CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Disability Education and EmploymentInclusive Education and DiversityEducational Technology in Learning

(Re)Considering Universal Design for Learning

Basham, James D., Lowrey, K. Alisa·2026·Journal of Special Education Technology
DOI 10.1177/01626434251361443
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reinforced by technological innovation of the 1990s, the adoption of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) encourages the education system to consider a new approach to designing better learning environments for all students. Since that time, UDL has evolved into a globally recognized framework for proactively designing and considering the needs of all learners, including those with disabilities and those with linguistic, cultural, racial, gender, or any other variability. The recent release of UDL Guidelines 3.0 presents an ideal opportunity for the field to reflect on the framework’s adoption, impact, and future direction. This article examines the evolution, application, and implications of UDL from its origins in the late 1990s to the release of the 3.0 Guidelines in 2024. Authors make recommendations for advancing the future of UDL that include establishing a global, reality-based community that utilizes scientifically rigorous methods to identify universal foundations for learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01626434251361443

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Basham J. D., Blackorby J. (2021). UDL next: The future of the framework. In Lowrey K. (Ed.), Critical issues in universal design for learning (pp. 43–63). Knowledge by Design.
  2. Basham J. D., Gardner J. E. (2010). Measuring universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12(2), 15–19.
  3. Borenstein J., Cushman R. (2022). Introduction to RCR (RCR basic). Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program). https://about.citiprogram.org/
  4. CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0.
  5. CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2.
  6. Ching C. C., Basham J. D., Planfetti E. S. (2005). Technology in education, technology in life: Toward a holistic perspective on integration in preparing tomorrow’s teachers. In Vrasidas C., Glass G. V. (Eds.), Current perspectives on applied information technologies Vol 2.: Preparing teachers to teach with technology (pp. 225–240). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
  7. Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
  8. Eden M., Brickman M. (2024). One small cut for Ed, one giant leap for Doge-kind. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/education/one-small-cut-for-ed-one-giant-leap-for-doge-kind/
  9. Granovskiy B. (2018). Reauthorization of the perkins Act in the 115th congress: The strengthening career and technical education for the 21st century Act. In CRS report R45446, version 2. Updated. Congressional Research Service.
  10. Grigal M., Hart D. (2022). A national overview of inclusive postsecondary education in the United States. In Plaute W. (Ed.), Conference proceedings ESOTA 2022: European State-of-the-Art Congress on Inclusive Post-Secondary Programmes for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (pp. 68–72). IN Inclusive Higher Education Network. https://joinin.education/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ESOTA-2022-conference-proceedings.pdf
  11. Lowrey K. A. (2021). Critical issues in universal design for learning. Knowledge by Design. https://www.knowledge-by-design.com/udlbook.html
  12. Mace R. (1988). Universal design: Housing for the lifespan of all people. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  13. Marino M. T., Israel M., Patterson M. S., Bennett A., Stevens G. (2024). Universal Design for Learning innovation configuration: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7b). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website.
  14. O’Connell K. (2001). Looking at textbooks. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 57.
  15. Orkwis R., McLane K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief.
  16. Rao K., Smith S. J., Edyburn D., Grima-Farrell C., Van Horn G., Yalom-Chamowitz S. (2018). UDL reporting criteria. In Developed by a working group of the universal design for learning implementation and research (UDL-IRN) research committee. UDL. https://udl-irn.org/udl-reporting-criteria/
  17. Swan K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In Bourne J., Moore J. C. (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Sloan Center for Online Education.
  18. UDL-IRN. (2011). Critical elements of UDL in instruction. https://mits.cenmi.org/

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Authors
Basham, J. D., & Lowrey, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Basham, James D.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Special Education Technology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-07-27
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
199-212
ISSN
  • 0162-6434 (ISSN-L)
  • 2381-3121
DOI
10.1177/01626434251361443
OpenAlex
W4412682054
Semantic Scholar
88aeb3e31f3a4e928125e3682cf549be3e27b4d6
Cited by
9
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2
FWCI
9.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Special Education Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Inclusive Education and Diversity
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
Universal Design for Learning, inclusive education, learning environment design, students with disabilities, learner variability, educational technology

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