University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EQUITY AND ACCESS: MEETING THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF STUDENTS WITH UDL IN
ELEMENTARY GENERAL EDUCATION
by
Dawn K. Green
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 2024
Copyright 2024 Dawn K. Green

ii
Dedication
To the diverse learners deserving of equity and access to education, this dedication is for you.
May this study foster a commitment to educational equity by providing learners with the
resources and opportunities to succeed and access inclusive and equitable educational
environments.
To my students, past, present, and future, I thank you for inspiring my continuous growth! I
dedicate this to you.
To my beloved Aunt Rose, who paved the way for my success, I dedicate this to you. Thank you
for being such an exemplary example of pursuing greatness. Although you are not here to see
my accomplishment, I know you would be incredibly proud of me.
To my family, I dedicate this work and this achievement to you. Your unwavering support and
love have been my constant source of strength and motivation. Your encouragement to press
on fueled my determination to (finally) complete this journey. Thank you for believing in me and
standing by my side through every challenge and triumph.
To my friends, your companionship and understanding have made this journey unforgettable. I
am grateful for your friendship and the countless memories we have created together. Thank
you for keeping me grounded, supported, and encouraged the whole way through.
Finally, to my number one lady, I love you endlessly! Thank you for EVERYTHING!
This is for us.

iii
Acknowledgements
The doctoral journey was a challenge, filled with obstacles, requiring faith and
determination to reach success. Thank you to my dissertation committee for supporting and
guiding me along this journey. I would like first to acknowledge my chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, for
being on this journey with me. Her support and dedication were present from beginning to end.
Her ability to always stay positive, sharing encouragement and support, is incredibly
appreciated. I am extremely grateful and cannot thank her enough for her patience, support,
and expertise. I learned about the qualitative data process from Dr. Briana Hinga. The
knowledge gained from her class helped significantly direct the work for the study. I thank her
for showing me the beauty of acquiring insights into the experiences of educators who promote
equity and access. I want to acknowledge Dr. Wayne Combs for his support and understanding
as I set the foundation for the journey and work ahead. Finally, to the external member of my
committee, Dr. Patricia Brent-Sanco, she has taught me about the power of being an EQUITY
WARRIOR! She is an agent of change, a scholar, authentically herself, and has inspired me to
do the necessary work for equity, access, and justice.
I thank the Rossier team members for their assistance on this journey. I am forever
grateful to the doctoral writing center, Dr. Jimenez, and Dr. Senzaki for giving me direction and
support. I also appreciate the guidance and encouragement provided by Jordan Brown-Silva.
I am incredibly thankful for my village, which ensured I completed this journey, no matter
how long the road was. I thank my mother for being a firm voice of support, the push of
encouragement, and inspiration I needed to get through this process. I could not have
completed this without the unwavering support of my family and friends; they filled my tank and
would not let me stop. Their encouragement and support were never-ending. Finally, I would
like to thank J.K. for being a beacon of light, guiding me when I was lost, and providing me with
a roadmap.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................iv
Abstract............................................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study....................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................5
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................5
Limitations and Delimitations...............................................................................................5
Definition of Terms...............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature............................................................................................9
Supporting Learners With UDL......................................................................................... 10
Equity and Access Through Universal Design for Learning ............................................ 18
Perceptions About UDL .................................................................................................... 20
Implementation of UDL ..................................................................................................... 21
Theoretical Framework of Universal Design for Learning................................................ 25
History of Universal Design .............................................................................................. 29
Chapter Summary............................................................................................................. 31
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ....................................................................................... 32
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................. 32
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 33
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 34

v
Research Design and Methodology ................................................................................. 34
Sampling and Population.................................................................................................. 35
Instruments ....................................................................................................................... 36
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 38
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 38
Summary........................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 40
Participants ....................................................................................................................... 41
Findings: Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 45
Findings: Research Question 2 ........................................................................................ 56
Findings: Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 61
Findings: Research Question 4 ........................................................................................ 67
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 75
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 77
Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 78
Equity and Access ............................................................................................................ 80
Perceptions ....................................................................................................................... 81
Barriers to Implementation................................................................................................ 83
Effective Implementation .................................................................................................. 84
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 85
Implementation of Recommendations.............................................................................. 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 90
References.................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Document Review Protocol...................................................................................... 97
Appendix B: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................... 98

vi
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................. 98
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 98
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 98
Interview Script: After Research Questions ................................................................... 100
Appendix C: Survey Protocol...................................................................................................... 101
Conceptual Framework................................................................................................... 101
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 101
Target Population............................................................................................................ 101
Research Question 1: Key Concept of UDL Principles and Practices .......................... 102
Research Question 2: Key Concept of Equity and Access............................................ 102
Research Question 3: Key Concept of Perceptions....................................................... 102
Research Question 4: Key Concept of Implementation................................................. 102
Appendix D: Letter to Potential Interviewees ............................................................................. 104
Appendix E: Email To Potential Survey Participants ................................................................. 105
Appendix F: Coding Table .......................................................................................................... 106

vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants ..................................................................................................................... 42
Table 2: The UDL Implementation Process, the UDL-SICC, and Recommendations for
Practice ......................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix F: Coding Table .......................................................................................................... 106

iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Configuration of Students With Disabilities in General Education...................................3
Figure 2: Universal Design for Learning Guidelines .................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Components of Brain Research.................................................................................... 27
Figure 4: Process for Implementing Universal Design for Learning ............................................ 88

v
Abstract
Across the country, teachers and administrators grapple with differentiating instruction for
students whose literacy needs, interests, and strengths vary widely. General education
classrooms are becoming more diverse each year with mainstreaming and inclusion. The
purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
to meet diverse learners’ needs in elementary general education. The study examined UDL
principles and practices, equity and access, perceptions, and implementation strategies used in
elementary general education classrooms to identify components of successful implementation
of UDL. Equity, access, and the UDL framework guided the methodology for the study, which
included interviews, surveys, and document review. Thematic codes that emerged from the
research and findings were UDL principles and UDL practices, meeting diverse learners’ needs,
removing barriers through an equity lens, shifting mindsets and practices, misconceptions,
barriers to implementation, and effective implementation. Furthermore, the study explored how
schools can restructure their educational programs by focusing on shifting instructional practices
to align with the UDL theoretical framework. The research findings provided recommendations
to interest holders for improving UDL implementation in elementary general education.
Keywords: Universal Design for Learning, elementary general education, equity, access

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Many educational institutions aim to enrich teaching and learning experiences to meet all
students’ needs. They develop instructional programs that promote equitable educational
experiences and results. It is essential that students’ learning environments and curricula
support their diverse backgrounds, strengths, and needs. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
is a potential solution to assist educators in accommodating a diverse student population
(Spooner et al., 2007). This study explored the experience of elementary general educators
using the UDL framework to meet diverse learners’ growing needs. This study identified
effective UDL practices, equity and access, perceptions, and support for implementation in
elementary general education. This study aimed to examine how a socially constructed learning
design, the UDL framework (Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2018), impacts
equity, access, and the development of expert learners through targeted instructional strategies.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) draws upon neuroscience, education research, and
technology to design learning environments that present options for diverse learners’ needs. Its
framework guides the improvement of curricular and instructional strategies (CAST, 2014). This
approach recognizes the need to make education more responsive to learners’ differences and
ensures that the benefits of education are more equitably and effectively distributed among
students (CAST, 2014; Meyer et al., 2014).
A growing body of research supports the notion that UDL, as a critical component of
differentiated instruction, promotes academic growth in literacy, math, science, and social
interactions among the diverse student population in the United States (Marino, 2009; Rao et
al., 2014). Engineers, architects, and design researchers devised the original concepts of
universal design to develop products and physical environments accessible to the most
significant number of people at a minimum additional cost, presenting a need for adaptation or
specialized design. In education, UDL addresses how learning experiences reduce or eliminate

2
the need to modify instruction for individual students and meet all students’ needs (Meyer &
Rose, 2002; Universal Design for Learning, 2013).
Since 2004, the need for differentiation has received considerable attention due to the
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). All students can access
the same classroom curriculum by providing entry points, learning tasks, and outcomes
designed to meet their learning needs through differentiation (Hall et al., 2003). Toward that
end, UDL encompasses a differentiated approach that incorporates a variety of strategies used
during instruction to meet individual student needs. As Tomlinson (2001) stated, differentiating
instruction can occur by focusing on the process by which students learn, the products or
demonstrations of their learning, the environment in which they learn, or the content they are
learning.
Background of the Problem
In schools across the country, teachers and administrators grapple with the complexities
of differentiating instruction for students whose literacy needs, interests, and strengths vary
widely (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012). General education classrooms are becoming more diverse
each year due to mainstreaming and inclusion. According to the National Center for Educational
Statistics (Irwin et al., 2023), 7.3 million school-aged students received special education and
related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act during the 2021–2022 academic year,
representing approximately 15% of total public school enrollment (Figure 1). During the same
year, 67% of these students spent 80% or more of their instructional day in the general
education setting, a marked increase from 38% in 1990–1991 (NCES, 2023). This shift is due in
large part to various legal mandates, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), each requiring
targeted numbers of students with disabilities to be placed in the general education setting
(Thousand et al., 2015). Most schools do not integrate students with disabilities into the general
education classroom for a significant portion of the school day (Mercer & Mercer, 2005).

3
Figure 1
Configuration of Students With Disabilities in General Education
Note. Reprinted from IDEA Section 618 Data Products: State Level Data Files by U.S.
Department of Education. (https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-statelevel-data-files). In the public domain.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 (IDEIA) states that
students are expected to achieve academic proficiency at their grade level regardless of ability
level and mandates that the state and schools be held accountable for this achievement.
Considering the growing number of students with disabilities in general education settings and
the myriad of differentiated instructional strategies utilized to facilitate various educational goals
for all students, the purpose of this study was to examine how UDL implementation impacts
equity, access, and achievement of students through targeted instructional strategies. Universal
Design for Learning supports social constructivist views of education that recognize that the
barriers and limitations of poor design in the environment are critical problems to address in a
democratic society. The objective of Universal Design in education is to increase learning

4
opportunities for all students by appropriately challenging and engaging the full range of all
students (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005).
Statement of the Problem
While much literature about UDL focuses on strategies, products, content, and
processes (Thousand et al., 2015), studies have yet to explore how teachers in elementary
general education implement UDL while promoting equity and access. With this research
problem in mind, this study sought to understand practices, views, and supports to meet all
students’ needs in elementary general education using the UDL framework. Moreover, the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights released guidelines in 2014 stating, “All
students—regardless of race, color, national origin, or zip code—deserve a high-quality
education that includes resources such as academic and extracurricular programs, strong
teaching, technology and instructional materials, and safe school facilities” (as cited in Institute
for Educational Leadership, 2024, para. 4). Indeed, this principle affords the same rights to
students ranging from gifted to those with significant disabilities, and the benefits are in their
academic performance and access to equity in education. Furthermore, students’ and teachers’
experiences in the elementary general education classroom provide findings and
recommendations to support the efforts of UDL implementation.
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to understand the use of UDL to meet diverse learners’ needs in
elementary general education. The study examined how the UDL framework (CAST, 2014)
affects equity, access, environment and curriculum design, and the development of expert
learners through targeted instructional strategies. The study focused on the experience of
education practitioners in developing and implementing practices and strategies that align with
UDL’s implementation. Additionally, the study explores how schools can effectively restructure
their educational programs by focusing on shifting instructional practices to align with the UDL
theoretical framework.

5
Research Questions
1. What are UDL practices that support the needs of diverse learners in elementary
general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education
support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the perceptions of educators implementing UDL practices in elementary
general education?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
I conducted interviews, reviewed interview documents from UDL experts, and used a survey to
obtain data for the study.
Importance of the Study
Few studies examine how UDL benefits teacher and student experiences in elementary
general education settings. Training and implementation of UDL in these settings have yet to be
prevalent enough to address diverse learners’ needs despite its use in higher and special
education. In addition, there is a lack of research that measures how educators (teachers,
specialists, and administrators) view the practices of UDL principles within the instructional
model. The importance of this study lies in its contribution to knowledge that helps ensure
accessible and equitable learning opportunities for diverse learners in elementary general
education. It sought to help educators understand the implementation and value of utilizing
these instructional strategies when working with diverse learners.
Limitations and Delimitations
Throughout this study, various limitations were present. As the statement of the problem
discusses, UDL is not common in elementary general education. This limitation made it difficult
to access the population of interest for the study. Additionally, I began data collection in Fall
2019, using observations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic occurring during the study’s peak,

6
the observation method was no longer a primary source of data. Instead, I reviewed documents
due to the inability to access classrooms. I determined a process to purposefully select
participants (Creswell, 2014). I searched for and reviewed documents that would address the
problem under examination and the research questions. In addition, despite interviews and
document review being the most feasible approach, errors may still exist. The participants not
being equally articulate and perceptive serves as a limitation, with documents and interviews
being the primary data sources.
The study's delimitations included population and data collection methods. To make the
study more manageable, the participants highlight a population of practitioners who have
knowledge, skills, and/or experience in UDL implementation in elementary general education.
The study participants include teachers, administrators, and UDL specialists. For surveys, I
restricted the geographical location to one school in a district that needs to meet diverse
learners in a new way. Additionally, I limited the survey respondents to general education
elementary school teachers.
Definition of Terms
Access: High-quality schools differentiate instruction, services, and resource distribution
to respond effectively to their students’ diverse needs with the aim of ensuring that all students
can learn and thrive (California Department of Education [CDE], 2018).
Differentiated instruction: An approach to teaching in which educators actively plan for
students’ differences so that all students can best learn. In a differentiated classroom, teachers
divide their time, resources, and efforts to effectively teach students who have various
backgrounds, readiness and skill levels, and interests (ASCD, 2018).
Equity: A necessary component in narrowing the achievement gap, with teachers and
school leaders ensuring equity and access by recognizing, respecting, and attending to their
students’ diverse strengths and challenges (CDE, 2018).

7
Inclusion: When all students, regardless of any challenges they may have, are placed in
age-appropriate general education classes that are in their own neighborhood schools to
receive high-quality instruction, interventions, and supports that enable them to meet success in
the core curriculum (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): A federal law, first enacted in 1975,
that promotes the educational rights of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities
(IDEA, 2018).
Scaffolding: A theory introduced based on the work of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development that focuses on the activities used to increase the student’s ability to learn
information through the support of a more informed individual (Wood et al., 1976).
Social constructivist theory: Learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and
reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. In the constructivist model
classroom, educators urge students to be actively involved in their own process of learning.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A framework that draws upon the latest
understandings from the learning sciences to guide the improvement of curricular and
instructional strategies that address learner variability (CAST, 2014).
Zone of proximal development: Students receive individualized support for their current
cognitive level and needs while providing them with flexible means of support for action and
expression (Vygotsky, 1978).
21st-century skills refer to a broad set of knowledge, skills, work habits, and character
traits that educators, school reformers, college professors, employers, and others believe to be
central to success in today’s world (P21, 2015, 2016)
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters, including this introduction. The introduction
in Chapter One presented the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the research questions, and the significance of the study. Also included in

8
the chapter was a brief description of the purpose, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and
definition of terms related to the study.
Chapter Two provides a detailed review of the literature, focusing on UDL and themes in
the research, including teaching practices, equity and access, supporting diverse learners, and
shifting mindsets. Chapter Three explains the methodology used for the study. The chapter
includes participant descriptions, a process for data collection, and data analysis. The research
design includes qualitative data collection methods to ensure the study was reliable and valid.
Chapter Four outlines the study’s research questions and emerging themes while
presenting the results. Chapter Five provides a thorough discussion of the analysis of findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Equity and access are terms commonly used in education-based forums regarding
instructional reform or transformation to meet all students’ diverse needs. Educational systems
can emphasize flexibility and individuality using UDL in efforts to reset the traditional ways of
teaching and learning (CAST, 2018). UDL recognizes the need for educators to be more
responsive to learner differences, ensuring equity and effectiveness of educational benefits
(Meyer et al., 2014). Through UDL, all students have access to and equity in the opportunity to
participate in dynamic learning, innovative practices, enhanced creativity, and technology.
Much of the research on UDL (CAST, 2024b; Grant & Perez, 2018; Hall et al.,2012;
Meyer et al., 2014; Novak, 2016) provides descriptions of the framework, guidelines, principles,
and implementation. This research has proven that UDL can be deemed an effective inclusive
teaching methodology that supports improvement in the learning process for all students. While
there is much research regarding UDL and practices, there is not much research on the
implementation and perspectives of those applying UDL practices in elementary general
education settings. This research is vital information needed for UDL to advance into more
classrooms to ultimately transform the education system to one that holds high standards for all
learners, taps into the student’s interests, and supports and challenges each student
appropriately (Meyer et al., 2014).
This chapter’s literature review centers on UDL as a teaching methodology supporting all
students in a diverse classroom. This review explores UDL practices, equity and access,
perceptions, and implementation in meeting the needs represented in diverse settings in
elementary general education. This chapter will present a thorough analysis of the principles,
applications, and implementation in education, aligning with the UDL theoretical framework. To
fully understand the rationale behind UDL, the literature review will also present a further review
of Universal Design history, foundational research on the brain and learning, and theoretical
connections.

10
With equity and access as a guiding principle for this study, the literature review
highlights research regarding UDL meeting diverse learners’ needs through UDL. Empirical
studies and findings will focus on teacher experiences and perceptions of UDL, promising
practices, and the barriers to implementation, calling for additional studies and data to support
using UDL in elementary general education.
Supporting Learners With UDL
The goal of the guidelines and principles is to produce purposeful, motivated, expert
learners. Ultimately, the guidelines provide a means for teachers and schools to combine
cognition and emotion when designing learning experiences and interactions with students.
According to (Meyer et al., 2014), UDL happens both in the design and in its use to facilitate the
appropriate, dynamic interaction between learner and context. This enables educators to
address challenges and control resources to move student success in a positive direction. With
successful implementation, the guidelines support practices to develop expert learners that are
resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic and goal-directed, and purposeful and motivated (Hall et
al., 2012)
UDL Principles
With educational reform focusing on improvement in teacher instruction and student
learning in a diverse classroom environment, no single method can reach all learners. There is
a need for multiple pathways to achieving goals. To meet that need, UDL provides these
multiple pathways by presenting concepts in multiple ways, offering students multiple means of
expressing knowledge and providing a variety of options to support student engagement and
learning (Hitchcock et al., 2002b). As Figure 2 shows, the framework’s principles provide
multiple means of representation, multiple means of engagement, and multiple means of action
and expression (CAST, 2018). The principles articulate providing equitable opportunities to
reach high expectations across variable students (Meyer et al., 2014).

11
Figure 2
Universal Design for Learning Guidelines
Note. Reprinted from Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 [Graphic organizer]
by Center for Applied Special Technology, 2018.
(https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-
2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_numbers-no.pdf). Copyright 2018 by Center for Applied Special
Technology.
Multiple Means of Engagement
Understanding what motivates a student to learn, persist on a task, or regulate their own
learning is often a tedious task for educators to decipher. This principle of UDL focuses on the
why of learning. Guideline 7 provides options for recruiting interest. Based on research, one of

12
the best strategies to increase students’ interest is to provide choice, which boosts their feeling
of ownership in their work (Hall et al., 2012). This guideline optimizes individual choices and
autonomy alongside relevance, value, and authenticity to boost students’ connection to the
information and tap into their background knowledge. The educator minimizes threats and
distractions to provide a feeling of safety in the learning environment. In the inclusive classroom
community, students should feel appreciated, supported, and challenged (Hall et al., 2012).
Guideline 8 provides options for sustaining effort and persistence. Students need options that
are appropriate in balancing both challenge and support to ensure learning occurs efficiently
(Hall et al., 2012). Within this guideline, students have a heightened salience of goals and
objectives, varied demands and resources to optimize challenge, fostered collaboration and
community, and increased mastery-oriented feedback.
Collaboration with peers and scaffolding are vital strategies used in implementation. It is
important that students know how they are performing, including areas for improvement and
what they are doing well in. It is essential that students receive feedback to understand how
persistence and practice are important for success (Hall et al., 2012). Guideline 9 provides
options for self-regulation. Self-regulation contributes to students becoming lifelong learners.
Within this guideline is the promotion of expectations and beliefs to optimize motivation,
facilitation of personal coping skills and strategies, and the development of self-assessment and
reflection. Creating lifelong learners is essential in supporting students’ ability to regulate their
own learning and develop appropriate skills to assess their strengths and weaknesses as
learners (Hall et al., 2012).
Multiple Means of Representation
Providing multiple means of representation allows students to become resourceful,
knowledgeable learners. The aim of Guideline 1 is to provide options for perception. This
guideline focuses on providing students with ways to access the content, such as through text,
visual images, videos, and other forms of technology to present information or knowledge.

13
Guideline 2 prompts educators to consider providing options for language, mathematical
expressions, and symbols (Hall et al., 2012). In a classroom, this would be clarifying vocabulary
and symbols, syntax and structure, and illustrations through multiple media. Guideline 3
provides options for comprehension. This allows for highlighting patterns, features, big ideas,
and relationships. Teachers help guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation.
Multiple Means of Action and Expression
This principle of UDL provides multiple means of action and expression to develop
strategic, goal-directed learners. Learning is a proactive and expressive endeavor that requires
skills in strategy, organization, and communication (Hall et al., 2012). Within this principle,
learners can approach learning tasks and express their understanding in various ways. This
principle supports the development of expertise in executive functions such as goal setting,
monitoring progress and adjusting approaches, strategy development, and managing
information and resources (Meyer et al., 2014). This principle addresses the “how” of learning.
Guideline 4 addresses the provision of options for physical action. Having access to tools and
assistive technologies in the classroom is central for this guideline, as well as varying the
methods for response and navigation of curriculum. Guideline 5 provides options for expression
and communication. Students use multiple media for communication, multiple tools for
composing and constructing work, and graduated levels of support for practice and support in
building fluency. Guideline 6 provides options for executive functions. This includes student goal
setting, supporting planning and strategy development, facilitating management of information
and resources, and enhancing capacity for monitoring progress.
UDL Practices
Classroom practices are influential to students’ success and failures. Teachers’
decisions and thoughts about instruction must be in line with providing effective learning
experiences. Pennell and Firestone (1996) suggested that teachers are generally pragmatists
who rely on classroom experience rather than formal theory and research in their thinking about

14
practice. Comprehensive planning incorporating teaching strategies to support diverse learners
could increase student engagement and academic performance. Access must be fostered in all
assignments, activities, and relationships to connect students to a range of teaching materials,
instructional resources, and learning pathways (Bernacchio & Mullen, 2007). UDL is essentially
about the instructional practices used for students with and without disabilities. Therefore, UDL
is presented as a solution to assist general education teachers in developing lessons that
accommodate diverse student populations (Spooner et al., 2007). Differentiated instruction,
scaffolding, and disciplinary thinking all intersect with concepts of UDL.
Differentiated Learning
All students learn and apply knowledge in different ways. Due to this, an approach to
teaching and learning that offers multiple possibilities for taking in information and making sense
of it occurs through differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction recognizes students’
varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning, interests, and
options to react responsively. Based on where a student is in the learning process, the goal of
differentiated instruction is to obtain the maximum level of growth and success. Known as a
teaching theory that provides varying instructional approaches, differentiated instruction adapts
to individual and diverse students in classrooms.
With UDL, differentiation happens during the lesson design phase. Teachers build tools
and methods of differentiation into the lesson prior to instruction. As Tomlinson (2001) stated,
differentiating instruction can occur by focusing on the process by which students learn, the
products or demonstrations of their learning, the environment in which they learn, or the content
they are learning. Although differentiated instruction is rooted in the work of Vygotsky (1978)
and the zone of proximal development (ZPD), the range at which learning takes place, there is a
lack of empirical validation. Despite this, educators have identified this flexible approach as
helping increase students’ success in diverse classroom settings. In a review of differentiated
instruction, Tatum (2011) identified specific instructional recommendations, which include

15
making connections between instruction and students’ experiences, fostering student autonomy,
making effective use of strategic grouping, and providing research-based cognitive strategy
instruction.
Inclusion
The configuration of today’s classrooms is changing. The expectation of all educators
(Pre-K–12) is to provide an instructional environment that can support teaching practices that
can reach a wide range of learners (Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). The IDEIA (2004) stated
that students with disabilities should have increased access to the general education curriculum
and that accommodations should be designed according to their needs. In past practice,
Waitoller and King Thorius (2016) stated that “students with dis/abilities have experienced
oppression with great consequence for who accesses learning, whose abilities are recognized
and valued, and who participates in decision making in school” (p. 376). The challenges of
students receiving instruction in general education have been defined as follows:
Inclusive education is a continuous struggle toward (a) the redistribution of quality
opportunities to learn and participate in educational programs, (b) the recognition and
value of differences as reflected in content, pedagogy, and assessment tools, and (c) the
opportunities for marginalized groups to represent themselves in decision-making
processes that advance and define claims of exclusion and the respective solutions that
affect their children’s educational futures. (Waitoller & Kozleski, 2013, p. 35)
IDEIA (2004) entitles students to access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum.
Providing access through UDL curriculum occurs at many levels. According to Hitchcock et al.
(2002b),
In a UDL curriculum (a) goals provide an appropriate challenge for all students; (b)
Materials have a flexible format, supporting transformation between media and multiple
representations of content to support all students’ learning; (c) methods are flexible and
diverse enough to provide appropriate learning experiences, challenges, and supports

16
for all students; (d) assessment is sufficiently flexible to provide accurate, ongoing
information that helps teachers adjust instruction and maximize learning. Therefore, UDL
curriculum provides the goals, methods, materials, and assessments which are
accessible to all (Hitchcock et al., 2002a). Based on research, students must be held to
high expectations and must be ensured access to the same general education taught to
students without disabilities to the maximum extent. (p. 8)
Based on research, students must be held to high expectations and must have access to the
same general education taught to students without disabilities to the maximum extent (IDEIA,
2004).
Scaffolding
A core feature of UDL is scaffolding, which originates in Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD,
targeting the gap between current performance and levels that learners may reach without
assistance (Wood et al., 1976). Scaffolding supports students with engagement, simplifying
tasks, and gaining confidence. Wood et al. (1976) defined scaffolding as being situated in a
social context whereby the tutor “enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task,
or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90).
Teachers are challenged to find the strengths of students and build on them to teach the
important skills that will lead them to success. Scaffolding is a complex strategy in which users
must have an understanding of the complexities of balancing students’ learning strengths and
weaknesses, the demands of the curriculum, and how to effectively challenge and withdraw
scaffolds based on student progress (Coyne et al., 2012). Based on the work of Vygotsky
(1978), when scaffolding occurs with an adult expert or peer of higher capabilities, high-level
thinking skills are developed. Today, several features of scaffolding contribute to the facilitation
of learning. Technology is leading the way in which scaffolds can be used to support students.
Research on UDL focuses on the integration of technology and media along with sound
instructional strategies and curricula to create scaffolded learning experiences for students with

17
diverse needs (Coyne et al., 2012). Additionally, the UDL framework assumes variability in
motivation, interest, and readiness and so provides scaffolding in language function, explicit
skills, and executive function while keeping learner engagement and choice at the forefront.
Expert Learners Through Disciplinary Thinking
Meyer et al. (2014) defined expert learners as resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic,
goal-directed, and purposeful. Guiding students to become expert learners is a primary goal of
applying UDL to teaching and learning. An emphasis on disciplinary thinking to engage students
in developing rich, discipline-specific practices and habits of mind has been the focus of
educators and researchers (Gravel, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014; Novak, 2016). Gravel (2018)
regards UDL as a promising avenue for supporting all students in engaging in disciplinary
thinking (ways of knowing, reasoning, and doing specific to the discipline) to become expert
learners. The UDL guidelines (CAST, 2018) identify the goals of the three principles to create
expert learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and
strategic and goal-directed. Gravel administered a study to examine how teachers using UDL
promote disciplinary thinking in students. The qualitative study was conducted over 10 weeks in
an inclusive setting with two co-teachers. The area of focus was English language arts. Data
collection consisted of videotaped observations, instructional materials, teacher interviews, and
student work samples.
Gravel (2018) found that specific strategies led to opportunities for students to engage in
disciplinary thinking. The teachers in Gravel’s study applied the UDL guidelines/checkpoints
(Figure 1) and encouraged challenging, discipline-specific thinking in ELA among students with
and without disabilities (Gravel, 2018). Gravel found that diverse learners were engaged in
disciplinary thinking, creating expert learners through the application of UDL guidelines and
checkpoints. Per the author, the UDL framework presents instructional strategies that can
expand opportunities for all students to engage in disciplinary thinking, which leads to expert
learners (Gravel, 2018). Gravel explained that the findings help inform the next generation of

18
guidelines that could be more useful to educators by more fully capturing the specific strategies
that promote disciplinary thinking.
Equity and Access Through Universal Design for Learning
A theme that emerged in literature is how UDL provides equity and access for all
students. Educational equity is an ongoing concern among practitioners and researchers in
gaining equal access for students (Gottfried & Johnson, 2014). Many districts are creating
divisions focusing on equity and access to help ensure that school leaders, teachers, and
interest holders recognize, respect, and attend to the diverse strengths and challenges of
students of underserved and underrepresented student populations. Schools endeavor to
provide children access to all areas of curriculum, intellectually appropriate work, and
engagement.
Meeting Diverse Learners’ Needs
The driving tenet of UDL is that this methodology supports all learners without
modification or accommodation. Whether students are considered disabled, at-risk, gifted, or
average, UDL provides an individualized and personalized educational approach for every
student, regardless of limitations, demographics, or other descriptors (Thousand et al., 2015).
Educators fluent in UDL strategies will support the creation of equitable and accessible lessons
for diverse learners. Access increases for all students through flexible options for teachers to
impart concepts and varied opportunities for students to express their knowledge (Hitchcock et
al., 2002b).
Increased diversity in classrooms has presented a challenge to many teachers. The
increased number of students with special needs in general education classrooms can make it
very difficult to ensure that all students meet expectations. General education teachers are a
key component in that they have gained an understanding of curricular materials, texts,
equipment, and technology that enables the design of appropriate accommodations (Flores,
2008).

19
It is essential that teachers utilize tools that aid in creating classroom environments and
instruction that are conducive to all students’ learning needs. According to Hall et al. (2012),
UDL’s research basis in neuroscience highlights the variability of learning for all students. All
learners are encouraged to learn and demonstrate their knowledge in a variety of ways
(Jorgenson & Weir, 2002). The flexible and varied ways of who, what, and how content is taught
support the UDL approach in responding to and including diverse learners (King-Sears, 2014).
UDL techniques benefit diverse learners with or without learning disabilities (King-Sears, 2014).
Removing Barriers Through Equity and Access
There have been many challenges in providing adequate access to the general
education curriculum for an increased population of diverse learners (Jimenez et al., 2007). To
improve access, improvements in educational structures must take place to create more
equitable and socially just learning environments (Pliner & Johnson, 2004). The application of
UDL supports students in a classroom regardless of (dis)ability, learning style, language, or
culture. Meyer and Rose (2002) defined four main components of the general curriculum: goals
and milestones for instruction, often in the form of a scope and sequence; media and materials
to be used by students; specific instructional methods, often described in a teacher’s edition;
and means of assessment to measure student progress.
The UDL model presents educators with three areas to overcome barriers in general
education classrooms with diverse learners: representation, expression, and engagement
(CAST, 2024b). Thus, UDL provides opportunities for students to utilize choice, creativity, and
engagement in their learning. It also provides students with and without learning disabilities
options for how they take in information (representation), practice new content (engagement),
and show what they know (expression). Effective pedagogy and the use of various methods
enhance the student’s learning experiences by including choice in instruction for all students.
UDL is a solution to the challenges presented by diverse learners and the movement toward

20
inclusion by creating a framework in which organizations and schools can support accessibility
challenges (Jimenez et al., 2007).
Perceptions About UDL
Teachers’ perceptions are key factors in a program that includes both general and
special education students. Effective implementation of an inclusion program relies heavily on
teachers’ attitudes and those of others working closely with them (Burke & Sutherland, 2004).
There are increasing numbers of students without identified disabilities who have educational
support needs in general education (Stormont et al., 2003). The task is a challenge to many
educators when most students with disabilities are integrated into the general education
classroom for a significant amount of time during the day (Figure 1). With teachers being at the
forefront of meeting diverse learners’ needs in a classroom, it is important to examine the
perceptions of educators utilizing UDL.
Shifting Mindsets and Practices
Teachers’ beliefs about learning greatly influence their ability to prompt change and
success in the classroom. With UDL, a shift in teachers’ perceptions about their role and
influence on student achievement is required (Simmons et al., 1998). Burke and Sutherland
(2004) conducted a survey to determine a correlation between teachers’ experiences and
attitudes toward inclusion. The conclusion of the study determined that teachers with positive
attitudes (growth mindsets) increased the odds of students’ success. Their knowledge of
disabilities and experiences with individuals with disabilities were prime factors in making
students’ success feasible. In contrast, Burke and Sutherland (2004) also revealed that if a
teacher does not believe they have enough knowledge about students with disabilities and
inclusion (fixed mindset), then negative attitudes hinder students’ success.
Resistance to a One-Size-Fits-All Approach
Mainstreaming and inclusion have been central in gaining insights toward a new, more
flexible curriculum: the universally designed curriculum. The focus of UDL encompasses all

21
learners rather than just a one-size approach for students with or without special needs. Using
UDL eliminates the inflexible, one-size-fits-all curriculum. Students participate in an educational
system designed to promote their achievement. To access, participate, and progress in the
general education curriculum, students with disabilities require clear goals, flexible methods and
materials, and embedded assessments (Hitchcock et al., 2002a). With established standards
indicating that all students must achieve, the potential for students with disabilities to gain
meaningful achievement outcomes in the general education setting increases (Smith et al.,
2003).
Misconceptions
It is the responsibility of the teacher to find ways to support and connect with all learners’
needs. When teachers are more aware of UDL principles and implementation, classrooms will
become more universally accessible and effective (CAST, 2018). Teachers might initially think
they are already implementing UDL, but as they begin to interact with the UDL framework, they
will find it is quite different from current teaching practices (CAST, 2018; Novak, 2016). Adapting
teaching style and curriculum increases opportunities for inclusion (Burke & Sutherland, 2004).
In promoting access and equity, UDL is a different approach to supporting diverse students and
individual differences by offering a barrier-free learning environment that increases students’
academic achievement, engagement, learning mastery, and persistence (CAST, 2018).
Developing a deeper understanding of UDL practices will erase misconceptions about it and
provide more equitable access to learning in a diverse society.
Implementation of UDL
Educational reform and legislation surrounding equity and access are placing a demand
on educators and administrators to seek ways to continue meeting all students’ needs. Schools
must demonstrate equity, access, and effective instructional programs aimed at increasing
students’ performance. It is essential for districts and schools to be intentional and strategic

22
about their implementation of UDL and the requirements needed for success (Jimenez et al.,
2007).
Barriers to UDL Implementation
UDL allows educators to remove barriers by increasing support and eliminating
challenges that many students encounter. All learners vary greatly in “what” they learn, “how”
they learn, and “why” they learn (Coyne et al., 2012; Meyer & Rose, 2002). Novak and
Thibodeau (2016) contended that,
Educators must embrace the belief that they are not only content experts, but learning
experts, who are responsible for imparting knowledge and setting up an environment in
which all students can learn this knowledge and express it back in a meaningful, relevant
way. (p. 12)
Understanding barriers to UDL implementation will lead to effective implementation strategies.
Shade and Stewart (2001) noted that “teachers may feel challenged, hopeful, and desirous of
what can be accomplished, but they may also feel frustration, burden, fear, lack of support, and
inadequacies, about their ability to teach children with different kinds of problems” (p. 37).
Effective Implementation
Increasing the capacity of schools to support the diversity of the student population is of
great importance. However, many general education professionals feel unequipped to meet
diverse learners’ needs (Stormont, 2005). Lembke and Stormont (2005) addressed how general
educators can meet more students’ needs by identifying and implementing research-supported
practices. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2003), research-based practices are
strategies, interventions, programs, or curricula supported by rigorous substantiation of
effectiveness. These practices have been examined in various settings, repeated over time, and
utilized with a diverse population of learners. Thus, research-based practices are deemed

23
effective and should be used for all students, especially students not meeting expectations
(Lembke & Stormont, 2005).
Training/Support
Educators need proper support and professional training and development in building
and delivering courses that meet all students’ needs and eliminate barriers in today’s
classrooms. According to Futrell et al. (2003), in a survey conducted on teachers, over 80% felt
unprepared to teach diverse populations. General Education teachers need to increase their
ability to teach a more diverse group of students. The results of the Burke and Sutherland
(2004) survey implore the action of teacher education programs and school leaders to have all
educators prepared to work with all students, including those from diverse backgrounds and/or
needs. Cawley et al. (2003) connected deficiencies in curriculum modifications with the lack of
teacher education and limited training in university teacher preparation programs.
Gradual Release of Implementation
Training in UDL would provide educators with a framework that reduces barriers in
instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains
high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students
who are English language learners (CAST, 2016). Training should be incremental and happen
over a course of time. To build school capacity, staff should have adequate support and time to
improve their practice to design and deliver learning experiences that meet all students’ needs
(Novak & Rodriguez, 2016).
Scaffolding
Scaffolding is an important skill for UDL educators. Scaffolding developed from
Vygotsky's (1978) research on ZPD. The guidance of a more knowledgeable individual supports
meeting learning goals. Just as this approach is used with students, the same approach is used
to develop teachers as expert learners in UDL (Novak, 2016). According to Vaughn and
Schumm (1995), “teachers report that they lack the knowledge, skills, and confidence to plan

24
and make instructional adaptations for students with disabilities” (p. 172). It is important to use
scaffolded approaches to break down concepts of UDL during implementation.
Collaboration
Effective learning involves performance and participation. During collaboration, everyone
takes on the role of the expert learner. It is important that educators have opportunities to make
sense of the UDL framework. Teachers and practitioners using UDL should have the
opportunity to reflect and share. Structured collaborative opportunities allow for the development
of a sense of community (Ralabate & Nelson, 2017). Meyer et al. (2014) recommended a
community of practice to bring the experience of practice, individually and collectively, to share
learning experiences and make sense of practices. Through collaboration, interest holders
share in the process of learning and growing.
Coaching
Universally designed professional development is essential to implement UDL. As a
derivative of scaffolding, in coaching, an expert or skilled person in an area of focus provides
support that will enable novice participants to build knowledge or skills efficiently (Meyer et al.,
2014). In education, coaching occurs through conversations, modeling, and other strategies that
help bring a deeper understanding and acquisition of knowledge and skills.
Shared Vision
Developing an understanding of the UDL framework (CAST, 2018) is important for
districts and schools. With a variety of initiatives in education, understanding and supporting the
goals developed for UDL implementation can increase sustainability (Novak & Rodriguez,
2016). In addition, having statewide support can help sustain UDL implementation efforts. In
2015, UDL was defined and endorsed in the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. While states
vary in their laws regarding inclusive education and UDL, more state, regional, and local
educational agencies are sharing UDL-based resources. The Los Angeles County Office of

25
Education developed the UDL-A unit to build awareness in, train for, and support UDL
implementation in LA County schools.
Theoretical Framework of Universal Design for Learning
Branded as a new paradigm for teaching, learning, assessment, and curriculum, UDL
allows flexibility in methods used to have students demonstrate knowledge and skills, improving
access and increasing student engagement (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Learner engagement and
choice give way to variability in motivation, interest, and readiness through the UDL framework
while providing opportunities for scaffolding in language function, explicit skills, and executive
function (CAST, 2016). Meyer and Rose (2002) noted that the central purpose of UDL is to
support all students in becoming expert learners: strategic, skillful, goal-directed,
knowledgeable, and motivated to learn more. Framing this study on meeting diverse learners’
needs through the use of UDL in elementary general education supports the perspective that all
learning experiences are learner-centered. Research has identified specific practices that
support all students. According to Hall et al. (2012), “this research has produced two findings
that are critical to UDL: (a) learning in the individual brain is highly diverse and distributed, and
(b) learning among different individuals is also diverse and distributed” (p. 5).
UDL: The Brain and Learning
The CAST (2011b) developed the principles of UDL that guide learning and stem from
brain research and neuroscience, connecting learning and knowledge to three networks of the
brain. UDL is strongly supported by insights from learning sciences:
● The brain consists of complex interconnected neural networks that are goal-oriented,
variable in their functioning, and plastic and changeable over time (Kandel et al.,
2012).
● Cognition and emotion are interwoven and interactive (Meyer et al., 2014).

26
● Learning is a dynamic interaction between an individual and the physical and social
affordances and constraints of the learning environment (Meyer et al., 2014;
Vygotsky, 1978).
● Neural, developmental, and contextual variability are the rule, not the exception. (Hall
et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014).
Thus, the framework is rooted in both cognitive and neural perspectives of information
processing and learning (Rose & Strangman, 2007). As Figure 3 shows, the three primary
networks are the recognition network, which focuses on the “what” of learning; the strategic
network, which focuses on the “how” of learning; and the affective network, which focuses on
the “why” of learning (Meyer & Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2005).

27
Figure 3
Components of Brain Research
Note. Reprinted from Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 1.0 by Center for
Applied Special Technology, 2011. Copyright 2011 by Center for Applied Special Technology.
Recognition, strategic, and affective networks in the brain that play a primary role in
learning correspond to the three UDL principles, which are to provide multiple means of
representation, provide multiple means of expression, and provide multiple means for
engagement (CAST, 2011). Each principle embeds guidelines that support development and
curriculum that include options for perception, language, expression and symbols,
comprehension, physical action, expressive skills and fluency, executive functions, recruiting
interest, sustaining effort, and self-regulation (CAST, 2011). The UDL framework aligns with
Vygotsky’s (1978) three prerequisites for learning: engagement with the learning task,
recognition of the information to be learned, and strategies to process that information (Meyer et

28
al., 2014). Without these three, the learning process does not enable learning and deeper
understanding. Through the knowledge of how the brain works when learning, the foundation for
UDL addresses the why and how to make changes in teaching. The design of UDL takes into
consideration individual needs and differences in the learning process, providing a greater level
of support and flexibility in the curriculum and environment (Rose, 2005).
UDL Guidelines and Principles
UDL goals are met by meeting students’ needs while providing both a framework and
guidelines to help educators apply optimal practices. The UDL framework was designed to
ensure comprehensiveness and instructional designs that are capable of addressing various
abilities and disabilities among students (Hall et al., 2012). Curriculum design that
accommodates learner differences is the basis of the UDL model. The UDL guidelines provide
direction for inclusive practices in classrooms. Adopting the principles and practices of UDL
increases learning opportunities for all learners (Hall et al., 2012).
Implementing UDL guidelines requires a philosophical shift in views of teaching and
learning (Novak & Thibodeau, 2016). Learning happens in various ways for an individual.
Guidelines help incorporate strategies and supports in the learning environment as a
premeditated action during the development of customized instruction for students (see Figure
2). This method is different from making changes or modifications during a lesson or as an
afterthought. The UDL guidelines challenge traditional methods of teaching and learning,
requiring changes to instructional approaches. Educators and curriculum developers use the
guidelines to incorporate strategies into lesson planning (Hall et al., 2012). When planning,
three central questions for customizing instruction are the following: “What is your present
location? What is your destination or goal? What is the best route for reaching that goal?” (Rose
& Gravel, 2009, p. 5).
As previously mentioned, the UDL guidelines (CAST, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Meyer et
al., 2014) fall into three principles, as Figure 1 presents. The first is to provide multiple means of

29
engagement (i.e., how students will interact or persist in the course or lesson). The second is to
provide multiple means of representation (i.e., how students will deal with the content of the
course or lesson). The third is to provide multiple means of action and expression (i.e., how
students will interact with the content of the course or lesson). The principles align with learning
networks: the affective network, the recognition network, and the strategic network. The three
networks must be activated to stimulate learning. Implementation of UDL guidelines activates all
three networks (Figure 3).
History of Universal Design
Universal Design for Learning is learner-centered, focusing on learning and instruction to
create a more inclusive learning environment. It emerged from the term “Universal Design,”
which was developed by architect Ronald Mace in the 1970s. The focus of his work at the
University of Northern Carolina was on eliminating architectural barriers for people with physical
disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (1991) required universal access to
buildings and other structures for individuals with disabilities. Architects began to design with
accessibility in mind during the planning and drafting stages of building. The North Carolina
State University (NCSU) Center for Universal Design defined Universal Design as the design of
products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without
the need for adaptation or specialized design (NCSU College of Design, 2007). The
implementation of Universal Design has followed seven foundational principles: equitable use,
flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance of error, low physical
effort, and site and space for appropriate use (NCSU College of Design, 2007).
As Universal Design benefits all, its extension to UDL emerged through built-in flexibility
and improved access to information and learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002). An example of how UD
provides access to all is a ramp designed to eliminate the barrier of stairs. Although designed
for a wheelchair or assistive device to gain equal access to an area, it also provides access and
eases difficulty to areas for individuals with walkers, strollers, and bicycles (Lieberman, 2017;

30
Salend & Whittaker, 2017). As diversity continues to increase, accommodations for individual
differences will continue to propel in the 21st century. Also, UD is a goal that provides a
blueprint for maximum inclusion, equity, and access for all people (Center for Universal Design,
2007). Therefore, just as the ramp provides a benefit to all users, UDL transfers the same
concept into the classroom. Salend and Whittaker (2017) noted that “teachers who implement
UDL are educational architects, creating learning structures that support all students’ success”
(p. 1).
UDL and Curriculum Design
Curriculum is the interrelationship of instructional goals, assessments, materials, and
methods. With the learner in the center, UDL validates the curriculum through the level of
support and accommodation it provides for diverse learners. An effective curriculum provides
genuine learning opportunities for all. It also supports teachers in their practice and continuing
development. With an effective curriculum, learners of all abilities and from all backgrounds
receive optimal levels of challenges and scaffolds and have support in developing learning
expertise.
The foundation for any effective curriculum is clear learning goals. In UDL, the goals’
articulation acknowledges learner variability and differentiates outcomes from means (Meyer et
al., 2014). The goals are not the traditional goals that focus primarily on content or performance
goals, as UDL aims to develop expert learners. The task of designing UDL goals requires
practice and support. CAST (as cited in Meyer et al., 2014) has developed an online tool that
serves as a lesson builder tool, providing structure and support for UDL-based goals. Effective
goals from a UDL perspective are goals that separate the means from the ends, consider all
three learning networks, challenge all learners, and actively involve learners.
Effective goals divide expectations of learning from the means of achieving them. This
situation helps teachers to effectively plan for the learning environment and to provide multiple
pathways for success. Meyer and Rose (2002) noted that clear goals help teachers determine

31
how to choose and apply the flexibility inherent in UDL learning materials. It is important that
teachers focus on the specific goal set for a lesson when evaluating students’ performance. If
the goal is to demonstrate knowledge about a novel they read, the students should have a
choice in how they demonstrate their knowledge. For example, the choice could be a traditional
written book report format, a dramatic performance, a video, a visual presentation, or artwork.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the literature identifying the UDL framework and defining
practices, equity and access, perceptions, and implementation. The theoretical framework
pertaining to designing environments with supports for accessibility is the basis for this
research. The conceptual framework of UDL, presented in Figure 2, frames this study by
providing a conceptual model that integrates principles and guidelines for UDL implementation
and the goal of developing expert learners. Meanwhile, there is a need for continued empirical
studies due to a lack of research on the implementation of UDL in elementary general education
classrooms.
Next, Chapter Three will delineate the study’s methodology and qualitative research
design, detailing the rationale behind the criteria used in the population and sampling,
instrumentation, data collection, and analysis. Furthermore, any limitations and delimitations
present during the study are identified and described. Additionally, Chapter Three presents
considerations regarding ethics and credibility.

32
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methodology used for the study.
This chapter will also review the purpose of the study and examine the research questions
guiding the investigation. I used the research design frameworks of Creswell (2014) and
Merriam (2009) as the foundation for designing this study. This chapter presents an overview of
the design, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Statement of the Problem
A growing body of research supports the notion that UDL, as a key component of
differentiated instruction, promotes academic growth in literacy, math, science, and social
interactions among the diverse student population in the United States (Marino, 2009; Rao et
al., 2014). The original concepts of universal design were devised by engineers, architects, and
design researchers to develop products and physical environments that were accessible to the
largest number of people at a minimum additional cost or a need for adaptation or specialized
design (CAST, 2018). In the context of education, UDL addresses how to create learning
experiences that reduce or eliminate the need to modify instruction for individual students and
meet all students’ needs (CAST, 2024b; Meyer & Rose, 2002).
According to the 2023 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 7.3 million
school-aged students received special education and related services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Act during the 2021-2022 academic year, representing approximately 15% of total
public school enrollment. During the same year, 67% of these students spent 80% or more of
their instructional day in the general education setting, a marked increase from 38% in 1990-
1991 (NCES, 2023). This shift is due in large part to various legal mandates such as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), each requiring targeted numbers of students with disabilities to be
placed in the general education setting (Thousand et al., 2015).

33
The U.S. Department of Education recently noted that all students deserve a high-quality
education (as cited in Institute for Educational Leadership, 2024, para. 4). This imperative
applies to students with disabilities, gifted and talented ELLs, and the myriad of diverse
learners, benefiting their academic performance and access to equity in education. Toward that
aim, this study sought to understand further how teachers meet all students’ needs in a diverse
elementary general education classroom setting with special populations using the UDL
framework. While much of the literature about UDL focuses on strategies, products, content,
and processes (Thousand et al., 2015), only some studies have explored how teachers perceive
access and equity using UDL.
Purpose of the Study
Considering the growing number of students with disabilities in general education
settings and the myriad differentiated instructional strategies utilized to facilitate various
educational goals for all students, this study aimed to understand the use of UDL to meet
diverse learners’ needs in elementary general education classroom settings. The study sought
to identify teachers’ role in developing and implementing strategies that align with UDL. It
examined how the UDL framework (CAST, 2018) affects equity, access, environment and
curriculum design, and the development of expert learners through targeted instructional
strategies. Universal Design for Learning supports social constructivist views (Vygotsky, 1978)
of education that recognize that a democratic society must address the barriers and limitations
of poor design in the environment.
Through the data analysis, the study examined the framework’s principles and practices,
equity and access, perceptions, and implementation strategies used in elementary general
education classrooms to identify the components of its successful implementation. Additionally,
the study explores how schools can restructure their educational programs by focusing on
shifting instructional practices to align with the UDL theoretical framework.

34
Research Questions
1. What are UDL practices that support the needs of diverse learners in elementary
general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education
settings support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the perceptions of educators implementing UDL practices in elementary
general education settings?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
Research Design and Methodology
Maxwell (2012) noted that the approach to research design, qualitative inquiry, consists
of the study’s goals, conceptual frameworks, research questions, methods, and validity. This
study used a qualitative methods design to understand the meaning and processes of
social issues and human problems (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative research requires the researcher to collect data in several ways, including via
interviews, documents, and surveys (Creswell, 2014). This qualitative study’s approach was to
understand the context in which UDL is used to provide equity and access for all students. The
study called upon the participants’ experiences, perceptions, and knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The study examined UDL strategies and practices implemented in the elementary
general education setting.
According to Merriam (2009), qualitative research is interested in understanding how
people interpret their experiences and what meaning they attribute to these. I gathered the
participants’ perspectives on UDL by collecting qualitative data via interviewing, surveying, and
reviewing documents. Themes and patterns emerged from the data analysis. Merriam (2009)
defined this type of qualitative research as a case study. Thus, this study used the case study

35
method to understand how educators employ UDL principles and practices in an elementary
general education setting with diverse learning needs.
Sampling and Population
I used purposeful and unique sampling to conduct the present study regarding meeting
diverse learners’ needs through UDL instructional practices in elementary general education
settings. Purposeful sampling refers to the assumption that a researcher wants to examine,
discover, and gain insight and, therefore, selects a sample from which the most can be learned
(Merriam, 2009). To maximize learning about the role of UDL as an instructional practice, I used
purposeful sampling. According to Merriam (2009), two levels of sampling are usually necessary
in qualitative case studies: “First you must select ‘the case’ to be studied. Then, unless you plan
to interview, observe, or analyze all the people, activities, or documents within the case, you will
need to do some sampling within the case” (p. 81). I also used convenience sampling to select a
school in the district in which I am employed. The school site selected for the survey met the
criteria for serving a diverse population of learners and demonstrating the need for a new
curriculum design. The school’s students included ELLs, students in gifted and talented
education programs, and SPED students.
Patton (2002) stressed rigorous and quality interviewing by selecting participants who
have the experience and knowledge to support the research. I identified individuals with
knowledge, skills, and experience with UDL strategies used in general education settings for
interviews and document review. Participants held a variety of roles. They included elementary
principals, UDL coaches/specialists, and elementary teachers who are closely involved with
curriculum design and implementation, professional development, and instructional strategies
related to UDL. I examined the deliberate selection of participants, information, and data that
are particularly relevant to the questions and goals of the qualitative study (Maxwell, 2012).
Maxwell (2012) asserted that purposeful selection of individuals to be studied is vital
when other choices, such as random selection, will not ensure that the sampling will have

36
answers to a researcher’s questions. To meet the study’s goals, potential participants were
identified based on their knowledge, skills, and experience in UDL. In addition, I used purposeful
data selection for the purpose of transcript document analysis. I thoroughly analyzed interview
transcripts available from a UDL podcast in the public domain to ensure the interview topic
addressed the research questions. A document review protocol (see Appendix A) was used to
select appropriate interview transcripts for the study.
After receiving approval for the study, I contacted the potential participants by email
using a scripted letter of request for participation. Once I received permission from the
participants to conduct one-on-one interviews, the participants cooperatively and
enthusiastically allowed the scheduling of interviews.
Instruments
According to Glesne (2011), participants should be made aware that their participation is
voluntary, any aspects of the research that might affect their well-being, and that they may
choose to end their participation in the study at any time. Informed consent confirms that the
participant is aware of these facts (Weiss, 1994). I provided a letter to potential interviewees
with information such as identification of the researcher and the sponsoring institution, the
study’s purpose, benefits of participating, level and type of involvement, risks to participant,
guarantee of confidentiality, assurance of withdrawal, and names of persons to contact if
questions arose (Creswell, 2014, see Appendix A). To gather the data, I used surveys and
interviews, and I reviewed documents.
Surveys
According to Creswell (2014), surveys provide a quantitative or numeric description of
trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population. I organized
survey questions and protocols by research question and theoretical framework. Questions in
the survey were adapted to match the experiences of targeted respondents using teachers with
a diverse population of students in their elementary general education classroom (Appendix B).

37
Closed-ended response indicators for survey questions were strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree, and not sure (Fink, 2009). Survey data served to identify trends and provide
insight into perspectives from various participants.
Interviews
The use of interviews allows information we cannot gain by observations alone to be
obtained (Patton, 2002). According to Weiss (1994), interviewing gives us access to the
observation of others. The approach used for interview questions was a fixed-question, openended response approach for each participant (Weiss, 1994). The interviews were
standardized, with each respondent answering the same questions. I interviewed the
respondents person-to-person using an online video conferencing platform.
I wrote the interviewees’ responses onto an interview protocol organizer underneath the
questions formed to help address the research questions. The abbreviated text helped to keep
up with the participants’ response pace. I typed completed responses into an additional
interview protocol after conducting the interviews. I recorded the interviews to verify accuracy
and capture the participants’ responses. I downloaded the recordings and transcribed them for
further review, coding, and analysis. I used the constant comparative method to analyze the
interviews and observations (Appendices C and D). In addition, all interviews and recordings
remained confidential.
Document Reviews
According to Merriam (2009), documents are a major source of data in qualitative
research and a useful tool in helping “the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding,
and discover insights relevant to the research problem” (p. 189). Purposeful sampling was used
with established criteria to guide the selection of appropriate documents. The documents used
for the study were interview transcripts from a podcast capturing the experiences of UDL
practitioners (Merriam, 2009). I selected the documents used for analysis based on their

38
alignment with the interview questions. The document review process required the collection,
documentation, analysis with annotation and interpretation, and organization of the data.
Data Collection
The data collection consisted of using specific techniques to determine what the study’s
data would be (Merriam, 2009). To collect data, I identified practitioners using UDL in
elementary general education settings. I reviewed documents and conducted interviews and
surveys to triangulate the data (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Triangulation allows for the
comparing and cross-referencing of different data sources to increase the reliability of findings
and limit the effect of subjective interpretation stemming from the researcher or informant
(Maxwell, 2012). The qualitative design method guided the process through which to identify the
problem, develop the research questions, and collect data (Creswell, 2014).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative researchers can never achieve truth or reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
Credibility of qualitative research can be increased through triangulation. Triangulation is a
comparative tool for multiple data sources. Triangulation provides a better understanding of the
issues being investigated (Maxwell, 2012). The data sources for this study were documents,
interviews, and surveys from participants willing to share their experiences.
To establish credibility and accurately represent the participants’ experiences, I
developed the interview protocols to use closed-ended questions that would allow participants
to provide answers based on their personal experiences and not my views. This method of
credibility allowed me to utilize selective subjectivity, allowing the data to influence the analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
Ethical Considerations
Ethical issues may arise in qualitative research during data collection or the
dissemination of findings (Merriam, 2009). This study used certain measures to reduce the risk
of ethical dilemmas. I used proper ethical practices (Creswell, 2012): respecting participants,

39
avoiding the collection of harmful information and exploitation of participants, and avoiding
disclosure of positive results. I conducted the study without false or misleading information, free
of bias toward any racial, ethnic, gender/sexual orientation, disability, and or age. Respecting
the confidentiality and privacy of participants to avoid dilemmas was essential to ensure proper
ethical practices during the study. I created pseudonyms to protect the participants’ real names
(Glesne, 2011). I advised the interviewees of the purpose of the study prior to the interview. I
offered them the right to decline any interview questions.
In addition, I utilized the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
(IRB) process to ensure the protection of the study’s participants and to adhere to all ethical
considerations. This study received approval for all phases of research.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the qualitative methodology used in this study,
such as population and sampling, instrumentation used, data collection and analysis, ethical
considerations, and reliability and validity. This study aimed to understand the use of UDL to
meet diverse learners’ needs in elementary general education classroom settings. The study
identifies teachers’ role in developing and implementing strategies that align with the UDL.
Through the survey, interview, and document review data collection, the study examined UDL
principles and practices, equity and access, perceptions, and implementation strategies used in
elementary general education classrooms to identify the components of successful UDL
implementation. Data from multiple sources helped to create triangulation for data analysis
(Merriam, 2009). I used an open coding system during the data analysis. Creswell’s (2014) sixstep approach for data analysis serves as the guide for this process.

40
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this chapter is to present this study’s findings regarding how UDL
supports diverse learners’ needs in the elementary general education classroom. CAST’s
(2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 provided the primary conceptual
framework for this study, supported by the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). This study aimed to
understand the use of UDL to meet diverse learners’ needs in elementary general education
classroom settings. The study identifies teachers’ role in developing and implementing
strategies that align with UDL. The study sought to identify the components of successful UDL
implementation in elementary general education. With this framework as a foundation, Chapter
Four organizes and analyzes the findings from 13 interviews and documents reviewed based on
the experience, knowledge, and skills of UDL experts through the lens of equity and access.
Additionally, survey data guided findings used to develop recommendations. Four overarching
research questions guided this qualitative study:
1. What are the UDL practices that support the needs of diverse learners in elementary
general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education
support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the perceptions of educators who apply UDL practices in elementary
general education?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
I conducted interviews, reviewed interview documents from UDL experts, and conducted
surveys to obtain data for the study. The interview questions examined their use of UDL by
exploring the framework and practices in their classrooms, equity and diversity, perceptions of
UDL, and UDL implementation and support. The interviewees engaged in one-on-one
interviews with me. The document review subjects participated in a one-on-one interview for a

41
series highlighting effective practices with UDL. Those interviews were transcribed and used for
document review. I identified themes and subthemes through a comprehensive comparative
analysis of the individual interviews and review of documents. These presented similarities
among the participants and their experiences.
Data Collection and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of UDL to meet diverse learners’
needs in elementary general education. I used qualitative data collection methods to effectively
collect data and produce findings. This study’s data sources were interviews, interview
documents, and surveys. I selected the interviewees based on their knowledge, skills, and
experience regarding UDL. The live interviews lasted about an hour and took place via online
video conferencing platforms, Zoom or Google Meets, in a one-on-one format. I recorded,
downloaded, and transcribed the interviews for further review, coding, and analysis. I selected
the interview documents for review based on their alignment with the interview questions. The
process for the document review required the collection, documentation, analysis with
annotation and interpretation, and organization of the data. Finally, I surveyed five randomly
selected teachers at a K–6 elementary school in an urban community with a diverse population
of students.
Participants
Table 1 outlines the participants’ demographic information. The following sections
include a summary of their biographies to understand their backgrounds and experiences with
UDL. Introductory interview questions and document review transcripts provided the information
for the biographies. The table lists the participants by title and with a pseudonym. Survey
respondents taught Kindergarten through sixth grade at one school. Their identities were not
disclosed.

42
Table 1
Participants
Thomas is an education specialist and has served in the role for over 15 years. His
current position is a program lead for a K–8 educational program. He has always been
passionate about giving children equitable opportunities for the future. He stands strongly on the
belief that UDL supports all students, including those with disabilities. He has implemented UDL
principles to create inclusive classrooms. He has seen firsthand how UDL has helped teachers
experience a shift in their mindset and design for the barriers students encounter.
Name Data collection Title
Thomas Interview document review Educational program lead
Adrian Interview document review Elementary ELA teacher
Brandon Interview document review Elementary principal
Carrie Interview document review Elementary learning coach
Katelyn Interview document review Elementary teacher
Matthew Interview document review Elementary principal
Lana Interview document review Elementary teacher
Patrice Interview UDL coordinator
Sarah Interview document review Elementary teacher
Darcy Interview document review Elementary teacher/UDL coach
Elizabeth Interview UDL specialist
Derrick Interview document review Elementary teacher
Blake Interview document review UDL teacher and administrator
Anonymous (5) Surveys General education elementary
teachers

43
Adrian is a fourth- and fifth-grade ELA teacher at an elementary school in Maryland.
Using UDL shifted her perspective toward designing lessons that cater to all students’ diverse
needs and emphasized knowing the learning goals to create effective instructional strategies.
Adrian presented her perspective on equity and access in education, emphasizing the provision
of diverse options, focusing on all students, and knowing the learning goals to create inclusive
and accessible learning environments. Her adoption of UDL principles reflects her commitment
to equity and access in education, ensuring all students have equitable learning opportunities.
Brandon is currently a principal at an elementary school in Columbus, Ohio. His
background experience also includes work as an elementary teacher, focusing on science and
math, and as a middle school computer science teacher. He was first exposed to UDL when he
started at his district and walked into it at an entry level with many other district professionals.
Brandon learned and grew with other colleagues/educators. His current school has a wide
range of learners identified as with and without disabilities. The school’s teachers sought to
reach all students in their various learning ranges. They sought out the UDL framework to meet
that need.
Carrie is currently a learning coach at an elementary school in Kansas. She is an
experienced educator with over 15 years of leadership in coaching and staff development. She
has a passion for UDL, which she defined as changing the environment rather than changing
the students. Carrie’s role as a learning coach involves helping teachers understand and
implement UDL guidelines practically in the classroom. She emphasized recognizing existing
effective practices before introducing new ones aligned with UDL.
Katelyn is a third and fourth-grade teacher at an elementary school in New Hampshire.
She has taught for over 20 years. She emphasizes student agency in her teaching approach,
allowing students to take control of their learning and explore the curriculum at their own pace.
Kate integrates UDL principles into her teaching by focusing on engagement and providing
various ways for students to demonstrate their understanding. The framework has influenced

44
Katelyn’s perspective on curriculum planning and project design, prompting her to consider how
to engage students effectively and allow them to showcase their knowledge.
Matthew is the principal of an elementary school. Matthew has worked in education for
24–25 years, with prior exposure to UDL at the middle school level. Understanding the value in
the framework, his district’s strategic planning aligned with UDL principles, emphasizing learning
for all. Implementation began with cohort models, training, and support from the 21st-century
coach. Focus areas included space design, executive function, and culturally responsive design.
Regular staff meetings emphasized UDL principles and celebrated progress.
Lana has been teaching kindergarten for 26 years at an elementary school in
Massachusetts. The school has about 475 students in kindergarten through fourth grade, with
approximately 23 students in her full-day kindergarten class. Her classroom is very diverse, with
a handful of students having individualized education programs [IEPs] and a small percentage
receiving ELL services. She has seen a gradual increase in diversity over the years of her time
teaching. She learned about UDL through a course taught by the assistant superintendent and
curriculum director in her district a few years ago. She found that UDL strategies helped reach
students below benchmark and engaged and challenged students who were above benchmark,
making the lessons beneficial for all.
Patrice is a UDL coordinator preparing future educators and others. As a lecturer, she
incorporates the principles of UDL into her classes. She also hosts a UDL podcast where she
interviews advocates and implementers from all over the world who are making a difference in
education. Through her podcast, she discovers what her guests are teaching, learning, guiding,
and facilitating, how they design and implement it, and why it matters.
Sarah is currently a fifth-grade intervention specialist at an elementary school in Ohio.
The school serves fourth- and fifth-grade students in a student-centered environment with
restorative practices and strong support systems. After 7 years of teaching, she now serves as
the intervention specialist, where she supports the implementation of inclusive teaching

45
practices. Her approach to instruction is influenced by UDL, with a focus on data-driven
interventions tailored to individual student needs. With UDL principles guiding Sarah’s teaching
approach, the school emphasizes the identification and removal of barriers to learning for all
students.
Darcy has great experience with UDL in various roles: elementary school teacher, UDL
coach, and assistant professor. Darcy started teaching in 2002 at the elementary level, primarily
with fifth and sixth graders. She then took on roles such as Title I interventionist, instructional
consultation team facilitator, and UDL facilitator. Darcy emphasized understanding the why
behind UDL, which involves creating an accessible and flexible environment for all learners.
Elizabeth is currently an implementation specialist. In this role, she partners with
educators to implement the UDL framework in practice. She has over 26 years of experience in
education as both a special education teacher and a general education teacher. She covered
various aspects of UDL, including its application in general education settings, equity and
access, challenges in implementation, and ongoing efforts for improvement.
Derrick is a 26-year veteran teacher at an elementary school. He is currently teaching
fifth grade. He teaches in a state where UDL is the educational policy. Derrick took a UDL
course that prompted the green light to implement some UDL practices in his classroom.
Administrators and other staff encourage him to learn about and implement the framework.
Blake is a sixth-grade English language arts teacher. She has been teaching for over 24
years. She empowers her students by teaching them about the UDL framework and how they
can be reflective learners. Her school has a diverse population, with students from various
backgrounds and at different academic levels.
Findings: Research Question 1
The goal of the first research question was to identify practices that support diverse
learners’ needs in elementary general education settings. Based on the participants’ experience
with the UDL framework (CAST, 2018) and analysis of the data, an overarching theme and

46
subthemes emerged. The UDL framework (CAST, 2018) and Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD support
the themes.
UDL Principles
The themes for Research Question 1 are UDL principles and practices. Several
subthemes emerged during the data analysis. Subthemes are action and expression,
representation, engagement, differentiated experiences, inclusion, scaffolding, and expert
learners. This review will also show how many of the themes and subthemes are interrelated. A
review of the findings by theme follows.
Universal Design for Learning is a framework supported by guidelines that provide
optimal teaching and learning for all students. The interview and document review revealed that
the participants noted the UDL framework’ design to include students as much as possible in
their learning experience. Participants ensured accessibility and inclusivity by providing multiple
means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018).
Darcy values becoming competent in the UDL guidelines. She described her experience
with the framework, stating, “I also think the framework is structured so that teachers can really
focus on being competent at the top three guideless, which are called the access guidelines.
And that is the options for recruiting interest, perception, and physical activity.” Patrice’s
interview illustrated the importance of implementing UDL principles in instructional design and
creating multiple pathways to learning to create inclusive learning environments that
accommodate diverse learner needs and preferences. She stated, “Applying UDL principles can
create a more inclusive and supportive learning experience for all students.” Adrian advocates
for empowering students with options and providing multiple means of representation, action,
expression, and engagement. Adrian noted,
And I think it’s so important that we empower our students to have options ... Everyone
thinks differently, everyone learns differently, and I think it’s our responsibility as

47
educators to provide these multiple options. So, each student finds what works best for
them.
Multiple Means of Engagement
Participants provided multiple opportunities to engage students in a core component of
UDL. As a teacher tasked with supporting her students’ diverse needs, Lana realized the depths
of the UDL principles. She tailored instructional practices to fit students’ needs and interests.
She incorporated practices such as aligning writing activities with students’ interests and
providing visual support.
Lana demonstrates resource efficiency in UDL implementation, noting that providing
additional options for students can be achieved with minimal resources, making UDL accessible
and feasible in diverse classroom settings. She discussed a particular student who has
challenges in writing. “He struggled to do anything with writing. … But you know there was [a]
day he said something about liking ice cream sundaes, and so the next day, I gathered
materials to make a giant paper sundae.” She observed that increasing student investment in
writing increased engagement as the activities resonated with their interests and preferences.
Another example of accommodating student interest is when she incorporated her students’
experience at the Monkey Bars into a writing activity:
I took my phone to the playground, and I took pictures of the kids doing the task and the
skill so that if they wanted to write a story about climbing the monkey bars, I had a stepby-step visual for them to see.
By doing this, she demonstrated her commitment to supporting individual student needs by
providing visual support and adapting writing activities to align with students’ interests, fostering
meaning.
Multiple Means of Expression
Participants identified that providing multiple ways for students to show their
understanding is an essential practice within the UDL framework. Participants, using a UDL

48
approach, delivered content in a variety of ways while allowing differentiation of expression and
engagement. By doing this, learning was authentic, engaging, and meaningful for students.
Katelyn understands the need to integrate the UDL principles into her teaching by
providing various ways for students to demonstrate their understanding and increase
engagement. When integrating the principles, she plans units to ensure student engagement
and varied assessment methods. Katelyn stated, “When I am planning a unit out, I really take a
look at those UDL principles and think about how I am engaging students.” By offering multiple
means of expression, she trusts her students to demonstrate their understanding of concepts in
various ways, even if it means they do not always follow traditional methods of showing their
work in writing. She said, “It’s really looking at it [design] through that UDL lens. Our curriculum
hasn’t changed, what we have to teach hasn’t changed, but it’s just spinning it to look differently,
look at it with that UDL eye.”
Carrie used the UDL guidelines to examine how the teachers could improve learning
opportunities for the students. A group of fourth-grade teachers at her school were concerned
about a weekly ELA assessment given to students to check for understanding. The teachers felt
they were not giving students enough opportunity to share all of what they had learned. They
delved into action and expression, looking for different ways students could show what they
knew, and at the same time, focused on other parts of the framework, such as engagement.
Carrie stated,
I pulled the guidelines out, and I’m like, “Hmm, let’s see.” Well, that falls under action
and expression. … So, they identified their variable on their own. They knew this was the
variable that was holding them back. So, then we thought, okay, we teach the standard,
we use the resource, how can we change the assessment? So, they designed a “show
what you know” opportunity because they wanted students to show what they know.
By doing this, the students had options. Each week, the students brainstormed how they could
show how/what they knew about the information.

49
Multiple Means of Representation
In this final principle of UDL, participants promoted variation in how students can access
materials and information to provide optimal engagement in their learning. Patrice emphasized
the significance of providing multiple means of representation and engagement to
accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences. By using multiple means of
representation, Patrice developed innovative and engaging teaching methods: “Presenting the
information in multiple ways for our students to be able to get that information, not just text
heavy, but you can listen to it, or you watch a movie or something like that.” Patrice provided
practical examples of meeting all learners’ needs. She discussed flexible deadlines, varied
assignment formats, and chunking tasks to support students with executive functioning issues.
UDL Practices
All participants identified their use of UDL principles and practices during the study.
Many participants provided insight into the use of these principles that embody practices and
strategies to ensure learning for everyone in a diverse classroom. Lana strongly believes UDL
principles and strategies benefit all students, regardless of their academic level. Through UDL
principles and strategies, “not only was I reaching the students below benchmark, but I was
reaching a lot of those students that I feel like sometimes don’t get to who are above
benchmark.” She observed a positive impact on student motivation and achievement as a result
of implementing UDL strategies, indicating the potential of UDL to enhance student learning
experiences.
Meeting Diverse Needs: Differentiated Experiences
Most participants discussed how they address school and classroom diversity. This
diversity requires understanding the need for differentiation and accommodating students’
identities and experiences. Patrice uses UDL as a framework for removing barriers and
promoting inclusive teaching practices by questioning assumptions and focusing on clear
learning objectives. Patrice noted,

50
UDL gives us this great lens to ask ourselves questions. A common question is, “How
can we address the needs of all students?” So, diversity, if we really want to treat all of
our students equally and offer an experience equally to all the students, we really do
have to think about diversity in a lot of unseen ways.
Being introduced to UDL principles marked the beginning of Patrice’s journey toward
understanding their importance in addressing diverse learner needs: “I started to tear apart
some of the old practices when I found students weren’t able to do it the old way, but I really
didn’t have great solutions.” For Patrice, the progression from traditional teaching methods
toward more inclusive and collaborative practices set the stage for introducing UDL principles.
Adrian sees meeting all students’ needs as a charge when using the UDL framework:
“I’m here to reach all learners, and I’m looking at a variety of ways to use the framework to help
design those varieties of ways.”
Similar to Adrian, Lana discussed the challenges of meeting every student’s needs. She
realized UDL provided previously missing pieces because “it allowed me to fine-tune my
teaching so that I really could reach each and every student when I was using UDL strategies in
my lessons.”
Inclusive Practices
Participants identified that UDL serves as a proactive approach to fostering inclusivity
and equity in education. The UDL framework presents specific guidelines for creating an
inclusive learning environment that supports all students, regardless of their background or prior
experiences. Establishing inclusive settings with the idea that all students must achieve has
increased the potential for students with varying needs and abilities to attain meaningful
achievement outcomes in the general education classroom. At Thomas’s school, they aligned
best practices to accommodate diverse learner needs. Thomas stated, “We implemented [UDL]
principles to create inclusive environments.” He added,

51
Creating inclusive spaces required reflective questioning. Questions asked consisted of
“What can we change as teachers in our classroom, in the classroom environment, in
the way we teach, the way we do assessment that would welcome children with different
needs?”
Carrie stated, “We’re not going to change a student, but we have so many options to
change the environment to benefit who they are.” This mindset identifies that the barrier is within
the environment and not with the learner.
Similar to Thomas, Patrice also uses UDL as a framework for removing barriers and
promoting inclusive teaching practices by questioning assumptions and focusing on clear
learning objectives: “[It] gives us this great lens to ask ourselves questions. “A common question
is, “How can we address the needs of all students?” Similar to Thomas and Patrice, Adrian
noted that with UDL, promoting inclusive and accessible learning environments became a
priority. She felt enabled to not just focus on the needs of specific learners, stating, “I really
started looking at how am I going to focus on all students instead of just the specific learners.”
This thought process allowed her to think of all learners in her class and how she could better
meet their needs. Lana also emphasized that UDL strategies benefit all students regardless of
their academic level, highlighting the inclusivity in meeting diverse learning needs.
Supporting Expert Learners
According to CAST (2024a), the goal of UDL is to support learners to become expert
learners who are, in their own way, purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable,
and strategic and goal-driven. Expert learners need constant opportunities to have support as
learners. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that students should be educated where they can learn
with support, instructional strategies, and assessment. Participants noted that developing expert
learners focuses on the process, not just the outcome. Some participants discussed strategies
that support meeting the goal of expert learners.

52
Within the framework, the ultimate goal is to help learners gain skills toward becoming
expert learners. Katelyn discussed how learning is the student’s responsibility: “It’s their job to
be learning. It’s my job to share information with them, but it’s their job to take it in, mull it
around, throw it around in their head, and come back with what they’ve gained.”
Goal setting is an area in which students require support. Matthew’s students benefited
from UDL practices such as goal setting and student-led conferences, fostering selfdetermination and autonomy. The empowerment of students promotes ownership of learning
and supports diverse learning needs. Matthew stated, “Some of these have just become
imagined. I don’t think you would hear the kids necessarily refer to it as a universal design for
learning, but I think they would say that things are kind of a little different.”
Darcy also addressed supporting expert learners. She has a board with the words
“Expert Learners” written above the three brain images shaded based on the UDL guidelines
and expert learner descriptions. She mentioned “bringing in those supports that help develop
those executive functioning skills like goal setting, time management, organization, and
planning.”
Agency and choice allow students to be active participants in the learning process.
Students can be empowered in their role as learners, while the teacher serves as a facilitator of
learning. Katelyn emphasized student agency in her teaching approach, allowing students to
take control of their learning and explore the curriculum at their own pace. She follows a
competency-based education, where students are allowed to progress through the curriculum
as they master skills rather than adhering strictly to a fixed schedule. This approach promotes
independence, personalization, and engagement among students. She emphasizes to her
students that learning is their responsibility, with her role being to facilitate their learning journey
rather than impose it upon them. Katelyn stated,
Agency for me is that I give the kids the lessons that they need, teach them the
curriculum, but then really let them take it and run with it in the way they need to explore

53
it. My students are allowed to go at their own pace, and again, I’m working with thirdand fourth-graders, but they can do it. They can work at their own pace and move
through things with independence and with drive on their own.
Similar to Katelyn, Carrie highlighted providing students with options and the opportunity to
make choices. Additionally, Carrie stated,
It’s amazing when you see fourth graders; they’re learning the main idea, they’re getting
that direct instruction, but then they take it upon themselves to plan out how they’re
going to show it. They brainstorm all the different ideas. Then, they plan it out. We’ve
had iMovies. A lot of kids choose paper [and] pencil, which I think is very interesting.
Teachers use a platform called Seesaw, so we have some students that present theirs
through audio because that’s how they’re most comfortable. The teachers are assessing
the same information. They’re just getting it a different way.
In terms of developing expert learners and student agency, Blake noted that students know they
have permission to go and learn what they need to learn. Students “present in a way that they
are empowered to present as opposed to feeling locked into this box.” His school created
different avenues for everyone to participate so that no one felt left out. Everyone felt they were
“equal participants” because they were. Blake noted,
There’s no restrictions on how they get to present the information, which I think is the
beauty of the process and the beauty of becoming a true expert learner, right, is that we
get to go and source the information, and then we get to find the best way that we want
to put that information out there. Because it’s not always formulaic, It’s not … always
within a box.
Lana’s decision to start implementing UDL principles in math lessons reflects her
intention to foster student empowerment and engagement through personalized learning
experiences. The lessons take place in a safe, supporting environment that allows students to

54
utilize their individual strengths and develop skills as expert learners. Lana stated, “I try to go
with what the kids … like.”
Adrian discussed the empowerment she has seen in her students by simply stepping
back. She admitted to the process being “a little bit scary sometimes” by giving students
freedom and choice in their learning. She maintains clear expectations using this approach.
However, through her study of UDL, she has learned that “just because it’s my way doesn’t
necessarily mean it’s going to work for everyone.” She provides her students the opportunity
and support needed to find what works for them.
Scaffolding
Educators use scaffolded approaches to help students navigate through the ZPD
(Vygotsky, 1978). Scaffolding breaks down the information or learning skill into smaller pieces
that are more comprehensible for the learner. Adrian uses a strategy called “chunking”. Using
chunking allows for a scaffolded approach to delivering the content. Chunking the assignment
breaks the content matter and/or assignment down into simpler parts. Adrian noted,
In the past, like, an accommodation that I think certain students would need is maybe
chunking, having an assignment chunked. But if some students need something
chunked, why not offer it to everyone? How can I break down this assignment to help all
learners through kind of chunking it, breaking it down into simpler parts?
She now focuses on the end goal and what she expects her students to learn and do. She then
embeds opportunities into her instruction to get them there: “My advice would be to really think
about what your end goal is. I think when you know what you’re expecting of your students,
that’s when you can play with the instructions to get them there.”
Sarah said it is important to have many interventions and sources of support to increase
student engagement. By identifying gaps in students’ learning, she created a path to start
designing lessons and interventions and what each student and group of students needed to
focus on. When shifting to support needed for students, she thought about how she could

55
design her lesson so that students could access it more independently and on their literacy
level. She stated,
When we’re looking at sustaining effort and persistence within that engagement
guideline, I think when everything is too challenging, students start to tap out, but when
they’re working with a text that they can navigate, then they’re willing to push themselves
a little more and maybe persevere a little bit more than they were before.
Adrian also provides support, flexibility, and engagement in the design of her instruction.
She uses success criteria to support students in gaining knowledge in a particular content
area/project, stating, “Why not offer them a little bit of structure, or chunking, or just breaking
down your expectation so that they know what they’re being held accountable for?” As they
move through the parts of the lesson, they are able to use a checklist. Typically, this strategy
would just be used for students with IEPs; however, she stated, “No, everybody has access to
this. If they want to use this support, then they can. They don’t have to, but it’s there and
available to all of them. I think all students deserve that!”
Scaffolding involves the gradual release of responsibility to the learner. Carrie referred to
gradually releasing control to students as they learn, facilitating their autonomy and skill
development. By doing this, she supports students in achieving mastery while minimizing
frustration. She said teachers slowly released control to fourth-grade students as they became
more comfortable with the new assessment approach. Highlight: Refers to gradually releasing
control to students as they learn, facilitating their autonomy and skill development.
Survey Questions
To understand how elementary general education teachers used UDL, the survey asked
10 questions to determine their awareness and utilization rate, explicitly focusing on the UDL
principles. When asked about the level of awareness of UDL in elementary general education,
participant responses ranged from not familiar at all to moderately familiar. Based on the data,
participants utilize UDL just a little at their school site. Survey respondents identified that they

56
first learned about UDL through a teacher preparation course or educational conference. They
identified the level of awareness of UDL in their district as moderately familiar while noting the
level of awareness at the school level as somewhat aware. While the district or school has not
adopted UDL, participants felt they were probably utilizing it in their classrooms. When asked to
what degree, four out of five participants responded, “Most of the time.” When asked about the
frequency of implementing UDL guidelines, the following data were collected:
• Multiple means of engagement, at least once a week
• Multiple means of representation, at least two to three times a week
• Multiple means of action and expression, at least two to three times a week
Summary
This section outlines the findings regarding how UDL practices support diverse learners’
needs in elementary general education. The UDL framework creates environments that include
all students in designing learning experiences as much as possible. Multiple means of
engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018) which ensure accessibility
and inclusivity, were principles used by all participants. This chapter highlights the diverse
populations in elementary general education. Applying UDL principles and practices requires
understanding the nature of diversity in educational settings and the need to accommodate
various student identities and experiences.
Findings: Research Question 2
Universal Design for Learning aims to provide all learners with equal opportunities to
access and engage in education. The wide variety of learners in the elementary general
education classroom can pose a challenge as teachers and schools aim to ensure equity.
Schools must respond to their population’s diverse needs while ensuring equal benefits for all
students (CDE, 2024).

57
Equity and Access
This section presents findings on how UDL supports equity and access in education,
which is an ethical imperative to meet diverse learners’ needs. The themes that emerged from
data collection are meeting diverse learners’ needs and removing barriers through an equity and
access lens.
Meeting Diverse Learners’ Needs
Using UDL can empower educators to meet diverse learners’ needs effectively. Most
participants noted their experience with having a diverse population of students in the
elementary general education setting. According to Lana, “Within my three classes, I have a
whole range of needs. I have students that are reading below grade level and then I have
students that are quite above grade level, so it’s a whole mix in my classes this year.” Similar to
Lana, Derrick made note of their school’s demographic overview. Derrick stated,
We had and still have a wide variety. A wide range of learners there identified with
disabilities or not. So, it’s not uncommon to have students who are high ability, high
performing in the same classroom with students who may have significant cognitive
disabilities and anywhere in between, so our teachers there were really interested in
trying to teach in a way that would reach all of these kids in all of these ranges. And UDL
was the framework in order to do that.
Similarly, Brandon has a wide range of learners with and without identified disabilities. It
is not uncommon for high-performing students to be in the same classroom with students who
may have significant cognitive disabilities.
Patrice advocates for UDL adoption as an ethical imperative to meet diverse learners’
needs. She encourages educators to embrace UDL principles as essential components of
inclusive teaching practices, promoting equity and accessibility in education. “Yes, I tell, and I do
this every day, tell educators that it’s an imperative that we are discriminating against students if
we are not implementing [UDL].” Patrice encourages educators to embrace UDL principles to

58
foster inclusive learning. She demonstrated an understanding of UDL principles and their
potential to enhance equity and access in education by providing multiple pathways to learning.
She emphasized providing equal opportunity for all learning and offering flexibility in accessing
educational materials. UDL stands on the principles of equity and access in educational
settings, which are essential for creating inclusive learning environments. “Equity to me and
access would mean there is a lot of choice for students.”
There is a need for ongoing reflection and growth in understanding equity to ensure
inclusivity in education. A few participants shared how advocacy for UDL is essential for
promoting equity and accessibility in education. Lana’s perspective on equity and access in
education emphasized providing diverse options, focusing on all students, and knowing the
learning goals to create inclusive and accessible learning environments.
Elizabeth advocates for a comprehensive approach that recognizes and addresses all
learners’ needs, including those who may be marginalized or excluded. Elizabeth highlighted a
significant shift in her approach to promoting inclusion for learners with disabilities. She
transitioned from providing individualized support and accommodations to adopting a proactive
and inclusive approach aligned with UDL principles. She emphasized designing the learning
environment to accommodate students’ diverse needs rather than relying solely on
individualized supports for specific learners. She mentioned, “What if we said to Amanda, you
come as you are right, and what we’re going to do is we’re both into the design of the classroom
itself.” This illustrates a broader shift toward inclusivity and equity in education, reflecting the
transformative potential of UDL principles.
Thomas noted that his school supported teachers and built their confidence so they
could provide equitable opportunities for children, including those with disabilities. With support,
“They gradually built that confidence that they can actually do certain adaptations, simple
accommodations, with the idea of [UDL] to meet the needs of all learners.”

59
Derrick watched a teacher implementing UDL strategies in her classroom and saw how it
made learning accessible to all students:
I would stand back and watch her, and I think, wow, if this is working for students who
are struggling, why not try it with the students who may not be struggling? But you never
really know because they’re not going to freely admit it, so why not let everybody have
access to the strategies?
Removing Barriers Through an Equity Lens
In the participants’ case, UDL is not just a set of instructional strategies but a lens
through which designers identify and remove environment, curriculum, and design barriers,
shifting the focus from fixing the learner to fixing the system. Thus, UDL promotes equity and
access in education, emphasizing the need to address systemic barriers and ensure inclusivity
for all learners.
Patrice stated,
UDL gives us this great lens to ask ourselves questions. One of the big things I learned
in working with my colleagues in [UDL] is to keep asking the question, well, what is the
goal? … UDL asks us to be very clear in our objectives, asks us to think about what is
the goal and what are the ways to get to that goal? What are the possible barriers and
how can you take those barriers down? So that’s what I think is supporting equity and
access.
Elizabeth discussed reframing UDL guidelines through an equity lens, addressing
systemic barriers to access and agency for all learners. Using resources such as CAST, she
stated, “We are completely committed to rethinking the UDL guidelines through the lens of
equity.” This reframing aims to address and dismantle systemic barriers to access and agency
for every learner. She also stated,
Sometimes, we think about [UDL] as a set of instructional strategies, but it’s really a lens
that we look through. And so, the question that we’re asking when we use UDL is,

60
where’s the barrier in the environment? Where’s the barrier in the design? Where’s the
barrier in the curriculum? ... And I think in doing that, we really support learners to have
access to learning.
Brandon also addressed how his school had to look through a new lens that included
those with motor or significant disabilities. They used reflection and questioning to address the
challenges and need for change. “So, are there any barriers, physical barriers, things in the
classroom that could be modified or removed in order to make this more accessible?”
Elizabeth’s commitment to equity stems from her advocacy work with families of children
with developmental disabilities who faced barriers to accessing general education classrooms.
She believes that UDL should address and dismantle system barriers to access and agency for
every learner, extending beyond traditional understanding equity to ensure inclusivity in
education.
Sarah talked about the journey her team took to reduce barriers in the environment. “We
try to examine it from every angle to see what barriers might be in place to prevent an idea or an
activity or whatever it is we’re looking at from working.”
Survey Questions
To gain more insight into how educators perceive equity and access through UDL, I
asked questions regarding equity, access, and meeting diverse learners’ needs. Survey
respondents indicated that equity and access in their instruction are very important or extremely
important. The data showed that equity and access have a great deal of influence on UDL use.
Participants indicated they feel somewhat prepared to meet their class’s diverse population of
learners.
Summary
This section outlines the findings regarding how participants effectively met students’
needs through the lens of equity and access. In their experience, UDL welcomes and supports
learners’ engagement using a come-as-you-are approach. Findings indicate that by reflecting on

61
their practices, they used a reframing process to address and dismantle systemic barriers to
access and agency for learners. Additionally, the findings emphasized teachers’ role in
preparing to nurture students with varying educational levels and learning capabilities. To
increase the ability to meet diverse learners’ needs, there is a great need for more elementary
general education teachers to rethink UDL guidelines through an equity lens. Overall,
participants agreed that UDL promotes equity and access in education, emphasizing the need
to address systemic barriers and ensure inclusivity for all learners.
Findings: Research Question 3
While we know the framework benefits all learners, there are a lot of educational
practitioners with a limited understanding of how UDL can benefit all students, including
students with disabilities, in the general education setting. Due to this, there are varying
attitudes and beliefs regarding the UDL framework and implementation. This section explores
the participants’ introduction to UDL, initial perceptions, and perspective shifts. The analysis of
how participants share their experiences yielded two main themes: shifting mindsets and
practices and misconceptions. One subtheme, resistance to a one-size-fits-all model, emerged
from the analysis.
Shifting Mindsets and Practices
Many participants discussed shifting the focus from fixing individual learners to fixing the
system, promoting a proactive and inclusive approach that identifies and removes barriers in
design and curriculum. Elizabeth identifies attitudinal barriers and resistance to mindset shifts as
significant challenges in implementing UDL in general education settings. It is important to
address mindset shifts to overcome barriers to UDL implementation, which focuses on systemic
change for inclusivity. According to Elizabeth, “the biggest barrier is the attitudinal clinging to old
ways of seeing learners and learning.” This shift aligns with the principles of a growth mindset
and a fixed mindset.

62
From the interviews, I saw how practitioners experienced a mindset shift toward
inclusive practices. Sarah, a veteran UDL practitioner, shared, “I think learning about the UDL
framework early when I was an undergrad, and then just continuing to build a professional
network of solid, strong UDL leaders, think it’s just kind of trained in my brain.” She discussed
how she developed a mindset of removing barriers:
I think just that mindset of removing barriers is what I’ve carried with me into a building
that doesn’t necessarily utilize the framework because I think that’s something all
teachers can get on board with is we have to remove barriers. We have to allow our
students to be successful.
Blake noted that when he started to learn about UDL, he “immediately thought it was so
empowering to students.” As Adrian progressed in her teaching career, she noted her shift in
mindset toward focusing on all students’ needs and mastering learning standards. She stated,
I really started looking at how am I going to focus on all students instead of just the
specific learners, the individuals. Because I kind of had this shift of, if I was going to try
something for students, why not try it for everyone? ... I feel like now is the time that I
can really perfect the ways that I’m instructing, and I think that’s where I’m able to apply
what I’ve learned about UDL.
Patrice shared the shifts she has seen in her own application of the framework as she’s
moved from elementary school teacher to a UDL coach. Darcy stated, “It’s a design, and you’re
really trying to create an accessible and flexible environment for everyone. I really had a shift in
how I looked at teaching.” Along with this shift, she had to look at how learners learn subject
matter differently.
Derrick participated in a UDL course, which prompted him to “really make sure that all
students have access to the curriculum.” Derick began to use the phrase “Why not?” as a
mantra for new ideas of how UDL can be used to provide equity and access and shift his
perspective on incorporating guidelines in the classroom. Approaching it with this growth

63
mindset allowed him to also be open to student suggestions regarding what would work best for
them to become expert learners. Derick explained, “And so what I’m really trying to do is give
everybody that … full access to the curriculum, and to me, that full access is really what UDL is
all about.”
While some participants fully embraced growth mindset shifts and practices, others
shared about challenges faced and resistance in shifting UDL from special to general education
settings. Patrice noted the perception problem in that general educators may resist
implementation, viewing it as a reduction in rigor. However, she argued that shifting UDL into
general education is a natural progression due to the diverse learners in educational settings.
Patrice’s evolving perceptions regarding UDL moved from initial discomfort to becoming
a proponent of its principles. This evolution illustrates the effect of continued UDL research and
implementation on the participants’ attitudes and beliefs. Patrice said, “Learning that it doesn’t
have to be that way, that you can actually learn and even learn more and have a better
understanding of things, it just doesn’t have to be hard for being hard’s sake.” Patrice’s initial
approach to diversity in her teaching was rudimentary and mostly focused on accommodating
students with disabilities. She began making changes, like incorporating collaborative quizzes,
before being introduced to UDL. Patrice moved from having initial discomfort to embracing full
implementation. Initially, the introduction to UDL was uninspiring, but she quickly recognized
and addressed diversity in educational settings.
Darcy had a shift in her mindset once she understood that the design would create an
accessible and flexible environment for everyone. She noted that the most important shift was
how she looked at learners differently. She stated, “It’s not just students who struggle and
students who don’t, but there’s just this wide variety out there.”
Unlike the other participants, Elizabeth initially viewed UDL through a neuroscience lens.
She saw UDL as logical and common sense, appreciating its alignment with neuroscience and
its strategic approach to design based on how the brain learns. She stated, “It was just so

64
logical and so much common sense. … We could actually design strategically, proactively,
intelligently, based on the brain and how the brain learns.” This highlights the intuitive appeal of
UDL and its foundation in scientific principles, which can facilitate its adoption and
implementation by educators.
Thomas noted that they have improved conditions for equity and access using UDL. He
discussed seeing “an increase in empathy toward children with disability.” This shift lowered
initial barriers related to attitudes of diverse student populations in general education. He stated,
“I think the biggest challenge was the belief that teachers had that those children need to be
educated somewhere else.” Now, they examine their practices to identify how they can provide
accessibility for and support for students. Thomas noted,
Helping the teachers and everyone shift from the problem is not in the child. The
problem is in the system and that you have all used [UDL], which is built on that premise,
to create these environments for these students to be included as much as possible. We
intentionally think about UDL for all of our students. When designing lessons we think,
“Are we using these practices and strategies to meet the needs of everyone?”
Resistance to the One-Size-Fits-All Approach
Using the UDL framework requires breaking away from one-size-fits-all or the comfort of
familiar teaching practices. Adrian stated,
I guess, to reflect on my teaching experience, and I feel like when I was a new teacher, I
really just taught the curriculum that was provided because that’s what I thought I was
supposed to do. … And I feel like over the course of these 10 years, I’ve really
deepened my understanding of really what my charge is and what I’ve been asked to do,
especially as an ELA educator.
Patrice has strong resistance to the one-size-fits-all approach commonly used in general
education classrooms. She discussed the challenges of shifting away from a one-size-fits-all
approach in general education. She noted that this shift is met with resistance as educators fear

65
losing structure in the classroom. However, she emphasizes that embracing UDL allows for
more personalized learning experiences that enable students to shine.
Misconceptions
With participants having varying initial experiences, training, and support regarding UDL,
they described misconceptions regarding the framework. Elizabeth discussed the evolution of
her perception of UDL, particularly regarding learning and agency. She realized that this aspect
of UDL needed more emphasis on teaching learners how to learn. This underscores the
ongoing learning process associated with UDL implementation and the recognition of additional
layers beyond initial understanding. She quotes. “Once you think you kind of understand the
framework and the implication of it in the world, it’s like, I guess I don’t.”
Through deeper exploration during a UDL course, she realized there were more layers
to UDL and that it differed from what she had been doing. Lana initially believed she was
already implementing UDL principles in her teaching, highlighting a common misconception
among educators. It was during the first UDL class that she thought, ‘ already do this! I already
do UDL!’ And then I kept thinking, ‘Ah, these are just good teaching strategies. Everybody
teaches this way!’” Through a week-long course, Lana realized that UDL was more complex and
nuanced than she initially assumed, prompting a shift in her perspective. By the end of the
week, I thought,
Oh, wait a minute. I guess I really don’t do this. And I just kept thinking I had been
teaching for so long that I thought it really was what I was doing, but the more I dove,
you know, I dove deeper into what UDL was, and I realized it really was different.
Similarly, Darcy had some misconceptions regarding UDL. Many teachers ask the
question, “How is this different from good teaching?” Darcy stated, “I had difficulty wrapping my
mind around the framework and how it was different than what I was already doing.” However,
when she learned more about the brain research behind UDL, she understood the why and
intentionality behind it. As a UDL presenter, she stated,

66
Sometimes, people come into a workshop with either an interpretation of UDL or maybe
they’ve had a different person leading them in a workshop. And then, when I go through
that explicit side, then I’ll have people who still say, “Well, you weren’t using … UDL
because … .”
Survey Questions
To understand the participants’ perceptions, I asked specific questions regarding their
experience with UDL. As indicated in the results pertaining to Research Question 1, the survey
respondents indicated they were moderately familiar with UDL. However, most participants
strongly agreed when asked how they felt about using UDL in elementary general education.
There was one participant who neither agreed nor disagreed. When asked about their
perception of the effectiveness of the UDL guidelines and strategies in meeting diverse learners’
needs, four participants identified very effective or extremely effective. Just one survey
participant indicated that the guidelines and strategies were slightly effective in meeting diverse
learners’ needs.
Summary
According to CAST (2024b), a foundational concept underlying UDL is the barriers within
an instructional environment or design. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding UDL can pose
a barrier or provide access. The third research question gauged the participants’ perceptions
regarding UDL. The findings in this section yielded varying initial attitudes and beliefs. Although
this variation was present, all participants noted a positive experience with using the framework.
By shifting thoughts and practices, UDL removes the focus from fixing the learner to fixing the
system. Rather than viewing learners as the problem, designers identify and remove barriers in
the environment, curriculum, and design. It is of immediate importance to promote awareness
and understanding of its benefits. Practitioners understand the need to address misconceptions
and resistance surrounding UDL implementation in general education.

67
Findings: Research Question 4
This section will explore the participants’ experiences with preparation, support, and
strategies for UDL implementation. They discussed potential barriers to implementation,
effective practices, and support strategies. The themes that emerged were barriers and
implementation. The subthemes were support, gradual release, scaffolded approach,
collaboration, coaching, reflection and growth, and shared vision.
Barriers to UDL Implementation
There are recognizably challenges educators face in adopting UDL practices and the
need for institutional support and resources to overcome these barriers. Participants identified
key barriers, including lack of support, time constraints, financial resources, and training. Patrice
noted, “Yeah, all of those things are barriers. Time, money, support, and training.” Thomas said
many places want to adopt UDL and its best practices but face many of the same barriers.
Blake speaks of “bumps in the road” as it relates to the implementation of UDL. “We’ve had a lot
of bumps, and it’s not been a straight path.” Sara stated,
I think it’s really important, a really important conversation to have because there are so
many educators who have learned about UDL and know its use can lead to stronger
learner outcomes, but they aren’t necessarily in a setting where everyone has learned
about the framework or where everyone, maybe they’re not ready to embrace it yet.
While participant data identified support and training as two of the key barriers, their shared
experiences also identified support and training as a subtheme for effective implementation.
Effective Implementation
After gaining a better understanding of barriers to implementing UDL, participants
shared the strategies that best supported their implementation. Research-based practices and
strategies are an effective way to reach all students (Lembke & Stormont, 2005). Many
participants had shared experiences, including the use of best practices. The school’s capacity
to support the diversity of the student population increased through these best practices.

68
Support and Training
Participants identified the need for support in facilitating the integration of UDL principles
into curriculum design and teaching practices. Additionally, administrative support backing with
UDL demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and accessibility, fostering a culture of equity
and diversity. Darcy expressed the need for support and training during her UDL
implementation. She stated,
I think what’s important is having support. Whether it’s a buddy that’s doing, also
implementing UDL with me, or it’s a group, whether it’s in my district, in my school, or
outside, I think without the support, we all fall back into comfortable practices.
Patrice believes effective implementation of UDL requires administrative support,
proactive rather than reactive, along with financial resources and emotional support from
colleagues. Patrice stated, “I’d say support is the number one. If you don’t have administration
or colleagues, somebody supporting even just the ideas, allowing for flexibility, and sometimes
it’s kind of crazy and different. If you don’t have that support, that’s going to be really difficult.”
Matthew also highlighted administrators’ support for UDL implementation and teacher
development. He and the 21st-century teacher developed a partnership to facilitate ongoing
support, training, and goal setting, which was essential for sustaining UDL practices. Matthew
stated, “Her and I meet weekly to see where we’re at to see what support the teachers need,
you know, making sure everybody’s getting what they need at that time.”
Gradual Release: Starting Small
The participants reiterated the necessity to start small. After realizing UDL was the
framework to meet their students’ needs, Blake stated they started small with it: “We started
very slowly walking through UDL and looking at individual principles and understanding what it
looks like,” By doing this, they used the framework to have “purposeful conversations within the
lens of designing lessons to reach everybody.” They used an approach centered on what was
best for students during their planning and development. She emphasized,

69
We started very small with just very little, you know, strategies, and then that kind of
snowballed, and so now really when we are planning lessons, and we’re sitting down
and developing pacing guides as teams, we are considering all of those things first.
Lana emphasized the value of incremental progress. As a teacher, she started small
with math. She stated, “I figured it would be easiest if I started to offer more choices so that the
students could really show their knowledge in different ways.” Thomas’s district started small.
He said, “One of the things we first introduced in terms of training and nurturing teachers’ skills
was for teachers to be able to identify what and when they need support.” This allowed teachers
to differentiate between “a situation where they are confident to act and a situation where they
need to seek support.”
Similar to Blake and Thomas, Darcy used the start-small approach. Darcy shared her
experience with the question, “Where do I start?” This is a common question from teachers who
want to do the right things for their students but who become overwhelmed by the framework.
She expressed that there is “no right or wrong way to begin to implement the framework. I’ve
come to learn to start with what teachers already do comfortably and what they feel that they
are successful at and help them understand the benefits.”
Matthew’s school started small, using a cohort model. They began with Kindergarten
and 2nd grade. The site’s 21st-century coach supported the cohort. The coach met with
teachers weekly. The cohort reported on what they were learning during regular staff meetings.
By doing this, “We introduced all staff to the UDL framework. During PLC time, other grade
levels began to look at lessons and how they could redesign them.”
Scaffolding
Participants identified scaffolded approaches used for students that can also be useful
for teachers. Thomas provided scaffolded support for educators to facilitate effective
implementation: “We supported teachers with scaffolded approaches, supervision, and

70
coaching.” This support empowered teachers to confidently implement the strategies, fostering
a more inclusive learning environment.
Similar to Thomas, to support his teachers, Matthew used his team consisting of admin,
consultants, and the 21st-century teacher to scaffold the implementation of UDL at the school
site. They would “meet with the teacher beforehand, help develop lessons, and then we will
push it to give that feedback.”
As a coach, Darcy found great benefit in chunking information and modeling for
teachers. Darcy stated,
Then, when I was presenting and coaching teachers doing my PD, … I learned that I
really needed to model, even with adult learners, I needed to model UDL and be very
explicit with this is what I’m doing, and this is why I’m doing this is how you can apply it
in a classroom.
Collaboration
An important aspect of successful implementation was collaboration and the sharing of
practices among participants. Participants shared the need for teachers to have opportunities to
facilitate professional development and the spread of effective instructional methods. Carrie
mentioned how a first-grade teacher implemented a strategy that fourth-grade teachers shared,
showcasing the adaptability and scalability of practices: “We had cross-grade level shares
where the first-grade teacher has come to fourth grade and said, ‘Okay, this is what I did.’”
Creating opportunities for teacher-led discussions reflects the importance of peer learning and
collaboration in professional development. It also encourages a bottom-up approach to sharing
and implementing UDL that is more effective than solely a top-down directive. “I think that’s
more powerful than if I come in and tell them what to do or try to tell them what to do.”
Matthew used a collaborative approach, including cohort models, regular training, and
support from the 21st-century coach. These strategies facilitated staff development and
collaboration. Matthew stated,

71
We used a cohort model. [At the school], we started with grades K and 2 and into our
21st-century coach. Our 21st-century coach is just that, now when they teach technology
courses to kids, but they support teachers, and they’ve been a key player throughout the
UDL implementation phase, meeting with our teachers weekly and supporting.
Blake shared how she used instructional rounds during staff meetings. They ask
questions, share experiences, visit classrooms, and have conversations with colleagues. This
strategy shows that teachers are willing to learn and do better for their students. Blake said, “I
mean, they are always opening up their classrooms so that their colleagues, their teammates,
and other schools can come in and learn from them and their instructional practices.”
Derrick stated that collaboration surrounding UDL has become part of the culture at his
school. He reported that even when training is not about UDL, they still use the opportunity to
“see where UDL fits.”
Coaching
To provide support and learning for teachers, Thomas’ school used supervision and
coaching as an ongoing process. Given that collaboration is important, his school used
coaching in the form of an agent of change who serves as a support for teachers. Thomas
stated,
I think having an agent of change, what we call a coach in the school, from the school
really did the trick for us, in the sense that if a teacher is not sure, or a teacher is not
confident, or the teacher feels they need support, there is someone in the school,
someone from the same community, they can go to.
Matthew shared his experience with the 21st-century coach at his site. He shared, “Our
21st-century coach is just that, now when they teach technology courses to kids, but they
support teachers, and they’ve been a key player throughout the UDL implementation phase,
meeting with our teachers weekly and supporting.”

72
As a coach, Carrie emphasizes collaboration in implementation. In her role, she provides
support to teachers during planning, instruction, and implementation. She uses the UDL
guidelines to help other teachers identify variables and how they can enhance their lessons:
I would go in with the guidelines and observe a lesson. You know, I would show them
what I saw, and then we would meet probably once every 2 weeks, and we would talk
about if they weren’t getting what they needed.
Similarly to Carrie, Darcy is also a UDL coach. As a coach, she starts her presentations
with the why because it is important to her. She also discussed the need for modeling UDL as a
best practice at her site:
Then, when I was presenting and coaching teachers and doing my PD, … I learned that
I really needed to model, even with adult learners, I needed to model UDL and be very
explicit with this is what I’m doing, and this is why I’m doing this. How can you apply it in
a classroom?
As a sixth-grade teacher, Blake uses a collaborative process between the instructional
coaches and the general education teachers. The school really focused on professional
development that is teacher-driven, using conversations in effective ways to implement UDL
guidelines in the classroom. Blake highlighted support: “Whether it’s a buddy that’s doing, also
implementing UDL with me or it’s a group, whether it’s in my district in my school or outside, I
think without the support, we all fall back into comfortable practices.” would always begin with
the “why” because this was very important with UDL implementation.
Continuous Reflection and Growth
Participants identified that continuous reflection and growth are essential for educators
and practitioners to remain responsive to students’ diverse needs and to foster an inclusive
learning environment. Elizabeth emphasized ongoing reflection and growth in understanding
equity to ensure inclusivity in education through UDL. She stated, “Our commitment in this work

73
[UDL] has got to be to this first question, a never-ending vulnerable struggle to recognize where
we need to grow in our implementation.”
Matthew also stated that continuous reflection and growth are essential for UDL. Using
ongoing assessment and the refinement of UDL implementation were staples at his school. He
speaks of the commitment his school has to continuous improvement to ensure the
effectiveness and sustainability of UDL practices. He stated,
One of the things we established was a UDL-level team consisting of our first cohort
members and some of our second ones. And what we did is we used this selfassessment, and we looked at school culture and environment, teaching and learning,
leadership and management, [and] professional learning.
Shared Vision
The implementation of UDL needs to be a collective effort that includes all interest
holders. Participants identified that a shared vision supported at the school, district, and state
levels is transformative in adopting new practices and processes. Matthew noted that UDL
principles aligned with the school’s strategic plan, which promoted learning for all. This
alignment ensured a cohesive approach to education: “Between UDL and our strategic plan, we
had a very tight fit.”
Similarly to Matthew, UDL implementation is part of a larger plan for Derrick. Derrick is in
a state where UDL principles are part of the state’s educational policy. This has impacted the
support he has received. He mentioned a person on his campus who supports teachers and
staff: “She helps with people understanding [UDL].” Working in collaboration with district
initiatives and mandates sustains UDL implementation.
Sarah discussed efforts to engage the community in UDL practices through monthly
newsletters. She stated, “Kelly worked with the teachers, and we made sure to have, in each
newsletter each month, … a UDL principle or strategy.” Doing this ensured the broader

74
community was aware of and involved in the school’s UDL journey. This helps ensure that
school stakeholders are primed to adopt new practices and processes.
Survey Questions
To better understand survey respondents’ experiences, I asked questions to identify
barriers to implementation and perceptions of current practices for implementation. When asked
about their familiarity with UDL before implementation, they indicated they were slightly aware
or not aware at all. To support their growth and development, they attended professional
development or seminar workshops. All respondents indicated they were somewhat satisfied
with the level of support from other teachers in planning and implementing UDL. When asked
about support from administrators, the survey respondents indicated they were either somewhat
dissatisfied or extremely satisfied. When asked about the level of support from the district level,
they indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, when asked about the
amount of training their site/district offered to improve the implementation of UDL, participants
had varying experiences. The range of results for this question was highly dissatisfied to
somewhat satisfied. To reflect on their growth and development, I asked respondents how
knowledgeable they were in UDL after receiving training or support. Most indicated they were
moderately knowledgeable. When asked about the barriers to UDL implementation, they
identified training/professional development, funding/resources, and time/planning.
Summary
This section outlines the findings of how participants implemented UDL effectively
despite barriers. There are many approaches educators can use to implement UDL to create
inclusive learning environments that meet students’ diverse needs. The essential approach
expressed by all participants was support. Support can come in many forms, such as other
subthemes identified, such as administrative support, coaching, and starting small.
Collaboration was also an implementation strategy most participants discussed. It is important
for educators to engage in practices where they can benefit from each other’s knowledge and

75
experiences. The findings in this chapter can help educators feel empowered to adopt
innovative implementation practices to meet students’ needs.
Conclusion
Chapter Four shared this study’s results based on the four guiding research questions.
Through interviews, a review of documents, and surveys, data were collected from 18
individuals with knowledge, experience, or skills in UDL and its implementation in elementary
general education. This chapter presented the themes and subthemes in the results. The
chapter shared the experiences of participants as they engaged the UDL framework, from
understanding UDL principles and practices to support diverse learners to using equity and
access to meet these students’ needs, their perceptions of UDL and its effectiveness, and its
implementation support. Throughout the interviews and documents reviewed, participants stood
firmly on the belief that the UDL framework meets the demands of diverse learners in
classrooms.
Findings addressing Research Question 1 support the guidelines that provide optimal
teaching and learning for all students. Participants using UDL ensured accessibility and
inclusivity by providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression
(CAST, 2018). The results addressing Research Question 2 were that UDL embeds equity and
access. Participants were empowered to meet diverse learners’ needs through the lens of
equity and access. The experiences they shared emphasized providing diverse options,
focusing on all students, and developing goals that create inclusive and accessible learning
environments. Findings addressing Research Question 3 identified the themes of shifting
mindsets, practices, and misconceptions. This question allowed participants to share their
experience in shifting the focus from fixing individual learners to fixing the system. This chapter
also addressed misconceptions associated with UDL and implementation. Barriers to UDL and
implementation strategies were themes in the results regarding Research Question 4. These
findings identified support and training as barriers as well as strategies for successful

76
implementation. The participants recognized the challenges in adopting UDL and presented
their experience overcoming these via particular strategies.
Finally, the outcomes prove great potential for implementing UDL to meet diverse
learners’ needs in elementary general education. As a result of this study, elementary general
education can create better learning environments that promote equity and diversity for all
students. Creating inclusive learning environments with UDL principles and practices will shift
away from traditional methods and allow for new curriculum design that transforms student
experiences and outcomes.
Chapter Five will present a deeper discussion of the findings. Additionally, it will present
recommendations for practice and implementation. Lastly, the chapter explains
recommendations for further research.

77
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study aimed to understand the use of UDL to meet diverse learners’ needs in
elementary general education. The study identifies teachers’ role in developing and
implementing strategies that align with UDL. The study examined equity and access, diversity in
the classroom, and instructional practices and strategies used in elementary general education
classrooms to identify key components of UDL implementation. Additionally, the study explores
how schools can restructure their educational programs by focusing on equity and access to
shift practices to align with the UDL theoretical framework. The conceptual framework stands on
the UDL framework (CAST, 2018) that supports social constructivist views (Vygotsky, 1978) of
education. Four research questions guided this study:
1. What are UDL practices that support the needs of diverse learners in elementary
general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education
support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the views of educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general
education?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
As a result of this study, key themes and findings emerged from collecting data
surrounding supporting learners, equity and access, perceptions of UDL, and UDL
implementation. This chapter’s purpose is to further discuss the themes in the data analysis, as
outlined in Chapter Four. This chapter also presents the connections to the literature review
presented in Chapter Two.

78
Summary of Findings
Supporting Learners
The purpose of Research Question 1 was to identify how the UDL framework supports
students (CAST, 2018). The UDL framework provides an equitable and accessible approach for
thinking systematically about individual variability relating to learning. UDL recognizes the need
for educators to be more responsive to learner differences, ensuring equity and effectiveness of
educational benefits (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014; Novak, 2016; Pennell & Firestone, 1996).
As a result of data analysis, two themes emerged to address Research Question 1: UDL
principles and UDL practices.
UDL Principles
The findings support the guidelines that provide optimal teaching and learning for all
students. Participants using UDL ensured accessibility and inclusivity by providing multiple
means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018). As previously
mentioned, the UDL guidelines (CAST, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014) follow three
principles, as Figure 1 presents.
Based on the findings, there was a firm understanding that participants agreed that the
UDL framework’s design creates an environment in which all students are included as much as
possible in the design of their learning experience. Participants shared their experiences with
the UDL framework and guidelines. Darcy explained her experience with the framework as
follows, “I also think the framework is structured so that teachers can really focus on being
competent at the top three guidelines, which are called the access guidelines. And that’s the
options for recruiting interest, perception, and physical activity.” Patrice illustrated the
importance of implementing UDL principles in instructional design and creating multiple
pathways to learning to create inclusive learning environments that accommodate diverse
learner needs and preferences. She stated, “Applying UDL principles can create a more
inclusive and supportive learning experience for all students.”

79
UDL Practices
The findings on UDL practices were consistent with the research presented in Chapter
Two by addressing how general education professionals can meet more students’ needs by
identifying and implementing research-supported practices (California Department of Education,
2024; Lembke & Stormont, 2005; Stormont, 2005). Making UDL meaningful requires effective
practices. The UDL practices participants used have been examined in various settings,
repeated over time, and utilized with a diverse population of learners. Practices identified by
participants were inclusion, scaffolding, and developing expert learners.
Participants shared their experiences with using effective UDL practices. An important
practice is designing the environment and curriculum to support the framework and guidelines.
The UDL framework presents specific guidelines for creating an inclusive learning environment
that supports all students, regardless of their background or prior experiences.
As a promising practice, establishing inclusive settings with the idea that all students
must achieve has increased the potential for students with varying needs and abilities to attain
meaningful achievement outcomes in the general education classroom. Thomas expressed,
“Creating inclusive spaces required reflective questioning. Questions asked included, ‘What can
we change as teachers in our classroom, in the classroom environment, in the way we teach,
the way we do assessment that would welcome children with different needs?’” Carrie stated,
“We are not going to change a student, but we have so many options to change the
environment to benefit who they are.” This mindset identifies that the barrier is within the
environment, not with the learner.
Participants used UDL as a framework for removing barriers and promoting inclusive
teaching practices by questioning assumptions and focusing on clear learning objectives. This
supports research from Chapter Two that supports UDL as a framework for removing barriers
and promoting inclusive teaching practices by questioning assumptions and focusing on clear
learning objectives (CAST, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; IDEIA,2004; Meyer et al., 2014).

80
Equity and Access
With the contextual knowledge of UDL principles and practices presented in the section
on the first research question, the second research question aimed to understand UDL through
the lens of equity and access. The results addressing Research Question 2 were that equity and
access are significant components embedded in UDL. Educational equity is an ongoing concern
among practitioners and researchers in gaining equal access for students (Gottfried & Johnson,
2014; Jimenez et al., 2007; Pliner & Johnson, 2004). The findings identified that participants
using UDL were empowered to effectively meet diverse learners’ needs through the lens of
equity and access. Two themes emerged from data collection: meeting diverse learners’ needs
and removing barriers through equity.
Meeting Diverse Learners’ Needs
The driving tenet of UDL is that it is a methodology that supports all learners. It provides
for an individualized and personalized educational approach for every student, regardless of
limitations, demographics, or other descriptors (Thousand et al., 2015). This research supports
the experience of participants facing the task of providing an instructional environment that can
support teaching practices that can reach a wide range of learners, including students with
disabilities. According to Lana,
Within my three classes, I have a whole range of needs. I have students that are reading
below grade level, and then I have students that are quite above grade level, so it’s a
whole mix in my classes this year.
Derrick’s school demographics mirror the common configuration of elementary general
education. He stated,
We had and still have a wide variety. A wide range of learners there identified with
disabilities or not. So, it’s not uncommon to have students who are high ability, high
performing in the same classroom with students who may have significant cognitive
disabilities and anywhere in between, so our teachers there were really interested in

81
trying to teach in a way that would reach all of these kids in all of these ranges. And UDL
was the framework in order to do that.
The experiences the participants shared emphasized providing diverse options, focusing on all
students, and developing goals that create inclusive and accessible learning environments.
Removing Barriers Through Equity and Access
Educational reform and legislation surrounding equity and access place a demand on
educators and administrators to meet all students’ needs (California Department of Education,
2024; IDEIA, 2004). To meet that demand, UDL provides guidance in removing barriers in the
environment and curriculum for students to have optimal access to learning.
Most participants viewed UDL as a lens through which to identify and remove barriers
and fix the system. Participants shared experiences through the lens of equity and access,
identifying UDL as sensitive to diverse students and individual differences, offering a barrier-free
learning environment (CAST, 2018; King-Sears,2014). Patrice stated,
UDL gives us this great lens to ask ourselves questions. One of the big things I learned
in working with my colleagues in [UDL] is to keep asking the question, well, what is the
goal? … UDL asks us to be very clear in our objectives, asks us to think about what is
the goal and what are the ways to get to that goal? What are the possible barriers and
how can you take those barriers down? So that’s what I think is supporting equity and
access.
According to participants and shared research, UDL is essential for promoting equity and
access in education, emphasizing the need to address systemic barriers and ensure inclusivity
for all learners.
Perceptions
The purpose of Research Question 3 was to examine the perceptions of educators who
apply UDL practices (CAST, 2018) in elementary general education. The perceptions of
teachers are key factors in a program that includes students from both general and special

82
education. Students’ success requires educators to provide every one of them, regardless of
variability, with a rigorous, standards-based, universally designed education (Novak, 2016).
Findings addressing Research Question 3 identified two main themes: shifting mindsets and
practices and misconceptions.
Shifting Mindsets and Practices
With UDL, a shift in teachers’ perceptions about their role and influence on student
achievement is required (Burke & Sutherland, 2004; Simmons et al., 1998). “UDL is a
framework that guides the shift from designing learning environments and lessons with potential
barriers to designing barrier-free, instructionally rich learning environments and lessons”
(Nelson, 2014, p. 2)
This question allowed participants to share their experience in shifting the focus from
fixing individual learners to fixing the system. Thomas noted they have improved conditions for
equity and access at his school using UDL. This shift lowered initial barriers related to attitudes
of diverse student populations in general education. He stated, “I think the biggest challenge
was the belief that teachers had that those children need to be educated somewhere else.”
Now, they examine their practices to identify how they can provide accessibility for and support
for students. Thomas noted,
Helping the teachers and everyone shift from the problem is not in the child; the problem
is in the system, and that you have all used [UDL], which is built on that premise, to
create these environments for these students to be included as much as possible. We
intentionally think about UDL for all of our students. When designing lessons, we think,
“Are we using these practices and strategies to meet the needs of everyone?”
Participants shared their experiences with using the UDL framework to eliminate an
inflexible, one-size-fits-all curriculum that creates barriers to student achievement. Patrice has
strong resistance to the one-size-fits-all approach commonly used in general education
classrooms. She discussed the difficulties in shifting away from a one-size-fits-all approach. She

83
noted that educators resisted this shift due to fear of losing structure in the classroom. However,
she emphasized that embracing UDL allows for more personalized learning experiences that
enable students to shine.
Misconceptions
Chapter Four also addressed misconceptions associated with UDL and implementation.
With participants having varying initial experiences, training, and support, they described
misconceptions regarding the framework. Elizabeth’s perception of UDL evolved as she noted
that teaching learners how to learn was central. She underscored her ongoing learning. Darcy
also had misconceptions regarding UDL, yet eventually understood the why and intentionality
behind it.
Barriers to Implementation
The purpose of Research Question 4 was to identify barriers and best practices for UDL
implementation. The participants recognized the challenges faced when adopting UDL and
presented their experience overcoming those barriers with particular strategies used during
implementation. The participants shared their experiences of becoming expert learners while
reaching effectiveness with the UDL framework. Meyer et al. (2014) explained that effective
teachers are also expert learners. They continue to grow and learn. They look for ways to
analyze their teaching, they model and mentor what it means to be a learner to their students,
and they share their journey with others.
Just as UDL’s founding principles guide the removal of barriers to student learning,
barriers to implementation also need to be removed (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014; Hall et al.,
2012). Educators must use a proactive approach to identify and address possible barriers to
implementation. Some common barriers to UDL implementation identified in post-secondary
education include time, support, and UDL knowledge (Carey et al., 2022). Based on participant
data, some of the same barriers exist in elementary general education. Participants identified

84
key barriers, including lack of support, time constraints, financial resources, and training. Patrice
noted, “Yeah, all of those things are barriers. Time, money, support, and training.”
Effective Implementation
Several subthemes surrounding effective implementation emerged from data collection.
The subthemes consisted of training and support, gradual implementation, scaffolding,
collaboration, coaching, and shared vision. The subthemes align with the tasks identified in the
CAST (2012) implementation process.
CAST (2012) identifies the five phases of UDL as Explore, Prepare, Integrate, Scale,
and Optimize (see Figure 3). In 2021, CAST released The UDL School Implementation &
Certification Criteria Guide (UDL-SICC). This guide entails four domains: school culture and
environment, teaching and learning, leadership and management, and professional learning.
The domains provide an organizational structure to support schoolwide implementation.
Participants in this study identified three out of four UDL-SICC Readiness Indicators: a shared
vision for change, leadership commitment, and educator support.
Sara stated,
“I think it’s really important, a really important conversation to have because there are
so many educators who have learned about UDL and know its use can lead to stronger
learner outcomes, but they aren’t necessarily in a setting where everyone has learned
about the framework or where everyone, maybe they’re not ready to embrace it yet. I
think without the support, we all fall back into comfortable practices.”
Patrice believes effective implementation of UDL requires administrative support,
proactive rather than reactive, along with financial resources and emotional support from
colleagues. Patrice stated, “I’d say support is the number one. If you don’t have administration
or colleagues, somebody supporting even just the ideas, allowing for flexibility, and sometimes
it’s kind of crazy and different. If you don’t have that support, that’s going to be really difficult.”

85
The participants provided an understanding of how the implementation of best practices can
lead to long-term success and sustainability in UDL implementation.
Recommendations for Practice
The educators who participated in the study and the need to advance equity and access
inspired The recommendations, allowing for transformative teaching and learning to support
students with diverse needs. Considering the research questions and themes revealed in this
study, the recommendations for practice are as follows:
• Supporting diverse learners: Understand the need for change and the UDL
framework.
• Equity and access: create equitable, inclusive, and accessible learning
environments.
• Perceptions: shift the focus.
• Implementation: provide support for change.
Recommendation 1: Understand the Need for Change and the UDL Framework
Educators must understand the need for the UDL framework (CAST, 2018) and the
importance it has in creating equitable learning environments. Diversity in elementary general
education is increasing, and it is necessary to understand the capacity in which a school is
prepared to begin implementation (Novak, 2016). Based on the participants’ knowledge, there is
a need for all stakeholders to be aware of the framework. Participants used the framework and
guidelines to provide multiple means of representation, multiple means of engagement, and
multiple means of expression (CAST, 2018; Hall et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014). Elementary
general education professionals can meet more students’ needs by identifying and
implementing practices supported by UDL research (California Department of Education, 2024;
Lembke & Stormont, 2005; Stormont, 2005).

86
Recommendation 2: Create Equitable, Inclusive, and Accessible Learning Environments
The UDL framework (CAST, 2018) provides an equitable and accessible approach for
thinking systematically about individual variability relating to learning. Findings supported the
recognition of UDL as a proactive approach to fostering inclusivity and equity in education. An
inclusive environment supports all students, regardless of their background or prior experiences.
Participants designed the environment and curriculum to support the framework and guidelines.
UDL curriculum provides the goals, methods, materials, and assessments that are accessible to
all (CAST, 2018; Hitchcock et al., 2002a, 2002b; Meyer et al., 2014).
Recommendation 3: Shift the Focus
Implementing UDL guidelines requires a philosophical shift in views of teaching and
learning (Novak & Thibodeau, 2016). The UDL guidelines challenge traditional methods of
teaching and learning, requiring changes to instructional approaches. A concept underlying UDL
is that the instructional environment or design has embedded barriers (CAST, 2024b). Thus,
UDL shifts the focus from the learner to the system to reduce or eliminate barriers in the
environment, curriculum, and design. Participants in the study had a growth mindset regarding
shifting thoughts and practices that allowed them to become expert learners as educators. The
decision to implement UDL reflects a growth mindset and the belief that all students are capable
of becoming expert learners (Novak, 2016).
Recommendation 4: Provide Support for Change
Successful implementation requires individual and system-wide supportive structures
(CAST, 2024b; Novak, 2016). One of the initial strategies to ensure support is developing a
shared vision, plan of action, and goals. Novak and Rodriguez (2016) recommended
incorporating UDL into the overall district strategy by developing goals that support the district
focus and having an accompanying plan to support UDL implementation. Implementation plan
goals should focus on improving equity, inclusion, and expert learners.

87
Participants identified collaboration as an essential component of support. Creating a
UDL community of practice for collaboration, reflection, and growth through meaningful
conversations (Novak, 2016) can be powerful for implementation. Districts, school leaders, and
teachers should collaborate with the school community to design a comprehensive, systematic
UDL implementation process.
Implementation of Recommendations
As teachers and educational leaders in elementary general education consider UDL a
means to support diverse learners' needs, there are tools integrating research about individual,
organizational, and educational change with the framework (CAST, 2021). The
recommendations align with the phases and tasks of the implementation process, as seen in
Figure 4 (CAST, 2013; Novak, 2016), and the UDL implementation and certification criteria in
Figure 5 (CAST 2021). The goal of the five implementation phases is to create expert learning in
UDL (CAST, 2013). The UDL-SICC serves two main goals: provide a roadmap for school
communities working toward school-level UDL implementation and recognize the
accomplishments of school communities that use the framework to design equitable teaching
and learning opportunities with fidelity (CAST, 2021).

88
Figure 4
Process for Implementing Universal Design for Learning
Note. Reprinted from Universally Designed Leadership: Applying UDL to Systems and Schools
by K. Novak and K. Rodriguez, 2016. CAST Professional Publishing. Copyright 2016 by CAST,
Inc.
The UDL implementation process consists of five phases that progress toward creating
expert learners. Within the UDL-SICC, four domains serve as a blueprint for implementation:
school culture and environment, teaching and learning, leadership and management, and
professional learning (CAST, 2021). Table 2 presents the interconnectedness of the
implementation process, the UDL-SICC, and recommendations for practice. Just as the UDL
guidelines provide students with multiple ways of expressing knowledge and a variety of options
to support engagement and learning, the implementation tools provide multiple pathways for
schools to advance.

89
Table 2
The UDL Implementation Process, the UDL-SICC, and Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: Understand the need for change and the UDL framework
Research theme UDL implementation process UDL-SICC domain
Supporting diverse learners Explore Teaching and learning
Element: educators incorporate evidence-based, high-leverage, flexible methods, and
materials that anticipate learner variability and reduce barriers.
Recommendation 2: Create equitable, inclusive, and accessible learning environments
Research theme UDL implementation process UDL-SICC domain
Equity and access Prepare Culture and environment
Element: the school community designs a culture that supports inclusion and equity.
Recommendation 3: Shift the focus
Research theme UDL implementation process UDL-SICC domain
Perceptions All phases/continuous Leadership and management
Element: school leaders collaborate to design a systemic UDL implementation process.
Recommendation 4: Provide support for change
Research theme UDL implementation process UDL-SICC domain
Implementation All phases/goal Professional learning
Element: UDL professional learning supports expert learning
Recommendations for Future Research
While this study aimed to understand UDL through the lens of equity and access in
elementary general education, further research continues to be necessary. To continue learning
of and from the experiences of elementary general education interest holders, I recommend four
areas for further research.
First, as indicated in Chapter Two, there is a lack of research to determine the impact of
UDL on educational outcomes in elementary general education. Further qualitative research

90
could examine the experience and perceptions of students in elementary general education with
UDL implementation. Additionally, quantitative research on student performance and academic
improvement can measure the progress and outcomes of learning goals created using the UDL
framework (CAST, 2018). Second, while the participants were current practitioners, further
research focusing specifically on the experience and perceptions of school leadership would
help identify best practices for school leaders and the impact leadership has on UDL
implementation outcomes. Third, research on how statewide initiative support integrated with
district strategic planning could provide data on what the state’s department of education and
local educational agencies are doing to systemically support and help eliminate barriers such as
lack of preparation in teacher education courses, money, and time. Finally, further research is
needed to evaluate the effectiveness of using CAST’s (2013) UDL implementation process and
the UDL implementation and certification criteria as tools to monitor, evaluate, and support UDL
implementation in elementary general education.
Conclusion
This study aimed to add to the research supporting the implementation of UDL principles
and practices, equity and access, perceptions, and implementation in elementary general
education. As elementary general education continues to seek methodology that provides
equitable access and success for all learners, UDL is a highly recommended framework to reset
the traditional ways of teaching and learning. With educational reform focusing on improvement
in teacher instruction and student learning, the UDL framework and its foundational guidelines
are essential in eliminating barriers to help teachers meet diverse learners’ needs through
representation, expression, and engagement (CAST, 2018) in inclusive learning environments.
Through UDL, all students have access to and equity in the opportunity to participate in dynamic
learning and innovative practices.

91
References
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with
severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 42–
59.
ASCD. (2018, June 22). Differentiated instruction. http://www.ascd.org/differentiated-instructionresources.aspx
Bernacchio, C., & Mullen, M. (2007). Universal design for learning. Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal, 31(2), 167–169. https://doi.org/10.2975/31.2.2007.167.169
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience.
Education, 125, 163–172.
California Department of Education. (2024, April 23). Equal opportunity and access.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/eo/
Carey, G. C., Downey, A. R., & Kearney, K. B. (2022). Faculty perceptions regarding the
inclusion of students with intellectual disability in university courses. Inclusion, 10(3),
201–212. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-10.3.201
Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and students with mild disabilities.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 160–171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512030380030501
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines,
version 1.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v1-
0/udlg_graphicorganizer_v1-0.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2016). Fewer barriers, more support: UDL guidelines in
action. http://www.cast.org/about/index.html
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version
2.2 [Graphic organizer].
https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-
2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_numbers-no.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2021). The UDL School Implementation & Certification
Criteria Guide. https://www.learningdesigned.org/udl-sicc-introduction
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2024a). Frequently asked questions.
https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/frequently-asked-questions
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2024b). Universal design for learning.
http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and
education professionals. Pearson.

92
Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by design: A Universal
Design for Learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 162–172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381651
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (Custom ed.). Pearson Learning Solutions.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th. ed.). SAGE Publications.
Da Fonte, M. A., & Barton-Arwood, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of general and special education
teachers: Perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370
Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step by step guide (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Flores, M. M. (2008). Universal Design in elementary and middle school: Designing classrooms
and instructional practices to ensure access to learning for all students. Childhood
Education, 84(4), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523013
Futrell, M. H., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new America: The
challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 381–385.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308400512
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Gottfried, M. A., & Johnson, E. L. (2014). Assessing access. Education and Urban Society,
46(7), 773–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124512468002
Grant, K., & Perez, L. (2018). Dive into UDL: Immersive practices to develop expert
learners (1st ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.
Gravel, J. W. (2018). “Going deep”: Leveraging Universal Design for Learning to engage all
learners in rich disciplinary thinking in ELA. Teachers College Record, 120(3), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000302
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL
implementation. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
https://sde.ok.gov/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/DI_UDL.pdf
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the classroom:
practical applications. The Guilford Press.
Hitchcock, C. G., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002a). Access, participation, and
progress in the general curriculum: A universal design for learning.
http://www.cast.org/ncac/techbrief
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002b). Providing new access to the general
curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203500201

93
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). (1990). 20 United States
Congress 1412 [a] [5] [). Government Printing Office.]. Reauthorized, 1997, 2004.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2024). New resource equity guidance from U.S. Dept. of
Education. https://iel.org/new-resource-equity-guidance-us-dept-education/
Irwin, V., Wang, K., Tezil, T., Zhang, J., Filbey, A., Jung, J., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., &
Parker, S. (2023). Report on the condition of education 2023 (NCES 2023-144rev). U.S.
Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2023144rev
Jimenez, 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.
Jorgenson, C. M., & Weir, C. (2002, Spring). Reflections on teaching. Equity & Excellence in
Higher Education Newsletter. http://iod.unh.edu/projects/equity_excellence.html
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M., Siegelbaum, S. A., & Hudspeth, A. J. (Eds.).
(2012). Principles of neural science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division.
King-Sears, P. (2014). Introduction to learning disability quarterly special series on Universal
Design for Learning. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 68–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714528337
Lembke, E. S., & Stormont, M. (2005). Using research-based practices to support students with
diverse needs in general education settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 761–763.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20110
Lieberman, L. J. (2017). The need for Universal design for learning. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 88(3), 5–7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2016.1271257
Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technologybased tools. Exceptionality, 17(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830902805848
Maxwell, J. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not, and
how to tell the difference. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems (7th ed.).
Merrill.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2002). Universal design for individual differences. Educational
Leadership, 58(3), 39–43.

94
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice.
CAST Professional Publishing.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The condition of education- indicator May
(2016). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
Nelson, L. L. (2014). Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using Universal Design for
Learning (1st ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107-334, 20 U.S.C § 6301 et seq. (2001).
North Carolina State University College of Design. (2007). Center for Universal Design.
https://design.ncsu.edu/research/center-for-universal-design/
Novak, K. (2016). UDL now!: A teacher's guide to applying Universal Design for Learning in
today's classrooms. CAST Professional Publishing.
Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally Designed Leadership: Applying UDL to Systems
and Schools. CAST Professional Publishing
Novak, K., & Rose, D. H. (2016). UDL now! A teachers guide to applying universal design for
learning in today’s classrooms. Cast Professional Publishing.
Novak, K., & Thibodeau, T. (2016). UDL in the cloud: How to design and deliver online
education using universal design for learning. CAST Professional Publishing
P21. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Pennell, J. R., & Firestone, W. A. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher
networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances.
Teachers College Record, 98, 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819609800105
Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for
learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197–203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200402
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of
universal instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37,
105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680490453913
Ralabate, P., & Nelson, L. L. (2017). Culturally responsive design for English learners: The UDL
approach. CAST Professional Publishing.
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design education
models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980

95
Rose, D. H. (2005). Cognition and learning: Meeting the challenge of individual differences.
ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 83, 30–36.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1102187.1102193
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. (2009). Getting from here to there: UDL, global positioning systems,
and lessons for improving education. Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning.
Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: accessible
curriculum and digital technologies. Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the challenge of
individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0062-8
Salend, S. J., & Whittaker, C. R. (2017, April). UDL: A blueprint for learning success.
Educational Leadership, 24(7), 59–63.
Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education pre-service
teachers’ attitude toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880109603342
Simmons, D., Kameenui, E., & Chard, D. (1998). General education teachers’ assumptions
about learning and students with learning disabilities: Design-of-instruction analysis.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511369
Smith, S. J., Frey, B. B., & Tollefson, N. (2003). A collaborative cohort approach to teacher
education: Modeling Inclusive Practices. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2003.10463293
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020101
Stormont, M. (2005). Introduction to the special issue: Supporting learners with diverse needs in
general education settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 759.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20109
Stormont, M., Espinosa, L., Knipping, N., & McCathren, R. (2003). Supporting vulnerable
learners in the primary grades: Strategies to prevent early school failure. Early
Childhood Research & Practice, 5(2).
Tatum, A. W. (2011). Diversity and literacy. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 425–447). International
Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0829.17
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. (2015). Differentiating instruction: planning for
universal design and teaching for college and career readiness. Corwin.

96
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Universal Design for Learning. (2013). What it is, what it looks like, where to learn more. The
Special Edge, 26(1), 2–3.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices
supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). U.S. Education Secretary announces guidance to ensure
all students have equal access to educational resources [Press release].
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-education-secretary-announces-guidanceensure-all-students-have-equal-access
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264–270, 290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949502800502
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Waitoller, F., & Kozleski, E. B. (2013). Understanding and dismantling barriers for partnerships
for inclusive education: A cultural historical activity theory perspective. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(1), 23–42.
Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy
and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for
dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-
5045-86.3.366
Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., Connor, C. M., & Walker-Dalhouse, D.
(2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01126
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and methods of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

97
Appendix A: Document Review Protocol
● What is the validity of the document?
● How is the document accessible?
● What guarantee is there that it is accurate?
● Is the document unchanged, as originally constructed?
● If the document is genuine, under what circumstances and for what purpose was it
produced?
● Who is the author/voice of the review?
● What was the purpose and intent of the document?
● Does the author/voice have experience implementing UDL?
● Does the document address UDL in elementary general education?
● Does the author/voice address meeting the needs of diverse learners?
● Does the author/voice address equity and access?
● Does the author/voice address UDL practices and principles?
● Does the author/voice address perceptions of UDL?
● Does the author/voice address implementation of UDL?

98
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used in this study.
Statement of the Problem
While much literature about UDL focuses on strategies, products, content, and
processes (Thousand, Villa, Nevin, 2015), studies have yet to explore how teachers in
elementary general education settings implement Universal Design for Learning while promoting
equity and access. With this research problem in mind, this study sought to understand the
practices, views and further supports needed to meet all students’ needs in elementary general
education using the UDL framework.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study stands on the UDL framework (CAST, 2018)
that supports social constructivist views (Vygotsky, 1978) of education that recognize that the
barriers and limitations of poor design in the environment are the critical problem to address in a
democratic society. There are four research questions guiding this study.
Research Questions
1. What are Universal Design for Learning practices that support the needs of diverse
learners in elementary general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education settings
support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the perceptions of educators implementing UDL practices in elementary
general education settings?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
Interview Script: Before Research Questions
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. This interview should take approximately
45–60 minutes to complete. The meeting may be recorded for accurate data collection. You

99
have the right to decline recording or to stop recording at any given moment. Please note that
you do not have to answer every question and you can end the interview or withdraw any of
your responses at any time. As a reminder, your identity as a participant will remain confidential
at all times during and after the study. Your interview responses will be used with a pseudonym.
Before we begin with the interview, do you consent to having this interview recorded? If yes, we
will begin with recording.
Pre-interview/Probing Questions: Please tell me about yourself? How long have you
been teaching? What are your past/current positions in education?
Research Question 1: Key Concept of UDL Principles and Practices
What is your experience with the implementation of UDL?
What are best practices for effective implementation of UDL in diverse settings?
Can you provide examples of how you’ve observed and/or implemented the UDL
framework within elementary general education settings?
• Multiple Means of Representation?
• Multiple Means of Action/Expression?
• Multiple Means of Engagement?
What integrated supports have you used with UDL?
Research Question 2: Key Concept of Equity and Access
What is your perception/definition of equity and access in education?
What is your experience in providing equity and access in your line of work?
How does UDL Support Equity and Access in Teaching and Learning?
Based on your experience and observations, what does diversity in the 21st-century
classroom look like?
With UDL being primarily implemented in SPED/Inclusive settings, how can shifting UDL
into general education meet the needs of diverse learners?
Describe practical ways to use UDL to meet the needs of all learners.

100
Research Question 3: Key Concept of Perceptions
When and how were you first introduced to the concepts and principles of UDL?
What were your initial thoughts or feelings of UDL?
Did your perceptions change as a result of continued research and/or implementation of
UDL? Please describe.
Is there anything else you would like to share about your perceptions of UDL
implementation?
Research Question 4: Key Concept of Implementation
What, if any, are the barriers that can impact the implementation of UDL in a general
education setting?
What are practices for effective implementation of UDL?
How can teachers be best supported for UDL implementation?
How can administrators be best supported for UDL implementation?
Interview Script: After Research Questions
Before we end the video conference, I want to thank you for sharing your time,
knowledge, and experience with me. Your perspectives will greatly influence my study. Please
do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or concerns.

101
Appendix C: Survey Protocol
While much literature about UDL focuses on strategies, products, content, and
processes (Thousand, Villa, Nevin, 2015), studies have yet to explore how teachers in
elementary general education settings implement Universal Design for Learning while promoting
equity and access. With this research problem in mind, this study sought to understand the
practices, views and further supports needed to meet all students’ needs in elementary general
education using the UDL framework.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study stands on the UDL framework (CAST, 2018)
that supports social constructivist views (Vygotsky, 1978) of education that recognize that the
barriers and limitations of poor design in the environment are the critical problem to address in a
democratic society. There are four research questions guiding this study.
Research Questions
1. What are Universal Design for Learning practices that support the needs of diverse
learners in elementary general education?
2. How do educators implementing UDL practices in elementary general education settings
support equity and access in teaching and learning?
3. What are the perceptions of educators implementing UDL practices in elementary
general education settings?
4. How are educators in elementary general education prepared and supported to
successfully implement UDL practices?
Target Population
Elementary (K-6) general education teachers with a diverse population of students,
including ELLs, students in gifted and talented education, and SPED-identified students.
Survey type: Closed-ended questions

102
Research Question 1: Key Concept of UDL Principles and Practices
How did you first learn about Universal Design for Learning
What is the level of awareness of UDL in your district?
What is the level of awareness of UDL at your school?
What is the level of awareness of UDL in elementary general education?
To what degree are general education teachers utilizing UDL at your school site?
Are you currently utilizing UDL in your classroom?
How much do you utilize UDL in your daily instruction?
How often do you provide Multiple Means of Expression?
How often do you provide Multiple Means of Representation?
How often do you provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression?
Research Question 2: Key Concept of Equity and Access
How important is equity and access in your instruction?
How much influence does equity and access have on your utilization of UDL?
How prepared are you to meet the needs of diverse learners in your class?
Research Question 3: Key Concept of Perceptions
How do you feel about UDL being used in elementary general education?
How effective do you find UDL guidelines and strategies in meeting the needs of diverse
learners?
Research Question 4: Key Concept of Implementation
How familiar were you with UDL before beginning implementation?
What type of support did you receive to implement UDL?
How do you feel about the level of support from other teachers in planning and
implementing UDL?
How do you feel about the level of support from your administration in implementing
UDL?

103
How do you feel about the level of support from your district for implementing UDL?
After implementation and/or support, how would you rate your current UDL knowledge?
What barriers exist with the implementation of UDL
How do you feel about the amount of training offered by your site/district to improve UDL
implementation?
How satisfied are you with student outcomes from UDL implementation?

104
Appendix D: Letter to Potential Interviewees
Dear [Name],
My name is Dawn Green, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at University of Southern California. My dissertation advisor is Dr. Patricia Tobey. I
am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) in relation to meeting the needs of diverse learners in elementary general
education settings. As an educator who has researched and applied UDL in your discipline, you
are invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you are invited to participate in an interview
with open-ended questions aimed to examine your practices, perceptions, experiences, and
implementation of Universal Design for Learning in your position, district, and/or classroom.
The interview is anticipated to take no more than 60 minutes to complete and, with your
permission, would be digitally recorded to capture your responses. While my preference is
having the interview recorded via video conferencing, I will take handwritten notes if you want to
participate but do not want to be audio taped. In addition, there is a chance that I will need to
contact you for additional questions after the interview.
It is important to know that this letter serves as a request for your participation. Your
participation is strictly voluntary. Your identity as a participant and school site/district will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.
If you have any questions or would like to participate, please email me
dawngree@usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Dawn Green
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

105
Appendix E: Email To Potential Survey Participants
Dear [Name],
I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. Dr. Patricia Tobey is my dissertation advisor. As part of my dissertation, I
am conducting a research study focusing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in relation to
meeting the needs of diverse learners in elementary general education.
I want to invite you to participate in the study. If you agree, you will participate in a
survey with closed-ended questions to examine your perceptions, experiences, implementation,
and the outcomes of Universal Design for Learning in your position, district, and/or classroom.
The survey should take no more than 5–10 minutes to complete. It is essential to know
that this letter serves as a request for your participation. Your participation is strictly voluntary.
Your identity as a participant and school site/district will remain confidential during and after the
study.
Survey Link: (the link used for the survey)
If you have questions, please email me at dawngree@usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dawn Green
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

106
Appendix F: Coding Table
Research question
Area of conceptual
framework
(a priori code)
Code
(thematic codes) Subcode
Research Question 1 UDL framework/
Vygotsky
Supporting learners
UDL principles Multiple means of
engagement
Multiple means of
representation
Multiple means of
action and
expression
UDL Practices Inclusion
Scaffolding
Expert learners (goal
setting,
agency/choice)
Research Question 2 UDL framework
Equity and access
Meeting the needs
of diverse
learners
Removing barriers
through an
equity lens
Research Question 3 UDL framework
Perceptions
(attitudes/beliefs)
Shifting mindsets
and practices
Resistance to onesize-fits-all
approach
Misconceptions
Research Question 4 UDL framework
Implementation
strategies
Barriers to UDL
implementation
Effective
implementation
Training/support
Gradual
implementation
Scaffolding
Collaboration
Coaching
Shared vision
Appendix F: Coding Table

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Across the country, teachers and administrators grapple with differentiating instruction for students whose literacy needs, interests, and strengths vary widely. General education classrooms are becoming more diverse each year with mainstreaming and inclusion. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to meet diverse learners’ needs in elementary general education. The study examined UDL principles and practices, equity and access, perceptions, and implementation strategies used in elementary general education classrooms to identify components of successful implementation of UDL. Equity, access, and the UDL framework guided the methodology for the study, which included interviews, surveys, and document review. Thematic codes that emerged from the research and findings were UDL principles and UDL practices, meeting diverse learners’ needs, removing barriers through an equity lens, shifting mindsets and practices, misconceptions, barriers to implementation, and effective implementation. Furthermore, the study explored how schools can restructure their educational programs by focusing on shifting instructional practices to align with the UDL theoretical framework. The research findings provided recommendations to interest holders for improving UDL implementation in elementary general education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools

PDF

A comparative analysis of the role of educational leadership on the participation of two schools in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs in Costa Rica

PDF

What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Promoting DEI to increase business performance: an evaluation of hiring practices

PDF

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

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Effective strategies used by general education teachers to address the learning needs of students with selective mutism

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 attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

Asset Metadata

Creator Green, Dawn Kaleelah (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 06/25/2024

Defense Date 06/10/2024

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

Tag elementary general education,equity and access,OAI-PMH Harvest,UDL,universal design for learning

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Brent-Sanco, Patricia (committee member), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email dawngree@usc.edu,msdgreen6@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139970G8

Unique identifier UC1139970G8

Identifier etd-GreenDawnK-13143.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GreenDawnK-13143

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Green, Dawn Kaleelah

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240625-usctheses-batch-1173 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu