Building on the articles I reviewed yesterday, my deep dive into universal design (UD) continued today. Here are two literature reviews that will make my list of top finds:
- Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models, A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980
- Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5–15.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time today to fully synthesize these with the other articles I’ve reviewed, but here are two key quotes I’m pulling from these works that frame the gap related to a lack of research examing UD interventions on learning outcomes:
- Echoing Edyburn* (2010), Roa et al. suggest in their review of UD literature the research base supporting universal design in education is in a nascent phase with a “lack of clear definition of what constitutes an intervention that is universally designed … There is no consensus on how UD principles should be applied, nor is there agreement as to how much or in what combination the principles or guidelines of any model need to be present for an educational intervention to be considered universally designed” (p. 154).
- Echoing Edyburn* (2010), Roberts et al. conclude in their review of UD for Instruction (UDI) literature that an empirical research base is lacking. They call for “intervention research that examines the impact of UDI on objectives measures of student outcomes” (p. 14).
*Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.