University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 1
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING IN TEACHER PREPARATION: PREPARING
FOR A CLASSROOM OF DIVERSE LEARNERS
by
Michiko Dawson Lee
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2015
Copyright 2015 Michiko Dawson Lee
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 2
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I express immense gratitude to my family for the unending support in
helping me reach this goal. I thank my husband Ming for always pushing me to pursue my
dreams and for displaying immeasurable patience and love during the past 3 years. A special
thank you goes to my two wonderful children, Holden and Emiko, who kept me motivated.
Special thanks go also to my mom and sister for being amazing role models throughout my life.
Thank you to my dad for instilling the desire and the will to accomplish this milestone.
Throughout this program I have gained special friendships for which I am very grateful.
The USC 2012 cohort was an incredible and unique group of people of which I was lucky to be a
part. Culmination of the program brought great meaning to my professional endeavors, as I
joined several of my colleagues under the guidance of Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. Patrick
Crispen. I am very appreciative for their direction, dedication, and perseverance with respect to
my success throughout the whole process. I thank Dr. Michael Escalante for serving on my
committee and keeping me grounded and focused on my goals.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Teacher Education Programs 10
Universal Design for Learning 11
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations and Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Diverse Learners 16
HEOA of 2008 17
IDEIA of 2004 17
Teacher Education Program 17
UDL 17
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Teacher Education Programs 20
History 21
Regulatory Influences 23
Diverse Learners 24
Current Goals and Practices 25
Universal Design for Learning 31
History 31
Representation 33
Action and Expression 34
Engagement 35
Current Application and Obstacles 36
Chapter Summary 37
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 39
Research Design 40
Sample and Population 41
Data Collection and Instrumentation 45
Data Analysis 48
Validity and Reliability 49
Chapter Four: Findings 50
Participant Description 50
Findings From Research Question 1 51
Teaching UDL Principles 51
UDL in Instructional Practices 58
Findings from Research Question 2 67
Chapter Summary 71
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 4
Chapter Five: Discussion 74
Purpose of the Study Restated 74
Summary of Findings 75
Research Question 1 75
Research Question 2 79
Limitations 79
Implications for Practice 80
Recommendations for Future Research 82
Conclusions 83
References 84
Appendices
Appendix A: Observation Protocol 95
Appendix B: Data Collection Checklist 96
Appendix C: Faculty Interview Protocol 97
Appendix D: CMSU Lesson Plan Template 100
Appendix E: UDL Guidelines 101
Appendix F: CCU’s Lesson Plan Template 102
Appendix G: Course Syllabus: Ms. Bryan 106
Appendix H: Course Syllabus: Dr. Curtis and Dr. Thomas 117
Appendix I: Course Syllabus: Dr. Kelly 126
Appendix J: Course Syllabus: Dr. Wilson 131
Appendix K: CCU’s Mission Statement 149
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: A comparison of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in university-based
teacher education program findings 52
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 6
Abstract
Today’s classrooms are increasingly diverse and inclusive of all types of students ranging
from English language learners, gifted and talented, at-risk students, to students with an identi-
fied disability. This study examined how 2 universities prepared teachers using Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) in their courses. K–12 teachers are responsible for the academic
performance of diverse students in their classrooms. Students are not progressing at the same
academic performance rates. UDL is a framework for curriculum design that provides increased
access to curriculum and learning for all students. UDL was included in the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 for universities as a framework for preparing teachers. This qualitative
case study examined how teacher education programs at 2 universities incorporated UDL into
their coursework, how professors utilized UDL principles in their instructional practices, and
why professors utilized UDL principles in teacher preparation.
The methodology for this study included qualitative data retrieved from university class-
room observations, professor interviews, and document collection. Data were collected from 2
public universities in California. The objective was to gain insight into the use of UDL in
preparing teachers to address diverse learning needs. The findings revealed that professors
explicitly taught UDL in their coursework and that the principles were demonstrated throughout
instructional practices for all professors in the study. The following themes emerged from data
analysis: (a) use of UDL in lesson plan templates, (b) explicit teaching of UDL principles, (c)
multiple means of representation, (d) multiple means of expression, and (e) multiple means of
engagement in instructional practices.
Findings of this study will benefit university programs seeking to integrate UDL princi-
ples into their teacher preparation coursework. This study provides insights regarding how two
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 7
university-based programs have incorporated UDL into coursework content and instructional
practices when preparing K–12 teachers to accommodate diverse learning needs. Recommenda-
tions for future research include examining how teachers apply UDL principles in their class-
rooms upon completion of university-based coursework with UDL.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Today’s classrooms are comprised of students at all levels of academic performance and
abilities. Teachers are responsible for student performance in their classrooms, which is compli-
cated by policy mandates. Implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001
(NCLB, 2002) required all students to achieve proficiency levels in math and English language
arts (ELA) as measured by a “one-size-fits-all,” standardized assessment. Usher (2011) reported
in 2010 that 48% of the U.S. public schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
AYP is a student performance measurement required under the current authorization of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; Hehir, 2009). AYP was first introduced into law
in 1994 with the reauthorization of ESEA. The current authorization, widely known as NCLB,
utilizes AYP as a tool to determine whether students are successfully making academic gains in
math and ELA. The goal of NCLB was academic proficiency or above on standardized state
tests for all students, including students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs)
by 2014 (Ravitch, 2003). In 2012–2013, California as a whole had not met the 89% proficiency
requirements as required by NCLB (California Department of Education [CDE], 2014b).
Meeting AYP proficiency requirements in classrooms of academically diverse learners is
a continual challenge for schools and teachers. The use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
in curriculum design and lesson planning enables teachers to reach a range of learners (Hall,
Meyer, & Rose, 2012). Federal policy has specifically defined UDL as a scientifically re-
searched framework to guide education delivery by reducing learning barriers while also main-
taining expectations of high achievement for all students (Higher Education Opportunity Act
[HEOA], 2008). University-based teacher education programs are beginning to implement UDL
in their program structure (McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007). Teachers need to be prepared for
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 9
the diverse learning needs of their students. The present study involved a case study of UDL use
in two university-based teacher preparation programs.
Background of the Problem
Teachers have the daunting task of instructing a classroom of students ranging in learning
needs. The differences span a range from highly gifted students, to struggling and at-risk, to
students identified with a disability (Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007; Rose & Strangman, 2007).
An academic achievement gap exists between students with disabilities and students without a
disability (Blank, 2011). Additionally, students with disabilities are not progressing at the same
rates as their typically developing peers (Blank, 2011; USDOE, NCES, 2013). Teacher educa-
tion programs were beginning to recognize the need to prepare teachers for these diversities.
However, implementation of new approaches was not occurring consistently and teachers
continued to enter the classroom prepared to teach only a small range of students
(Darling-Hammond 2010; McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007).
Current policy has supported use of UDL principles in higher education teaching, specifi-
cally as a way to prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. The HEOA (2008) was the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, initially enacted to increase federal
government involvement in higher education and established the National Teachers Corps
(Hehir, 2009). In 2008 the HEA expanded and included guidelines for preparing future teachers
by utilizing UDL as a framework. Teachers needed preparation to instruct a range of diverse
learners in K–2 classrooms (Jiménez et al., 2007; McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007; Spencer,
2011). In order for this goal to be achieved, teachers needed the skills to reach all levels of
learners upon graduating from teacher education programs.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 10
Teacher Education Programs
All states require some form of teacher certification (Darling-Hammond, Pacheco,
Michelli, LePage, Hammerness, & Young, 2005). Certification has transformed over the past 4
decades. Title I of the ESEA outlined teacher certification requirements (Whitehurst, 2002).
NCLB (2002) defined a “highly qualified teacher” as someone with a bachelor’s degree and a
state teaching license. NCLB required new teachers to pass a subject competency exam. One
goal of the initial enactment of the ESEA was to equalize access to highly qualified teachers for
disadvantaged students (Whitehurst, 2002). NCLB monitored this issue by requiring reports on
the qualifications of teachers. Schools in California reported annually through a School Ac-
countability Report Card (SARC) the number of teachers fully credentialed and teachers consid-
ered not highly qualified in their schools (CDE, 2014a). Although teachers were required to
obtain a minimum level of credentialing, this requirement did not ensure preparation for the
diverse learning needs of their classrooms (Spencer, 2011). Spencer (2011) reported that many
teachers felt unprepared to meet the needs of the diverse range of learners in their classrooms.
Explicit teacher preparation began in the 1800s (Forzani, 2014). General education and
special education teacher education programs were traditionally separate (Brownell, Sindelar,
Kiely, & Danielson 2010). In the 1960s and 1970s, programs preparing special educators were
primarily categorical in nature (Forzani, 2014). Teachers were specifically trained to work with
a population of students with a specific disability. Forzani (2014) explained that special educa-
tion teacher preparation reflected the configuration of special education classrooms. In the 1980s
and 1990s, the special education teacher education programs shifted to a noncategorical structure
(Brownell et al., 2010). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)
of 2004 mandated that students with special needs be able to access the general education
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 11
curriculum. In the 21st century, more students with special needs have received a majority of
their education in the general education setting (Spencer 2011). With a greater range of students
in general education classrooms, teacher education programs had to prepare all teachers for
diverse learning needs. Spencer (2011) discussed UDL as a tool for teachers to ensure that
students with different backgrounds and learning needs have the ability to access the general
education curriculum.
Universal Design for Learning
UDL is an approach to curriculum design that facilitates multiple means of access,
expression of knowledge, and persistence in learning. Districts can utilize UDL to address
achievement mandates in NCLB, curriculum access requirements in the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and demands of the newly adopted Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Usher (2011) reported that 48% of the U.S. public schools did not make
AYP. In an attempt to address varying needs of students and to increase achievement, some
colleges and universities have incorporated UDL into their teacher education programs (Schelly,
Davies, & Spooner, 2011) . In 2013, Maryland created a task force that recommended UDL
implementation statewide (SB 467; Task Force to Explore the Incorporation of the Principles of
Universal Design for Learning Into the Education Systems in Maryland, 2013).
The CCSS, adopted by 45 states, requires higher level problem-solving skills, abstract
thinking, and less fact memorization than previous standards (Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rose,
Meyer, & Gordon, 2014). The increased rigor in reading and writing requirements pose a barrier
to many students who already faced difficulties in these areas (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). One
approach to increase access to CCSS is utilizing UDL in curriculum planning (Rose et al., 2014).
CCSS is in the early implementation stage. At the time of this study, research has not been
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 12
conducted on the use of UDL principles and CCSS implementation in the classroom or how
teachers are prepared to meet the new requirements of CCSS for students with diverse learning
needs.
Incorporating UDL into teacher education programs will prepare teachers for the inclu-
sive classrooms they encounter (Benton-Borghi, 2013). Teachers need a methodology that
allows them to reach a diverse set of learners (Jiménez et al., 2007). Policies currently in place
require teachers to achieve high levels of academic performance for all. The NCLB Act of 2002
set achievement requirements for students, while the HEOA of 2008 outlined recommendations
for teacher preparation in higher education programs (Benton-Borghi, 2013). Therefore, it is
imperative to look at how UDL is implemented in university-based teacher education course-
work in order to understand how to integrate UDL principles with teacher preparation.
Statement of the Problem
Teachers are faced with achieving preset levels of academic performance requirements
with students ranging in knowledge and skills. In 2014, the CDE reported that many schools
were not meeting AYP according to NCLB requirements (CDE, 2014b. In the 2012–2013
school year, California districts did not meet required proficiency levels as measured by stan-
dardized assessments with students with a disability, socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
or ELLs (CDE, 2014b). In addition to proficiency requirements for all students, NCLB man-
dated all students, including those with special needs and ELLs, be taught with the general edu-
cation curriculum (NCLB, 2002). Incorporation of UDL principles into lesson plans allowed
students multiple means of accessing and interacting with curriculum, thus creating greater
potential of knowledge attainment (Burgstahler, 2009). Therefore, teachers need training to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 13
incorporate UDL principles into their instructional planning to successfully reach varied levels of
students in K–12 classrooms.
The increased rigor of CCSS in reading and writing requirements pose a barrier to many
students already experiencing difficulties in these areas (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Students
who already struggle with reading and writing face increased challenges as CCSS has increased
requirements in these areas. The CCSS includes more reading and writing requirements than
previous state standards (Allen et al., 2014); however, a shift in standards has provided an oppor-
tunity for schools to adjust teaching methods, materials, curriculum, and assessments.
Policies in place supported the need for UDL in teacher education programs. In 2007, the
National UDL Task Force presented a congressional briefing on UDL and the need for inclusion
in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (National Center on Universal Design for
Learning, National UDL Task Force, 2010). In 2008 President George W. Bush signed the
HEOA with specific UDL guidelines for teacher education, teacher preparation program report-
ing, and meeting the needs of varied learners in postsecondary education. The incorporation of
UDL into the HEOA and the recommendation for inclusion with reauthorization of the ESEA
supported the need to utilize UDL in K–12 classroom instruction and in teacher education
programs. Use of UDL principles in teacher education programs provided new teachers with the
necessary preparation to meet the diverse learning populations in schools. This study explored
how UDL principles were incorporated in two university-based teacher education programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which UDL principles were
incorporated in two university-based teacher education programs. Students continue to perform
below proficiency levels on standardized assessments (CDE, 2014b). Teachers need the tools to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 14
reach these students. UDL has served as a framework for curriculum design to address learning
barriers for all students and assists in meeting the rigorous requirements of CCSS (Haager &
Vaughn, 2013).
The HEOA (2008) specifically defined UDL and advised its use in teacher preparation.
The National Center on Universal Design for Learning, National UDL Task Force (2010) rec-
ommended that UDL be included in the upcoming ESEA reauthorization, whose policies guided
the K–12 public school system. By including UDL in the HEOA, the U.S. government indicated
the need for UDL implementation in preparing teachers to enter academically diverse classrooms
and to address the needs of varied learners.
This study looked at how and why UDL principles were used in university-based teacher
preparation programs. Teacher education professors, course structure, and university classrooms
were examined. This study explored how UDL principles have been incorporated into teacher
education coursework, including a review of the teacher education program structure and course
syllabi. Observations and interviews were conducted to gather data on classroom incorporation.
Document collection examined program and course structure.
In determining the use of UDL principles in university based teacher education programs,
the following research questions guided the study:
1. How do teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into coursework?
a. How are professors teaching UDL principles for preservice teachers to use in their
classrooms?
b. How do professors incorporate UDL principles into their instructional practices?
2. Why do professors in teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into
their coursework?
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 15
These questions deepened the knowledge of how and why UDL principles were utilized in
preparing teachers.
Significance of the Study
Inquiry regarding UDL principle use in teacher education programs provided a look at
how preservice teachers were prepared to instruct academically diverse learners. Findings in this
study should deepen the understanding of how UDL principles have been incorporated into
university-based teacher education programs. This study presents information for programs
aiming to incorporate UDL into their coursework. Greater use of UDL principles in such
programs increases teachers’ ability to reach academically diverse learners (Rose, Harbour,
Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006). Use of UDL principles by K–12 teachers allows for an
approach to increase student achievement through universal curriculum design (Frey, Andres,
McKeeman, & Lane, 2012).
UDL offers an approach to curriculum design that allows the multiple means of access,
expression, and engagement necessary to reach diverse learners (Hall et al., 2012). With class-
rooms comprised of students with varying abilities, utilizing multiple means of representation
allows instruction to reach all students (Schelly et al., 2011). This study examined how UDL
principles were utilized in preparing teachers. It was the researcher’s objective to contribute to
current research on teacher preparation and the use of UDL principles to reach academically
diverse learners by highlighting how programs incorporated UDL into teacher preparation
coursework.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations in this study. The researcher designed the study
to increase internal validity. As Merriam (2009) discussed, triangulation is a technique to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 16
approach validity. Triangulation using two or more measures safeguards credibility of the
findings. The delimitations of this study were the use of multiple forms of data collected from
two university-based teacher educations programs. Multiple classroom observations were con-
ducted. Professors of the observed classrooms were interviewed. Document collection consisted
of syllabi and other course materials from observed courses, as well as program descriptions
provided through university websites. Data collection through observations, interviews, and
documents allowed for a cross-check of data and emerging themes.
One limitation of this study was the use of only six professors in two university-based
program. The study was not representative of all university-based teacher education programs
and cannot be generalized to all university-based teacher education programs. The findings of
this case study contribute to an understanding of how and why UDL principles were used in two
university-based teacher education programs. The delimitations are the in-depth analysis of the
research questions through interviews, observations, and student surveys.
Definition of Terms
In this section, definitions are provided to clarify concepts, policies, and terms referred to
in the case study so that the reader can understand the meanings and use of the concepts and
terms used. There were three key terms used throughout this study: (a) teacher education
programs, (b) diverse learners, and (c) UDL. There were two main policies that named UDL as
a curriculum design framework: (a) the HEOA of 2008 and (b) the IDEA of 2004.
Diverse Learners
Students whose backgrounds differ based on gender, ability, background knowledge,
prior experiences, and socioeconomic status. These include students who are gifted, who have
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 17
learning disabilities, who are ELLs, students with autism, and students with attention or emo-
tional problems (Spencer, 2011).
HEOA of 2008
Federal law that specifically defines UDL as a scientifically valid framework to be used
in teacher education, research, and university instruction. It was a reauthorization of the HEA of
1965, which increased access to postsecondary and higher education (Hehir, 2009).
IDEIA of 2004
Federal law governing special education and emphasizing inclusion of students with
disabilities in the general education setting (Hehir, 2009). It supports UDL as a means for
students with disabilities to gain greater access to general education curriculum.
Teacher Education Program
Courses at an institute of higher education specifically designed to prepare teachers for
K–12 classrooms (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2014).
UDL
A framework to develop curriculum inclusive of all learners and allowing for multiple
means of access, expression, and engagement of instruction (Hall et al., 2012).
Organization of the Study
This case study was organized into five chapters. The first chapter gave an overview of
the study, including the statement and background of the problem faced in education. The
research questions that guided the study, as well as the limitations and delimitations, were briefly
discussed and key terms used in the study were defined.
Chapter Two provides a review of literature related to teacher education programs and
UDL. Chapter Three provides the design of the study, detailed methodology, a description of the
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 18
population sampled, and the research questions, followed by the manner of data collection and
analysis.
Chapter Four presents the key findings and results of the study. Chapter Five discusses
and summarizes the findings, provides implications for practice, and suggests future research
needs.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Teachers are a vital piece in preparing students for the future. Teachers face strong
accountability requirements and need the training and tools to reach the high expectations placed
upon them. Creating a strong, professional capacity in teachers is expected and necessary to
increase achievement for all students. Today’s schools consist of students at all different levels
of achievement with diverse learning needs. Several top-down policies drive the current state of
student achievement through standardized assessment mandates. In 2001 NCLB was introduced
to the nation as the policy leading student achievement to all-time high levels. This reauthoriza-
tion of the ESEA mandated that all students achieve at proficient levels by 2014, as measured by
standardized assessments. It also required that all teachers meet certain criteria to be considered
“highly qualified” to teach (NCLB, 2002). The IDEIA is another highly influential education
policy. The reauthorization of IDEIA in 2004 required that students with special needs be edu-
cated alongside their typically developing peers and have access to the general education curricu-
lum (IDEIA, 2004). This law also meant that students with disabilities would be measured by
the same standardized assessments and be required to reach proficiency levels at the same rate as
their general education peers (NCLB, 2002).
Changes to teacher preparation are necessary for teachers to enter classrooms prepared
for a range of learning needs. According to the 2011 study conducted by the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO; Blank, 2011), student achievement rose in Grades 4 and 8 in
both English and math in many states. However, according to the 2013 report by the NAEP on
math and English assessment in the fourth and 12th grades, the achievement gap persists in most
states (USDOE, NCES, 2013). The achievement gap was not closing, and it was increasingly
crucial to prepare teachers to address varying needs of students.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 20
This review of literature is organized into two main sections, teacher education programs
and UDL. The first section deals with the history os teacher education programs and provides
insight to the foundation of the current teacher education program structure. Adding to the his-
torical foundation is an overview of diverse learners and regulatory influences. This topic then
leads into the current goals and practices of teacher education.
UDL is presented in the second section. A brief history of how UDL research launched
into the field of education is presented. This section presents the current application of UDL.
The literature review concludes with a synthesis of teacher education programs and UDL to
indicate how UDL is used as the framework for this study.
Teacher Education Programs
This section presents a history of teacher education programs, regulatory influences, the
diverse learning needs of students, and current practices in higher education. The depth to which
theory is taught in relation to the amount of subject matter knowledge varies from program to
program. A disconnect existed between theory and practice in teacher education programs,
which have fluctuated between theory focused instruction with little practice and application to
emphasizing practice with little theory background (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006;
Zeichner, 2010). Preparation was centered around subject matter instruction, pedagogy, and
classroom teaching (Zeichner, 2010). Supervision of new teachers focused on specific skills or
objectives rather than the larger picture of professional development or student achievement.
The future path teacher of education programs was often discussed at conferences and committee
meetings with little implementation of solutions (Korthagen et al., 2006). Preservice teachers
experienced limited preparation in reaching diverse learners in their teacher education programs.
Programs were not be equipped to present relevant examples, methods, and strategies to work
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 21
with a diverse set of learners (Pugach, 2005). Teachers reported struggling to meet the needs of
students with disabilities and other diverse learning needs (Fuchs, 2010; Gill, Sherman, &
Sherman, 2009).
History
Education is part of the foundation of the United States. While many aspects of educa-
tion and teacher preparation changed over time, some traits remain ingrained in practice. In the
1800s, the belief was that learning occurred passively. Teachers lectured and monitored student
reading and assignment completion. Although the greater community felt little preparation was
necessary, teacher educators believed purposeful training was needed (Forzani, 2014; Groen,
2008). This time period also saw reforms by Horace Mann, who created a system of teacher pro-
fessionalism, based on a Prussian model of “common schools,” later known as “normal schools”
(Groen, 2008). Much of the content for teacher education drew from classroom observations to
determine what skills teachers needed. During this time period, compulsory education was
establishing its place in American education, which was primarily teacher-centered instruction
(Hunt & Lasley, 2010). Group activities and construction of meaning were not part of teacher
preparation or classroom instruction at this time. The basis for teacher preparation was prescrip-
tive skills, which appealed to teachers and parents as very visible and tangible skills to attain
(Forzani, 2014). Normal schools continued to evolve through the 19th century. One example
was from Illinois State Normal University, in which “illustrative lessons” were the focus of
teacher preparation (Forzani, 2014). Illustrative lessons embodied the belief that students must
be actively involved in understanding content. Normal schools were also implementing supervi-
sion models in which teachers were coached through instructional practices (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2005; Forzani, 2014).
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 22
Toward the beginning of the 20th century, normal schools were absorbed by state col-
leges and universities that brought about a shift in teacher preparation (Forzani, 2014). The
leading educational theorist in the early 1900s was John Dewey. He led a “progressive” move-
ment in education—one in which students learned content as well as how to prepare for the
future and their place in the community (Reese, 2001). During this time, teacher preparation was
primarily taught by university faculty and not K-12 practitioners. Courses were structured as
typical college courses, leaving preservice teachers to connect theory that they learned to class-
room practice on their own (Darling-Hammond, Pacheco, et al., 2005).
In the 1980s and 1990s, programs connected instruction and pedagogy to classroom
practices (Forzani, 2014). A key report was released in 1983 that brought the state of education
to the forefront. The National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at
Risk, which revealed the need to improve teacher preparation and increase student achievement
(Borek, 2008). Programs restructured to incorporate professional learning theories that teachers
needed to investigate to analyze student learning in order to reach a diverse range of learners
(Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). NCLB (2002) again
brought education reform to the forefront of the public mind and put into place additional
requirements for teacher qualifications. As a result of increased theory and practice integration,
teachers reported feeling prepared for their classrooms but, however, not prepared to instruct
students with special needs or ELLs (Darling-Hammond, Pacheco, et al., 2005). This situation
reveals a need for teacher education programs to incorporate principles that prepare teachers for
all students, including those who are typically developing, students with disabilities, ELLs, and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 23
Regulatory Influences
At the K-12 level, NCLB and IDEIA set parameters and mandates for student achieve-
ment (Benton-Borghi, 2013; Stein, 2004). At the higher education level, the HEOA of 2008
established guidelines for teacher preparation (Ralabate, 2011). These policies set student per-
formance and instructional expectations.
The ESEA was originally passed in 1994; reauthorized in 2002, it was known as the
NCLB Act of 2002 (Stein, 2004). The primary goal of NCLB was to increase achievement of
underperforming student groups, including students with disabilities, ELLs, and socioeconomi-
cally disadvantaged students (Blank, 2011). NCLB (2002) required 100% proficiency of all
students, as measured on standardized assessments, by 2014. As reported by the CDE (2014b),
California had not met the 89% proficiency requirement for the 2012–2013 school year.
The IDEA, originally passed in 1990, was reauthorized in 2004 as the IDEIA). IDEIA
aligned with NCLB on key points. Both policies required teachers be highly qualified, although
the precise requirements differed. Secondly, both policies required goals for students with dis-
abilities that aligned with students in general education (IDEIA, 2004; NCLB, 2002). These
goals were required to align with AYP requirements (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE],
Office of Special Education Programs, 2007).
The HEOA of 2008 (Public Law 110-315) was passed 4 years after IDEIA. The HEA of
1965 was reauthorized in 2008 and renamed the HEOA. The HEOA provided students with
increased access and opportunities for increased success in postsecondary institutions (Zimmer,
2014). In 1965 the HEA was established to improve teaching in low-income areas by creating
university-to-school-district affiliations for teacher preparation and created the National Teacher
Corps to prepare teachers (Stein, 2004; Zeichner, 2005). The HEOA directly cited UDL as a
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 24
“scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice” (p. 3088) and also states that
UDL “reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and
challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with
disabilities and student who are limited English proficient” (p. 3088). Under Title II, the Teach-
er Quality Enhancement section of HEOA, established grants to fund the creation of teacher
preparation programs that form relationships with school districts and incorporate UDL into
teacher preparation courses (Hehir, 2009; HEOA, 2008; Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014). As part of
the requirements for accepting a Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant, measurable goals were set
to set track how many teachers could incorporate UDL principles into instructional practices
(HEOA, 2008).
These policies defined educational practices and highly influenced how education was
structured from teacher preparation to K–12 classrooms, and then full circle to higher education
courses. UDL principles and teacher education programs provide a path to increasing access to
curriculum for all students.
Diverse Learners
Teachers must be prepared to instruct an increasingly diverse population of students.
Over the past few decades, classrooms have changed from segregating populations to inclusive
settings for all students (Forzani, 2014). Varying academic needs of students must be considered
in curriculum and instructional design. Student achievement increases when the diverse learning
needs of students are taken into account with instructional planning (Banks et al., 2005). Diverse
learners include groups commonly identified as students with disabilities, gifted and talented
students, and ELLs (Butler, 2008; Spencer, 2011). Student populations vary across districts,
schools, and within a single classroom. Currently, many teachers prepare a general lesson for
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 25
their class and then make accommodations or modifications as necessary for specific students in
their classroom (Korthagen et al., 2006). This process meant restructuring a lesson multiple
times, particularly when accommodating several different needs in different ways. For example,
one modification might be appropriate for a student with attention deficit disorder, while another
change would be necessary for an ELL. This is a more reactive approach, addressing diverse
learning needs after the lesson has been created (Edyburn, 2010). Edyburn (2010) suggested that
incorporating UDL from the onset of lesson planning provides a teacher with proactive strategies
to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.
Today’s classrooms encompass a variety of learning needs. According to the USDOE’s
2014 report on the implementation of IDEA, 95% of students with an identified disability
received at least a portion of their instruction in a general education classroom in 2011. A
majority of public schools have ELLs in their classrooms, while gifted and talented students
make up approximately 6% of students (Sullivan, 2011; USDOE, Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, 2014). These examples represent only a few variations of the
diverse student population. A 2014 report by NAEP indicated a decrease in student achievement
from 2009 to 2013 in some states for students with disabilities and ELLs. These groups have
continued to fall behind the general population (USDOE, NCES, 2013). The USDOE, NCES
(2013) measured reading and math using standardized assessments in Grades 4 and 8. The
results indicated a need for a change in instructional approaches and, consequently, how teachers
are prepared.
Current Goals and Practices
Incorporation of UDL principles into higher education coursework is emerging and not
yet widespread among university faculty (Rose et al., 2006; Schelly et al., 2011). Evidence has
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 26
established that incorporation of UDL principles benefits students at the postsecondary level.
This section highlights the use of UDL as a teaching strategy in postsecondary courses and in
teacher preparation.
Integration of UDL in preparing teachers is a key area to explore in understanding how to
connect K–12 classroom instructional needs and teacher preparation (Hardman, 2009). The
HEOA (2008) specifically named UDL as a framework for use in higher education and in prepar-
ing teachers. Ralabate et al. (2012) noted that educational leaders were collaborating to incorpo-
rate UDL into teacher preparation programs. The relationship between teacher education
programs and instruction was an area examined. Polikoff (2013) studied how a teacher’s educa-
tion influenced instruction specifically aligned with state standards. The study examined how a
teacher’s education impacted his or her ability to construct learning experiences for students.
Polikoff examined teacher education programs and classroom instruction aligned to state stan-
dards through data collected from teacher surveys in math, ELA, and science. The study found a
positive correlation between a teacher’s education and curricular knowledge; however, the study
did not indicate sustainable gains in student achievement and indicated the need for further
examination of how teacher education programs support teachers’ classroom instructional needs.
Integration of UDL into instruction was explored through the use of WebQuests at the
higher education level and through lesson plan training and professional development. Studies
indicated the need to research how to meet teachers’ needs in instructing diverse learners
(O’Brien, Aguinaga, & Mundorf, 2009). One example of implementation was the use of web-
casts and online courses. In 1995, Bernie Dodge, a professor at San Diego State University,
created a way—called a WebQuest—to incorporate the Internet with classroom activities. He
defined this as “an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all of the information with which
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 27
learners interact comes from resources on the internet” (Dodge, 1995, p. 10). Dodge categorized
them into two types, short term and long term. A short-term WebQuest would run one to three
class sessions in higher education courses. Long-term WebQuests would take a week to a month
and result in more in-depth information analysis.
Yang, Tzuo, and Komara (2011) conducted a study in Singapore on the use of WebQuest
with special education teachers. WebQuests approached learning in a problem-solving manner
in which students focused on gathering and synthesizing information online and in print. In the
study by Yang et al. (2011), a professor introduced and modeled the use of WebQuest to pre-
service teachers as a way to promote an understanding of UDL. Preservice teachers were led
through a series of three WebQuest assignments. Upon completion of the course, a survey was
conducted to gain insight on preservice teachers’ perspectives of WebQuest’s relevance in their
preparation to teach diverse learners. Yang et al. reported that preservice teachers preferred the
inquiry-based WebQuest teaching tool over traditional teacher-centered direct instruction;
preservice teachers expressed that they were more likely to use this technology in their K–12
classrooms.
WebQuests improved critical thinking skills in teacher education programs as well as
connected theory to practice (Allan & Street, 2007). Allen and Street (2007) conducted a study
with undergraduate and graduate education students to determine whether WebQuests scaffolded
higher level learning over reproduction of facts. Although Allen and Street’s intent did not spe-
cifically promote UDL, it was offered as another example of UDL implementation in higher
education. Zheng, Stucky, McAlack, Menchana, and Stoddart (2005) reported that when Web-
Quests are completed in accordance with Dodge’s definition, they support a constructivist
approach to problem solving, increased collaboration, and scaffolded learning. WebQuests align
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 28
with UDL principles by offering an alternative instructional delivery to traditional teacher-centric
methods that allow inclusion of students at all levels (Allan & Street, 2007; Ikpeze & Boyd,
2007).
Another area of UDL incorporation found in the literature was lesson plan training.
Courey, Tappe, Siker, and LePage (2013) examined the effect of UDL training on lesson plan-
ning. They focused on special education teachers who collaborated with general education
teachers. The special education teachers worked mainly with students with mild to moderate
disabilities. Lesson plans were utilized in a general education class for all students. The purpose
of the study was to determine whether UDL professional development teachers increased
instruction accessibility to a diverse learning population. Teachers completed a pretest, followed
by a 3-hour UDL training and a posttest. The pre and posttests consisted of a case study and
lesson plan creation. The tests were evaluated for use of UDL principles in the lesson plan. The
study concluded that preservice teachers benefitted from UDL training and that their knowledge
and application of UDL principles increased. The implication of this study was that teacher
preparation in UDL principles increased curriculum access for diverse learners (Courey et al.,
2013).
The study by Courey et al. (2013) was similar to one conducted by Spooner, Baker,
Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder in 2007. The latter study looked at both special and
general education teachers. A baseline lesson plan was established, followed by a 3-hour
training on UDL incorporation into lesson plans. Upon completion of the training and scaf-
folded practice, another lesson plan was written by the teachers and compared to the baseline
lesson for signs of UDL principle use. Both studies (Courey et al., 2013; Spooner et al., 2007)
indicated that UDL training impacted lesson planning and that knowledge was increased.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 29
However, neither study examined the long-term impact on lesson planning and actual application
within the classroom setting by teachers or the effect on student achievement.
Implementation of UDL in higher education programs is in the early stages. At the time
of this study, there were several large institutions integrating UDL into their programs: the Uni-
versity of Utah, Northern Illinois University, and select sites within the California State Univer-
sity (CSU) system. Limited literature was available referencing these programs. Other universi-
ties referenced UDL in program structure and as a resource to students; however, limited infor-
mation was available as to the scope of use.
At the University of Utah, UDL was incorporated into the early childhood, elementary,
secondary, and special education teacher preparation programs (Hardman, 2009). The focus was
a three-tiered system of instruction that organized lesson planning into three levels of interven-
tion. Preservice teachers developed skills to make data-based decisions to provide instruction to
various levels of student needs. The intent was student achievement success at tier one; tier two
provided targeted instruction, and tier three was intensive for the most severe needs. Hardman
(2009) further explained that the goal of the program was to prepare preservice teachers to
address diverse learning needs at the first tier.
Northern Illinois University incorporated UDL into a program for special and general
education preservice teachers called Project Achieving Creative and Collaborative Education
Preservice Teams (ACCEPT; Van Laarhoven et al., 2006). The focus of Project ACCEPT was
teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms through accessible curriculum and instruction for all
students. The program addressed six specific skills, one of which was the use of UDL in lesson
plans. Similar to the studies by Courey et al. (2013) and Spooner et al. (2007), students com-
pleted a pre and post lesson plan with UDL training prior to the posttest. One significant
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 30
difference with this program was the clinical experience. Students in the study by Van Laar-
hoven et al. (2006) completed field experience in an inclusive classroom where they applied
skills acquired from the training. Van Laarhoven et al. indicated the project had a positive
impact on teacher knowledge, skills, and use of UDL. It should be noted that participation in the
program was voluntary. Following this study, Northern Illinois University began incorporating
these techniques into their teacher education program (Van Laarhoven et al., 2006).
The CSU system received a grant from the USDOE for a demonstration program called
Ensuring Access through Collaboration & Technology (EnACT). This program had a two-tiered
structure. Tier One established research partnerships with the following universities: Sonoma
State University, San Francisco State University, and San José State University; Tier Two
established implementation sites: CSU Monterey Bay, CSU Sacramento, California Polytechnic
University-San Luis Obispo, and CSU Stanislaus. The focus of the program was implementation
of UDL workshops in higher education and ongoing professional collaboration and development
around skills learned in the workshops (Ayala & Christie, 2011). Ayala and Christie (2011)
reported that after 3 years of implementation, course completion rates increased for students with
disabilities and faculty communicated positive viewpoints about UDL incorporation. EnACT’s
goals were to incorporate UDL into higher education programs, not specifically to prepare pre-
service teachers to use UDL in K–12 classrooms.
Teacher preparation programs have evolved from the time of normal schools in the 1800s
to present-day, university-based programs. Today, teacher education programs are research
based and responsible for preparing teachers for diverse learning needs. Several education poli-
cies influenced the direction of teacher education programs. Higher education has begun to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 31
respond to the current policies, and UDL emerged in some programs. However, there is limited
literature on using UDL principles to prepare K–12 teachers for diverse learning needs.
Universal Design for Learning
UDL was the theoretical framework used for this study. UDL addresses learning net-
works through three principles. The first principle is representation, which addresses the recog-
nition network and the “what” of learning. The second is action and expression, addressing the
strategic network—the “how” of learning. The final principle is engagement, focusing on the
affective network—the “why” of learning (Dolan & Hall, 2001). Incorporating these three prin-
ciples increases access to curriculum, scaffolds learning, and creates expert learners (Courey et
al., 2013).
History
UDL has origins in architectural accessibility for persons with physical disabilities,
known as universal design (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012). Universal design in architecture dictates
that physical designs and structures anticipate the needs of persons with physical disabilities.
Architect Ronald Mace first developed principles for Universal Design in architectural structures
(Heilman, 2013). Barrier-free design began in the early 1960s when disabilities architect and
researcher, Selwyn Goldsmith, created the well-known curb cut that exists on most of today’s
sidewalks, allowing ease of navigation by those in wheelchairs or people with baby strollers.
Research in universal design expanded to education in the 1980s when Dr. David Rose,
developmental neuropsychologist and educator, co-founded the Center for Applied Special
Technology (CAST). CAST’s mission and focus was to “expand learning opportunities for all
individuals, especially those with disabilities, through the research and development of innova-
tive, technology-based educational resources and strategies” (CAST, 2015, para. 1). Another
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 32
area of universal design is Universal Design for Instruction (UDI). UDI targets university faculty
as a means of instruction delivery (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003). McGuire and Scott (2006)
discussed UDI as a framework to utilize when anticipating the needs of students with disabilities
in postsecondary classrooms. UDI builds on the principles of universal design developed by the
Center for Universal Design (1997; Scott et al., 2003). UDI complements the principles of UDL,
although UDI emphasizes application in the context of disabilities (Embry, Parker, McGuire, &
Scott, 2005). UDL’s principles are designed to meet the needs of all students, including those
with diverse learning needs (Rose & Strangman, 2007).
UDL provides a framework for developing curriculum that anticipates the learning needs
of all students (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2009). Universal Design is commonly associated
with individuals who have a disability; however, UDL takes into account a range of diverse
needs and is devised to provide a barrier-free curriculum design for all. UDL goes beyond tar-
geting students with learning and physical disabilities in that it encompasses a variety of needs
through customization and flexibility of instructional methods, materials, and assessments
(Burgstahler, 2009).
UDL stems from neuroscience research and is a set of principles and techniques to
inform curriculum design. Rose and Strangman’s (2007) research identified three components
present with cognition. One component identifies patterns (i.e. the alphabet). A second compo-
nent creates patterns (i.e., word formation from the alphabet). The third function determines
what patterns are significant (i.e., tapping into interests to enable persistence. These three com-
ponents correlate to Vygotsky’s essential learning elements of recognition, application, and
engagement and Bloom’s taxonomy based on cognitive psychomotor, and affective objectives
(Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Strangman, 2007).
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 33
UDL principles serve to create expert learners. The adoption of CCSS creates a shift in
education to student as expert learner and away from student as fact holder. Meyer et al. (2014)
noted that all educational participants should be expert learners who are striving to continually
grow and improve. This concept means that both students and teachers should strive to grow
and improve in the classroom, in their professions, and in all learning situations. In order to
create expert learners, learning environments must be crafted in a flexible and supportive manner
to allow growth and improvement. The three UDL networks—affective, recognition, and stra-
tegic—facilitate the educational shift to student as expert learner.
UDL has some likeness to the early practices of diagnostic prescriptive teaching, predom-
inantly utilized in the 1970s (Brownell et al., 2010). Arter and Jenkins (1979) defined diagnostic
prescriptive teaching as a method of developing lessons to avoid a student’s weaknesses and to
capitalize on his or her strengths. UDL principles seek to foster a student’s strengths in access-
ing curriculum and expressing knowledge. One assumption of diagnostic prescriptive teaching is
that not all children learn effectively from one teaching method, similar to the foundation of
UDL principles that recognize the variance in learners (Brownell et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2012).
Representation
Representation involves how information is presented. Providing multiple means of
representation, the “what” of learning, enables more students to actively engage in the classroom.
It may take the form of videos embedded into lessons, visuals on the wall, audio reading of text,
and stimulating prior knowledge to make connections with novel information (Courey et al.,
2013).
The identification of patterns, or the recognition network of learning, is the basis of all
academic content areas. Pattern identification involves remembering or recognition in order to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 34
determine how to solve problems or to make sense of information presented. It is how to make
sense of language, whether orally or visually (Rose et al., 2006). Brain research shows that
recognition networks in the brain activate according to how information is presented. For exam-
ple, visually seeing a word activates a different part of the brain than hearing the same word.
Even within these discrete brain activities, there are multiple processes occurring to put the
pieces together in recognizing the word (Rose & Strangman, 2007). This information serves to
indicate how complex classroom tasks are for brains to process effectively. It also serves to
illustrate the complexity of individual learning.
Recognition networks work from a top-down process, rather than bottom up. The brain
tries to find patterns to make sense of information. For example, it is easier to recognize letters
in the context of words than in isolation. However, this does not mean that the whole-language
approach to reading is exclusively appropriate. The patterns must be taught; therefore, a whole-
language and phonics approach creates a balanced reading program and takes advantage of how
the brain functions (Meyer et al., 2014).
Action and Expression
The second UDL principle, action and expression, addresses the strategic network and
the “how” of learning. Providing multiple means of expression allows alternative communica-
tion modalities for student. This system reduces the barrier that traditional pencil-and-paper
tasks may present. This may take the form of oral responses, using multimedia and technology,
or photographic collages—to name a few. Another aspect of this principle is to scaffold learn-
ing. Reciprocal teaching is a method that supports cognitive planning and strategies needed for
comprehension. Paliniscar and Brown (1984) defined reciprocal teaching as a method in which
students and teachers take turns scaffolding comprehension techniques. The process begins with
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 35
teacher modeling of the construction of meaning while reading a text, followed by teacher-to-
student and student-to-student dialogue. The teacher scaffold is decreased over time as the
students learn to scaffold cognitive meaning independently (Rose & Strangman, 2007).
Recognizing patterns is one step in learning; generating patterns is also an important
scaffold in becoming an expert learner. The strategic network of UDL principles is derived from
neuroscience research. The frontal lobes of the brain are responsible for how one reacts to the
world (Rose & Strangman, 2007). This network plans, self-monitors, and executes functions,
both physical and cognitive. This area of the brain controls the goal setting, planning, and
organization required to achieve the goals, progress monitoring, and the ability to self-correct
actions when necessary to attain goals. Strategic networks are crucial in the classroom. An
example is with a math word problem. Planning and organizing occurs when focusing on rele-
vant information needed to solve the problem while ignoring extraneous information. With
reading comprehension, similar planning is utilized in determining details to construct the theme
or purpose of the story (Meyer et al., 2014).
Engagement
Tapping into a student’s interests and challenging them are essential to engagement. The
affective network relates to the “why” of learning and relies on motivation. Lessons designed
with the assumption that students have the same interests limit the opportunities for engagement
(Hall et al., 2012). The result may be a large number of disengaged students because the work is
too hard or too easy. Using textbooks as the main vessel of information leaves many students in
the disengaged group. Incorporating digital media increases student engagement when the
delivery of information varies according to student need (Rose & Strangman, 2007). Increasing
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 36
engagement allows students to take control of their own learning by creating expert learners
(Ralabate, 2011).
Affect has a significant impact on a student’s learning, whether positive or negative.
This network is entwined with emotional responses to situations (Meyer et al., 2014). These
responses can range from anxiety prior to a test or presentation to feelings of pride upon receiv-
ing a compliment. Understanding how affect can motivate a student toward persistence or
demotivate him or her in cases of intense challenge is the key to understanding classroom
engagement. Offering multiple means of representation, action, and expression offers increased
opportunities for engagement. The three principles are closely linked and work tightly together
to create expert learners who can reach high standards.
Current Application and Obstacles
The average classroom presents limitations when printed textbooks are the primary form
of information. Textbooks are now offered digitally for students to use at home. Using digital
media creates flexibility in representation and provides visual text, often with an auditory com-
ponent. Such flexibility reduces recognition barriers. Pace and Schwartz (2008) examined the
need to get away from a one-size-fits-all model of teaching and to incorporate more active
learning opportunities. Pace and Schwartz conducted a case study of four university professors’
incorporation of a system specifically designed to increase accessibility and engagement in their
courses. The professors utilized immediate student response software in their classrooms that
incorporated clickers that enabled students to directly interact with the material presented. One
example in the study presented was the ability to submit anonymous questions into the Power-
Point
©
presentation. The professors also utilized an online platform that allowed students to
preview lecture notes or PowerPoint presentations prior to class. The professors in Pace and
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 37
Schwartz’s study reported use of clickers to engage more students in class discussion, including
students who never participated. They reported difficulty with initial implementation and some
push-back from students, who complained of classroom disruption and loss of instructional time
due to implementation difficulties. Ultimately, both students and professors had positive
comments when the technology worked smoothly and indicated that it created richer class dis-
cussions. The issue that arose in the study was the barrier of implementation due to a lack of
technical support. Pace and Schwartz’s study highlighted ways to increase access to curriculum
by presenting materials online before class, along with oral and visual presentation during
lecture. Technology use increased engagement through use of clickers. While curriculum design
was not itself altered, these strategies resulted in an increase in access and engagement.
Chapter Summary
Student populations continue to transform and are increasingly more diverse. Teacher
education programs must continue to prepare teachers for the ever-changing needs of the class-
room. Howey and Zimpher (1989) found that strong teacher education programs were ones
grounded in theory and research with a strong connection to practice. Programs that emphasized
constructivist learning were more effective in preparing teachers for diverse populations (Tatto,
1996). These findings are in line with the incorporation of UDL principles into teacher educa-
tion programs. UDL principles provide theory and research that link to classroom practice for
teachers in reaching diverse learners (Spencer, 2011). UDL in teacher preparation takes instruc-
tion beyond read-lecture-worksheet models to create a curriculum for diverse learners to access
and acquire. Many K–12 teachers report not feeling ready to teach a diverse population of
students, including students with disabilities, ELLs, and gifted students (Freeman & Freeman,
2008; Spencer, 2011). The literature articulates the need to find inclusive ways to instruct a
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 38
diverse population of students. UDL offers a way to provide multiple means of knowledge
acquisition necessary for these students. University-based teacher education programs must
incorporate UDL in preparing teachers to provide academically inclusive classrooms.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 39
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used to address the research questions. The first
section describes research design. The purpose of the study is reviewed and the research ques-
tions presented. The next section explains sample and population; it outlines what was studied
and reasons for choosing the particular population. The third section presents instrumentation
utilized to collect data. Types of data and the approach to data collection are presented in section
four. Section five discusses how the collected were analyzed. Finally, validity and reliability of
the study are presented.
Elementary and secondary schools in California have students with a wide range of
abilities and learning needs. The reauthorization of the ESEA in 2001, also known as the NCLB
Act of 2001, brought student achievement to the forefront with high stakes testing (NCLB,
2002). While some students were meeting proficiency levels on these standardized tests, many
were not making AYP. As a state, California did not make AYP, as measured by standardized
assessments with many students, including those with an identified disability, ELLs, and socio-
economically disadvantaged students (CDE, 2014b). This problem led to the need for examina-
tion of how teachers are prepared to meet the diverse learning needs of their students. UDL is an
approach to curriculum design that allows multiple means of knowledge acquisition, thus
increasing accessibility to curriculum and knowledge for more students (Jiménez et al., 2007).
UDL was cited in the HEOA of 2008 as a scientifically research-based framework to guide
teacher education programs and curriculum design.
Universities began incorporating UDL principles into their instruction. Gradel and Edson
(2009) indicated that a dozen universities have a history of UDL implementation in their course-
work. In accordance with the HEOA (2008), several state universities within California
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 40
structured their teacher preparation programs with components of UDL. However, the research
on how and UDL principles were used in teacher education programs was not extensive. The
following research questions and subquestions guided the study:
1. How do teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into coursework?
a. How do professors teach UDL principles for preservice teachers to use in their
classrooms?
b. How do professors incorporate UDL principles into their instructional practices?
2. Why do professors in teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into
their coursework?
Interviews, observations, and document collection were conducted to understand UDL
use in current practices. This was a qualitative case study; this methodology provided rich data
to address the research questions (Merriam, 2009). A quantitative study would not allow for
in-depth explanations of data collected through interviews, observations, and document analysis;
therefore, a qualitative methodology was most relevant for this study. This chapter deals with
the design and procedures for the study.
Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, a qualitative approach was taken. Qualitative
methods provided rich data collection for examining how UDL principles were incorporated in
university-based teacher education programs (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). This study required
observations and interviews to understand how UDL principles were incorporated into
university-based teacher education coursework. Documents (e.g., course syllabi, university
program descriptions) were examined as well. A qualitative case study uncovered information
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 41
on how and why UDL principles were utilized in two university-based teacher preparation
programs.
Teacher education programs at two public universities in California were examined. This
was a case study of university- based teacher education programs. A case study provided a
detailed description of a bounded system, or a single entity (Merriam, 2009). Quantitative
methods were not appropriate for this study because theories were not being tested or correlated
to outcomes (Creswell, 2013). A quantitative study would not allow for a rich examination of
emerging themes resulting from observations and interviews. Qualitative methods allowed for
data collection that addressed how UDL principles were incorporated into teacher education
coursework.
Sample and Population
The purpose of this study was to examine how UDL principles were utilized in two
university-based teacher education programs. For this case study the sample was chosen through
purposeful selection. To understand and gain insight, purposeful sampling provides data rele-
vant to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The universities were located in California and
had components of UDL principles as part of the program design. This section discusses the
chosen institutions and what was examined. With large numbers of K–12 students not making
AYP as outlined by NCLB (2002), it was imperative to examine teacher education programs to
understand how teachers were being prepared to meet the needs of diverse learners in their
classrooms (CDE, 2014b). Therefore, two university-based teacher education programs were
examined.
The two universities chosen were public state schools in California. These universities
were purposely chosen because of a connection with the UDL through the CAST. The CAST is
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 42
based in Massachusetts and was the birthplace of UDL research, co-founded by Dr. David Rose.
CAST works with states primarily on the east coast of the United States to incorporate UDL into
their state education laws; CAST also collaborates with school districts to provide professional
development and continues to conduct research on UDL. The researcher contacted Dr. Rose at
CAST in the early stages of the study. Dr. Rose referred the researcher to a private university in
California at which a CAST conference was conducted. A professor at this university invited the
researcher to attend the CAST conference and recommended a colleague at another university
that had conducted UDL research in the past. The colleague was a professor at a public state
university in California. Through several conversations with this professor, it was determined
that this state university would provide rich data to address the research questions.
A second site was added to deepen the findings of the study. The second university had
a teacher education program that included UDL components. Initial contact was made with the
department chair in the School of Education. In the first conversation, the professor revealed
extensive knowledge of UDL principles and teacher education. This site was chosen to provide
further data and triangulation in answering the research questions.
These two sites were chosen with purposeful selection. Both sites indicated some level
of UDL incorporation in their teacher education programs. The lead contacts at each site pos-
sessed background knowledge of UDL principles and referenced their use in the coursework. In
selecting participants, purposeful sampling was used in order to gather the richest data to answer
the research questions. Maxwell (2012) referred to this type of sampling as convenience sam-
pling, while Merriam (2009) referred to is as unique sampling. For purposes of this study, six
participants were chosen based on the following criteria: (a) professor of a teacher education
course and (b) prior teaching experience in the teacher education program at the chosen site.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 43
Both sites had multiple teacher education programs: elementary, secondary, and special educa-
tion. Participants were recommended by the lead contacts at each site. From one site, partici-
pants were from the Special Education Department. From the second site, participants came
from both the Special Education Department and the Secondary Education Department.
The state university system in California originated from normal schools in the late 1800s
as institutes to train elementary teachers (Ogren, 2003). The two sites selected were among the
original schools in the teacher training system. The first university program researched was at
California Mid-State University (CMSU),
1
a public state university. The School of Education
included elementary, secondary, and special education credentials as well as master’s degrees.
The special education credential integrated with the master’s degree program and was designed
as a 1-year program. Preservice teachers attended school full-time during the evening and
completed several weeks of fieldwork throughout the program. Three professors from this site
were originally selected. One professor was initially contacted, and the researcher was subse-
quently referred to other professors in the department; two other professors agreed to participate.
Shortly before data collection, one professor declined to participate based on lack of availability
and time to commit for interview and observation. The researcher continued the study with two
professors in the Special Education Department at CMSU.
The two professors at CMSU were observed and interviewed. Dr. Wilson was the lead
contact for the researcher at this university. She had taught at CMSU for 1½ years. She had
previously taught at a community college on the East coast. The second professor, Ms. Bryan,
had taught part-time at the university for the past 3 years and also served as a program specialist
1
All names, organizations, and locations have been identified with pseudonyms for
privacy protection.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 44
for the Special Education Department of a local school district. Both professors met the criteria
for selection as professors in the Education Department, with prior teaching experience in that
department.
The second site selected was California Coastal University (CCU). CCU belonged to the
same public state university system as CMSU. CCU’s School of Education included elementary,
secondary, and special education credentials and master’s degrees. Similar to CMSU, the special
education credential integrated with the master’s program; however, it was designed as a 3-year
program that included extensive field work for preservice teachers. Five professors were initially
selected from this site. When arrangements were made for interviews and observations, one
professor reported not feeling ready for observation and declined to participate. The researcher
then continued the study with four professors from this university.
Four professors were interviewed. Three classrooms were observed; one course was
co-taught by two professors. The professors had varied backgrounds in the Education Depart-
ment. Dr. Thomas had taught in special education part-time for 26 years. She also taught adults
with a disability at a local community college. Dr. Thomas co-taught a course with Dr. Curtis,
who had taught at CCU for 10 years. She had past experience researching with CAST and Dr.
Rose on UDL studies. She had published a journal article on the effects of UDL training and
lesson planning for preservice teachers and also co-wrote a reading curriculum that incorporated
UDL principles. These two professors had professional development and formal experience with
UDL principles. The other two professors’ experience with UDL principles was not as exten-
sive. Dr. Eric reported exposure to UDL research but had no formal training. Dr. Eric taught in
the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders and also placed preservice
teachers in school districts. Dr. Kelly taught math to secondary education preservice teachers.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 45
She had also co-authored four math textbooks used nationwide in middle and high schools.
Similar to Dr. Eric, Dr. Kelly had no official preparation in UDL but had read articles on the
principles.
This study examined teacher education programs at two universities. It was not an
exhaustive examination of university-based teacher preparation programs. However, knowledge
was gained on how UDL principles were incorporated to prepare teachers in these two
university-based programs. Focusing on two universities that had UDL principles in their
program descriptions gave purposeful insight to how these universities prepared K–12 teachers
to reach diverse learners.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data collection occurred in the field rather than in a controlled setting such as a lab. This
procedure allowed for in-person interaction with participants in the setting of the study’s topic.
The researcher was the sole data collector, and protocols were developed by the researcher. The
conceptual framework for this study was based on the UDL framework and included the princi-
ples of representation, action and expression, and engagement. The researcher’s intent was to
illuminate common themes of representation, action and expression, and engagement in teacher
education courses and to discuss implications to future research and the preparation of teachers.
Data were collected through observations, interviews, and documents to answer the research
questions. Document analysis required the gathering of documents relevant to the teacher educa-
tion program. Document collection included (a) program and course descriptions from the uni-
versity websites, (b) course syllabi, and (c) lecture notes and course handouts. In preparation for
the interviews and observations, a file was created for each participant as an organizational tool.
Each file included a communication log, notes and documents specific to the participant, the
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 46
interview protocol, the observation protocol (see Appendix A), course documents, and a data
collection checklist (see Appendix B). Notes specific to the participant consisted of background
information and signed consent documents. The data collection checklist consisted of items that
the researcher needed to complete for the participant, such as an introduction to the study,
consent forms, course document collection, and a thank you upon completion. The checklist
served as a tool to ensure data collection consistency.
Professors of teacher education courses were interviewed. The interviews were recorded
to ensure that responses were preserved for later transcription and analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Notes were taken by the interviewer during and following the interview to record the research-
er’s comments and reflections. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight regarding the
professors’ perceptions of their use of UDL principles in their instruction delivery. A semistruc-
tured interview protocol created by the researcher was utilized. Merriam (2009) described this
method as a guide that included a combination of structured and open-ended questions. The
format allowed flexibility within questions, responses, and direction of the interview; therefore, a
semistructured format was the most appropriate choice. Merriam discussed six types of inter-
view questions posed by Patton’s (2002) framework: (a) experience, (b) opinion, (c) feeling, (d)
knowledge, (e) sensory, and (f) background/demographic. Experience, opinion, and background
questions were most relevant to the research because the researcher was interested in the activi-
ties and behaviors of the professors as well as their beliefs.
Questions were drafted by researching UDL principles and structured to address how
professors of teacher education programs described their use of UDL in coursework. The inter-
view protocol consisted of 12 open-ended questions, with some probing follow-up questions (see
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 47
Appendix C). Open-ended questions were used to avoid limiting responses and to elicit data-
rich responses (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Researchers have an ethical obligation to inform and respect the respondents. Both
Creswell (2013) and Stringer (2007) discussed the importance of informed consent. The re-
searcher attained verbal and written consent from each participant prior to the interview. Partici-
pants were contacted via phone or email individually. All participants were given a written
description of the study. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, time commit-
ment requested, and notification of recording and transcription. Finally, they were given a
guarantee of privacy in that no names or specific identifiers were used in the study. During the
initial phone conversation, participants were asked for a preference of interview location, their
workplace site or another public location such as a library. All participants chose their office for
interviewing. At the onset of recording the interview, the researcher again informed each
participant of the purpose of the study and stated that the interview would recorded and tran-
scribed.
Observations were conducted to gather data on the demonstration of UDL principles in
teacher education courses. As Merriam (2009) indicated, observations assist with identifying
details that may seem routine to the participant and therefore may be left out of interview re-
sponses. Observations helped to gather information on the specific context of UDL use in
teacher education. The observation protocol was created through gathering sample observation
protocols, reading literature on observations, and considering the specific information needed to
answer the research questions. The protocol consisted of a fill-in segment and notes section (see
Appendix A). The fill-in segment provided space to document the information observed, such as
number of students, type of course, and room description. The notes section was a simple grid of
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 48
two columns: observable elements and observer’s comments (OCs). In the first column, observ-
able elements, the researcher noted conversations, nonverbal interactions, and activities. In the
second column, OCs, the researcher noted personal thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and ideas that
occurred during the observation.
One key component to observations was gaining access. Merriam (2009) discussed
gaining access as the first step to data collection through observation. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
discussed the need to gain the trust of the gatekeepers through explanation of the research objec-
tives, which included reasons for observation data collection, why the site was chosen, and the
role of the researcher-observer. The initial contact was made by the researcher via email or
phone. The participants were informed of the purpose of the observation, and a mutual time was
determined for observation to occur. The researcher was the observer, taking the stance of
observer as participant with little direct interaction with students (Merriam, 2009). The re-
searcher chose this stance to reduce the level of interaction and therefore reduce the influence or
impact of the observer.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred in several steps. The analysis process focused on field notes from
observations, interviews, and document analysis. During data collection, notes were written to
record thoughts. During observations, OCs were recorded alongside observation notes. Follow-
ing an interview, interviewer’s comments were noted on the protocol. The researcher recorded
her thoughts on documents collected for later use. Notes recorded during data collection were
not the main emphasis of the analysis but assisted in recording reflections as they occurred for
later use (Creswell, 2013).
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 49
Recorded interviews were transcribed for analysis. Initial reading of transcriptions
revealed themes and meaning. Observation notes and documents were reviewed for themes. As
themes were identified, the researcher coded the data. Coding assisted in comparing one piece of
data with another to look for recurring themes (Merriam, 2009). The next step was to use cate-
gories extracted from recurring themes to code the interview transcripts, observation notes, and
document analysis notes. The researcher used a coding matrix based on Maxwell’s (2012) data
analysis matrix to organize the data analysis.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are at the heart of any research study. To present trustworthy
findings, the study must produce valid and reliable information in an ethical manner. Research
must be conducted thoroughly to produce credible findings (Merriam, 2009). Validity refers to
the congruency with what happened, or the correspondence of findings with what was measured
(Maxwell, 2012). Triangulation is one means of establishing validity. Triangulation is the use
of multiple methods, multiple sources of data, multiple investigators, or multiple theories to
corroborate findings (Merriam, 2009). This study enlisted multiple sources of data in the form of
interviews, observations, and documents to triangulate the findings.
Merriam (2009) described reliability in qualitative research as the ability of outsiders to
agree that the findings make sense and that they are consistent and dependable. As with validity,
triangulation supports reliability. Gathering multiple means of data lends to consistency in
research. Another method to ensure reliability is with an audit trail, which refers to the detailing
of the study’s process, how data were collected, the process of coding, and the progression of the
data collection process (Merriam, 2009). For the purposes of this study, the data collection
process was described and triangulation was used.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 50
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter provides an analysis of data collected from the current study and presents
findings in relation to UDL in two university-based teacher education programs for special edu-
cation credentialing. Major themes are organized by research question.
Participant Description
Data were collected from two university teacher education programs in the Special Edu-
cation Department. Both schools were state universities in California and were part of a grant
program designed to support and train postsecondary students through collaboration and use of
technology. The grant, EnACT, offered federal funds for a 4-year period spanning from 2008 to
2012 (Ayala & Christie, 2011). Per the research summary report from Ayala and Christie
(2011), one university took part in Tier One that focused on research; the other, in Tier Two,
which focused on implementation. Although EnACT was a factor in the site selection, it was not
a focus of the data collection or analysis.
Data were collected from six professors from two university-based teacher education
programs. Two professors from CMSU and four professors from CCU were observed and inter-
viewed. All participants were female. In addition to observations and interviews, documents
were collected from these professors’ courses.
There was a range of teaching experience between the professors in the university-based
teacher education programs. One professor was in her 2nd semester, and four professors had
been teaching in the program for over 10 years. Five of the six professors had doctorate-level
degrees, and one had a master’s-level degree.
Both university-based programs were undergoing changes to their programs and were in
the planning stages. Thus, all courses observed were in a transition state of including previous
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 51
structure and incorporating new structure. Both universities reported that the programs were
aligning their teacher education with the California Commission on Teacher Credential stan-
dards, the California CCSS, and school district needs. A summary of the findings from both
university-based programs is shown in Figure 1.
Findings From Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do teacher education programs incorporate UDL prin-
ciples into coursework? Research Question 1 had two subquestions: (a) how professors are
teaching UDL principles for preservice teachers to use in their classrooms and (b) how profes-
sors incorporate UDL principles into their instructional practices.
Research Question 1 focused on UDL in course content and instructional practices in two
teacher education programs. This was measured through interviews, observations, and document
collection. The question examined the use of UDL in instructional practices and methodology in
the classroom and in course planning; it also looked at how UDL was explicitly taught in the
courses. Five themes emerged from analyzing the data: (a) lesson plan templates, (b) explicit
teaching, (c) multiple means of representation, (d) multiple means of expression, and (e) multiple
means of engagement.
Teaching UDL Principles
The first subquestion of Research Question 1 looked at how UDL principles were pre-
sented in coursework content to preservice teachers for use in K-12 classrooms. UDL principles
in coursework content were measured through classroom observation, interviews, and document
collection. Common themes emerged from data analysis: (a) lesson plans and (b) explicit
teaching in the course.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 52
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 53
An analysis of the data revealed that both university programs utilized a lesson plan
template that explicitly incorporated UDL. In both programs, there was one lesson plan template
used programwide in the Special Education Department. The template was introduced to pre-
service teachers in their introductory courses. Through the introductory course, the expectation
was set that preservice teachers would utilize this template in all course projects in their creden-
tial programs.
At CMSU, both professors reported their students used a lesson plan template with
built-in UDL components. Document collection confirmed their statements. CMSU’s lesson
plan template was two pages in length. The first page consisted of a fill-in template; the second
page was a chart of UDL guidelines created by CAST (2011; see Appendices D and E). The
guidelines were provided with the template to facilitate use of UDL principles. The first half of
CMSU’s lesson plan template contained the following components: focus and review, objective
or rationale, teacher input, guided practice, independent practice, progress monitoring, formal
assessment, and closure.
The second half of the template covered UDL components. One box, labeled “Evidence
of Universal Design for Learning (UDL),” was broken into three sections to address the three
components of UDL: representation, expression, and engagement. Another box included space
for accommodations and modifications. The last section of the lesson plan had three questions
listed:
1. How was technology integrated into the lesson?
2. How did you ensure everyone had access?
3. How did your student benefit from technology?
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 54
As reported by Dr. Wilson , the second half of the lesson plan template was revised in
2014 to include those items. She reported that it was necessary to include UDL components in
the template to foster the use of UDL in every lesson. She also reported that the first version of
the revised lesson plan included a section entitled “Evidence of Universal Design for Learning.”
The template was revised again to include the three components of UDL and a technology
section to facilitate detailed responses. Dr. Wilson felt that it was necessary to include specific
areas for UDL in the template as a reminder to incorporate the principles with each lesson. She
stated that with the less detailed version of the lesson plan, lesson plans contained only a vague
reference to UDL principles.
CCU’s lesson plan template (see Appendix F) was much lengthier at four pages. As with
CMSU’s template, it was used programwide within special education for preservice teachers.
The template consisted of eight sections: (a) Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals, (b)
lesson objectives, (c) content standards addressed, (d) materials, (e) article references, (f) pro-
cedures/lesson plan outline, (g) evaluation, and (h) modifications/accommodations. Section 4,
Materials, addressed UDL principles and was divided to include each of the three categories
within UDL principles. In the first section, Representation, preservice teachers listed how
information was presented in order to facilitate multiples means of access to the curriculum. The
second section, Action and Expression, was the place to record ways that students in the class-
room could demonstrate knowledge acquisition. The last section, Engagement, provided space
to present ways to keep student interest and maintain persistence. Each of the sections listed
examples for reference in addressing the UDL principles. Section 6 of the template, The Lesson
Outline, provided detailed scaffolding for the flow of the lesson. It had a column to state what
the teacher was going to do and a column for the student participation. This design fostered big-
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 55
picture thinking of both teaching and student learning. Dr. Curtis at CCU stated that the tem-
plate took the preservice teachers step by step to consider everyone in their classroom.
The lesson plan templates from both programs supported preservice teachers with incor-
porating UDL principles into their classrooms. The templates required preservice teachers in
courses to think deeply about their lessons so as to include individual UDL components. Both
templates were created specifically for special education preservice teachers. However, both
CCU and CMSU professors reported that the templates were structured so that preservice teach-
ers could use them in special education and general education settings. The goal of the templates
was to address all student needs through the inclusion of UDL components.
Lesson plan templates were a theme that both universities shared programwide. Other
themes that emerged from both programs were examples of explicit teaching of UDL principles
in the courses. Examples differed by professor; some professors had specific sections of the
course devoted to UDL principles, while others embedded UDL principles throughout the course
content.
Dr. Wilson at CMSU opened her class session with an example of how UDL principles
in a lesson aligned with CCSS while also increasing accessibility of curricula. She projected a
picture of an apple at the front of the room, then proceeded to talk about the importance of the
apple to all students as a requirement for dietary needs. She presented three students with dif-
fering barriers to consuming the apple. One student needed it in a form that would not rot in a
backpack; another student had a swallowing disorder, while a third student was missing front
teeth. The problem presented was that each student needed to consume the apple without water-
ing it down and losing its nutrients. Dr. Wilson gave the preservice teachers a few minutes to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 56
ponder the question with a partner. Without asking for responses, she stated that this issue was
similar to approaching the different learning needs of students with the requirements of CCSS.
In the next portion of the class, Dr. Wilson presented different situations for students to
work on within small groups of two to three people. In one case, she presented a Common Core
standard with several students’ varying academic barriers. The objective was to create multiple
ways of accessing and expressing the information necessary to meet the standard. In the next
situation, Dr. Wilson presented a Common Core standard along with several methods of delivery
of curriculum. The task was to analyze whether the methods were aligned with the standard or
watered-down versions of the information. Upon completion of the problems presented, she
stated that the goal was to highlight the importance of providing multiple ways for students to
access the curriculum and convey what they learned while maintaining the integrity of the
standards. Although Dr. Wilson did not use the term UDL, she did discuss the need for multiple
means of access and expression to reach a diverse set of learning needs in classrooms.
During the interview, Dr. Wilson discussed a class project in which “they’ll be observing
and watching for elements of UDL and the extent to which their peer is incorporating UDL.”
She shared that UDL was something that the students would be consistently thinking about
throughout the course and would support instructional planning in their K–12 classrooms.
Ms. Bryan reported that her course previously included 2 weeks of explicit teaching of
UDL principles. The course was restructured for the 2014–2015 school year, and UDL was
embedded throughout the course rather than taught in only a portion of the course. UDL princi-
ples were taught in Week 4 of the 10-week course (see Appendix G). The principles were tied to
the lesson plan template through in-class group activities. UDL topics embedded throughout the
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 57
course included technology for lesson planning and use in the classroom, equitable access for all
students, and aligned technology use with the Common Core standards.
UDL principles were present in a podcast topic assigned for preclass listening on multi-
tiered systems of supports (MTSS). Within that podcast, UDL was discussed as a tool for
planning the first level of MTSS. At this level, interventions were in the general education
classroom and available to all students as a way to increase curriculum access. Students worked
in groups to define each level and what it looked like in schools.
Dr. Curtis and Dr. Thomas at CCU co-taught a course for preservice teachers. This
course focused on development of an induction plan that is required as part of a teaching
credential. The objective of the course was to give preservice teachers support and scaffolds to
create their own induction plan (see Appendix H). At the beginning of the class session, Dr.
Curtis presented an overview of the induction plan. She then discussed modules to which
students had access through the course’s online system to utilize in goal setting. The modules
consisted of podcasts, webcasts, and online resources for different topics. One of the modules
focused on UDL. Dr. Curtis spoke about the UDL module. She began the discussion with an
informal survey to understand how many of students knew UDL and which teachers currently
used UDL in their student teaching. These students were in the 2nd semester of their 3-year
credential program and thus at the beginning stages of their training. Less than five students
reported knowledge of UDL or use of the principles in their student teaching.
Dr. Curtis then discussed the lesson plan template. She focused on Section 4, which
covered UDL principles. Students questioned whether there was time to use UDL in the class-
room with all the current classroom expectations. This question prompted a discussion of the
purpose of UDL. Dr. Thomas interjected to state that it takes time to learn how to incorporate
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 58
UDL into everyday lesson planning. She went on to say that it was imperative to include all
students in learning and that once one looked at the big picture of ensuring learning for all
students, it could be seen that UDL principles were instrumental to reaching that goal. This
course taught UDL as a necessary component of goal setting and use in the lesson plan template.
Two courses analyzed did not specifically teach UDL principles. Dr. Kelly’s course
objectives integrated UDL principles (see Appendix I). Students in this course were required to
find multiple ways of creating access to curriculum, monitoring progress, and integrating tech-
nology in their student teaching lesson planning. The second professor reported not integrating
UDL principles into the course content or objectives.
UDL in Instructional Practices
Six professors were observed in five classrooms across two university-based teacher edu-
cation programs. One course was co-taught by two professors. Three major themes in instruc-
tional practices emerged from data analysis: (a) multiple means of representation, (b) multiple
means of expression, and (c) multiple means of engagement. The themes aligned with the UDL
guidelines as set forth by CAST (2011).
Representation referred to how content and curriculum were presented, the “what” of
learning. Multiple means of representation, or access, allowed more students to be actively
involved in their learning. This was a key step to engaging learners in the content. Part of
creating multiple means of representation required varied ways of presenting content, connecting
content to prior knowledge, and scaffolding the learning process.
The most common form of representation that emerged was the use of technology to
relay content. Both Dr. Wilson and Ms. Bryan at CMSU utilized podcasts that students listened
to prior to class; the podcasts were a primer for that week’s content. Ms. Bryan included
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 59
PowerPoint slides that coincided with the podcast, while Dr. Wilson wanted the students to listen
to the podcast before class and provided the slides in class. Although delivered in different
timelines, both served to allow students to listen at their convenience while also utilizing slides
as a visual. In both classes, the slides were projected in front of the class as the professor
reviewed the podcast. The slides were also uploaded to the course website, to which all students
had access. In class, students viewed the slides in varying forms. Some students printed the
slides and took handwritten notes; other students had laptops or tablets and took typed notes,
while other students simply observed the projected slides with no note taking. The multiple
options for viewing allowed students to take advantage of the most productive ones for them.
Throughout the class, both professors provided verbal and visual modalities for activity instruc-
tion. Instructions were projected in bullet-point form while the professor orally reviewed each
point. PowerPoint presentations were used in several classes as the means of lecture facilitation.
All six of the professors used an online university-based program that posted course
materials, such as the syllabus, PowerPoint presentations, videos, podcasts, chat forums, and
rubrics. Access to the site was allowed only to registered students; therefore, the researcher was
allowed visual access only during the interviews. The sites appeared to have extensive resources
for students. Dr. Epstein showed the researcher several rubrics that she posted for students to
use as a guide in their class projects. The professors who utilized podcasts posted them online
several days prior to class. They indicated that podcasts were uploaded weekly to ensure that
they were pertinent to the following week’s topic. This procedure allowed for changes according
to the student and course needs.
Other forms of technology used to increase access were present. In Dr. Kelly’s class, she
used special graphing calculators and graphing programs in the lesson to vary the ways in which
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 60
a problem could be solved or understood. It was also a way to expose students to new technol-
ogy that could be utilized in their classrooms and lesson planning. Several professors offered
options of e-books or traditional textbooks for the course.
Another form of access was scaffolded learning, or teaching how to work through a
problem or process. One professor scaffolded readings required for the course in order to show
students how to approach professional journal readings. During the interview, Dr. Eric indicated
that in past experience students did not fully read assigned articles. At the start of class, she led a
discussion on the importance of reading professional journals to keep current on research for the
field. Several students noted a lack of available time when teaching. Dr. Eric compared this
issue to the medical field and the need to keep current with research, noting that doctors do not
typically have a lot of free time to read but make it a priority. She disagreed with students who
indicated that teaching is not as dire at the medical field. She stated that “there is an alarm
sounding, and it’s our schools needing to be saved.” That comment led in to the facilitated dis-
cussion of the readings. She gave the class the overall picture of why it was imperative to read
the articles and followed by modeling how to discuss the research and apply it to current prac-
tice. She let the class know that article discussion would be deliberate for the first few weeks,
after which she wanted article discussion to blend into class discussions as applicable and
relevant to the topic.
Access also included instruction connected to previous knowledge and current practices.
This increased meaning by forming patterns for new knowledge and facilitated student learning
(CAST, 2011). Dr. Eric did this by having individuals in the class compare CCSS to current
learning goals and practices with their students. In small groups, students discussed similarities
and how the standards could apply. Dr. Eric first presented the standards and asked students to
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 61
review them and share thoughts within groups. Students discovered similarities and connections
to current learning goals in their classrooms. Dr. Eric facilitated this self-discovery for students
and created new connections between new information and prior knowledge.
The next theme, expression, indicated methods in which students planned and organized
during problem-solving activities or communicated knowledge acquisition. This part looked at
the “how’ of learning. An example was scaffolded learning with the goal of student
independence. Reciprocal teaching was a method used to increase content comprehension while
scaffolding learning with the goal of independent learning (Paliniscar & Brown, 1984).
In both programs, there was evidence of multiple means of expression, ranging from
technology to facilitating learning to scaffolded practice of skills and resource management. The
six professors observed and interviewed all displayed multiple ways of facilitating learning and
the expression of that learning.
Dr. Curtis utilized fillable Portable Document Format (PDF) forms in place of work-
sheets. Students had the options to print the forms and handwrite responses or to complete them
on the computer and submit electronically. Dr. Curtis and Dr. Wilson reported use of classroom
response technology. There were two forms of this. Dr. Curtis used a handheld “clicker”
system. Questions were posed to the class, students responded with a handheld clicker, and
responses were projected for immediate feedback. Dr. Wilson used a similar technique, but the
polling system was through an application (app) that students accessed from their phones or
tablets. Both professors stated that they used it as a formative assessment tool in addition to an
explicit example of technology that teachers used in their classrooms. Dr. Wilson indicated to
her students that this was a safe way for students to respond to classroom discussions without
fear of being incorrect. It also gave the teacher immediate feedback on what information
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 62
students were grasping and what had to be revisited. This app also gave students options for
communicating their knowledge acquisition.
Facilitated resource management was observed in four classes. Two professors had
group activities in which students were provided with websites. In Dr. Eric’s class, students
were in small groups of four to five and looked at CCSS. Their task was to create learning goals
that aligned with the standards and would be accessible to their student population. Similarly, in
Dr. Wilson’s class, students chose from provided websites and listed concepts they learned that
were applicable to their classroom planning. Both professors expressed that they wanted the pre-
service teachers to practice using resources in their learning and instructional planning. In
another class, the professor collected graphic organizers and had students create a resource
binder or file to keep the documents that they gathered through the program. Dr. Thomas noted
that she had students gather and create rubrics for various assignments. The goal was to provide
the preservice teachers with tools that they could use in their lesson planning.
Dr. Eric utilized rubrics as a means of resource management and scaffolded practice. She
provided a rubric from a local elementary school and had students clarify the rubric’s require-
ments. This procedure allowed students to directly understand how the wording in a rubric
might be confusing or clarifying. In the next part of the activity, students created a rubric for an
assignment and shared it in their small groups. Students then commented and refined the
rubrics. This process gave students the opportunity to practice the skill for use in classroom
assessment planning.
In Dr. Kelly’s class, students created project-based lessons for a high school math course.
The lessons included problem-based activities and did not directly include rote math skill
teaching. Dr. Kelly wanted students to create lessons that would inspire student interest while
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 63
also keeping them engaged. Dr. Kelly scaffolded planning and development of instructional
practices.
Four professors facilitated goal setting and planning activities. In Dr. Curtis and Dr.
Thomas’s class, they introduced learning modules that preservice teachers would utilize in their
induction plan, which was composed of professional goals. In Ms. Bryan’s class, students
worked in small groups to create a plan for struggling students. The preservice teachers began
with creating a MTSS program for their school. They stated what occurred at each level of
support, the timeline of each level, and persons responsible. Ms. Bryan assisted by providing
resources and support when necessary.
Dr. Wilson facilitated a class activity similar to Ms. Bryan’s. In groups, students dis-
cussed the timeline for the individualized education program (IEP) process, including the
assessment procedure, timeline, and persons responsible. Knowledge of the process varied. Dr.
Wilson scaffolded the activity by providing groups with information to fill in pieces they missed.
She asked groups, “Have you thought of this . . .?”—thus allowing them to create their own ideas
while she pointed them in a direction they may have missed.
The third theme in instructional practices was student engagement. This referred to the
“why” of learning and tapped into persistence and interest. This concept was observed through
active student involvement in classroom activities. Aspects of engagement and persistence
emerged from each professor. Professional collaboration was a major theme in the data. In Dr.
Eric’s class she conveyed the point of collaboration through a game. The class was divided into
five teams and given an X and a Y card. They were given 30 seconds to decide to hold up the X
or Y card. Points were allotted to each group according to how many held up X or Y. No expla-
nation of the game was given at the onset; Dr. Eric merely said the next item on the agenda was a
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 64
game. They went through 10 rounds of score keeping. At the end of the game, Dr. Eric asked
for insights. After discussion, one student stated that “if we all worked together, we’re more
likely to win together rather than one group excelling while leaving the rest behind.” Dr. Eric’s
point was to show how collaboration and sharing ideas could bring everyone ahead, not just a
select few. She asked students to reflect on this activity and how it applied to classrooms. This
activity facilitated collaboration along with self-reflection.
Dr. Kelly started the class session with what she termed a cooperative logic activity.
Students were in groups of four, and each student was given a card. In the center of the table
was another card and a pile of blocks. Each student made the figure on his or her card out of the
blocks, then put their figures together to form one complete shape. The answer was on the
face-down card in the center of the table. Students utilized individual collaborative efforts to
complete the task, which could not be completed without input from each member. The groups
went through three shapes that increased in difficulty. This activity served to highlight the
benefit of collaboration and modeled persistence through increased rigor.
Five of the professors utilized chat forums as a means of facilitated collaboration. In one
course, students posted their teaching philosophy on the course chat forum’s online site. Each
student was required to respond to at least three other postings. Dr. Thomas indicated that in her
experience, since using this format, students often responded to more than the minimum required
when the topic was relevant to their learning or instructional planning. She felt that students
used it as a resource for their own work in addition to their own ideas. Other professors utilized
the chat forum in a similar manner. Students posted various assignments and commented on
their peers’ work. This process also allowed the professor to monitor collaboration and give
feedback.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 65
Professors modeled collaboration through the co-teaching model with Dr. Thomas and
Dr. Curtis. They displayed how each had expertise and how they gained more together than on
their own. In their course, they facilitated collaboration by providing a partner teacher in their
schools. Preservice teachers were placed with a peer in pairs for student teaching assignments.
This procedure provided built-in support and collaboration at the school and in students’ classes.
Three professors specifically scaffolded reflection skills, another aspect of engagement.
Dr. Curtis and Dr. Thomas built in class time for groups to share their induction plans, collabo-
rate on goal writing, and time for self-reflection with a partner. An activity in Dr. Wilson’s
podcast facilitated self-assessment, self-reflection, and progress monitoring. A series of pictures
was briefly shown, and students wrote down one word or drew something for each picture they
remembered. Then they reviewed their list and wrote or drew out what each meant. The final
piece required a check for accuracy and learning gaps. Dr. Wilson reported that the purpose of
the activity was for students to gain an understanding of their baseline of information and narrow
their focus with respect to what needed further attention. Dr. Wilson explained to the students
that it was important to monitor student progress along with self-reflection of their own instruc-
tional practices and expectations.
Document collection revealed guidelines and objectives throughout the programs aligned
with UDL. In Dr. Wilson’s course at CMSU, UDL was embedded in the course objectives (see
Appendix J). Preservice teachers were expected to use assessment tools for progress monitoring,
to find multiple ways to allow for curriculum access, to integrate technology in planning and
teaching, and to demonstrate a plan to keep students engaged. Dr. Thomas’s syllabus also
required students to focus on increased student engagement in their lesson planning and profes-
sional self-reflection. Learning outcomes in Ms. Bryan’s course aligned with UDL principles.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 66
Students were required to use technology in their lesson planning, adapt instruction for multiple
learning needs, focus on equitable access to curriculum for all students in their classes, and
employ self-reflection practices to facilitate professional growth. Dr. Curtis and Dr. Thomas
shared expectations of their students to utilize UDL principles in their lesson planning. This task
was evidenced through assignment requirements. Students were expected to use the lesson plan
template specifically designed to align with all three areas of UDL: access, expression, and
engagement. Dr. Curtis stated that practicing lesson plans in this format led to increased use by
the students when they graduated and had their own classrooms. Using this lesson plan template
for assignments and in student teaching gave student necessary scaffolds and support to be
comfortable with using it on their own.
In addition to coursework, instructional practices, and course learning objectives, UDL
principles were part of both universities’ program goals. Both schools contained language
aligned with UDL in their program’s mission statement. At CMSU, the mission statement
referenced access, achievement, and persistence goals:
These professionals create, assess, and modify environments, practices, and policies to
foster the achievement of each and every learner; they strive for equity in schools and
society; and they are committed to inquiry and professional growth for themselves and
the advancement of P-20 education. (CMSU, School of Education, 2015, Mission
Statement)
CCU’s teacher preparation mission stated: “The role of the teacher is to provide equitable edu-
cational opportunities for all learners to advance to their fullest potential” (CCU, School of Edu-
cation, 2015, Mission Statement; see Appendix K). Both programs valued preparing teachers for
equitable access to curriculum, high achievement, and student engagement.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 67
Findings from Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “Why do professors in teacher education programs incorpo-
rate UDL principles into coursework?” Research Question 2 focused on why professors used
UDL in teacher preparation courses and measured through interviews, observations, and docu-
ment collection. One major theme emerged from data analysis: a desire to train teachers in a
way that ensured access for all students in K–12 classrooms. The HEOA (2008) advises the use
of UDL principles in teacher preparation for 2st-century classrooms; however, it does not
explicitly require its use, and the requirement did not emerge as a theme from this study.
Responses varied among the six professors. They made no reference to the HEOA of
2008 or its recommendations. They were not specifically asked questions regarding the HEOA.
Dr. Curtis indicated during her course lecture that UDL principles were part of the California
Teaching Credential (CTC) requirements. She also informed students that UDL aligned with the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession and school district needs. Dr. Curtis stated that
there was a new department chair and new deans in the special education and general education
departments and that they were “embracing the future” and wanted to prepare teachers for
addressing the diverse learning needs in their classrooms. Dr. Thomas indicated the same infor-
mation during her interview. Although they did not refer to the HEOA requirements, both Dr.
Thomas and Dr. Curtis made reference to credentialing requirements and program leadership
values. Both indicated a responsibility to comply with policy or program requirements.
Course syllabi included learning outcomes that aligned with all three categories of UDL
principles: access, expression, and engagement. Equity and increased access to learning for all
students, found in both universities’ syllabi and program descriptions, aligned with UDL’s prin-
ciple of multiple means of representation. Both schools created equitable access for their
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 68
students and trained preservice teachers to create lessons that enabled equitable access for
students. Multiple means of action and expression were also represented in the syllabi and
program descriptions. One learning objective at CMSU was to integrate technology to foster
learning and leadership. CCU’s learning goal was for preservice teachers to design technology-
based lesson plans. UDL’s principle of engagement was represented by the learning program
objectives of collaboration and persistence. Each program incorporated many collaborative,
group-based activities that fostered professional growth and student success. Both programs set
goals to create life-long learners and empower students to develop and achieve their own goals.
Two professors, Dr. Eric and Dr. Kelly, expressed that they were familiar with UDL but
had no formal training and did not specifically utilize UDL in their courses. However, inter-
views, observations, and document collection revealed that both professors did in fact incorpo-
rate UDL in their instructional practices. Dr. Kelly discussed the need to clarify vocabulary and
tied instruction to current practice. She also expressed her teaching philosophy to ensure that all
students accessed her lessons and were actively engaged, sharing that she “figured out how to
engage them through all possible means.” Observations revealed that she valued learning
through collaboration, which confirmed her interview comments in which she stated that she
valued group and project-based learning.
Dr. Eric’s teaching philosophy revealed that she placed value on utilizing research-based
techniques to prepare teachers for the classroom. She wanted to help them approach learning
barriers that they might encounter with their students. She wanted to prepare them for the
diversity of learning in the classroom. Additionally, she expressed that she was responsive to
student needs in her classes and planned her instruction to be inclusive and equitable. Although
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 69
Dr. Eric and Dr. Kelly stated that they did not formally incorporate UDL principles, their ap-
proach to instruction and their teaching philosophies aligned with UDL.
Four of the professors stated that they explicitly incorporated UDL principles in their
instructional planning. These four had background knowledge in UDL that led to use of the
principles in instructional planning. Dr. Curtis had the most extensive background of the four in
UDL. She explained that when she began her position at CCU 7 years ago, she looked for a
project to work on. One of the state universities had a federal grant that funded a UDL research
project and the thought, “What a great way to learn how to utilize the principles in my classroom
and model for my students who are going to be teachers.” The grant involved extensive training
with CAST. The mission of the project was to have pilot schools use UDL in their teacher
preparation programs. Dr. Curtis stated that as a result of that grant, UDL became an integral
part of everything she did. She also conducted her own research on UDL and its impact on
lesson planning. Additionally, she co-created curriculum software based on the UDL platform.
She felt that UDL had to be explicitly taught and had to be learned; and when that occurred,
everyone benefitted. She felt very strongly about the role that UDL principles played in teacher
preparation programs. UDL was an essential part of her professional development and teaching
philosophy. She noted, “I don’t believe that a teacher has taught anything until a student has
learned it.”
Dr. Wilson first encountered UDL in her master’s program at a university on the East
coast. Her first exposure was a textbook that defined UDL and gave examples of classroom
incorporation. She then continued with her Ph.D. in education and focused on access to general
education curriculum. Her mentors utilized UDL and modeled its use in their instructional
planning. She spent 4 years co-creating an iPad
®
application that increased access to reading
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 70
materials for elementary-age students. She expressed a desire to make curriculum accessible in a
functional way. She wanted to go beyond access and ensure alignment with standards in a useful
and enriching way. One of the favorite courses that she taught was General Curriculum Access,
in which she explicitly taught UDL principles and application in the classroom. She also
enjoyed the research and methods courses. In the fall she introduced students to UDL principles,
and in the spring she scaffolded practice with the principles. During the interview she appeared
very enthusiastic about UDL and bringing it to her students. Dr. Wilson shared, “I’m really
excited about this course because it’s my first methods course . . . it gives me many opportunities
to really get the UDL piece in there.” Similarly to Dr. Curtis, UDL was an essential part of her
instructional planning and philosophy in preparing teachers.
Of the six professors, Dr. Curtis and Dr. Wilson had the most training and experience
with UDL. Two professors worked directly with them to incorporate UDL principles into the
teacher preparation programs. Dr. Thomas worked closely with Dr. Curtis, not only co-teaching
a course but also co-authoring a journal article on UDL and teacher preparation. Dr. Thomas
shaped her career around access and inclusiveness before she knew about UDL. She stated that
incorporating UDL principles into her teacher preparation courses was a natural choice.
Ms. Bryan’s experience with UDL was similar to Dr. Thomas’s. She did not study it in
her master’s program or other specific training but first came across UDL through her own
research. Then Dr. Wilson introduced it to the dean of their program, at which point she worked
directly with Dr. Wilson to revise the master’s and credentialing program with UDL as the foun-
dation. Ms. Bryan stated that one of her goals in every course was to keep students engaged and
actively learning. During the interview, Ms. Bryan shared that “it’s important that they
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 71
[teachers] learn these things [UDL] and they go into the workplace feeling confident and being
able to address their students’ needs.”
Chapter Summary
Data from observations, interviews, and document collection provided information
focused on the use of UDL in two university-based teacher education programs. Five themes
emerged from data analysis in answering research question one: lesson plan templates, explicit
teaching, multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of
engagement. The use of a programwide lesson plan template and explicit teaching of UDL were
major themes that correlated to the first subquestion of how professors taught UDL in course-
work.
Use of lesson plan templates that included UDL components supported preservice
teachers in goal setting and generalizing skills into their classrooms, while creating a self-
monitoring tool. This served as a representation of UDL use in the program in multiple ways—
(a) through the requirement of using UDL in their lesson planning and (b) by teaching and sup-
porting UDL principles to be used in classrooms.
The second theme was explicit teaching of UDL principles. Four of the six professors
either had sections set aside for UDL or embedded it throughout the course. The professors
expressed that UDL had to be explicitly taught and learned in order for teachers to utilize the
principles in their K–12 classrooms.
The second subquestion of Research Question 1 looked at instructional practices. Data
showed an alignment to the three main UDL principles: access, expression, and engagement.
Although two professors expressed uncertainty about whether their instructional practices
included UDL, the data revealed that all six professors incorporated UDL. Technology was
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 72
utilized to increase curriculum access, including PowerPoint slideshows and podcasts prior to
class. Professors also continually connected new information to prior knowledge. Professors
had preservice teachers connect current practices to information that they were learning in class.
The next theme, expression, was evident in both programs. Again, technology played a
role. Use of fillable PDF forms and immediate student response systems provided options for
expression. The last theme, engagement, was represented by all six professors. Collaboration
was the technique most widely used to foster persistence in learning. Self-reflection was also a
key point in two classes.
The HEOA of 2008 directly recommended use of UDL in university-based teacher
preparation programs; however, none of the six professors indicated this reason for incorporating
UDL into their coursework. They did not appear to be driven by program or policy require-
ments, although Dr. Curtis did make reference to CTC requirements in her course lecture. Two
professors were actively working to revise their program policies to include UDL. All of the
professors indicated a personal teaching philosophy of inclusion and accessibility. Four profes-
sors were deliberate in their desire to use UDL in their courses; two incorporated UDL without
specific reference to the term UDL.
Interviews, observations, and document collection revealed that professors incorporated
UDL in many ways. Both university-based programs used a lesson plan template that required
UDL as a component of each lesson. Four of six professors explicitly taught UDL principles in
their courses, and all six displayed evidence of UDL in their instructional practices. Although
the six did not express specific incorporation of UDL in their coursework, they referenced a
desire to prepare their preservice teachers for the diverse learning needs that they faced in K–12
classrooms. All six professors utilized UDL principles in their courses, to varying degrees,
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 73
through explicit instruction and in their instructional practices. Why they utilized the principles
appeared to have the central focus of their desire for inclusiveness and access to curriculum.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 74
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Teachers face a diverse learning population in today’s K–12 classrooms. Student perfor-
mance requirements mandated by federal policies play a large role in teachers’ responsibilities.
Meeting academic proficiency levels has challenged teachers and Usher (2011) reported that
48% of U.S. public schools failed to meet performance requirements set by NCLB (2002). UDL
is an approach to curriculum design that ensures access while allowing for multiple ways to
express knowledge acquisition and ensuring engagement (Hall et al., 2012). Current federal
policies support and recommend the use of UDL in preparing teachers. Looking at how and why
professors used UDL in teacher preparation courses provides an understanding of how two
programs groomed their preservice teachers for K–12 classrooms.
Purpose of the Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to determine the scope of use of UDL principles in
university-based teacher preparation programs. The HEOA of 2008 advised use of UDL princi-
ples in preparing teachers. The HEOA, a federal law revised in 2008, defined UDL as a scien-
tific, research-based framework for teacher preparation. UDL serves as a framework for curricu-
lum design that addresses access to curriculum, expression of knowledge, and engagement or
persistence of learning (Haagar & Vaughn, 2013). Incorporation of UDL into the reauthorization
of the ESEA was recommended by the National Center for Universal Design in Learning,
National UDL Task Force (2010). The ESEA’s policies guide the K–12 public school system
and set standards for student performance (Hehir, 2009). This study looked at how and why
UDL was incorporated into two university-based teacher preparation programs. The following
research questions were the foundation of this study:
1. How do teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into coursework?
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 75
a. How do professors teach UDL principles for preservice teachers to use in their
classrooms?
b. How do professors incorporate UDL principles into their instructional practices?
2. Why do professors in teacher education programs incorporate UDL principles into
their coursework?
Summary of Findings
The summary of findings of this study and a discussion are presented here. Six major
themes emerged in response to the two research questions, five from Research Question 1and
one theme from Research Question 2. These themes will be discussed in correlation to the
research questions. The data analysis included interviews, observations, and document collec-
tion of six professors at two university-based teacher preparation programs.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do teacher education programs incorporate UDL
principles into coursework?” This research question had two subquestions: (a) how professors
are teaching UDL principles for preservice teachers to use in their classrooms and (b) how
professors incorporate UDL principles into their instructional practices. The focus of Research
Question 1 was the use of UDL in course content and instructional practices in two university-
based teacher education programs. This question examined the use of UDL in instructional
practices and methodology in the classroom and in course planning. It also looked at how UDL
was explicitly taught in the courses. Five themes emerged from analyzing the data: (a) lesson
plan templates, (b) explicit teaching, (c) multiple means of representation, (d) multiple means of
expression, and (e) multiple means of engagement.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 76
The results of this study indicated that professors taught UDL to preservice teachers
through explicit instruction of the principles and lesson plan training utilizing a template that
included UDL components in the template structure. A lesson plan template was used program-
wide in both universities’ teacher education programs. Each template had sections that required
preservice teachers to specify incorporation of UDL principles into their lessons. These findings
reinforced findings of studies found in the literature that training on UDL principles had an
impact on lesson planning. In the studies by Courey et al. (2013) and Spooner et al. (2007),
studies, preservice teachers completed a 1- to 3-hour training on UDL principles and then wrote
a lesson plan. Both studies found the training increased preservice teachers’ use of UDL in their
lesson plans. Professors in both programs reported that including UDL sections in the lesson
plan was necessary to ensure use of UDL principles.
The literature indicated that use of UDL in preparing teachers was emerging in university
programs. Evidence was limited in the literature of how UDL was taught for preservice teachers
to use in K–12 classrooms. Findings from the present study revealed that professors explicitly
taught UDL principles to preservice teachers. Two professors embedded UDL instruction
throughout the course, while two professors had specific sections in the course dedicated to UDL
principles. Two professors did not explicitly teach UDL in their courses. One course had an
online module to which preservice teachers referred for lesson planning, professional goal
setting, and training on UDL principles. Two courses observed had in-class group activities that
required preservice teachers to practice using UDL principles for instructional planning. Al-
though two professors did not explicitly teach UDL principles, document analysis revealed that
UDL principles were embedded in course objectives.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 77
The second part of Research Question 1 looked at how professors incorporated UDL
principles into their instructional practices. Themes that emerged from data analysis supported
the literature on UDL. UDL addresses three areas of learning: the “what,” “how,” and “why”
(Meyer et al., 2014). The “what” of learning refers to representation and access to curriculum.
This includes examples of how the curriculum was represented, connections to prior knowledge,
and scaffolded learning activities. Technology was utilized by all six professors to present infor-
mation in multiples ways and to increase curriculum access. PowerPoint presentations were
used in class and uploaded to course websites for students to view on laptops or print out for
manual note taking. Two professors used podcasts in addition to PowerPoint presentations for
preservice teachers to view prior to class, which allowed for multiple viewings if necessary and
at their convenience. Professors connected course content to prior knowledge. This technique
supported pattern identification, essential to the learning process (Rose, et al., 2013). One
example of this was a group activity in which students were tasked with connecting current
learning goals with the CCSS. Another way that access was increased was through scaffolded
activities. Two professors created an in-class activity that walked students through the process
of analyzing a journal article. Scaffolded learning provides guidelines for productive practices
(Meyer et al., 2014). Multiple means of representation were apparent in the five courses ob-
served.
Another level of UDL incorporation was through multiple means of expression, address-
ing the “how” of learning. This supports planning and development of learning. Examples
ranged from fillable computer forms to replace pencil–paper worksheets to scaffolded goal
setting. Planning and organization of learning is key to problem solving (Rose & Strangman,
2007). The findings showed that professors incorporated this UDL principle into their
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 78
instruction. Two professors reported using clickers or student response software in class. They
reported increased student responses by reducing potential barriers for some and allowed them to
monitor learning. All six professors supported some form of resource management—teaching
students how to navigate professional resources for future needs. In one course, a professor
modeled the use of rubrics. This activity supported resource management and taught students
how to refine rubrics to better correlate to learning objectives. Other professors showed students
how to navigate professional organizations and websites. Goal-setting activities were apparent
in three courses. Professors structured activities that allowed students to learn how to set profes-
sional and instructional goals and develop plans to reach them. Scaffolded practice was a
significant component of UDL instruction that allowed students to experience multiple means of
expression.
The third theme that emerged from the data related to student engagement was the “why”
of learning. This was apparent through active student involvement in the observations. All pro-
fessors utilized collaboration as a means of engaging students. One example was a building-
block project that one professor prepared as a class warm-up. The activity highlighted individual
strengths and the significance of collaborating to reach an end goal. The literature reported that
tapping into interests and challenging students was crucial to persistence (Hall et al., 2012).
Another form of student engagement was in the form of teaching self-reflection skills. One
professor displayed this by modeling her own self-reflection of the lesson objectives at the end of
the class session. These skills enable development, planning and achievement of long-term
goals (Meyer et al., 2014). The findings of the present study showed that professors utilized
UDL principles in multiple ways throughout their instructional planning and in their coursework.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 79
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “Why do professors in teacher education programs incorpo-
rate UDL principles into coursework?” Research Question 2 focused on why professors used
UDL in teacher preparation courses. This question examined the reasons that professors chose to
incorporate UDL principles into their coursework and/or instructional practices. One major
theme emerged from the findings. Through interviews, it was revealed that professors wanted to
prepare preservice teachers to create inclusive K–12 classrooms. Although the HEOA (2008)
recommended UDL as a framework for preparing teachers, this law did not appear to be a
driving factor for professors’ use of UDL. Alternatively, professors referred to their teaching
philosophies and noted their strong belief regarding increased access for all students. Even when
professors that stated they did not specifically utilize UDL, they revealed instructional practices
and beliefs that supported UDL principles. One professor noted that she was not aware of how
her class aligned with UDL, but data analysis revealed that she wove UDL principles throughout
her course. The findings of this study indicated that professors incorporated UDL principles in
coursework from a personal desire to increase inclusion and to prepare teachers for the diverse
learning needs that they face in K–12 classrooms.
Limitations
This qualitative study contained certain limitations. This was a descriptive study of
teacher preparation programs at two universities that were purposefully chosen for their back-
ground with UDL principles. It was limited to two universities in California and was not a
comprehensive look at teacher preparation programs. Therefore, findings cannot be generalized
from this study to other teacher preparation programs. This study was limited by the number of
participants who participated voluntarily. Time was another limitation; the researcher observed
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 80
class sessions only one time, and all observations were in the 2nd week of a 10-week course
term. The short time frame allowed for only a brief analysis of the professors. Given the time
frame and the limited number of participants, the findings were not necessarily representative of
teacher preparation programs overall.
This study should not be used to generalize findings to other teacher preparation pro-
grams. The findings from this study represent how and why UDL principles were used in
teacher preparation programs at two universities that were purposely selected to represent UDL
incorporation in instructional practices.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study revealed that professors incorporated UDL principles in
multiple ways into their teacher preparation coursework. Three major insights resulted from this
study:
1. UDL was explicitly taught through content and lesson planning;
2. UDL was modeled by professors through instructional practices; and
3. Professors’ use of UDL was not policy driven but stemmed from their personal
teaching philosophies of inclusion and accessibility.
The findings of this study had implications for teacher preparation practice in the area of
inclusion of UDL-specific content into coursework, professional development for professors to
model UDL principles in instructional techniques, and policies focused on inclusion and accessi-
bility for all students.
Content that specifically included UDL would benefit teacher preparation courses as a
means to prepare teachers for the diverse learning populations in K–12 classrooms. The research
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 81
of Courey et al. (2013) and Spooner et al. (2007) supported the use of UDL as a way to increase
curriculum access for more students.
Professional development and UDL-specific training should be in place to prepare pro-
fessors to model UDL principles in their instructional practices. The findings of this study indi-
cated that UDL was presented explicitly in course content and combined with modeled
instructional practices. Preservice teachers would benefit from not only learning about UDL
principles but also experiencing the principles in their coursework.
The two universities examined were piloting federally funded programs that fostered
partnerships between the university and the local school districts. These partnerships should go
one step further and include connections between UDL, teacher preparation, and CCSS. The
current shift in standards and expectations in education is an ideal opportunity to bring in the
framework of UDL to support preservice and current teachers in reaching all students. CCSS
has increased in rigor from previous standards. UDL serves as an instructional planning frame-
work that enables teachers to reach the diverse learning makeup of their classrooms.
At the school district level, professional development should be brought into the schools
to support current teachers in developing instructional practices aligned with their CCSS
achievement goals. Districts can reach out to CAST directly and utilize the numerous webinar
sessions or partner with CAST to create a personalized professional development plan. Districts
can also contact local universities to generate professional development partnerships. Districts
and universities should not work in isolation in their approach to CCSS instructional planning.
Partnerships between school districts and universities are essential to foster long-term success in
achieving high academic goals for all students in K–12 classrooms. UDL is an optimal tool to
bring instructional planning and high academic achievement together for all students.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 82
The implications of this study should be of interest to state education departments, uni-
versities, and school districts as an example of how UDL was incorporated into teacher prepara-
tion. Federal policies already in place, such as the HEOA (2008), have supported the use of
UDL in higher education and in teacher preparation. However, implementation has not been
widespread.
Recommendations for Future Research
There were areas in this study that would benefit from further research. The small
number of participating programs resulted in limited data. Although there were limitations to
this study, the findings contribute to the literature on UDL and teacher preparation. The current
findings provide insights as to how and why UDL is used in teacher preparation. The next steps
in research include follow-up with preservice teachers to examine whether and how UDL is
applied in K–12 classrooms. This study serves as a reference for how UDL is incorporated into
two university teacher preparation programs. It could be used for comparison in future studies to
specifically investigate general education and special education programs separately. Research-
ers may want to consider the perspectives of preservice teachers to gain insight into how well
UDL is incorporated within coursework.
Further research can be funded by federal grants through the National Center for Educa-
tion Research, which can be found at http://www.grants.gov. The Institute for Education Sci-
ences (2015) sponsors a competition for research funding in the area of education research. The
goal is to
provide national leadership in expanding fundamental knowledge and understanding of
(1) developmental and school readiness outcomes for infants and toddlers with or at risk
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 83
for disability, and (2) education outcomes for all students from early childhood education
through postsecondary and adult education. (p. 20203)
With these monies, institutes of higher education can examine UDL in teacher preparation and
how UDL supports academic achievement with CCSS.
Conclusions
Teachers are faced with meeting rigorous proficiency requirements for a classroom of
students with diverse learning needs. American teachers must be effectively prepared to teach
all students. UDL provides a framework to develop lessons and instructional techniques to meet
the diverse needs, including gifted students, ELLs, at-risk or struggling students, and students
identified with a disability. The HEOA (2008) recommends UDL as a scientifically researched
framework that reduces barriers to learning while maintaining high achievement expectations
and should be used in preparing K-12 teachers. The findings of this study indicated that profes-
sors incorporated UDL principles into their coursework and instructional planning when prepar-
ing preservice teachers at two universities. The literature described use of UDL in teacher
preparation programs as emerging, and there is a need for more universities to incorporate UDL
into their programs (Benton-Borghi, 2013; Rose et al., 2006; Schelly et al., 2011). This study
contributes to the literature by showing how and why professors incorporated UDL into teacher
preparation. Further research will support the need for UDL in teacher preparation and build
upon the findings of this study.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 84
References
Allan, J., & Street, M. (2007). The quest for deeper learning: An investigation into the impact of
a knowledge pooling WebQuest in primary initial teacher training. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 38, 1102–1112.
Allen, T., Ammon, S., Breshears, A., Drace, B., Huseman, J., Jensen, D., & Orcutt, V. (2014).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—higher education’s role in developing education
professionals: An evaluation of the Network for Instructional Support and Enhancement
(NISE) program at the University of Central Missouri. Educational Renaissance, 2(2),
27–38.
Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis—prescriptive teaching: A critical
appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.
Ayala, E., & Christie, B. (2011). EnACT research summary—Year 3: April 16, 2010–April 30,
2011. Retrieved from http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/2205/
393720/YEAR_3_Research_Summary_Updated_2-9-2012.pdf
Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., . . . McDonald, M.
(2005). Teaching diverse learners. In Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J (Eds.), Prepar-
ing Teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–
274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher prepara-
tion in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48, 245–265.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 85
Blank, R. K. (2011). Closing the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students?
Analyzing change since No Child Left Behind using state assessments and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to research
and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Borek, J. (2008). A nation at risk at 25. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 572–574.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Excep-
tional Children, 76, 357–377.
Burgstahler, S. (2009, August 5). Universal design of instruction (UDI): Definition, principles,
guidelines, and examples. DO-IT, n.v., 1–4. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED506547.pdf
Butler, J. W. (2008). Using technology to teach diverse populations. In I. Freeman, D. E. Free-
man & R. Ramirez (Eds.), Diverse learners in the mainstream classroom (pp. 139–158).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
California Department of Education. (2014a). A parent’s guide to the SARC. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/parentguide.asp
California Department of Education. (2014b). 2013 state report: Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) report. Retrieved from http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/Acnt2013/
2013APRStAYPReport.aspx
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal Design for learning version 2.0.
Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 86
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2015). CAST online tools: The Center for Applied
Special Technology (CAST). Retrieved from http://universaldesignforlearningpresentation
.wikispaces.com/Cast+Online+Tools
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design, Version 2.0. Raleigh,
NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/
cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm
Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with universal
design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7–27.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
proaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F. & Shulman, L. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Pre-
paring teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp.
390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Pacheco, A., Michelli, N., LePage, P., Hammerness, K., & Young , P.
(2005). Implementing curriculum renewal in teacher education: Managing organizational
and policy change. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 442–479). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2),
10–13.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 87
Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale
assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22–25.
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 Quar-
terly, 33(1), 33–41.
Embry, P. B., Parker, D. R., McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2005). Postsecondary disability
service providers' perceptions about implementing Universal Design for Instruction (UDI).
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 34–48.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education:
Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 357–368.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2008). Diverse learners in the mainstream classroom:
Strategies for supporting all students across content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Frey, T. J., Andres, D. K., McKeeman, L. A., & Lane, J. J. (2012). Collaboration by design:
Integrating core pedagogical content and special education methods courses in a preservice
secondary education program. The Teacher Educator, 47(1), 45–66.
Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE
Journal, 11(2), 30–35.
Gill, P., Sherman, R., & Sherman, C. (2009). The impact of initial field experience on pre-
service teachers’ attitude toward inclusion. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
11(2), 3–13.
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.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 88
Groen, M. (2008). The Whig party and the rise of common schools, 1837–1854: Party and policy
reexamined. American Educational History Journal, 35, 251–260.
Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpreta-
tions and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabili-
ties Research & Practice, 28(1), 5–16.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the class-
room: Practice applications. Wakefield, MA: Guilford Press.
Hall, T. E., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for
UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curricu-
lum.
Hardman, M. L. (2009). Redesigning the preparation of all teachers within the framework of an
integrated program model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 583–587.
Hehir, T. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In D. T. Gordon, J. W.
Gravel, & L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp.
35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Heilman, D. (2013, September 26). Universal design: Universally recognized? Retrieved from
http:// finance-commerce.com/2013/09/universal-design-universally-recognized/
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–315, § 202, 122 Stat. 3136 (2008).
Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Preservice teacher educators' role in programs for
beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal, 89, 451–470.
Hunt, T. C., & Lasley, T. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 89
Ikpeze, C. H., & Boyd, F. B. (2007). Web based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy
with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60, 644–654.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–446, § 612, 118
Stat. 2677 (2004).
Institute of Education Sciences Education Research, 80, Fed. Reg. (April 15, 2015), 2015-08627.
Jiménez, T. C., Graf, V. L., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise
of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41–54.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State Stan-
dards. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Center on Education Policy.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher
education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2006). Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the universal
design paradigm to college instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
19(2), 124–134
McGuire-Schwartz, M. E., & Arndt, J. S. (2007). Transforming universal design for learning in
early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 127–139.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and
practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 90
National Center on Universal Design for Learning, National UDL Task Force. (2010). Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and Universal Design for Learn-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy/legislative_activities
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2014). NCATE accredited institu-
tions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/tabid/176/Default.aspx
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
O’Brien, C., Aguinaga, N., & Mundorf, J. (2009, March). Preparing the next generation of
teachers to integrate special education technology in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented
at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,
Charleston, SC.
Ogren, C. A. (2003). Rethinking the “nontraditional” student from a historical perspective: State
normal schools in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Journal of Higher
Education, 74, 640–664.
Pace, D., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Accessibility in post-secondary education: Application of UDL
to college curriculum. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503884.pdf
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Polikoff, M. S. (2013). Teacher education, experience, and the practice of aligned instruction.
Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 212–225.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 91
Pugach, M. C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work with students
with disabilities. In M. C. Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.). Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549–590).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ralabate, P. K. (2011, August 30). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all
students. The American Speech-Language Association (ASHA) Leader, n.v., 1–7. Retrieved
from http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110830/Universal-Design-for-
Learning--Meeting-the-Needs-of-All-Students/
Ralabate, P. K., Hehir, T., Dodd, E., Grindal, T., Vue, G., Eidelman, H., . . . Carlisle, A. (2012).
Universal Design for Learning—initiatives on the move: Understanding the impact of the
race to the top and ARRA funding on the promotion of Universal Design for Learning.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(1), 19–29.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educa-
tional models. Remedial and Specual Education, 20(10), 153–166. doi:10.1177/
0741932513518980
Ravitch, D. (2003, August). A brief history of teacher professionalism. Paper presented to the
White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers, Washington, DC.
Reese, W. J. (2001). The origins of progressive education. History of Education Quarterly,
41(1), 1–24.
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 applica-
tion. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135–151.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 92
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Gordon, D. (2014). Reflections: Universal design for learning and the
Common Core. The Special Edge, 27(2), 3–5.
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, 381–391.
Schelly, C. L., Davies, P. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2011). Student perceptions of faculty implemen-
tation of universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
24(1), 17–30.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal Design for Instruction: A new
paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education,
24, 369–379.
Spencer, S. (2011). Universal design for learning: Assistance for teachers in today’s inclusive
classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 10–22.
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects
of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and
Special Education, 28(2), 108–116.
Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334.
Task Force to Explore the Incorporation of the Principles of Universal Design for Learning Into
the Education Systems in Maryland, SB 467 & HB 59 (2013).
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 93
Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understand-
ing the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18,
155–180.
Usher, A. (2011). AYP results for 2010–11. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). NAEP data
explorer. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2014).
Thirty-fifth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Dis-
abilities Education Act, 2013). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/
osep/2013/parts-b-c/35th-idea-arc.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). IDEA regulations:
Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/
explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,3,
Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Wyland, S., Dorsch, N., Zurita, L., . . . Rouse, J.
(2006). Project ACCEPT: Preparing pre-service special and general educators for inclusive
education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 209–212.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, March 5). Scientifically based research on teacher quality: Research on
teacher preparation and professional development. Paper presented at the White House
Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teacher, Washington, DC.
Yang, C., Tzuo, P. W., & Komara, C. (2011). Using WebQuest as a universal design for learning
tool to enhance teaching and learning in teacher preparation programs. Journal of College
Teaching & Learning, 8(3), 21–29.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 94
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and Teach-
er Education, 21(2), 117–124.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
89–99.
Zheng, R., Stucky, B., McAlack, M., Menchana, M., & Stoddart, S. (2004). WebQuest learning
as perceived by higher-education learners. Techtrends, 49(4), 41–49.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 95
Appendix A
Observation Protocol
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 96
Appendix B
Data Collection Checklist
Q Introduction
Q Communication Log
Q Consent Form(s): ___________________________________
Q Protocols:
Q Interview Protocol
Q Observation Protocol
Q Document(s):
Q Course Syllabus
Q Other: ________________________________________
Q Notes
Q Other: ____________________________________________
Q Closing Correspondence
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 97
Appendix C
Faculty Interview Protocol
Institution:
Interviewee (Title and Name):
Interviewer:
Date/Time of Interview:
Interview Categories:
Categories correlate to correlate to research questions and are so labeled to assist with data
analysis, scope of responses may extend beyond initial category label.)
A: Interviewee Background
B: UDL Strategy Use
C: UDL as Content
D: Beliefs about UDL
E: Other
Other Topics Discussed:
Documents Obtained:
Post Interview Comments or Leads:
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 98
Introductory Protocol
To facilitate my note-taking, I would like to audio tape our conversations today. Only the re-
searcher and transcriber on this project will be privy to the tapes which will eventually be
destroyed after transcription. Thank you for your agreeing to participate.
We have planned this interview to last no longer than _______ (minutes/hours). During this
time, I have several questions to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to
interrupt or schedule additional time in order to push ahead and complete the full scope of
questioning.
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as someone
who has a great deal to share about teaching and learning, in this program. My research project
focuses on the use of UDL principles in teacher education programs as a means of preparing
teachers to reach diverse learners.
How long have you been . . . (A)
1
_______ in your present position?
_______ at this institution?
1. Briefly describe your role and background in the program (department, committee,
classroom, etc.). (A)
a. Probe: Are you involved in coursework design? (A, B, C)
2. What are the strategies emphasized in the program for achieving high standards in
teaching and learning? (A, B)
a. Probe: Do you feel it is working (why/why not?)? (D)
3. What is your familiarity and knowledge on UDL? (A)
4. What resources are available to faculty for using innovative techniques and strategies
(UDL principles) in coursework delivery? (A, B)
a. Probe: What motivates you to use innovative strategies in your courses? (D)
5. How are innovative techniques and strategies (UDL principles) incorporated into course
content? (C)
1
Italicized letters following questions correspond to interview categories on previous
page.
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 99
a. Probe: In the courses you teach/in the program? (B, C)
6. What successes have you encountered using innovative techniques and strategies (UDL
principles)? (D)
a. Probe: What obstacles have you encountered? (D)
7. Have you or your colleagues encountered resistance to use of innovative techniques and
strategies (UDL principles) in your department? (D)
8. What strategies do you use to meet the needs of your students? (B)
a. Probe: How do you integrate innovative techniques and strategies (UDL
principles)? (B, D)
b. Probe: Do you employ the technology in the classroom? (B)
9. How do you assess whether students are grasping content in your class? (B, C, D)
a. Probe: What assessment techniques tell you the most about what your stu-
dents are learning? (B, C, D)
10. How are students in your class prepared to instruct diverse learners? (B, C)
a. Probe: What strategies can students take into the classrooms and in lesson
planning? (B, C)
11. How do you feel the use of innovative techniques and strategies (UDL principles)
affects the way students engage with your lessons and/or activities? (B, D)
12. Would you recommend using innovative techniques and strategies (UDL principles) in
their courses to other faculty? (D)
Post interview notes/reflections:
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 100
Appendix D
CMSU Teaching Lesson Plan Template
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 101
Appendix E
UDL Guidelines
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 102
Appendix F
CCU’s Lesson Plan Template
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 103
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 104
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 105
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 106
Appendix G
Course Syllabus: Ms. Bryan
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 107
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 108
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 109
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 110
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 111
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 112
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 113
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 114
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 115
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 116
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 117
Appendix H
Course Syllabus: Dr. Curtis and Dr. Thomas
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 118
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 119
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 120
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 121
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 122
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 123
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 124
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 125
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 126
Appendix I
Course Syllabus: Dr. Kelly
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 127
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 128
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 129
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 130
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 131
Appendix J
Course Syllabus: Dr. Wilson
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 132
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 133
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 134
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 135
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 136
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 137
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 138
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 139
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 140
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 141
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 142
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 143
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 144
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 145
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 146
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 147
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 148
UDL IN TEACHER PREPARATION 149
Appendix K
CCU’s Mission Statement

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Today’s classrooms are increasingly diverse and inclusive of all types of students ranging from English language learners, gifted and talented, at‐risk students, to students with an identified disability. This study examined how 2 universities prepared teachers using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in their courses. K–12 teachers are responsible for the academic performance of diverse students in their classrooms. Students are not progressing at the same academic performance rates. UDL is a framework for curriculum design that provides increased access to curriculum and learning for all students. UDL was included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 for universities as a framework for preparing teachers. This qualitative case study examined how teacher education programs at 2 universities incorporated UDL into their coursework, how professors utilized UDL principles in their instructional practices, and why professors utilized UDL principles in teacher preparation. ❧ The methodology for this study included qualitative data retrieved from university classroom observations, professor interviews, and document collection. Data were collected from 2 public universities in California. The objective was to gain insight into the use of UDL in preparing teachers to address diverse learning needs. The findings revealed that professors explicitly taught UDL in their coursework and that the principles were demonstrated throughout instructional practices for all professors in the study. The following themes emerged from data analysis: (a) use of UDL in lesson plan templates, (b) explicit teaching of UDL principles, (c) multiple means of representation, (d) multiple means of expression, and (e) multiple means of engagement in instructional practices. ❧ Findings of this study will benefit university programs seeking to integrate UDL principles into their teacher preparation coursework. This study provides insights regarding how two university‐based programs have incorporated UDL into coursework content and instructional practices when preparing K–12 teachers to accommodate diverse learning needs. Recommendations for future research include examining how teachers apply UDL principles in their classrooms upon completion of university-based coursework with UDL.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

Learning 21st century skills In a multicultural setting

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Instruction informed by social cognitive theory: implementation with differently abled students

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Michiko Dawson (author)

Core Title Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 06/25/2015

Defense Date 05/13/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag differentiation,diverse learner,full inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher preparation,UDL,universal design for learning,university‐based teacher preparation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email michi.lee12@gmail.com,michikol@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-583234

Unique identifier UC11299409

Identifier etd-LeeMichiko-3517.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-583234 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeMichiko-3517.pdf

Dmrecord 583234

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lee, Michiko Dawson

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA