See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351359650

Lessons (Not) Learned: The Troubling Similarities Between Learning Styles and
Universal Design for Learning

Article  in  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology · May 2021

DOI: 10.1037/stl0000280

CITATIONS READS

3 2,783

1 author:

Guy Boysen
McKendree University
96 PUBLICATIONS   1,478 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guy Boysen on 29 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Lessons (Not) Learned: The Troubling Similarities Between Learning Styles

and Universal Design for Learning

Guy A. Boysen

McKendree University

In press at Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology.

Author Note

Guy A. Boysen, Department of Psychology, McKendree University, ORCID iD: 0000-

0003-3869-9585.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Guy A. Boysen,

McKendree University, 701 College Rd., Lebanon, IL 62254. E-mail:

gaboysen@mckendree.edu

© 2021, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record

and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. The final article

will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/stl0000280

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 2

Abstract

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a major trend in education. The goal of UDL is to

design educational experiences that allow all students to match their unique ways of learning to

varied modes of engagement, information representation, and expression of learning. Although

UDL originated from disability accommodations in K-12 settings, its proponents now claim that

it can increase learning for all students in all settings. The strong claims made about UDL

warrant critical analysis. UDL shares problematic similarities in theory, operationalization, and

research with the discredited concept of learning styles. No strong research evidence exists that

either approach increases learning. Research on both approaches is hampered by inadequate

operationalization. Both learning styles and UDL emphasize diversity in learning over universal

learning principles and hypothesize that matching instruction to students’ unique way of learning

leads to increased learning. Justifications for both approaches rely on overgeneralizations of

neuroscience research. Although UDL shows promise as an educational framework, its

proponents need to learn from the flaws of learning styles and follow a more scientifically sound

path forward.

Keywords: education, universal design, learning styles, scholarship of teaching

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 3

Lessons (Not) Learned: The Troubling Similarities Between Learning Styles

and Universal Design for Learning

It’s going to be bigger than the Beatles, the Stones, Lady Gaga, and Beyoncé.

– Jose Blackorby, Senior Director of Research and Development at CAST

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a growing movement in education. The concept

of universal design originated in architecture and refers to the intentional planning of structures

so that they are accessible to people of all abilities. In architecture, the quintessential example of

universal design is planning buildings without stairs rather than retrofitting them with wheelchair

ramps. Educators have adopted universal design as a metaphor for accessibility in teaching and

learning. According to the metaphor, learning experiences should be accessible to students of all

abilities. In education, the quintessential example of universal design is to provide closed

captioning for videos so that students may read or listen to the content. By offering a multimodal

form of education, UDL promises to increase accessibility and learning for all students.

The UDL movement began in the 1990s when the Center for Applied Special

Technology (CAST) began to promote instructional methods designed to equalize accessibility

for K-12 students with disabilities (Hitchcock et al., 2002; Tobin & Behling, 2018). Over the

next two decades, UDL principles became part of Federal laws regulating the design of K-12

programs and the training of teachers (CAST, n.d.-b; Edyburn, 2010). CAST’s current mission is

to “transform education design and practice until learning has no limits” (CAST, n.d.-a, para. 1).

As part of this mission, CAST promotes UDL, not just as a form of special education, but as a

framework for the general education of all K-12 students (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Although
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 4

CAST is a “nonprofit education research and development organization” (CAST, n.d.-a), they

also sell a variety of products and services related to UDL.

UDL’s influence has now expanded to postsecondary education (Fornauf et al., 2020;

Tobin & Behling, 2018). CAST maintains a higher education webpage that lists over two dozen

universities with UDL initiatives (CAST, n.d.-e). In addition, proponents of UDL recommend

that college teachers incorporate its principles into course design (Gradel & Edson, 2009; Tobin

& Behling, 2018). What began as a strategy for the inclusive education of schoolchildren with

disabilities has expanded into a movement that claims to improve learning for all students in all

settings. If embraced in all educational settings, UDL will indeed be “bigger than the Beatles.”

To achieve the goal of increased learning for all students, the UDL framework outlines

educational guidelines that account for diversity in human learning (CAST, 2018b; Rose et al.,

2006). According to UDL, each student is unique – there is no average learner. Thus, UDL

dictates that instructors should provide students with multiple modes for consuming information,

demonstrating learning, and engaging with learning experiences. When multiple modes are

available, students can select the material that best allows them to learn, the type of expression

that best shows their learning, and the form of engagement that best motivates them to learn. Put

simply, UDL proposes that education should match the diverse ways that students learn.

If the premise of UDL sounds familiar, it is because it is also happens to be the central

idea of learning styles (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Pashler et al., 2009). In fact, UDL

shares a startling number of similarities with the now discredited concept of learning styles.

These similarities do not necessarily mean that the approach is ineffective or that it should be

abandoned, especially as an accommodation for disability. However, critical analysis of overlap

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 5

between the approaches is essential so that educators, theorists, and researchers do not make the

same mistakes with UDL as they did with learning styles.

The UDL Framework

Before analyzing the UDL framework, it is necessary to briefly examine its overall

structure. Providing multiple modes of representation, action/expression, and engagement are the

three core principles of UDL (CAST, 2018b; Rose et al., 2006). Representation refers to how

information is presented to students and how they construct meaning from that presentation.

UDL requires that learning materials be accessible in multiple formats and that instruction

include multiple types of pedagogy. For example, points made via text should also be made

using images, and students should be able to adjust the speed, sound, and closed captioning of

videos. By providing multiple means of representation, learning becomes possible for students

who process information in different ways, perhaps due to disabilities, and students who have

different cultural and educational backgrounds. Table 1 provides examples of how college

teachers implement the representation principle, as well as the other two principles.

Even if students learn material represented in multiple modalities, they may not be able to

demonstrate that learning if the mode of assessment does not match their expressive abilities. To

illustrate, requiring a written essay may not accurately show how much a student has learned if

they best express themselves verbally. UDL attempts to separate the expression of learning from

specific format requirements by providing multiple modes of action and expression (CAST,

2018b; Rose et al., 2006). With multiple modes of expression available, students can select the

one that best fits their abilities. For example, students should be able to complete work at the rate

that fits their pace of learning, and they should be able to select the medium for communicating

their knowledge such as with text or media. Allowing students to express learning in different
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 6

modes accommodates students with disabilities who cannot move or communicate in certain

ways and it helps students who have more skill in one mode of expression over other modes.

The final UDL principle is to offer students multiple modes of engagement to motivate

their learning (CAST, 2018b; Rose et al., 2006). Although learning goals remain the same for all

students, the emotional push that gets students to make progress toward those goals varies. UDL

ensures that each student can find a reason to engage in learning tasks. For example, students

should be able to select learning activities that offer their preferred level of novelty or routine,

and they should be able select from activities that vary in required collaboration. Students with

disabilities that affect their tolerance for routine and social interaction benefit from multiple

modes of engagement and so can students whose behavioral motivations vary within normal

parameters.

The Current Analysis

UDL’s original purpose was to ensure equitable access to education for children with

disabilities in the K-12 setting. Now, there are calls for UDL to become a standard framework

for all learners in all settings, including in higher education (CAST, n.d.-c; T E Hall et al., 2012;

Tobin & Behling, 2018). The claim that an educational practice should be implemented for all

learners in all settings should be backed by strong theory, operationalization, and research.

However, UDL has weaknesses in each of these areas. Moreover, the weaknesses parallel those

of learning styles.

For decades, proponents of learning styles claimed that matching instruction to students’

individual learning styles would improve learning (Cassidy, 2004). Despite the immense

popularity of learning styles in education, critical examination illuminated conceptual and

practical failures that ended the approach’s scientific credibility (Lilienfeld et al., 2010; Pashler
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 7

et al., 2009; Scott, 2010). Education is often influenced by ideas without research support or that

are directly contradicted by research (Kendeou et al., 2019). Learning styles are the

quintessential example because, despite more than a decade of debunking, belief in them remains

strong among both educators and the general public (Macdonald et al., 2017; Nancekivell et al.,

2020; Newton, 2015). Learning styles should serve as a parable for educators. Thus, the purpose

of this paper is to outline the problematic parallels between UDL and learning styles so that

educators, theorists, and researchers can avoid the mistakes of the past.

The current analysis illustrates five key similarities between learning-style theories and

UDL. First, both learning styles and UDL lack evidence showing that their implementation

increases student learning. Ultimately, this lack of research support is the most important

similarity. Second, although direct support for the approaches requires research in educational

settings, the operationalization of learning styles and UDL makes it difficult to assess their

outcomes. Third, both learning styles and UDL emphasize the importance of diversity, rather

than universality, in how people learn. Fourth, because of their emphasis on diversity in learning,

both assert that instruction should match students’ specific ways of learning. Fifth, to justify the

existence of students’ unique learning needs, both rely on overgeneralizations from

neuroscience.

Although the purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of UDL, there are

specific parameters to the criticism. To begin, this paper does not analyze universal design as a

general approach to education. Other universal design approaches include Universal Instructional

Design and Universal Design for Instruction, both of which have similarities and differences

with UDL (Rao et al., 2014). UDL is the exclusive focus of this paper because it is the dominant

approach, it has yielded the most scholarly output, and it has unique theoretical assertions. In
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 8

addition, this paper is not a criticism of using universal design to increase educational access for

students with disabilities. Providing students with instructional materials that they can process

and respond to is educationally, ethically, and legally necessary. Finally, this paper is not an

argument that UDL is ineffective nor that UDL should be abandoned. The UDL guidelines

include some practices with the potential to be effective and some established best practices in

education such as setting clear objectives, scaffolding, encouraging collaboration, and providing

feedback (CAST, 2018b). UDL shows promise as an educational framework, but its potential is

reason to examine it carefully, not accept it uncritically.

Similarities Between Learning Styles and UDL

Lack of Evidence for Effectiveness

Science-based approaches to education require empirical evidence that they increase

learning. Moreover, to show that one educational practice should be adopted over another,

research should demonstrate that it is more effective at increasing learning than the standard

practice. For example, hundreds of studies have examined active learning to reach the conclusion

that it yields higher grades and test scores than standard lectures (Freeman et al., 2014). There is

clear evidence that the use of active learning increases learning. In contrast, there is a lack of

evidence showing that instruction based on learning styles or UDL increases learning.

Experts now consider learning styles to be a psychological myth, but decades of research

investigated the use of learning styles in education (Cuevas, 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer,

2013; Pashler et al., 2009; Scott, 2010). Indeed, studies repeatedly showed that students had

learning style preferences and that their preferences correlated with other educational variables.

Nonetheless, the key research question was if matching instruction to learning style increased

learning, and this is where empirical support failed to emerge. In an influential review, Pashler et
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 9

al. (2009) argued that the true test learning styles required random assignment of students with

different learning styles to instruction that either fit or did not fit their style. If learning styles

work as theorized, students’ performance should be higher when instruction matches learning

style and lower when there is not a match. According to Pashler et al.’s (2009) review of the

evidence and subsequent reviews (Cuevas, 2015), research has produced no consistent evidence

for this matching hypothesis.

As with learning styles, experimental evidence is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness

of UDL. To produce the most basic evidence of effectiveness, researchers could assign students

to instruction that is consistent or not consistent with UDL and measure learning outcomes.

However, the conclusion reached across multiple reviews is that no consistent evidence exists to

show that implementation of UDL in the classroom leads to increased learning (Al-Azawei et al.,

2016; Capp, 2017; Fornauf et al., 2020; Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014). In fact, multiple

reviews have shown that UDL researchers do not use the experimental designs needed to

demonstrate causation (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014). Overall, despite strong claims about the

benefits of UDL, research has yet to provide basic evidence for its efficacy.

A detailed examination of studies conducted in college settings illustrates the limitations

of UDL research. Six studies have examined the UDL framework with college students, and

Table 1 summarizes the methods of those studies. None of the six studies included basic

experimental controls such as random assignment, comparison groups, or pre-post

measurements. In addition, only one study included the type of direct measure of learning needed

to support UDL’s efficacy (Dean et al., 2017). Overall, the flaws in these studies’ methods

prevent conclusions about the effectiveness of UDL in a college setting.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 10

The weak research evidence supporting UDL’s effectiveness is inconsistent with the

strong calls for its adoption (Murphy, 2020). What explains this inconsistency? Proponents of

UDL consider the framework to be validated because of the extensive research reviewed when

creating is principles (CAST, n.d.-d; T E Hall et al., 2012). Although research that is consistent

with UDL principles is not the same as research supporting the efficacy of UDL interventions,

proponents of UDL assert that the principles are too new to have been fully validated by

implementation research (CAST, n.d.-d; T E Hall et al., 2012). Some have even claimed that the

flexibility inherent in UDL would be compromised by the strict operationalization required in

efficacy studies. To quote a UDL guidebook, “Through the process of investigation, researchers

risk weakening the application of the UDL framework and, subsequently, the learning

experiences of students” (Nelson, 2014, p. 33). The suggestion that UDL’s effects are diminished

by rigorous investigation is troublingly close to a denial of falsifiability, which would be

antithetical to science and science-based approaches to education.

Inadequate Operationalization

Learning-style theories and the UDL framework both contain interesting and plausible

predictions about effective education. However, their predictions are difficult to test due to

problems with operationalization. One problem is the complexity of the approaches, which

makes them difficult to test. Another problem is the inadequacy of measures associated with the

approaches, which are either psychometrically suspect or nonexistent.

Although the idea of learning styles is simple, the number and complexity of theories

generated from that idea was tremendous. As many as 100 distinct learning-style theories

existed, and at least a dozen received serious scholarly attention (Kirschner & van Merriënboer,

2013; Scott, 2010). Each of the theories had unique predictions about the nature and number of
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 11

learning styles. Consequently, there were dozens of nonoverlapping ways that teachers might

implement learning styles in the classroom but no clear definition of what effective instruction

using the learning styles should look like (Scott, 2010). Overall, the absence of a unified

conceptualization of what constitutes a learning style and learning-styles instruction made tests

of effectiveness difficult.

The measurements used to identify learning styles were another operationalization

problem. The diversity of learning style measures matched the diversity of learning style

theories, but one commonality was the reliance on self-report (Cassidy, 2004; Kirschner & van

Merriënboer, 2013; Scott, 2010). The ideal measure of learning style would be performance-

based, not self-report, because students may have inaccurate beliefs about their learning. A clear

sign of this inaccuracy is the fact that research failed to support the effectiveness of instruction

matched to students’ self-reported learning styles (Pashler et al., 2009). Despite their limitations,

self-reports can have excellent validity. However, many of the learning-styles measures were

psychometrically suspect (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Scott, 2010). For example, not

everyone fell into a specific style of learning. In some cases, sorting of students into learning-

style categories could only occur through median splits or the placement of other unfounded cut

points in the distributions of scores.

Like learning styles, UDL has problems with operationalization. To ease implementation

of the UDL framework, CAST created a set of descriptive guidelines (CAST, n.d.-c, 2018b). The

guidelines include the three foundational principles of representation, action/expression, and

engagement. In addition, the principles are divided into three conceptual levels representing

ways to help students access, build on, and internalize learning goals. These factors produce a 3

x 3 matrix with each cell representing a UDL guideline. Within each of these nine guidelines
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 12

there are two to five checkpoints. The checkpoints represent the most specific definition of what

it means to implement UDL. Putting this all together, the UDL framework consists of six

theoretical factors in learning, 9 guidelines, and 31 implementation checkpoints. This framework

rivals the complexity of any learning-styles theory and represents hundreds of predictions about

how students learn.

With such a complex framework, it is simply not clear what counts as UDL (Murphy,

2020). A staggering variety of educational practices might conceivably be called UDL.

Implementation of UDL could include one, two, or all three of the basic principles; it also could

contain anywhere from one to 31 checkpoints. Additionally, implementation of each principle

may or may not include multiple modes. Even further, the implementation might occur at the

level of an individual lesson, a large or small assignment, or an entire course. What combination

of all these factors is necessary and sufficient for an educational practice to be UDL? Even UDL

experts do not agree (Hollingshead et al., 2020). In fact, the Universal Design for Learning–

Implementation and Research Network organized a summit on UDL research in 2017, and one of

the main conclusions was that there is currently no clear operationalization of what it means to

implement UDL (S. J. Smith et al., 2019).

Another conclusion from the UDL research summit was that the framework lacks an

accepted operationalization of UDL outcomes (S. J. Smith et al., 2019). Implementation studies

have included measures such as completion of learning activities, test scores, performance on

assignments, self-reported performance, and self-reported attitudes about the learning experience

(see Table 1). The gold standard in educational research is to directly assess student learning, but

one of the principles of UDL is that students should be able to choose the mode in which they

demonstrate learning. Having multiple measures of learning within a single intervention makes it
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 13

difficult to determine if UDL is effective (Edyburn, 2010). In addition, UDL presents students

with multiple modes of representation and engagement. Thus, demonstrations of effectiveness

need to account for the fact that implementations will inherently contain “multiple concurrent

interventions” and multiple outcomes (Edyburn, 2010, p. 39). Overall, the complexity of UDL

leaves a Gordian knot that researchers have not yet untangled in studies of the framework’s

effectiveness.

Overemphasis on Diversity in Learning

Investigations of human memory and learning have been part of psychology since its

inception. Research has led to the identification of some fundamental principles about how

people learn in academic settings (Bjork et al., 2013; Dunlosky et al., 2013). Nonetheless, both

learning styles and UDL emphasize diversity in learning rather than universal principles of

learning.

At the heart of learning-styles theory is the assertion that people’s different ways of

learning affect their achievement. Rita Dunn, a major learning-style theorist, stated that “learning

style is the way in which each person absorbs and retains information and/or skills; regardless of

how that process is described, it is dramatically different for each person” (Dunn, 1984, p. 10).

Scholars produced dozens of learning-style theories raging from simple to complex (Cassidy,

2004). One of the simplest was based on dual coding theory and posited that people are either

more efficient at verbalizing information or visualizing information. One of the most complex

theories was Dunn and colleagues’ model that included environmental, emotional, sociological,

physical, and psychological factors that further broke down into 21 individual learning

characteristics. No matter the complexity, the educational implication was the same: instruction

should vary according to learning style.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 14

ULD emphasizes diversity in learning to an even greater degree than learning-style

theories. In fact, proponents of UDL reject learning styles because they find it too limiting to

focus on just one style. According to UDL, there is no average student – students’ learning is as

unique as their fingerprints (CAST, 2018a; Rose & Strangman, 2007). As such, educational

design should address student variability so that it becomes universally effective. UDL takes

diversity in learning to its extreme by asserting that each students’ educational experience should

account for their specific learning needs.

The method UDL uses to tailor education to every student is by offering multiple modes

of representation, action/expression, and engagement (CAST, 2018b; Rose et al., 2006).

Research on UDL in college settings provides examples of this multimodal design (see Table 1).

Multiple representations can include having course notes with text and visual representations (F.

G. Smith, 2012) or by offering readings in formats such as digital and nondigital (Basham et al.,

2010; Dean et al., 2017). Examples of offering multiple modes of action/expression include

allowing students to choose if they respond to questions using words or symbols (Kumar &

Wideman, 2014) and allowing students to complete major projects using paper or multimedia

formats (Rao & Tanners, 2011). Finally, different modes of engagement might include the option

to complete work individually or in groups (F. G. Smith, 2012) and to choose the format of

communication used with peers and the instructor (Basham et al., 2010; Rao et al., 2015). By

offering students option after option and choice after choice, UDL attempts to address all

possible types of diversity in learning.

Human learning occurs according to standard principles, and both learning-style theories

and UDL rightly point out that these principles are subject to individual differences. Educators

can choose how much to emphasize shared human principles of learning and how much to
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 15

emphasize learning differences. However, the assertion that education is more effective if it

emphasizes diversity over universality is a hypothesis that can be empirically tested. In the case

of learning styles, the hypothesized benefits of emphasizing diversity in learning style was not

supported by research (Pashler et al., 2009). With regard to UDL, the hypothesis has yet to be

convincingly tested, let alone supported (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014). UDL’s emphasis on

diversity in learning may indeed turn out to be an effective educational strategy, but established

principles of effective teaching and learning should not be ignored based solely on claims about

UDL’s potential.

Overemphasis on Matching Instruction to Diverse Ways of Learning

Learning-style theories and UDL assert that students are diverse in how they learn. The

logical conclusion from an emphasis on diversity in learning is that there should be diversity in

teaching. Specifically, the implication is that effective instruction should match students’ diverse

ways of learning. Both learning styles and UDL embrace a variation of this problematic

matching hypothesis.

The appeal of learning style theories is that they seem to offer a way to ensure the success

of all students. Teaching material in just one mode inevitably leads some students to succeed and

others to fail. According to learning style theories, the explanation for differences in success is

that the mode of instruction matched the learning styles of some students but not others (Dunn,

1984; Yassin & Almasri, 2015). Therefore, the solution is to design instruction that accounts for

all students’ learning styles. Matching instructional style with learning style should increase

students’ success, but this hypothesis was not supported by experimental research (Cuevas, 2015;

Pashler et al., 2009; Scott, 2010). Despite the intuitive appeal of matching instruction to diverse

styles of learning, it did not have the intended effect.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 16

UDL offers its own version of the matching hypothesis. Instructors do not limit

themselves to designing lessons based on specific learning styles. Rather, they design lessons

with multiple modes of representation, action/expression, and engagement. With numerous

options available, students can select the learning experience that best matches their needs. To

illustrate, a lesson could allow students to select learning materials presented as text, video, or

audio. Then, they could decide to work individually or collaboratively on the material. Finally,

the options for expressing their learning could include a written response, a video report, an

audio report, or a multimedia presentation. In just one lesson, students would have 24 different

learning experiences to find their match, and according to UDL this will increase learning.

UDL’s version of the matching hypothesis has received no more empirical support than

the version proposed by learning-style theorists. As previously outlined, research has not

produced convincing evidence that the UDL framework leads to increased learning when

implemented in the classroom (Fornauf et al., 2020; Ok et al., 2017; Roberts et al., 2011; Seok et

al., 2018). Moreover, the underlying assumption that students can select from multiple

educational options in a way that maximizes their learning is simply untested. It may be that one

instructional strategy intentionally selected by the teacher for its effectiveness always leads to

more learning than letting students select from multiple instructional strategies of varied

effectiveness.

Although untested, there are reasons to doubt UDL’s prediction that students will choose

modes of instruction that increase their learning. Research does not support the idea that students

know the best way to learn (Clark, 1982; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013). In fact, even

when presented with effective and ineffective learning methods, people can misperceive which

one leads to more learning (Bjork et al., 2013). For example, because people believe that
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 17

learning should be easy, students can mistakenly perceive that they are learning more when they

mass their study sessions rather than spacing them out and that rereading material is a better

study strategy than self-testing. Moreover, even when students know the most effective learning

methods, they may choose less effective methods because they are practical or because of poor

planning (Blasiman et al., 2017; Hartwig & Dunlosky, 2012; Kornell & Bjork, 2007). Overall,

UDL asserts that students will learn more if they can select from instructional options, but this

matching hypothesis was not supported in learning-styles research, has yet to be supported in

UDL research, and is contradicted by research on how people perceive and choose learning

strategies.

Overgeneralized Neuroscientific Justifications

All learning can be understood as the result of changes to the brain, and both learning-

style theories and UDL offer neuroscientific justifications for their educational frameworks.

Learning-style theorists commonly justified specific learning styles with references to

neuroscience research and the structure of the brain. For example, multiple theories cited

hemispheric specialization as a rationale (Dunn et al., 1982; Fleming & Mills, 1992). One

learning-style theory even included a “cerebral preference” based on the findings of split-brain

research (Dunn, 1984). Other learning-styles theories took a more holistic approach. According

to Kolb’s theory, people showed a preference for one of the four stages of learning: concrete

experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation (Kolb

& Kolb, 2005). As support for the theory, Kolb argued that the four stages correspond to four

major brain areas (see Figure 1).

Like learning-style theorists, the framers of UDL have embraced neuroscience as

justification for their approach (CAST, 2018a; Rose & Strangman, 2007). They state that “the
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 18

UDL principles and accompanying guidelines were conceived with the brain in mind. Like each

person’s fingerprints, every brain is remarkably unique in its anatomy, chemistry, and

physiology” (CAST, n.d.-b, para. 6). For each of the three UDL principles, they propose a

corresponding brain network (see Figure 1). Sensory process and recognition occur in the

posterior areas of the brain, and these recognition networks justify the representation principle.

The frontal lobes are involved with executive functions, planning, and acting on plans; these

strategic networks justify the action/expression principle. Finally, the limbic system governs

emotional reactions, and these affective networks dictate behavioral drives and judgments of

what is important in the environment. Respectively, the recognition, strategic, and affective

networks explain the “What?”, “How?”, and “Why?” of learning.

UDL’s theorized relation between brain areas and effective education represent

hypotheses, not facts that support the framework (Murphy, 2020). Thus, UDL’s claims about

neuroscience require critical examination just like its claims about effectiveness. A major flaw in

the neuroscience justification of ULD is its oversimplified summary of brain function. For

example, the framers of UDL justify the representation principle based on the existence of

recognition networks located “in the back half of the brain’s cortex” (Rose & Strangman, 2007,

p. 382). An examination of Figure 1 illustrates the emptiness of this generality – they justify one

third of their educational framework by simply pointing to three fourths of the cerebral cortex. It

is illuminating to compare the brain diagram justifying Kolb’s learning-styles theory and the

diagram justifying UDL. They offer similarly low levels of specificity about brain anatomy and

appropriate the same areas of the brain for different ends. Only through oversimplification can

such overlap occur.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 19

CAST acknowledges that UDL uses a “simplified model of the brain to highlight what is

relevant for the learning brain and to try to understand and plan for learner variability” (CAST,

n.d.-b, para. 6). Be they simple or complex, justifications for educational practices based on brain

anatomy are irrelevant. Academic performance involves many brain regions, as well as the

connections between those regions (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2018; Westfall et al., 2020). In

other words, learning is a whole-brain activity, and the involvement of specific brain regions

offers no insight into how students should be taught. Consider a student who is blind. Knowing

that the impairment is a result of damage to a student’s occipital lobe – located in UDL’s

“recognition networks” – does not inform effective pedagogy any more than if the impairment

resulted from damage to the optic nerve, degeneration of the photoreceptors in the eye, or

conversion disorder. When considering students without neurological dysfunction, the

irrelevance of specific brain regions is only amplified.

The final problem with UDL’s brain-based justifications is that there are no educational

interventions that have emerged directly from neuroscience (Dougherty & Robey, 2018). Brain

research is simply too rudimentary to inform education (Bruer, 1997). Rather, educational

practices that are supposedly based on the brain actually stem from cognitive and behavioral

research (Bowers, 2016; Bruer, 1997; Dougherty & Robey, 2018). If UDL is an effective

educational approach – a claim in need of support – its effectiveness is not the result of applied

neuroscience.

Conclusion: The Way Forward with UDL

Educators, theorists, and researchers once considered learning styles to be a promising

way to ensure the success of a diverse range of students. Now, flaws in theory,

operationalization, and research have led to a reappraisal of learning styles as one of

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 20

psychology’s great myths (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Lilienfeld et al., 2010). UDL

shares key similarities with learning styles, including its promise as a method for increasing

student success. However, other similarities are more troubling. Like learning styles, UDL

consists of a complex theory that is inadequately operationalized, it emphasizes diversity in how

students learn over universal learning principles, it is based on the flawed hypothesis that

matching instruction to students’ ways of learning improves outcomes, and it relies on

overgeneralizations about brain structure. These similarities would be irrelevant if there was

clear evidence for UDL’s effectiveness. However, in a final parallel to learning styles, research

has not shown that implementation of UDL increases student learning. To make good on UDL’s

educational promise, lessons need to be learned from the flaws of learning styles. Otherwise,

UDL risks yet another similarity to learning styles: relegation to the status of psychological

myth.

The first step in improving UDL is to add experimental controls to all future studies of its

effectiveness. Researchers should ensure that every study includes a comparison group. Ideally,

groups should be formed using random assignment to ensure that causation can be assumed.

Alternatively, students could serve as their own controls, sometimes receiving the UDL

intervention and sometimes not. Researchers have already shown that these methods can be used

to test small educational interventions that are consistent with UDL principles (Dallas et al.,

2016; Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013). Future researchers should continue to demonstrate the

effectiveness of small parts of UDL and scale up to testing more comprehensive interventions

once basic guidelines receive support. In the meantime, teachers should emphasize established

factors in learning – active processing of information, building on prior knowledge,

collaboration, distribution of practice, and testing, just to name a few (Freeman et al., 2014;
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 21

Rowland, 2014; Son & Simon, 2012; Springer et al., 1999; Thompson & Zamboanga, 2003).

Universal principles of learning should not be abandoned based solely on the promise of UDL.

Even well-controlled studies can be rendered meaningless if operationalization of the

independent and dependent variables is invalid. As such, consensus needs to be reached about

what constitutes a UDL intervention and how the outcome of that intervention should be

measured. The number of UDL principles and checkpoints that define a full intervention should

be defined. Moreover, despite UDL’s emphasis on offering multiple modes within each of its

principles, some UDL checkpoints include choice and some do not. As such, the level of choice

required in a UDL intervention, or even if choice is required, also needs to be set.

In addition to defining UDL interventions, researchers must define the appropriate

measures of UDL outcomes. Self-report measures can be useful in educational research, but the

purpose of UDL is to increase learning. Therefore, UDL research should include direct measures

of student learning. One principle of UDL is that students have choice in determining how they

will demonstrate their learning, and a valid method needs to be found for comparing students

who complete different assignments. Presumably, instructors have already partially solved this

problem by creating methods for grading the different assignments used to assess the same

learning objective. For example, they may use rubrics that do not include criteria related to

learning-irrelevant factors such as formatting. Assessment of learning could also occur using

standardized tests that researchers administer independently of required assignments. Although

restricting the assessment of learning to just one mode is at odds with the UDL framework,

evidence that the multiple modes of action/expression required in an UDL intervention lead to

increased scores on an outside measure would constitute strong evidence for the effectiveness of

UDL.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 22

Scientific improvements to UDL are essential, but the framers of UDL should also

consider realigning the justification for its principles with cognitive science rather than

neuroscience. The framers of UDL do cite cognitive science as an influence (CAST, n.d.-d), but

presentations of the framework emphasize its purported connected to brain networks. People are

seduced into thinking that explanations for psychological phenomena are more credible when

they contain neuroscience information, even if that information is irrelevant (Fernandez-Duque

et al., 2015; Im et al., 2017). As such, it seems likely that presentation of UDL as a brain-based

framework artificially inflates perceptions of its validity, especially among people without the

expertise to evaluate such claims. In addition, it would be more accurate to justify UDL using

cognitive science. After all, cognitive science is the home for research on language, learning,

memory, and the workings of the mind. Cognitive science, not neuroscience, is a true guide for

generalizations about how people learn and effective educational practices.

In the review that effectively ended the scientific credibility of learning styles, Pashler et

al. (2009) stated that “the contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles

approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion,

striking and disturbing” (p. 117). UDL sits on the same precipice. Strong claims about the impact

of UDL and calls for its universal adoption are not supported with strong evidence. The quote at

the start of this article predicted that UDL will be “bigger than the Beatles,” but for this to come

true, UDL proponents need to learn from the flaws of learning styles and follow a more

scientifically sound path forward.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 23

References

Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A

content analysis of peer reviewed journals from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295

Basham, J. D., Lowrey, K. A., & DeNoyelles, A. (2010). Computer mediated communication in

the Universal Design for Learning framework for preparation of special education teachers.

Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(2), 31–44.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341002500203

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques,

and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(November 2012), 417–444.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823

Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of

study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–

792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974

Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

Psychological Review, 123(5), 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025

Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–

16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026008004

Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of

literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–

807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational

Psychology, 24(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 24

CAST. (n.d.-a). About CAST. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://www.cast.org/about/about-

cast

CAST. (n.d.-b). CAST: UDL in public policy. Retrieved January 3, 2021, from

https://www.cast.org/impact/udl-public-policy

CAST. (n.d.-c). UDL: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from

https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/frequently-asked-questions

CAST. (n.d.-d). UDL: Research evidence. Retrieved January 3, 2021, from

https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/research-evidence

CAST. (n.d.-e). UDL on campus. Retrieved January 3, 2021, from

http://udloncampus.cast.org/home

CAST. (2018a). UDL and the Learning Brain. http://www.cast.org/our-

work/publications/2018/udl-learning-brain-neuroscience.html

CAST. (2018b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2.

http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Chaddock-Heyman, L., Weng, T. B., Kienzler, C., Erickson, K. I., Voss, M. W., Drollette, E. S.,

Raine, L. B., Kao, S. C., Hillman, C. H., & Kramer, A. F. (2018). Scholastic performance

and functional connectivity of brain networks in children. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190073

Clark, R. E. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies.

Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528209529247

Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of

recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 25

Dallas, B. K., McCarthy, A., & Long, G. (2016). Examining the educational benefits of and

attitudes toward closed-captioning among undergraduate students. Journal of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 56–71.

https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i2.19267

Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal Design for Learning in teaching large

lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 5–16.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316662104

Dougherty, M. R., & Robey, A. (2018). Neuroscience and education: A bridge astray? Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 401–406.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418794495

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013).

Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from

cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1),

4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 10–19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848409543084

Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D. P., Eberle, B. M., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference:

The newest element of learning style. American Biology Teacher, 44(5), 291–294.

https://doi.org/10.2307/4447506

Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten

propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103

Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 26

neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 926–944. http://10.0.4.138/jocn_a_00750

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To

Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-

4822.1992.tb00213.x

Fornauf, B. S., Fornauf, B. S., & Erickson, J. D. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through

universal design for learning in higher education: a review of the literature. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183–199.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &

Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science,

engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2009). Putting Universal Design for Learning on the higher ed

agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111–121.

https://doi.org/10.2190/et.38.2.d

Hall, T E, Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). An introduction to universal design for learning:

Questions and answers. In Tracey E Hall, A. Meyer, & D. h Rose (Eds.), Universal design

for learning in the classroom: Practical applications (pp. 1–8). Guilford.

Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and

scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(1), 126–134.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0181-y

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general

curriculum: Universal Design for Learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 27

https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203500201

Hollingshead, A., Lowrey, K. A., & Howery, K. (2020). Universal Design for Learning: When

policy changes before evidence. Educational Policy.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951120

Im, S., Varma, K., & Varma, S. (2017). Extending the seductive allure of neuroscience

explanations effect to popular articles about educational topics. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 87(4), 518–534. http://10.0.4.87/bjep.12162

Kendeou, P., Robinson, D. H., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2019). Misinformation and fake

news in education. Information Age Publishing.

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban

legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential

learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–

212. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219–224. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17694904

Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first

year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular

psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Wiley-

Blackwell.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 28

Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017).

Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate

beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(AUG), 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314

Murphy, M. P. A. (2020). Belief without evidence? A policy research note on Universal Design

for Learning. Policy Futures in Education, 19(1), 7–12.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320940206

Nancekivell, S. E., Shah, P., & Gelman, S. A. (2020). Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s

experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 112(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000366

Nelson, L. L. (2014). Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using universal design for

learning. Brookes Publishing.

Newton, P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6(DEC), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908

Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal Design for Learning in

pre-K to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116–

138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

Pashler, H., Mcdaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and

evidence. Psychological Science, 9(3), 105–119.

http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract

Rao, K., Edelen-Smith, P., & Wailehua, C. U. (2015). Universal design for online courses:

Applying principles to pedagogy. Open Learning, 30(1), 35–52.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.991300
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 29

Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design

educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980

Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace : Universal Instructional Design for

online courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 24(3), 211–229.

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 Educational

Psychology, 105(4), 1210–1225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033217

Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal Design for Instruction in

postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5–15.

Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal

Design for Learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their

application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135–151.

Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the challenge of

individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in

the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0062-8

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review

of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559

Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of “learning styles.” Australian Journal of Education,

54(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411005400102

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 30

Seok, S., DaCosta, B., & Hodges, R. (2018). A systematic review of empirically based Universal

Design for Learning: Implementation and effectiveness of universal design in education for

students with and without disabilities at the postsecondary level. Open Journal of Social

Sciences, 6(5), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.65014

Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a college course that Adheres to the Universal Design for

Learning (UDL) Framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3),

31–61. http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/2151

Smith, S. J., Rao, K., Lowrey, K. A., Gardner, J. E., Moore, E., Coy, K., Marino, M., & Wojcik,

B. (2019). Recommendations for a national research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the

UDL-IRN preconference on research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 174–185.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319826219

Son, L. K., & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and educational

implications. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 379–399.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9206-y

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group Learning on

undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021

Thompson, R. A., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2003). Prior knowledge and its relevance to student

achievement in introduction to psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 96–101.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_02

Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal Design for

Learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 31

Westfall, D. R., Anteraper, S. A., Chaddock-Heyman, L., Drollette, E. S., Raine, L. B.,

Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Kramer, A. F., & Hillman, C. H. (2020). Resting-state functional

connectivity and scholastic performance in preadolescent children: A data-driven

multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA). Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(10), 3198.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103198

Yassin, B. M., & Almasri, M. A. (2015). How to accommodate different learning styles in the

same classroom: Analysis of theories and methods of learning styles. Canadian Social

Science, 11(3), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.3968/6434

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 32

Figure 1

Brain-based Models for Learning Style and UDL

Note. Panel A: Brain model used to illustrate the neurological basis of Kolb’s experiential
learning styles (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Reprinted from The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching
the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning by James E. Zull (Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing, LLC) with permission of the publisher, Copyright © 2002, Stylus Publishing,
LLC. Panel B: Brain model used to illustrate the neurological basis of UDL (© CAST 2021.
Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved).
 UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING 33

Table 1

Characteristics of Studies Examining UDL in College Settings

Study Engagement methods Representation methods Action/expression methods Outcome measure

Basham et al., Allowed students to select group Communicated in multiple formats Allowed selection of topic Discussion board and chat logins,
(2010); N = roles, goals, schedules, and Documents provided in multiple Allowed multiple formats of participation, and length
78; evaluation communication digital formats online presentations Self-reported evaluations of course
of course Project topics were authentic to Scaffolded project materials Multiple methods for accessing and instructor
project profession Required multiple sources of instructions
Used asynchronous and information and multiple Allowed students to set project
asynchronous discussion perspectives goals, structure, and
boards Allowed use of multiple forms of communications
Project allowed multiple levels of media Materials available on assistive
engagement and challenge devices
Provided multiple forms of
instructor support
Provided rubrics

Dean et al. MindTap online learning tool Textbook in multiple formats, Fill-in-the-blank questions in class Self-reported learning, satisfaction
(2017); N = study aids MindTap online learning Quizzes with instructional tools,
928; Quiz questions distributed tool Homework assignments effectiveness of instructional
evaluation of throughout class Lecture with PowerPoint tools, and frequency of use of
course Lecture notes with sample exam instructional tools
questions Course exams with multiple-choice
questions
Use of clickers in class

Kumar and Instructor collected a survey of Provided lecture PowerPoints, Allowed students to use words or Self-reported access of course
Wideman student interests and needs at notes, and discussion forum equations on written materials
(2014); N = the start of class Presented material in class using assignments Self-reported evaluation of course
50; evaluation Students discuss course content multiple methods Allowed choice of exam materials and attributes
of course in class and online Described assignments using text, questions
Instructor asked students for their video, rubrics, and samples Allowed students to select report
perspectives in class topic, schedule, format, and
group vs. individual
completion
 UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
Rao and Tanners Provided articles to read and online
(2011); N = instructional modules
25; evaluation Assigned final project
of course Students could review class
recordings and materials
Students discussed course material
online
Rao et al. (2015); Provided articles to read and online
N = 70; instructional modules
evaluation of Included synchronous and
course independent work
Classes include collaboration
Students discussed course material
online
Smith (2012); N = Allowed students to select
80; evaluation assignment topics and
of course materials
Allowed students to select
individual or group work on
assignment
Note. Bold indicates that learners had a clearly defined choice between multiple modes of engagement, representation, or expression.
View publication stats
Provided detailed rubric
Textbook, readings, and videos
in multiple media formats
Provided multiple assignments
with detailed guidelines and
rubrics
Provided class recordings and
materials
Used tools in the course website
Discussion forum allowed posts of
various format
Provided detailed rubric
Textbook, readings, and videos
in multiple media formats
Provided multiple assignments
with detailed guidelines and
rubrics
Provided class recordings and
materials
Used tools in the course website
Discussion forum allowed posts of
various format
Lecture in class and recorded
Notes with written summaries
and visual representations
Digital course materials
34
Allowed students to complete
assignments using different
resources, at different times,
and for different effect on
final grade
Provided multiple types of graded Self-reported access of course
assignments materials
Allowed students to complete a Self-reported evaluation of course
paper or multimedia project materials and attributes
Students could review class Unstructured interview with a
recordings and materials sample of students from the
Allowed students to respond to class
discussion using text, audio,
or video
Allowed students to choose email
or phone contacts with
instructor
Provided multiple types of graded Self-reported access of course
assignments materials
Students could review class Self-reported evaluation of course
recordings and materials materials and attributes
Provided guidance for assignments
Allowed students to respond to
discussion using text, audio,
or video
Allowed students to choose email
or phone contacts with
instructor
Modeled performance with Self-reported engagement and
samples and rubrics frequency of learning activities
Provided feedback on assignments
Allowed assignments to include
multiple digital formats