Universal Design For Learning (UDL) Guidelines: Full-Text Representation February 1, 2011
Universal Design For Learning (UDL) Guidelines: Full-Text Representation February 1, 2011
Universal Design For Learning (UDL) Guidelines: Full-Text Representation February 1, 2011
Version 2.0
February 1, 2011
Suggested Citation: CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version
2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
1
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
2
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
At CAST, we began working nearly 26 years ago to develop ways to help learners with
disabilities gain access to the general education curriculum. In the early years, we
focused on helping individuals adapt or “fix” themselves – overcoming their disabilities
in order to learn within the general education curriculum. This work commonly focused
on Assistive Technology, compensatory tools (such as spellcheck) and skill building
software, all of which remain an important facet of any comprehensive educational plan.
However, we also realized that our focus was too narrow. It obscured the critical role of
the environment in determining who is or who is not considered “disabled.” In the late
1980s, we shifted our focus towards the curriculum and its limitations. Asking the
important question: how do those limitations “disable” learners?
This shift led to a simple, yet profound realization: the burden of adaptation should be
first placed on curricula, not the learner. Because most curricula are unable to adapt to
individual variability, we have come to recognize that curricula, rather than learners, are
disabled, and thus we need to “fix” curricula not learners.
CAST began in the early 1990s to research, develop, and articulate the principles and
practices of Universal Design for Learning. The term was inspired by the universal
design concept from architecture and product development pioneered by Ron Mace of
North Carolina State University in the 1980s. This movement aims to create physical
environments and tools that are usable by as many people as possible. A classic example
of universal design is curb cuts. Though originally designed for people in wheelchairs,
they are now used by everyone from people with shopping carts to a parent pushing a
stroller. Since our focus was on learning and not buildings or products, we approached
the problem via the learning sciences and not through direct application of the original
architectural principles.
Over time, we came to understand that learning involves specific challenge in the area to
be learned, and so for it to occur, we have to eliminate unnecessary barriers without
eliminating the necessary challenges. Thus, the UDL principles go deeper than merely
focusing on physical access to the classroom; they focus on access to all aspects of
learning. This is an important distinction between UDL and a pure access orientation.
This work has been carried out in collaboration with many talented and dedicated
education researchers, neuroscientists, practitioners, and technologists. As the UDL field
has grown, so has the demand from stakeholders for Guidelines to help make applications
of these principles and practices more concrete and applicable to curricular design. It was
because of this call from the field that the UDL Guidelines were created.
3
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Introduction
The goal of education in the 21st century is not simply the mastery of content knowledge
or use of new technologies. It is the mastery of the learning process. Education should
help turn novice learners into expert learners—individuals who want to learn, who know
how to learn strategically, and who, in their own highly individual and flexible ways, are
well prepared for a lifetime of learning. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) helps
educators meet this goal by providing a framework for understanding how to create
curricula that meets the needs of all learners from the start.
The UDL Guidelines, an articulation of the UDL framework, can assist anyone who plans
lessons/units of study or develops curricula (goals, methods, materials, and assessments)
to reduce barriers, as well as optimize levels of challenge and support, to meet the needs
of all learners from the start. They can also help educators identify the barriers found in
existing curricula. However, to fully understand these Guidelines one must first
understand what UDL is.
UDL helps address learner variability by suggesting flexible goals, methods, materials,
and assessments that empower educators to meet these varied needs. Curricula that is
created using UDL is designed from the outset to meet the needs of all learners, making
costly, time-consuming, and after-the-fact changes unnecessary. The UDL framework
encourages creating flexible designs from the start that have customizable options, which
allow all learners to progress from where they are and not where we would have
imagined them to be. The options for accomplishing this are varied and robust enough to
provide effective instruction to all learners.
4
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
The pedagogical, neuroscientific, and practical underpinnings of UDL are also discussed
at greater length in books such as Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age by Rose &
Meyer (ASCD, 2002), The Universally Designed Classroom (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock,
Eds.; Harvard Education Press, 2005), and A Practical Reader in Universal Design for
Learning (Rose & Meyer, Eds.; Harvard Education Press, 2006).
5
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
help create the background knowledge and vocabulary necessary for understanding these
guidelines. The questions include:
A concise definition of Universal Design for Learning was provided by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008, which stated:
In addition to this definition, the framework of UDL has been elaborated by CAST in
Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age by Rose & Meyer (ASCD, 2002), The
Universally Designed Classroom (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, Eds.; Harvard Education
Press, 2005), and A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer,
Eds.; Harvard Education Press, 2006).
The goal of education is the development of expert learners, something that all students
can become. From the UDL perspective expert learners are:
6
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
3. Purposeful, motivated learners. Expert learners are eager for new learning
and are motivated by the mastery of learning itself; they are goal-directed in
their learning; they know how to set challenging learning goals for
themselves, and know how to sustain the effort and resilience that reaching
those goals will require; they can monitor and regulate emotional reactions
that would be impediments or distractions to their successful learning.
Goals are often described as learning expectations. They represent the knowledge,
concepts, and skills all students should master, and are generally aligned to standards.
Within the UDL framework, goals themselves are articulated in a way that acknowledges
learner variability and differentiates goals from means. These qualities enable teachers of
UDL curricula to offer more options and alternatives—varied pathways, tools, strategies,
and scaffolds for reaching mastery. Whereas traditional curricula focus on content or
performance goals, a UDL curriculum focuses on developing “expert learners.” This sets
higher expectations, reachable by every learner.
7
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Materials are usually seen as the media used to present learning content and what the
learner uses to demonstrate knowledge. Within the UDL framework, the hallmark of
materials is their variability and flexibility. For conveying conceptual knowledge, UDL
materials offer multiple media and embedded, just-in-time supports such as hyperlinked
glossaries, background information, and on-screen coaching. For strategic learning and
expression of knowledge, UDL materials offer tools and supports needed to access,
analyze, organize, synthesize, and demonstrate understanding in varied ways. For
engaging with learning, UDL materials offer alternative pathways to success including
choice of content where appropriate, varied levels of support and challenge, and options
for recruiting and sustaining interest and motivation.
8
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Curricula often provide for very limited instructional options. Not only are
they typically ill-equipped to differentiate instruction for differing learners, or
even for the same learner at different levels of understanding, but they are
disabled by their inability to provide many of the key elements of evidence-
based pedagogy, such as the ability to highlight critical features or big ideas,
the ability to provide relevant background knowledge as needed, the ability to
relate current skills to previous skills, the ability to actively model successful
skills and strategies, the ability to monitor progress dynamically, the ability to
offer graduated scaffolding, among others. Most current curricula are typically
much better at presenting information than teaching.
The usual process for making existing curricula more accessible is adaptation of curricula
so that they are more accessible to all learners. Often, teachers themselves are forced to
make difficult attempts at adapting inflexible “one-size-fits-all” curricular elements that
were not designed to meet the variability of individual learners. The term Universal
Design for Learning is often mistakenly applied to such after-the-fact adaptations.
However, Universal Design for Learning refers to a process by which a curriculum (i.e.,
goals, methods, materials, and assessments) is intentionally and systematically designed
from the beginning to address individual differences. With curricula that are designed
with the principles of UDL, the difficulties and expenses of subsequent “retrofitting” and
adaptation of “disabled” curricula can be reduced or eliminated–and a better learning
environment can be implemented.
The challenge is not to modify or adapt curricula for a special few, but to do so effectively
and from the start. Considerable research already exists that identifies the effective
evidence-based practices for learners presently “in the margins”. Unfortunately, these
best practices have not been available to all learners, and typically are offered only after
learners have already failed in mainstream curricula. They are often then provided in
separate remedial or special placements where ties to the general curriculum and its high
standards have been severed entirely. A UDL curriculum provides the means to repair
those severed ties, and promote the inclusion of all learners.
Dedicated educators always find ways to design curricula that meets the needs of all
learners, whether they are using technology or not. However, powerful digital
technologies applied using UDL principles enable easier and more effective
customization of curricula for learners. Advances in technology and the learning sciences
have made “on-the-fly” individualization of curricula possible in practical, cost-effective
ways, and many of these technologies have built in supports, scaffolds, and challenges to
help learners understand, navigate, and engage with the learning environment.
9
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
It is also important to point out that simply using technology in the classroom should not
be considered implementation of UDL. Using technology does not necessarily enhance
learning, and many technologies have the same accessibility problems that non-tech
options might have. Technology needs to be carefully planned into the curriculum as a
way to achieve the goals.
However, there is an important exception. For some students, the use of personal
assistive technologies – e.g., an electric wheelchair, eyeglasses, or a cochlear implant – is
essential for basic physical and sensory access to learning environments. Those students
will need their assistive technologies, even during activities where other students may not
use any technologies at all. Even in classrooms that are well equipped with UDL
materials and methods, their assistive technology neither precludes nor replaces the need
for UDL overall. (For a more elaborate discussion of the complementary roles of UDL
and Assistive Technology see Rose, D., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005))
In short, technology is not synonymous with UDL, but it does play a valuable role in its
implementation and conceptualization.
UDL is based upon the most widely replicated finding in educational research: learners
are highly variable in their response to instruction. In virtually every report of research on
instruction or intervention, individual differences are not only evident in the results; they
are prominent. However, these individual differences are usually treated as sources of
annoying error variance as distractions from the more important “main effects.” UDL, on
the other hand, treats these individual differences as an equally important focus of
attention. In fact, when viewed through the UDL framework these findings are
fundamental to understanding and designing effective instruction. The research that
supports UDL falls into four categories: foundational research of UDL, research on the
UDL principles, research on promising practices, and research on implementation of
UDL.
10
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
UDL draws from a variety of research including the fields of neuroscience, the learning
sciences, and cognitive psychology. It is deeply rooted in concepts such as the Zone of
Proximal Development, scaffolding, mentors, and modeling, as well as the foundational
works of Piaget; Vygotsky; Bruner, Ross, and Wood; and Bloom, who espoused similar
principles for understanding individual differences and the pedagogies required for
addressing them. For example, Vygotsky emphasized one of the key points of UDL
curricula—the importance of graduated “scaffolds”. These are important to the novice,
but that can be gradually removed as the individual acquires expertise. Scaffolding with
graduated release is a practice that is as old as human culture and is relevant to learning
in almost any domain, from learning to walk or ride a bike “unaided” to the long
apprenticeships of neurosurgery or aircraft flying.
Implementation Research
Fourth, there is research on specific applications of UDL within learning environments,
including conditions necessary for implementation, common barriers, and lessons from
the field. This new area of research is in its early stages but will take a more prominent
place as full-scale curricular applications and system-wide implementations are
developed. It should be noted that this is another area in which we greatly encourage
contributions from the research field.
11
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
scale. Of course, there are also many questions that are not articulated yet, which will
develop as the field does.
This is the text representation of the Guidelines. It features full descriptions of each
principle and guideline, as well as descriptions and examples of each checkpoint. Of
course, this type of representation is not always best for everyone, so we have also
created a graphic organizer and a teacher checklist, and have plans to develop other
representations. These are all available online through the National Center on Universal
Design for Learning (http://www.udlcenter.org/).
This text-version of the Guidelines is the second revision in what we consider a dynamic
and developmental process. As such they are not to be thought of as final. They will
constantly evolve with our understanding of the research from the fields of UDL,
education, psychology, neuroscience, along with others. Since this document lacks
finality, we greatly encourage participation and collaboration from implementers,
advocates, and researchers, as well as people working in other fields, with the goal of
making the Guidelines more accurate and inclusive.
As with the first version of these Guidelines, our intention remains to collect and
synthesize comments from the field, weigh them against the latest research evidence, and,
in consultation with an editorial advisory board, make appropriate modifications,
additions, and updates to the UDL Guidelines on a regular basis. This is just a beginning
and, we hope, a promising one for improving opportunities for all individuals to become
expert learners.
The UDL Guidelines are organized according to the three main principles of UDL
(representation, action and expression, and engagement). These are arranged differently
depending on the purpose of the representation, but the content is consistent. To provide
more detail, the principles are broken down into Guidelines, which each have supporting
checkpoints. In short, they are arranged from principle (least detail) guideline
checkpoint (most detail).
12
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
The Guidelines should not just be applied to one aspect of the curriculum nor should they
be used with only a few students. Ideally the guidelines would be used to evaluate and
plan goals, methods, materials, and assessments for the purpose of creating a fully
accessible learning environment for all.
13
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Learners differ in the ways that they perceive and comprehend information that is
presented to them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or
deafness); learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia); language or cultural differences, and so
forth may all require different ways of approaching content. Others may simply grasp
information quicker or more efficiently through visual or auditory means rather than
printed text. Also learning, and transfer of learning, occurs when multiple representations
are used, because it allows students to make connections within, as well as between,
concepts. In short, there is not one means of representation that will be optimal for all
learners; providing options for representation is essential.
14
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
15
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Text is a special case of visual information. The transformation from text into
audio is among the most easily accomplished methods for increasing accessibility.
The advantage of text over audio is its permanence, but providing text that is
easily transformable into audio accomplishes that permanence without sacrificing
the advantages of audio. Digital synthetic Text-To-Speech is increasingly
effective but still disappoints in its ability to carry the valuable information in
prosody.
Implementation Examples:
Follow accessibility standards (NIMAS, DAISY, etc.) when creating
digital text
Allow for a competent aide, partner, or “intervener” to read text aloud
Provide access to text-to-Speech software
16
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
Embed support for vocabulary and symbols within the text (e.g.,
hyperlinks or footnotes to definitions, explanations, illustrations, previous
coverage, translations)
Embed support for unfamiliar references within the text (e.g., domain
specific notation, lesser known properties and theorems, idioms, academic
language, figurative language, mathematical language, jargon, archaic
language, colloquialism, and dialect)
17
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
18
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
19
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
20
UDL Guidelines Version 2.0
21
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
Learners differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express
what they know. For example, individuals with significant movement impairments (e.g.,
cerebral palsy), those who struggle with strategic and organizational abilities (executive
function disorders), those who have language barriers, and so forth approach learning
tasks very differently. Some may be able to express themselves well in written text but
not speech, and vice versa. It should also be recognized that action and expression require
a great deal of strategy, practice, and organization, and this is another are in which
learners can differ. In reality, there is not one means of action and expression that will be
optimal for all learners; providing options for action and expression is essential.
22
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
Providing a child with a tool is often not enough. We need to provide the support
to use the tool effectively. Many learners need help navigating through their
environment (both in terms of physical space and the curriculum), and all learners
should be given the opportunity to use tools that might help them meet the goal of
full participation in the classroom. However, significant numbers of learners with
disabilities have to use Assistive Technologies for navigation, interaction, and
composition on a regular basis. It is critical that instructional technologies and
curricula do not impose inadvertent barriers to the use of these assistive
technologies. An important design consideration, for example, is to ensure that
there are keyboard commands for any mouse action so that learners can use
common assistive technologies that depend upon those commands. It is also
important, however, to ensure that making a lesson physically accessible does not
inadvertently remove its challenge to learning.
Implementation Examples:
Provide alternate keyboard commands for mouse action
Build switch and scanning options for increased independent access and
keyboard alternatives
Provide access to alternative keyboards
Customize overlays for touch screens and keyboards
Select software that works seamlessly with keyboard alternatives and alt
keys
23
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
Use social media and interactive web tools (e.g., discussion forums, chats,
web design, annotation tools, storyboards, comic strips, animation
presentations)
Compose in multiple media such as text, speech, drawing, illustration,
comics, storyboards, design, film, music, visual art, sculpture, or video
Solve problems using a variety of strategies
Checkpoint 5.3 - Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice
and performance
Learners must develop a variety of fluencies (e.g., visual, audio, mathematical,
reading, etc.). This means that they often need multiple scaffolds to assist them as
they practice and develop independence. Curricula should offer alternatives in the
degrees of freedom available, with highly scaffolded and supported opportunities
provided for some and wide degrees of freedom for others who are ready for
independence. Fluency is also built through many opportunities for performance,
be it in the form of an essay or a dramatic production. Performance helps learners
because it allows them to synthesize their learning in personally relevant ways.
Overall, it is important to provide options that build learners’ fluencies.
Implementation Examples:
24
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
25
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
26
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
feedback that allows learners to monitor their own progress effectively and to use
that information to guide their own effort and practice.
Implementation Examples:
Ask questions to guide self-monitoring and reflection
Show representations of progress (e.g., before and after photos, graphs and
charts showing progress over time, process portfolios)
Prompt learners to identify the type of feedback or advice that they are
seeking
Use templates that guide self-reflection on quality and completeness
Provide differentiated models of self-assessment strategies (e.g., role-
playing, video reviews, peer feedback)
Use of assessment checklists, scoring rubrics, and multiple examples of
annotated student work/performance examples
27
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
Affect represents a crucial element to learning, and learners differ markedly in the ways
in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn. There are a variety of sources that
can influence individual variation in affect including neurology, culture, personal
relevance, subjectivity, and background knowledge, along with a variety of other factors.
Some learners are highly engaged by spontaneity and novelty while other are disengaged,
even frightened, by those aspects, preferring strict routine. Some learners might like to
work alone, while others prefer to work with their peers. In reality, there is not one means
of engagement that will be optimal for all learners in all contexts; providing multiple
options for engagement is essential.
29
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
30
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
31
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
32
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
accomplish this, learners need to be able to set personal goals that can be
realistically reached, as well as fostering positive beliefs that their goals can be
met. However, learners also need to be able to deal with frustration and avoid
anxiety when they are in the process of meeting their goals. Multiple options need
to be given to learners to help them stay motivated.
Implementation Examples:
Provide prompts, reminders, guides, rubrics, checklists that focus on:
o Self-regulatory goals like reducing the frequency of aggressive
outbursts in response to frustration
o Increasing the length of on-task orientation in the face of
distractions
o Elevating the frequency of self-reflection and self-reinforcements
Provide coaches, mentors, or agents that model the process of setting
personally appropriate goals that take into account both strengths and
weaknesses
Support activities that encourage self-reflection and identification of
personal goals
33
UDL Guidelines Version 2 Draft
Alternatively, one of the key factors in learners losing motivation is their inability
to recognize their own progress. It is important, moreover that learners have
multiple models and scaffolds of different self-assessment techniques so that they
can identify, and choose, ones that are optimal.
Implementation Examples:
Offer devices, aids, or charts to assist individuals in learning to collect,
chart and display data from their own behavior for the purpose of
monitoring changes in those behaviors
Use activities that include a means by which learners get feedback and
have access to alternative scaffolds (e.g., charts, templates, feedback
displays) that support understanding progress in a manner that is
understandable and timely
34
Acknowledgements:
The UDL Guidelines were compiled by David H. Rose, Ed.D., Co-Founder and Chief
Education Officer at CAST, and Jenna Gravel, M.Ed., doctoral student at Harvard. They
have received extensive review and comments from: colleagues at CAST; teachers at the
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels; researchers; and other practitioners.
As with Guidelines 1.0 we will be inviting peer review and comments from individuals
throughout the field.
35