before
themasinthethe
general
class2002)
to the exclusion
of other
UD models.are
Additionally,
because rejects
“myth readmitting
of the normal child”
central,
organizing
ing specifically
and conceptualizing
UDL. Due
to educational
its continued feature
room of
(Hehir,
Taylor,
1988).
UDL
has been ad- dressed
in higher
schools2002;
(Baglieri,
Bejoian
et al., 2011, p. 2124). Yet
iteration
and
development
in
the
years
since
its
inThe
UDL
framework
can
disrupt theUDL
narrative
policy and practice, it has demonstrated its sustainability in an
due to its complicated history and development,
continuesof
ception,
we
have
elected
to
focus
solely
on
the
UDL
achieving
readiness
as
a
gateway
to
inclusion
educational climate that is constantly in flux. The questions
to be positioned in research, as this paper will illustrate,(Taylor,
as a
framework
(CAST,
2018;
Meyer
et
al.,
2014;
Rose
&
1988),for
asdealing
it recognizes
learner
variability
as anofeduguiding this review are as follows:
solution
with disability
or difference.
A number
Meyer, 2002) to the exclusion of other UD models. descriptive
cational and
norm,
and rejects
the included
“myth inofthis
thereview
normal
empirical
publications
Additionally, because UDL specifically has been ad- begin
child”
as thetheir
central,
of schools
by framing
piecesorganizing
as a responsefeature
to increased
diversity
dressed in higher educational policy and practice, it in(Baglieri,
Bejoian
et al., 2011,
2124).
Yet due to
IHEs, which,
while admirable,
runs thep.risk
of positioning
has demonstrated its sustainability in an educational non-dominant
its complicated
history
and development,
UDL con(non-white,
disabled,
etc.) groups of students
as
homogeneous,
and (2) deviants
in need of
climate that is constantly in flux. The questions guid- (1)
tinues
to be positioned
in research,
asassimilating
this papertowill
heteronormative
typicality
higher
ing this review are as follows:
illustrate, as astandards
solutionthat
fordefine
dealing
within disability
or
education.
ThisA
paper
critically
the suitability
of framing
difference.
number
ofquestions
descriptive
and empirical
as an intervention
for improving
out- comes
for certain
1. In what ways is the UDL framework opera- UDL
publications
included
in this review
begin
by framgroups
of
students
in
the
increasingly
diverse
realm
of
ing their pieces as a response to increased diversity
tionalized in postsecondary contexts?
education.
we argue
thatthe
UDL
is aof poin IHEs, which,
whileInstead,
admirable,
runs
risk
2. In what ways is UDL conceptualized as a postsecondary
process-based
framework
for
inclusive
pedagogy
that
moves
etc.)
framework for inclusive pedagogy in higher sitioning non-dominant (non-white, disabled,
compensatory
measures
support
groupsassimilationist
of students and
as (1)
homogeneous,
andof(2)
devieducation, attending to notions of disability, “beyond
view
to advancing
inclusive forms
of pedagogy to meet
antsa in
need
of assimilating
to heteronormative
stanability, and variability in theory and practice? with
learner
diversity
in
non-discriminatory
and
socially
just ways”
dards that define typicality in higher
education.
(Liasidou,
p.127).
In otherquestions
words, rather
This2014,
paper
critically
thethan
suitability of
Conceptual Framework
conceptualizing
inclusion
in
higher
education
accommodating
framing UDL as an intervention for asimproving
outstudents with disabilities, UDL as inclusive pedagogy takes up
The conceptual framework for this review attends to the ways UDL functions
The conceptual framework for this review attends comes for certain groups of students in the increasto support inclusive pedagogy in higher education. Yet the concept of
task of transforming teaching and learning at the
to
the
ways UDL functions to support inclusive ped- the
ingly
diverse realm of postsecondary education.
inclusivity always brings with it a myriad of complexities of placement,
postsecondary level for all students. This is a task made more
agogy in
Yet
the concept
incluInstead, we argue that UDL is a process-based framebelonging,
andhigher
the rights education.
of individuals with
disabilities.
As alludedof
to in
the
complex by the fact that many faculty are content experts with
introduction,
UDL hasbrings
deep connections
special education,
and is
sivity always
with it with
a myriad
of complexities
work for inclusive pedagogy that moves “beyond aslimited pedagogical experience, other than their own as a student
sometimes
viewed
as
a
special
education
initiative.
Yet
theoretically,
UDL
of placement, belonging, and the rights of individuals similationist and compensatory measures of support
appears to be more closely aligned with Disability Studies in Education (DSE). (McGuire
with disabilities. As alluded to in the introduction,
UDL has deep connections with special education,
and is sometimes viewed as a special education initiative. Yet theoretically, UDL appears to be more
closely aligned with Disability Studies in Education
(DSE). DSE is concerned with problems and issues
in education related to exclusion and/or oppression
of individuals with disabilities. DSE conceptualizes
disability as a social, political, and cultural construct
that plays out in complex ways in educational settings (Cosier & Ashby, 2016). UDL scholars have
DSE is concerned with problems and issues in education related to exclusion
and/or oppression of individuals with disabilities. DSE conceptualizes disability
as a social, political, and cultural construct that plays out in complex ways in
educational set- tings (Cosier & Ashby, 2016). UDL scholars have
with a view to advancing inclusive forms of pedagogy to meet learner diversity in non-discriminatory
and socially just ways” (Liasidou, 2014, p.127). In
other words, rather than conceptualizing inclusion
in higher education as accommodating students with
disabilities, UDL as inclusive pedagogy takes up the
task of transforming teaching and learning at the
postsecondary level for all students. This is a task
made more complex by the fact that many faculty
are content experts with limited pedagogical experience, other than their own as a student (McGuire
186 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
et al., 2006). Thus, a further goal of this paper is
to propose avenues for future research. This will be
explored further in the discussion.
context; pieces that incorporated UDL as
content within a course (for example, teaching pre-service teachers about UDL) were excluded (e.g., Pearson, 2015).
Methods
Criteria for Locating and Selecting Publications
In order
locate to
high-quality
publications, wepublications,
conducted a we
In toorder
locate high-quality
search
of the Education
In- formationResources
Center (ERIC)
conducted
a searchResources
of the Education
Indatabase
using
the following
key database
terms: “Universal
for
formation
Center
(ERIC)
using Design
the followLearning”
“UDL,” combined
with Design
either “higher
ing keyorterms:
“Universal
for education”
Learning”or or
“postsecondary
education.”
This
initial
search
yielded 247
“UDL,” combined with either “higher education”
or
articles.
The
abstracts
of
these
articles
were
read
and
applied
the
“postsecondary education.” This initial search
yieldfollowing
for inclusion
in this review:
ed 247criteria
articles.
The abstracts
of these articles were
read and applied the following criteria for inclusion
in this review:
Analysis
The resultant
set of 38set
publications
spanned the years
2006 to
The resultant
of 38 publications
spanned
the
2018
included
empirical
studies
and descriptive
yearsand2006
to 2018
andresearch
included
empirical
research
articles.
the articles,
eachAfter
one was
loggedthe
intoartia
studiesAfter
andreading
descriptive
articles.
reading
spreadsheet
in which
recorded
theaabstract,
purpose,
cles, each one
waswelogged
into
spreadsheet
in which
research
questions,
methods, data
sources,
and findings.
The
we recorded
the abstract,
purpose,
research
questions,
first
author
coded
each
article
to
identify
those
that
dealt
with
methods, data sources, and findings. The first author
operationalizing
UDL, and
that explored
its
coded each article
tothose
identify
those that
dealt with
conceptualization.
Upon
reviewing
first author’s
provided its
operationalizing
UDL,
and the
those
that explored
definitions
specific to theUpon
operationalization
conceptualization.
reviewing and
theconceptualization
first author’s
of
UDL,
the
second
author
also
coded
each
article.
The authors
provided definitions specific to the operationalization
were
in
agreement
on
82%
of
the
articles,
and
discrepancies
and conceptualization of UDL, the second author also
were resolved together; several articles could be interpreted as
coded each article. The authors were in agreement on
involving both the operationalization and conceptualization of
82% of the articles, and discrepancies were resolved
UDL (e.g., Black et al., 2014; Hutson & Downs, 2015). In these
together; several articles could be interpreted as incases, the authors revisited the publication’s stated purpose and
volving both the operationalization and conceptualwhen explicitly identified by the authors, the research questions.
ization of UDL (e.g., Black et al., 2014; Hutson &
Definitions of operationalize and conceptualize were consulted to
Downs, 2015). In these cases, the authors revisited
determine which category most clearly aligned with the article’s
the publication’s stated purpose and when explicitstated purposes. A list of articles in this review, organized by
ly identified by the authors, the research questions.
category, is provided in Table 1.
Definitions of operationalize and conceptualize were
consulted to determine which category most clearly
aligned with the article’s stated purposes. A list of articles in this review, organized by category, is provided in Table 1.
1. Articles must be published in a peer reviewed
journal.
2. Articles must be published between 2002
and 2018. The 2002 date reflects the publication of Teaching Every Student in the Digital
Age: Universal Design for Learning (Rose &
Meyer, 2002), which introduced principles
of UDL.
3. Publications must explicitly address our research questions; thus, they need to explore
how UDL is operationalized and/or conceptualized in a postsecondary setting.
a. Operationalize refers to publications that
explore the process of drawing on and imFindings
plementing UDL in some aspect of pedagogy, coursework, or operations (e.g.,
all of the
in this review
by
Almost
all publications
of the publications
in began
this review
Disability Services Office). Publications Almost
began by addressing
UDL
in relationstudent
to increasing
in this group asked questions about the addressing
UDL in relation
to increasing
student diversity,
broadly
defined,
in higherWhile
educaprocess and/or outcomes of designing a diversity,
broadly defined,
in higher
education.
tion. pieces
While explicitly
many pieces
explicitly
linked
UDL
course, system, or learning task within the many
linked UDL to the teaching and to
the teaching and learning of students with disabilcontext of the UDL framework.
learning of students with disabilities, others framed UDL
b. Conceptualize refers to publications that ities, others framed UDL as a way to address the
a way
the needs ofofa students,
diverse population
needs
oftoa address
diverse population
including
draw on UDL theory to consider ways to as
of
students,
including
variability
in
age,
and
backgrounds,
improve teaching and learning in higher variability in age, social and culturalsocial
backgrounds,
and learning
preferences.
We will
and learning
preferences.
We will
review findings
education. These pieces explored ques- cultural
this section,
onhas
howbeen
in thisfindings
section,infocusing
firstfocusing
on howfirst
UDL
tions about how faculty and students review
operationalized,
and then on its
conceptualization
in
consider the possibilities of UDL in a UDL
has been operationalized,
and
then on its
higher educationinsettings.
postsecondary setting, including how fac- conceptualization
higher education settings.
ulty might take up UDL in the interest of
Operationalizing UDL
improving their pedagogy.
the firstthe
research
what ways is
UDLways
first question:
researchInquestion:
Inthe
what
4. Publications must focus specifically on Uni- RecallRecall
operationalized
in postsecondary
contexts?
A total of
is the UDL
framework
operationalized
in postsecversal Design for Learning. Articles that fo- framework
articles contexts?
in this re- view
operationalizing
ondary
A attended
total ofto 27
articles inUDL
this recused on other UD models (e.g., Universal 27
principles
through
some
type
of
implementation
in
instruction,
Design for Instruction) to the exclusion of view attended to operationalizing UDL principles
assessment,
or design.
emerged from analysis
of
through some
UDL were not reviewed.
typeTwo
ofthemes
implementation
in instruc(a) use ofor
UDL
in
5. Publications must display evidence of draw- these
tion,articles:
assessment,
design.
Two themes emerged
ing on UDL principles in a postsecondary from analysis of these articles: (a) use of UDL in
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 187
response
to atospecific
problem,
and (b) achieving
philosophical
response
a specific
problem,
and (b)
achieving
“buy-in”
from faculty,
stakeholders,
and
studentsstakeholders,
in order to move
philosophical
“buy-in”
from
faculty,
forward
with scaling
UDL across
the institution.
recentscaling
study of
and students
in order
to move
forwardA with
UDL
implementation
across
six
IHEs
in
the
US
(Moore
et
al.,
UDL across the institution.
2018)Aprovides
a
model
that
can
be
used
as
a
heuristic
for
recent study of UDL implementation across six
understanding
in this
subgroup
the literature.
IHEs in the the
USthemes
(Moore
et al.,
2018)ofprovides
a model
Moore and colleagues aimed to identify similarities and
that can be used as a heuristic for understanding the
differences in implementation strategies, and to use this
themes in this subgroup of the literature. Moore and
information to inform the scaling of UDL research and practice.
colleagues aimed to identify similarities and differThrough interviews with faculty across selected IHEs, the authors
ences in implementation strategies, and to use this
found that UDL was often addressed most systematically in
information to inform the scaling of UDL research
response to a particular problem or line of inquiry, such as
and
practice. Through interviews with faculty across
inequity or student attrition, which parallels theme (a) in our reselected
IHEs, the authors found that UDL was often
view. This targeted use of UDL to address a particular problem
addressed
most systematically in response to a parmay have been the result of greater “buy-in” from certain
ticular problem or line of inquiry, such as inequity or
administrative areas or departments concerned with that issue,
student
attrition,to which
parallels
in ourdata,
rewhich
corresponds
theme (b).
Drawingtheme
on their(a)
collected
view.
This
targeted
use
of
UDL
to
address
a
particular
Moore et al. developed a four-phase model to help identify the
problem mayarchave
been
the result of
greater
“buy-in”
developmental
of UDL
implementation
in higher
education:
fromoften
certain
administrative
areas or departments
small,
individual-level
implementation;
traces of growthconcerned
with
that
issue,
which
corresponds
through the department level; securing of funding; andto theme
(b). Drawing
on their collected
data,
Moore
et al.We
deinstitutional
implementation
and adoption
of UDL
as policy.
veloped
a
four-phase
model
to
help
identify
the
will refer to this model and examples from the review literaturedeto
velopmental
arc of UDL:
UDLResponding
implementation
in higher
illustrate
the two themes.
to Problems.
Looking
education:
small, several
often individual-level
implementaacross
these studies,
publications did in fact
frame UDL
tion;
tracessolution
of growth
through
the department
level;
as
a potential
to a problem
or issue
in higher education.
securing
of funding;
andininstitutional
implementation
In
many cases,
the “problem”
need of attention
was the
success
(or lack thereof)
of students
withWe
labeled
For
and adoption
of UDL
as policy.
willdisabilities.
refer to this
example,
someexamples
studies examined
aspects
of equity
and access
model and
from the
review
literature
to ilinlustrate
college or
coursework. In other cases, instructors
theuniversity
two themes.
identified
common
challengesto
within
their courses
or
UDL:
Responding
Problems.
Looking
across
departments.
Moore
and
colleagues
(2018)
noted
that
in
some
these studies, several publications did in fact frame
IHEs,
on UDL
is at a faculty
level, where
UDLthe
asemphasis
a potential
solution
to a problem
or concerns
issue in
tend
to
reflect
those
of
individual
faculty
members
and
a
higher education. In many cases, the “problem”
in
commitment
to studentswas
and promising
pedagogy.
At a thereof)
systems
need of attention
the success
(or lack
(university)
level,with
there labeled
tends to be
interest in addressing
larger
of students
disabilities.
For example,
issues
such
as
student
attrition,
racial
tension,
or
access
to
some studies examined aspects of equity and access
disability-related
Several
studies found
attending
to
in college or services.
university
coursework.
Inthat
other
cases,
faculty’s
instructional
practices
might
enable
access
to
learning
instructors identified common challenges within their
for a variety of diverse students, including those with disabilities,
courses or departments. Moore and colleagues (2018)
and facilitate inclusive classrooms (Bernacchio et al., 2007;
noted that in some IHEs, the emphasis on UDL is at
Gradel & Edson, 2010; Heelan et al., 2015). Similarly, one study
a faculty level, where concerns tend to reflect those
assessed faculty perceptions of UDL, and subsequently
of individual faculty members and a commitment to
designed a professional learning program aimed at creating an
students and promising pedagogy. At a systems (university) level, there tends to be interest in addressing
larger issues such as student attrition, racial tension,
or access to disability-related services.
Several studies found that attending to faculty’s
instructional practices might enable access to learning for a variety of diverse students, including those
with disabilities, and facilitate inclusive classrooms
(Bernacchio et al., 2007; Gradel & Edson, 2010; Heelan et al., 2015). Similarly, one study assessed faculty perceptions of UDL, and subsequently designed a
professional learning program aimed at creating an
inclusive
climate
specifically
geared toward
inclusive
climate
specifically
gearedstudents
towardwith
students
disabilities
(Izzo et al.,
2008).
studiesThese
suggest
that use
of
with disabilities
(Izzo
et These
al., 2008).
studies
sugUDL
principles
may
mitigate
faculty
concern
about
teaching
gest that use of UDL principles may mitigate faculty
students
labeled
disabilities,
who may
be perceived
as
concernwith
about
teaching
students
with
labeled disabilhaving
fundamentally
different
learning
needs.
True
to
UDL’s
ities, who may be perceived as having fundamentally
emphasis
student learning,
differentonlearning
needs. several publications focused on
postsecondary students’ perceptions of UDL implementation.
True to UDL’s emphasis on student learning,
Dean et al. (2017) zeroed in on the student outcomes of
several publications focused on postsecondary stuperceived learning (e.g., whether students were positively
dents’ perceptions of UDL implementation. Dean
engaged) and actual learning (knowledge gains). The faculty
et al. (2017) zeroed in on the student outcomes of
researchers investigated the impact of using multiple forms of
perceived learning (e.g., whether students were posrepresentation in a large lecture course. These resources
itively engaged) and actual learning (knowledge
including PowerPoint slides, lecture notes, an audience response
gains). The faculty researchers investigated the imsystem, and an online learning app. Notably, the problems under
pact
of using multiple forms of representation in a
investigation (lack of engagement and limited opportunities to
large lecture course. These resources including Powlearn in large lecture) are environmental and curricular; the
erPoint
lecture
notes,
audience
response
authors do slides,
not situate
problems
withinan
students.
In general,
system,
and
an
online
learning
app.
Notably,
research that examined student perspectives tended to focusthe
problems
under
investigation
ofmight
engagement
more
on systemic
or curricular
barriers (lack
that UDL
address,
and limited
opportunities
todeficits
learnininlearning
large ascribed
lecture)to
rather
than attempting
to overcome
are environmental
and curricular;
the authors
disability.
Two studies looked
at student perspectives
on do not
situate problems
students.
instruction
before and within
after a UDL
intervention with members of
In
general,
research
examined
student
perthe faculty (Davies et al., 2013; that
Schelly
et al., 2011).
Researchers
spectives
to focus more
on systemic
or cursaw
a shift intended
student perceptions
about how
their instructors
ricularinformation
barriers and
thatattempted
UDL might
address,
ratherthem.
than
shared
to engage
and assess
attempting
to overcome
deficits
learning
ascribed
These
researchers
attempted to
measureinUDL
effectiveness
to disability.
at student
through
students’Two
eyes studies
and offer looked
an interesting
glimpseperspecinto the
perceived
impactbefore
of evenand
a small
amount
(semester’s
tives on positive
instruction
after
a UDL
intervenworth)
of faculty
professional
on(Davies
student outcomes.
tion with
members
of thelearning
faculty
et al., 2013;
Several
in this Researchers
subgroup took up
theawork
Schellypublications
et al., 2011).
saw
shiftof in stuconnecting
UDL with student
empowerment,
dent perceptions
about wellness,
how their
instructorsand
shared
identity
development
in
college
classes.
Nielsen
(2013)
examined
information and attempted to engage and assess
how
UDLThese
might be
integrated into
a composition
course forUDL
them.
researchers
attempted
to measure
first-year
college
students
to
foster
positive
identity
development
effectiveness through students’ eyes and offer
an in(knowing
as a learner)
engagement.
The author
terestingoneself
glimpse
into theandperceived
positive
impact
focused
on highlighting
UDL as aworth)
useful framework
of evenspecifically
a small amount
(semester’s
of faculty
for
design
for
all
students,
not
only
those
who
might struggle in a
professional learning on student outcomes.
composition
course.
This piece highlights
instructors
can up
Several
publications
in this how
subgroup
took
proactively
address
variability
in
the
classroom,
an
approach
the work of connecting UDL with student wellness,
consistent with the principles of UDL. In addition, student
empowerment, and identity development in college
empowerment was highlighted across content areas in one study
classes. Nielsen (2013) examined how UDL might be
exploring UDL as a means to minimize the barrier of student
integrated into a composition course for first-year colstress, and foster an inclusive climate (Miller & Lang, 2016), and
lege students to foster positive identity development
another to increase student-centered learning and engagement
(knowing oneself as a learner) and engagement. The
author focused specifically on highlighting UDL as a
useful framework for design for all students, not only
those who might struggle in a composition course.
This piece highlights how instructors can proactively address variability in the classroom, an approach
consistent with the principles of UDL. In addition,
student empowerment was highlighted across content areas in one study exploring UDL as a means to
minimize the barrier of student stress, and foster an
inclusive climate (Miller & Lang, 2016), and another
to increase student-centered learning and engagement
188 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
(Kumar,
2011).
Again,
this is approached
by proactiveby
design
(Kumar,
2011).
Again,
this is approached
proacand
training,
not only training,
in pedagogy,
in identifying
and
tivefaculty
design
and faculty
notbut
only
in pedagogy,
removing
barriers
to
learning
(Meyer
et
al.,
2014).
Because
UDL
but in identifying and removing barriers to learning
is(Meyer
defined as
a
pedagogical
framework,
it
is
increasingly
being
et al., 2014).
used Because
in teacher education
programs,asboth
to prepare teachers
for
UDL is defined
a pedagogical
framediverse
classrooms,
and
as
a
set
of
promising
instructional
work, it is increasingly being used in teacher educapractice (Pearson, 2015). Studies focused on the use and
tion programs, both to prepare teachers for diverse
introduction of UDL in teacher education also highlighted its use
classrooms, and as a set of promising instructional
in online or hybrid course formats. While the use of faculty
practice (Pearson, 2015). Studies focused on the use
modeling as a way to introduce UDL was employed in one study
and introduction of UDL in teacher education also
(Evans et al., 2010), the focus of these pieces tended to be on
highlighted its use in online or hybrid course formats.
how well preservice teachers understood UDL after not only
While
the use of faculty modeling as a way to introlearning about it, but participating in UDL-designed courses
duce
UDL
was employed in one study (Evans et al.,
(Evmenova, 2018; Scott et al., 2015). While results indicate that
2010),
the
focus
of these pieces tended to be on how
preservice teachers were generally able to recognize and apply
well preservice teachers understood UDL after not
UDL principles, we must note two important points. First,
only
learning
about
it, tended
but participating
in special
UDL-departicipants
in these
studies
to be preservice
signed
courses
(Evmenova,
2018;
Scott
et
al.,
2015).
education teachers, highlighting again the connection between
While
results
indicate
that
preservice
teachers
were
UDL and special education. Second, we were unable to locate
generally
able tothe
recognize
UDL
princistudies
that explored
use of UDLand
with apply
preservice
teachers
in
ples,
we
must
note
two
important
points.
First,
particclinical placements, indicating a possible gap in research.
ipants in these
studies
tended
to be preservice
Investigating
UDL as
a vehicle
for improving
on- line or special
education
teachers,
highlighting
again
theaconnection
technology-enhanced postsecondary courses was
popular
between
UDL and
special
education.
topic
in this subgroup.
While
UDL neither
requires Second,
the use of we
were unable
to locate
that explored
the use of
technology
nor relies
solelystudies
on it to enhance
pedagogy,
UDL with preservice
in the
clinical
implementation
is certainly teachers
facilitated by
use ofplacements,
electronic
indicating
a possible
gap
inaccessible
research.educational
media,
assistive
technology,
and
materials
(Meyer et al.,
2014).
recent
emphasize
Investigating
UDL
asSeveral
a vehicle
forarticles
improving
onthese
between UDL and technology,
particularly ascourses
a tool
line links
or technology-enhanced
postsecondary
for
designing
engaging
courses
or communication
was
a popular
topiconline
in this
subgroup.
While UDL neiplatforms
(Basham
al., 2010;
Lohmann et al.,
ther requires
theet use
of technology
nor2018).
reliesOthers
solely
explored
increasing
accessibility
of
online
courses
(Scott
&
on it to enhance pedagogy, implementation is certainTemple,
2017) or by
tutorials
Hoover, 2015),
and de-assisly facilitated
the (Webb
use of& electronic
media,
creasing
attrition
in
these
courses
(Tobin,
2014).
Despite
the
tive technology, and accessible educational materials
prevalence
online
coursework,
barriers
within
them continue
to
(Meyer etof al.,
2014).
Several
recent
articles
emphaarise,
and
instructors
must
attend
to
the
preferences
of
students.
size these links between UDL and technology, particFor
example,
a case
by Rao and
Tannersonline
(2011) examined
ularly
as a tool
forstudy
designing
engaging
courses
not
only
the
design
of
courses
using
UDL
to
mitigate
these2010;
or communication platforms (Basham et al.,
problems,
butet
also
evaluated
elements
of UDLincreasing
design
Lohmann
al.,
2018).which
Others
explored
were perceived as most useful by students. The authors found
accessibility of online courses (Scott & Temple,
that interaction among students and instructors increased
2017) or tutorials (Webb & Hoover, 2015), and deengagement, and that providing options for expression of
creasing attrition in these courses (Tobin, 2014). Delearning also yielded positive perceptions. Rao and Tanner’s
spite the prevalence of online coursework, barriers
piece is an important one, as it highlights the fact that merely
within them continue to arise, and instructors must
using technology does not mean UDL is being employed
attend to the preferences of students. For example,
a case study by Rao and Tanners (2011) examined
not only the design of courses using UDL to mitigate
these problems, but also evaluated which elements
of UDL design were perceived as most useful by
students. The authors found that interaction among
students and instructors increased engagement, and
that providing options for expression of learning also
yielded positive perceptions. Rao and Tanner’s piece
is an important one, as it highlights the fact that merely using technology does not mean UDL is being em-
rather,
UDL
should UDL
be used
to intentionally
ployed;
rather,
should
be usedandtoproactively
intentionally
design
courses
that
facilitate
learning
for variability
in
and proactively design courses that
thatallows
facilitate
learning
expression,
representation,
and engagement.
On arepresentasomewhat
that allows
for variability
in expression,
larger
scale,
UDL
implementation
has
been
explored
at a
tion, and engagement.
macro-level, across academic departments. Several studies took
On a somewhat larger scale, UDL implementation
up the problematic nature of how disability is typically handled on
has been explored at a macro-level, across academic
campus – that it is a problem with which to deal. For ex- ample, a
departments. Several studies took up the problematic
study by Beck et al. (2014) looked at how a Disability Services
nature of how disability is typically handled on camoffice on a large college campus could align its offerings within a
pus – that it is a problem with which to deal. For exUDL framework. The authors found that the office, although
ample, a study by Beck et al. (2014) looked at how a
aimed at facilitating learning and accommodations for students
Disability Services office on a large college campus
with disabilities, in fact created a number of physical and modal
could align its offerings within a UDL framework. The
barriers through their practices. They urged not only a practical
authors found that the office, although aimed at facilichange, but a philosophical, reflective, and continuous
tating learning
andmodel,
accommodations
forfrom
students
with
consideration
of their
and ways to move
intervention
disabilities,
in factto created
number
physical
and
on
behalf of students
intentionala support
of of
faculty
and system
modal
barriers
through
their
practices.
They
urged
design. A study by Fovet et al. (2014), analyzed the outcomes of
notextended
only aeffort
practical
change,
but
philosophical,
an
to implement
UDL
on a
a college
campus. reflective,
and
continuous
consideration
of
their
Faculty indicated that the process included a number of model,
and ways
to move
fromconcerns,
intervention
onresources,
behalf and
of
stressors,
including
budgetary
depleted
students toabout
intentional
support
of faculty
andthe
system
assumptions
an increase
in workload.
However,
design. A found
studythat
byincreased
Fovet etcollaboration
al. (2014),among
analyzed
researchers
staff the
outcomes
of
an
extended
effort
to
implement
UDL
on
eased some of these stressors, and that faculty appreciated the
a college
campus.
Faculty An
indicated
thatof the
process
sense
of ownership
in redesign.
assessment
the College
included Transition,
a numberAccess
of stressors,
including
budgetary
Supporting
and Retention
program
(College
STAR)
founddepleted
similarly positive
resultsand
regarding
faculty and
staff
concerns,
resources,
assumptions
about
collaboration
(Hutson
& Downs,
2015).
These
an increaseandinownership
workload.
However,
the
researchers
pieces
the development
of a shift in
mindsetstaff
of teaching
foundsuggest
that increased
collaboration
among
eased
and
learning
in
higher
education,
toward
problematizing
some of these stressors, and that faculty appreciated
traditional
disability. Rather
than thinking
ways to
the senseviews
of of
ownership
in redesign.
An about
assessment
“deal
withCollege
disability,” Supporting
proactive approaches
to inclusive
design
are
of the
Transition,
Access
and
fostered
through
UDL
implementation
at
a
systemic
level.
Using
Retention program (College STAR) found similarly
UDL
to address
specific
problems
and actand
as astaff
“catalyst
for
positive
results
regarding
faculty
collaborachange”
was
referred
to
by
one
of
Moore
et
al.’s
participants
as a
tion and ownership (Hutson & Downs, 2015). These
“Trojan
horse”
(p.
42).
Trojan
horses
refer
to
specific
issues
that
pieces suggest the development of a shift in mindset
might
open theand
doorlearning
for UDL asina solution.
Such issues, toward
whether
of teaching
higher education,
systemic issues related to equity and inclusion, or more discrete
problematizing traditional views of disability. Rathpedagogical concerns of faculty (e.g., engagement), were evident
er than thinking about ways to “deal with disability,”
across this subgroup of literature. Whether employed as a
proactive approaches to inclusive design are fostered
macro-level administrative solution or only within a sole
through UDL implementation at a systemic level.
instructor’s classroom, these articles indicate the prevalence of
Using UDL to address specific problems and act
UDL as a potential way to address a range of challenges in
as
a
“catalyst for change” was referred to by one of
higher education settings. Moving Forward: UDL Buy-In. Several
Moore
et al.’s participants as a “Trojan horse” (p. 42).
publications focus on moving UDL implementation
Trojan horses refer to specific issues that might open
the door for UDL as a solution. Such issues, whether systemic issues related to equity and inclusion, or
more discrete pedagogical concerns of faculty (e.g.,
engagement), were evident across this subgroup of
literature. Whether employed as a macro-level administrative solution or only within a sole instructor’s
classroom, these articles indicate the prevalence of
UDL as a potential way to address a range of challenges in higher education settings.
Moving Forward: UDL Buy-In. Several publications focus on moving UDL implementation for-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 189
forward
in some
which
typically
involves some
type ofsome
ward in
someway,
way,
which
typically
involves
scaling
of UDL
implementation.
Moore and colleagues
(2018),
type of
scaling
of UDL implementation.
Moore
and
while
laying
out
suggestions
for
levels
and
processes
involved
in
colleagues (2018), while laying out suggestions for
scalability,
make
an
important
point
that
is
particularly
relevant
to
levels and processes involved in scalability, make an
articles
described
here:
“scaling
up
at
its
most
fundamental
level
important point that is particularly relevant to articles
may
be conceived
winning the
minds
of an
described
here:as“scaling
uphearts
at itsand
most
fundamental
ever-expanding group of individuals and providing the support
level may be conceived as winning the hearts and
structures necessary to sustain them” (p. 49). These publications
minds of an ever-expanding group of individuals and
recognize the necessity of some degree of philosophical buy-in
providing the support structures necessary to sustain
on the part of faculty, students, and other stakeholders to
them” (p. 49). These publications recognize the nerecognize learner variability as the norm. In other words,
cessity of some degree of philosophical buy-in on
because UDL is not a program, it cannot be treated like a
the part of faculty, students, and other stakeholders
checklist of strategies focused only on getting learners to access
to recognize learner variability as the norm. In other
the curriculum. While it is conceivable that one could “do UDL,”
words, because UDL is not a program, it cannot be
by implementing multiple means of engagement, representation,
treated like a checklist of strategies focused only on
and action of expression into classroom practice, this approach
getting
learners tothat
access
the curriculum.
While it is
lacks the intentionality
is characteristic
of UDL, the
conceivable
that
one
could
“do
UDL,”
by
implementconnection with an instructional goal, and the focus on student
ing multiple
meanscontext
of engagement,
variability
in a particular
(Lowrey et al., representation,
2017). Several
and action
of expression
classroom
practice,
this
studies
examined
how studentsinto
might
buy in to UDL,
as
approach
lacks
the
intentionality
that
is
characterisexperienced through participation in a course where it was
tic of UDL,bythe
connection
with
an instructional
goal,
implemented
faculty.
Kumar and
Wideman
(2014) examined
and
the
focus
on
student
variability
in
a
particular
implementation in a first-year undergraduate course, and student
context (Lowrey
et al.,positive.
2017).Students appreciated the
perceptions
were generally
Several
studies
howand
students
flexibility
in course
design examined
and assignments
felt that it might
buy in to toUDL,
as experienced
participation
contributed
their learning
and higher through
grades than
they would
in aotherwise
course had.
where
it was
implemented
faculty.
have
Faculty
reported
that taking theby
time
to
consider
means of presentation
gave them
an
Kumarmultiple
and Wideman
(2014) examined
implementaappreciation
for other ways
of learning that
would address
tion in a first-year
undergraduate
course,
and student
learner
variability.
Likewise,
Smith (2012)
found that
both faculty
perceptions
were
generally
positive.
Students
apand
studentsthe
reported
higher levels
of engagement
during
a
preciated
flexibility
in course
design and
assignUDL-framed
and the
relationship wastosomewhat
ments andcourse,
felt that
it contributed
their learning
reciprocal;
in
other
words,
higher
student
engagement
fostered
and higher grades than they
would
have otherwise
more
engagement
on
the
part
of
the
instructor
to
link
practice
had. Faculty reported that taking the time to conwith
multiple
meansmeans
of motivation.
Buy-in from both
faculty
andan
sider
multiple
of presentation
gave
them
students
may
suggest
opportunities
for
scaling
UDL
that
would
appreciation for other ways of learning that would
facilitate
within a program
or institution.
As noted
in
addresssustainability
learner variability.
Likewise,
Smith
(2012)
the
previous
section,
instructors
often
draw
on
UDL
in
designing
found that both faculty and students reported higher
online courses to increase both access and engagement. Two
levels of engagement during a UDL-framed course,
publications, while focused on design of such courses, employed
and the relationship was somewhat reciprocal; in
a UDL mindset not only as a means, but as a socially just end.
other words, higher student engagement fostered
This is an important shift. Rogers-Shaw et al. (2018) described
more engagement on the part of the instructor to link
their process of redesigning the syllabus, assessments, and
practice with multiple means of motivation. Buy-in
communication, and offering choices in their course for adult
from both faculty and students may suggest opporlearners that not only
tunities for scaling UDL that would facilitate sustainability within a program or institution.
As noted in the previous section, instructors often
draw on UDL in designing online courses to increase
both access and engagement. Two publications, while
focused on design of such courses, employed a UDL
mindset not only as a means, but as a socially just
end. This is an important shift. Rogers-Shaw et al.
(2018) described their process of redesigning the syllabus, assessments, and communication, and offering
choices in their course for adult learners that not only
increase
butbut
alsoalso
urged
them them
to reflect
on their own
increaseaccess,
access,
urged
to reflect
on their
assumptions
as they applied
UDL principles.
Likewise,
Morra and
own assumptions
as they
applied UDL
principles.
Reynolds
(2010)
acknowledged
similar(2010)
shifts in acknowledged
their design of
Likewise,
Morra
and Reynolds
technology-enhanced
courses,
noting
that
practical
shifts must
similar shifts in their design of technology-enhanced
be
accompanied
by
philosophical
changes
in
beliefs
courses, noting that practical shifts must be about
accompalearning.
then, they argue,
will UDL
facilitate
inclusion
nied byOnly
philosophical
changes
in truly
beliefs
about
learnof students who have traditionally been marginalized on college
ing. Only then, they argue, will UDL truly facilitate
campuses. This subgroup of literature suggests that UDL is
inclusion of students who have traditionally been
being operationalized in a variety of ways, in response to a range
marginalized on college campuses.
of challenges, and is doing so with varying degrees of support
This subgroup of literature suggests that UDL
across postsecondary settings. While findings of this group of
is being operationalized in a variety of ways, in reliterature reflect a spectrum of reasons for implementing UDL, it
sponse
to a range of challenges, and is doing so with
is important to highlight the presence of the common thread also
varying
degrees of support across postsecondary setnoted by Moore and colleagues (2018): human buy-in – from
tings.
While
findings of this group of literature reflect
faculty, students, and stake- holders across the system – will
a spectrum of reasons for implementing UDL, it is
ultimately determine not only the scale of implementation, but its
important
to highlight the presence of the common
success and sustainability.
thread also noted by Moore and colleagues (2018):
human buy-in – from faculty, students, and stakeholders across the system – will ultimately determine
not only the scale of implementation, but its success
and sustainability.
Conceptualizing UDL
Our second
researchresearch
question sought
to understand
in
Our second
question
sought the
to ways
underwhich
researchers
in higher
education
standfaculty
the and
ways
in which
faculty
and conceptualize
researchers
UDL.
This subgroup of literature
includes conceptual,
in higher
education
conceptualize
UDL. This subdescriptive,
and
empirical
pieces.
Overall,
across
articles,
group of literature includes conceptual,these
descriptive,
researchers
conceptualize
UDL
as
a
framework
for
inclusive
and empirical pieces. Overall, across these articles,
pedagogy
or instructional
design, UDL
often leveraging
technological
researchers
conceptualize
as a framework
for
innovations
meet the needs
a diverse student
population,
inclusive topedagogy
or of
instructional
design,
often
including
those technological
with labeled disabilities.
Several publications
leveraging
innovations
to meet the
examined
philosophical
underpinnings
of
UDL, either including
to disrupt
needs of a diverse student population,
the
discourse
of
normalcy
that
tends
to
undergird
instructional
those with labeled disabilities.
and pedagogical
practices in higher
education
(Liasidou, 2014)
Several publications
examined
philosophical
un-or
to conceptualize how the framework might address issues of
derpinnings of UDL, either to disrupt the discourse
inequity or exclusion in higher education. While issues of
of normalcy that tends to undergird instructional and
pedagogy, design, and equity were incorporated into studies
pedagogical practices in higher education (Liasidou,
addressed by the first research question, these pieces are
2014) or to conceptualize how the framework might
distinct in that they are not focused on practical implementation of
address issues of inequity or exclusion in higher edUDL. Rather, publications in this group focus on either faculty or
ucation.
While issues of pedagogy, design, and eqstudent perceptions and understanding of UDL in postsecondary
uity
were
incorporated into studies addressed by the
settings. Some of this work appears to be situated within a critical
first
research
question, these pieces are distinct in that
or social model of disability. The social model was
they are not focused on practical implementation of
conceptualized by Oliver (2013) as an alternative to the dominant
UDL. model,
Rather,which
publications
in this
focusdeficit.
on eimedical
defines disability
as group
an individual
ther
faculty
or
student
perceptions
and
understanding
Social models situate the dominant view of disability as one
of UDL
settings.
created
by in
thepostsecondary
economic and social
forces that render certain
of as
this
work and
appears
to be situated
within a
typesSome
of bodies
deficient
subsequently
less
critical or social model of disability. The social model
was conceptualized by Oliver (2013) as an alternative to the dominant medical model, which defines
disability as an individual deficit. Social models situate the dominant view of disability as one created
by the economic and social forces that render certain
types of bodies as deficient and subsequently less de-
190 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
students
doesdoes
not gonot
far enough
support to
them.
These
desirable
(Baglieri, 2019).
Versions
of the of
social
disabled
students
go far toenough
support
sirable (Baglieri,
2019).
Versions
themodel
socialhave
model disabled
positive
perceptions
of UDL may
require a
been
by educational
scholars whoscholars
have problematized
them. suggest
These that
studies
suggest
that positive
perceptions
haveexplored
been explored
by educational
who have studies
shift
in
mindset
in
order
to
facilitate
buy-in
and
sustainability.
the
narrow
understanding
of
individual
disability
in
educational
problematized the narrow understanding of individu- of UDL may require a shift in mindset in orderInto
words, buy-in
negative and
viewssustainability.
toward students with
disabilities
or
settings
and attempted
to deepen settings
the impactand
of reframing
facilitate
In other
words,
al disability
in educational
attempted to other
those
requiring
accommodations
can
act
as
a
barrier
for
teaching
and
learning
within
a
more
social
framework
(Baglieri,
deepen the impact of reframing teaching and learn- negative views toward students with disabilities or
successful
implementation
of UDL. As with
literature
2019;
Linton, 1998).
That
said, viewing
disability
solely as 2019;
a
ing within
a more
social
framework
(Baglieri,
those requiring
accommodations
can
act asona barrier
operationalizing UDL, these attitudes tend be a key component of
social phenomenon, and denying the experiences of disabled
Linton, 1998). That said, viewing disability solely as for successful implementation of UDL. As with literUDL as a positive force in higher education. The
individuals is also problematic; Some researchers have
a social phenomenon, and denying the experiences conceptualizing
ature on operationalizing
UDL, these attitudes tend
suggested that UDL must be careful to acknowledge the reality of remaining pieces we will discuss focused on the “why” behind
of disabled individuals is also problematic; Some re- be a key component of conceptualizing UDL as a
disability and the disablement process, without erasing disability UDL. These pieces, while conceptualizing UDL as a broad
searchers have suggested that UDL must be careful to positive force in higher education.
solution to poor learning outcomes in higher education, make the
as a positive element of identity (Dolmage, 2015). The role of
acknowledge the reality of disability and the disableThe remaining pieces we will discuss focused
case for embracing UDL in a variety of ways. While several of
support services for students with identified disabilities
ment
process,
without
erasing
disability
as
a
positive
on
the
“why” behind UDL. These pieces, while conthese focused on facets of instructional design (Vininsky & Saxe,
complicates execution of a social model, as several of these
element
of
identity
(Dolmage,
2015).
ceptualizing
UDL as a broad solution to poor learn2016; Williams et al., 2013) and neuroscience (Schreiner et al.,
pieces explore. Liasidou (2014), for example argues that such
The
role
of
support
services
for
students
with
idening
outcomes
in higher education, make the case for
services, which often serve to ensure that students are receiving 2013), others emphasized student learning as the conceptual
tified disabilities complicates execution of a social focus
embracing
UDL in a variety of ways. While severof UDL. One of the earliest publications was a conceptual
reasonable accommodations serve to further marginalize and
model,
as
several
of
these
pieces
explore.
Liasidou
al
of
these
focused
on afacets
design
piece that essentially
offered
primerof
forinstructional
faculty on how to
stigmatize disabled students. Accommodations often involve
(2014),
for
example
argues
that
such
services,
which
(Vininsky
&
Saxe,
2016;
Williams
et
al.,
2013)
and
retrofitting assignments or assessment, and do not consider the incorporate UDL into assessment (Ofiesh et al., 2006).
often
serve
to
ensure
that
students
are
receiving
reaneuroscience
(Schreiner
et
al.,
2013),
others
emexperience of the disabled individual at the outset. This function, Suggestions included backward design, so that instructors
sonable
accommodations
serve
to further
marginalize
phasized
learning
theintended
conceptual
focus
theystudent
were teaching
whatas
they
to assess,
andof
a
she
argues,
upholds the discourse
of normalcy
requiring
students ensured
and
stigmatize
disabled
students.
Accommodations
UDL.
One
of
the
earliest
publications
was
a
conceplist
of
ways
to
make
assessments
themselves
accessible
through
to self-disclose potentially stigmatizing information that
often involve
retrofitting
assignments
assessment,
tual piece
essentially
a primer
faculty
visual
design that
of images
and text,offered
clear language,
andfor
layout.
In
perpetuates
the myth
of disability
as a deficit in or
need
of
and
do
not
consider
the
experience
of
the
disabled
on
how
to
incorporate
UDL
into
assessment
(Ofiesh
addition, this piece, along with a seminal piece by CAST
remediation so that one can become normal. This finding was
individual
at and
the Mole
outset.
This
function,
she
argues,
et al., 2006).
included
backward
design,
DavidSuggestions
Rose and colleagues,
focuses
on student
echoed
by Fovet
(2013),
whose
qualitative
study
found co-founder
upholds
the discourse
of normalcy
requiring
so that(Rose
instructors
ensured
were teaching
what
learning
et al., 2006).
Thesethey
publications
get at the crux
of
that
UDL offered
faculty a common
language
with whichstudents
to
to self-disclose
potentially
stigmatizing
information
theyUDL
intended
to assess,
list of ways to make
aswhy
is markedly
differentand
fromaaccommodations:
UDL theory
approach
a diverse student
body, not
solely as a vehicle
for
that perpetuates
the myth of disability
as a deficit
sessments
themselves
accessible
a more
transformative
approach through
to creatingvisual deservice
delivery or accommodations
related to disability.
Thus, in proposes
instructional
environments
that promote
learning, over
these
offer a model
for conceptualizing
UDL normal.
beyond
needtwo
of pieces
remediation
so that
one can become
sign of images
and text,
clear language,
and layout.
traditionally
associated
with piece by
Disability
Services
or even
in response
to a and
“problem,”
This finding
was
echoed
by Fovet
Moleand
(2013), individualistic
In addition,approaches
this piece,
along with
a seminal
of disability. David
Furthermore,
update
of Rose andfoinstead
it as astudy
way tofound
transform
higher
education
a remediation
whoseconsider
qualitative
that
UDL
offeredinto
facCAST co-founder
Roseanand
colleagues,
2008)
piece published
in 2015
highlights
the
more
and equitable
space.
studies
attempted to
ulty inclusive
a common
language
withSeveral
which
to approach
a colleagues’
cuses on (2006,
student
learning
(Rose et
al., 2006).
These
changes
made
not
only
to
course
designs,
but
to
UDL
theory
at
understand
perceptions
of
UDL,
and
beliefs
about
disability
or
diverse student body, not solely as a vehicle for ser- publications get at the crux of why UDL is markedlarge
(Gravel
et
al.,
2015).
The
iterative
nature
of
UDL
suggests
related
accommodations.
For
example,
Black
et
al.
(2014)
vice delivery or accommodations related to disability. ly different from accommodations: UDL theory proneither
implementation
nor conceptualization
is a
identified
teaching
practices
UDLfor
at aconceptuuniversity, that
poses
a more
transformative
approachoftoUDL
creating
Thus, these
two
piecesconsistent
offer a with
model
event, but rather
a process of continuing
reflection
and
and
also explored
faculty attitudes
toward
students with
instructional
environments
that promote
learning,
alizing
UDL beyond
Disability
Services
or even in static
refinement
as
the
landscape
of
postsecondary
education
disabilities.
They
found
that
faculty
with
limited
or
some
training
response to a “problem,” and instead consider it as a over individualistic approaches traditionally associto develop
and change.
inway
UDLto
had
no significant
effecteducation
on the frequency
incorporating
ated with
remediation
of disability. Furthermore, an
transform
higher
into aofmore
inclu- continues
UDL
principles,
but
those
with
more
experience
tended
to
update of Rose and colleagues’ (2006, 2008) piece
sive and equitable space.
incorporate
UDLstudies
more consistently.
exploring student
Several
attemptedStudies
to understand
percep- published in 2015 highlights the changes made not
perceptions had slightly different findings. While a study from
tions of UDL, and beliefs about disability or related only to course d esigns, but to UDL theory at large
Belgium indicated that consistent application of UDL may actually
accommodations. For example, Black et al. (2014) (Gravel et al., 2015). The iterative nature of UDL
create barriers for students without disabilities (Griful-Freixenet et
identified teaching practices consistent with UDL at a suggests that neither implementation nor conceptual., 2017), a study by Black et al. (2015) highlight- ed UDL’s
university, and also explored faculty attitudes toward alization of UDL is a static event, but rather a proapplicability for a variety of students, emphasizing that simply
students with disabilities. They found that faculty cess of continuing reflection and refinement as the
adding accommodations for
with limited or some training in UDL had no signif- landscape of postsecondary education continues to
icant effect on the frequency of incorporating UDL develop and change.
principles, but those with more experience tended to
incorporate UDL more consistently. Studies explorDiscussion
ing student perceptions had slightly different findings.
includedincluded
here represent
diverse field
of research
on
While a study from Belgium indicated that consis- The pieces
The pieces
here arepresent
a diverse
field
of UDL
higher
tent application of UDL may actually create barriers the
of implementation
research on and
the conceptualization
implementation
and inconceptualeducation.
UDL’s
iterative
nature
suggests
a
willingness
on the
for students without disabilities (Griful-Freixenet et ization of UDL in higher education. UDL’s iterative
part
of
those
who
take
it
up
to
create
and
sustain
inclusive
al., 2017), a study by Black et al. (2015) highlight- nature suggests a willingness on the part of those who
andcreate
in someand
casessustain
to acknowledge
established
ed UDL’s applicability for a variety of students, em- environments,
take it up to
inclusive
environphasizing that simply adding accommodations for ments, and in some cases to acknowledge established
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 191
norms
ability
and access
within higher
education.
many
normsof of
ability
and access
within
higher While
education.
cases
be made
forcan
the employment
of the
UDL,employment
either as a of
Whilecanmany
cases
be made for
response
to challenges
or as anto
end
in and of itself,
UDL, either
as a response
challenges
or astheanliterature
end in
discussed
here
suggests
that
UDL
is
interpreted
many as that
a
and of itself, the literature discussed herebysuggests
framework
and
by
others
as
an
intervention.
In
addition,
its
use
UDL is interpreted by many as a framework and by
as
a wayas
to facilitate
inclusive pedagogy
and disrupt
others
an intervention.
In addition,
its usetheas a way
normative center of education, while evident in theory (e.g.,
to facilitate inclusive pedagogy and disrupt the normaBaglieri, Valle et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2014), has yet to be
tive center of education, while evident in theory (e.g.,
consistently explored in UDL literature.
UDL
provides
the opportunity
to foreground
disability in designing
UDL
provides
the opportunity
to foreground
disabilcurriculum
and pedagogy.
In other words,
UDL can compel
ity in designing
curriculum
and pedagogy.
In other
faculty
to consider
a “systematic
negotiation
needs across
any
words,
UDL can
compel faculty
to ofconsider
a “sysassembly
of
student
differences”
as
they
design
their
courses
tematic negotiation of needs across any assembly of
and
instructional
materialsas
(Mitchell
et al., 2014,
309).
student
differences”
they design
theirp. courses
and
Unpacking
the
history
of
Universal
Design
in
higher
education,
instructional materials (Mitchell et al., 2014,
p. 309).
Dolmage (2017) also emphasized this active part of UDL: the
Unpacking the history of Universal Design in higher
design process.
education, Dolmage (2017) also emphasized this acBaglieri, Valle et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2014), has yet tive part of UDL: the design process.
to be consistently explored in UDL literature.
This
dimension
suggests
that UDthat
is a way
to
Thisactive
active
dimension
suggests
UDtoisplan,
a way
foresee,
to
imagine
the
future.
The
"Universal"
of
UD
also
UDL: Intervention or Framework?
to plan, to foresee, to imagine the future. The
suggests
that disability
something
that that
is always
a part ofis
In many
across the two
subgroups
of literature
UDLof
Inpublications
many publications
across
the two
subgroups
"Universal"
of UDisalso
suggests
disability
our
worldview.that
Thus,
UD a
is part
successful,
is hopeful
was
depicted UDL
as a response
to a particular
problem ortoline
of
literature
was depicted
as a response
a particsomething
iswhen
always
of ourit worldview.
and
realistic
– allowing
teachers to structure
space and
inquiry.
Recognizing
in some
cases such
an approachthat
may in
ular problem
orthat
line
of inquiry.
Recognizing
Thus,
when
UD is successful,
it is hopeful
and repedagogy
in
the
broadest
possible
manner,
Universal
result
in
wider
buyin
from
faculty
and
administration,
or
a
more
some cases such an approach may result in wider buyalistic – allowing teachers to structure space and
Design
is not in
about
it ispossible
about building
– building
cohesive
agenda
for change
(Moore et al., 2018),
in from
faculty
and administration,
or apotential
more cohepedagogy
thebuildings,
broadest
manner,
Unicommunity,
building
better
pedagogy,
building
opportunities
drawbacks
also exist.
UDL’s use
as an intervention
to ameliorate
sive agenda
for change
(Moore
et al., 2018),
potentiala
versal Design is not about buildings, it is about
for agency. It is a way to move. (p. 118)
problem
may further
productive
of UDL,
as
drawbacks
alsocomplicate
exist. UDL’s
use use
as an
intervention
building – building community, building better
interventions
are traditionally
done
to students
instructors, proor to
to ameliorate
a problem
may
further by
complicate
pedagogy, building opportunities for agency. It is
curriculum
faculty;
the emphasis
remains onare
the traditionally
teacher rather
ductive by
use
of UDL,
as interventions
a way to move. (p. 118)
than
the learner,
which by
getsinstructors,
away from theor
purpose
and aims ofby
done
to students
to curriculum
UDL.
Another
possible
drawback
of framing
in response
to Conceptualizing UDL as a response to problems caused by the
faculty;
the
emphasis
remains
on studies
the teacher
rather
Conceptualizing UDL as a response to problems
the problem of struggling students with disabilities, is that the
students isof
inherently
it focuses
only
than the learner, which gets away from the purpose presence
caused of
bycertain
the presence
certainlimiting;
students
is inhernotion that there is some internal deficit in the students that UDL
particular
groups
students.
The on
promise
of UDL groups
in higherof
and aims of UDL. Another possible drawback of on
ently
limiting;
it offocuses
only
particular
can fix is perpetuated; issues of design are neglected. This
is
in
its
possibility;
the
process
allows
us
to
imagine
framing studies in response to the problem of strug- education
students. The promise of UDL in higher education not
is
concern was echoed by CAST researchers in 2015. Revisiting
only
making
access universal,
but learning
as
well.
Positioning
gling students with disabilities, is that the notion that in its
possibility;
the
process
allows
us
to
imagine
not
Rose et al.’s (2006) work specific to UDL in higher education,
a process-based
framework rather
than an intervention
there is some internal deficit in the students that UDL UDL
onlyasmaking
access universal,
but learning
as well.
Gravel and colleagues (2015) recognized that the previous piece
allows
us
to
acknowledge
disabling
environments
and center the
can
fix
is
perpetuated;
issues
of
design
are
neglected.
Positioning
UDL
as
a
process-based
framework
had still situated problems with learning partially in the learn- er
experiences of students with disabilities in our design.
This concern was echoed by CAST researchers lived
rather
than an intervention allows us to acknowledge
and partially in the environment; they amended this view in their
Furthermore,
IHEs can incorporate variation not only in perceived
in
2015.
Revisiting
Rose
et
al.’s
(2006)
work
specific
disabling
environments
and center the lived expericonclusion. Stating their discomfort with emphasizing problems
ability, but in language, race, gender, etc., without assuming the
to
UDL
in
higher
education,
Gravel
and
colleagues
ences
of
students
with
disabilities
in our design. Furwithin individuals, Gravel et al. asserted that “It is our learning
default position of a heteronormative, able-bodied individual as
(2015)
recognized
that
the
previous
piece
had
still
thermore,
IHEs
can
incorporate
variation
only in
environments, first and foremost, that are disabled. Addressing the the standard toward which a UDL intervention couldnot
remediate
situated
problems
with
learning
partially
in
the
learnperceived ability, but in language, race, gender, etc.,
disabilities in the learning environment…will make courses that are students.
er and
partially
in the
amended without assuming the default position of a heteronorbetter
not just
for students
with environment;
disabilities, but forthey
all students”(p.
this
view
inframing
their disability
conclusion.
Stating
their
mative, able-bodied individual as the standard toward
99).
This
shift in
suggests
a move
awaydiscomfrom a
fort
with
emphasizing
problems
within
individuals,
which
a UDL intervention could remediate students.
deficit-based perspective and illustrates the continually evolving
Gravel
et
al.
asserted
that
“It
is
our
learning
environunderstandings of UDL. We agree with Gravel et al. and others
ments,
first&and
thatthat
areUDL
disabled.
Address- Disrupting the Discourse of Normalcy
(e.g.,
Waitoller
Kingforemost,
Thorius, 2016)
theory and
ing thecan
disabilities
learning
environment…will
Publications
in both
the operationalizing
and conresearch
and should in
do the
more
to challenge
existing notions of
Publications
in both the
operationalizing
and conceptualizing
make
areeducational
better notcontexts.
just for We
students
with strands
ceptualizing
addressshift
theraised
philosophical
ability
andcourses
normalcythat
across
highlight
address strands
the philosophical
by Moore andshift
disabilities,
but chapter
for allhere
students”(p.
99). This
Gravel
et al.’s (2015)
because it focuses
on the shift colleagues
(2018) that
winning
the hearts
and minds
raised by Moore
andmentioned
colleagues
(2018)
that mentioned
in framing
disabilityand
suggests
a moveUDL.
away
from a of
process
of conceptualizing
operationalizing
Furthermore,
faculty. Implementation
an institution
cannot
be a
winning
the hearts andwithin
minds
of faculty.
Implementawedeficit-based
concur with scholars
Disability and
Studies
in Education
perspective
illustrates
the(Dolmage,
contin- practical
project
and in order
to be
will require
tion within
analone,
institution
cannot
beeffective
a practical
project
2017;
Mitchell
et al., 2014)
who argue thatof UDL. We agree some
ability,
disability,
andrequire
variability.
ually
evolving
understandings
alone,reconceptualization
and in order toofbe
effective
will
some
concepts,
it
seems,
are
murkier
in
higher
education
than
with Gravel et al. and others (e.g., Waitoller & King These
reconceptualization of ability, disability, and variabilin
K-12,
where
notions
of
ability
and
disability
are
highly
normed
Thorius, 2016) that UDL theory and research can and ity. These concepts, it seems, are murkier in highregulated (for
better
worse)where
and often
discussed
a
should do more to challenge existing notions of abili- and
er education
than
inorK-12,
notions
of as
ability
result
of special education.
Still,normed
winning hearts
and minds does
ty and normalcy across educational contexts.
and disability
are highly
and regulated
(for
seem
to
go
far
enough
to
yield
a
philosophical
shift
that
We highlight Gravel et al.’s (2015) chapter here not
better or worse) and often discussed as a result of
truly
disrupt a discourse of normalcy and result in
because it focuses on the process of conceptualizing would
special
education.
and operationalizing UDL. Furthermore, we concur
Still, winning hearts and minds does not seem to
with scholars Disability Studies in Education (Dol- go far enough to yield a philosophical shift that would
mage, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2014) who argue that truly disrupt a discourse of normalcy and result in in-
192 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
well
asas
a need
to examine
outcomes
of UDL, focusing
solely
on
inclusive
ForFor
example,
Beck Beck
and colleagues
(2014)
well
a need
to examine
outcomes
of UDL,
focusclusivepedagogy.
pedagogy.
example,
and colleagues
the
effects
of
UDL
as
an
intervention
compromise
its
intention
as
considered
that, as faculty
areas
in positions
of power
within IHEs,
(2014) considered
that,
faculty are
in positions
of ing solely on the effects of UDL as an intervention
framework. Because
UDL theory
consistent with elements of
attending
to their re-conceptualizations
who isre-conceptualnormal and able acompromise
its intention
as ais framework.
power within
IHEs, attending tooftheir
the social
model
of
disability,
further
empirical
search
linking
isizations
critical; normalizing
discourse
is
easily
internalized
by
both
Because UDL theory is consistentre-with
elements
of who is normal and able is critical; normalthe fields of disability studies and UDL in higher education is
faculty
and
students.
As
a
result,
critical
elements
need
to
be
izing discourse is easily internalized by both faculty of the social model of disability, further empirical reThe prevalence of ability as the central axis of
embedded
into theAs
process
of UDLcritical
adoptionelements
(Liasidou, 2014).
search linking
the fields of disability studies and UDL
and students.
a result,
need to warranted.
Some scholars have suggested that UDL must actively dismantle teaching and learning within postsecondary settings must be
be embedded into the process of UDL adoption (Li- in higher education is warranted. The prevalence
ability-centric practices that permeate formal education (Waitoller critically examined and disrupted, and UDL offers a practical
asidou, 2014). Some scholars have suggested that of ability as the central axis of teaching and learn& King Thorius, 2016). In higher education, such practices are so approach for taking up this work. Furthermore, the perspectives
UDL must actively dismantle ability-centric practic- ing within postsecondary settings must be critically
of scholars and students with disabilities need greater
deeply ingrained into institutions based on perceived levels of
es that permeate formal education (Waitoller & King representation
examined and
disrupted, and UDL offers a practical
in order to understand how and if UDL can
ability that it is taken-for-granted as normal. Instead of simply
Thorius, 2016). In higher education, such practices approach for taking up this work. Furthermore, the
trying to remove barriers to learning for certain students (such as operate as a framework that acknowledges disability as an
are so deeply ingrained into institutions based on per- perspectives of scholars and students with disabilithose with disabilities), the existence of the barriers must first be agentive and positive aspect of identity (Dolmage, 2015). In
ceived
levels of ability that it is taken-for-granted as addition,
ties need
greater representation in order to understand
the research presented here suggests room for growth
questioned, and the sources of their existence identified
normal.
Instead
of
simply
trying
to
remove
barriers
how
and
if UDL can operate as a framework that ac(Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016). There is limited evidence from in the scope of UDL practice. Much of the work has been done
to learning for certain students (such as those with within
knowledges
disability
as of
aneducation
agentiveatand
positive asdepartments
or colleges
the postsecondary
articles in this review that UDL in higher education is being
disabilities),
the
existence
of
the
barriers
must
first
be
pect
of
identity
(Dolmage,
2015).
level. This is unsurprising, given that faculty in education likely
conceptualized as an avenue for inclusive pedagogy that
questioned,
and the
sources
of theirabilities
existence
identi- have In
addition,
the with
research
presented
here sugthe most
experience
both pedagogy
and student
considers
educating
students
with diverse
as a justifiable
fied
(Waitoller
&
King
Thorius,
2016).
gests
room
for
growth
in
the
scope
of
UDL
practice.
variability. That said, there is a great opportunity for UDL
end, student variability at the outset of course design, and
There
isasset.
limited
evidence
fromsurprising,
articlesasinUDL
this research
Much of
the work
has been
done those
within
departments
in other
disciplines,
particularly
which
may have
disability
as an
This is
not altogether
review
that
UDL
in
higher
education
is
being
conor
colleges
of
education
at
the
postsecondary
level.
historically
prioritized
content.
Lastly,
the
interpretation
of UDL
in
research in general is still at an emerging stage with regard to
ceptualized
as
an
avenue
for
inclusive
pedagogy
that
This
is
unsurprising,
given
that
faculty
in
education
higher
education
here
is
further
limited
by
instructional
methods
both K-12 teachers and university faculty. Yet the variety of UDL
considers
educating
students
diverse
likely
have theAnd
most
experience
with
both
pedagoenvironments.
yet learning
happens
in so
many
settings
research
illustrated
here suggests
thatwith
there is
growing abilities
interest in and
as a justifiable
student in
variability
at the
outset ingy
and education:
student variability.
That
said,
thereoperational
is a great
higher
in meetings, at
events,
through
transforming
accessend,
and pedagogy
postsecondary
settings,
of course
design,
disabilityofas
an asset.
This is systems.
opportunity
for UDL
research
in otherat adisciplines,
More research
needs
to be conducted
systems
and
in disrupting
limitedand
interpretations
inclusion
that rely
In other words,
might may
we go have
from simply
adopting prithe
not altogether
surprising,
as UDL
research
in gener- level.
particularly
thosehow
which
historically
solely
on accommodations.
It seems
appropriate
to consider
framework
to intentionally grounding our core beliefs in UDL
al isanstill
at anpedagogy
emerging
with
oritized
content.
regard
to both UDL
what
inclusive
mightstage
look like
within
courses,
theoryLastly,
and practice
- as instructors, programs,
programs,
and departments,
and howfaculty.
faculty might
on
the interpretation
of UDL department,
in higher and
eduK-12 teachers
and university
Yet draw
the variety
institutions?
UDL
should
not
be
limited
to
the
classroom,
its
elements
the UDL framework
to designsuggests
an intentional
methof UDLofresearch
illustrated
here
that there cation here is further limited by instructional and
is dependent onAnd
those yet
wholearning
embrace it,happens
extendingin
it
approach
that continues
with an ever-changing
ods and environments.
is growing
interest to
inevolve
transforming
access andstudent
ped- sustainability
broader
socialin
realm
to increase
inclusive
body,
andin
new
developments insettings,
research. and in disrupting into
so the
many
settings
higher
education:
in pedagogies
meetings, in
at
agogy
postsecondary
formalthrough
and informal
ways.
events,
operational
systems. More research
limited interpretations of inclusion that rely solely both
on accommodations. It seems appropriate to consider
what an inclusive pedagogy might look like within
courses, programs, and departments, and how faculty
might draw on elements of the UDL framework to design an intentional approach that continues to evolve
with an ever-changing student body, and new developments in research.
Implications
ThereThere
are several
importantimportant
implicationsimplications
here for furtherhere for
are several
research.
First,
because
UDL
has
been
clearly
defined
through
further research. First, because UDL has
been
clearwork
from
CAST,
researchers
drawing
on
CAST’s
framework
ly defined through work from CAST, researchers
should
take on
careCAST’s
to be consistent
in descriptions
UDL care to
drawing
framework
shouldoftake
concepts,
principles,
and
guidelines.
Such
consistency
would
be consistent in descriptions of UDL concepts,
prinserve
to
demonstrate
the
many
ways
UDL
might
be
used
across
ciples, and guidelines. Such consistency would serve
a number of different contexts, and further emphasize that UDL
to demonstrate the many ways UDL might be used
can be adapted to meet the needs of highly variable student
across a number of different contexts, and further empopulations. This means staying true to an emphasis on
phasize that UDL can be adapted to meet the needs of
variability and inclusiveness, rather than disability and
highly variable student populations. This means stayintervention. While, in the climate of accountability, there is a
ing true to an emphasis on variability and inclusivetemptation as
ness, rather than disability and intervention. While, in
the climate of accountability, there is a temptation as
needs to be conducted at a systems level. In other
words, how might we go from simply adopting the
UDL framework to intentionally grounding our core
beliefs in UDL theory and practice - as instructors,
programs, department, and institutions? UDL should
not be limited to the classroom, and its sustainability is dependent on those who embrace it, extending
it into the broader social realm to increase inclusive
pedagogies in both formal and informal ways.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 193
References
Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. 2016).
Universal design for learning (UDL): A content
analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from
2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of eaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56.
Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor,
D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re]claiming inclusive education. Teachers College Record, 113, 2122-2154.
Baglieri, S. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for creating
least restrictive attitudes. Routledge.
Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher,
D. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The
need for a plurality of perspectives on disability.
Remedial and Special Education, 32, 267-278.
Basham, J. D., Lowrey, K. A., & deNoyelles, A.
(2010). Computer mediated communication in
the universal design for learning framework for
preparation of special education teachers. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 25(2), 31–44.
Beck, T., Diaz del Castillo, P., Fovet, F., Mole, H.,
& Noga, B. (2014). Applying universal design to
disability service provision: Outcome analysis of
a universal design (UD) audit. Journal of Postsecondary Education And Disability, 27, 209-222.
Bernacchio, C., Ross, F., Washburn, K. R., Whitney, J.,
& Wood, D. R. (2007). Faculty collaboration to improve equity, access, and inclusion in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 56–66.
Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G.
(2014). Universal design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods
and attitudes related to students with disabilities
in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 24, 48-64.
Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G.
(2015). Universal design for learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in
higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 1-16.
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal
design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature
between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 21, 791–807.
CAST (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Cosier, M., & Ashby, C. E. (2016). Disability studies
and the “work” of educators. In M. Cosier, & C.
E. Ashby (Eds.), Enacting change from within:
Disability studies meets teaching and teacher education (pp. 1-20). Peter Lang.
Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013).
Measuring the effectiveness of universal design
for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 26, 195–220.
Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal
design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 5-16.
Dolmage, J. (2015). Universal design: Places to start.
Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2).
Dolmage, J. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and
higher education. University of Michigan Press.
Evans, C., Williams, J. B., King, L., & Metcalf, D.
(2010). Modeling, guided instruction, and application of UDL in a rural special education teacher preparation program. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 29(4), 41–48.
Evmenova, A. (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal design for learning to support diverse learners.
Journal of Online Learning Research, 4, 147–171.
Fovet, F., Jarrett, T., Mole, H., & Syncox, D. (2014).
Like fire to water: Building bridging collaborations
between disability service providers and course
instructors to create user friendly and resource efficient UDL implementation material. Collected
Essays on Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 68-75.
Fovet, F., & Mole, H. (2013). UDL--From disabilities office to mainstream class: How the tools of
a minority address the aspirations of the student
body at large. Collected Essays on Learning and
Teaching, 6, 121–126.
Gabel, S. L. (Ed.). (2005). Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method. Peter Lang.
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, 38, 111–121.
Gravel, J. W. (2017). A disciplined application of universal design for learning (UDL): Supporting
teachers to apply UDL in ways that promote disciplinary thinking in English language arts (ELA)
among diverse learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Gravel, J. W., Edwards, L. A., Buttimer, C. J., &
Rose, D. H. (2015). Universal design for learning
in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. In S. E. Burgstahler
(Ed.) Universal design in higher education: From
principles to practice (2nd ed.), (pp. 81-100).
Harvard Education Press.
194 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M.,
& Andries, C. (2017). Higher education students
with disabilities speaking out: perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for
learning framework. Disability & Society, 32,
1627-1649.
Heelan, A., Halligan, P., & Quirke, M. (2015). Universal design for learning and its application to
clinical placements in health science courses
(practice brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28, 469–479.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–32.
Hehir, T. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In D. T. Gordon, J. W. Gravel &
L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal
design for learning (pp. 35-45). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Hutson, B., & Downs, H. (2015). The college STAR
faculty learning community: Promoting learning
for all students through faculty collaboration.
Journal of Faculty Development, 29(1), 25-32.
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on universal design for learning.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21, 60-72.
Kumar, K. (2011). A learner-centered mock conference model for undergraduate teaching. Collected
Essays on Learning and Teaching, 420-24.
Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible
by design: Applying UDL principles in a first
year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 44, 125-147.
Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical disability studies and
socially just change in higher education. British
Journal of Special Education, 41, 120-135.
Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge
and identity. NYU Press.
Lohmann, M. J., Boothe, K. A., Hathcote, A. R., &
Turpin, A. (2018). Engaging graduate students
in the online learning environment: A universal
design for learning (UDL) approach to teacher
preparation. Networks: An Online Journal for
Teacher Research, 20(2).
Lowrey, K. A., Hollingshead, A., & Howery, K.
(2017). A closer look: Examining teachers' language around UDL, inclusive classrooms, and
intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 15-24.
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006).
Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and special education, 27, 166-175.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice.
CAST Professional Publishing.
Miller, D. K., & Lang, P. L. (2016). Using the universal design for learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress. Journal of
Chemical Education, 93, 1823-1828.
Mitchell, D., Snyder, S., & Ware, L. (2014). "[Every]
child left behind": Curricular cripistemologies
and the crip/queer art of failure. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8, 295-314.
Moore, E. J., Smith, F. G., Hollingshead, A., & Wojcik, B. (2018). Voices from the field: Implementing and scaling-up universal design for learning
in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 40-53.
Morra, T., & Reynolds, J. (2010). Universal design
for learning: Application for technology-enhanced learning. Inquiry, 15, 43-51.
Nielsen, D. (2013). Universal design in first-year
composition--Why do we need it, how can we do
it? CEA Forum, 42(2), 3-29.
Ofiesh, N. S., Rojas, C. M., & Ward, R. A. (2006).
Universal design and the assessment of student
learning in higher education: Promoting thoughtful assessment. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 173-181.
Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D.
(2017). Universal design for learning in pre-k to
grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25, 116–138.
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28, 1024-1026.
Pearson, M. (2015). Modeling universal design for
learning techniques to support multicultural education for pre-service secondary educators. Multicultural Education, 22(3/4), 27-34.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review
of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 153–166.
Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace: Universal instructional design for online
courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 24, 211-229.
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B.
(2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 24, 5-15.
Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J., & Choi, J.
(2018). Universal design for learning: Guidelines
for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning,
29, 20–31.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 195
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley,
S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design
for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles & and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
19, 135–151.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley,
S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2008). Universal design
for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles & and their application. In S.
Burgstahler & R. Cory (Eds.), Universal design
in higher education: From principles to practice
(pp. 45-59). Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every
student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schelly, C. L., Davies, P. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2011).
Student perceptions of faculty implementation of
universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 17-30.
Schreiner, M. B., Rothenberger, C. D., & Sholtz, A. J.
(2013). Using brain research to drive college teaching: Innovations in universal course design. Journal
on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(3), 29-50.
Scott, L., & Temple, P. (2017). A conceptual framework for building UDL in a special education
distance education course. Journal of Educators
Online, 14(1).
Scott, L. A., Temple, P., & Marshall, D. (2015). UDL
in online college coursework: Insights of infusion and educator preparedness. Online Learning,
19(5), 99-119.
Scott, L. A., Thoma, C. A., Puglia, L., Temple, P.,
& D'Aguilar, A. (2017). Implementing a UDL
framework: A study of current personnel preparation practices. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 55, 25-36.
Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a college course
that adheres to the universal design for learning
(UDL) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 31-61.
Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive
environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41-53.
Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention
with universal design for learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13–24
UDL on Campus. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.udloncampus.org.
Vininsky, H., & Saxe, A. (2016). The best of both
worlds: A proposal for hybrid teacher education.
McGill Journal of Education, 51, 1187-1196.
Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016).
Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an
inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability.
Harvard Educational Review, 86, 366-389.
Webb, K. K., & Hoover, J. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) in the academic library:
A methodology for mapping multiple means of
representation in library tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 76, 537–553.
Williams, J., Rice, R., Lauren, B., Morrison, S., Van
Winkle, K., & Elliott, T. (2013). Problem-based
universal design for learning in technical communication and rhetoric instruction. Journal of Problem
Based Learning in Higher Education, 1, 247-261.
About the Authors
Beth Beth
S. Fornauf
received areceived
B.A. from Villanova
and an
S. Fornauf
a B.A. University,
from VillanoM.Ed.
from
the
University
of
New
Hampshire.
She
recently
va University, and an M.Ed. from the University of
received
her Ph.D. in curriculum
and instruction/teacher
New Hampshire.
She recently
received her Ph.D. in
education
from
the
University
of
New
Hampshire
and is currently
curriculum and instruction/teacher
education
from
an
assistant
professor
of
special
education
at
Plymouth
State
the University of New Hampshire and is currently an
University.
teaching of
experience
working
as both an
assistant Her
professor
special includes
education
at Plymouth
elementary classroom teacher and special educator. In addition,
State University. Her teaching experience includes
she has worked in educator preparation as a doctoral research
working as both an elementary classroom teacher and
fellow and instructor. Her research interests include disability
special educator. In addition, she has worked in edstudies and Universal Design for Learning within the teacher
ucator preparation as a doctoral research fellow and
education curriculum. She can be reached by email at:
instructor. Her research interests include disability
[email protected].
studies and Universal Design for Learning within the
teacher education curriculum. She can be reached by
email at: [email protected].
Joy Dangora
Erickson received
her received
B.A. and M.S.
Joy Dangora
Erickson
herdegrees
B.A. inand
education
from
Purdue
University
and
her
Ph.D.
in
curriculum
M.S. degrees in education from Purdue University
and
(literacy
and language
concentration)
the
andinstruction
her Ph.D.
in curriculum
and
instructionfrom
(literacy
University
of
New
Hampshire.
Her
experience
includes
working
and language concentration) from the University of
as
an elementary
generalist
and reading includes
specialist for
a
New
Hampshire.
Her experience
working
as
combined
11
years.
Joy
is
currently
an
assistant
professor
of
an elementary generalist and reading specialist for a
education at Endicott College. Her research interests include
combined 11 years. Joy is currently an assistant proearly childhood reading motivation and engagement, early
fessor of education at Endicott College. Her research
childhood education for citizenship, and critical literacy. She can
interests include early childhood reading motivation
be reached by email at: [email protected].
and engagement, early childhood education for citizenship, and critical literacy. She can be reached by
email at: [email protected].
196 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
Table 1
Articles Exploring UDL in Postsecondary Education, Purpose, and Category, n=38
Publication
Ofiesh, Rojas, & Ward (2006)
Purpose
Category
Conceptualizing
To present recommendations from the field of
universal design as they apply to assessment of
students at the postsecondary level
Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley,
To clarify the differences between applying uni- Conceptualizing
& Abarbanell (2006)
versal design in built vs. learning environment
(both the theory and techniques), and to illustrate
the principles of UDL
Operationalizing
Bernachhio, Ross, Washburn,
To study process and results of engaging in a
Whitney, & Wood (2007)
critical friends group that models reflective practice in establishing and maintaining access and
inclusion in classes
Izzo, Murray, & Novak (2008)
The study and development of training materials Operationalizing
to improve the quality of postsecondary education for students with disabilities
Basham, Lowrey, & deNoyelles
To explore an instructional design that used UDL Operationalizing
(2010)
to proactively plan for computer-mediated communication as a means of student engagement,
representation, and expression through reflection
on key issues in special education
Operationalizing
Evans, Williams, King, & Metcalf To provide examples of how they integrate and
(2010)
model UDL in courses in assessment, classroom management, and instructional planning,
and how preservice teachers demonstrate their
knowledge of UDL in assignments with students
in K-12 settings.
Gradel & Edson (2010)
To identify beginning strategies and models for Operationalizing
implementation of UDL in higher education,
while also addressing challenges
Morra & Reynolds (2010)
To explore how UDL principles and options in- Operationalizing
fluence technology-enhanced (hybrid and online)
courses
Operationalizing
Kumar (2011)
To describe implementation of a mock conference model of instruction aligned with UDL and
learner centered instruction
Operationalizing
Rao & Tanners (2011)
To examine how guidelines of two UD models
can be considered during the instructional design
process and applied in an online course, and to
determine which elements of these models were
most valued by and useful to students enrolled in
the online course.
Schelly, Davies, & Spooner
To measure the effectiveness of instructor train- Operationalizing
(2011)
ing in UDL (as indicated by student perceptions)
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 197
Publication
Purpose
To examine the reflective practice of one faculty
member as she applied the UDL framework to
her graduate class
Davies, Schelly, & Spooner
To compare student survey data about an inter(2013)
vention group of instructors who received UDL
training to student survey data from a control
group of instructors who did not receive UDL
training. This study features a revised and expanded survey instrument
Fovet & Mole (2013)
To offer a “methodological snapshot” of an
IHE’s process of UDL implementation, and consider the outcomes observed beyond the parameters of disability services (incorporating observations from faculty, administrators and students)
Nielson (2013)
To analyze the process and complications of
incorporating UDL into a first-year composition
course to foster independent student identity
Schreiner, Rothenberger, &
To summarize research in neuroscience, cogniScholtz (2013)
tive psychology, and education as related to universal design and to provide ideas for improving
college teaching
Williams, Rice, Lauren, Morrison, To reimagine both pedagogical and physical
Van Winkle, & Elliott (2013)
space of the traditional classroom by linking
UDL and theories of problem-based learning
Beck, Diaz del Castillo, Fovet,
To explore the impact of UD implementation for
Mole, & Noga (2014)
Disability Service providers’ users
Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin
To determine if faculty were incorporating UDI/
(2014)
UDL into their instruction, and faculty attitudes
toward students with disabilities
Fovet, Jarrett, Mole, & Syncox
To highlight how implementation of UDL re(2014)
quires increased collaboration among staff,
including disability service providers, equity
and diversity services, and teaching and learning
support
Kumar & Wideman (2014)
To understand the impact of integrating UDL
principles into a postsecondary course
Liasidou (2014)
To highlight the ways a social justice discourse
needs to be incorporated into debates about
widening participation in higher education on the
grounds of disability. Emphasis on UDL as a vehicle for socially just change in higher education
Tobin (2014)
To offer strategies to create and convert courses
to online format to increase access and engagement
Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin
To evaluate perspectives of university students
(2015)
with disabilities on teaching methods that benefited their learning to evaluate whether these
align with UDL or UDI
Smith (2012)
Category
Operationalizing
Operationalizing
Conceptualizing
Operationalizing
Conceptualizing
Conceptualizing
Operationalizing
Conceptualizing
Operationalizing
Operationalizing
Conceptualizing
Operationalizing
Conceptualizing
198 Fornauf & Erickson; Inclusive Pedagogy
Publication
Purpose
Heelan, Halligan, & Quirke
(2015)
Scott, L. A., Temple, P., & Marshall, D. (2015)
To provide examples and potential for UDL in
Operationalizing
health sciences
Operationalizing
To examine perceptions of special education
teachers enrolled in online courses as to whether
courses were aligned with UDL principles, and
whether the course design improved the teachers’
preparation
To describe changes occur in use and knowledge Operationalizing
of UDL principles among the faculty who participate in faculty learning communities
Operationalizing
To examine effectiveness of a biology tutorial
available by research librarians, drawing on UDL
- for students w disabilities
To provide an introduction to some of the specif- Operationalizing
ic mental health issues that students may face in
a science lab context and to draw on UDL application in the lab to reduce student stress
To develop and propose an inclusive and acces- Conceptualizing
sible blended teacher education program guided
by the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
framework.
To address these pedagogical issues of large lec- Operationalizing
ture courses by creating a learning environment
that builds on the Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) principles with the goal of providing
diverse learners with options in representation,
engagement, and expression
Conceptualizing
To explore whether or not the needs of the students with disabilities, taught within the traditional higher education model, are addressed
effectively by the UDL principles.
Conceptualizing
To determine what is currently being done to
prepare educators to implement a UDL framework, the extent to which a UDL framework is
being incorporated into preservice courses in
higher education, and how a UDL framework is
being used to improve postschool outcomes for
youth with ID.
To present ideas for consideration when design- Operationalizing
ing online courses (particularly those in special
education) for preservice teachers
Operationalizing
To extend previous research and explore how
experiencing UDL firsthand in a graduate online
course might help educators, including in-service
general and special education teachers, learn
about UDL framework and plan for its practical
implementation
Hutson & Downs (2015)
Webb & Hoover (2015)
Miller & Lang (2016)
Vininsky & Saxe (2016)
Dean, Lee-Post, & Hapke (2017)
Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele, & Andries (2017)
Scott, Thoma, Puglia, Temple, &
D’Aguilar (2017)
Scott & Temple (2017)
Evmenova (2018)
Category
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2) 199
Publication
Purpose
Lohmann, Boothe, Hathcote, &
Turpin (2018)
Operationalizing
To explore the impact of implementing UDL to
increase engagement with preservice teachers in
online format
To explore how UDL may improve teaching and Operationalizing
learning in teacher education and to develop a
model for implementation in IHEs
Operationalizing
To explain the history and philosophy of UDL,
as well as practical application in building accessibility for all in online courses
Moore, Smith, Hollingshead, &
Wojcik (2018)
Rogers-Shaw, Carr-Chellman, &
Choi (2018)
Category