Content uploaded by Dave L. Edyburn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dave L. Edyburn on Apr 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE UNIVERSAL DESIGN
FOR LEARNING IF YOU SAW IT?
TEN PROPOSITIONS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS
FOR THE SECOND DECADE OF UDL
Dave L. Edyburn
Abstract. As I read the latest issue of the Learning Disability
Quarterly, I was appreciative of the essay by King-Sears (2009) high-
lighting the value of universal design for learning (UDL) to the
learning disability community. The allure of UDL has captured the
imagination of many educators and policy makers. The recent reau-
thorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-315, Section 202, I, A), for example, requires col-
leges of education that receive federal funding for teacher quality
partnership grants to report on the outcomes of UDL training
within their preservice preparation programs. King-Sears’ efforts to
encourage the learning disability community to dialogue about
UDL are noteworthy and timely.
Given that the King-Sears piece was featured as a “Commen-
tary” article designed to spark conversation about contemporary
topics, I would like to take this opportunity to extend the conver-
sation and highlight nuances associated with translating UDL the-
ory into practice. As someone who has been involved in helping
individual teachers as well as schools, states, provinces, and policy
makers translate UDL theory into practice, I am concerned about
the ability of the profession to implement a construct that it can-
not define.
DAVE L. EDYBURN, Ph.D., Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
As King-Sears (2009) noted, the origin of the term
universal design for learning is generally attributed to
David Rose, Anne Meyer, and colleagues at the Center
for Applied Special Technology (CAST). However, a fact
that is often overlooked is that the principles of UDL
were developed following the 1997 reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Some readers will recall that during the late 1990s
there was considerable interest in the United States in
the issue of inclusion. While students with disabilities
had gained physical access to the general education
classroom, concerns were being raised about how these
students would gain access to the “general curriculum.”
The issues associated with access to the curriculum were
at the forefront of CAST’s work, and in 1999 federal
grant monies were awarded to establish the National
Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, which
became instrumental in garnering national attention
for the potential of UDL.
Volume 33, Winter 2010 33
As CAST’s insights about UDL were taking shape,
CAST staff presented their work at the annual Office of
Special Education (OSEP) Project Directors’ conference
during the late 1990s. The work was extremely well
received by the research community and led to the pub-
lication of an interpretive document (Orkwis & McLane,
1998) that was disseminated extensively and served to
generate the first wave of national attention to the con-
struct. CAST used additional publication outlets to
describe their ideas about how universal design could be
applied within education (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Rose &
Meyer, 2000).
The second wave of widespread attention to UDL
came in 2002, when Rose and Meyer published a book
that has become the definitive work on UDL (available
from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/
tes/). They elaborated on the conceptual framework of
UDL and how it is grounded in emerging insights about
brain development, learning, and digital media. They
also pointed to the disconnect between an increasingly
diverse student population and a “one-size-fits-all” cur-
riculum, arguing that this would not produce the aca-
demic achievement gains expected of 21st-century
global citizens. Challenging educators to think of the
curriculum as disabled, rather than students, their
insights in translating principles of universal design,
which originated in architecture, to education are com-
mensurate with advances characterized as a major para-
digm shift (Edyburn & Gardner, 2009).
POLICY FOUNDATIONS
In the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the term universal
design was officially defined within U.S. federal law (20
U.S.C. § 1401) governing special education: “The term
universal design has the meaning given the term in sec-
tion 3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998” (U.S.C.
§ 3002).
Following the backward chain of legal reference, the
definition of universal design as it was included in the
Assistive Technology Act of 1998 is as follows:
The term “universal design” means a concept or
philosophy for designing and delivering products
and services that are usable by people with the
widest possible range of functional capabilities,
which include products and services that are
directly usable (without requiring assistive tech-
nologies) and products and services that are made
usable with assistive technologies. (U.S.C. § 3002)
Next, consider how the terms are defined in the
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-315, Section 103, a):
(23) UNIVERSAL DESIGN. – The term ‘universal
design’ as the meaning given the term in section 3
of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. (29 U.S.C.
3002)
(24) UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING. – The
term universal design for learning means a scientif-
ically valid framework for guiding educational
practice that –
(A) provides flexibility in the ways information is
presented, in the ways students respond or demon-
strate knowledge and skills, and in the ways stu-
dents are engaged; and
(B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appro-
priate accommodations, supports, and challenges,
and maintains high achievement expectations for
all students, including students with disabilities
and students who are limited English proficient.
Notice how the definition of UD evolved from a con-
cept or philosophy in 1998 to a scientifically validated
framework in 2008. Of concern is the fact that to date,
there has been little research on UDL although there is
a significant body of work on universally designed
assessment (e.g., Ketterlin-Geller, 2005; Russell,
Hoffman, & Higgins, 2009; Thompson, Johnstone, &
Thurlow, 2002). Without an adequate base of primary
research, an analysis of research evidence that estab-
lishes UDL as a scientifically validated intervention is
not possible (Edyburn, in press). Evidently, the work
CAST compiled to support various components of UDL
design principles (http://www.cast.org/publications/
UDLguidelines/index.html) was mischaracterized by
lobbyists and written into federal law. The claim that
UDL has been scientifically validated through research
cannot be substantiated at this time.
DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES:
THE FIRST 10 YEARS
Within a period of 10 years, UDL has captured the
imagination of policy makers, researchers, administra-
tors, and teachers. The mantra that evolved from our
understanding of the value of curb cuts and the like,
“good design for people with disabilities benefits
everyone,” provides a powerful rationale for exploring
the large-scale application of UDL in education – the
lack of a credible research base notwithstanding.
The transition from inaccessible design to universally
accessible design will involve awareness training, new
technical development, and time. Consequently, the
vision of universal accessibility will not be attained
quickly. The A3 Model (Schwanke, Smith, & Edyburn,
2001) illustrates the ebb and flow of concurrent inter-
actions between advocacy, accommodation, and acces-
sibility across a three-phase developmental cycle
required to achieve universal accessibility (see Figure 1).
Advocacy efforts raise awareness of inequity and high-
light the need for system change to respond to the
Learning Disability Quarterly 34
needs of individuals with disabilities. Accommodations
are the typical response to advocacy. Inaccessible envi-
ronments and materials are modified and made avail-
able. Typically, accommodations are provided upon
request. While this represents a significant improve-
ment over situations found in the earlier phase, accom-
modations tend to maintain inequality since (a) there
may be a delay (e.g., time needed to convert a handout
from print to Braille); (b) it may require special effort to
obtain (e.g., call ahead to schedule); or (c) it may
require going to a special location (e.g., the only com-
puter with text enlargement software is in the library).
Accessibility describes an environment where access is
equitably provided to everyone at the same time. Often
this is accomplished through outstanding design (e.g.,
ergonomic furniture, software with accessibility and
performance supports built in). All three factors are
present in each phase. However, the differential impact
of the three components in terms of time, effort, and
focus is illustrated by the waves across phases.
The A3 Model illustrates the UDL change process
experienced by individuals and organizations. CAST’s
work on UDL paints a vision of the world in which
instructional environments, materials, and strategies
are universally designed (as in the Accessibility Phase).
They have created an outstanding series of products
(i.e., WiggleWorks, 1994; Thinking Reader, 2004; UDL
Editions by CAST, 2008; CAST UDL Book Builder,
2009a; CAST Science Writer, 2009b) that provide expe-
riential evidence of what UDL principles could look
like in practice.
In the first 10 years of UDL implementation, we have
shared the message of UDL with substantial numbers of
educators (Advocacy Phase). However, the reality is
that once we understand the principles of UDL, we
move from Advocacy to Accommodations. This means
Volume 33, Winter 2010 35
Figure 1. The A3 Model illustrates the dynamic nature of advocacy, accommodations, and
accessibility in three developmental phases. The differential impact of the three components in
terms of time, effort, and focus is illustrated by the waves across phases.
Copyright© 2000, 2001 by Schwanke, Smith, and Edyburn. Used with permission.
Learning Disability Quarterly 36
that while we are awaiting widespread availability of
the promise of UDL (Accessibility Phase), we are left
to our own devices to try to apply the UDL principles
to create more accessible accommodations (e.g., “Since
the web page does not feature audio, let me show
you how to copy the text and paste it into a text to
speech tool.”). The A3 Model illustrates why many
early disciples of UDL find themselves struggling to
achieve the potential of UDL within the current limi-
tations of instructional design and product develop-
ment.
Just as cooperative learning is not defined as when-
ever two students talk with each other, and co-teaching
is not defined as whenever two teachers share the same
classroom, we must be able to operationalize the con-
struct of UDL. As UDL is disseminated to broader audi-
ences, I am concerned about the fundamental problem:
Will we recognize UDL if we see it? Unfortunately, I
have been in many situations where educators, admin-
istrators, researchers, or product developers were mak-
ing claims that their instructional practices are based
on UDL principles, but I simply was not able to see the
connection.
TEN PROPOSITIONS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS
FOR THE SECOND DECADE OF UDL
As UDL enters its second decade, the profession must
begin to address some developmental milestones. As
every parent knows, the transition from child to ado-
lescent can be turbulent and challenging at times.
Similarly, as UDL enters its second decade, I believe it
is important to foreshadow some nuances about UDL
that have caused minor outbursts in recent years and
are likely to explode into typical teenage angst in the
years ahead.
In the following analysis, I advance 10 propositions
that the profession should consider in order to clearly
discern what UDL is and how we might go about
implementing the construct with fidelity to properly
measure the effects of UDL.
Proposition #1: Universal Design in Education Is
Fundamentally Different from Universal Design in
the Built Environment.
Observation. As King-Sears (2009) noted, the field of
UDL has its genesis in the original construct of univer-
sal design as it was developed in architecture. However,
in my opinion the seven principles of universal design
(Center for Universal Design, 1997) offer little insight
into how to design instruction to ensure that diverse
learners are successful. For example, the interactions
between individuals and the built environment (e.g.,
stairs, doorways, countertops) are static and limited. In
contrast, the interaction between a reader and a text
involves complex physical, cognitive, and social inter-
actions to make sense of the information.
New directions. In order to achieve the promise of
UDL, I believe the profession must recognize that the
essence of UDL lies in the field of instructional design
rather than architecture. UDL helps us understand the
value of technology for providing access and engage-
ment in learning – prerequisites for learning outcomes.
However, much more attention must be devoted to the
complex interactions between learning objectives,
learner characteristics, performance support strategies,
technology, and outcome. Reference to the seven prin-
ciples of universal design serves only as a distraction.
Proposition #2: UDL Is Fundamentally About
Proactively Valuing Diversity.
Observation. King-Sears (2009) observed that there is
considerable confusion about the roles of technology
and UDL. I agree. I have often observed situations where
teachers, administrators, and publishers claim they are
implementing UDL simply because they are using mul-
timedia or Web 2.0 tools. I disagree. I believe that there
must be a priori evidence that the instructional designer
understands academic diversity and is proactively build-
ing supports that will ensure that individual differences
do not mitigate access and engagement. Otherwise, the
result is simply a happy coincidence between the use of
technology and new tools that students enjoy. UDL is
more than simply integrating the latest technology
tools into the curriculum.
New directions. I fear that the promise of UDL will
not be achieved unless we begin to focus on developing
diversity blueprints. I am inspired by the work of sev-
eral authors (Burke, Hagan, & Grossen, 1998; Coyne,
Kameenui, & Simmons, 2004; McLeskey & Waldon,
2007; Tomlinson, 2004) who seek to understand the
impact of various instructional designs on the success
of diverse learners. Likewise, I am cognizant of research
by Molenbroek and de Bruin (2006) that reveals that
designers’ assumptions about diversity directly impact
the accessibility and usability of their product design.
That is, when designers assume that everyone is like
them (e.g., tall, short, average weight, able to read at
grade level), the product they create will meet the
needs of a narrow range of users.
Consider the recent fiasco with the Amazon Kindle,
where designers failed to recognize that blind readers
would want to use a hand-held reading device and that
they would need voiced navigational menus – a design
decision that was reversed in December 2009 after six
months of complaints and disability advocacy
(Amazon.com., 2009).
Without a diversity blueprint, it is unlikely that UDL
designers will be able to design products that meet the
accessibility and usability needs of all individuals,
because they do not understand the special needs of
some individuals. Clearly, there is much more to learn
about how to meet the instructional needs of diverse
individuals. However, until we begin describing the
salient nature of those differences in ways that inform
design, it is unlikely that we will design products that
meet the needs of all learners.
Proposition #3: UDL Is Ultimately About Design.
Observation. UDL is about design. Design is funda-
mentally about problem solving. Instructional design is
about the efficacy of learning. Central to all of these
constructs is evidence of intentionality and how prob-
lems can be resolved through innovative design.
Technology is simply the delivery system.
New directions. A fundamental question that has yet
to be addressed is whether or not the demands of daily
instruction will allow teachers to function effectively as
instructional designers. That is, are teachers the princi-
pal stakeholders as they design and deliver instruction
in accordance with UDL principles? Or, is UDL a task for
developers who make instructional products?
Given the difficulties I have observed in trying to
scale UDL implementation beyond single classrooms, I
believe it may be necessary to rethink UDL as a product
Volume 33, Winter 2010 37
Figure 2. A representation of the achievement gap illustrates typical development by the diagonal
line where students gain one unit of achievement for each year they are in school. Underachievement
results in students falling further and further behind and represents a performance gap that is
exceedingly difficult to close. Over 50 years of educational research documents the presence of
achievement gaps for several groups of students: students with disabilities, students of color,
students of poverty, and English language learners.
Achievement in Grade Levels
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade in School
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Performance Gap
Learning Disability Quarterly 38
development intervention. Perhaps the teacher’s role is
more appropriately associated with implementing prin-
ciples of differentiated instruction (which may include
some products that have been universally designed).
Proposition #4: Universal Design for Learning Is Not
Just Good Teaching.
Observation. Another means of understanding UDL
is to clarify what it is not. Unfortunately, statements
like the following are found in the literature: “universal
design for learning is just good teaching” or “it is like
what you have always done” (Castellani, Mason, &
Orkwis, 2005; Orkwis & McLane, 1998).
I believe these statements reflect a fundamental mis-
understanding of the functions of design, proactively
valuing diversity, and intentionality. What we have
always done is known as the achievement gap (see
Figure 2). Educational research illustrates that margin-
alized students such as students with disabilities, cul-
turally and linguistically diverse students, students
from low socio-economic backgrounds, and English
language learners experience chronic school failure;
hence the focus on calculating adequate yearly progress
(AYP) within the No Child Left Behind legislation. This
pattern of performance is not evidence that existing
instructional practices are effective for all students.
New directions. UDL represents a 21st-century inter-
vention that seeks to use emerging insights gained from
research in diverse fields such as brain imaging, learning
sciences, instructional design, and technology. Good
teaching has never been able to address the full range of
diversity found in a classroom.
To allow this type of language to continue in UDL
discussions renders the construct meaningless. More
important, statements such as “UDL is just good teach-
ing” serve to preserve the status quo, which marginal-
izes low-performing students. We must find ways to
define and measure implementation of UDL in order to
discern when it is being implemented and when it is
not.
Proposition #5: Universal Design for Learning Does
Not Occur Naturally.
Observation. On more than one occasion, I have
heard the statement, “Many teachers are already doing
UDL; they just don’t know that’s what it is called.” This
is a corollary to the previous proposition. Since UDL is
the convergence of multiple disciplines, I reject the
notion that there is a natural trait within effective
teachers that allows them to implement UDL without
knowing that they are doing so. I do not believe that
UDL occurs naturally. In some respects, this issue may
simply be a permutation of the timeless argument about
whether teaching is an art or a science (Dewey, 1929;
Gage, 1978; Skinner, 1954).
New directions. Much like any other integrative cog-
nitive skill, UDL must be recognized as a learned skill,
one that is refined over time, to produce high levels of
performance. One way of advancing this issue would be
to host a national design competition where contest-
ants were challenged to solve an instructional problem
by creating an innovative universally designed instruc-
tional product. It may also be appropriately to design
studies to empirically test this proposition. We must
refocus our efforts to train the key stakeholders in UDL
principles that make meaningful differences in student
engagement and learning.
Proposition #6: Technology Is Essential for
Implementing UDL.
Observation. King-Sears (2009) addresses the issue of
whether or not UDL can be implemented without tech-
nology. Others have suggested that UDL is just like
assistive technology, such that it can be implemented as
no-tech, low-tech, or high-tech. I reject these notions.
The reason why UDL is possible today as opposed to the
1950s or 1970s is that digital technology provides a
high degree of flexibility. Paper-based instructional
technologies (e.g., worksheets, textbooks) commit infor-
mation to fixed formats and cannot match the array
and flexibility of supports provided in a digital environ-
ment (e.g., alter the font size, color contrast, text to
speech, hyperlinks for explanatory aids, agents that
offer strategy suggestions, movies that supplement
text). An example of this point is the subject of a recent
YouTube video where a high schooler struggles to
navigate his traditional textbook since it fails to provide
the digital supports he is grown accustom to (Joe’s Non-
Netbook; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skhpm
EZWuRQ).
New directions. Why is computer technology essen-
tial for a majority of 21st-century activities outside of
school but optional for helping students achieve high
standards within school? When will a computer be con-
sidered essential for all students so that they can access
and engage in a curriculum that is appropriate for their
learning needs? To suggest that the potential of UDL
can be achieved without technology is simply another
way to maintain the status quo. Fortunately, the current
price trends for Netbooks (they are becoming more and
more affordable) may render this discussion moot
within a few years.
Proposition #7: UDL Is Not Assistive Technology.
Observation. The relationship between UDL and
assistive technology has been a point of confusion for
many educators (Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabala,
2005). If, for example, a building has an electronic door
sensor to open the front door automatically, is it rea-
sonable to conclude that wheelchairs will no longer be
needed? Assistive technology devices and services are
delivered reactively after a referral and evaluation of an
individual student. UDL is given to everyone with the
understanding that those who need specialized support
will use the tools when they need them (i.e., embedded,
just-in-time supports).
This is a critical paradigm shift that fully acknowl-
edges the impact of peer pressure at the middle and sec-
ondary level. To meet the needs of some, UDL is
committed to giving the tools to everyone. Assistive
technology may be pre-empted by UDL interventions;
however, as the example above illustrates, assistive tech-
nology and UDL may also co-exist.
New directions. Academic performance problems are
not limited to students with disabilities. Therefore, why
should technologies that enhance academic perform-
ance be restricted to students with disabilities? When
new information is introduced in schools, learners per-
form as novices; that is, their performance is signifi-
cantly different than that of experts. However, with
proper instruction, the performance of a novice can be
enhanced to very high levels. Additional research and
development is needed in the area of cognitive prosthe-
ses (Edyburn, 2006) in order to clarify the benefit of
tools and strategies that serve as scaffolds (temporarily
needed and discarded) vs. tools that augment perform-
ance (always needed for acceptable performance).
Twenty-first-century instruction will likely need to
alter instructional practices in order to place students
in the role of Goldilocks – they try multiple options to
determine which option is “just right” for ensuring
their performance is acceptable to meet high standards.
Principles of fairness indicate that equity is achieved
when every student receives what he or she needs
(Welch, 2000).
Proposition #8: It Is Necessary to Measure the Prim-
ary and Secondary Impact of UDL.
Observation. As King-Sears (2009) pointed out, one of
the promises of UDL is that by focusing on the special
needs of students with disabilities we can design solu-
tions that positively impact other students. This princi-
ple can be illustrated by the example of the zero-entry
swimming pool. The original design problem focused
on how to enable people in wheelchairs to enter a pool.
Clearly, the needs of the primary audience have been
effectively met through this design. If the design inno-
vation only helps a disability group, the intervention is
simply an assistive technology. When the secondary
impact of the zero-entry pool is examined, we observe
that the majority of the users of the shallow end of the
pool are parents with young children, teenagers, and
senior citizens. This phenomenon illustrates an innova-
tive tactic for quantifying and evaluating UDL claims by
measuring and analyzing primary and secondary
impact.
In contrast, when word prediction software is given to
everyone, it is not a tool that continues to be used by
everyone because it often interferes with the keyboard-
ing performance of accomplished writers and typists.
Consequently, it must be considered assistive technol-
ogy, rather than UDL.
New directions. Instructional designers need to
explicitly describe the intended user of a product. When
the product is implemented within schools, appropriate
research methodologies must measure the impact of the
intervention on the primary audience as well as the rest
of the students in an inclusive classroom. Data analysis
should focus on discerning whether or not the product
successfully produced the desired gains in the targeted
audience. Secondary analysis should examine whether
there were additional effects within the inclusive class-
room such as are observed with the zero-entry swim-
ming pool or whether the effects were more like word
prediction software that offered benefits only to a small
group. Further development of research analyses of the
primary and secondary effect of UDL is essential for fos-
tering a new generation of data-based discussions about
UDL efficacy.
Proposition #9: Claims of UDL Must Be Evaluated
on the Basis of Enhanced Student Performance.
Observation. One of the significant flaws in a federal
law (Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008) that
states that UDL is a scientifically validated framework is
that CAST’s UDL framework does not feature a compo-
nent associated with the measurement of student learn-
ing outcomes. All three of the “multiple means”
statements by CAST focus on providing multiple con-
current interventions. As a result, within existing con-
ceptualizations of UDL, there is no clear way to measure
claims that UDL is effective for enhancing the academic
performance of diverse students. This is a significant
shortcoming for anyone trying to operationalize, imple-
ment, and evaluate a UDL program.
New directions. If UDL is nothing more than provid-
ing students with alternatives, it fails significantly as a
new paradigm for enhancing educational achievement,
as it is simply another futile attempt to argue that
schools needs more resources. I choose to believe the
critical focus of UDL is its emphasis on the variables that
can be manipulated to produce high performance. I am
inspired by Tomlinson’s (1999) conceptual work on the
design of equalizers that could be utilized to manipulate
key instructional variables to make curriculum accessi-
ble and engaging.
Research has demonstrated a relationship between
deep learning and high levels of performance and
Volume 33, Winter 2010 39
Learning Disability Quarterly 40
expertise (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Schlechty, 2002).
UDL outcome measurement needs to focus on the ben-
efits that result from access and sustained engagement:
Expertise and expert performance. That is, sustained
engagement in learning tasks, of increasing difficulty
and complexity, leads to high levels of learning and
performance. The notion of applying a computer inter-
face to a digital body of knowledge and then allowing
the student to manipulate the information in ways that
make it accessible (i.e., physical, sensory, and cogni-
tive), at a level of appropriate challenge, has everything
to do with the process of developing expertise.
Ultimately, we need to understand how to measure the
contributions of UDL to sustained engagement and
development of expertise.
Proposition #10: UDL Is Much More Complex Than
We Originally Thought.
Observation. Understanding the potential of UDL is
seductively easy. Its exponential growth indicates that it
is the right idea at the right time. However, it has proven
far easier to help the various stakeholders understand
the potential of UDL than it has been to implement
UDL on a large scale. And now that more people are
“doing UDL,” it is not clear what the outcomes are.
New directions. As we head into the second decade of
“doing UDL,” it is time for a new generation of think-
ing about UDL. Defining UDL as a subfield within
instructional design will provide a knowledge base that
is more relevant than looking to architecture for insight.
Likewise, we must become serious about defining the
key variables that impact instructional achievement and
develop algorithms and tools that modularize the
design process so we can develop more UDL materials
more quickly and more cost effectively. We need to clar-
ify the core stakeholders (developers or teachers) who
will be trained to create UDL products. We need to
understand what it means to implement UDL. We need
to understand how to measure the outcomes of UDL.
And, finally, we need to renew our commitment to
equitably serving all students in the event that our UDL
efforts fall short.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
As UDL is aligned with response-to-intervention ini-
tiatives, it is important for the learning disability com-
munity to engage in dialogue about the principles and
practices of UDL. Without a doubt, UDL holds consid-
erable promise. In this article I have offered an analysis
of the developmental progress of UDL and described 10
propositions that need to be addressed as we go forward.
Unless serious intellectual energy is devoted to address-
ing the current shortcomings of the UDL construct,
within the next 10 years we may be commemorating
the passing of another education fad.
REFERENCES
Amazon.com. (2009, December 7). Blind and vision-impaired read-
ers to benefit from new Kindle features in 2010 (press release).
Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://phx.corporate-ir.
net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1362556
highlight=
Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular
designs and strategies accommodate diverse learners? Teaching
Exceptional Children, 31(1), 34-38.
Castellani, J., Mason, C., & Orkwis, R. (2005). Universal design for
learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals.
Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (1994). WiggleWorks (soft-
ware). New York: Scholastic.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004). Thinking Reader
(software). Watertown, MA: Tom Snyder Productions.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2008). UDL Editions by
CAST. Available at http://udleditions.cast.org/
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009a). CAST UDL Book
Builder. Available at http://bookbuilder.cast.org/
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009b). CAST Science
Writer. Available at http://sciencewriter.cast.org/
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal
design. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.design.
ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm/
Coyne, M. D., Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2004). Improv-
ing beginning reading instruction and intervention for students
with LD: Reconciling “all” with “each.” Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 37(3), 231-239.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal expe-
rience. New York: Harper & Row.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York:
Liveright.
Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild
disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal
of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.
Edyburn, D. L. (in press). Understanding the quality of the science
supporting the special education technology evidence base.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(1).
Edyburn, D., & Gardner, J. E. (2009). Readings in special education
technology: Universal design for learning. Arlington, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children.
Gage, N. L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New
York: John Wiley.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315).
Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/
highered/leg/hea08/index.html/
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (1997). Pub. L. No.
105-17.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know:
Procedures for developing universal design for assessment.
Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3). Electronic
Journal. Retrieved on December 21, 2005, from http://www.
bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v4n2.shtml/
King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology
and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199-201.
McLeskey, J., & Waldon, N. (2007) Making differences ordinary in
inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162-
168.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D.H. (2000). Universal design for individual dif-
ferences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.
Molenbroek, J. F., & de Bruin, R. (2006). Anthropometry of a
friendly rest room. Assistive Technology, 18(2), 196-204.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use:
Design principles for student access. OSEP Topical Brief. Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assis-
tive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of
the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.),
Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp.
507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2000). The future is in the margins: The role
of technology and disability in educational reform. A report pre-
pared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Technology. Washington, DC: USDOE.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital
age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Russell, M., Hoffman, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). NimbleTools: A uni-
versally designed test delivery system. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 42(2), 6-12.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teach-
ers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwanke, T. D., Smith, R. O., & Edyburn, D. L. (2001). A3 model
diagram developed as accessibility and universal design instruc-
tional tool. RESNA 2001 Annual Conference Proceedings, 21,
RESNA Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teach-
ing. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86-97.
The Technology-Related Assistance Act for Individuals With
Disabilities. (1988). Pub. L. No. 100-407.
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002).
Universal design applied to large-scale assessments (NCEO
Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to
the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The Mobius effect: Addressing learner
variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516-
524.
Welch, A. B. (2000). Responding to student concerns about fair-
ness. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(2), 36-40.
Please address correspondence about this article to: Dave Edyburn,
Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, 3409 North Downer Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211;
e-mail: edyburn@csd.uwm.edu
Volume 33, Winter 2010 41
