Belief without evidence? A policy research note on Universal Design for Learning
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21728003 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael P A Murphy (0000-0002-9523-4402, University of Ottawa, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 7-12 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy Futures in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1478-2103 • E-ISSN: 1478-2103 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478210320940206 |
| OpenAlex | W3041477028 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 20 |
| References cited | 7 |
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
Engineering ethics · Management science · Pedagogy · Universal Design for Learning · Digital Accessibility for Disabilities · Disability Education and Employment · Engineering · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development
L’anasynthèse comme cadre méthodologique pour l’élaboration d’un modèle de planification de l’enseignement relevant de l’approche d’évaluation fondée sur le programme
Conceptualising the Pedagogue as Wanderer
Rewild My Heart
Universal Design for Learning
A critical analysis of the research evidence behind Cast’s universal design for learning guidelines
A review of neurological support for universal design for learning
A critical discourse analysis of the concept of universal design for learning (UDL)
A critical analysis of universal design for learning in the U.S. federal education law
Multiple means of representation? A critical analysis of Universal Design for Learning checkpoint 1.2
Universal design for learning as emancipatory education
Transforming higher education
Inclusion of higher education disabled students
Integrating Universal Design for Learning in higher education
The SEN industry and teachers’ CPD
Universal design for learning in physical education
Universal Design for Learning Research
Universal Design for Learning. A systematic review of its role in Teacher Education
STEM Faculty Professional Development
Considering the sensory and social needs of disabled students in higher education
Universal design
| Unique citing works | 20 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 18 |