680688
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244016680688SAGE OpenRao and Meo
research-article2016
Special Issue - Student Diversity
Using Universal Design for Learning to
Design Standards-Based Lessons
SAGE Open
October-December 2016: 1–12
© The Author(s) 2016
DOI: 10.1177/2158244016680688
sgo.sagepub.com
Kavita Rao1 and Grace Meo2
Abstract
The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework can be used to proactively design lessons that address learner variability.
Using UDL guidelines, teachers can integrate flexible options and supports that ensure that standards-based lessons are
accessible to a range of learners in their classrooms. This article presents a process that teachers can use as they develop
standards-based lesson plans. By “unwrapping” academic standards and applying UDL during the lesson planning process,
teachers can identify clear goals aligned with an academic standard and develop flexible methods, assessments, and materials
that address the needs and preferences of varied learners. General educators and special educators can use this process to
develop inclusive lesson plans that address all learners, with and without disabilities.
Keywords
special education, education, social sciences, curriculum, diversity and multiculturalism, teaching, students
Learner variability exists in every classroom. Although
diversity is often thought of in relation to students’ backgrounds and abilities (e.g., students receiving special education services, English language learners, culturally and
linguistically diverse students), variability is not limited to
any particular category of students. Learner variability comes
in many forms and applies to all students and includes individual and personal attributes of students that impact how
they experience schooling. For example, students process
information in different ways and work at different paces.
They have varied family backgrounds, and bring different
knowledge bases and experiences to class. Students vary in
their approach to completing tasks (e.g., some find it easy to
generate writing whereas others labor over the task), in the
ways they interact and communicate in class (e.g., some are
reserved whereas others are more talkative), and in the ways
they organize and process information. In addition, Meyer,
Rose, and Gordon (2014) note that “personal qualities and
abilities continually shift, and they exist not within the individual but in the intersection between the individual and their
environment, in a vast, complex, ever-changing dynamic
balance” (p. 81). The existence of learner variability in any
given classroom poses a complex set of factors for teachers
to consider as they design instruction to meet the needs of all
students. Developing lessons that align with grade-level academic standards while taking into account the varied needs
of students is a common challenge for teachers.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for
designing flexible instructional environments and proactively integrating supports that address learner variability.
UDL is based on the premise that instruction can be accessible to a wider range of learners when lessons are intentionally designed to include multiple means for accessing,
processing, and internalizing information (Rose & Gravel,
2009). By considering the UDL guidelines during the lesson
planning phase, teachers can build in flexible pathways from
the outset, integrating elements that address the range of
backgrounds, preferences, abilities, and needs of their students and ensure that their lessons are comprehensible and
engaging for all.
Despite the fact that learner variability exists in all classrooms, UDL-based lesson development does not compel the
teacher to develop unique paths for each student’s needs.
Because learner variability is both systematic and predictable, teachers can reasonably predict some of the ways in
which their students will vary and include flexible options
that will support a range of learners in any given class.
Teachers can address variability by including flexible pathways within a lesson, which in turn proactively provide supports and scaffolds that take into consideration the diverse
attributes of students.
1
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Center for Applied Special Technology, Wakefield, MA, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Kavita Rao, Department of Special Education, College of Education,
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Wist 120, 1776 University Ave., Honolulu,
HI 96822, USA.
Email: kavitar@hawaii.edu
Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2
SAGE Open
Figure 1. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines version 2.0.
In this article, we describe a process that teachers can use
to develop standards-based lessons that address learner variability with UDL. By undertaking this process during the lesson planning phase, teachers can increase access for all
learners, including students with disabilities and culturally
and linguistically diverse students. We describe how teachers
can (a) analyze and unwrap academic standards to determine
the core skills and concepts that they need to teach and (b)
apply UDL guidelines to the four lesson components—goals,
assessments, methods, and materials. This process gives
teachers a systematic way to design lessons that include flexible pathway and supports to help students progress toward
mastery of standards-based lessons.
Background on UDL
The UDL framework is based on three main principles of
providing multiple means of representation, action and
expression, and engagement (see Figure 1 for one-page overview of the UDL framework). These three principles of UDL
are based on brain research on cognition and learning, which
has shown that individuals process information in varying
ways. The first principle, multiple means of representation,
is linked to the “recognition” networks of the brain. The second principle, multiple means of action and expression, is
linked to the “strategic” networks, and the third principle,
multiple means of engagement, is linked to the “affective”
networks (Meyer et al., 2014). When we acquire new skills
and knowledge, these three networks interact, allowing us to
recognize, comprehend, internalize, express, and relate to the
information we are learning. The UDL framework presents a
structure for designing instructional environments and activities that take into account the varied ways in which these
learning networks function for each individual.
The UDL framework presents a set of guidelines for integrating flexible options into curriculum and instruction (see
Figure 1) under the three domains of representation, action
and expression, and engagement. UDL has nine guidelines
and 31 “checkpoints” that provide greater definition on how
a teacher can build flexible pathways into a lesson (Hall,
Meyer, & Rose, 2012). Educators can refer to the UDL
checkpoints as they design lessons, to intentionally consider
and proactively build in strategies that support academic and
affective needs of students (Israel, Ribuffo, & Smith, 2014).
The 31 checkpoints define how to provide physical access,
cognitive access, and options for engagement. Physical
access refers to the representation of information and the formats by which students can receive/express information
(e.g., vary the methods for response and navigation, offer
alternatives for visual information). Cognitive access
includes the provision of supports and scaffolds to help students achieve instructional goals. For example, checkpoints
3
Rao and Meo
under the UDL Guideline “Provide options for executive
function” (e.g., goal setting, supporting planning and strategy development, and monitoring one’s own progress) are
examples of methods to provide cognitive access. Some
checkpoints address strategies to foster student engagement
(e.g., optimize individual choice and autonomy, heighten
salience of goals and objectives). The 31 UDL checkpoints
provide a menu of ideas of various scaffolds and options that
can be incorporated to make a lesson comprehensible and
engaging for varied learners. The Center for Applied Special
Technology website (www.cast.org) has more information
on how the guidelines can be applied to instruction. An interactive graphic of the UDL framework version 2.0 can be
found on the National Center for Universal Design for
Learning (NCUDL, 2010) website at http://www.udlcenter.
org/aboutudl/udlguidelines.
A research base on how UDL can be applied to curriculum and instruction has been emerging in the past decade. A
review of research studies on UDL in the classroom (Rao,
Ok, & Bryant, 2014) found that researchers have applied
UDL to various levels of curriculum and instruction.
Researchers have examined how UDL can be applied to
teacher-developed lessons and curricula (Browder, Mims,
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2008; Dymond et al.,
2006; King-Sears et al., 2015). Several studies have examined academic outcomes and engagement with UDL-based
digital learning environments (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph,
& Smith, 2012; Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, & Snow, 2011;
Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2015; Marino et al., 2014;
Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013). Studies have demonstrated that UDL-based instruction results in positive academic gains and increased engagement for students.
UDL focuses on the reduction of barriers in the learning
environments to make lessons more inclusive for all students.
Teachers can start by considering what the existing barriers are
within a lesson and then develop an instructional plan that
reduces those barriers by giving students various ways to
access and engage with instructional activities. By considering
what the barriers are, teachers can build in supports from the
outset rather than modifying lessons after the fact to address
the needs of learners. General educators and special educators
can use UDL to create standards-based lessons for inclusive
classroom settings (Meo, 2008). Although UDL-based lessons
broaden access for varied learners and build in supports that
can address a range of learner needs, it is worth noting that for
some students, additional accommodations and modifications
may also need to be made to address specific needs and objectives on their individualized education plans.
Academic Standards and UDL
Academic standards are commonly used to articulate shared
expectations of what students should learn as they progress
through their schooling. Some countries have developed
national curriculum frameworks that include academic
standards and achievement objectives for elementary and
secondary grade levels. For example, Finland, Australia,
and New Zealand have developed curriculum frameworks
that specify benchmarks and learning objectives (Sargent,
Houghton, & White, 2011) to be addressed in each grade
level across in core content areas. Curriculum frameworks
generally include guidance in the inclusion of all students in
standards-based education, establishing an imperative to
design standards-based instruction with necessary learning
supports for students with special educational needs.
In the United States, the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) were developed as a set of national standards that
states can choose to adopt. The CCSS is comprised of a common set of learning targets for Grades K-12 in two main
domains, English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. In the
CCSS, literacy is integrated across the content areas and content areas such as social studies, science, and technical subjects
are addressed under the ELA domain. The CCSS establishes a
shared set of expectations that focused on achievement for all
students, including students who receive services for special
education and English language learners (CCSS Initiative
[CCSSI], 2015). The CCSS makes reference to UDL in the
document titled “Application to Students With Disabilities,”
which is available on the CCSS website (http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions).
Aligned with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) mandate to ensure access to the general curriculum for
students with disabilities, this document notes that the CCSS
can improve access to the rigorous academic content standards
and identifies UDL as a means to create access, stating,
Promoting a culture of high expectations for all students is a
fundamental goal of the Common Core State Standards. In order
to participate with success in the general curriculum, students
with disabilities, as appropriate, may be provided additional
supports and services, such as: Instructional supports for
learning-based on the principles of Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) which foster student engagement by presenting
information in multiple ways and allowing for diverse avenues
of action and expression. (p. 1)1
Designing Standards-Based Lessons
With UDL
Academic standards are usually worded broadly, without being
prescriptive about how to achieve the objectives defined within
1
The definition of UDL is taken from the from the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (PL 110-135 as a scientifically valid framework
for guiding educational practice that (a) provides flexibility in
the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond
or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are
engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports and challenges, and maintains high
achievement expectations for all students including students with
disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.
4
the standard. The CCSS presents broad goals and benchmarks
and does not dictate the means by which the standard should be
met (Rose, Meyer, & Gordon, 2014). Teachers can design lessons to meet the standards using strategies and resources of
their own choice. As they develop instructional activities, they
can consider how to address standards and learner variability
using UDL. Whereas the academic standards highlight “what”
students should learn, UDL can be used to identify “how” lessons can be designed to minimize barriers and support students’
mastery of standards-aligned goals.
In the following sections, we present a process for developing standards-based lessons, using UDL to increase
access for all learners. We provide an example of how this
process can be applied to one standard. The process has two
parts: (a) unwrapping the standard (Ainsworth, 2003) and
(b) applying UDL guidelines to four lesson components during the lesson planning process. This process can be used by
teachers to develop standards-based lessons and to proactively integrate a variety of instructional supports that
address learner variability.
Unwrapping Standards
Academic standards are written as broad goal statements that
provide the foundations for instruction by denoting the skills
and knowledge that students should acquire each year. The
wording of a standard can be complex and dense, incorporating multiple skills and concepts within one statement. The
standards are intended to guide instructional planning.
However, because the standards are meant to be broad and
provide guidelines for what students should master, the
wording often leaves room for teachers to analyze and interpret the standard and design lessons accordingly. Teachers
can “unwrap the standard” to clarify the specific knowledge
and skills they will address as they design lessons.
Ainsworth (2003) describes a process for coding or
“unwrapping” the standards, breaking wording down into
component parts. Morgan et al. (2014) illustrate how a table
with two columns can be used to unwrap the standard, to identify the core skills and concepts that need to be taught. Teachers
can use this unwrapped standard as the basis for defining
instructional goals and designing instructional activities.
Unwrapping a standard consists of identifying two parts
of the standard to determine what students need to do and
know. First, you identify the skills within the standard, by
finding words that denote what the student must be able to
do. Skills often correspond to the verbs in the standard,
because verbs define the action required. Next, you identify
the key concepts, the knowledge and background that a student needs to have to complete the skill. Within the wording
of a standard, the nouns and descriptive phrases often correspond to the concepts that students need to learn.
Figure 2 illustrates how this process can be applied to
one CCSS ELA standard. The standard we unwrap in this
example is a CCSS ELA Literacy Writing standard (CCSS.
SAGE Open
Figure 2. Example of how a CCSS ELA literacy writing standard
can be unwrapped. By unwrapping a standard, teachers can
identify the core skills and the concepts to address as they
design a lesson. To begin unwrapping the standard, teachers can
start by highlighting and underlining keywords (in this example,
the skills are highlighted as bold text and the concepts are
underlined). CCSS = Common Core State Standards; ELA =
English language arts.
ELA-Literacy.W.3.3, 4.3, 5.3) that is used in Grades 3 to 5.
In the example, we have used bolded text to denote the
skills and underlined the phrases that denote the concepts.
The example presents one way to unwrap this standard;
individuals may interpret the wording differently and feel
that other words and phrases denote skills/concepts within
the standard. It is acceptable to code the standards in varied
ways. The essence of the “unwrapping” process is to make
sense of the wording of the standard by considering its
component parts to identify the core skills and concepts
that should be addressed.
By breaking down the standard and examining its component parts, the teacher can determine how to develop an
instructional plan that addresses the skills and concepts
within the standard. In the example in Figure 2, by noting
down the verbs that denote the skills embedded in this standard’s wording, it becomes clearer that the standard addresses
two skills, “write narratives” and “develop experiences or
events.” The unwrapped standard also highlights the concepts that students should develop and demonstrate through
a lesson that addresses this standard. Students will need to
use “effective technique,” incorporate “descriptive details,”
and develop “clear event sequences.” After unwrapping the
standard, the teacher can consider how to develop lesson(s)
that support students as they progress toward mastery of the
skills and concepts identified.
Applying UDL to Lesson Components
UDL can be applied to the four lesson components—goals,
assessments, methods, and materials—in relation to the skills
and concepts denoted in an academic standard. Regardless of
the various formats used for lesson plans, the lesson planning
5
Rao and Meo
Table 1. Considering UDL for Lesson Components.
Lesson
component
Goals
Assessments
Methods
Materials
Questions to ask when considering flexible
components and UDL
Based on the academic standard addressed in
this lesson, what are the skills and concepts
that we want students to master?
How can students demonstrate achievement
of the identified goals in varied ways?
What supports and scaffolds can be used as
part of instruction to help students acquire
the content and demonstrate what they
have learned?
What resources, materials, and tools can
be used to provide multiple means to
represent and express information and
concepts or to engage with content?
Note. UDL = Universal Design for Learning.
Figure 3. UDL cycle of instructional planning. This diagram
illustrates the steps of the process of unwrapping standards
and designing UDL-based lessons. UDL = Universal Design for
Learning.
process typically entails these common elements that correspond to the four lesson components: identifying lesson
goals and objectives that align to standards (goals), developing instructional strategies (methods), choosing resources
and materials (materials), and assessing student progress and
outcomes (assessment). Figure 3 illustrates the cycle of
instruction, denoting how academic standards can guide the
development of goals, which, in turn, guide the development
of assessments, methods, and materials.
After unwrapping the academic standard, teachers can
begin the lesson planning process by reflecting on four key
questions listed in Table 1. Teachers can choose to apply
UDL guidelines to one or more of the lesson components.
There is no prescriptive way to apply UDL; it is left to a
teacher’s discretion to add flexibility and options in ways
that are best suited to the standards and content being
addressed. Knowing the needs of their students, teachers can
apply UDL guidelines in various ways to address their particular context. This process of designing lessons with UDL
can be applied to an individual lesson or a series of lessons;
because standards are written as broad learning targets, it can
require a series of lessons (e.g., a unit of instruction on a
topic) or various lessons over the course of several months or
an academic year to address a specific standard.
In the sections below, we describe how UDL can be
applied to goals, assessments, methods, and materials. In
Table 2, we provide an example of the process, demonstrating how these four lessons components connect to one
another and to the academic standard being addressed by a
lesson. In the example in Table 2, we refer to the ELA standard unwrapped earlier (see Figure 1) and illustrate how a
teacher can develop clear goal statements based on an
unwrapped standard and subsequently reduce barriers by
building flexible pathways in the assessments, methods, and
materials related to the goals.
Step 1: Goals
Developing clear goal statements is a first step to designing
standards-based lessons that are accessible for all learners.
By writing clear goal statements, teachers can articulate how
their lesson objectives connect to the academic standard, and
clearly define what they expect students to learn in a lesson.
In the process of identifying clear goals, teachers can consider potential barriers students may have when reaching the
goal and, as a result, include flexible options in their methods, materials, and/or assessments to support students as
they learn skills and concepts. For standards-based lessons,
teachers can develop clear goals statements by unwrapping
the academic standard and then asking the question, “Based
on the standard, what are the skills and concepts that we want
students to master?”
Academic standards often include words that specify how
students should express knowledge. For example, in Figure 2,
the CCSS ELA standard starts with the phrase “write narratives.” After noting that the standard includes information on a
specific format for expression of knowledge (in this case, writing), teachers can consider how they would like to develop a
goal statement for their lesson based on this standard. Teachers
can use professional judgment to develop goals based on the
standard, taking into consideration the needs of students and
the goals of a lesson. In some cases, it might be appropriate to
modify the format to help students develop mastery of the
various skills and concepts within a standard.
One teacher might decide to interpret the standard literally and clarify that the goal is to have students “write narratives.” Another teacher might decide that the goal is for
students to learn how to develop narratives without
6
Table 2. Addressing Standard With UDL-Based Flexible Lesson Components.
Lesson
components
Unwrap the
standard
Step 1:
Goals
(Develop clear
goal statements
based on
unwrapped
standard)
Step 2:
Assessments
(Develop
formative and
summative
assessments
related to goal
statements)
Skills
• Write narratives
• Develop experiences or events
Concepts
• Effective technique
• Descriptive details
• Clear event sequences
• Students will create narratives
• Students will understand elements of effective
in written, oral, or multimedia
technique in narratives (e.g., including details,
format (chosen by student)
sequencing events clearly).
• In their narratives, students will • Students will demonstrate their knowledge of
describe experiences or events.
effective technique by including descriptive details
and clear event sequences in their narratives.
• As a summative assessment,
teacher will evaluate student
acquisition of skills through
○ Presentations (posters or
multimedia projects)
○ Oral or audio-recorded
presentations
○ Written narrative
•
As a formative assessment, teacher will evaluate
artifacts that students create as they develop their
narratives. Artifacts include storyboard worksheets,
graphic organizers, sequencing cards. Teacher will
provide feedback during narrative development
process to help students use effective technique.
• Teacher will provide a rubric
with clear criteria for elements
that should be in the narrative
in any of the formats selected
by students
Step 3:
Methods
(Develop
instructional
strategies
that integrate
supports and
scaffolds)
• Students will have a choice of
format
• Students will develop the
components of their narrative
through activities that include
scaffolds/supports
• Students will have
opportunities to practice
component skills, such as
describing experiences or
events, incrementally (see
“Concepts” column)
UDL guidelines addressed
Guideline 5: Provide options for expression and
communication
5.1. Use multiple media for communication
5.2. Use multiple tools for construction and communication
Guideline 7. Provide options for recruiting interest
7.1. Optimize individual choice and autonomy
Guideline 5: Provide options for expression and
communication
5.1. Use multiple media for communication
5.2. Use multiple tools for construction and communication
Guideline 6: Provide options for executive function
6.1. Guide appropriate goal setting
6.4. Enhance capacity for monitoring progress
Guideline 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and
persistence
8.4. Increase mastery-oriented feedback
•
As a whole group activity, teacher and students will
read and analyze components of narratives; students
will identify descriptive details and event sequences;
teacher will highlight essential elements of a good
narrative (effective technique).
• To make connections to concepts that students
are familiar with and to increase relevance and
authenticity, teacher asks students to develop
descriptive details about artifacts that have meaning
to them (photos they take, objects they bring
from home). In small groups, students will practice
developing descriptive details about their artifact.
Students will develop descriptive details about their
artifact in small group with peer and teacher feedback.
UDL Guideline 9. Provide options for self-regulation
9.1. Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize
motivation
9.3. Develop self-assessment and reflection
Guideline 2: Provide options for language, mathematical
expressions, and symbols
2.1. Clarify vocabulary and symbols
2.2. Clarify syntax and structure
2.4. Promote understanding across languages
2.5. Illustrate through multiple media
Guideline 3. Provide options for comprehension
3.1. Activate or supply background knowledge
3.2. Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and
relationships
3.3. Guide information processing, visualization, and
manipulation
(continued)
Table 2. (continued)
Lesson
components
Step 4: Materials
(Use materials
that provide
flexible ways
to develop and
express skills
and knowledge)
Skills
• Materials that support the
student-selected formats
○ Written report
○ Poster (for presentation)
○ Multimedia presentation
•
Concepts
To develop concept of clear event sequences,
students will develop short sequences of events,
share with each other, and assess whether they
make sense. Students can use a variety of tools to
develop their sequences (post-it notes, index cards
on which they draw images/write text, PowerPoint
slides on which they place digital images and type in
captions).
• Students who prefer to develop their narratives
orally will be guided to record what they will say
and elaborate on their ideas with teacher feedback.
• Teacher will provide supports for developing
vocabulary and making connections to background
knowledge about narratives. Students can use
graphic organizers (paper or digital) to generate
a word bank for their narrative, ELL students can
generate ideas using first language, etc.
UDL guidelines addressed
Guideline 5. Provide options for expression and
communication
5.3. Build fluencies with graduated support for practice/
performance
Guideline 6: Provide options for executive function
6.2. Support planning and strategy development
Guideline 7. Provide options for recruiting interest
7.2. Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity
Guideline 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and
persistence
8.3. Foster collaboration and community
•
Storyboard worksheet (paper worksheet with boxes Guideline 1. Provide options for perception
on which students draw images and write captions)
1.2. Offer alternatives for auditory information
• Graphic organizer (paper based or digital)
1.3. Offer alternatives for visual information
• Recording tools (apps on a mobile device or on a
laptop)
Guideline 4. Provide options for physical action
4.1. Vary the methods for response and navigation
4.2. Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies
Guideline 5: Provide options for expression and
communication
5.2. Use multiple tools for construction and communication
Note. The table illustrates how the standard connects with goals, assessments, methods, and materials. Using the example of the CCSS ELA Literacy standard that was unwrapped in Figure 1, this table
denotes how a teacher can develop lesson components that address skills and concepts within the standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.3, 4.3, 5.3: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences
or events using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. UDL = Universal Design for Learning; ELL = English language learner; CCSS = Common Core State Standards; ELA =
English language arts.
7
8
defining the specific format in the goal statement. This
teacher might want to give students options to develop a
narrative with a choice of formats (e.g., oral retelling, multimedia presentation, in writing). She or he can develop a
goal statement that states that students can “create narratives in written, oral, or multimedia format,” denoting the
connection to the academic standard and clearly stating
how it was modified for purposes of this lesson. Another
teacher might decide that the ultimate goal is to have students write narratives, as stated in the standard, but to give
students flexible pathways that incorporate other formats
for expression during the instructional process. This teacher
can design a lesson in which students have the choice to
develop their narratives in various formats as they work
toward ultimately creating a written narrative. In these
ways, based on their objectives for a lesson and for their
students, teachers can develop clear goal statements in relation to the academic standard.
Stating a clear goal statement is important because the
goal drives the other lesson components (assessments,
methods, materials). For example, if the teacher’s goal for
a particular lesson is to have all students “write narratives”
in this specific format, it is important to consider the fact
that writing can pose barriers for some students. The teacher
can take into consideration ways to facilitate the writing
process. Some students benefit from drafting their writing
on a computer and/or utilizing software that helps them
organize or generate words (e.g., graphic organizer software; Bouck, Meyer, Satsangi, Savage, & Hunley, 2015).
Students can also develop fluency with writing through the
use of multimodal scaffolds, such as writing captions to
images, describing their narratives orally, or recording their
narratives before putting them in written format (Rao,
Dowrick, Yuen, & Boisvert, 2009; Wolsey & Grisham,
2012). By including these options, as appropriate, within a
lesson, the teacher can build in supports to help students
master the goal. In contrast, if a teacher’s goal is to have
students develop a narrative in a format of their choice, the
teacher can provide supports and scaffolds for students to
help them develop their work. By starting the planning process with a clear goal statement, teachers can make key
decisions about the scaffolds and supports they can include
within their instructional activities.
Table 2 illustrates how the UDL framework can be used
to define clear goal statements and how the assessments,
methods, and materials for the lesson are linked to that goal
statement. In the “Goals” row of Table 2, the teacher chooses
to modify the “write narratives” skill within the standard
and allows students the choice to “create narratives” in varied formats of their choice. This aligns with the UDL by (a)
giving students the opportunity to use multiple media for
communication (UDL Checkpoint 5.1), (b) letting students
use multiple tools for construction and composition (UDL
Checkpoint 5.2), and (c) optimizing individual choice by
SAGE Open
letting students select their preferred format for expression
(UDL Checkpoint 7.1). The teacher also develops a clear
goal statement to address the three main concepts within the
standard stating that, “students will demonstrate their
knowledge of effective technique by including descriptive
details and clear event sequences in their narratives.” By
clearly describing what is expected of the students, the
teacher can build in supports to help students achieve these
goals linked to the standard.
Step 2: Assessments
Assessments are closely tied to instructional goals. The goal
statement(s) describes what the teacher would like students
to learn, do, or engage with to reach mastery of skills/content
related to a standard. To assess whether students are reaching
mastery, teachers can build in two kinds of assessments—
formative assessments that allow students to demonstrate
their progress as they learn and summative assessments that
show what a student has learned from the lesson or at the end
of a unit. UDL guidelines can be applied to developing both
formative and summative assessments. The teacher can
begin by asking the question “How can students demonstrate
achievement of the identified goals in varied ways?”
If the goal statement does not state the specific format for
demonstration of knowledge, the teacher can evaluate a student’s knowledge by offering options of various formats, not
limiting the evaluation to just one type of product. In the example in Table 2, the teacher gives the students various choices for
the end product. The student can create a poster, multimedia
presentation, oral presentation, or a written narrative. This
gives students the opportunity to use (a) multiple media for
communication (UDL Checkpoint 5.1) and (b) multiple tools
for construction and composition (UDL Checkpoint 5.2). When
students are given choices of various formats, it is useful to
provide clear criteria for what is expected. By creating a checklist or rubric, teachers can establish expectations and clarify
what the end product must include, regardless of the format the
student chooses. Using these criteria, the teacher can assess students’ progress toward or mastery of the skills and concepts
learned during the lesson(s). This aligns with UDL by (a) guiding appropriate goal setting by clearly articulating the end goals
(UDL Checkpoint 6.1) and (b) enhancing the capacity for monitoring progress by providing a format for students to assess
their own work (UDL Checkpoint 6.4).
Many times, teachers are required to use a summative
assessment in a specific format (e.g., a written report that all
teachers at the grade level have assigned). In this case, flexibility can be built into formative assessments of a student’s
progress prior to the summative assessment. If the student has
to ultimately generate a written narrative, the artifacts that a
student creates in the development process can be assessed
along the way. As an interim step to developing a report, the
student can be asked to orally state the key points or to create
Rao and Meo
a presentation that includes the key points. The teacher can
assess whether the student is demonstrating proficiency with
the concepts within the standard (e.g., effective technique,
descriptive details, and clear event sequences) and provide
feedback to the student to support the development of his or
her written narrative. If students have used other supports
such as graphic organizers, audio recordings, drawings, they
can also turn in these artifacts along with the written narrative. By assessing these formative stages, teachers can “provide mastery-oriented feedback” (UDL checkpoint 8.4) and
assess the interim steps a student takes to generate the final
written narrative. For students who struggle with or feel anxious about tests, assessing their formative work can be a way
to provide incremental feedback, give students opportunities
to make progress with skills with feedback, helping them feel
like more successful learners and building a sense of confidence as learners. These strategies align with UDL checkpoints of (a) promoting expectations and beliefs that optimize
motivation (UDL Checkpoint 9.1), (b) facilitating personal
coping skills and strategies (UDL Checkpoint 9.2), and (c)
giving students the opportunity to develop self-assessment
and reflection (UDL Checkpoint 9.3).
A note on standardized testing. Teachers often have to prepare
students for standardized tests, limiting the flexibility they
can provide in a lesson. In this case, teachers can identify
goals that are directly linked to test-taking strategies and provide students with supports and practice to be able to respond
effectively to standardized test formats (Novak, 2014). For
example, a goal might be to have students gain comfort with
standardized test structures, to help students prepare for the
test and to minimize stress. Within a standards-based lesson,
the teacher can include goals related to the content being
taught and also include goals related to familiarizing students with the formats they will encounter on the test when
they are assessed on this content. UDL guidelines that align
with standardized test preparation are (a) providing clarification of test language (UDL Checkpoint 2.1), (b) highlighting
patterns that the student can expect to find in the test (UDL
Checkpoint 3.2), (c) building fluency in the test format
through practice (UDL Checkpoint 5.3), (d) minimizing
threats and distractions by pre-teaching specific test-taking
strategies (UDL Checkpoint 7.3), and (e) facilitating personal coping skills by preparing the student for the test (UDL
Checkpoint 9.2).
Step 3: Methods
Methods are at the heart of the instructional process; these
are the strategies teachers use to implement a lesson to convey information and engage students in the process of developing mastery of skills and content. After unwrapping the
standard, stating a clear goal, and determining how students
will be assessed, there are numerous ways in which teachers
9
can apply UDL to the instructional strategies they will use
during a lesson. Because the lesson goals are linked to the
skills/concepts identified within the standard, the teacher can
use UDL to ensure that students have flexible and engaging
ways to work toward that goal, as they progress toward mastery of the academic standard that guides the lesson. As they
consider instructional strategies to use, teachers can ask the
question “What supports and scaffolds can be used as part of
instruction to help students acquire the content and demonstrate what they are learning?”
Many of the UDL checkpoints provide direct suggestions
for supports that can be used during instruction. UDL
Guideline 2 (provide options for language, mathematical
expressions, and symbols) and Guideline 3 (provide options
for comprehension) and their checkpoints suggest various
techniques that can help make information comprehensible
to a wide range of learners. The UDL checkpoints also provide ideas for scaffolds that can be provided during instructional activities. Scaffolds are the incremental supports that
are provided during the instructional process and can be
faded as students master concepts. Scaffolds are useful in
addressing learner variability because they can be used by
each student to the degree that they are needed. Given the
varied background experiences, knowledge, and abilities of
students, scaffolds can provide varied levels of support and/
or challenge for students as needed. For example, teachers
can provide scaffolds to support executive function, which
falls under UDL Guideline 6. Executive function refers to the
individual’s ability to organize, manage, and act upon information. Teachers can build in scaffolds for executive function by integrating opportunities for goal setting, planning
and strategy development, and self-monitoring as part of the
activities within a lesson. Teachers can also ask themselves
where they can build fluency with new skills/content by providing graduated support for practice and performance (UDL
Checkpoint 5.3). These scaffolds can address learner variability by providing students with various supports as they
learn, giving them ways to practice and master skills as
appropriate for their ability levels.
In the example in Table 2, the teacher uses various supports and scaffolds to help students “demonstrate their understanding of effective technique by including descriptive
details and clear event sequences in their narratives,” which
is the instructional goal linked to the concepts for the standards that guide this lesson. To do this, the teacher includes
activities that give students opportunities to describe objects
and reflect on how they can be more accurate or vivid in
their descriptions. She asks students to bring in artifacts that
are meaningful to them and to come up with as many
descriptive words about that object. In this way, she
addresses various UDL guidelines related to vocabulary.
This activity helps (a) students clarify vocabulary and symbols (UDL Checkpoint 2.1), (b) students clarify syntax and
structure (UDL Checkpoint 2.2), (c) promote understanding
10
across languages for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (UDL Checkpoint 2.4), and (d) illustrate concepts with the use of multiple media (UDL Checkpoint 2.5).
This activity also engages students in the development of the
concept by starting with something that is relevant and
authentic to them (UDL Checkpoint 7.2). The teacher can
use various formats for this activity to support student learning. For example, they can first describe their objects to a
small group and get feedback from their classmates. Then
they can share their artifact and descriptive details with the
whole class. This fosters community and collaboration in a
way that can be supportive for students (UDL Checkpoint
8.3). These activities serve to give students opportunities to
clarify and practice what they are expected to do before they
are asked to work on their narratives independently (UDL
Checkpoint 6.2).
To develop students’ understanding of “clear event
sequences,” the teacher does a guided activity in which the
students reflect on narratives she has chosen to identify the
event sequences. This can (a) activate or supply background
knowledge before students try to develop event sequences on
their own (UDL Checkpoint 3.1) and (b) highlight patterns,
critical features, big ideas, and relationships (UDL
Checkpoint 3.2). Teachers can also provide students with
images or strips of text that they have to sequence to practice
what a clear event sequence is, guiding information processing and visualization (UDL Checkpoint 3.3). These are just a
few examples of instructional supports and scaffolds that a
teacher can integrate to address specific skills and concepts
of the standards-based lesson. All the supports described
above can be helpful to a range of students by providing various options that support perception, comprehension, processing, expression, and engagement for varied learners.
Integrating strategies that motivate and engage students during the learning process is an essential aspect of learning as
students build skills and knowledge.
Step 4: Materials
The resources and materials that teachers use in a lesson
should align closely with the instructional strategies and
scaffolds used in the lesson. Teachers can decide how to provide flexible options and support learning processes using a
variety of materials. Materials can include “no tech” or low
tech resources such as post-it notes, index cards, and flash
cards. They can include high tech tools, such as computers
and tablets. Materials can be used to help students chunk
information (e.g., writing down information on an index card
or brainstorming and generating a classroom list with post-it
notes) or process information in varied ways (e.g., using
graphic organizers to organize information). Teachers can
ask themselves, “What resources, materials, and tools can be
used to provide multiple means to represent and express
information and concepts or to engage with content?”
SAGE Open
Teachers can also include materials that support the process of learning. For example, a mobile device such as a tablet or smartphone can be used to have the students record
what they have to say as an interim step to developing a written narrative. Sometimes materials and tools are made available only to specific students, for example, visual organizers
or technology tools are given to students who have that on
their individualized educational plans (IEPs). For a UDLbased lesson, it is optimal to provide supports to all students
and give students the choice to use various materials, instead
of providing them as modification or accommodation only
for specified students.
In the example in Table 2, the teacher uses a “storyboard
worksheet” to help students develop a narrative. This worksheet provides a way for students to plan out their narrative
using images and captions. The teacher also gives students
the opportunity to use digital graphic organizer software to
brainstorm ideas prior to creating their storyboard. Students
can also use digital devices, such as apps on a tablet or smartphone or software on a laptop to record their thoughts and to
use their audio recordings to develop structured narratives.
The use of these materials (a) offers alternatives for auditory
information (UDL Checkpoint 1.2) and for visual information (UDL Checkpoint 1.3), (b) varies the methods for communication (UDL Checkpoint 4.1), (c) gives students access
to tools and assistive technologies (UDL Checkpoint 4.2),
and (d) lets students use multiple tools for construction and
communication (UDL Checkpoint 5.2).
A note about digital tools. It is worth mentioning that although
UDL does not require the use of technology, digital tools
help to create flexible environments. For example, laptops
and tablets present text in a digital format. This “digital
text” inherently includes options that increase flexibility and
access. For example, digital text can be easily manipulated.
The font size or color can be modified, text spacing can be
changed, and text-to-speech features of the computer can be
used to listen an audio version of the text on screen. Digital
text can also be linked to definitions, words, and phrases.
Digital text can be formatted to help students chunk information and to remove visual clutter. For teachers who have
the opportunity to integrate computers or tablets into the
classroom, digital text and media provide many options for
flexibility that can support student needs during the learning
process, consistent with UDL Guideline 1 (provide options
for perception) and UDL Guideline 4 (provide options of
physical access). Simply providing students with digital text
may not be enough however. It is important for teachers to
know how digital text can be used as part of a set of flexible
methods and materials to make content more accessible to
students. To this end, it is important to provide teachers with
the professional development and support to understand
how to incorporate these features into their instructional
strategies.
Rao and Meo
Conclusion
Academic standards provide a benchmark for essential
skills and knowledge that students need to master as they
progress through the grade levels. Teachers can identify
goals that are aligned to academic standards and provide
various ways for achieving the goals, integrating instructional strategies that serve as supports and scaffolds to help
all students progress toward mastery of the standards-based
lessons. The instructional design process described in this
article highlights how teachers can proactively differentiate
lessons using the UDL guidelines as a menu of options to
consider during the lesson planning process. The example
of how UDL can be applied to the lesson components to
address one ELA standard illustrated just a few ways in
which teachers can integrate flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments. Teachers are free to choose the elements that resonate for them, given the reality of their
classrooms and the initiatives at their schools. If a school
has adopted a packaged curriculum, teachers may not have
room to make all components flexible, but can ask themselves how to add in some flexibility, as a scaffold to having students reach the end goals. By considering UDL
during the planning process and adding in flexible pathways to reaching the learning goals, teachers can reduce
barriers that exist in curricula and increase opportunities
that allow all learners to reach the same high standards.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Ainsworth, L. (2003). “Unwrapping” the standards: A simple process to make standards manageable. Englewood, CO: Lead +
Learn Press.
Bouck, E. C., Meyer, N. K., Satsangi, R., Savage, M. N., & Hunley,
M. (2015). Free computer-based assistive technology to support students with high-incidence disabilities in the writing
process. Preventing School Failure, 59, 90-97. doi:10.1080/1
045988X.2013.841116
Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
& Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research
and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 3-12.
doi:10.2511/rpsd.33.1-2.3
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). Application to
students with disabilities [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://
www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Application-toStudents-with-Disabilities-again-for-merge1.pdf
Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012).
Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for
11
students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 33, 162-172. doi:10.1177/0741932510381651
Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E.
(2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies
and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment
for fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students.
Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 68-100. doi:10.1177/10862
96X103978732
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E. J., Banks,
R. A., Niswander, V., & Gibson, C. L. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a universally
designed inclusive high school science course: A case study.
Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,
31, 293-308. doi:10.1177/154079690603100403
Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015).
Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology:
Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 72-83.
doi:10.1177/0731948714544375
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2012). Universal design for
learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Israel, M., Ribuffo, C., & Smith, S. (2014). Universal design for
learning: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7). Retrieved from
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations
King-Sears, M. E., Johnson, T., Berkeley, S., Weiss, M., PetersBurton, E., Evmenova, A., . . . Hursh, J. (2015). An exploratory
study of universal design for teaching chemistry to students
with and without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
38, 84-96. doi:10.1177/0731948714564575
Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., Basham, J. D.,
& Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement
and learning for students with learning disabilities? Learning
Disability Quarterly, 37, 87-99. doi:10.1177/0731948713503963
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21-30. doi:10.3200/
PSFL.52.2.21-30
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design
for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: Center for
Applied Special Technology. Retrieved from http://udltheorypractice.cast.org/login
Morgan, J., Brown, N., Hsiao, Y., Howerter, C., Juniel, P.,
Sedano, L., & Castillo, W. (2014). Unwrapping academic
standards to increase the achievement of students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 131-141.
doi:10.1177/105345121349
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2010). UDL
guidelines version 2.0 [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.
udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
Novak, K. (2014). UDL now: A teacher’s Monday morning guide
to implementing the common core standards using universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional
Publishing.
Rao, K., Dowrick, P., Yuen, J., & Boisvert, P. (2009). Writing in
a multimedia environment: Pilot outcomes for high school
students in special education. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 24, 27-38. doi:10.1177/016264340902400103
12
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research
on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special
Education, 35, 153-166. doi:10.1177/0741932513518980.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S.,
Robinson, K. H., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design for
learning and elementary school science: Exploring the efficacy,
use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal
of Education Psychology, 105, 1210-1225. doi:10.1037/
a0033217
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2009). Getting from here to there:
UDL, global positioning systems, and lessons for improving
education. In D. T. Gordon, J. W. Gravel, & L. A. Schifter
(Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp.
5-18). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Gordon, D. (2014). Reflections: Universal
design for learning and the common core. The Special EDge,
27(2), 3-5.
Sargent, C., Houghton, E., & White, E. (2011). Thematic Probe:
Curriculum specification in seven countries: April 2011. Slough,
UK: National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved
SAGE Open
from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre-for-informationand-reviews/inca/TP%20Curriculum%20specification%20
in%20seven%20countries%202011.pdf
Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2012). Teaching Practices
That Work: Transforming writing instruction in the digital
age: Techniques for grades 5-12. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.
Author Biographies
Kavita Rao is an Associate Professor at College of Education,
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Her research focuses on instructional and assistive technology, Universal Design for Learning
(UDL), online learning for non-traditional students, and technologyrelated strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Grace Meo was the Sr Director of Professional Learning and
Outreach Services at the Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). Grace managed programs for preK-20 teachers and administrators. She has been involved implementation of Universal Design
for Learning at the classroom, school, district, and state levels.