No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Underpinnings of Universal Design for Learning
Abstract
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an instructional framework to improve learning outcomes in the general education curriculum. A critical analysis of its theoretical foundation and underlying assumptions is essential to understand its potential usefulness and limitations. Our analysis identifies seven issues that challenge key assumptions of the UDL framework. Although UDL developers assert the universal applicability of their framework to all learners, including those with disabilities, several concerns call into question the possibility of true universality with UDL. The UDL instructional framework emphasizes multiplicity in how information is presented, yet this UDL principle may conflict with cognitive load theory. UDL’s conceptual problems lead to challenges in testing its effectiveness. Finally, while proponents of UDL advocate using digital technology for its flexibility, it is imperative to distinguish between effective and ineffective ways to integrate technology within instruction.
... Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework intended to make general education curriculum and instruction accessible to all students (Meyer et al., 2014;Nelson, 2021). Although widely promoted and advocated for use in schools, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of UDL remains weak (Anastasiou et al., 2024;Anastasiou et al., under review). A recent meta-analysis of UDL (King-Sears et al., 2023) identified some potentially positive effects. ...
... However, significant conceptual and methodological issues plagued the synthesized research, including unclear definitions of UDL, a broad spectrum of learning outcomes, and insufficient descriptions of participants. The lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes UDL, coupled with the heterogeneity of the studies regarding practices, populations, and outcomes, hinders the ability to draw any definitive conclusions about the framework's effectiveness (Anastasiou et al., 2024;Anastasiou et al., under review;Ewe & Galvin, 2023). ...
We explain how and why the continuum of alternative placements required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act promotes the educational inclusion of students with disabilities.
... In a systematic review of 32 studies investigating the implementation of UDL on student learning, Zhang et al. (2024) noted considerable variability in how the framework was conceptualized and operationalized. Furthermore, some experts, such as Anastasiou et al. (2024), suggested that UDL principles may conflict with cognitive load theory, particularly the use of multiple representations, which could be overwhelming to some students. While some evidence points to the potential of UDL for supporting student learning, this evidence is weak for mathematics specifically. ...
A joint position statement issued in December 2024 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) on teaching mathematics to students with disabilities lacked substantive, actionable, research-validated recommendations to support the work of practitioners in the
field. Herein, we provide a rationale for ways in which the eight recommendations for teachers included in the position statement fell short, provided misleading information, and ignored the large body of research on providing mathematics instruction for students with mathematics disability or difficulties. In response, we offer seven actionable, research-validated recommendations, including: (a) use systematic, explicit instruction; (b) use clear and concise mathematical language; (c) use multiple representations, including number lines; (d) develop fluency;
(e) develop word-problem solving; (f ) provide response opportunities, feedback, and practice; and (g) collect data to adapt instruction.
For decades, there have been competing visions of how and where to educate students with disabilities (SWDs) in America's K-12 schools. One conception is that general classrooms can accommodate the learning needs of virtually all children. A second approach calls for multiple placement options. Over the years, the context in which this disagreement has played out has changed as educators have shifted from a reliance on special classes to trust in general classes to enthusiasm for intensive instruction beyond the general class. Such variation in practice has influenced how researchers have explored relations between SWDs' placement and their academic performance. Some of this research has been weak, producing unreliable findings. Some has generated more trustworthy results. All stakeholders would benefit from distinguishing the weaker studies from the stronger ones. Yet, to date, there has been an absence of such effort. In this paper, we provide a concise history of placement-achievement research and then review evidence spanning 50 years, bearing on how and where to educate SWDs. We conclude that the research on where to teach has generally been weak and inconclusive; the research on how to teach, stronger and more certain. Implications for educating SWDs are discussed.
We present a theory of atypical development based on a developmental theory of the typical mind integrating developmental, cognitive, and psychometric theory and research. The paper comprises three parts. First, it outlines the theory of typical development. The theory postulates central cognitive mechanisms, such as relational integration, executive and inferential processes, and domain-specific processes underlying different environmental relations, such as visuospatial or quantitative relations. Cognitive development advances in cycles satisfying developmental priorities in mastering these systems, such as executive control from 2–6 years, inferential control from 7–11 years, and truth control from 12–18 years. Second, we discuss atypical development, showing how each neurodevelopmental disorder emerges from deficiencies in one or more of the processes comprising the architecture of the mind. Deficiencies in relational integration mechanisms, together with deficiencies in social understanding, yield autism spectrum disorder. Deficiencies in executive processes yield attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Deficiencies in symbolic representation yield specialized learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and dyscalculia. Finally, we discuss clinical and educational implications, suggesting the importance of early diagnosis of malfunctioning in each of these dimensions and specific programs for their remediation.
Educators and instructional designers have used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to guide their design of inclusive instruction for students with and without disabilities. Despite UDL having entered its 4th decade of development and research, there have been ongoing critiques of UDL for lacking clarity in definition, challenges with implementation, and insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. These critiques warrant further evaluation of UDL, especially with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings behind its conceptualization and implementation. Thus, we synthesized 32 peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2023 that focused on UDL implementation in preK-12 educational settings and measured various aspects of student learning outcomes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). Specifically, we evaluated each study’s intervention or instructional design in terms of its alignment to UDL checkpoints, guidelines, and/or principles as well as existing theories of learning or instructional design. Results revealed several interrelated challenges that stymie UDL research, including the absence of explicit alignment between UDL checkpoints and intervention or instructional designs investigated in the extant literature, the uneven coverage of implemented checkpoints and corresponding guidelines, the overlap among multiple checkpoints and guidelines, and the lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation processes. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for strengthening the research base for less frequently applied UDL checkpoints, recommendations for documenting checkpoints and relationships among checkpoints as indispensable components of UDL implementation, and directions for future research conducted via systematic UDL implementation guided by established theories.
As handheld devices, such as tablets, become a common tool in schools, a critical and urgent question for the research community is to assess their potential impact on educational outcomes. Previous meta-analytic research has evidenced the “screen inferiority effect”: Readers tend to understand texts slightly worse when reading on-screen than when reading the same text in print. Most primary studies from those meta-analyses used computers as on-screen reading devices. Accordingly, the extent to which handheld devices, which provide a reading experience closer to books than computers, are affected by the screen inferiority effect remains an open question. To address this issue, we reviewed relevant literature regarding potential moderating factors for the screen inferiority effect through the lenses of the reading for understanding framework. We then performed two meta-analyses aimed at examining the differences in reading comprehension when reading on handheld devices, as compared to print. Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participant (k = 38, g = −0.113) or within-participant (k = 21, g = −0.103) designs, consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension. Moderator analyses helped to partially clarify the results, indicating in some cases a higher screen inferiority effect for undergraduate students (as compared to primary and secondary school students) and for participants who were assessed individually (as opposed to in groups). We discuss the need to continue fostering print reading in schools while developing effective ways to incorporate handheld devices for reading purposes.
The current meta-analysis quantifies the average effect of worked examples on mathematics performance from elementary grades to postsecondary settings and to assess what moderates this effect. Though thousands of worked examples studies have been conducted to date, a corresponding meta-analysis has yet to be published. Exclusionary coding was conducted on 8033 abstracts from published and grey literature to yield a sample of high quality experimental and quasi-experimental work. This search yielded 43 articles reporting on 55 studies and 181 effect sizes. Using robust variance estimation (RVE) to account for clustered effect sizes, the average effect size of worked examples on mathematics performance outcomes was medium with g = 0.48 and p = 0.01. Moderators assessed included example type (correct vs. incorrect examples alone or in combination with correct examples), pairing with self-explanation prompts, and timing of administration (i.e., practice vs. skill acquisition). The inclusion of self-explanation prompts significantly moderated the effect of examples yielding a negative effect in comparison to worked examples conditions that did not include self-explanation prompts. Worked examples studies that used correct examples alone yielded larger effect sizes than those that used incorrect examples alone or correct examples in combination with incorrect examples. The worked examples effect yields a medium effect on mathematics outcomes whether used for practice or initial skill acquisition. Correct examples are particularly beneficial for learning overall, and pairing examples with self-explanation prompts may not be a fruitful design modification. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Educational psychologists seek to keep abreast of significant theoretical and practical developments within the field of inclusive education. This paper outlines and discusses Universal Design for Learning as a theory of inclusion, highly applicable for use by educational psychologists. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is introduced by exploring the contextual history of its development and explaining the three pillars of the framework; the ‘affective networks’, the ‘recognition networks’, and the ‘strategic networks’. Application of the UDL framework is demonstrated with classroom-based examples, drawing on existing research. A critical stance is taken towards understanding the current drawbacks of UDL, and direct links to educational psychology practice are made and critically reviewed considering these.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a major trend in education. The goal of UDL is to design educational experiences that allow all students to match their unique ways of learning to varied modes of engagement, information representation, and expression of learning. Although UDL originated from disability accommodations in K-12 settings, its proponents now claim that it can increase learning for all students in all settings. The strong claims made about UDL warrant critical analysis. UDL shares problematic similarities in theory, operationalization, and research with the discredited concept of learning styles. No strong research evidence exists that either approach increases learning. Research on both approaches is hampered by inadequate operationalization. Both learning styles and UDL emphasize diversity in learning over universal learning principles and hypothesize that matching instruction to students’ unique way of learning leads to increased learning. Justifications for both approaches rely on overgeneralizations of neuroscience research. Although UDL shows promise as an educational framework, its proponents need to learn from the flaws of learning styles and follow a more scientifically sound path forward.
An experimental study investigated the effects of applying principles of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Focusing on epistemic beliefs (EBs) in inclusive science classes, we compared four groups who worked with learning environments based more or less on UDL principles and filled out an original version of a widely used EBs questionnaire or an adapted version using the Universal Design for Assessment (UDA). Based on measurement invariance analyses, a multiple indicator, and multiple cause (MIMIC) approach as well as multi-group panel models, the results do not support an outperformance of the extensive UDL environment. Moreover, the UDA-based questionnaire appears to be more adequately suited for detecting learning gains in an inclusive setting. The results emphasize how important it is to carefully adopt and introduce the UDL principles for learning and to care about test accessibility when conducting quantitative research in inclusive settings.
Cognitive load theory was introduced in the 1980s as an instructional design theory based on several uncontroversial aspects of human cognitive architecture. Our knowledge of many of the characteristics of working memory, long-term memory and the relations between them had been well-established for many decades prior to the introduction of the theory. Curiously, this knowledge had had a limited impact on the field of instructional design with most instructional design recommendations proceeding as though working memory and long-term memory did not exist. In contrast, cognitive load theory emphasised that all novel information first is processed by a capacity and duration limited working memory and then stored in an unlimited long-term memory for later use. Once information is stored in long-term memory, the capacity and duration limits of working memory disappear transforming our ability to function. By the late 1990s, sufficient data had been collected using the theory to warrant an extended analysis resulting in the publication of Sweller et al. (Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296, 1998). Extensive further theoretical and empirical work have been carried out since that time and this paper is an attempt to summarise the last 20 years of cognitive load theory and to sketch directions for future research.
Background:
Higher-education students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often face difficulties in self-regulation of learning (SRL). Studies of typical students have shown that SRL is less effective for digitally displayed texts. The current study investigated the influence of the media (digital, print) on reading comprehension and self-monitoring (a component of SRL) in higher-education students with and without ADHD.
Methods:
Forty-five students with ADHD and 61 matched controls read an expository text displayed digitally or in print. Then, they predicted their performance score and answered comprehension questions. Sustained attention and set-shifting abilities were also assessed.
Results:
In the digital condition, students with ADHD had significantly lower comprehension scores and were overconfident in their predictions of success relative to controls. In the print condition, the ADHD group spent more time reading the text, but their predictions of performance and comprehension scores were comparable to those of the control group. Poor sustained attention was significantly correlated with lower comprehension scores in both media conditions, whereas set-shifting correlated only with comprehension of the printed text.
Conclusions:
Understanding a digitally displayed text is more challenging for students with ADHD than their peers, particularly when the conditions of the comprehension task favor good SRL skills.
***** OPEN ACCESS at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
****************
With the increasing dominance of digital reading over paper reading, gaining understanding of the effects of the medium on reading comprehension has become critical. However, results from research comparing learning outcomes across printed and digital media are mixed, making conclusions difficult to reach. In the current meta-analysis, we examined research in recent years (2000–2017), comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and on digital devices. We included studies with between-participants (n = 38) and within-participants designs (n = 16) involving 171,055 participants. Both designs yielded the same advantage of paper over digital reading (Hedge's g = −0.21; dc = −0.21). Analyses revealed three significant moderators: (1) time frame: the paper-based reading advantage increased in time-constrained reading compared to self-paced reading; (2) text genre: the paper-based reading advantage was consistent across studies using informational texts, or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but not on those using only narrative texts; (3) publication year: the advantage of paper-based reading increased over the years. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.
Background
Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens.
Methods
A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance ( k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time ( k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration ( k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens.
Results
Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper ( g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts ( g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts ( g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately ( g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time ( g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens ( g = .20).
Conclusions
Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.
The segmenting effect states that people learn better when multimedia instructions are presented in (meaningful and coherent) learner-paced segments, rather than as continuous units. This meta-analysis contains 56 investigations including 88 pairwise comparisons and reveals a significant segmenting effect with small to medium effects for retention and transfer performance. Segmentation also reduces the overall cognitive load and increases learning time. These four effects are confirmed for a system-paced segmentation. The meta-analysis tests different explanations for the segmenting effect that concern facilitating chunking and structuring due to segmenting the multimedia instruction by the instructional designer, providing more time for processing the instruction and allowing the learners to adapt the presentation pace to their individual needs. Moderation analyses indicate that learners with high prior knowledge benefitted more from segmenting instructional material than learners with no or low prior knowledge in terms of retention performance.
Spatial split-attention effects have been noted in the research literature, where, under split-attention conditions, integrating text and diagrams has been shown to be effective. From this literature grew the spatial contiguity principle (or spatial contiguity effect), which states that people learn more when related words and pictures are displayed spatially near one another. Research has shown both effects to influence learning; however, little is known about the conditions in which integrated designs are most effective. This meta-analysis examines the influence of integrated designs across numerous moderator variables in order to improve our understanding of under which conditions integrated designs influence learning. A random effects meta-analysis of 58 independent comparisons (n = 2426) produced an overall effect size of g = 0.63 (p < 0.001). Moderator analyses indicated that integrated designs have benefited learning across many intervention-related and context-related moderator variables. Practical and theoretical implications of the findings are provided.
The expertise reversal effect occurs when instruction that is effective for novice learners is ineffective or even counterproductive for more expert learners. Four experiments designed to explore the expertise reversal effect in the field of teaching and learning foreign language listening skills were conducted. Three instructional formats (read-only, listen-only, and read-and-listen) were designed to teach native Chinese students English (experiments 1–3) or French (experiment 4) listening skills. Experiment 1 found a significant interaction with no effect for learners with lower levels of listening expertise but a significant effect for learners with higher levels of listening expertise favoring the read-only approach. The results of experiment 2 replicated the counterintuitive findings of experiment 1. Experiment 3 testing less knowledgeable students than experiments 1 and 2 indicated that the read-and-listen condition was more effective for novice learners. Experiment 4 testing beginner-level learners of French as a foreign language obtained results consistent with those of experiment 3 in that lower expertise learners gained greater benefits from the read-and-listen than the read-only or listen-only teaching approaches. It is concluded that the read-and-listen approach benefitted novice learners but more expert learners could benefit more from the read-only approach.
Paper-and-pencil learning and testing are gradually shifting to computerized environments. Cognitive and metacognitive researchers find screen inferiority compared to paper in effort regulation, test performance, and extent of overconfidence, in some cases, with unknown differentiating factors. Notably, these studies used reading comprehension tasks involving lengthy texts, which confound technology-related and cognitive factors. We hypothesized that the medium provides a contextual cue which leads to shallower processing on screen regardless of text length, particularly when task characteristics hint that shallow processing is legitimate. To test this hypothesis, we used briefly phrased yet challenging problems for solving on screen or on paper. In Experiment 1, the time frame for solving the problems was manipulated. As with lengthy texts, only time pressure resulted in screen inferiority. In Experiment 2, under a loose time frame, the same problems were now framed as a preliminary task performed before a main problem-solving task. Only the initial task, with reduced perceived importance, revealed screen inferiority similarly to time pressure. In Experiment 3, we replicated Experiment 1's time frame manipulation, using a problem-solving task which involved reading only three isolated words. Screen inferiority in overconfidence was found again only under time pressure. The results suggest that metacognitive processes are sensitive to contextual cues that hint at the expected depth of processing, regardless of the reading burden involved.
The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is increasingly drawing the attention of researchers and educators as an effective solution for filling the gap between learner ability and individual differences. This study aims to analyse the content of twelve papers, where the UDL was adopted. The articles were chosen from several databases and journals based on four criteria: 1) peer-reviewed papers, 2) provision of empirical results, 3) focused on UDL as a framework, and 4) published from 2012 to 2015. Then, these studies were analysed according to seven themes: type of results, study beneficiary (learners, teachers, both), sample features, geographical region, data collection techniques, data analysis techniques, and learning modes. Most of the selected studies applied the UDL in a traditional or a blended learning mode, whereas only two studies evaluated its effectiveness in online learning environments. It is noteworthy that the majority of the experiments were carried out in the USA. Additionally, positive results of UDL implementation were yielded in eleven papers. These outcomes suggest that UDL is an efficient approach for designing flexible learning environments and accessible content. Such designs can match a wide mix of learner needs, abilities, background knowledge, educational experience, and cultural differences. However, further research is required in order to confirm the positive impacts of UDL in different educational settings and cultural backgrounds.
The core claim of educational neuroscience is that neuroscience can improve teaching in the classroom. Many strong claims are made about the successes and the promise of this new discipline. By contrast, I show that there are no current examples of neuroscience motivating new and effective teaching methods, and argue that neuroscience is unlikely to improve teaching in the future. The reasons are twofold. First, in practice, it is easier to characterize the cognitive capacities of children on the basis of behavioral measures than on the basis of brain measures. As a consequence, neuroscience rarely offers insights into instruction above and beyond psychology. Second, in principle, the theoretical motivations underpinning educational neuroscience are misguided, and this makes it difficult to design or assess new teaching methods on the basis of neuroscience. Regarding the design of instruction, it is widely assumed that remedial instruction should target the underlying deficits associated with learning disorders, and neuroscience is used to characterize the deficit. However, the most effective forms of instruction may often rely on developing compensatory (nonimpaired) skills. Neuroscience cannot determine whether instruction should target impaired or nonimpaired skills. More importantly, regarding the assessment of instruction, the only relevant issue is whether the child learns, as reflected in behavior. Evidence that the brain changed in response to instruction is irrelevant. At the same time, an important goal for neuroscience is to characterize how the brain changes in response to learning, and this includes learning in the classroom. Neuroscientists cannot help educators, but educators can help neuroscientists.
Universal Design for Learning is the best way to teach all students effectively—but how can a busy teacher get started with UDL right now? Answers are in this vibrant, research-based guidebook, created by seasoned teacher and former UDL Coordinator Loui Lord Nelson. K-12 educators will learn how to use the three key principles of UDL—Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression—to present information in multiple ways and meet the needs of diverse learners. Written in first person, like a face-to-face talk with a passionate educator, the book gives teachers a reader-friendly UDL primer and a practical framework for implementation, with detailed guidelines on lesson planning and checkpoints that help them stay on track.
To encourage alaïo^te among professionals, this occasional feature is a fonirn for the opitiions, ideas, ami work of a variety of constituents concerneil about learning iHsabilitles. For criteria ami submission guidelines, please visit wwwxtdinteniational.org and select Publications.
The purpose of this analysis was to examine achievement gaps on fractions for very-low-performing students as a function of whether they receive inclusive fraction instruction or specialized fraction intervention and with the shift to Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In three randomized control trials conducted in 3 consecutive years, 203 students who scored at or below the 10th percentile in mathematics (mean standard score similar to 75) at the start of fourth grade were randomly assigned at the individual level to 12 weeks of inclusive fraction instruction or specialized fraction intervention. In Year 1, the fourth-grade mathematics curriculum was guided by initial state standards; in Years 2 and 3, the state was transitioning to CCSS. In each of the 3 years on each measure, results indicated significantly stronger learning and markedly smaller post-intervention achievement gaps for specialized fraction intervention than for inclusive fraction instruction. Yet, the size of achievement gaps grew over the years in both conditions, as CCSS increased the depth and challenge of the fraction curriculum and produced differentially stronger learning in not-at-risk classmates. Implications are discussed in terms of the provision of services for students with learning disabilities in the era of CCSS and the meaning of access to the general education curriculum.
Theories of learning styles suggest that individuals think and learn best in different ways. These are not differences of ability but rather preferences for processing certain types of information or for processing information in certain types of way. If accurate, learning styles theories could have important implications for instruction because student achievement would be a product of the interaction of instruction and the student’s style. There is reason to think that people view learning styles theories as broadly accurate, but, in fact, scientific support for these theories is lacking. We suggest that educators’ time and energy are better spent on other theories that might aid instruction.
Determining the most effective curricula for students with severe disabilities requires increased attention as legislation and curricular changes are being made in the field of special education. This article a) reviews the legislation mandates from the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), b) discusses evidence-based practices for a standards-based curriculum and functional curriculum, and c) examines longitudinal outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The research suggests that students working on functional skills provided through a meaningful curriculum leads to a more independent life. Recommendations for future research and discussion are also presented.
This scholarly review presents a case for transforming special education rather than reauthorizing special education law in its present form and, in doing so, reconceptualizing the inclusion movement to recognize marginalizing influences. A comprehensive review of research, policy reviews, and observations of praxis is undertaken to examine current special education law. Three unintended consequences are identified: (a) the least restrictive environment provision; (b) incremental successes of the inclusion movement’s emphasis on placement; and (c) the effort to promote racial integration in current special education policy. While unintended consequences cannot be foreseen, the structure of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA) has changed little since the 1970s despite evolving praxis and understandings of social justice. This article is intended to facilitate a conversation about a path forward for special education, including whether IDEIA should be reauthorized in its present form, or what form might be taken under alternative policy.
Description: An exciting introduction to the scientific interface between biological studies of the brain and behavioural studies of human development. The authors trace the field from its roots in developmental psychology and neuroscience, and highlight some of the most persuasive research findings before anticipating future directions the field may take. They begin with a brief orientation of the brain, along with genetics and epigenetics, and then summarise brain development and plasticity. Later chapters detail the neurodevelopmental basis of a wide variety of human competencies, including perception, language comprehension, socioemotional development, memory systems, literacy and numeracy, and self-regulation. Suitable for advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in developmental cognition or neuroscience, this textbook covers the prenatal period through to infancy, childhood, and adolescence. It is pedagogically rich, featuring interviews with leading researchers, learning objectives, review questions, further-reading recommendations, and numerous colour figures. Instructor teaching is supported by lecture slides and a test bank.
With this position paper, we advance the case for reformation of special education law and praxis. These have undergone mostly incremental changes over the five decades since their inception despite a substantial body of evidence amassed over this period, which points to a major gap between extant policy and praxis, and contemporary cultural ethos and mindset of stakeholders engaged in the mission of special education. We review evidence supporting the need for change, with a particular focus on the continuing practice of segregating students with complex educational support needs. We examine this practice’s contributions to ongoing racial segregation within special education, including intersectionality. We consider the inclusion movement and reasons for its failure to rectify problems with implementing the least restrictive environment mandate in current law. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of mindset and nomenclature as they pertain to students with support needs in considering reformation. Finally, we review relevant theories of systems change and their potential contributions to the process of reformation. We conclude with a suggestion that alternatives to the next reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be considered in the public policy arena, including a possible conversion of policy and funding to a Title program as one option.
This meta-analysis examined learners' academic achievement in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) environments compared to business-as-usual conditions. Twenty studies, consisting of 50 individual effects, met the eligibility criteria, focusing uniquely on participants' learning and treatment/control designs. Academic achievement was analyzed for pre-kindergarten to adult participants. Results yielded a moderate positive combined effect for learners receiving UDL treatments (g = 0.43), indicating moderate efficacy of the UDL-based instruction. Five significant moderators were identified. In addition, the UDL Reporting Criteria were employed to assess whether studies included information regarding UDL-based design components. UDL's emergence as a research-based practice for diverse learners is discussed.
Many K-12 students with disabilities (SWDs) spend a large portion of their school day in general classrooms because of a prevailing view that they are more appropriately challenging and beneficial than other educational placements. We questioned this belief by exploring a “dosage” hypothesis: The more time SWD are in general classrooms the better they do academically. We assembled a database spanning 1998 to 2015, inclusive. For nine of these years, we found both Office of Special Education Program’s placement data and National Center for Education Statistics’ reading data. We ran multilevel growth models to describe trends across time for the placement and reading data. Findings indicated a steadily increasing trend for general class placement and a positive but decelerating trend for reading performance, which together produced a widening placement–performance gap after 2007. Among 10 states/jurisdictions with the strongest positive trends for general class placement, there was no uniform pattern of reading performance across years. In short, we found little corroboration of a dosage hypothesis.
This review analyzes studies carried out between 2008 and 2018 which examined the educational impact of interventions based on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID). The review aims to determine the research designs and methods of these studies, and their interventions and effectiveness. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria used in this review. The review demonstrated the diversity of research designs and methods used, which included quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. The interventions included the use of digital environments, e-books, shared stories, audio systems, software and educational activities; all based on the principles of UDL. The reviewed studies confirmed the effectiveness of these interventions in educating such students, whether in academic, social or behavioral aspects. The study recommends further research to give greater clarification of the impact of UDL on the academic, social and behavioral aspects of the education of students with ID. It also recommends increasing the number of research participants and using a qualitative approach to better understand the lived experience of applying these interventions.
Developed first in the late 1990s by the Centre for Applied Special Technology, the pedagogical framework known as “Universal Design for Learning” (UDL) has drawn increasing investment from K-12 and post-secondary institutions. The promoters of UDL often frame the approach as being “based in neuroscience,” and further as an “evidence-based approach” to instructional design in teaching and learning. While the rhetoric is promising, no rigorous published research has demonstrated any improvement in an education intervention designed with UDL principles in mind. Furthermore, the community of practice around UDL appears to be hostile to questions around the rigor of analysis used to promote UDL interventions. Studies of UDL approaches do not follow best practices in terms of research design, and often solicit anecdotes rather than testing the effectiveness of the approach. The purpose of this policy research note is to survey the state of the art in researching UDL and to clarify the origin of the pedagogical theory. Because the effectiveness of this theory has not been proven, there are no grounds for UDL implementation plans to be framed as “evidence-based” decisions. Further, the reluctance of UDL advocates to rigorously study the effectiveness of their intervention raises important questions about their confidence in the theory. For these reasons, the only evidence-based conclusion that can be made about UDL is that further study is required, as its core claims remain unproven. Institutions of any educational level should proceed with caution before devoting significant resources to implementation of UDL.
We acknowledge that some students with severe disabilities are not being taught in general education. We do not agree that inclusion in general education is inherently better, nor do we think it is always appropriate, and we provide some reasons that a full continuum of alternative placements is not only legally mandated but appropriate. We are supportive of placement in general education for children with severe disabilities when it is appropriate.
An overview of special education for persons with disabilities as well as gifted.
This meta-analysis looked at 17 studies which focused on the comparison of reading on screen and reading on paper in terms of reading comprehension and reading speed. The robust variance
estimation (RVE)- based meta-analysis models were employed, followed by four different RVE meta-regression models to examine the potential effects of some of the covariates (moderators) on the mean differences in comprehension and reading speed between reading on screen and reading on paper. The RVE meta-analysis showed that reading on paper was better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension, and there were no significant differences between reading on paper and reading on screen in terms of reading speed. None of the moderators were significant at the 0.05 level. In the meanwhile, albeit not significant, examination of the p-values
for the difference tests prior to 2013 and after 2013 respectively (not shown here) indicated that the magnitude of the difference in reading comprehension between paper and screen followed a diminishing trajectory. It was suggested that future meta-analyses include latest studies, and other potential moderators such as fonts, spacing, age and gender.
Cognitive Load Theory
John Sweller, Paul Ayres, Slava Kalyuga
Effective instructional design depends on the close study of human cognitive architecture—the processes and structures that allow people to acquire and use knowledge. Without this background, we might recognize that a teaching strategy is successful, but have no understanding as to why it works, or how it might be improved.
Cognitive Load Theory offers a novel, evolutionary-based perspective on the cognitive architecture that informs instructional design. By conceptualizing biological evolution as an information processing system and relating it to human cognitive processes, cognitive load theory bypasses many core assumptions of traditional learning theories. Its focus on the aspects of human cognitive architecture that are relevant to learning and instruction (particularly regarding the functions of long-term and working memory) puts the emphasis on domain-specific rather than general learning, resulting in a clearer understanding of educational design and a basis for more effective instructional methods. Coverage includes:
• The analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognition.
• Categories of cognitive load and their interactions in learning.
• Strategies for measuring cognitive load.
• Cognitive load effects and how they lead to educational innovation.
• Instructional design principles resulting from cognitive load theory.
Academics, researchers, instructional designers, cognitive and educational psychologists, and students of cognition and education, especially those concerned with education technology, will look to Cognitive Load Theory as a vital addition to their libraries.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is often promoted as an inclusive teaching methodology for supporting all students within diverse contemporary classrooms. This is achieved by proactively planning to the edges of a classroom by thinking of all the potential needs of students. To examine its effectiveness, a meta-analysis was conducted on empirical research, containing pre- and post-testing, published in peer-reviewed journals between 2013 and 2016 (N = 18). Results from this analysis suggest that UDL is an effective teaching methodology for improving the learning process for all students. The impact on educational outcomes has not been demonstrated. The implications of this study will be discussed.
Análisis aplicado de conducta para maestros, el mítico texto que durante 40 años ha sido el manual de referencia sobre el uso de aplicaciones conductuales en el aula, se edita por primera vez en español. El libro te muestra cómo utilizar los principios del análisis de conducta para crear tu propia receta hacia el éxito educativo. Lleno de prácticas educativas basadas en la evidencia, estrategias concretas y ejemplos divertidos que podrás identificar con tu práctica docente. El texto te ofrece además poderosos métodos para el manejo eficaz y ético de conductas desafiantes en el aula.
Cognitive load theory provides instructional recommendations based on our knowledge of human cognition. Evolutionary psychology is used to assume that knowledge should be divided into biologically primary information that we have specifically evolved to acquire and biologically secondary information that we have not specifically evolved to acquire. Primary knowledge frequently consists of generic-cognitive skills that are important to human survival and cannot be taught because they are acquired unconsciously while secondary knowledge is usually domain-specific in nature and requires explicit instruction in education and training contexts. Secondary knowledge is first processed by a limited capacity, limited duration working memory before being permanently stored in long-term memory from where unlimited amounts of information can be transferred back to working memory to govern action appropriate for the environment. The theory uses this cognitive architecture to design instructional procedures largely relevant to complex information that requires a reduction in working memory load. Many of those instructional procedures can be most readily used with the assistance of educational technology.
Some researchers have characterized Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a promising framework to provide diverse students with access to the general education curriculum, but to what extent and how have UDL-based interventions fulfilled that promise? The purpose of this review was to analyze studies that investigated impacts of UDL-based instruction on academic and social outcomes for pre-K to grade 12 students. For the 13 studies that qualified for our review, we analyzed how researchers applied UDL principles as well as outcomes and efficacy of UDL-based interventions. Results of this analysis suggest that overall, UDL-based instruction has the potential to increase engagement and access to general education curriculum for students with disabilities, and improve students? academic and social outcomes. However, we found mixed results; the efficacy of UDL-based interventions varied considerably within and across many studies, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. In addition, we found that although authors noted that their interventions were UDL-based, there was considerable variance in how authors reported connections between specific UDL guidelines and components of their interventions.
Data-based decision making is the hallmark of response to intervention (RTI) programs. This chapter discusses the origins of the data-based program modification (DBPM) model that, for many, provided the framework that led to the development of RTI. The key assumptions on which DBPM rested are considered relative to RTI as currently implemented and in relation to current research. Attention is given to why it is essential to evaluate the interventions implemented in RTI models, and to questions regarding the technical adequacy of the data being used to make RTI decisions. Extended discussion is provided of issues that decision makers confront in evaluating student data, and caveats regarding data interpretation are provided. Finally, RTI is considered in the context of problem solving and the evaluation activities required to identify problems, define problems, and evaluate interventions. The chapter closes with evaluation at the most intense level of RTI and with the proposition that all interventions must be evaluated regardless of the evidence supporting their effectiveness.
In this article, Don Glass, Anne Meyer, and David H. Rose examine the intersection of arts education and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to inform the design of better art, curricula, and UDL checkpoints. They build a case for the contribution of the arts to expert learning across the affective, recognition, and strategic neural networks and argue for making affective and reflective learning outcomes more explicit in the arts. Throughout this piece, the authors call for a vision of the arts playing an increasing role in providing engaging learning options in an integrated general curriculum.
The print version is available through Amazon, etc. but a richer multimedia version (and one that is more accessible) is available freely at:
http://udltheorypractice.cast.org/login
Universal design for learning (UDL) has gained considerable attention in the field of special education, acclaimed for its promise to promote inclusion by supporting access to the general curriculum. In addition to UDL, there are two other universal design (UD) educational models referenced in the literature, universal design of instruction (UDI) and universal instructional design (UID). This descriptive review of 13 research studies conducted in pre-K-12 and post-secondary settings examined how researchers are applying and evaluating UD in educational settings. Results of the review illustrated that studies use a range of research designs to examine student outcomes and participant perceptions of UD-based curriculum and instruction. Researchers report on their application of UD principles in varied ways, with no standard formats for describing how UD is used. Based on results of the review, we provide recommendations to help establish a meaningful research base on the validity of UD in education.
The concept of learning styles has tremendous logical and intuitive appeal, and educators' desire to focus on learning styles is understandable. Recently, a growing emphasis on differentiated instruction may have further increased teachers' tendency to look at learning styles as an instructionally relevant variable when individualizing instruction in increasingly heterogeneous classrooms. We discuss the overlapping concepts of individualized instruction and differentiated instruction, briefly review the evidence base for learning styles, and argue that instruction should indeed be individualized and differentiated. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence, however, to support learning styles as an instructionally useful concept when planning and delivering appropriately individualized and differentiated instruction.