The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016
Abstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing research suggests that UDL is an effective methodology for improving the learning process for all; students undertaking UDL courses report higher satisfaction, greater engagement, and reduced barriers to learning.
“Existing research suggest that UDL is an effective methodology for improving the learning process for all; students undertaking UDL courses report higher satisfaction, greater engagement, and reduced barriers to learning (Capp, 2017; Soek et al., 2018).”
From Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Capp, 2017
While there is evidence for associated improvements in learning process and experience, impact on long term positive outcomes remains unclear.
“While there is evidence for associated improvements in learning process and experience, impact on long term positive outcomes remains unclear (Capp, 2017).”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as Capp, 2017
Capp's meta-analytic study found evidence for improvements in learning but not in academic outcomes from universal design for learning.
“based, for example, on UDL which Capp (2017) documents in a meta-analytic study. This found evidence for improvements in learning, but not in academic outcomes.”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as Capp (2017)
UDL is premised on considering all potential students' needs at the point of design.
“Universal design for learning (UDL) offers a potential framework, which is premised on considering all potential students ' needs at the point of design (Capp, 2017).”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as Capp, 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis
Hamilton, L. G., & Petty, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
“Existing research suggest that UDL is an effective methodology for improving the learning process for all; students undertaking UDL courses report higher satisfaction, greater engagement, and reduced barriers to learning (Capp, 2017; Soek et al., 2018).”
MethodWestine, C. D., Oyarzun, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Casto, A., Okraski, C., Park, G., Person, J., & Steele, L. (2019) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. (2024) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330241291769 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“Universal design for learning (UDL) offers a potential framework, which is premised on considering all potential students ’ needs at the point of design (Capp, 2017).”
Influential(Re)Considering Universal Design for Learning
Basham, J. D., & Lowrey, K. A. (2026) · Journal of Special Education Technology · doi:10.1177/01626434251361443 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Accessibility Work in Academia: Balancing Needs, Bridging Gaps, and Breaking Down Barriers
Ly, C. K., Cross, T., Petterson, A., Pandey, I., & Chandra, P. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757454 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Universities typically draw on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) [18, 29] in pursuit of creating "universally accessible" classrooms [19, 74].”
- Authors
- Capp, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Brisbane Catholic Education (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Capp, Matthew James
- Venue
- International Journal of Inclusive Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05-13
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 791-807
- ISSN
- 1360-3116 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5173
- OpenAlex
- W2613305305
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Inclusive Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Social Sciences › Education › Inclusive Education and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Education › Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion
- Keywords
- Universal Design for Learning, inclusive education, teaching effectiveness, educational outcomes, classroom diversity, academic performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
