Analyzing a College Course that Adheres to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Framework

Main Article Content

Frances G Smith


Universal design for learning (UDL) offers an educational framework for a college instructor that can maximize the design and delivery of course instruction by emphasizing multiple representations of materials, varied means for student expression, content and knowledge, and multiple ways to motivate and engage student learning. Through a UDL lens, learner variability is anticipated and considered as a strength in the instructional planning process. The present study examined the reflective practice of one faculty member as she applied the UDL framework to her graduate class. Study participants were engaged in action research that both explored the faculty’s use of the UDL framework to design and deliver an introductory graduate research methods course and, student perspectives of the application of this approach. Both faculty and student responses were favorable towards the implementation of the UDL instructional practice. Results suggest that when faculty use the UDL framework to help design courses, goals are more clearly aligned with instructional practices; there is a positive relationship to student interest and engagement; and students are positively engaged in the course.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
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. Retrieved from


Abell, M.M., Jung, E., and Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of ‘universal design for learning’. Learning Environment Research, 14, 171-185.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (1999). Technology to support learning. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J.D., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., Meltzoff, A. et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 207-244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruce, S.M. and Pine, G.J. (2010). Action Research in Special Education: An Inquiry Approach for Effective Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bull, G. and Garofalo, J. (2009). Dynamic media. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40-41.

Center for Universal Design. (2005). What is universal design? Retrieved from

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (2010). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Coyne, P., Ganley, P., Hall, T., Meo, G., Murray, E., and Gordon, D. (2006). In D. H. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.). A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning, (1-13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Coyne, P., Pisha, P., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., and Cook-Smith, N. (2010, August). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, DOI: 10.1177/0741932510381651. Retrieved from

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Dahlstrom, E., deBoor, T., Grunwald, P., and Vockley, M. (2011). ECAR national study of undergraduate students and information technology. Executive Summary, Educause Center for Applied Research, 4-34.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., and Deysher, S. (2002, January). Engaging the text:Strategy instruction in a computer-supported reading environment for struggling readers. Executive Summary. Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved from

Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., and Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7), 1-33.

Eble, K.E. (1986). The Craft of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fischer, K.W., and Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought and emotion, W.Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical Models of Human Development. Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed.,Vol. 1, pp. 313-399. New York: Wiley.

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). PL 110–315, 122 §3079.

Hitchcock, C., and Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, and universal design for learning: Improved learning outcomes. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 45-52.

Howe, N., and Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to College. Washington, DC: The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Administrative Officers.

Huang, H.B. (2010). What is good action research? Action Research, 8(1), 93-109.

Kortering, L.J., McClannon, T.W., and Braziel, P.M. (2008). Universal design for learning: A look atwhat algebra and biology students with and without high incidence conditions are saying. Remedial And Special Education, 29(6), pp.352-363.

Levin, D., and Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.

McGuire, J.M., Scott, S.S., and Shaw, S.F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.

McKenzie, W. (2002). Multiple Intelligences and Instructional Technology: A Manual for Every Mind. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010a). Fast facts. Retrieved from

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012b). Enrollment trends by age. The Condition of Education. Retrieved from

National Center on UDL. (2011a). Learner Variability and UDL. In UDL Series. Retrieved from

National Center on UDL. (2012b). What is UDL? Retrieved from

National Center on UDL. (2012c). UDL guidelines: Version 2.0. Retrieved from

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2011). Fostering student engagement campus wide annual results 2011. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Oblinger, D.G., and Oblinger, J.L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Retrieved from

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Raz, A., and Buhle, J. (2006). Typologies of attentional networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 367-379.

Rose, D.H. (2001). Universal design for learning: Deriving guiding principles from networks that learn. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 66-70.

Rose, D.H. (2005). Cognition and learning: Meeting the challenge of individual differences. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 83, 30-36.

Rose, D.H., and Gravel, J.W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.McGraw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (119–124). Oxford: Elsevier. Retrieved from

Rose, D.H., and Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rose, D.H., and Meyer, A. (2006). A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rose, D.H., and Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of individual differences through neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381-391.

Rose, L.T., and Fischer, K.W. (2009). Dynamic systems theory. In R.A. Shweder (Ed.), The Child: An Encyclopedia Companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Russell, M. (2011). Personalizing assessment. In T. Gray & H. Silver-Pacuilla (Eds.), Breakthrough Teaching and Learning (pp. 111-126). New York: Springer Publishing.

Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez, I.M., Pinto A.M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A.B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464-481.

Schelly, C.L., Davies, P.L., and Spooner, C.L. (2011). Student perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 17-30.

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350353.

Shifman, L., and Thelwall, M. (2009). Assessing global diffusion with web memetics: The spread and evolution of a popular joke. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2567-2576.

Smith, F.G. (2007). Perceptions of universal design for learning (UDL) in college classrooms. Ed.D. dissertation, The George Washington University, United States -- District of Columbia. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses @ George Washington University - WRLC database. (Publication No. AAT 3296852).

Spooner, F., Baker, J.N., Harris, A.A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., and Browder, D.M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 106-116.

United States Department of Education (2010). 2010 national education technology plan. Retrieved from

Wang, Y., Kretschmer, R.E., and Hartman, M.C. (2010). Teacher-as-researcher: Theory-into practice. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(2), 105-108.